Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive618

) 13:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The history. I collapsed an off-article Acupuncture talk page discussion about User:Middle 8 here [40] with "Copied to COI noticeboard" on the hat. These two edits happened within seconds of each other. Ten minutes later Verbal reversed both [41][42] with the edit summary "It wasn't copied there" on the talk page edit.

I asked Verbal on his talk page what the problem was and he said, inter alia, "Misleading note." I asked "Misleading?" To which he did not reply.

Back on Talk:Acupuncture Verbal, still not explaining what he meant by misleading, posted this: "Please stop trying to collapse this section, especially with a misleading note." I responded [43] with "Misleading. Mmmm. That seems... libelous? rude? Ad hom? NPA|PA? How do you mean "misleading" exactly?" You know the rest.

I object to being called misleading. It is a description I'll happily wear if demonstrated. But it has not been demonstrated. In the absence of that demonstration, I deserve an apology.

Verbal has demonstrated he is a fool by inferring a legal threat in no way inherent or implied in my use of the term libel. It can be and is used in law, but also, in popular usage simply means any false and defamatory statement in conversation or otherwise.

So. I have been defamed here. Mildly, sleazily, underhandedly, in a sly, drive-by, hopefully-under-the-radar way by this fool. Rather than apologize when I called him on it he has brought it here, and you have drawn the same false inference and accused me of intimidation. I now deserve an apology from you. Are you mature enough? Anthony (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for repeating the "fool" attack after being warned by two admins it was an unambiguous violation of

WP:NPA. --SarekOfVulcan (talk

) 15:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

They say it's better to wait for an apology rather than demand one. Demanding an apology makes one look very egotistical. –MuZemike 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Nicely refactored -- I missed that one. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my timing was absolutely horrible there, but it really doesn't take away from the general message, though. –MuZemike 15:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

Anthony emailed me to ask for advice about this. My experience of him is of a very decent editor who is normally extremely patient. He's been editing since 2006 more or less unblemished—he had one prior block in his log, but it was apparently an error and he was unblocked minutes later. [44] This situation seems to have caused by a mixture of frustration and a misunderstanding. I've restored Anthony's ability to edit his talk page so he can post an unblock request if he wants to, and I've asked Sarek if he would consider unblocking, or allow me to. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• This matter is not resolved. Using the adjective "libelous" is not making a alegal threat. "I am going to sue you for libel" is a legal threat. Describing someone as "a fool" for not knowing that difference is blunt, but hardly untrue or worthy of a block.
   Giacomo 
  07:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• I strongly agree with Giacomo. It's a bad block. Anthony made no threats, legal or otherwise. Calling someone a fool is not a "nice" thing to do, but it certainly does not warrant a 24-hour block. Another classic case where a veteran content editor gets blocked because another editor misconstrues his remark. Poor show indeed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone a fool once is borderline and deserves a warning. Doing so repeatedly after being told not to do it again is self-destructive. Doing so again on ANI after being told not to do that again is in a sense suicide-by-cop.

If he acknowledges the NPA policy and agrees to stop using "fool" to describe other editors in the future, I don't see unblocking as unreasonable. But I think he needs do acknowledge that, regardless of what he feels, the community (writ large, Giano excepted) feels that it violates

WP:NPA, and that it was not OK, and he needs to agree to not push personal attack buttons again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk

) 07:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The whole thing started with this comment of Anthony's, to which Verbal responded with a warning template, and it was downhill from there. Both responses seem over-the top, so clearly everyone was just fed-up because of the content dispute. Time to unblock and forget about it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that templating a regular editor and such comments as "it is good to leave educational warnings" from the aggreived are hardly likely to result in a cooling of tempers and couldbe interpretated as bating. Just unblock him and tell him not to do it again - nicely!

 Giacomo 

08:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think the whole template-warning-response to Anthony's original comment was incredibly foolish, but this would be made a lot easier if the users who want Anthony unblocked simply asked him to say OK to making an assurance that he won't call another editor a fool in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• I did ask Anthony by e-mail to consider posting an apology or assurance. The problem is that it ignores the frustration factor. Someone says something they could have phrased better. They're templated. They get irritated and make a remark they shouldn't. Then they're told they'll only be unblocked if they offer assurances and withdrawals and ablutions. A point arrives where the best thing is simply to ignore everything that's happened and move on, not try to force anyone to eat humble pie. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well I disagree. The frustration was recognised that he made a remark that he shouldn't have; but the block was because he kept making the remark after being warned more than once to not do so (and that wasn't through inflammatory template warnings either). Still, given how incredibly foolish the original templating was, everything's been done for him; he just needs to type two letters together (O and K) and sign in response to what I posted - I don't think that's humble pie at all, and that's the point where no admin is going to object unblocking (in fact, if he can do that much, I bet there'd be a competition for who can unblock him first). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin offers the best solution. I think we should just move on.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, this is all just an unfortunate chain of events that grew from an unremarkable and perhaps deliberatly misunderstood edit. I am very ucomfortable about this block and even more uncomfortable that ritual humiliation is required to save admin face for making it. In this particular case, it's probably best to unblock and move on rather than start digging to deeply.

 Giacomo 

09:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to go offline now, so I've unblocked him as there seems to be agreement. I'll leave a note for Sarek too. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, as there didn't actually seem to be agreement, did there? I never asked for a block, it was Anthony's response that lead to a block. Also I note I am in an active disagreement with SV. It is standard practice that accusing other editors of libel is considered a form of legal threat, and my motivation in using the appropriate warning template was to give a warning and prevent further disruption. My comments were not libellous (I suggest Anthony read up on that) and not were they incorrect, his edit was misleading (for several reasons I will explain if anyone asks). Anthony then repeated the acusation more forcefully, and included personal attacks. On being warned, correctly, he repeaded the behaviour which lead to a block. I'm not to interested in the block, but he then again repeated the personal attacks and accusations in his unblock requests. This is not on, and should not be encouraged. There was no misunderstanding on my part. If you read the chain of events, and my summary above, you will see that a few people here haven't actually looked at what happened. The point of all this should be to stop future disruption, ie future (incorrect, in this instance) accusations of libel and personal attacks. I fear that by SVs actions Anthony may now feel his actions were entirely correct. Lastly, despite what SV says if you look at Anthony's edits you will see he is not a veteran editor at all. Verbal chat 09:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Verbal, I would appreciate it if you would consider this closed and simply stay away from Anthony for the next few days (and, if Anthony is reading, visa versa).

Nothing is to be gained by further conflict at this point. There was an issue. There is reason to believe that it's over with now. If he is abusive again later we can deal with that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I considered the matter resolved when Sarek gave the initial warning. Unfortunately SV has undermined that warning, and I hope it wont lead to problems in future. At no point have I been vindictive, despite people apparently projecting it onto me. Repeated accusations of libel are not on, whether justified or not (not justified in this case, if you think it is justified you should ask for a retraction or follow

WP:LIBEL). I will continue to edit as normal. Verbal chat

09:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wholeheartedly agree with Ncmvocalist. This user was blocked for repeating a personal attack, after being warned not to. I think this block was the right thing to do at the time and should be left alone until it expires. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 09:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Verbal. Though I appreciate the gesture, SlimVirgin acted ahead of consensus and I would urge any admin who disagrees with her to revert. I'd like to be unblocked by consensus here. Anthony (talk) 09:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You were unblocked as a result of an unblock request that you posted - that does not require a community consensus. It is unlikely that the community is going to go to the trouble of coming to a consensus to reblock you because that is not the way we work here, and Wikipedia isn't (supposed to be) a bureaucracy. Furthermore, reverting without a consensus to do so would constitute wheelwarring. The best thing that you and Verbal can do is move on so that this thread can be closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Anthony, although I have no wish to see you reblocked and would not support that action. Verbal chat 09:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• It reads to me Verbal, like you have quite a bit of a problem with him being unblocked after all that effort to get him blocked. Perhaps you need to consider your own part in this and stop templating editors in good standing and also stop saying such things to justify your actions as "it is good to leave educational warnings" because you are wrong on both counts. He made no legal threat to you at all here. Please learn to understand what is written not what suits you to believe is between the lines. What followed was the result of you misinterpreting a perfectly reasonable edit.
   Giacomo 
  09:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're working under a misapprehension. I made no effort to get Anthony blocked, please read what I have written. I left the discussion after Sarek placed the warning, and for this warning to stand is all I have asked for. Thanks. Verbal chat

You made your point. Please stop belaboring it here and on SlimVirgin's talk page. Many many admins have reviewed and commented. Please consider this closed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Giacomo, although I concur with you that there was no legal threat and that Verbal should not have templated a regular, Anthony repeatedly offended Verbal. He wasn't just venting — which I would understand —, he kept on accusding the other of being a fool, even after being asked to discontinue. He was blocked for he didn't pay heed to the warning. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, I would appreciate it if you also accepted this as dealt with and move on. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the templates should be deleted if we are not to use them? Verbal chat 10:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been traveling and haven't followed this affair, but I have always found Anthonycole to be a helpful and patient editor; perhaps it's time for everyone to back off? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, when Verbal called for consensus, I assumed that meant consensus was expected.

To be sure I understand what I did wrong and what you require of my future conduct: I should have said something like "accusing me of a threat to go to law because I used the term libel is foolish", rather than "doing so demonstrates that you are a fool"? Is that it? As here, for instance, where Verbal is behaving with hypocrisy, it would be OK for me to say what he says is hypocritical but not OK for me to say it demonstrates that he is a hypocrite. Is that right? Anthony (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. One could actually go further than just taking the "personal" out of it. It's good that you've compared the "you're a liar" to "what you're/he's saying are lies" - but consider comparing those 2 examples to "you've/he's mischaracterised/misstated my position - my position is X". That effectively gets rid of any (often unprovable) suggestions about the user's intent and also falls within the spirit of

WP:AGF. It's something to think about anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk

) 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this particular block, but the tendency of words such as "libel" to be taken as legal threats even if not intended that way has come up several times before, and has been discussed by ArbCom a few times, primarily in the two Alastair Haines cases. Wikipedia:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats was written into the NLT policy to address this situation, and sometimes pointing users to this section and asking them to take it into account is a useful step in this type of situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, on re-checking, I see that the most useful discussion has been moved over into Wikipedia:Harassment#Perceived legal threats, although I'm not sure just why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Newyorkbrad. In future, if I use the term, I'll be sure to define it. Anthony (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I figured it must have been moved because the effect of perceived legal threats is to threaten and intimidate (aka harass) other editors without necessarily breaking the letter of NLT. Somewhere between 18 Nov 2009 and 22 Nov 2009, it was moved on the basis of this but I haven't looked beyond that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A user with a dynamic IP from

on dozens of talk pages.

He was just blocked as 114.233.133.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but popped back up literally minutes later as:

• 114.233.130.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.233.137.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

And more to come, no doubt ...

On Wiktionary he was blocked for a month; see wikt:Special:Contributions/114.233.133.51.

Due to the large number of talk pages and the dynamic IP, neither semi-protection nor blocking are really practical here. It's also a major ISP in China, so a rangeblock might affect a large number of users (not too sure how many from there are actually editing). Can someone have a look into this? Not really sure what the options are for dealing with this. Thanks, cab (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

talk

) 04:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is another IP this user has been using that is currently unblocked. 114.233.130.164

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/114.233.130.164

--

) 05:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm in China right now, and Wikipedia seems to be accessible, though I've had some inexplicable timeouts for certain articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 09:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour and editing. Both these users exhibit remarkably similar behavior and a consistent pattern of assisting each other to revert edits involving "British Isles". Their behaviour is extremely disruptive and both these editors have a long history of inappropriate edit summaries where everything is an anti-British-Isles conspiracy or general ad hominen comments. Recently, their behaviour is simply getting worse. Some recent examples:

• List of most common surnames in Europe
  3 reverts for MBM June 3rd
  • 1st 19:55 3 June 2010
  • 2nd 20:40, 3 June 2010
  • 3rd 20:44, 3 June 2010
• Enceladus (moon)
  5 reverts in 24 hour period June 3rd
  • 1st 11:33, June 3rd
  • 2nd 12:10, June 3rd
  • 3rd, 16:06 June 3rd
  • 4th, 16:15 June 3rd
  • 5th, 16:19 June 3rd
• Silphidae Tag teaming and reverting (Article history)
• Britain's Strongest Man (Article history) 3 reverts by MF, then MBM reverted before another editor changed article.
• Cowboy (Article History) A lot of edit warring)

--

) 08:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This probably needs to go to

WP:AN3. - NeutralHomer • Talk

• 08:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a longer term problem here that so far, has failed to be addressed by AN3. Inappropriate edit summaries, blind reverting without engaging or discussing, ad hominen attacks, and tag-teaming meat-puppetry. I believe it's best to discuss centrally (at least initially, and decide a course of action). --

HighKing (talk

) 12:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

HK is correct, there is a longer term problem, and that problem should be explained here so that users can view this issue in the correct context. For over two years

User:HighKing has attempted to remove the phrase "British Isles" from as many articles as possible. Recently he has been joined by another editor User:Bjmullan with apparently the same mission. The tactic is to identify articles, almost at random, from the What Links Here facility at British Isles. Instances of British Isles are then either removed directly or flagged with a cite tag for later removal. Every argument under the sun including WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV is used to justify removal, but the most common is to require inappropriate references for what is normally an issue incidental to the subject of the article. In a recent case at Britain's Strongest Man the article was even PROD'd in an attempt to remove "British Isles". HighKing's actions have been the subject of RfC and various other remedies, but all to no avail. He has steadfastly refused to enter into agreements not to either add or remove British Isles from articles. The current complaint is the result of the latest rash of attempted removals, and yes, I have been reverting removals, but only in response to a determined attempt to eliminate yet more instances of British Isles. I reject the accusations of meat puppetry and tag teaming; neither of these activities is taking place. I am happy to enter into an agreement with HighKing not to add or delete British Isles from articles but he always rejects the idea. We are surely moving towards a topic ban for all those involved in this dispute, a dispute which has spread across Wikipedia to hundreds of articles and which has caused concern and annoyance to very many editors. MidnightBlue (Talk)

12:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My edit record speaks for it's self. I, unlikely MBM which seems like a SPA, conduct edits in a wide range of subject and I have only ever removed or replaced BI when there are valid reason for these changes. MBM on the other hand just revert and reverts, seldom if ever investigation the reason for the change. I find his behaviour at Enceladus (moon) where he broke the 3RR to be unacceptable (the NASA reference used does not use the term BI). At the article Silphidae‎ is reverted my edit FIVE times before actual checking the reference. He final comment was "Yikes, the BI junker is right, accidentally". What MBM doesn't seem to realise is it wasn't accidental it was me trying to improve the article. Bjmullan (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My edit record also speaks for itself, and MBM's illogical tirade above is an example of his ad hominen approach to the problem. You will never see MBM or MF actually discuss an article and references, only attack editors. This project relies on policies to produce well-sourced and well-researched articles. We even have a page set up for discussing this topic, but MBM and MF steadfastly refuse to entertain any sort of logic or references or reasonable discource. MBM's policy of reverting and name-calling is the problem, not the term "British Isles". Anybody that gets involved, from admins to countless other editors, get the same treatment of being accused of being anti-BI editors. This ANI report is not about whether BI usage - many editors disagree, but all editors are bound by the same code of behaviour and the same policies. There are only two editors that consistently breach policies, whether 3RR or CIVIL, and despite numerous past warnings, show no signs of adjusting their highly disruptive behaviour, hence this latest ANI. --

HighKing (talk

) 13:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the 'page protection' route has been exhausted. Time for administrators to shut-down the removal/addition of British Isles from any articles, by handing out subject bans to whomever they see fit. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to request a RS citation for the use of a controversial term. And

British Isles is a controversial term. I see no procedural problem in deleting the term British Isles if it remains uncited after having been tagged “citation needed” for a reasonable time. I also see no procedural problem in adding the term British Isles if a RS citation is provided. Shutting-down the removal/addition of British Isles from articles is not the answer. RS citation references is. Daicaregos (talk

) 15:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That is true and every editor bar these two have agreed with this, but these two editors simply don't or won't agree, and refuse to countenance any discussion over usage of the term, directly leading to blindly reverting and the other ongoing problems and disruptive behaviour. It has gone on for far too long and must be addressed. This is about behaviour and not a content dispute. I sincerely ask admins here to please not ignore this issue as has happened in the past. --

HighKing (talk

) 16:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think we need to go to ArbCom and get a ruling similar to
  The Troubles. Then there wouldn't be any issue about blocks and other sanctions. Meanwhile, if you edit-war on BI issues so much that it causes disruption, I'll just block you anyway - as I have already if you read the block logs of some of the major combatants here. Your choice. Black Kite (t) (c)
  16:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a cop out of dealing this incident. Your last block was appalling and positively encourages MBM and MF to continue their disruption. And why is it that I read Meanwhile, if you edit-war on BI issues so much that it causes disruption, I'll just block you anyway as confusingly illogical as I don't see any blocks handed out this time (maybe because you've no excuse to block me this time), and as a threat directed to me personally? Wouldn't it be great if you were as quick to direct threats at MBM and MF? I have not edit warred (including your last ill-conceived block), I follow consensus forming procedures, I explain reverts, put in good edit summaries, and try very hard to reach agreement - all of the advice I've been given by various admins over my years of editing. But MBM and MF literally do the opposite, and this complaint is still open, no blocks handed out, and you're talking as if I'm the problem and you want to haul it off to ArbCom? Seriously, I don't get it. It seems strangely one-sided to me.....

And isn't ArbCom usually for issues where the *usual* processes have broken down? Can we point to *usual* processes and failed remedies? Have we reached that stage here? Or, like I suggest, it's really just a case of a pair of *remarkably* similar editors that need to be strongly encouraged to follow normal consensus-forming processes? --

HighKing (talk

) 19:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"As if I'm the problem" you say. That's exactly it, you're the problem. If you didn't try and get rid of British Isles like you do there wouldn't be a problem. Show me someone who's trying to put in British Isles all the time; exactly! No one is, but you and BJMullan are doing the opposite. Mister Flash (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This will you your only warning Mister Flash - if you cannot conduct yourself civily on this site and communicate without using personal invective you will be blocked. You've had site policy explained multiple times. If you are not already aware that comments like the above are inappropriate - consider yourself advised of that they are. Please consider refactoring as per WP:Civil and WP:NPA--Cailil ^talk 19:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No HK, BlackKite's suggestion and action against you is not a cop out it is the inevitable result of the wholesale failure of all editors involved to attempt any form of constructive dispute resolution. I have repeatedly asked you all to seek mediation. By not doing so you have all refused to engage with the dispute resolution process. You have all continued your disruptive patterns of behaviour and at this point I am in favour of wholesale topic banning (and in some cases site banning for single purpose accounts) of everyone involved in revert warring.
Each of you bare a responsibility for the problem and ArbCom will deal with the totality of the matter. You were warned a number of times by me and others that this would be the outcome.
I recommend disengaging from the reverting, adding or removing the dispute terms from articles and entering formal mediation. If this is not done forthwith the only options the rest of the community have are these: a) block all of you until you get the message; or b) send the matter to arbcom and let them dealt with it--Cailil ^talk 19:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll go for mediation. Tell me how. Mister Flash (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow the process at

WP:RFM - all parties must agree to participate or the request will fail.--Cailil ^talk

19:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Just read the first paragraph of WP:RFM and we've got "Complaints concerning the actions of another editor are not appropriate for content mediation, and should instead be directed to the Arbitration Committee.". Is this OK for the BI usage problem? Mister Flash (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is then a non-starter as I don't agree. This is NOT about the so called BI issue but the fact the neither MBM and MF adhere to the rules and guidelines of WP. Things like reverting with comment, reverting because they don't like the edit, reinserting un-referenced material, using OR to add BI to article, remembering the 3RR and using the article talk page for a starters. Bjmullan (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I may be wrong here as I don't know the full history of this. Was`there not agreement among editors to create Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples as an attempt to discuss rationally any disputes over the term 'British Isles' being used or not used in articles? Jack forbes (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't general agreement. Also, it's used only to discuss British Isles not being used in articles. No one ever puts a case to put it in. So it's all about getting rid and not about proper usage. Mister Flash (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically that's wrong, but in reality a quick look at the page shows exactly why we do need something similar to

WP:ARBTRB. Black Kite (t) (c)

20:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I would have thought mediation would attempt to iron out any disagreements between the parties. I would suggest to the participants that this should be the first step before thinking of going to

WP:ARBTRB will still be there if mediation doesn't work. Jack forbes (talk

) 20:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you (Black Kite and Jack) this should be fixable through mediation if each editor entered into it willing to bury the hatchet and accept that their current behaviour is not constructive. But since Bjmullan just rejected mediation ArbCom is the only option.
In this situation rather than going for a troubles style resolution the committee could simply be asked to look at the behaviour of the editors involved in the revert wars - those using the BI special examples page properly can be left alone--Cailil ^talk 22:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well then, since no admins have the

HighKing (talk

) 01:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those mind sapping disputes on wikipedia. I don't see it as a mediation issue as we have two SPA editors (Flash and Midnight) who have prevented any attempt to take a more structured approach by blind reverting (often with abuse) and unthinking refusal to accept any change. HighKing to be fair has been prepared to engage in that process. Either a small group of admins have to engage with the examples page and resolve them issue by issue until the SPAs realise things have changed. While I would accept mediation I don't hold out much hope of it working given that this is a behavioral issue. I agree with Cailil that it is probably Arbcom, however I think the full range of behaviour on the examples page (with the links to articles) should be subject to review. --Snowded ^TALK 05:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of admins watching this page, so perhaps there will be a small group willing to engage with the examples page and help resolve the issues. Black Kite and Cailil, would you both volunteer your time to do this? Jack forbes (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

While I see merit in the BI Special examples page - I, as an Irish man am the wrong person for the job. You'll notice I haven't blocked anyone for BI insertions / deletions. The reason for this is the appearance of bias. While I am not biased or involved and can see the totality of the matter it would be better for an action taken not to have even the appearance of bias. I will still look in on this from time to time and may follow through with civility or 3RR blocks - but right now what's needed are topic bans. Someone else will have to implement that. Also I'm not wikipedia enough or regularly enough to keep up with that page. For all of these reasons I'm not teh man for this job. I will however make submissions to an RfAr if one is opened--Cailil ^talk 20:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't need Admins to resolve the issues, what we need is for MBM and MF to stick to the rules and action to be taken against them when they don't. But it looks like no one seems to be willing to do that ... Bjmullan (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have tried that before, but the problem is that it needs everyone to take part in the process. Also, the reason I gave up with the SE page was that nearly every time I "closed" a discussion, the "losing" side kicked up a fuss. I've lost count of the number of times I've been accused of bias by both sides. Now, that probably means that I was doing the job correctly, but it becomes such a time sink because of the Wikilawyering by both sides that I eventually said "OK, find someone else to do it". I'm quite happy to give it another go, but the disruptiveness on both sides must stop for it to work properly. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If I recall, only one "side" kicked up a fuss when you closed a discussion. I also can't recall you ever been accused of bias by anybody but "one side" either. And no, you weren't doing the job properly. And no, you stepped away from the job in Dec, after a particularly disruptive day by our favorite pair of *remarkably* similar editors, when you said Fuck That" and deleted a call for help on your Talk page, and told us you didn't have the stomach for that crap any more.

Last time when you were involved, I decided I would voluntarily go along with the SE page despite my misgivings that it would end up simply as a form of censorship. I got involved primarily because of your encouragement and that of Snowded. You got involved at the start and to my mind quickly identified problematic behaviour and problematic editors. You issued direwarnings on Talk pages, laying down the law. The law was simple, and what was needed. But that failed. Not once did you take action.

But you're not alone. In Feb, User:2over0 filed an AN/I against MF, but it got nowhere. It seems admins can't separate disruptive behaviour from the issue of consensus forming. Let me help. As Black Kite pointed out in his rules, if an editor refuses to engage in constructive consensus forming discussions, reverts without providing explanations, reverts with inappropriate edit summaries, or breaches 3RR - then that editor is being disruptive. Doesn't matter if they're discussing "British Isles" or "Gaza Strip" or "Northern Ireland".

Black Kite, I used to have the greatest of respect for you as an editor and as a no-nonsense admin that wasn't afraid to step up and get a job done. The stickier, the better. But today, I don't believe you are the best candidate to get involved. Even though you were primarily involved in setting up the SE page, you abjectly failed to police the process or take any action when there were clear breaches of *your* rules, and it gives me no confidence that you'll do it right this time. But the final nail in the coffin was in April. I filed an AN/I report against MBM here (same issues as we're discussing here) which you marked as resolved (Taken elsewhere), but what you actually did was block *me* for edit warring! Except I had a total of 5 reverts over 3 days on 3 separate articles! That was bullshit. That was unacceptable. I'm not paranoid, but it does show more than a little perverseness and inconsistency that you steadfastly refused to hand out blocks to huuuuugeeee breaches of *your* rules last year, and then take on a perverse interpretation of edit warring to hand out a block to me.

But kudos to you and Cailil for responding here. It's a deafening silence from the other admins. --

HighKing (talk

) 19:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I did actually also block MBM for a week in that last rumpus, I think you'll find. But yeah, you're probably better off finding another admin to work on this - for one thing, I'm not as active as I used to be. But I still think RFAR may be the better route. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Or alternatively, just slap a pseudo-topicban on the relevant editors which means they are not allowed to add or delete BI from any article at all without it being discussed at SE. That would probably stop a lot of the issues. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Wouldn't make any difference. That's what we had before Mullan came on the scene with his instant deletions. All you end up with is the likes of HighKing promoting significant numbers of cases for deletion. Others are then sent scurrying round for references or spend tons of time arguing about individual cases. Ultimately HK etc. maybe gets a 60-70% win rate and continues then with the never-ending supply of articles containing the dreaded words. It ends up as a continuing battle. Your suggestion is precisely what the removal men are after. It results in BI being slowly but surely taken down according to the long-term objective. No-one puts forward cases for inclusion, why should they? This is what you get when one camp is determined to force a point of view (BI deletion) when there's no opposing camp. I'm just part of what maybe called a damage limitation squad. No, the only solution is agreed or enforced topic bans. I'll move off British Isles right now, won't add it, won't delete it, if HK will do the same, but he won't. Mister Flash (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mister Flash, this is not a forum for you to speculate on other people's motives - that is unacceptable use of the talkspace. Secondly you can't demand an editor whom you have had numerous and protracted content disputes with stop editing anything. If you wish to disengage then do so - if not then don't.
Be clear I would prefer to see you all disengage - but it has to be unconditional--Cailil ^talk 20:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As soon as anybody breaches 3RR, block baby block. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that's also a cop out. Why make up special rules? What's wrong with existing policies? This isn't a special case. It's really simple. Editors that don't follow the process of consensus forming, revert without giving reasons, revert with ad hominen comments and edit summaries, and breach 3RR, should be blocked. All we actually need is an admin that will implement existing long-standing tried-and-tested rules and policy. --

HighKing (talk

) 19:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

3RR violations are obvious and have a process for that purposes. Tag teaming and povpushing are more complex and both "sides" have been doing this--Cailil talk 20:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cailil, sounds great in theory - except I pointed out a 5RR here, yet nobody has actually issued any blocks. And what about all the rest? The reverting without giving reasons, inappropriate edit summaries, ad hominen attacks? And what exactly are the "sides" anyway? Who's on each "side"?? *Every* participant on the SE page objects to the behaviour of MBM and MF, so how come they simple get away with this disruptive behaviour? Why do I get the impression that admins here would be much easier to satisfy if there were clearly delineated "sides", and where blocks could be issued to "both" sides? What is so difficult about examining the behaviour of MBM and MF? For example, as MF points out below, take a look at what has happened in the past 10 minutes on the

Enceladus (moon)

article.

And as a pointer to those admins still following here, if you look at the last 100 article edits for MF dating back to March 8th, 75 are reverts involving "British Isles". Of those 75 reverts, 40 had no edit summary. 85 of the last 100 article edits involve the British Isles. But everyone is OK with that, right? Even though Black Kite has in the past warned against my edits being mass reverted, MF and MBM know at this stage that it's a joke. Nobody will actually take any action against them. And even though there were warnings about following another editors edits and reverting, again, that was really only intended for "one side", right? The other side can just safely indulge, right? And you lot can go ahead and label *all* participants as "disruptive" even though, clearly, there are only two disruptive editors!. --

HighKing (talk

) 21:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

HK, one of the reasons, as expressed above, I wont patrol this issue (besides the appearance of bias) is my irregular logging on to WP at the moment. If you have a 3RR problem go to WP:AN3. Secondly, you need to step back and see how your behaviour is effecting this dispute. You don't seem to understand that it takes two to tango in revert wars. Thirdly while I can see that recent developments may force use to take immediate remedial action against others. I like BK believe the whole situation should be submitted to ArbCom--Cailil ^talk 03:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Readers might like to pop over to

User:HighKing is still trying to get rid of British Isles, even as I write. He is being aided and abetted by User:Bjmullan who is currently vandalising the article in an attempt to loose British Isles. Make of it what yoou will. Mister Flash (talk

) 20:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You just don't get it. What I am trying to do is reflect what NASA was doing with the image. Maybe it was Belgium, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Great Britain, Northern France....who knows? I'll tell you who knows, that guy from NASA. Bjmullan (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow! This time it's 6 reverts! And surprise, surprise, no blocks.....? And to think I can get blocked for 5 reverts on 3 articles over 3 days, and then have my block log dragged up at every opportunity.... --

HighKing (talk

) 21:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, it's time for Arbitration Enforcement. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is, GoodDay. I think it's time for looking at the dispute a little more closely before we go there. I recently gave an opinion on one of the threads at the examples page [46]. I was immediately told that I was one of a trio who were determined to rid wikipedia of the term British Isles [47]. A strange thing to say considering I've hardly taken an interest in the subject. This is the type of comment that could be monitored if admins were taking a closer look at the page. Jack forbes (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We've just had 6 reverts on an article and no action taken. This is the responsibility of admins to enforce the rules and policies they've been elected to enforce. The underlying behaviour of MBM and MF is the problem. GoodDay, how is it that everybody else seems to disagree/get along *without* being disruptive? --

HighKing (talk

) 21:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

6RR, is reverting gone wild. It's time for administrators to commence blocking. We can't keep protecting pages forever. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the article has now been protected. Mister Flash (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Now see this: The Manor House Bishop Bridge. HK is doing his utmost to cause more friction. This is just shear provocation. Mister Flash (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why won't any of you follow my advise at SE & work at 1 article-at-a-time? GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It is you who is deliberately ignoring all known policies and procedures that this project has put in place for editing. And this behaviour has got to stop. As

HighKing (talk

) 22:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

To the administrators out there. I plead with all of you, enforce 3RR on the articles which come within the British Isles usage scope. Enforce'em with ever increasing blocks. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I believe I shall begin making Edit-warring reports. As the edit spats are my major concern for those articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I protected
  Dreadstar ☥
  22:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Alls quiet today. But if the problem is well-known, and nobody seems to care enough to help, what's the answer? It seems that any AN/I or WQA filed is ignored. Anyone have any sensible suggestions? --

) 17:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Quiet? 1RR, 2RR, 3RR, 4RR, 5RR...Oh and claims of vandalism for inserting a claim that can be reliably sourced. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That's stale now, but if it had been sent to

WP:AN3 I would've blocked Don, but I'd have to say that 3RR isn't an entitlement, especially when you're engaging in a content dispute with an edit summary of "rv vandalism" (and I believe you were removing the consensus wording as well - wasn't it decided that the lede would be "The BI are a group of islands" whilst still mentioning the controversial usage in the opening paragraph? - if you were, I'd have probably blocked you as well). Black Kite (t) (c)

19:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a link to this consensus wording? CyrilThePig4 (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the talkpage archives, though you'll probably need a spare hour or 100. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How about you and Mullan not removing British Isles from articles unless it is obviously wrong, which in 99.9% of cases it isn't. That'd sort it, straight up. Mister Flash (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that is exactly what we have been doing. Neither you or MBM have bothered to check the references and the context of the references to BI. Look at the your figures, 75% of your edits are about reverting subject relating to BI. Is that the definition of a SPA? MBM is no different. In future I will report you and MBM without any warning for your disruptive reverts. Bjmullan (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing wrong usage with unreferenced usage. Mister Flash (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not. Sometime it's one of them or the other and sometimes both. Either way they are wrong and will be removed. Bjmullan (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite right, when it's wrong (e.g. London is the capital city of the British Isles) by all means take it out. Problem though, as I said 99.9999% aren't wrong as such, so to remove them is just pushing POV - you don't like British Isles so you want to limit its use. Mister Flash (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

MF take your

WP:SPA elsewhere. You will be reported if you resort un-cited material or revert my edits without reason. Today I have edited in 13 articles unrelated to BI, you have edited in TWO in the whole of June. Bjmullan (talk

) 19:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow! 13 eh. Bully for you! Mister Flash (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reported some of the issues of this thread to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MidnightBlueMan as the evidence for socking looks convincing. UnknownThing (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

user:MuZemike has just reverted your sockpuppet entries without any explanation? Bjmullan (talk

) 20:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably because since both accounts were active at the time, if Mister Flash had been a sock of MBM it would've been picked up the Checkuser performed in the previous SPI. (Edit: and more to the point, because he's a sock of a blocked user). Black Kite (t) (c) 21:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but CU doesn't cast a net out and catch all socks - it only checks against nominated socks. And MBM and MF haven't been named in the same SPI, so what you're saying isn't 100% accurate? Have I got it right? --

HighKing (talk

) 21:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Right or wrong, the sockcase will have to go forward, so as to quell any suspicions. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No. If a Checkuser is performed against a certain user, it will pick up any verifiable socks as well. Of course, that doesn't mean it will pick up any CU-proof socks (

WP:BEANS applies here), but looking at the editing patterns of MBM and Mister Flash, they are unlikely to be the same user if the CU didn't pick up on that at the time. Black Kite (t) (c)

00:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmmm - so then how come right when we're discussing the possibility of socks, I get a threatening email from MF just now. What is the process for dealing with that? --

HighKing (talk

) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want action on off-wiki harassment follow

WP:HARASS. In such cases you need to follow teh advice expressed there and contact the ArbCom--Cailil ^talk

03:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we get this oversighted immediately please? --

HighKing (talk

) 12:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Help? Anybody there? --

HighKing (talk

) 13:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

HighKing, you may get a quicker response at oversight, unless you think an admin's RevDel would be OK?

Mister Flash, it looks to me like

you're sailing very close to the wind, and I'd urge you to think twice before posting personal details about another editor again. TFOWR^{idle vapourings}

13:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. I've deleted that revision. If you post that kind of information on-wiki again, I'll block you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I can still see the posting. I've sent an email to oversight 2 hours ago but no response. Not sure why. Not sure what else I can do. This is worrying and disturbing. --

HighKing (talk

) 16:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI restored. 92.40.93.104 (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That IP, along with UnknownThing, is banned user GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs) (in which the latter was confirmed by CheckUser yesterday). 92.40.80.0/21 92.40.80.0/20 rangeblocked again, no comment on the status of the SPI case; if others wish to keep it going, I will not stop it, but it's normally convention to revert all banned users' contributions. –MuZemike 16:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This dispute is deterioating further. All that's left to occur, are open threats. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I now understand that there's currently 2 Sock investigations in motion. The editors being investigated should remain calm, as the innocent have nothing to fear. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit by User:FlashMidnight on the SPI. Rohedin ^TALK 20:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We've a prankster editor hanging around. Moments ago, he tried to get HighKing in trouble. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Any idea who the prankster is? Rohedin ^TALK 20:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, but his attempts to get HighKing, MidnightBlueMan & Mister Flash in trouble, aren't fooling anybody. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that the SPI nominator was blocked as a banned user, why is the case still up? Rohedin ^TALK 20:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain why. An SP case should be invalidated if its nominatator is a Sock. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

HighKing (talk

) 20:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That was my fault, I just closed it because the nom is blocked. Rohedin ^TALK 21:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Mister Flash and MBM have been blocked as CU confirmed socks per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/MidnightBlueMan. 188.28.91.250 (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as you just pop in today, who are you? GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sinc it's been proven that MBM is a sock of MF, this thread become null & void. Anybody know how to close it? GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Sock-drawer close". Whooshing noise.... Done. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 15:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This user has been utilizing

Patrick 22:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Please notice that

banning is not blocking. I would support a temporary block (24 hours if first time), but not a ban of this user. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L

) 01:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

His edits were a while ago, so I didn't block him for the 3RR. Seems like a fairly new account. I'm going to AGF; left a note on his talk page asking him to move to discussion rather than revert-warring if his additions are reverted. Shimeru (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

They weren't a while ago; they were less than two days ago. Also, leaving a message will not help. Other users, including myself have already done that. He will just

blank the page, again. BalticPat22

Patrick 15:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but he hadn't edited since the last one, so I'm not sure a block would be preventative. If he stops, no harm done. If he keeps it up, I (or someone else) can block him then. He's new enough that I think it's worth a try. Shimeru (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

IP address 98.144.51.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which is being identified on its talk page as belonging to the author of the site www.anthraxinvestigation.com, has added information based on this website to 2001 anthrax attacks. See these edits and the subsequent revert.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Now blocked. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Some eyes on User:FiGhT 12 required. It's something of a vanity page with lots of identifying information for both himself and his family. I believe standard practice is deletion or oversight, but I'll let someone else be the judge of that.--Atlan (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:UP#NOT? "A weblog recording your non-Wikipedia activities"? We all have a bit of self-identifying hobbies or personal taste on our boxes, but this might be a little too much? There is nothing about Wikipedia on there. S.G.^(GH) _ping!

09:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing too personal. I've left a message notifying the user that they might want to remove it due to privacy concerns. Netalarm^talk 09:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Names and surnames of himself and family members who probably aren't aware of being mentioned here, along with the place of residence, is not too personal? I disagree. The Arbcom resolution states personal information of minors may be removed. This vanity page might normally be removed in spite of that.--Atlan (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Meh, probably because I'm older than the user in question, I'm more okay with information like that. CSD tag the page and counsel the user on Internet privacy? Netalarm^talk 09:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the page - my apologies (particularly to Netalarm) for short-circuiting discussion, but I think it's better to err on the side of caution where minors are involved. EyeSerene^talk 10:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Netalarm, It doesn't matter whether the minor is okay with the information being displayed. Deleting the page is a measure of protection for the minor. This is not covered by any speedy deletion criterion, hence I brought it here for discussion.--Atlan (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And while the kid himself might be perfectly fine with it, the other named people there - the parents, sisters, school etc - might have a completely different view of it! I support EyeSerene's deletion and Atlan did the right thing bringing it to admin attention; things like this aren't worth mucking around with and it's really better just to get rid of it. Sarah 12:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone might want to refer the editor to some version of the Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors page I once drafted. In my view, the importance of removing such information depends in large measure upon the age of the minor—11-year-old editors and 17-year-old editors are not the same thing. Also, in some instances, it may be appropriate to offer to re-post the deleted page, minus the identifying information, to reinforce that the step taken is meant a protective and not a punitive or unwelcoming one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Newyorkbrad, I'd forgotten that essay existed. I'll leave a link. I'm not completely convinced about offering to restore the page - as others have pointed out, it was perhaps inappropriate in other ways too (though I didn't mention that on their talkpage as I didn't want to hit them with too much at once). I have absolutely no objection to you or anyone else making the offer though :) EyeSerene^talk 11:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this specific page. It was just a general comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That was how I read it, but I wasn't sure (and even if you had, the other issues are subjective so nothing I would argue strongly against anyway). Thanks for clarifying :) EyeSerene^talk 11:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I was more lenient toward that user page because I felt the user knew what he was doing (the risks, privacy invasion, etc.), but I've already forgotten how old he was (I haven't slept for 24 hours - been on a flight xD). Yes, I agree that minors need to be protected on Wikipedia, but I also think they should be allowed to do what they want in regards to their information, as long as it does not put them at risk. Age is an important factor in this decision, so it would be different if this user was 17. I personally would also support deletion of the page, but with some coaching of the editor on the risks of doing that. I recall there was another editor that did this a while ago, but I probably just reported it on IRC. It seems to me that basic elementary school education would have taught these minors that revealing personal information is inappropriate - particularly in a public environment. Guess they aren't doing their job... Anyway, I'm going to sleep soon. Netalarm^talk 12:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I'm in the right place to be asking this question, but I strongly believe that the current revision (as well as those immediately prior) of the Rayovac article reads a lot like an advertisement. I tagged it as such, although I wasn't terribly sure about doing so.

Today that tag is gone, and I think I ought to bring this to someone's attention, because I do feel that the article in its present form IS basically an advertisement and should be identified as such. I do not wish to start or contribute to an "edit war", therefore I am seeking guidance and assistance here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.251.100.162 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-added advert tag; that is not how a company article should be written. HalfShadow 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it looks like several editors are working on the article now. For the record, Christine.anderson (talk · contribs) appears to be an SPA account - its only edits are to turn that article into the previous mess. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks much better now, and doesn't sound so much like an advertisement. Good work to the people working on the article! —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I have proposed that

Rayovac be merged into Spectrum Brands. – ukexpat (talk

) 21:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel reluctant to bring this up but I think I ought to. User:Ccacsmss has been active for over a year and specialises in highly focused edits which seem to entirely consist of stripping out Wikilinks, stripping out Wikilink piping and stripping out Wikilink redirection. The resultant Wikilinks often end up going to the wrong place. I can only describe his editing style as "autistic". There have been a number of warnings placed on his talk page and he was once suspended for 3 days. He still caries on regardless, mangling up around 20 or more Wikilinks a day. He has never commented on his own talk page to criticisms made by others and rarely uses edit summaries. He seems to operate on all topics throughout Wikipedia. He is obviously not a malicious vandal, but you have to ask yourself just what is the point of his Wikipedia career continually mangling Wikilinks at a rate of about 20 or more a day ? I doubt if he would take any notice of warnings or anything else on his talk page or would another suspension change his behaviour.--Penbat (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Has been dispatched for two weeks by another admin. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that this user's contributions are often not very helpful, but I also don't think it's great to describe another editor or their work as "autistic".

WP:NPA, please. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me}

) 23:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

If you have a better term for editors who decline to discuss their contributions as Ccacsmss has failed to, please provide it. Over the last few years I've seen an increasing number of editors reported here who demonstrate similar symptoms which may be diagnosed as autism, & the best practice for dealing with them has come to be an indefinite block -- not permanent, just until the individual shows she/he can communicate. And calling them "autistic", regardless of the implications, seems to be the most appropriate term -- & far better than using a term like "jerk". -- llywrch (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We have a bunch of editors here who self-identify via userboxes, or otherwise, as autistic, or Asperger's, or otherwise. That may make their

unusual edits a challenge to deal with. However, I don't think it is up to us to label editors or their edits in such non-neutral and pejorative terms. I've encountered many editors in my time here whose editing shows what one might call a "non-linear style"; but their edits, and their comments, have been (one you care to scratch the surface), valuable input. Care, please. Rodhullandemu

01:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that applying labels like "autistic" to editors is wrong. Even a real psychiatrist would not make such a diagnosis based on examining one's wikipedia behavior. However, I think it should be a requirement that one be willing to discuss one's edits with his fellow editors if necessary. Being unwilling or unable to do that, for whatever reason, is a major problem. One I'm addressing in an

essay I'm working on

. It's annoying to go to ones talk page and see loads of warnings, image copyright notices and various WTFs and the editor in question has zero edits to any talkspace.

That being said, I also acknowledge that there may be some with interactive communication problems who still might be able to make useful contributions. In such cases it might be useful for them to have a mentor who understands what they are doing to "speak for them" if anything they are doing is challenged. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That all may be the case. And if an editor self-identifies as being autistic or having Asperger's, while it might draw negative attention to the person doing so still puts them in a different category than these problematic editors. (I'll happily defend an autistic/Asperger's syndrome editor's right to edit. As long as she/he is willing to discuss her/his edits.) However, I hold that the problem is not with the label, but the lack of response to any attempts made in good faith to talk to them -- & getting a general approval to handle these folks appropriately. (The only problematic editor who was arguably autistic I can remember dealing with here was already indefinitely blocked before that fact came to light.) Give me a label for these kinds of editors, & I'll be happy. Otherwise, to avoid unnecessarily extending threads for using language like "this user is unresponsive", I may need to use this term because it is an understandable shorthand term for saying "I've been breaking clue-by-fours over this editor's head to get her/his attention & I still can't get a response. Can I block this person before more articles are mangled?" -- llywrch (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I set up an RfC at

There are now two live RfCs on Ceausescu, although phrased differently:

• Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#RfC: How should allegations that Ceausescu committed genocide be described?
• Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#Request For Comment

This appears to me to be disruptive. Is there any policy on two RfCs? Should the second RfC at least mention that the topic is covered by another RfC? Can additional editors now add a third or a fourth RfC on Ceausescu?

TFD (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two rfc`s as they are separate issues, the rfc i set up is to get input on reliably sourced content which has been removed, the one you set up is, well i`m not to sure what it`s for to be honest, you seem to want to talk about the uprising, my edit was about the actual killings over the course of the regime. So as you see they are separate issues.

talk

) 01:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean:

• Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#How should allegations that Ceausescu committed genocide be described?
• Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#Request For Comment

N/A0 03:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you were "not to sure what it`s for to be honest" about the first RfC why did you not say that when you responded to it? TFD (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What i meant is that you requested comment, i gave a comment along with reliable sources. You rubbished them, and continue to rubbish them even though one is the

talk

) 07:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

From reading the first RfC, it appears the disagreement is not whether figures the BBC (or another source) provide are reliable, but that the figures changed as time went on -- from 60,000 killed to as few as 97 -- & should the article cite the original numbers, or the later & smaller numbers? If you disagree with TFD's response, the proper thing to do is to work within the existing RfC (even if it is contentious), not to start your own, effectively identical, RfC. Doing so is not going to convince anyone to agree with you, but it will make you appear, at best, as if you don't know what you are doing. -- llywrch (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry no, TFD`s rfc is for how many died during the uprising, the one i did are sources which cover the entire regime. These are separate issuses

talk

) 21:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry no, you you would rather split hairs than listening to what I am saying. Which means you are being disruptive. You are walking on thin ice here, friend. -- llywrch (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(out) Actually the insistence that they are the same topic is where the error lies. One refers to a specific person, the other to the criminal convictions of others etc. Collect (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The first RfC refers to "Ceausescu" while the second RfC refers to both Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu. TFD (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The first RfC is ranging far & wide -- with the expected heated words which follow every time Communism is mentioned -- so it's hard to say exactly what it's about. But instead of trying to help herd that discussion into useful channels, mark nutley decided to start his own RfC -- apparently because TFD "rubbished" his "comment with reliable sources". I'd say the discussion on this article appears to be falling apart, & unless someone with the time & acumen steps in & gets it back on track, it'll only get worse. -- llywrch (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This editor has been engaging in dubious editing on the article

20:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User Sorafune

See talk page Talk:Hyuna Izsu (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Note I've reduced the heading level, since this is the same incident (involving the same parties) as the topic above. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. What am I being accused of? And where was my notification?

+1

22:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This issue seems to be resolved, as the 2 editors have agreed on text acceptable to both of them. See Talk:Hyuna for more details. Netalarm^talk 06:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

) 23:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

talk

) 01:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. I have been helping out at the

board, and the following inquiry came in today:

Dear Editor:

I am writing to challenge misleading information that we believe has intentionally been placed into the Wikipedia pages of the American Association of Physician Specialists, Inc. (AAPS), and its certifying affiliate, the American Board of Physician Specialties (ABPS). This information is intended to cause confusion among individuals and groups interested in physician board certification. Further, this information will mislead the reader to believe that AAPS/ABPS is “unique” and differs from the standards and qualifications of the other the four organizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Physician_Specialists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Board_of_Physician_Specialties

The current information states that ABPS will grant board certification in a particular specialty to a physician who has NOT completed residency training in that specialty. We have 17 boards of certification and all but one require an approved residency in that specific specialty. The only exceptions is emergency medicine because it involves other critical medical disciplines.

Here are some ways that ABPS does itself apart from the other nationally recognized bodies: (1) The first to incorporate public members into its boards of certification; (2) Only certifying body to require a full day of non remedial medical ethics course as a condition for recertification; (3) Never has provided lifetime certification; (4) Limits the number of certification and recertification attempts; (5) Requires non restricted medical licensure as a condition of annual certification. (6 ) Annual MOL Attestation of Full Unrestricted Medical License as a recurring condition for board certification (7) No membership prerequisite required

Please inform us on the next step of the process to correct the record on the information related to ABPS board certifications.

It turns out that all the sketchy material was added on March 13, 2010 by User:Awikiwalkermd. I think all this user's edits may need to be checked as it looks like they made about 20 unsourced changes to a whole group of medicine-related articles on that day and have not edited since. Perhaps all these changes need to be removed? I am not an admin but merely an interested civilian and not sure how to handle this request for help. Thanks. --Diannaa ^TALK 04:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted Awikiwalkermd's edits to those articles. I don't think this requires admin intervention, however, as it's really an editorial issue and should merely be handled as such, i.e. check his edits and remove them as necessary. What I've looked at so far have been completely unsourced so they can be removed on that basis. I will leave him a message on his talk page but he is not a regular editor -he has only made 19 edits and they were all done in succession on the same day back in March and he doesn't seem to have returned since then. He seems to have made the edits in good faith rather than with some kind of malicious intent, so as I said, I don't think this requires any admin intervention at this stage. Sarah 04:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah. Diannaa ^TALK 04:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I've removed the material from the articles and I've left the original editor a message and some introductory links. I've also left a message for the ABPS fellow telling him how to deal with content concerns, how to contact OTRS and use talk pages etc, so I've marked this as resolved. Cheers, Sarah 05:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been presented with a case on my talk pages that is getting a little confusing, having evolved from some disruption and pov issues raised at a previous ANI thread with which I dealt with.

• Here is the original complaint.

Here are the three IPs involved.

• 94.116.37.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - blocked temporarily
• 69.110.12.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warned
• 68.122.34.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warned

The -43 IP was reported for [50] [51], the -49 for [52] and -189 for [53]. Originally I took most to be pretty tame apart from the -43, which was blocked. The others were warned.

Subsequently, -49 has left this innapropriate vandal warning to advance its agenda by implying counter-agendas are illicit. A new IP, 69.110.17.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has done the same here and 67.180.26.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has done this and this.

The IPs seem to be following

. I suspect there are ArbCom sanctions relating to Palestinian or Israeli topics, however I am not fully familiar with them.

The IPs are hopping all over the place, making warnings and blocks difficult, please advise. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone informed. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Two more IPs have popped up and I believe they are connected to the ones noted above. They are 69.110.8.85 and 99.132.106.62.

• These are 69.110.8.85 contributions. They focus on the Gaza War and Caroline Glick

• These are 99.132.106.62 contributions They also focus on the
  Six Day War
  .

--

Jiujitsuguy (talk

) 21:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the IPs except 94.116.37.43 trace to California, so I'm assuming they're the same person. 94.116.37.43 traces to the UK. I believe assuming that the IPs except -43 are the same person would be beneficial in this case. Netalarm^talk 06:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On

) 22:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, given that the diff is two days old, a block isn't in the running, but I'll warn the user. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I kinda went into troll mode that day (which I obviously shouldn't have done, and which really isn't characteristic of my activities here), because I was so tired of some other person mentioning that character in an annoying context (at another site). Although I didn't realize that posting goofy comments on a Talk page constituted vandalism (or that I was under some sort of formal obligation to be pro-homosexual marriage, as the complaint seems to imply; I'm merely one of over 52.2 percent of the California electorate that adhere to the opinion that marriage consists only of one man and one woman). Anyhoo, now that I know trolling a Talk page comes under the heading of vandalism, rather than merely "being a jerk," I will restrain myself in the event I decide I want to do something like that in the future.

By the way, posting a link to

National-Anarchism, and then using a "|" character in order to mislabel it as "white supremacist," is dishonest bullshit. If you're going to make these kinds of complaints, Carbuncle, it behooves one not to pull shenanigans in an ethically similar vein while so doing. KevinOKeeffe (talk

) 23:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand what "a revolutionary vanguard in the race struggle" means. Would "racist organizsation" be a more acceptable term to you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

At a talk page of a protected (for edit warring) page, one party actually impersonated the other. I actually took this as the person when reading the discussion and agreeing to a consensus edit-request. I was notified of some anomalies before finding this impersonation myself. I consider this to be very deceitful and the user has had a previous block for gaming disucssions. I have a strong mind to block the user but I realise blocks are preventative rather than punitive and perhaps I am not the best person to judge given the user made me look like a bit of an idiot. I would appreciate advice, and if an uninvolved and more experienced admin (wrt blocks) could take a look it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I blocked them for 48 hours, that's deceitful and unacceptable and just plain disruptive. Imo the block serves to prevent further such talk page disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you jumped the gun there. While not an optimal way to do it, it appears he is quoting Jason accepting this edit here. He seems to be moving a comment about the quote to the {{

editprotected}} section. Worth an explanatory note about why this is a bad idea, yes, but on it's own, not a blocking issue, and doesn't appear to be an attempt at deception. It appears other things are going on at the talk page, however, so maybe leave to requested edit out for now? Suggest unblocking. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 23:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with Floquenbeam who I edit conflicted with. I don't think their intent was to impersonate. It looks more like they were pointing out where Jason Riverdale said in the section above the edit request that he agreed with inclusion (of what I don't know...didn't bother reading the discussion itself.) --Onorem♠Dil

Looks to me as though they only need learn how to cite diffs. Hopefully an unblock will be forthcoming. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Per HJ's comment on his talk page that he's OK with an admin overturning his actions, I've unblocked. Tao's reaction was poor, but somewhat understandable, and I didn't want him to get more agitated waiting for HJ to see this, and say something he would regret. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for starting this misunderstanding in the first place, and thanks for cleaning things up, all. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dawnseeker2000 has vandalized a talk page [54]. I warned the user here [55] and it should be also noted that the user misused the minor flag when deleting my warning and called it ridiculous.

The user then threatened me on my talk page for mis-use of the warning template [56]

) 02:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how Dawnseeker was vandalizing. Kindly explain? Kindzmarauli (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

talk

) 02:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, our discussion of the Amateur Radio Emergency Service article has gotten out of hand. I am at fault as much as anyone here. I've been around Wikipedia for some time. The "vandalism" Zach is referring to is when I removed a link to a section on that page. I left an edit summary saying why, but that's the thing that is being called vandalism. Dawnseeker2000 02:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no vandalism here. The removal, while not the best idea, was justified in the edit summary. Now, forgive my lack of AGF, i must be getting tires, but how does one find ANI in their 8th ever edit? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

lol. yeah, that is a good one. I really did laugh out loud there. Well, again, we've been butting heads a bit, and he's being editing as an ip for a few days, and just got the account going an hour or so ago. Dawnseeker2000 02:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a real problem here, as Dawnseeker200's intentions were good. The edit summary clearly explains why that confusing link was removed. Regarding the reporting user, his actions are quite peculiar. I'm not sure how he found AfD on his first day as a registered user, but he's already made 3 nominations today, all with very simple reasons. Netalarm^talk 06:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, HJ's point is well taken.

WP:DUCK if you ask me, AGF or no. Jusdafax

07:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

...and is a userid that advertises his personal website really valid anyway? (

BWilkins ←track

) 11:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I ran across this after the editor filed a EW/N report on Dawnseeker over the same dispute. Good faith or no, it looks like an editor has found the process pages before the content pages. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the editor (I presume the same person based on behavior and account age) was editing as an IP for some time prior to creating the account. That's not a violation of any policy to then go and create an account. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I know this probably isn't the right venue, but I need someone to have a look at a technical wikimarkup problem, and in the Venn diagram of wikipedia users and people who can fix my problem, administrators are most likely to be in that big group in the middle.

Would you mind having a look at the citation formatting on Chester Cathedral for me? For some reason in the notes, clicking the blue linked 'Nuttal', 'Home', 'Starkey' and 'Clifton-Taylor' correctly zooms you down to the relevant section in the Bibliography; but that doesn't seem to be working for the other references. Any idea why? - I've been slowly losing my sanity looking at the code and can find no differences between the two to suggest an explanation. I'm probably to close to it. Thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

See the second-to-last usage note in Template:Harvard citation no brackets. NW (Talk) 14:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful - many thanks NW. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dah - sorry to report that putting the space after the year doesn't seem to have worked...... any other ideas? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

) 15:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I should add my thanks to all who tried....but failed :-) --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if I am doing the right thing, but I have noticed some issues with a user, whom I have encountered myself on various occassions. The user has frequently behaved in an offensive manner on talk-pages :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richeza_of_Sweden,_Queen_of_Poland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eric_Goodyear_of_Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.44.13 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

A part from this way of communicating, I have noticed something which may indicate another form of misbehaviour. I am not sure what the wikipedia-term is, so I am not sure were to put this report. I will not describe the question itself, as that will be handled (I hope) on the article in question. But I will describe the acts made:

A contemporary caricature was resently removed from the article:

.

The difficulty with this act is, that the presence of this drawing has been well and thoroughly discussed and debated on Swedish wikipedia, and the descision was keep. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Sofia_Magdalena_av_Danmark

The caricature was removed from here with the given allegations : it is “porno”, and it was first published in 1987.

The same reason was given when the caricature was questioned on Swedish wp also, and there, those reasons were voted down as insufficient.

Here, the removal of the drawing are likely to cause much less opposition than on Swedish wp, were there are of course more people likely to become engaged and have knowledge about the subject, as it is the country native to the subject.

It was removed from here with the claim, that the caricature was first published in 1987. This claim was also addressed and voted down in the discussion on Swedish wp.

No reference were given for this : the claim is referenced, not with a book, but with a claim, put in the reference section, to make it look like a reference.

The drawing has only ever been questioned by one person sv:User:EmilEikS.

sv:User:EmilEikS has left Swedish language wp. He was there suspected of having been the same user as sv:User:SergeWoodzing. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bybrunnen/Arkiv/2009/Augusti#EmilEikS.2C_SergeWoodzing_et_consortes

When he left, he claimed to have left his watchlist, etc, to .

In English language wikipedia, en:User:EmilEikS has been blocked for sock-puppetting http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&oldid=276769373#Requesting_wider_block_for_block_evading_sock_puppet

And: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive519&action=edit&section=79

When questioning this image on Swedish wp, sv:User:EmilEikS made the very same claims to why it should be removed, as en:User:SergeWoodzing has now given to its removal from the article on English wp. These reasons were not considered adequate on Swedish wp, but the matter is not likely to arouse the same engagement here, so it may therefore be easier to remove it from here without drawing any attention, while it would be much questioned had it been done in Swedish wp. There, the descision is to keep; here, it has not even been discussed. EmilEiks was also reprimaned for his offensive way of communicating, and his emotional arguments, such as the claim that the drawing should be removed because it is offensive to the memory of the royal couple, which is not an argument in accordance to NPOV.

Does the above break any rules? I am not familiar enough with the rules to know this, or to know if this is the right place to put this report. I willingly admit myself to be ignorant regarding the rules of wikipedia. I do edit quite often, but I am ignorant, som maybe I overeact and nothing wrong has been done: I do not know. If I have overeacted, I hope I have not caused any trouble for this user, as he has also done many good things in Wikipedia. I also freely admit, that I have had heated discussions with this user in both Swedish and English wikipedia, and therefore, I may be bias without being aware of it myself.

I am not quite sure that I have reported this correctly. I hope it is correct for an IP to report a user. If I have broken any regulations by doing so, I offer my apology, but I could not help to find this somewhat peculiar. I hope I have done the right thing. Thank you. --85.226.44.13 (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds (even an admin?) decided to close the discussion. It was really long so that is fine. Any admin attention on

) 22:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ghostofnemo has been disruptive at WP:SYNTH is too much. Bethune's trial is currently wrapping up in Japan. He recently made statements that distanced himself from the founder of Sea Shepherd. Ghostofnemo is now attempting to insert information on potential mistreatment as the reasoning behind this. I don't know why the subject made the statement and none of the sources have said why. Please see this edit.[58] Is adding a line and source discussing Amnesty International being critical of interrogation methods in Japan without mentioning Bethune appropriate after a line discussing his Bethune quote? Instead of edit warring, can an administrator explain to GoN if his reverting to insert such material is inappropriate.Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC) The line in question is a fair paraphrase of one source being quoted, so it is not SYNTH. The line in question is relevant to the article, which is about the trial of a suspect who has been held for a long period prior to his trial in Japan. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Another editor has reverted him so it appears that this is no longer an edit warring/against guideline incident needing admin attention issue. Should I move this to the OR noticeboard?Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, I'd like to have an administrator look at the pattern of deletions of referenced material going on at this article! Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Nemo, that line is synth. Yes, it's a correct paraphrase from the BBC story, BUT the BBC story doesn't say one word about Peter James Bethune. It's addition into Peter Bethune's article is implying that it's happening to Mr. Bethune. It's synth , Cptnono is right to remove it. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC) What about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=365765488&oldid=365765129 Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC) It's synth. Forget about Amnesty International. You can't pick and mix things from RS and construct a Frankenstein monster to tell the story you want to tell. The sources need to talking about the subject of the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC) AI says this is an issue in Japan. The BBC says it's an issue in Japan. I have WP:RS that say he was blocked from meeting with an attorney until after he confessed. The editors here, with no sources whatsoever, are denying this is an issue and deleted WP:RS referenced material that is NPOV, because they personally feel it's not appropriate! This skews the story so that it appears Bethune is receiving a fair trial, even though his attorney has been denied access to the trial! It's very POV to delete this material, and it's also POV to censor material about Japan's legal system and criticism of it. Here are my sources: Not allowed to meet lawyer: http://www.3news.co.nz/Sea-Shepherd-group-ready-to-defend-Bethune/tabid/1160/articleID/147145/Default.aspx and, more explicitly: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bethune-has-long-wait-see-lawyer-3413921 Met with consular staff four times, but no mention of meeting with lawyer: http://www.watoday.com.au/breaking-news-world/nz-govt-attacked-for-bethunes-detention-20100406-roub.html Lawyer barred from court: http://www.watoday.com.au/breaking-news-world/bethune-could-get-fair-trial-lawyer-20100528-wi7b.html NZ govt says Bethune "was to meet with attorney last night" instead of "met with attorney last night":http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz+embassy+officials+meet+peter+bethune Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Now, here's the quote from the AI article: "Amnesty International has now called on Japan's new government to immediately implement reforms of the police interrogation system to avoid such miscarriages of justice. Suspects can be held for up to 23 days before they are charged in what the campaign group says is a brutal system that has no place in modern Japan. The conviction rate is more than 99%, often based on confessions. Amnesty International says some are extracted from suspects under duress." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8290767.stm Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC) And it says: ""The detainee has absolutely no access to his defence lawyers, has no idea how long the interrogation session would go," said Rajiv Narayan of Amnesty International." Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC) As explained to you on the talk page: If you want the article to say "he was mistreated" or "he had an unfair trial" then you need to find an RS that says so. Not an RS that alludes to something you don't like + something else. A clear "he was mistreated". So far, every source I have seen contradicts it but if you find one we can go from there. Until then you need to stop being disruptive. You have had multiple editors explain SYNTH and WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT .Cptnono (talk ) 06:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Ghostofnemo, yes, it is an issue in Japan and in many other countries. There are many very interesting and complicated issues with Japanese society that anyone can discover in reliable sources or better still by going there to have a look for themselves. None of the issues are relevant unless the source itself specifically relates the issue to Peter James Bethune. The source has to do it, not you. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Here it is right here: "Sea Shepherd's Paul Watson says the Japanese are not letting Bethune see his legal team. He says Japanese authorities are entitled to interrogate a prisoner without representation, for up to three weeks. Bethune has however met with New Zealand Embassy staff in Tokyo since his arrival in Japan." from http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bethune-has-long-wait-see-lawyer-3413921 Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC) That's from the reference that was cited with the removed lines. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC) And just a reminder, the stories discussing Bethune and his lawyer not being there for one of the hearings say things like "A lawyer representing New Zealander Peter Bethune thinks the anti-whaling activist could get a fair trial in Tokyo." and "He said he knew what had happened in the court 'because the hearing was pretty much all scripted, scripted in the sense that both the prosecution and the defence gave their opening statement but that opening statement was based word for word on a written statement that was provided to the judge days ago' ."[59] So he might have had an unfair trial but nothing says it while other sources could be read the exact opposite. There isn't a scandal here but GoN has been creating one for over a month now. Enough is enough.Cptnono (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Regarding the fair trial, here is what his lawyer actually said: "Despite earlier suggestions the trial was just a show, Harris said he thought Bethune could get a fair trial. "All indications and reports are that the lead judge and other two judges are fair-minded judges," he said." http://www.watoday.com.au/breaking-news-world/bethune-could-get-fair-trial-lawyer-20100528-wi7b.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Personally, I question the competence of his attorney, 1 for not making his interrogation without legal counsel an issue, and 2 for his attitude towards being excluded from the trial (yeah, no big deal). A man on trial, and his lawyer is not there in court with him!!!!! It boggles the mind what his strategy is, unless they are intentionally trying to get Bethune the longest sentence possible to create a martyr for their cause.... Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC) The linked WAtoday article is misleading. Harris is not the only one lawyer for Bethune. He is one of the lawyers for Bethune. There must have been the other lawyer/lawyers in the court. But the number of the seats for the lawyers were restricted. So Harris tried to see the trial from one of the seats for the public. But the number of those seats were also restricted, and he couldn't draw a winning number. That's what the articles says. Oda Mari (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Which article says Bethune's other lawyers were seated in court? Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC) See how annoying it is when sources are not presented? And just a heads up if this is still being looked at. GoN made the edit against overwhelming consensus.[60] Cptnono (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC) This is from my talk page. Where is the OR here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghostofnemo#June_2010 Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC) And yet another deletion of relevant, reliably sourced, NPOV material: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=365981031&oldid=365974855 Help! This is ridiculous! Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC) This starting to turn into two content disputes on ANI unfortunately. What it comes down to is multiple editors seeing SYNTH and misleading the reader while GoN sees it as POV based deletions. In the face of so many editors explaining to him why there are concerns GoN is bombarding the talk page and editing against more than one guideline. I know he is frustrated and feels passionately about this but he just needs to stop. I have asked him to wait and see what the expected flood of sources say next week with the conclusion of the court proceedings. Any controversial allusions to mistreatment or an unfair trial should wait until then.Cptnono (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC) And I've asked you and the other editors not to deleted relevant, reliably sourced and NPOV material from the article. Why is it that my "by the book" edits can be deleted based on the unsourced hearsay of other editors? Shouldn't they be required to find evidence that my sources are in error before deleting my edits? Why do I get a warning that I'll be banned on my talk page for making apparently good edits, but none of those making questionable deletions is being warned about it? It looks like WP:BULLY to me. Ghostofnemo (talk ) 05:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC) And another thing... why is it that my relevant, reliably sourced, NPOV edits can be immediately deleted without discussion? And why is the information completely deleted (down the "memory hole") instead of being improved? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC) My sources are the news media, so that should be a sign these points are relevant to the article. I am not writing this stuff or presenting OR, contrary to the accusations being made. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Since we're not getting any official guidance here about how to handle this, I guess my next step is to treat these deletions as vandalism, put notices on the offenders talk pages, and revert their deletions. If I have to risk getting banned to get a verdict on this, so be it. I think the edits will hold up. The alternative seems to be tolerating being effectively banned already since my edits are immediately deleted, so I don't have much to lose. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Although it may not be "official" this has received the attention of additional editors. All have explained why your edits are not being accepted. I assume any further attempts to buck consensus will lead to some requests for a block. It would be best if you simply dropped it and tried imrpoving other aspects of the article.Cptnono (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately GhostOfNemo has updated his user page in a way that attacks other editors and is violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." and "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc, should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki)" see: User:Ghostofnemo#Wikipedia Hall of Shame. A "Hall of Shame", providing "reasons for exclusion for your amusement", and misrepresenting a debate are far different than "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages". I am seeking its removal. The user is more than welcome to keep the sources in a sandbox or right there for future reference.Cptnono (talk ) 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Also in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions.Cptnono (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC) This is clearly uncivil and is not conducive to harmonious editing, with quotes taken completely out of context. If GoN wants to link to diffs or sections, fine, but don't take parts of arguements out of context.--Terrillja talk 02:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC) After reading your comments, I reread my userpage to see if I'm being uncivil. I don't see anything there that is uncivil or which distorts our discussions. Dissent and peaceful protest are my responses to your uncivil behavior. You should stop the witchhunt and just deal with the fact that your behavior is questionable and some of us will dare to question it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC) If an administrator had ruled on this, and told you to cut it out, I wouldn't have been driven to do this. This seems like a better response than edit-warring with you. It's the last act of desperation of a powerless person who is having his edits summarily deleted for apparently dubious, and at the risk of being uncivil, suspicious, reasons. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Cut it out. I don't know whether you really believe yourself to be powerless and confronted with a seemingly monolythic group of enemies or are just enjoying the pose, but the fact is that there have been good reasons for your fellow editors to confront your way of editing. You have been repeatedly pointed to the guidelines relevant for a constructive discussion of inclusion. Instead of taking them into account and working with them or at one point gathering that maybe what you want to do is more akin to journalism, and less to encyclopedic writing, you insist on inserting your POV unchanged. That's not the way WP rolls. 87.166.74.135 (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC) This has been going on for several months at least, and the content over which Ghostofnemo is warring has consistently skirted or violated exactly the same policies. His response to other editors is basically WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have no idea why this editor feels such a strong connection with this subject, but his actions give the impression of righteous anger not a collegial attempt at writing an article. I propose that if this continues, a topic ban is the best solution. Guy (Help! ) 09:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC) The way I see it, it's not me vs. them. It's reliable sources vs. them. I keep hearing POV and OR, but if you'll look at my edits, you'll see they are reliably sourced and that my edits do not misrepresent the sources. But the edits are immediately deleted, and if a reason is given, it's usually an accusation of POV or OR! Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC) And if you'll look at the talk pages, you'll see that there has been LOTS of discussion. I do hear them. But they keep accusing me of POV and OR. I don't see any. Do you? Where exactly do you see it? Please show me an edit I've made, compare it to the source, and show me the POV or OR. How can I respond to their accusations? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC) How about one of the most recent ones: [[61]]? Another topic, but as I have pointed out on the talk page, this is OR. Please familiarise yourself with the guideline and maybe get someone explain it to you with exemplary edits. 87.166.74.135 (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC) 9/11 conspiracy theories are different, because there are not many reliable sources that present conspiracy theories. We're presenting the theories that exist. We're not trying to prove that they are factually correct. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC) See this on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Addition_of_Operation_Northwoods_.2F_OR And I have made some changes based on their input. But they insist on total deletion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Regarding a strong connection with the subject, I have not deleted anyone else's reliably sourced edits, regardless of how unflattering they are to the subject. It's not like I'm trying to keep things critical of Bethune out of the article. But it does seem that the editors involved are trying to keep things critical of the whalers and the Japanese authorities out of this article and the Ady Gil article, even if they are reliably sourced. Why? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC) @GhostNemo - As an uninvolved party, I haven't read all the contested edits, but I did check out the links to the BBC article, used twice, and in both cases the insertion was quite incorrect. Actually, calling it Synthesis is too kind, it's improper inference without foundation.--SPhilbrickT 13:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC) The AI story is the source for the line that in Japan suspects can be held without access to legal counsel for up to 23 days, during which they can be interrogated by the police. The deleted line does not allege Bethune was mistreated or that a confession was coerced. It merely states that the police in Japan have the right to deny access to an attorney until after the suspect has confessed, or 23 days, whichever comes first. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Here's the edit: "Immediately after Bethune's arrest, Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society complained that Bethune was denied access to his legal team by the Japanese authorities. http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bethune-has-long-wait-see-lawyer-3413921 According to Amnesty International, suspects in Japan can be interrogated for up to 23 days by the police without access to legal counsel." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8290767.stm Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC) You can continue debating the content all you want (so far no one agrees). User:Ghostofnemo#Wikipedia Hall of Shame needs to be taken care of though.Cptnono (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC) At the risk of sounding snooty, I think I'm right, whether or not people agree with me. To exclude this information slants the article against Bethune. It will be assumed his human rights were respected, he got a fair trial, and had adequate legal representation, when reliable sources seem to put that in doubt. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC) The "Hall of Shame" comes down when it looks like the excluded material will be allowed to stand in the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC) If you are so certain you are right, it just makes ME look unreasonable, so it shouldn't bother you. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC) I don’t have a problem with the content of that page, but do have two minor request. First, the intended content of a user page is information about the editor qua editor. While leeway is allowed, and this content is arguable related to editing contributions, it would e better in a subpage. Second, I don’t see evidence that the page is no-indexed. It doesn’t appear that the page is yet indexed by Google, but I wouldn’t want someone doing a general search on this subject to end up on this page and misunderstand the nature of the page. (I do understand that not all editors in WP take the position that material like this is suitable even on a no-indexed subpage, but I’ll weigh in on the support side if it comes to a question. SPhilbrickT 15:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC) WP:UP#POLEMIC is pretty clear. And most of the content isn't the problem. I don't see any problem with him copy and pasting his own arguments on his page but being "shame"d for others' "amusement" is a little much Should I take this to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion if an in-depth conversation is necessary?Cptnono (talk ) 23:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Ok, ok. I'll change it to "Hall of Questionable Deletions". Just a sec. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I’m trying to support you, but you are making it difficult. The change in title in a step in the right direction, but wording such as “I've provided some of their reasons for exclusion for your amusement:” leave the impression that your goal isn’t an honest attempt at dispute resolution. Can you see why someone would think that?SPhilbrickT 12:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC) In a subpage, keeping diffs of things for the future is fine, but using your userpage as a soapbox to protest what you see as unfair treatment by taking conversations out of context is not appropriate. Neither attempting to since Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battleground. Something about that suggests to me that it likely runs afoul of the ArbCom ruling on 9/11 as well.--Terrillja talk 13:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC) No one reads my userpage except you guys apparently. I am trying to make a point there, and the point is that these deletions are ridiculous. The "bullying" comment was because for once I actually forced the issue and cited WP:FILIBUSTERS and they realized my next step was a formal complaint. So they back down. For me, that was naked aggression - nothing compared to what goes on routinely at the Bethune article, eh? I still haven't gotten to the point of deleting someone's relevant, reliably sourced, NPOV edits yet. I dared to cite a policy that said the next step is reporting the offender to administrators. This is really getting tedious. I wish the administrators would either ban me, or make you guys revert your questionable deletions. I'm effectively banned from the article now, due to immediate deletions of my edits, so we really do need a decision. I've been on public trial for quite some time now. My last comments to the jury - please check out the deleted edits and the discussion on the talk page. Who is being unreasonable and who is being uncivil? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC) OK, one more point. According to reports in reliable sources, Bethune was hooded, denied access to legal counsel before his interrogation, put on a diet of only cabbage soup and rice, and his lawyer was excluded from court, yet all of this has been deleted from the article. Is that NPOV? Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC) You are not on some sort of trial. You were adding in SYNTH. Editors explained it. Now that you know, feel free ot edit just don't do that again since it will be removed. And the second part is concern over your user page. You "trying to make a point there" is WP:UP#POLEMIC. Remove it and stop using SYNTH to scandal monger and there should be no problem with you editing.Cptnono (talk ) 23:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC) The deleted edits under discussion are not SYNTH. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of gigantic nonfree image without fair use justification

User:Horkana has, within the last day or so, three times added (eg [62]) a huge nonfree image (magazine cover) to Jessica Biel, without providing a fair use justification for including the image in the article, apparently on the basis thst calling the image a "reference" overrides any requirements for justifying the use of nonfree images; the user is also removing a related fact/citation needed tag, despite acknowledging that the image does not support the claims the fact tag relates to. The image, as displayed, is about the same size as the main article text, and makes most of the other reference listings unreadable; it is purely illustrative, and fails the nonfree use justification standards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Warned Horkana about edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

How could a non-free image rationale be required for a link, the image is not even being displayed, only a textual link? It is a waste not to refer to the image in some way or another, what is the best way to make it clear to readers this is available? I will use Template:External media instead. -- Horkana (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and have replied at Talk:Jessica Biel. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Horkana inserted it again, so I blocked for 3 hours for edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

{{tlp|resolved|now that the confusion is cleared up, and I've pointed out the errors in judgment, it's resolved to me. Little can be done about a bad admin, I guess... - [[User:Jack Sebastian|Jack Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Jack Sebastian|talk]]) 20:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)}}
While seeking to fix what appears to be patent original research in a dab page for

. There isn't any notable references noting the Hikaru Kato term; it's likely fancruft/OR.
I've never worked with speedy delete templates before, and might have used the wrong one when I removed the redirect and placed the template in the HK (empty) article.
User Gogo Dodo has apparently taken it upon himself to begin edit-warring about the redirect, reverting right up to 3RR (1, 2, 3). I've sought discussion, both in the user's talk space(4), and the HK redirect article discussion(5). His belief is that my removal of a bogus redirect is vandalism (and therefore not subject to 3RR) - this after having reverted three times without discussion, either as to the proper template to use for deletion of the false article or taking steps to prevent the edit war he seems interested in escalating. Clearly, I disagree. Is it just me, or is it wrong for me to expect an admin to avoid these sorts of clearly club-footed mistakes where discussion would be so much more effective? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's controversial, then speedy-deletion is inappropriate. You should instead

nominate the redirect for discussion. Don't edit-war over it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker

─╢ 18:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I said, TT; the admin should have mentioned that before the third revert. Why the hell is an edmin edit-warring in the first place? I mean, thanks for the advice, but my problem is with an edmin who apparently forgot the job description. Edit-warring is what we get from anonymous vandals, not admins with years of experience. His behavior was - at best - ill-advised. At worst, it was dumbfoundingly stupid. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

2 points - (1) I believe what you intended was to mark it as CSD R3 - an implausible typo or misnomer. (2) It takes two to edit war, and you reverted at least once before trying to communicate with Gogo Dodo. Wet troutslaps all around, then. Syrthiss (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I told you to go to RfD, but you didn't appear to listen to me, but now that another editor told you the same thing, you went to RfD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The original redirect was tagged as CSD#R2, which I declined because that CSD does not apply in this case. You then blanked the redirect, which I reverted because blanking the redirect is not the correct way to handle it. You then blanked it again with the edit summary of "rvv", which is incorrect and I reverted you again. I told you what you should do regarding the redirect on your talk page, which you then shifted the conversation to my talk page where I told you again my reasons for reverting your blanking. If you are going to link to my talk page, then please link the entire conversation. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As noted, I admitted that I likely used the wrong template; instead of reverting three times in a row, maybe you could have pointed out now what you should have done after the first revert. Calling my removal of a spurious redirect vandalism and then edit-warring about it what landed you here - the third revert coming after I warned you that doing so would precipitate this action. Maybe you could work on defusing situations like this - it would appear to be part of an administrator's duties to cut down on the drama inherent in your edit-warring. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

- It appears to be a valid search term for Sulu, and a valid redirect, per memory alpha which states that, in Japan, the character's last name is Kato not Sulu, so it should stand as it is. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't appear to be, SGGH, according to a pretty basic Google search. And Memory Alpha - at best a dodgy source of fancruft - doesn't cite its sources either. Every other use of this term would appear to come from a blog or a fansite or fan forum. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And, not really trying to Sherlock this too much here, but the character's first name of "Hikaru" wasn't even created until 1981; there is no way for the Japanese-translated program to have used the name until after that point; indeed, there is precisely zero citation that it was ever used at all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a source for you: The official Star Trek Japanese site (via Google Translate) names him as Kato. —

talk

) 19:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• This looks like an excellent conversation to have... at
  Wikipedia:RFD#Hikaru Kato
  . As far as the other issues:
  • Jack, you are not supposed to restore the tag when the speedy is declined by an admin (I think it says that on the tag)
  • I can't see how 3RR can apply to an admin repeatedly declining a speedy request by the same person; that's an admin's job, to accept or decline a speedy delete request
  • it looks like Gogo Dodo was counselling you on the right way to do things; please listen.
  • You complain that he called your blanking "vandalism", (which, you're right, it wasn't), but I note that you reverted him with an edit summary of "rvv" before he said that, calling his edits vandalism too. Please don't play that game.

This looks resolved to me, and I'm marking it as such; content issues at RFD, Jack's learned something, and jack and Gogo Dodo both should be a little more careful using the "v" word, as it excites people unnecessarily. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, you've assumed some tings that aren't exactly true, Floquenbeam: first, I didn't restore the speedy delete tag; I simply removed the redirect and asked for discussion. Secondly, repeatedly reverting in the absence of discussion is (according to the very first sentence of the relevant policy page)

edit-warring. Third, Gogo's advice was offered after the fact, ie. after he had already started edit-warring. I was listening, and asked for a better template or path to take. His reply is that no template wold be helpful and that I should chat up people in the ST wikiproject. Not really helpful, per se. Lastly, I should point out that when someone reverts without discussion, it suggests that they have a vested interest in keeping a non-notable redirect intact. I consider that a lot closer to a vandalism. That said, classifying his non-responsive edits as vandalism was perhaps a bit unfair. As I said, I expect better from my admins; if they cannot do the job as proscribed, they need to surrender the mop. - Jack Sebastian (talk

) 20:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion request was declined, then you repeatedly blanked the page and were reverted by Gogo Dodo. If you make an edit which is then reverted by another editor, the onus is on you, not the other editor, to initiate discussion rather than starting an edit war as you did. Gogo was simply playing clean-up. Now you're throwing around

talk

) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Marking resolved. No need for administrator intervention, no administrator abuse. The only possible issue is Jack's persistent unsubstantiated allegations of bad faith on the part of GoDo... ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 21:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Murderdan537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I first became aware of User:Murderdan537 because he blanked without comment a section of an article I patrol. Then twice again. Looking back over his edit history, most of his edits are to sanitize information about Cuban communism, swapping existing information for his own POV. Many times this completely reverses the meaning of the intended passages. Terrorists are not always freedom-fighters, dictatorships are not always revolutionaries, and so on. Those terms and those articles have very specific meanings and don't need to be manipulated by this user. Someone please have a look. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

When I went to notify this user, note they have been blanking out warnings on their talkpage to hide them. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to providing any evidence such as diff to support your claims

talk

) 05:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Murderdan537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked 24h by Cirt for vandalism. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I may be a little late to the party here, but I still want to chip in. You accuse the user of POV pushing, but the articles he edits have an anti-cuban POV. For example his last edit to

Yoenit (talk

) 06:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm... that doesn't make much sense. If there are lots of reliable sources calling it totalitarian, then it's not POV to call it totalitarian. And how exactly is "regime" supposed to be POV? It refers to a government or governing philosophy. Shimeru 09:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that certain countries (the USA for example) have a very different view of Cuba to the rest of the world. If you buy Bacardi in the US, it is labelled as Puerto Rican rather than Cuban, because there is an embargo on goods from Cuba. Referring to Cuba as a "totalitarian regime" comes as second nature if you've seen that sort of terminology used by the media all your life. Cubans are portrayed, if at all, only as people desperate to emigrate to the US. And so on. When one factors in the high proportion of American wikipedia editors, the current situation becomes more understandable, I think. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be thinking of Havana Club: genuine in most countries but a Bacardi copy in the US. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 13:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue with "regime" is that it has a negative ring to it. I know the dictionary doesn't say so, but have you ever heard it being applied to the US government? if not, than why should we refer to the Cuban government as such? Totalitarian is a term historically applied to Nazi Germany and the Sovjet Union under Stalin and is also very negative.

Yoenit (talk

) 15:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have heard the word "regime" applied to the US government, but mostly by the Tea Party movement, so I can see that it might be seen to have negative connotations. Still, "totalitarian" is clearly NPOV. Anyone got a neutral synonym for "regime" (unless, of course, that term is used in the sources.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Still not sure I buy that, as I see "Bush regime" and "Clinton regime" all the time in the US press (along with "totalitarian regime", "socialist regime", etc.), and not necessarily in articles critical of Bush or Clinton. But sure. "Administration" for one, if it's used in the sense of "Castro regime." "System of government" if it's used in the sense of "totalitarian regime." That's a little unwieldy, but so are most synonyms for regime in that sense that I can think of offhand. I suppose just "government" could work, although that could be a little ambiguous, depending on context. Shimeru 00:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Murderdan537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I first became aware of User:Murderdan537 because he blanked without comment a section of an article I patrol. Then twice again. Looking back over his edit history, most of his edits are to sanitize information about Cuban communism, swapping existing information for his own POV. Many times this completely reverses the meaning of the intended passages. Terrorists are not always freedom-fighters, dictatorships are not always revolutionaries, and so on. Those terms and those articles have very specific meanings and don't need to be manipulated by this user. Someone please have a look. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

When I went to notify this user, note they have been blanking out warnings on their talkpage to hide them. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to providing any evidence such as diff to support your claims

talk

) 05:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Murderdan537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked 24h by Cirt for vandalism. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I may be a little late to the party here, but I still want to chip in. You accuse the user of POV pushing, but the articles he edits have an anti-cuban POV. For example his last edit to

Yoenit (talk

) 06:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm... that doesn't make much sense. If there are lots of reliable sources calling it totalitarian, then it's not POV to call it totalitarian. And how exactly is "regime" supposed to be POV? It refers to a government or governing philosophy. Shimeru 09:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that certain countries (the USA for example) have a very different view of Cuba to the rest of the world. If you buy Bacardi in the US, it is labelled as Puerto Rican rather than Cuban, because there is an embargo on goods from Cuba. Referring to Cuba as a "totalitarian regime" comes as second nature if you've seen that sort of terminology used by the media all your life. Cubans are portrayed, if at all, only as people desperate to emigrate to the US. And so on. When one factors in the high proportion of American wikipedia editors, the current situation becomes more understandable, I think. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be thinking of Havana Club: genuine in most countries but a Bacardi copy in the US. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 13:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue with "regime" is that it has a negative ring to it. I know the dictionary doesn't say so, but have you ever heard it being applied to the US government? if not, than why should we refer to the Cuban government as such? Totalitarian is a term historically applied to Nazi Germany and the Sovjet Union under Stalin and is also very negative.

Yoenit (talk

) 15:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have heard the word "regime" applied to the US government, but mostly by the Tea Party movement, so I can see that it might be seen to have negative connotations. Still, "totalitarian" is clearly NPOV. Anyone got a neutral synonym for "regime" (unless, of course, that term is used in the sources.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Still not sure I buy that, as I see "Bush regime" and "Clinton regime" all the time in the US press (along with "totalitarian regime", "socialist regime", etc.), and not necessarily in articles critical of Bush or Clinton. But sure. "Administration" for one, if it's used in the sense of "Castro regime." "System of government" if it's used in the sense of "totalitarian regime." That's a little unwieldy, but so are most synonyms for regime in that sense that I can think of offhand. I suppose just "government" could work, although that could be a little ambiguous, depending on context. Shimeru 00:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see User talk:XxxL0ST.S0ULxxx for a threat of legal action following the A7 deletion of an autobiography. The user has said "if I EVER see an article listing either myself, or D.O.T.S.; and full moderative control is not in my hands, then I WILL sue not just Wikipedia, but I will seek legal action against every one of you." Gonzonoir (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked pending withdrawal of the threat. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Stifle. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki
  )

This user appears to have a history of tendentious editing. He definitely has a history of copyright violations as most of the pictures they have uploaded were deleted.. however, that is not what I am here about. I am here because this user is quite capable of user communication, yet they refuse to discuss when their own edits are brought into question. Rather instead, they slow edit war over a period of weeks, if not months. I have repeatedly tried to get this user to stop, yet they continue to ignore, and add the honorifics in violation of

again, again, and again. The actor's own website doesn't even use the honorifics, nor do any reliable sources outside the country they were given in, as is the requirement for them to be posted.

Editor notified.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If anything, I would like admin eyes on this matter.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Aat3cr (talk · contribs)
• Goatfukr (talk · contribs)

I'm not sure where to post this, since it's probably too complex for AIV, and it's not really vandalism anyway. A user has been adding this bit of personal commentary [65] to the same article for the past two months, even after receiving escalating warnings (it's technically two different accounts doing this, but the second is pretty ducky; it appeared as soon as the first account got a level 3 warning). Block time? SheepNotGoats (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The first account has been blocked indefinitely, as they are obviously not here to contribute. The second account has been blocked as a violation of our username policy, among other issues. TNXMan 19:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the prompt response. SheepNotGoats (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Several editors are involved in some rather unproductive editing at

21:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As an involved editor, I will second the plea for administrative input. I've reached the point where I think further editing (or even providing additional sources on the talk page) is pointless due to user-conduct issues and obstructiveness. The dispute is complex (or at least wordy) enough to be forbidding, but the underlying issues are pretty straightforward. MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As another involved editor I support the input of an uninvolved admin. I will not be editing this article further until the situation improves. I posted at 3RR before I notice this discussion at ANI [66]

talk · contribs · email

) 22:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've gone so far as to fully protect the article for a short while. The 3RR issue has been reported here. Suggest further discussion about that aspect takes place there. – B.hotep •talk• 22:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Nutriveg for 24h following the posts at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Nutriveg_reported_by_User:Jmh649. Others may wish to evaluate whether the article protection is still needed. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of nothing (I haven't talked to him in 7 months) AlasdairGreen27 started bullying, insulting and trolling me first here(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DIREKTOR#Stop_personal_attacking_me_.28and_the_other_users.29) then here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndreaFox2&redirect=no#Honey_the_cat). He refuses stopping. I suspect he is attempting through offensive statements to garner bad reactions from me maybe to avenge the fact that 7 months ago he was blocked for calling me a "twat" (and for making a anti-semitic statement towards another user, shadowranger, who was disagreeing with him in the same discussion).

) 21:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:AndreaFox2's definition of "bullying, insulting and trolling" is his own, not Wikipedia's, and apparently only applies to those he dislikes. User:AlasdairGreen27 has recently been threatened on Wikipedia with physical harm and legal action by the banned counterparts of the same group of editors acting very much in concert in their regular and constant attempt to intimidate/ban/edit-war their opposition. --

TALK

) 22:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course that's AndreaFox2's own definition of bullying insulting and trolling, we just have to state if it matches with wikipedia's definition. In my honest opinion it does. And AlasdairGreen27 (talk · contribs) it's not new to this kind of approach as you know. - Theirrulez (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, that's all totally irrelevant. AlasdairGreen27's sarcastic mocking messages were not acceptable ways to communicate, so I've asked him not to repeat them. Fences&Windows 01:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Anat Kamm#Requested Move. Since it is older than 7 days (from June 1st), I think it should be closed. The date just slipped through, it seems (i.e. no reason for extended discussion). Notification of this post in the same Talk-section. -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have re-listed it. I feel that with 2 supports (one by the nom, one with no further details so presumably "per nom"), 1 objection and 1 neutral, another week may help to reach a clear concensus. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I noted that the "Objection" is to the extend "No discussion at all, this is WP:PARENT". See the Talk. -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Dumsheepgoat (talk · contribs)

A user that was blocked earlier today (

) 01:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Richlands, Virginia semi-protected 1 week. –MuZemike 03:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack Merridew has campaigned tirelessly to do away with the use of color in filmography headings. During a discussion at

) 22:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think changing the color of the tables in the middle of the discussion was disruptive. It's not fair to the editors who are taking the time to respond at the Village Pump if JM can simply make a unilateral move like that. And while this isn't the place to argue the color issue, it does make it easier to read. And what is a film actor without an easy to read filmography? I don't think this should be such a big issue.

Malke2010

22:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It may have been "jumping the gun", but I feel it was done in

good faith. Your marginalization of "a small contingent" having written our "guidelines and policies", I feel, is an unfounded attack on Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.  Chickenmonkey 

23:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, however you can turn it around. Don't muck up the discussion with trying to avert the issue. Show me proof that the standard table coding was not done by a small contingent. I don't think you can show that it was developed by a "large" contingent. And good faith is relative here, since Jack had less than stellar things said about him and he charged in there to make a pointy edit and before replying here, he moved on to another article to change it to blank tabling. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to feel -- and I'm not trying to turn this around or muck it up or whatever else you will accuse me of -- you seem to feel that any consensus that didn't involve you, doesn't count. Just because you don't know where the consensus is doesn't mean it didn't happen, and you should assume that the consensus was arrived at in good faith. Instead, you choose to take the same course that you're so offended of Jack Merridew taking: "accusing the respondents that supported the use of color as a group of friends acting as a bloc" and "a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color between themselves". It's the same tactic and it's not very civil, either way. I've been a witness to this "relationship" between you two for a little while and I believe it is fairly equal. I repeat my suggestion, if the two of you can't find a way to be civil with each other, you should avoid each other. If you absolutely have to interact, I would suggest no further comments on each other and focus your attention on improving the encyclopedia. Obviously, you're free to take that suggestion, or not.  Chickenmonkey  08:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the reason why I've brought Jack's conduct re: me to this discussion. He absolutely needs to stop wikistalking and harassing me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Do NOT bite the developers

a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color? One might root through the ancient history of MediaWiki:Common.css to find where the two shades came in to class="wikitable" but I expect it's old as hell, and mucking about in {{prettytable}} might dredge up older-yet history. One can't easily change this, either; it's now in shared.css, which requires developer access to change. These colours are bedrock; used on all WMF wikis and prolly most wikis running MediaWiki. Personally, I assume that these shades were chosen with considerable care with concern about maximizing accessibility and avoiding cultural sensitivities. Shared.css is for styling that underlays all the skins and the natural next level to consider overrides is Common.css and then individual skins. The most inappropriate level to specify a colour is hard-coded in individual articles. Jack Merridew 00:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't assume. And I find the insertion of the baby picture beside my post about this deliberately insulting and demeaning. Things regarding Jack need to come here to keep him honest. Consensus can change, which is the key issue to this table. You can't muster the consensus to support your stance and more editors, different editors, show up each time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume good faith of the devs;

WP:COMPETENCE, too. Try it ;) The baby picture was funny and seems to have been intended to lighten the mood. Cheer up, Jack Merridew

01:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As I found out awhile back, the first photo on a given page will show up if you hover over the link, or some such thing. So putting photos on this page is not really the best idea. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think too many know that trick ;) Anyway, I hope you didn't fall for the suggestion that I posted the picture. I see it as a good faith comment by a neutral bystander. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Crap, Jack. There was no suggestion whatsoever that you posted the image. If I thought you did, I would outright had said that. You do enough damage around here without martyring yourself needlessly. There was no such suggestion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie cannot edit anywhere without Jack following behind trying to dehumanize and demean her for whatever personal grudge he has on her. His spitefulness has been noted many times, even by administrators... but nothing ever happens and he's free to follow WHL to the next page and rinse and repeat the same bullshit. Sickening. Mike Allen 03:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how Jack followed Wild here. The thread is clearly about him, him joining it to defend himself isn't out of line. That aside, can you please substantiate your accusations of wikistalking?— Dædαlus^Contribs 07:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, no one said he followed me to this discussion, I notified him, but he has suddenly appeared to disparage me on this very board in the past. I have been busy today with serious family issues, but I will gather diffs to show that he does. It will take a little time to do so, but they will be forthcoming. He also posts to IP editors talk pages against me just after I've posted there. There is no way he keeps those pages on his watchlist without following my edits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that Jack has been banned before for wikistalking, it's not like there isn't a pattern of the same behavior that people are going to view him through the distinctly not rose-colored lenses of. Yet nothing much ever happens and the same group of fellow travelers defend him at each step of the way.Shemeska (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Um I was not talking about this discussion. Though the "accusations" are based on proof. Mike Allen 08:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is also demonstrably true that Wildhartlivie responds in a predictable way whenever JM happens to end up in the same part of the project as her - to flame out, outright accuse him of wikistalking her and to treat his edits as malicious. This isn't helping, and may be part of the reason that people don't really pay it too much attention. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This. Seriously, I'll be the first to say I tend to like Jack, but these two have a seriously unhealthy focus on one another. Surely Wikipedia is big enough that a way can be found for them both to just stop interacting all together, and if you must be in the same discussion, then don't response to the other. Is there such a thing as a topic ban where neither is allowed to reference the other by name or suggestion at all? As it is, the back and forth between them is really derailing the entire discussion re the template issues, and seems to be coloring the responses some. From my view in reading the RfC--ignoring all the bad faith suggestions re canvassing (evidence?), accusations on both sides of having "blocs" and "cabals", etc--that the RfC was inherently flawed. One discussion was for the template, one for the color. The former ended with consensus to use the template, while the later ended for no consensus on using the blue color - yet the template discussion was for it "as is" with the color - resulting in opposing results. --

talk · contribs

) 13:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've ignored a lot of shite. I see a solid year of evading the communities input about this effort at WikiProject Branding. All sort of tangents and misrepresentations. The RfC did get off poorly. It began as a sort of quick nose-count by WHL of whomever was watching WT:ACTOR. I bumped that thread up to an RfC and then commented. At length over—what?—six weeks? The arguments agianst the various messes and issues re these filmography tables are well presented in there. There is talk on VP(pol) about running an RfC on colour and I could warm to the idea. I want to see a route forward to cleaning up the considerable mess of code that's strewn about an in awful lot of articles. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And I've endured a whole lot more shite from you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack you know you've been following Wildhartlivie around. You showed up at many articles and conversations that you could have only gone to at the same time as WHL by using her contributions. The behaviors of Jack at

WP:ACTOR shows the type of treatment he gives. He knows exactly what buttons to push on WHL to get her to respond in kind, and unfortunately she takes the bait way too often. Articles he showed up at are Cher, Charles Karel Bouley, Kate Winslet and the list goes on. He also goes to user talk pages where WHL is having a conversation with an editor like for instant User talk:Logical Fuzz and User talk:My account now (this one was proven to be a sock like she said it was.). These are just a few examples of Jack showing up to tell WHL whatever. There are a lot more of these but I feel this is enough of a sample to show that there is a problem that needs to be stopped. Thanks for taking the time to look, --CrohnieGal^Talk

14:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: User WHL has a long history of reverting any changes she disagrees with as being 'against consensus'. This seems to be a clear case where there is no consensus to support her proposed change to color table headings (other than the usual suspects MikeAllen and CrohnieGal -strange that she accuses Jack of having a cabal or a cohort when these two seem to pop up in support of every controversial change she makes), yet she refuses to follow her own guidelines and leave well alone. Not only that, but to accuse a user of wikistalking her when in fact she is the one who is putting incivil and downright rude remarks about him on third-party editors' talk pages is utterly hypocritical. Suggest user WHL takes a long look at her own behaviour before drawing other editors to AN/I Little Professor (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Terima kasih, which is

bahasa Indonesia for thank you. Cheers, Jack Merridew

20:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Professor, you have your agenda for showing up and commenting here. I can substantiate that too. Removing embedded notes, which you were told to stop ring a bell? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I do remember you taking

ownership on several pages, using hidden embedded notes such as this to enforce your 'correct' version of the article and claiming consensus backs your view, when in fact the evidence would appear to the contrary. You have a history of ignoring other comments about your ownership issues, taking them as personal attacks rather than constructive feedback about your behaviour. It's perfectly appropriate for me to comment on this issue when it turns up on AN/I again, that's hardly 'having an agenda'. For the record, I couldn't give two hoots whether the first line of a table is grey or blue, which is why I haven't commented on the RFC or the Village Pump proposal. The issue is your pattern of behaviour in attacking another editor for violating your ownership of pages, and the tenuous/false claims of consensus to back your personal opinion, which several other editors have commented upon. Little Professor (talk

) 07:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Professor, you would have been a lot better off actually bothering to hunt the diffs you think you need to slam me. Your diff "proofs" are all wet. The use of embedded notes like this one have frigging nothing to do with ownership, they are used to help maintain a standard. Meryl Streep's article frequently gets hit by someone returning "Academy Award-winning", that's not kosher per the MOS. Your "proof" for that is not in accordance with NPOV or the MOS nor is it standard accepted practice. This in fact did contain a personal attack and a suggestion that I leave Wikipedia. In fact, you have a strong history of inappropriate editing and reverts. Inappropriately reverting a talk page post as vandalism and "gayness". Removing talk page posts and referring to them as "rants" [68] and removing 3RR warnings with "uncivil"[69]. Then there are the reverts were you just lulz [70] after being approached for leaving a template for improper use of the minor check mark that automatically appears when using rollback, even when the post specifically points you to the page that confirmed that. Then we have your total misinterpretation of posts that allegedly confirm things that other editors have said. None of this covers ownership or claims of false consensus. I believe Crohnie is right, you don't have a firm grasp on what is going on. Your agenda stems from being overruled by an administrator when you tried to remove embedded notes from articles and the bad faith claim of ownership you tried to use. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack, with the seemingly dislike you have for all of us at

WP:ACTOR, why did you sign up for it? --CrohnieGal^Talk

14:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment @ Little Professor, have you even looked at what this is about? I don't pop up at every situation and I also don't always agree with WHL. I tell her when I do not agree via email so that what I say can't be turned around and used against her. What you are saying above doesn't fit the situation at all. There was a consensus at WT:ACTOR for the template with the color at least the way I understood it. The discussion was ongoing when Jack took it upon himself to start deleting the color from the template and was told to stop doing it by an administrator. (dif upon request but I believe it is at Jack's talk page or the template page, I'd have to look). You are coming to aid a friend, good for you. I do not deny I am friends with WHL and never have. It is recorded in the history of my contributions. That being said, I don't come to a situation without looking into the what is going on and getting the facts straight. Unfortunately it doesn't look like you took the time to do that which is an important step to take. Sorry, but you are wrong about this and I gave some difs. I can get more if needed upon request. I am done for today but I just couldn't let that comment of your's stand unchallenged. Have a good night. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"You are coming to aid a friend" - to my knowledge I have never had any kind of interaction with Jack Merridew before. I'd appreciate it if you would either substantiate or withdraw that remark. Little Professor (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And I would greatly appreciate if you would withdraw your unseemly arbitrary comment of, "other than the usual suspects MikeAllen [...]". Thank you. Mike Allen 01:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Professor is absolutely correct. Just about every one of the many disputes WHL ends up in can be traced back to her habit of claiming ownership over articles, reverting edits she doesn't like as "against consensus", and being rude to the editors who made the edits.—Chowbok ☠ 17:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The original RfC was quite a mess, sprawling over multiple subjects. It also raised project-wide considerations at a local level. At
  WP:VPP, there is currently a proposal for a specific, targeted discussion on table top colors with a wider audience, and I imagine that conducting such is the only way to resolve this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)
  14:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl is probably right about that, but I don't think this current noticeboard cycle is about the color of the templates. JM seems resentful of WHL's efforts on actors/film articles. He seems to pick issues just to get a predictable response out of WHL. WHL then sees the issue as an attack on her and the article. And then JM comes back with a provocative edit like reverting the color in the templates. This is disruptive behavior. It seems like JM is just challenging WHL's dominance on these articles. I can understand why she might be looking at every thing he does now as an attack. I think JM is a good editor, but right now the issues are clouding his judgement. And it's come to the point where there's overreaction on both sides. JM, my advice is just drop the color issue and start finding common ground with WHL. She's really very easy to get along with, and you'll find you both have a lot more in common than you realize.

Malke2010

14:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. Robofish (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As a note, I am working up a list of diffs to offer proof for wikistalking. That will be posted in a bit after I've assembled it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am working on assembling diffs regarding his wikistalking. It is a lot more involved and detailed than even I recall. I will finish it tomorrow and post it here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have assembled some diffs that support my contention that Jack Merridew wikistalks me. I think it is better link than posted here as it will overwhelm this page. I might note that the page itself was nominated for deletion in less than 24 hours after I began assembling evidence by Chowbok, who also has a bad habit of following me around, but tacks on the overt action of posting on talk pages overt personal attacks about it. The link to the evidence I've assembled so far is at User:Wildhartlivie/Stuff. The deletion page, which has overall support to keep for this issue is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wildhartlivie/Stuff which also has some support for my contention that Chowbok, who nominated it for deletion, who incidentally is the only one saying delete, has a personal vendetta against me. As for the diffs I've assembled, they cover in most part and especially on the articles, about a six week period. There are still 3 months worth of diffs that I haven't gotten assembled yet, but they basically reflect the identical stalking, harassment and attempts to intimidate. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits not with consensus

I do want to note right now that Jack Merridew keeps reverting the filmography at Scarlett Johansson from using the template that DOES have consensus for use, to a sortable table, saying the "color" doesn't have consensus. In fact, however, the template does have it. I put the templates back in tonight and within two minutes he reverted with no explanation. He has done this repeatedly to this article. The template has consensus for use and this is quite typical of Jack's conduct toward me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack changes the template to what he believes is consensus, and he's "jumping the gun", but you change an article to what you think is consensus, and that's okay? I believe, it would be best if any of these types of edits were withheld until after the discussion is concluded. That way, we'll hopefully avoid any further edit warring or disputes or personal attacks or any such things.  Chickenmonkey  08:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, JackMerridew should not be changing anything right now. And WHL is correct, the consensus is there to keep it. What JackMerridew perceives to be consensus seems to be the problem here. And I was not aware that JackMerridew has been previously banned for wikistalking. Administrators should take note of this previous behavior. Any editor here who feels they are currently, or have been recently, stalked by JackMerridew, please post diffs for Admins to see.

Malke2010

14:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, for clarity, the table was not employing the template until Wildhartlivie added it, while the discussion is still going on. Hopefully, after the page is unprotected (if that occurs before this discussion ends), it will be left, as is, until the discussion ends. There's no deadline for Wikipedia and there's no reason to make such an edit that will clearly be challenged and result in a needless edit war. It just makes sense: nobody should add the template anywhere during discussion and nobody should remove the template anywhere during discussion. That way, hopefully, personal attacks and some wikistress can be avoided.  Chickenmonkey  19:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Um no. Jack knows full well that there is consensus for the use of that template. Also, he is the one who first added the template [71]. Then a couple weeks later, he goes on his "make tables sortable" tear here. I objected then, [72]. Jack proceeded to revert each time the template was returned, at one point calling me a disruptive editor and saying don't be disruptive. His buddy Chowbok jumped in to revert someone else here, in support of Jack, something he often does. There is no consensus for use of a sortable table and to remove the template. Jack knows that. And remembering the non-consensus supported "Tables by Jack" only came up because I was asked above to prove that he wikistalks me. That he reverted my edit within 30 minutes is even more indication of stalking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this issue, on that article, occurred already is further reason to avoid making that edit until after the discussion has ended. Also, honestly, I saw the edit, too, and I was going to revert it in favor of waiting for the discussion to end (just as was done when Jack edited the template).  Chickenmonkey  01:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack didn't say he changed it because of a consensus. Please go read what he said. Then Chowbok who's not been in on any of the discussion that I'm aware of changed it back to what Jack wanted because Jack wanted it. Their only reasons are that the sortable is better which is their POV. It doens't matter the article has been protected to their version so they should be happy. As for me, I don't understand why I should have to discuss my reasoning and they can just go and do whatever they want to without waiting for a consensus. It makes no sense to me thus I'm done for now. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This was a staged provocation by WHL. The filmography for Scarlett Johansson has been sortable for more than a month and she chose this moment to edit war over it. It's been discussed at

16:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refactor your personal attack. There are editors who agree with WHL just as there appears to be an editor agreeing with you which got the article protected. We are not club members. We are members of a wiki-project that you are also a member of. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

JM, I shouldn't have to point out to you that it's trivial to make the template version sortable (I just did it there and it took me three seconds). Disliking the colour is all well and good, but let's not go misleading people as to what this debate is over. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that will need to be reverted ASAP, I believe. Most of the filmography tables use rowspans on the years and the sorting goes quite amok on those. I suppose it could be made optional somehow, like it seems you've done with the colour, and that could be useful. Making the colour and option is interesting, but we'll need agreement on the usage of that... Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And it was all reverted out, both on non-consensus grounds and that it broke stuff. I'll check back later. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, Dude, you've created

Malke2010

23:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it began about 9 months before I ever edited any of this stuff. You prolly need to read the

WP:RANDY. Jack Merridew

03:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Which was the same basic malarkey that Jack spouted a long time ago when I asked him to explain what didn't work with the header being used. He told me essentially that I was too stupid to understand it, yet he explained it to a man. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Valkyrie Red (talk · contribs)

I've just reblocked the above user for continued violations of

that appears to be about me (without him having notified me).

I affirm that my block was issued in good faith and in ignorance of his claims against me, but as he started action against me, I request a community review of the block, as leaving it standing unreviewed under these circumstances would not be proper. Thanks. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see more diffs supporting the month-long block. I'm entirely willing to assume your good faith here, but reading the past couple of days worth of diffs, I'm not seeing grounds for a one-month block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Compiling... Note that the length is due to repeated previous blocks for the same offenses. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm involved at the dispute at

) 16:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Diffs:

• Opening a new battleground straight off his previous 2-week block for similar offenses.
  WP:ABF
  on the rest of the editors
• [73] Another battleground at Talk:Kesha
• disruptive removal of several other users' comments
• [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] Hostile and antagonizing replies to reasonable objections
• [79] [80] [81] (after one of the contributors previously roughly agreeing with him moved to a compromise) [82] Inappropriate canvassing and further violations of
  WP:BATTLE
• PA on one of the editors in the opposing camp, the final straw.

While none of these taken individually may appear particularly damning, this is a long-standing pattern of disruption.

If you go back to his contrib history beyond his previous block, you will notice that this user always uses similar tactics: picking up a (seemingly) minor issue on which there was a previously standing consensus, aggressively arguing while

canvassing

others with biased statements, refusal to hear or acknowledge arguments, misstating other editor's positions, claiming consensus where there is none, but beyond that, every single time, it's not about doing what's good for whatever article he's fighting on, it's about winning. When he doesn't get his way, he eventually resorts to PAs.

After a block expires he moves on to other articles and resumes the same style of disruption with other editors. As there is a consistent refusal to get the point, a month-long block after multiple previous blocks for similar reasons appeared appropriate (and in-line with a prior warning, see lower part of his talk page here if you still have the patience). MLauba ^(Talk) 17:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That last link was the most-useful one, actually. I'd recommend letting someone else block next time, but I think this one was indeed justifiable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Still doesn't see that it's his problem. The points he brings up aren't all that outrageous, but it's his continued aggressive behavior and his

seeking of arguments that's really getting old and disruptive. I'm going to mark the Wikiquette alert as resolved now. Netalarm^talk

18:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

With the additional diffs I'm less surprised by this block, but I have to say that I see other editors getting away with this kind of behavior all the time. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to contribute an additional complication. A glance at the user's talk archive history and a more careful look at the user's talk history will show a pruning of warn notices, blocks and comments related to controversy. While I'm all for users managing their own talk space as they see fit, the actions here demonstrate a clear intent to mislead. Because of the continual gaming the system, I've exhausted good faith with this user and have ignored him as best as possible. I am surprised it took this long before the block length was extended to a month (5 previous blocks). Other users might be annoying, but that truth doesn't excuse this user's long history of disruptive behavior. I'd be hard pressed to find diffs where this user made positive contributions of any variety. Based on history, this user has demonstrated he or she is here for some reason other than creating an encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a slow edit war on Talk:Barack Obama based on an an anonymous user's comments (my reversion re-including them) being repeatedly removed by talk-page regulars who saw the comments as a form of trolling or disruption. However, I disagreed, and actually replied to the user pointing out that he did have a point where Obama's statement contradict the article, reality, and/or both. The discussion is currently live at Talk:Barack Obama#Proposal to update FAQ1, but there's still a dispute on whether the comments should be removed or kept; I believe they should be kept, as they do not violate any of our rules and they're actually productive (if a little incivil); however, other users don't think so. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an obvious and clear case of disruption by the anon ip.(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) And that is not even all the mass postings by the anon ip. The ip was blocked, and just ip hopped over and over. The talk page was protected, the disruptive portion of the posts removed, but the editor who started this thread reverted two other regular editors to re-include the uncivil attacks and disruptive posts.

talk

) 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP was severely bitten by DD2K and others. He had a legitimate point and I can understand his frustration.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling question 1's answer "a lie" is not really the ideal way to discuss the subject rationally. And I'd like to know where he gets the notion that a 4th grader knows what kind of school he's in. I barely remember anything from 4th grade, and I do have a good memory. The real problem, though, is that this is just another trolling attempt to "prove" that Obama is a Muslim, and that is what probably accounts for most of the IP's general demeanor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You can honestly say you don't remember what SCHOOL you attended in 4th grade? You really think any reasonable person is going to buy that? Please... Remembering specific curriculum is one thing, remembering where you attended is completely different. I remember perfectly well that in 4th grade I was attending a parochial lutheran grade school. By golly I even remember my teachers name. *rollseyes*

I do remember the school's name, and where it was in relation to my parents' house, as we walked to and from. I knew its name but was not cognizant of it being a public school, it was just "school". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP was engaged by Sceptre and William S. Saturn, and settled down somewhat (full disclosure, I blocked one of the editor's IPs, who had adopted an aggressive attitude from the beginning of his edits, declaring Q1 of the FAQ to be, variously, BS and "lies" and editors to be "lefties."). Since there was a productive discussion going on despite the name-calling, I declined to block further IP incarnations or to protect the page. I don't think the rationale for removal of the IP's comments is particularly valuable. The comments are peevish, but repeated removal makes it all hard to follow and seems to me to have lost its point. The reverts are now between established editors and seem to me to be a waste of time. The page has since been protected. Let the comments stand. Acroterion _(talk) 22:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the real problem now is User:The Chicken costs $1 who is trolling the talk page and filing bogus reports at AIV.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP edits themselves are clearly inappropriate for any of a number of reasons, not the least of which are

WP:DENY. The editor was advancing the fringe theory about Obama being Muslim, while accusing Wikipedia and its editors of being a liberal conspiracy - sound familiar? It is within the reasonable discretion of editors on the page to remove threads of this ilk, particularly after the anon was blocked and the page semi-protected to prevent them from making good on their threat to continue IP socking. Whether they should have been removed is a different question, one that is up to the editors there to decide. Generally the preference except in obvious cases of vandalism, bad faith, copyvio, etc., has been to leave a polite response that assumes good faith and responds to anything worth addressing, on the first go round at least, and then quickly archive the matter. Edit warring, on the other hand is bad. Bad, bad, bad. I note that the usually calm and wise administrator Nihonjoe has joined the fray, edit warring to restore The Chicken is $1's thread and issuing a block threat over it,[83]. If we're going to deny trolls their due, then as experienced productive editors we should not let ourselves be ruffled. The IP troll was simply being disruptive, but in the process raised one aspect to a fringe theory that the FAQ did not currently address. Dollar-chicken raises a seemingly earnest reliable source question that we can certainly deal with in a matter-of-fact way. Even if he were trolling, there's no reason to take the bait. - Wikidemon (talk

)

The only thing I did was restore comments removed and refactored by William S. Saturn. The comments weren't trolling, and should not have been removed. He removed them, at least in part, because some misapplied {{

Join WikiProject Japan

! 03:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I assumed you were on top of this based on your donning the administrators' mantle immediately below a notice that the matter had been referred to AN/I.[84] Please forgive me if I assumed too much. I considered a template to you, the IP editor, et al, but demurred in light of

WP:BRD to restore a disputed comment. But you said in your edit summary, "do not remove other's comments", a position that if interpreted broadly has been rejected for good reason on the Obama talk page. Inasmuch as there was no clear consensus, much less behavioral policy, backing up that edit, your doing it again and then threatening a block your new edit warring opponent over the matter, seems to be beyond the role of an administrator. I haven't followed all the side discussions on your talk page about the wikiformat mix-up, but whatever was going on a more cordial discussion among the established editors outside of the range of any IP SPAs would set things straight much faster than block threats and AN/I reports. - Wikidemon (talk

) 04:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that fact that William S. Saturn came in with guns blazing rather than asking me why I had restored the comments, or explaining that they had been hiding the discussion below the section, I'm not sure how a confrontation could have been avoided. He immediately accused me of impropriety and demanded that I apologize to him. The ONLY thing I did was restore the comments (twice), fix the template issue, and let him know that continuing to remove the other editor's comments would be considered disruptive and would result in being blocked. The comments were not obvious trolling and should not have been removed. Period. There is no obvious connection between The Chicken is $1 and the obviously-trolling IP, so there was no reason to remove The Chicken is $1's edits. Whether The Chicken is $1 is a sock or not is a discussion for another time and place as there is no evidence of that here. There is very clear consensus to not remove edits which are not blatantly trolling or an attack of some sort, and there is very clear consensus regarding blocking those who persist in removing other's comments when they are not obviously trolling or making an attack. ···

Join WikiProject Japan

! 04:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that 99%. WSS should not have removed the comments or come in with guns blazing. Plus I did miss some of the sideline talks. WSS did make the connection between the IP and the $1 chicken, as simultaneous problems on the page. I think the Obama page people could use a little more discipline and order in dealing with the occasional glitch on the talk page, so my only issue is that the revert / block threat seemed hasty. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it may have been a little bit hasty, though it wasn't issued until the second time. I specifically didn't do it on the first time. I do agree about the Obama page people in generally. People tend to get way too worked up on that page (you should have seen the fun surrounding the Obama disambiguation page a couple years ago!). ···

Join WikiProject Japan

! 04:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have some experience getting worked up, so when I urge people not to do so, it's a "please don't do what I did" kind of thing. If WSS is reading this, can we agree to call it a day? We can work this out back on the talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree to call it a day on this issue.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

break

anyone care to take a swing at dealing with the below? It's a block-evading IP hopper so I don't think there's any point engaging. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There you go touting you're "fringe theory" nonsense again. The answer to Q1 states:"Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6-10"; nevertheless HIS BOOK SAYS HE DID. Exactly where is the fringe theory?? And WHERE was I accusing Obama of CURRENTLY being a Muslim? When you incessantly delete posts without even verifying that the information IS INDEED ACCURATE, how would you expect me not to call you a lefty loony? They're the only ones refusing to admit Obama's past. So yes, I posted it over and over again until someone else less biased than you saw it and said - "Hey, the guy's got a point..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.235.176 (talk • contribs)

Not worth a response. Exhibit C for why this discussion should remain on the Obama talk page - IP socking. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh boo hoo. You have no response. Quit throwing little child like temper tantrums and deleting information that you "don't like", and you won't have these issues. You can't adequately rebuttal the information provided, so you resort to deletion and whining to admins. Sally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.21.199.144 (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What does the South Atlantic League have to do with this discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Been having some trouble with a trolling IP for a few weeks now who was clearly a sock of somebody. Finally got aggravated enough to to open an SPI earlier today.

) 16:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There are at least two members of arbcom who I gave my IP numbers (they change from time to time) and who saw no reason to intervene. Anyone who looks at my edit history will see I did nothing that was not useful to WP. Bali ultimate's complaints are base on problems he caused himself, and have nothing to do with my contributions. Ciao. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed block evasion. Thanks. Would love to know the names of the arbcom members who are enabling you though, Malcolm, before you go. Care to share?

talk

) 16:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Little more info. Here's the indef/ban discussion for Malcolm [86] which also says that Malcolm was, in turn, a sock of indef-blocked

talk

) 17:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not ask at the arbcom noticeboard? There is nothing unusual in my editing. Many blocked users make useful contributions, and as I have said there is nothing in my IP edit history that has not been useful to WP. Bali ultimate's only basis for complaint about me is that I got in the way of his editing goals. Bella ciao, I must go and have other things to do. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Any reason a block should not be forthcoming? ClovisPt (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Block means block, yes this too should be blocked and the edits reverted per policy. If the editor wants to return, do it the right way and go to your account, put up the template and state your case. Why block or ban an editor if they only come back reincarnated as IP's or another account? This is not acceptable. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

TnXman blocked the IP for a week; however since it is so obviously a block evading sock and has been since at least the middle of April, on the basis that it's static I've extended the block to a year. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Only for background from a month back: User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive17#Malcolm_Schosha. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

212.44.42.66 keeps vandalising

) 12:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds as if

WP:AIV would be the place for this? David Biddulph (talk

) 12:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ya, incidents like this go to AIV, but there's only one recent warning (and 3 incidents of recent vandalism). I'd suggest issuing more warnings before you report this. Netalarm^talk 12:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c x 2)

Bencherlite^Talk

12:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

When an IP has a history of blocks (I see four previous blocks [87], escalating from a few hours up to three months), and where vandalism resumes shortly after each preceding block has expired, there's no need to issue additional warnings. This is not someone who has made an innocent mistake or who might be confused about what the effects and consequences of his actions might be. AGF, as they say, is not a suicide pact. Just reblock (as you've now done). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone either block these IPs or initiate a rangeblock if appropriate? A few anon IPs from India keep spamming their website all over the wiki, wiping out inline references and external links in the process [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95]. I put a request in at the spam blacklist but there is a huge backlog going to May 25. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, looks like someone at the blacklist page is taking care of it after all. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: The same IP range, plus some throwaway accounts, are now spamming another URL, perhaps a mirror of the same domain. [96], [97]. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The articles have been protected, so it shouldn't be a problem now. Netalarm^talk 21:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? MER-C 05:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted and semi-protected it, MER-C. Sarah 05:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've also reverted and semi-protected

Kalasalingam University and Tipper Gore and blocked the latest IP. We really need to get these links onto the blacklist as they're obviously not going to stop of their own volition. Sarah

04:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. This guy indeed spams a lot of articles... Netalarm^talk 06:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. Add the following to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist (copy and paste):

\bkhatana\.net\b
\bnitcc\.co\.in\b

(Don't ask about an RFA nom, I have exams.) MER-C 05:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Added. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• 19:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC):
  John made this edit
  .
• 19:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC):
  Nev1 accused John of "puerile heckling" in this edit
  .
• Discussion ensued on User talk:Nev1#.22Puerile_Heckling.22.

  —

01:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the noticeboard for things which require immediate administrative attention, not the noticeboard to alert everyone that two editors got into a silly little fight over nothing. Incidentally, {{

UV article twice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk

11:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Storm reached rim of teacup around 01:05, 9 June 2010.
  talk
  ) 00:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In this discussion [98],

) 21:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, how would I Pakapshem know your name? I am intervening because I was involved in that discussion. Unless you disclosed it voluntarily how would he have known it? Please do not try to describe the "bad" character of user:I Pakapshem who just came back from his ban (which he respected in full), as many of us have a dirty biography here in Wikipedia per Arbmac decisions. You yourself, between User:Athenean and the prior userid (my understanding is that both belong to you), are full of blocks, so please don't make a point as far as User:I Pakapshem experience and enjoyment with Wikipedia has been. Can you state that you have NEVER made a mention to that name yourself? --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

First I am not going to confirm whether it is my real name or not, but I'll be damned if I know how he thinks that is my real name. For the record, I have never ever revealed my name in wikipedia! You coming here and suggesting it is somehow my fault is an outrageous attempt to blame the victim. I KNEW you would come here and try to disrupt my posting with something inane, but this too much even for you. I also ask that you remove my old username immediately, as I changed it precisely for privacy reasons.

talk

) 22:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(after editconflict) Ok, I removed it, didn't know about your choice, my apologies, but it still appears in your very first edit. [104]. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 22:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Athenean's previous nickname was <removed> and that's where I derived <name> from. Nonetheless I didn't know it was againts the rules to use what I assume is somebody's real name. In no way did I brazenly try to out Athenean. I haven't been editing for six months but during those months Athenean got many blocks and restrictions so saying that I'm disruptive when he was threatening and making personal attacks like "Your disgust me" or "Your behaviour disgusts me" just a couple of weeks ago [105] shows that the one causing disruption is him and not me. Once again, I did not know that this was against the rules. --I Pakapshem (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I Pakapshem, can you make the link between what you said and what the prior userid was, so that an ignorant person like me, who continuously receives insults from user:Athenean, or the average Joe, can understand how they can be related?--_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 22:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

He clearly doesn't want his personal data revealed so I won't reveal it. Once again I didn't know that he was against that because this is public information, but now that I know it I won't repeat it. --I Pakapshem (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to reveal a diff, but can you confirm that it has come out from his own writings? --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 22:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I have removed the "outed" name from both this page (a lot of revisions needed to have their visibility restricted) plus on the talk page. I have not forwarded a request to CU, as it may be necessary for admins to be able to see the name depending on where this discussion goes. Athenean, when this issue is resolved, if you want the name permanently removed from the histories of both this page and your talk page, contact a CheckUser - at the moment, only admins can see it. I am making no comment on this issue.-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the redaction Phantomsteve, however there is still the matter of I Pakapshem's sanction. I do not for a second believe him when he says he "didn't know". He has been active for well over a year now, and he knows full well he is not supposed to do that. It was completely uncalled for, and a clear attempt to rattle me. Also disturbing is how Salmues is fishing for how Pakapshem deduced my name from my old ID. It's as if he is trying to figure out who I am.

talk

) 00:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't care who you are Athenean, I was trying to understand how I Pakapshem would be able to find your name if you didn't disclose it yourself. In fact if you had disclosed it yourself, I Pakapshem would not be sanctionable, and you are just harassing him, disrupting his enjoyment of Wikipedia, and preventing him from making his contributions through this report. To me those names had no relation whatsoever. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 03:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Even if I had accidentally revealed it, that doesn't give him ANY right to use it. In fact, it's all the more reason for him not to reveal it. Where does it say that it's OK to out people if they have accidentally revealed their real name? I'm really starting to wonder here.

talk

) 03:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

@Sulmues: It would be wise to respect this case without creating a mess. It seems that this childish play of disruption is repeating again and again here. If you have nothing to say please say nothing (not speculations and guesses)!Alexikoua (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it seems Pakapshem has already launched wp:npa's vios, characteristically he claims: I haven't been editing for six months but during those months Athenean got many blocks and restrictions As I see Athenean didn't receive a single block the last year.Alexikoua (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

[106] that's a block and an unblock when he agreed to be careful, so why are you saying that he wasn't blocked? I don't know how I Pakapshem found out about Athenean's name(if that is indeed his real name) but I have couple of questions. I Pakapshem claims that he found it because of Athenean's first username, so my question towards Athenean is this:Does your previous username lead to personal details about you found on the net?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My previous username is none of your business. STOP grousing around about it. It doesn't matter HOW I Pakapshem thinks he may have found out my real name, HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY RIGHT TO USE IT IN PUBLIC WHATSOEVER. He did it casually, and knows full well it is unacceptable. And if you ask about any of my names again, I will report you as well. Clear?

talk

) 16:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand the situation and I didn't ask you for any personal information. It's extremely hard to find someone's personal information online unless they themselves have added part of them or clues leading to them and that was the purpose of my question. I Pakapshem claims that he didn't know

he shouldn't do it and his comment wasn't associated with your personal information so why not agf it?. Btw about a month ago someone posted personal info of another user and I contacted an ARBCOM member to delete it but he told me that because the user himself had posted info that lead to his personal data it was considered public content, thus the user who posted his personal info wasn't responsible for anything.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The situation is none of your business, and your lawyering is tedious. Your questions seem directed at trying to help people discover my real identity. I have no reason to believe anything you or him say, and I have certainly never revealed anything to anyone, so for the last time, stop. If you comment on my old username again, I will ask that you be sanctioned. This is getting real annoying.

talk

) 16:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:I_Pakapshem

It's more than obvious that the specific user was editting 'unlogged' (ip) during his six months block.

This edit: [[107]] (on 30 Sept.) was I_Pakapshem's (as he admits in the msg), while he edited in my talkpage evading a block he received that time. Because of this, his blocking period was extented [[108]] (30 September 2009 Moreschi (talk | contribs) changed block settings for I Pakapshem (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation blocked) ‎ (block evasion)). No wonder the same ip address made a number of edits during this 6 months block period [[109]](Greek-Albanian topics included [[110]]). I'm sure that he made additional edits in the same ip range. But this only is enough to to prove that he did NOT respect his block.Alexikoua (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If he made two edits(that updated the article and were useful and not disruptive) a couple of months ago you bringing this now in ANI is meaningless and you being so sure that he made additional edits without a single dif to prove it is a personal attack so you shouldn't make such statements. It also seems that you don't understand the purpose of the block. Admins block users to prevent disruption to the project not to punish them, so your report of an edit that was made 2-3 months ago(and doesn't seem to be disruptive) is meaningless.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a block evasion while he PRETENDS that he respected his block. Thank you for agreeing that he evaded his block. Moreover, reporting block evasion isn't personal attack. Most important blocked user do not make ANY edit in any page (apart from their talkpage), else it's against the rules of this community.Alexikoua (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua now realistically you are the one who is trying to out someone and that someone is me. This edit that I made is of value and it's only one edit done two months ago. My block has expired for three days now and you're trying to get me in trouble for something that happened two months ago. As Zjarri said, admins block to prevent violations and not for previous mistakes that weren't even disruptive. To me this seems to be a clear case of personal attack and assumption of bad faith. --I Pakapshem (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• PolskiNarodowiec1985 (talk · contribs) (notified of this thread)

This nationalist/racist rant and the all non-constructive contributions should suffice for an indef block/ban, ex ovis pravis non bona venit avis. Note that the rant was posted after they had received a whole bunch of warnings already on their talk page. The account has been quiet for four days now, but the ability to return should be disabled given that mindset and record. The subsequent IP edit is also of concern:

• 24.21.40.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

That Vancouver IP deleted a comment made in 2006 (!) as racist, accusing the editor of being an asshole and the like. Whether or not the IP is right in deleting the 2006 comment, they deserve at least a stern warning for the language used, and it should be checked if it was not the above user editing while logged out (quack quack). Skäpperöd (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The comment that the IP deleted is the following one: Polish chauvinists need to lighten up. Changing the name of a wiki page would not boost polish per capita GDP, which is (surprisingly to the Poles) much lower than Germany's, not to mention other Germanic nations like Switzerland. It's sad that the once glory of Danzig is gone and now it's slowing being transformed into a slavic city. The civilised world now treats Danzig as a lost city like Athens and Constantinpole. The city is still there but it will never be the same. In my opinion such comments are not acceptable and the IP was correct to delete it.  Dr. Loosmark  17:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The comment from four years ago was hardly worthy making a fuss about though. I've warned PolskiNarodowiec1985 for their attacks and NPOV violations; if the reappear and continue more of the same, let me know and I will block them. I have also warned the IP who reported this for making personal attacks. Fences&Windows 17:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Risker has blocked User:Xtzou as a sock of a blocked account. This is a problem for me as Xtzou was my GA Reviewer. Since he has been blocked as a sock, does that void my GA article's review? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is any reason to believe that the review was not carried out properly then to do so would seem needlessly wasteful. A quick look at their history shows that they were involved in a lot of GA reviews and I couldn't see anyone questioning Xtzou's ability to review. Which article are you referring to? Someoneanother 02:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

More an issue for

WP:GAN for another reviewer to take it up. As an aside, I'm slightly curious as to which block was being evaded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

02:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I took it to

WT:GA per Risker's request. He also said since it is complete, it isn't a worry. I was just worried that since he was the reviewer that would null and void the review and the GA. I will leave the post at WT:GA up just in case anyone else wants to comment. Thanks HJ. This can be marked resolved if you wish. - NeutralHomer • Talk

• 02:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I demand request to see some evidence. Xtzou was probably the best GA reviewer we had. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Answered on User talk:Risker. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Curious as to who they are supposed to be a sock of, as I'm not seeing any template on their user page. Technically, the GA review should be CSD under G5, and the review reset to allow a legitimate reviewer redo it (so basically would revert back to being a nomination). However, in my various experiences with socks, whether something they created and done is reverted/deleted seems fairly dependent on who the socker is. Personally, I'd want the GA reset myself, just to avoid the question of whether it was done correctly. At min, you may want to ask another valid GA reviewer to just check over, make sure the GA review was done correctly, and to basically "take ownership" of it to validate the result. --
  talk · contribs
  ) 04:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • They are confirmed to be a sock of
    Join WikiProject Japan
    ! 04:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • For the record, unless someone finds a serious flaw in one of the GA reviews, I would not be inclined to alter or redo any of the assessments. I did take a look at some of the reviews and articles whilst reviewing the situation, and I did not see any inappropriately lenient or stringent GA reviews; they all appeared to be reflective of the quality of the article. Risker (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I concur with Risker's assessment. No need to redo the GA review. ···
      Join WikiProject Japan
      ! 06:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

An extremely misleading National Review Online blog post has publicised Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect‎, which I started yesterday. I fully expect that this will have some disruptive effects on the AfD; it would be helpful if people could keep an eye on it to keep any mischief under control. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be worth semi-protection of the AfD to prevent disruption? Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look as if there's been a whole lot of actual disruption yet, so that seems premature. The "not a vote" banner has been added already, and AfD admins are generally pretty good about handling AfDs that have had outside traffic driven to them in this way. If we get a lot of vandalism from new accounts and IPs, we can semi it then. Shimeru 09:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

i've had the complete opposite experience.--

Crossmr (talk

) 10:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That blog post has been up for well over 24 hours now. Looks like the good readers of NRO are not terribly disruptive. Good to watch it, though. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

See [111] where he makes a clear attempt to make it seem like Christian1985 is making a threat. Instead, I suggest that the IP has gone far beyond the pale in this ongoing harassment, and should be blocked - that sort of edit (clearly from one of the IPs who have harassed him in the past) ought to be sternly trampled upon. Collect (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted and blocked. I've dealt with this vandatroll before, and will smite any further reincarnations brought to my attention. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Risker has blocked User:Xtzou as a sock of a blocked account. This is a problem for me as Xtzou was my GA Reviewer. Since he has been blocked as a sock, does that void my GA article's review? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is any reason to believe that the review was not carried out properly then to do so would seem needlessly wasteful. A quick look at their history shows that they were involved in a lot of GA reviews and I couldn't see anyone questioning Xtzou's ability to review. Which article are you referring to? Someoneanother 02:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

More an issue for

WP:GAN for another reviewer to take it up. As an aside, I'm slightly curious as to which block was being evaded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

02:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I took it to

WT:GA per Risker's request. He also said since it is complete, it isn't a worry. I was just worried that since he was the reviewer that would null and void the review and the GA. I will leave the post at WT:GA up just in case anyone else wants to comment. Thanks HJ. This can be marked resolved if you wish. - NeutralHomer • Talk

• 02:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I demand request to see some evidence. Xtzou was probably the best GA reviewer we had. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Answered on User talk:Risker. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Curious as to who they are supposed to be a sock of, as I'm not seeing any template on their user page. Technically, the GA review should be CSD under G5, and the review reset to allow a legitimate reviewer redo it (so basically would revert back to being a nomination). However, in my various experiences with socks, whether something they created and done is reverted/deleted seems fairly dependent on who the socker is. Personally, I'd want the GA reset myself, just to avoid the question of whether it was done correctly. At min, you may want to ask another valid GA reviewer to just check over, make sure the GA review was done correctly, and to basically "take ownership" of it to validate the result. --
  talk · contribs
  ) 04:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • They are confirmed to be a sock of
    Join WikiProject Japan
    ! 04:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • For the record, unless someone finds a serious flaw in one of the GA reviews, I would not be inclined to alter or redo any of the assessments. I did take a look at some of the reviews and articles whilst reviewing the situation, and I did not see any inappropriately lenient or stringent GA reviews; they all appeared to be reflective of the quality of the article. Risker (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I concur with Risker's assessment. No need to redo the GA review. ···
      Join WikiProject Japan
      ! 06:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

An extremely misleading National Review Online blog post has publicised Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect‎, which I started yesterday. I fully expect that this will have some disruptive effects on the AfD; it would be helpful if people could keep an eye on it to keep any mischief under control. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be worth semi-protection of the AfD to prevent disruption? Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look as if there's been a whole lot of actual disruption yet, so that seems premature. The "not a vote" banner has been added already, and AfD admins are generally pretty good about handling AfDs that have had outside traffic driven to them in this way. If we get a lot of vandalism from new accounts and IPs, we can semi it then. Shimeru 09:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

i've had the complete opposite experience.--

Crossmr (talk

) 10:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That blog post has been up for well over 24 hours now. Looks like the good readers of NRO are not terribly disruptive. Good to watch it, though. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

See [112] where he makes a clear attempt to make it seem like Christian1985 is making a threat. Instead, I suggest that the IP has gone far beyond the pale in this ongoing harassment, and should be blocked - that sort of edit (clearly from one of the IPs who have harassed him in the past) ought to be sternly trampled upon. Collect (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted and blocked. I've dealt with this vandatroll before, and will smite any further reincarnations brought to my attention. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate if someone could review the recent edits by Ucomarketing (talk · contribs) of University of Huddersfield. It seems fairly obvious this editor works for the university and some of the edits may fall foul of the NPOV policy due to the conflict of interest. The "Uco" in the username, Ucomarketing, probably means University Campus Oldham which is part of the University of Huddersfield, so potentially there is a username policy issue in addition to the NPOV/COI concerns. Whilst I have warned the user about editing this article due to the apparent conflict of interest, I am cautious about getting any further involved due to a relationship I have with the university and so I would very much appreciate attention from someone else here. Thanks. Adambro (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the edits, I'd have to agree. All of their edits to that article have been very promotional in nature and they seem to have a pretty clear

talk · contribs

) 13:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Spam-username blocked. Name and edits show clear promotional intent. JohnCD (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A new user has been reverting long-standing edits on the article

).

Initially, I just thought that this user didn't understand how to edit correctly, but even after repeated civil attempts,^[1][2][3] and a comment on the user's talk page, the user did not stop.

I do not know what to do. Reverting their edits is becoming very tiring, and I don't think they know the conseuquences of their actions. BalticPat22Patrick 19:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

taking a look. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, 1) you are both in violation of the 3 revert rule. So stop reverting. That being said, he is making a number of changes, and while you are correct that blogs are not reliable sources, his changes have included yahoo.com, which IS a reliable source. Finally, the comments on your page were not rude, they are an attempt at him communicating that he is frustrated by your reversions. So, in summary, it looks like this user wanted to contribute something, misunderstood a rule, and you ignored his efforts to communicate with you. Doesn't appear like any action is necessary at this time, but you both need to review your editing styles and communications. ⇒SWATJester

^{Son of the Defender} 20:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, his edits have been reverted by another user. Secondly, I did communicate to him (on his talk page), and he wrote on mine in response to what I wrote to him. Personally, I think my communicaton with the user was more than satisfactory. He just chose not to heed my advice to read the rules of

revert rule that I broke. I do try to avoid that as much as possible. Lastly, I did find his comments rude. He didn't need to use that sort of language, regardless of what he thought. It's uncivil and unwarranted. I've been here long enough to know when someone is being curt, and I didn't appreciate his comments. Thank you for researching this, though and I hope I don't have to be forced to come on here again. BalticPat22

Patrick 02:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

He wrote on your page words to the effect of "You are frustrating me, haha thats a joke. I'll let you edit it then." There's nothing rude or inappropriate about that language, and definitely nothing uncivil about it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize here at AN/I for mischaracterizing User:Verbal as a fool. I intended to do it on yesterday's thread (#Legal threat and general incivility), but it has been auto archived. Verbal is clearly of average intelligence.

Background

I had collapsed a thread, with this as the hat note: "Copied to COI noticeboard." and 10 seconds later, copied it to the COI noticeboard. Ten minutes later User:Verbal undid the collapse with this edit summary: "it wasn't copied there." and this on the talk page:

Please stop trying to collapse this section, especially with a misleading note... Verbal chat 20:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)(red added)

If you take the trouble to follow the above diffs you will see that my hat note was accurate - I had copied the thread to the COI noticeboard - and, ironically, Verbal was doing the misleading with "it wasn't copied there." Now, this is a very mild libel. But it is libel.

libel, n. In popular use: Any false and defamatory statement in conversation or otherwise. Oxford English dictionary.

In saying I collapsed the thread with a misleading hat note Verbal is implying something about me, that I am deceptive. I figured I would call Verbal on this tiny little bit of sleazy, rude, deceptive, disrespectful behavior toward me and, using English, my first language, economically and precisely, challenged him to back up the "misleading" slur with

Misleading. Mmmm. That seems... libelous? rude? ad hom?

PA? How do you mean "misleading" exactly? Anthony (talk

) 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC) (red added)

Rather than justify the slur, Verbal slapped a template on my talk page which said the above

"could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself."

No one but a fool would think the above could be construed as a threat of legal action. No one, but a fool. But a deceptive manipulator might say it. Which Verbal did, on my talk page and at an ANI thread he started about the incident. In the second sentence of Verbal's ANI thread he refers to my words as a "threat", and says he left an "educational warning" on my talk page. This educational warning linked to a page that said

"It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion."

Since my words were not a threat, and no one but a fool would construe them as such, what was I meant to make of this?

The next sentence said

"A perceived legal threat is not an immediately blockable offense. Instead, admins have to seek for clarification of the situation."

This was not done in my case. After 18 minutes "discussion", an admin posted this on my talk page:

"Really, responding to an "accusation" of being misleading with a claim of "libel" is over the top, whether or not you actually intend to take legal action. Dial it down a bit next time, ok?"

This is of course ... unreasonable. An accusation of being misleading (when it is false) is libel. That is the very word for it in English. It is not over the top, it is perfect, apt English expression. And "...whether or not you actually intend to take legal action. Dial it down a bit next time, ok?" was baffling. I was being rebuked but did not know why. So, I asked "What have I done wrong?" Another editor responded with a home-made definition of "libel" and

While there is no legal threat made, per WP:NLT, there is still the implication of an attempt at intimidation.

But WP:NLT only refers to language that could reasonably be interpreted as a legal threat. "Only a fool would interpret my language in that way." I'm sorry. I said it again. But I am explaining my thought processes at the time. Now I was being accused of intimidating someone. Still no admin, though several were watching the thread, had followed the guideline and sought clarification of the situation. No one asked me "What did I mean?" "What did I intend?" They were warning and rebuking me for the perfect use of the English language; acting as though the word "libel" is outlawed at Wikipedia, when, in fact, the guidelines simply say, if you think a threat is implied, "Seek clarification."

At AN/I (#Legal threat and general incivility) I briefly outlined events leading up to the templating and followed with a statement (beginning with "I object to being called misleading...") telling the admins that Verbal's behavior demonstrates that he is a fool and, as they had now rebuked me and accused me of intimidation, their behavior warrants an apology to me.

An admin then blocked me. Another admin then called me an egotistical fool.

Remedy

It needs to be pointed out to Verbal that low level insults, like implying another editor is deceptive, are

far more toxic than "Fuck off, troll". He needs to know that smearing talk pages with that kind of devious insult drives away many more good editors than frank rudeness. Actually, I think he knows. The community needs to acknowledge it, and tell him that we don't approve.

The admin who rebuked me on my talk page for using the word "libel" needs to acknowledge that he made a mistake.

The admin who accused me of "implying intimidation" on my talk page needs to acknowledge that he made a mistake.

The admin who called me an egotistical fool needs to acknowledge that he made a mistake.

The admins who watched the farce and did not ask me to clarify my meaning need to be aware of what the guidelines actually say.

The Template Verbal slapped on my talk page must only be used for people who can reasonably be seen to be making or hinting at a legal threat. Never for people who just use the word "libel". Perhaps a new template could be made that explains how, in the past, editors have waved the word about in order to intimidate others; that is, perhaps a genuine attempt could be made at "education". Anthony (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I suggest this is closed as it was dealt with the other day. I certainly don't feel a need to go over it again. It's far to big a report for ANI. Also, it's my bedtime. Also, and lastly, to stop him getting in more trouble. Verbal chat 20:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for what I said yesterday; that was why I refactored because I knew the language I used could have been better. –MuZemike 20:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That being said, I recommend you read Wikipedia:Apology and what that entails. That was what I was getting at yesterday. –MuZemike 20:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What Anthony fails to understand is that legal threats and incivility and all that sort of thing are against the rules because of the intimidation factor. And unfortunately Anthony continues to try to intimidate, although it's fairly clear that it's not working. Verbal might have engaged in a bit of intimidation himself. Both editors just need to figure out a way to either get along or leave each other alone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Anthonyhcole blocked for 72 hours

Blocked 72 hours for "Verbal is clearly of average intelligence."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely this sort of logic ("no one but a fool would have taken my previous remark as an insult/a threat/incivil/disruptive") is not only self-defeating, but painfully obviously not a good idea to post here, of all places. Hmm. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, 72 hours is completely disproportionate for that. Anthony is clearly upset still about yesterday's block and this is just crashing down with a sledgehammer. I propose an unblock.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

20:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Spartaz, I don't think that was blockworthy myself. Incidentally, Anthony messaged me to come here, but why? Was this the thread where I asked "is libel a verb?". Don't see what I could do here. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably not blockworthy on its own, but reading the above diatribe, I'd actually leave the block be. That's just a rant disguised as an apology. You'll note he also describes Verbal as "a deceptive manipulator" and repeats the "fool" statement via a thin disguise of "I'm just articulating my thought processes". Leave him blocked until he can produce a retraction that doesn't sound like he's got his thumb on his nose and is waggling his fingers in the air. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I'm supposed to be intimidated into apologizing for saying he was trying to intimidate other users. Yeah. Not happening. The fact of the matter is that he is ranting about users trying to keep him from getting blocked before he was blocked. My only interaction with him was trying to get him to calm down. It kind of seems like the user is intentionally not getting it. --Smashville^talk 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Anthony called Verbal a fool again in his unblock request, which he received for calling Verbal a fool after being warned by two different admins. Then, he comes here and goes "I'm sorry, he's not a fool, he's clearly of average intelligence." Then, after I blocked him for that, he goes "gee, I thought I was being generous". If he had restricted his commentary to calling me corrupt, incompetent, whatever, big deal -- I got plenty of that in my Admin Review without blocking anyone. It's his unrelenting insults to Verbal that got him the block, and I don't see any reason to undo it at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGFing, I unblocked. Telling someone that they are "of average intelligence" isn't a personal attack. Just because it's not a compliment doesn't make it an attack. --Smashville^talk

22:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Support unblock This is a peurile block that smacks of vindictiveness, especially as it's made by Sarek - very poor indeed.

 Giacomo 

21:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Endorse block. For what it's worth, I think this block is entirely justified. Anthony should have seen it coming... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that this block will be overturned as quickly as it would be if the offending remark had been made by an editor with the credentials of say,

User:GiacomoReturned, for example. Leaky Caldron

21:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Incompetent... lazy... ignorant... fools... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I unblocked. Clearly the ANI thread here was extremely ill-advised but there was nothing blockable to it. Yes, it was a demand for an apology when there wasn't really one warranted...and yes, he has had some fairly intimidating behavior...but is this anything more than a still fairly new new user that needs someone to explain to him, "Hey. Don't do that"? As for venting after he was blocked...I can understand that. All users involved are advised to simply drop it and move on. --Smashville^talk 21:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarek that was over the top, saying someone is of average intellegence is niether a compliment nor an insult, it means they're normal which is hardly blockable. Sometimes users may say someone is of average intellegence to point out that they should have forseen something, but didn't. In this case it was a good faith way of saying that Verbal isnt a fool. Personally what I see is a disgruntled editor who has some reason to be trying to seek an apology, though I personally think requesting it on on AN/I in the manner he did was poor judgement as it would have been better when done on talkpage or via email. Sarek, ease of the block button in future, if your too quick to push it next time you might just block yourself or worse Jimbo!   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support block, oppose the unblock Sarek was absolutely correct. In the context of what had previously happened, Anthony's comment was clearly a backhanded slap at Verbal. I'm not sure why people aren't seeing that, but it's perfectly clear to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is how I see it. How is "clearly of average intelligence" not some kind of implied insult? Rehevkor ✉ 00:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is, no doubt. Perhaps folks are drunk on AGF or something. No editor should be speculating on the intelligence of another editor. We can judge competency, because we see the results, but to speculate about the intelligence (or other personal qualities) of the person making the edits crosses a line, whether it's expressed as "You're a dunce" or "You're clearly of average intelligence." (Besides, "fool" vs. "average intelligence" is a false dichotomy: highly intelligent people can still be foolish.) Anthony seems to have gotten away with his behavior this time, since people seem to have accepted his (to my perception) highly implausible explanation; I only hope that he doesn't take it as license to misbehave again. We'll see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock. It's absurd that Anthony is being blocked repeatedly just for pointing out Verbal's behavioural problems which nobody is doing anything about. He has not been doing so very nicely, but Verbal's attacks against editors he doesn't respect are often a lot less nice and he generally gets away with it. Nothing in Verbal's comportment on Wikipedia suggests that he should be offended by the insinuation that he is not of significantly higher than average intelligence. Hans Adler 00:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely reject BlackKite's assertion above

You'll note he also describes Verbal as "a deceptive manipulator" and repeats the "fool" statement via a thin disguise of "I'm just articulating my thought processes".

I did not describe Verbal as "a deceptive manipulator". Read my words, not your inferences. Verbal is not a fool. Haven't I made that clear? Don't put meanings into my words, please. Anthony (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

BeyondMyKen, Verbal is certainly of average intelligence. He may be of above average intelligence, but I haven't seen that demonstrated. Don't attribute meanings to my words that they don't carry, please. Anthony (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock Calling someone average is hardly a blockable insult. That Verbal would choose to interpret what anthonyhcole said as a legal threat would seem to support less generous characterizations. Unomi (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I try to be magnanimous. Anthony (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock per Hans Adler. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting contribution history from this editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He has interesting contributions eh? Seeing as your giving out free contribution assesments, would you like to tell me what you think of mine and every other person here or would you rathor just run along now and do something useful?   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock, Smashville. I have to disagree, though. I think more than one public apology is warranted. This was not a trivial or vexatious thread. Anthony (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that a public apology is warranted. By you, not by Verbal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Verbal stuffs up, says an editor is "misleading" (Instead of double checking his facts) and Verbal is the one who's owed an apology? All I can say is keep going

Verbal   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk)

05:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I made no mistake in my editing, and merely asked for Anthony to be given a warning that his behaviour might get him in trouble if it persisted. Whereas, in return, I have been accused of "libel" (incorrectly), being a "fool" (repeatedly), of "average intelligence", being a "hypocrite", of "smearing", and "misleading", amongst other things, in this very report. And none of these stand up. Anthony's edit was misleading because he moved a large part of a conversation from where it happened to a different forum, without seeking editors permission, and I objected. It was misleading baecause the conversation didn't happen there or in the order Anthony's move presented it as happening. It was also misleading as no move had taken place when I first looked, and the second time he removed the text I had already removed the comments from COIN for the reason above, plus others (

06:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is long past its sell-by date. I've marked it as resolved. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You picked it at the first ANI with this, SlimVirgin: "The whole thing started with this comment of Anthony's, to which Verbal responded with a warning template, and it was downhill from there."

• The NLT template, sensibly, links to
  WP:NLT
  .
• Here is where it went wrong.
  Wikipedia:NLT#Perceived_legal_threats was trimmed to a few sentences and the full section was moved to WP:Harassment on 22 Nov 2009,
  .
• The NLT template linked me to this Perceived legal threats section of
  NLT
  ,

  It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. A perceived legal threat is not an immediately blockable offense. Instead, admins have to seek for clarification of the situation.

  and I concluded, reasonably, that it didn't apply to me. In context, it was obvious I wasn't threatening legal action. Obvious. This is when I began doubting Verbal's sanity. This is when I called him a fool, and reiterated that he had libeled me, and he took me to ANI.
• Had the NLT template linked to the full version of "Perceived legal threats", which explains that it is best to avoid using the word on Wikipedia even in a non-threatening way, I would have respected that and understood the actions of the admins, all of whom were assuming I had read the full version when they rebuked me for using the term again after being templated. They thought I was a recalcitrant ass, and treated me as such, I thought they were arrogant fools and dealt with them accordingly.
• For now, while the NLT template links to
  WP:NLT, I have restored the old Perceived legal threats
  section.

As for Verbal's disingenuous self-exculpation, I can't let that go. This is just for the record and I don't expect anyone to read it. This editor, Verbal, relies on you not following dif's. If you follow the dif's, there is only one conclusion you can draw,

• V: Anthony's edit was misleading because he moved a large part of a conversation from where it happened. False. I collapsed it, I didn't move it. [114]
• V: to a different forum, without seeking editors permission. False. Copied, not moved [115] and I introduced the insert with "This has been happening at Talk:Acupuncture. It is not appropriate there. It may be appropriate here. If not, just delete it" - that's called asking permission.
• V: I objected. The section was collapsed by another editor almost immediately after V's undo of mine and has stayed that way. He was just harassing me.
• V: It was misleading baecause the conversation didn't happen there or in the order Anthony's move presented it as happening. False. Not misleading because of the abovementioned introduction, because I put it in a blockquote; and, as for timing, all comments retained their date stamp.
• V: It was also misleading as no move had taken place when I first looked, and the second time he removed the text I had already removed the comments from COIN for the reason above, plus others. False. My collapse on the Acupuncture Talk page and insertion on the COI page happened within 10 seconds. I had them loaded on 2 browser tabs and launched them virtually simultaneously. Verbal's revert with the edit summary "it wasn't copied there" happened 10 minutes later. [116]
• V: I would have explained if asked. I asked.
• V: I was accused of libel, and pointed Anthony to WP:NLT which has a section on this word Very false indeed. It does now, because I restored it. The version you linked me to is on the left of this dif.

Also

• When he opened the ANI thread (#Legal threat and general incivility) he called my use of the word "libel" a threat. Unambiguously. Twice in the first paragraph. It was not a threat. Never looked like one.
• In his second comment at ANI he said I was "making unfounded accusations of a legal nature." This, too, is an untruth. Anthony (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Anthony, please drop this. You're wrong and it's boring. You're not doing yourself any favours by going on like this. Please heed the warnings you've been given (or not, your choice) and move on. Verbal chat 14:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I was wrong in my review when I said remove I meant collapse. This was another problem, with two copies of the same conversation now floating around. Thanks for that correction. Verbal chat 15:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's it? Follow the dif's for a portrait of Verbal. Anthony (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. And if it helps, I'm sorry. Verbal chat 15:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It does. Thanks. Anthony (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, this is not a sincere apology. It's just 2 cheap words at the end of a thread everyone's tired of. Just prior he was denying my case (in purple) above. It was immediately followed by this denial that his use of a misleading, flawed template caused this mess. That is, he accepts responsibility for nothing, not for falsely describing me as misleading, not for using an out of date template that caused all this. Nothing. It's a joke. It mocks me and is politically advantageous to him. Anthony (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Updated Anthony (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Both of Sarek's blocks (each for incivility) were entirely justified, and not out of proportion. Anthony (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarek has apologized for his genuine misunderstanding, caused by the out of date template, on his talk page. Anthony (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Updated Anthony (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A while ago, I made several edits on various pages changing the term "Palestine", linked to

) 20:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007 has a troubled recent history with blocks for POV warring -- this will help others understand the real problem here. He clearly prefers a world without Palestine -- he's entitled to his feelings, but I don't think this justifies cloaking this kind of change in the language of "accuracy" (as per his edit summaries). What's particularly telling about this issue is that he has failed to convince other editors at template talk Asia that there should be a systematic change along these lines. Anyway I can't imagine the reason for bringing this to AN/I. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Breein - Are you accusing Nomo of

WP:HOUNDING? If not, this notification seems a little pointless. NickCT (talk

) 20:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On the content issue, I have a slight inclination that Nomoskedasticity is probably more in the right. However, this does meet the textbook definition of a

WP:HOUNDING

campaign. I see edits made by Breein1007 in May and earlier being reverted here. Going through someone's contributions history from several months before and making reverts like this is unambiguously hounding, unless there's a content violation of some sort.

A content disagreement is not a content violation.

Nomo - at the very least, please stop this at once while it's discussed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to refrain from continuing for now. I'm doubtful about the idea that

WP:HOUNDING applies -- that one specifies "an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." The reason for my edits is not that, rather a genuine disagreement that Breein1007's edits along those lines are appropriate (particularly with the justification of "accuracy"); I only reverted edits of the type specified, there is not a more general campaign here against his edits. Nomoskedasticity (talk

) 22:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I did attempt to raise this issue on his talk page, here -- my inquiry was overlooked, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a solution. Of course he stopped; he already reverted all my edits. What am I supposed to do, have a discussion with myself? He completely ignored the justification I provided more than once, and rudely, in bad faith, assumed that I'm just some typical Israeli who doesn't want Palestine to exist. I have news for you, the typical Israeli does want Palestine to exist, and supports the creation of a Palestinian state. I am among those typical Israelis. The same cannot be said for the majority of Palestinians, according to polls. But that's a different story. This case is not solved. The wording is misleading and superfluous, and so far nobody has addressed those concerns that I made perfectly clear.

) 22:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So this is just going to get archived with no resolution? Telling a user to stop hounding after he has already reverted all my edits is not a solution to the problem. He refuses to discuss, ignored my explanation more than once, and now I'm faced with two options: continue the edit war and revert all his reverts, or give up and let the misleading text remain since nobody is discussing the issue. Lovely.

Breein1007 (talk

) 23:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Refuses to discuss" is a bit rich, given that it was my post to your talk page that went ignored. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else you're looking for. For what it's worth, going through your diffs, I tend to side with one or the other of you in several places. Palestine is very clearly not, per the technical definition, an independent country or nation. I agree that it is inappropriate to include Palestine among a list of "nations" in the area -- it's very definitely not a nation. However, there's a least one list among the diffs that refers to "countries or lands" in the area, and here I think one ought to include Palestine as a plainly notable "land" in the region. But, again, strongly agree that it's not a nation -- that's not really a point of view. Anywhere where lists are explicitly of "nations" or "countries" in the region, Palestine ought not to be included.

All that said, and that was a mouthful, this is a content dispute, and not necessarily an ANI matter unless it really begins to spiral out of control which, based on at least a cursory review of your respective contributions, it really hasn't become. Try and work it out on talk pages. Frankly, I'll gladly contribute there. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This user has already been blocked for abuse of editing privileges [124]. He then made this edit [125] that triggered another warning [126] for using the talk page as a forum. He then decided to make another degrading comment [127], then blanked the page [128]. I think this has gone far enough. Nicholasm79 (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

His post-block comments don't seem that bad to me, I'd just advise you to stop watching his page. There's no need to get into an argument on someone else's user page, especially when they're indef blocked. Dayewalker (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The comment didn't seem to violate

(LiberalFascist)

03:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If you say so. I have no issue with him, and he can blank his own talk page, but I don't think he really has the right to make snide comments about other editors or Wikipedia like he did. Nicholasm79 (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, editors who are blocked are disallowed from removing current block notices from their talk page, so I have restored the block notice. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It depends on how and when they remove talk from their page. It isn't a user's "right" to blank their talk page. Users do not own their talk pages. They are given some latitude with them but it is not carte blanche to do whatever they want.--

Crossmr (talk

) 07:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

67.187.229.14

Resolved

 – IP reblocked.

) 03:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support ZacharyLassiter (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support No doubt the ban has had absolutely no effect whatsoever. GetDumb 07:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reblocked the IP for 6 months. I think we can pretty much write off good faith given the almost immediate resumption of disruptive editing. Shimeru 08:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkagitRiverQueen

A number of us believe that our old friend

17:18, 4 Jun 2010 (UTC)

Notified SRQ by email, asked if she had anything she wanted me to pass on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

More eyes, please... uninvolved or involved. Unbelievable lack of closure. Clearly a quacking DUCK... Doc9871 (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

All the editors who have taken notice of this users socking is due to her behaviors looking like

WP:DUCK. Her following User:DocOfSoc to obscure articles and also the comments the socks made that were in some cases identical to SRQ. What needs to be discussed is how to stop her IP's from socking and whether her extention should be made indefinite or changed to the time the socking was confirmed. That is my opinion on this matter anyways. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk

12:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As CU on this case, I can say that SRQ accessed Wikipedia through the same means as the two recent socks, although from an apparently different location. Because there is no overlapping editing, this could represent a move or unreliable geolocation. There's no technical reason to believe SQR is not the same user. Given the behavioral evidence posted on the SPI, I think it's more likely than not that SQR returned as these accounts. Take a look at the SPI. Cool Hand Luke 12:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that SkagitRiverQueen ban for a year be changed to an indefinite because of use of multiple sock accounts. Also, if there is a possiblity to do any range blocks for a short period, say a month to 3 months, is doable than that should be done too. Opinions? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I would support that, but at the very least, SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should have his/her's one year ban reset, as per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Reset of ban following evasion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen ban discussion

I'm proposing that SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be banned and blocked indefinitely for socking.

• Support ban, as creator of this proposal. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I figured someone would close the SPI first, but since it's been around for two weeks with no word (except that all the suspected socks are indeed operated by the same user), I say that this is definitely SkagitRiverQueen socking disruptively in violation of her ban, based on the evidence presented in the SPI linked above; and her ban should be turned indefinite. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:05, 6 Jun 2010 (UTC)
• Support - She is well aware of what she has done and extending her block for a couple months doesn't remove the level of disruptiveness that followed in her wake. She's also very critical of the process, administrators and rules here. I think it should be extended to indefinite. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment a) This is the wrong page for this. b) The current recommendation for such discussions is to give things a week to settle following a precipitating incident before starting a community ban discussion. Jack Merridew 01:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The week is over. Previous ban is still in effect, and should be extended to indefinite. And I want my glasses back, Jack... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - the sock case was opened on May 23, 2010, a full 14 days since the can of worms was opened. The precipitating incident was well before that. The evidence indicates a holistic disregard for the ban from nearly its onset and a willful thumbing her nose at it. To paraphrase MikeAllen below, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support – You break the rules, you pay the price. Mike Allen 03:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as present -- only support reset of one-year ban.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Maybe a little "blocker's remorse"? (welcome back to the fray, BTW ;P) Disruptive socking by a banned editor is very punishable, and appropriately so - that's why the community bans people here. You've "recused" yourself, I believe, in this matter already - thanks for "chiming in" again, though. Duly noted. Socking by a banned editor should result in an indefinite block... Doc9871 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't really have a problem with Sarek changing his mind about his involvement in this, but I do disagree with simply resetting the ban. Considering the original reason for the ban, in combination with their continued nose-thumbing of the ban, I don't see why this is someone we want to have involved in the project. Are we really seeing any indication that things will be better once the ban expires? The issues were and are indicative of someone who isn't "getting it" and isn't interested in trying to "get it". To be honest I'm not even sure why the ban was originally proposed as temporary, but didn't want to make a big deal of it at the time. Generally people in these cases are banned indefinitely, until they express an interest in proving to the community that they can be trusted to contribute constructively. To have the ban simply "expire" with no effort on the part of the bannee (correct word?), and no evidence that the problem behavior has even been recognized by the user, is strange and inappropriate as far as I'm concerned. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:56, 7 Jun 2010 (UTC)

• Support I have the utmost respect for Sarek. I think that the disrespect and the lying she did saying she wasn't a sock when called on it on her sock accounts just shows she thinks she is better than the rules here. It took too long to get some attentions to this matter to begin with until Sarek came along. Sarek you did the right thing here. Unfortunately she couldn't wait it out and started to sock almost from the beginning. An indefinite is the right thing for this. She has no respects for the policies of the project and the project is better without the problems. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• SupportSocking this blatant could lead to nothing else. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - the only way to effectively deal with the problem. Socking is not the way to respond to a ban that had a timer on it, let alone any other situation, and doing so invites this response from the community. This is the correct page to be dealing with this, and it seems sensible to resolve an incident as opposed to leave it festering. There is no misbehavior by involved users here, and there isn't going to be (without sanctions being plonked on users who try to disrupt this discussion), unlike the other ban discussion, where some involved users refused to behave appropriately, admins and arbcom lacked the courage to intervene effectively, and the eventual ban process review that led to mostly flawed and and excessively bureaucratic proposals - those proposals are only effective (and applicable) to the users who historically have trouble conducting themselves appropriately; not the rest of the community.. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Letting an editor get away with this would send entirely the wrong message. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Strongly. She has been beyond blatant. She has lied and contradicted her former self in a self destructive manner. Although all ISP's can't be confirmed, I counted 26 socks on the Margaret Clark article alone and I believe socked as lately as the first week in June. This may not be the appropriate forum,but as a" Newbie" I was bitten almost to death by SRQ. She has no respect for anyone here in the Wiki Community. This has gone on far too long considering the extensive "evidence." It is unfortunate that an editor as talented and prolific as she was, has lowered herself to this level. I firmly believe we have no choice but to extend her banned/block to "indefinite." DocOfSoc (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I'm sorry, but socking to evade a ban is an enormous no-no. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 09:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I wish this would count as a vote. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. However, support reset for one year. Resetting is much better incentive to stop socking. Sole Soul (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Earlier today,

WP:CANVASS. The user does not see any problem with their messages however: [132]

.

This should be seen as part of the wider behavioural problems from this user at

talk

) 22:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Question, who is the "we" he keeps referring to? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, but presume it is anyone who agrees with him.

talk

) 22:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Those 3 user-talk-page messages I sent were Friendly notices that the article was available for editing. I stopped sending messages when I noticed the general announcement had been posted within the same hour, at article "

WP:Sarcasm in that message, I think the user, who posted it, is the same user who initiated this ANI topic on canvassing. I did not realize that before; note: I am being accused of posting one-sided messages, but failing to post a general notice, by the person most likely to know that the general notice had already been posted, before I could do it. This charge of canvassing seems to be trying to catch me on a technicality. -Wikid77 (talk

) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support a lengthy topic ban. Every block he has is a result of editing the Meredith Kercher murder article. A topic ban seems like a good way to keep a productive editor out of trouble. AniMate 22:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This silliness has dragged on long enough... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - I agree with AniMate that we don't want to lose a productive editor, and that a topic ban should help prevent that -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - Productive editor who at these articles is a complete time sink for many other people, and as shown by their edits today, do not appear to understand - even after it has been explained to them many times - why they are editing in a non-collegial manner (which has now spilled over into disruption). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• COMMENT: The 3 posts I made were Friendly notices: I notified users, on their user-talk-pages, who had expressed interest in editing the article, that the article was open, but that there was an ongoing AfD and that the article might be deleted, regardless of merit, due to opposition. I did not recommend they, either, edit the article to prevent its deletion, or contest deletion at the AfD. I did not even link the specific article-AfD, so there was no text that even prompted them to access the AfD page, much less edit it in any particular fashion. The article announcements, to 3 users, who merely expressed interest in editing the article, is not a violation of
  WP:CANVASS to sway a discussion. I merely informed them that the article might be deleted, even though it was open to editing at this time. I did not pressure them or insist that they express an opinion at the AfD, and did not even provide a link to the AfD discussion. -Wikid77 (talk
  ) 00:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I still say this runs afoul of
    WP:Votestacking. Regardless, your editing in this area has been problematic. I think an extended vacation from it is necessary, even if it is not voluntary. AniMate
    00:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Black Kite. ~
  NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐
  ) 00:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban to prevent further disruption/canvassing over Murder of Meredith Kercher. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, since blocks do not appear to be reinforcing the strong message that Wikid77's contributions on this subject continue to be counter-productive. SuperMarioMan 03:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment about current behavior of Wikid77 Since making a comment here, Wikid77 has left another note for a user here. It's more neutral, but full of
  pointiness. He has also created an essay at Wikipedia:Notability_outranks_POV_disputes. I'll let others judge if it actually makes sense or not, but it appears to be an extension of the arguments he's made at the AfD (and some stuff about Joran van der Sloot I presume). Finally, he's recopied the longer coatrack Amanda Know article to his sand box again [134]. These are not actions most people would take when facing a topic ban. AniMate
  05:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The extra "note for a user" that I posted, on the same day, was to a frequent editor who seemed to be unaware of the article, and by the way, had expressed an opposing viewpoint, not a case of me only notifying users of a single viewpoint. As for me continuing to edit the material, I am not currently banned from the subject, and I was the one who created the article text now debated at

WP:AfD. Banning me from discussion of an article I created, one day earlier, is a serious problem. -Wikid77 (talk

) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per Black Kite. Dayewalker (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support editor admits he only notified a handful of friendly editors, the use of canvassing is appalling. This is the best option to keep an apparently otherwise beneficial editor. (
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 10:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say the editors I notified were "friendly editors" but you raised a good point: I notified 3 people who wanted to edit the article, even if their edits were contrary to mine. Thank you for defending me on that point. Those 3 user-talk-page messages, I sent, are termed Friendly notices in

WP:CANVASS, announcing that the article was available for editing. I stopped sending messages when I noticed the general announcement had been posted within the same hour, at article "Murder of Meredith Kercher". -Wikid77 (talk

) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with Bwilkins. The Amanda Knox issue is a wikipedia systemwide issue that needs discussion, not topic ban. Some obscure murderers get articles (some even survive AFD). Some point out "other crap exists" but if articles are subjected to AFD, the AFD process should provide a fair and consistent path. See WP:SimilarTreatmentIsOK. Also BLP1E is raised but it is applied differently. Since murderers are common topics in Wikipedia, perhaps the crime wikiproject could develop better guidelines. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this whole event is to determine the level of notability of Amanda Knox, in a system-wide discussion, at AfD, rather than limiting the discussion to only readers of "Murder of Meredith Kercher". For that reason, I omitted the more private birthdate/parents part of the bio, and focused on her life as a college student (taking online courses), Italian comparison to Carla Bruni and 3 court trials: Kercher, defamation, and new trial about Kercher. Instead of trying to limit views about the article, I have recommended the article be considered by a wide range of readers, such as those from Italy, Germany (etc.), who might only notice the article when discussed in the, system-wide, AfD. Creating an article, as a preparation for AfD discussions, is not a disruptive activity, but rather an action that encourages wider participation. I hope that clarifies why a "productive editor" would create an article, while telling the authorizing admin that it will likely go soon to AfD. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the user themselves no one has argued against the proposed topic ban. How do these things get wrapped up?

) 07:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

An uninvolved administrator needs to close the section and enact the topic ban. To whoever does so, I would suggest three months at a minimum. AniMate 08:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done User is topic-banned 3 months and issued final-warning on canvassing and pointy edits, noted on his talk-page. DMacks (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Untill today, I didn't know that what happened to me here on WP pages was a clear harrasmenet. according to

several times, and suffered from this, however as a new user, I didn't know at that time that it is something to report. I think it is time now since I now I know.

1: He tried to reveal information about my IP, possible work/study place here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#User:Kushsinghmd (originated from a range of IPs in Canada owned by McGill University and Bell Canada) Mootros (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

and again said:

2: Talk:Research_fellow#Courtesy_break Are you not based at a McGill University? I thought that's in Canada. Mootros (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

is this acceptable behaviour ?

I am asking for a severe punishment to this user for harassing me and for deliberately violating WP rules.

also All these personal information (whether or not it is true) including the quoted information in this incident report should be permanently deleted from all WP source data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs) 19:28, June 9, 2010

An IP address is not the same as posting location information, and if you yourself reveal said information (i.e. clearly editing with both your username and IP), then it is not considered "outing" as you have voluntarily posted that information publicly. --

talk · contribs

) 01:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He had no knowledge that this was your IP address, only that someone editing using the IP was editing the same page you were editing, so he wasn't outing. Inadvertently editing while logged out may reveal your IP address, which is noted at

WP:LOGGEDOUT. His speculation about your location wasn't wise, but if it hasn't been repeated it doesn't amount to harassment. Fences&Windows

01:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• so if this is not harrasement, then what is value of trying to get into such personal information like this, which includes IP, location and possibly work /study place?! why should one publish it, and even more deliberately asked me ?!!! Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Kushsinghmd, I thought you agreed previously to stay away from Mootros? Why am I seeing you at ANI again about this? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agreed to stay away, and I think I did. This is an old issue (before the agreement) and it hasn't been resolved cause simply I didn't know how could I categorize the violation, untill today, I know the best terminology of that previous act. Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Old issue means it should stay old. Don't be bringing up the past. I think there is a rule about that somewhere. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that was not discussed in the past, therefore I wouldn't consider it old. Plus the fact, that I am offended that such material is on WP for all this time, while the faulty is set free with such unacceptable deeds! Kushsinghmd (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, considering you have your email address posted on your profile, I find it odd that you think his questioning if you were a specific IP to be offensive. A simple google search on said email reveals far more, including your real name and your previous username here, than an IP. If you have privacy concerns, I'd recommend having your own user page oversighted instead of complaining about such a general question that does not really tell anything about you as you could have simply said "no, not me". --

talk · contribs

) 04:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Anma raises some good points. I think this should be oversighted and swept under the rug and you two go back to not talking to each other like you had previously agreed upon. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Anma: Email is not a personal thing, and you can't identify anyone from his email unless it is an institution email.

@ all:Please someone answer my question: what is value of trying to get into such personal information like this, which includes IP, location and possibly work /study place?! why should one publish it, and even more deliberately asked me about it using that information ?!!! is there any good reasoning other than harrasement ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please all, think about this first before you comment. If by some way or another I knew the IP of you, and I knew that you are located in University of Oxford. And while severely disputing and in the top of discussion, I tried to tease you to show you that I know where are you and said: Hey, how is the weather in london. Till here could be OK, but even more I continued harrasment, saying: hey, isn't the univesirty of oxford is in London? think this is all in UK!... is there any value from such odd discussion, other than me showing that I know your personal information and that I can get you !!... please if you can provide me with a better reasoning, please do.

Please remember what should one do if got any personal formation about another WP user ? according to WP itself, they should NEVER talk about it. WP even states that if a user retracted his public information, that information should not be revealed by any other WP user anymore.

Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what Mootros did (on which I have no knowledge or opinion), Anma's warning is a really big deal. Please do a simple google search on your own email address--you name, phone number, location, and interests are all immediately available. You've self-outed, so to speak. Doesn't matter to me, but it seems pretty dangerous in this day and age. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

First that is not true. I did the google search as you asked, and I got 4 irrelevant results. Therefore it is almost impossible to get such specific personal information through a free web email. And please do the search yourself, to make sure. Second, please someone answer to my question: what is value of trying to get into such level of details about personal information like this, which includes IP, location and possibly work /study place?! why should one publish it, and even more deliberately asked me about it, using information he collected and thinking it was right?!!! remember that this was at the most heated moments. is there any good reasoning other than harrasement ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Kushsinghmd

• Neutralhomer, I believe Kushsinghmd is referring to your comment, above: I wash my hands of this user and his persistant "I didn't do it" and "I can't here you" crap. You have, if I may say so, failed to wash your hands of this user. Which is no crime, though I fear you're in danger of prolonging an unhelpful thread. Kushsinghmd, I couldn't care less about "carp" or "crap". I am far more interested in whether or not the original comment about you being a SPA was correct or not.
  Carping on about Neutralhomer's earlier comment is a distraction and is unhelpful. TFOWR^{idle vapourings}
  22:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why I didn't get an edit conflict with you when I closed this. Feel free to reopen if you think it would be productive, I was just trying to get these two to give my watchlist a rest. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Feel free to reopen" - for the love of all that's good in this world, no ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 22:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, is there a chance that you admins can work on the primary problem first, instead of reopening secondary issues ? thank you for you positive interventions Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Back on topic

• WP:OUTING
  is very clear: [WP:OUTING] also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. I'd be prepared to give substantial leeway to you here at ANI - but only because it's sometimes necessary to disclose identifying information in order to describe a concern, and because anything posted here will be seen by editors who can remove - completely - identifying information. The same does not necessarily apply on an article's talk page.
• WP:OUTING
  under these circumstances.

• Both of you: need to avoid each other. Find different areas to work in.
  Single purpose accounts
  are (usually) fine, but don't fill me with confidence with respect to the possibility of avoidable future drama.

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 08:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick response to my request yesterday. Please let me eleaborate, I am not impersonating anyone, cause in fact never disclosed my identity. If anyone tried to make any linkage between me, and between any other person on the internet who has similar names, that is their responsibilities. Having any similarities doesn't mean that this me!. Anyways, this is irrelevant to my case, since outing was tred to be made via IP on talk page. Again Thank you very much Kushsinghmd (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please After taking all displinary action with the faulty side, I would like to have such information oversighted, Thank you Kushsinghmd (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You can request oversight at
    diffs for each edit that you require to be oversighted, and that a (brief!) explanation as to why each edit should be oversighted will be appreciated. I would strongly advise you - again - to remove your email address from your userpage. You should do this before requesting oversight, otherwise another editor may make the same connection in the future. TFOWR^{idle vapourings}
    10:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Redaktor

) 13:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your diffs are wrong, I think you're mistaken about how much they reverted. Their actual edits to that article can be seen by looking at their contributions. They been warned for 1RR and NPOV for these edits already, and they not edited since. Any repeat of such actions and I will happily block if made aware of it. Fences&Windows 17:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Will someone kindly explain what I am guilty of? I did not intend any POV and thought my edit was purely factual. And I didn't realize I was reverting anything! Sorry if I have trod on anyone's toes. --Redaktor (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You added a biased description of an organisation to the lead of the article, and then when your edit was reverted you blanked the sentence mentioning the organisation from the lead. Not good. But I think you do understand to be more careful in future, so this is resolved for now. Fences&Windows 14:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Athenean is a user who currently is under a 4-month editing restriction of 1RR. He has been blocked several times and in the past has also been under another 3-month 1RR in Balkans-related topics Since he was put under restrictions he has become extremely agressive and makes constant personal attacks like this one.

• Athenean's from his first edits after joining wikipedia in 2007 exhibited a
  battleground behavior. In his third edit he asked on the WikiProject Greece talkpage from the other Greek users to unite and fight against the nasty Albanian propaganda

• Athenean's reverting explanations(
  wp:idontlikeit often are based on defending attempts to claim Greek history and heritage
• Athenean also has edit-wars frequently in
  Cyrpus-related articles. His edits are based on his ethnic purity belief that The reason Greek and Turkish Cypriots are so similar is because Turkish Cypriots are basically Greek Cypriots who converted to Islam
• In the past Athenean has supported content of User:Haiduc who promoted pro-pedophilia articles. Athenean supported with a keep vote Haiduc's article Albanian pederasty, in order to preserve defamatory content regarding Albanians[137]. This attempt was pointed out by many users, like Moreschiit is highly disappointing to see the usual Greek nationalist crowd turning up here to keep this, mostly to spite the Albanians
• Personal Attacks, Threats and Harassment:
• Against Sulmues (talk · contribs):[138][139][140][141] [142][143]
• 'Against Kushtrim123 (talk · contribs):[144][145]
• Against Balkanian`s word (talk · contribs):[146]
• Against ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs):[147][148][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZjarriRrethues&diff=364009810&oldid=363959708] [149]
• Against Joe the Dessaret (talk · contribs):[150]
• Against Piasoft:[151]

Many of his edits involve the region of Epirus, important in both Albanian and Greek history. From the start Athenean's goal was very specific Not only is Epirus and its inhabitants uncontestably Greek, but they have been so from earliest antiquity

As he explained in his first edits in 2007 he intended to fight Albanian propaganda. Some of his edits while fighting against Albanian and other information he considers propaganda :

• reverted seriously pov albanian version. makes you think himara is a suburb of tirana or something
• sneaky but ineffective
• His battleground and spa mentality to prove the absolute Greek character of Epirus goes as far as adding the category ancient Greek cities in Gjirokastër a city founded in the 12th century AD
• must remain vigilant in the face of Albanian nationalism While reverting to a previous established version Athenean, in this edit Athenean decided to add his own POV by making
  Saranda
  an Albanian majority town as 94% ethnic Greek.
• Removing whole referenced sections Where di you come up with this CRAP?
• The current treatment of the Greek minority by the Albanian government reveals an intense paranoia
• Removing whole referenced sections Illyrian is NOT the ancestor of Albanian
• Accusing
  User:Future Perfect At Sunrise of upholding double standards Mighty generous of the Wikipedia community not to ban "the lot of us". Imagine that. In any case, you can spin this however you want, but "we take into account group X's sensitivities on this particular matter but not group Y's " is still a double standard, no matter what.
• Further accusations against Future Perfect At Sunrise regarding the
  Republic of Macedonia[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greece&diff=prev&oldid=208064475
  Your doctrine of "I made the map, ergo I can call it whatever I want and to hell with MOSMAC" applies to maps I make as well as maps you make]
• Battleground mentality regarding Slavophone minority of Greece let's cut the crap, shall we?
• Accusations regarding numbers of the Greek minoritynumbers are impossible to come by, as a result of deliberate Albanian government policy.
• Removing(edit-warring) notable Slavic Macedonians from notable people sections of modern Greek cities articles:I don't see how she is notable, and wikipedia articles can be created by anyone. A wikipedia entry by itself is not sufficient to establish notability.nope, no English language non-RoM sources are used to establish notability. A minor politician with no fame ooutside her country.Since the section is entitled "Notable people", the criterion for inclusion is notability. Ethnicity is only a criterion for POV-pushersper WP:NOTABLEthe usual makedonskian POV: Let's find every trivial politico and insert him in Greece-related article to make Greek Macedonia seem more "Macedonian"not notable, not from kastorianot a SINLGE English language WP:RS used to establish notability, burden of proof is on you, not meper WP:NOTABLE and WP:NCGN (Jagnula Kunovska Athenean was removing as not notable was a member of the legislature of Macedonia and founder of a major political party).

Athenean edits articles related to Cham Albanians, an Albanian minority in modern Greece(Epirus periphery) and tried to diminish their presence by edit-warring continuously.

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albania&diff=prev&oldid=184680409 the only Albanians there are post-1991 immigrants This is a characteristic example of what Athenean has tried to promote in all his edits related to this population.
• While there is a vibrant Greek minority in Albania, there are no more Chams in Greece. Not one.
• Long time edit-warring by removing(edit-warring) Albanian names from Cham Albanian settlements[152] [153] [154][155][156]not a single native Albanian speaker.

[157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169]

• Removing(edit-warring) whole referenced sections regarding Cham Albanians as redundant or not notable paragraph is redundant per WP:NOTABLE(the supposedly not notable event is the Assembly of Preveza)
• Removing notable Cham Albanians no english-language refs=not notable(searching in google books reveals many references about the person, but Athenean decided to ignore that) really? because is says (in Albanian), and the title is albanian, and the author is albanian. do you think I'm stupid or something?)rv, not notablerv POV-pushing

individual is not notable. Stop this.Not ok to have half the article taken up by one trivial individual Eventually he stopped removing Jakup Veseli a signatory of the Albanian Declaration of Independence as not notable from the notable people section after intervention of rollbacker User:Blurpeace. It is sure that if Blurpeace hadn't intervened Athenean would have continued edit-warring.

• Starting AfDs about (Cham) Albanians politicians with support under restrictions users(no article was deleted):
• [170][171]

[172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] Athenean started all these AfDs to delete these Albanian politicans some of which were born in modern Greece.

• His nationalist tendency and disruption is such that he even called UNESCO productions about Albanian culture as lunatic [181][182][183]

Conclusively, I ask from the administration to indefinitely ban Athenean from Balkan topics including articles, talkpages, discussions about users that edit them etc.--I Pakapshem (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll say it preemptively: Athenean, don't bother responding to this, it's not worth it, and we don't want to have yet another megabyte of squabbling between the lot of you guys. To fellow admins: consider banhammering the complainant, for the truly odious battleground mentality demonstrated here, which is more or less all he has ever done on this project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There are too many links to ignore it, so I suggest someone uninvolved review it. In fact I myself won't comment but leave it to admins.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think my report is reasonable and should be checked by neutral people. For example calling other people disgusting like Athenean has done is extremely dirsuptive.--I Pakapshem (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Support this report. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Another childish initiative by Pakapshem, just after his long-term block (which he hadn't even respected and edited unlogged) launches the most funny&bad faith report. Agree per Fut..Alexikoua (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Another insult by one of the close collaborators of Athenean, after a latent baid faith report on one useful and non disruptive edit that I made while on ban. --I Pakapshem (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Athenean yet again displaying arrogant and disruptive behaviour by editing out with the comment "pfffffft!" the simple notice of User:Sulmues here: [184]--I Pakapshem (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ban Both user:I Pakapshem and user:Athenean: its clear they both are being uncivil and disruptive. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't thing that a 2 days experienced user can have a good picture of all this mess. The case is clear: Pakapshem is an EMBARASSMENT in this community. Already two administrator wonder (Fut. Perf. above and Edjohnston [[[[185]]]]) why he has not received his indef ban yet.Alexikoua (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua why are you insisting on ignoring his report and making personal attacks against him? This is a very disruptive violation of

civil. I have told you all before to comment on the content of the report not the user who started it and I'm not even supporting a side, but just saying that the next logical thing to do is to review it not disregard by labeling the user who started it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk

08:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't feel that if someone agrees with opinions and suggestions already stated by administrators of this community can be considered incivil by any mean.Alexikoua (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ban I Pakapshem, for disasters battleground ideas here on wiki. Attacking Athenean was the last possibility for I Pakapshem salvation. And, of course, his fellow wiki bombers support this false report. Indef. ban for I Pakapshem. --Tadija^speaks 12:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And Alexikoua goes off with yet again with another personal attack and insult against me. I hope the admins reviewing the report will pay attention to Alexikoua's comments as well. --I Pakapshem (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

AdonisBlue

This 'new' editor (21:20, 10 June 2010) AdonisBlue (talk · contribs) created (21:20, 10 June 2010), has started removing references to "Greek" from articles ie Finiq, Phoenice and/or changing it to Albanian. I recall something about a sock doing this? Anyone recall? --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 21:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It seem the report I was thinking of is immediately above this section re Atheanean. --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 22:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to revert the following images to an older version, because of copyright images. User:Plateofshrimp combined two copyrighted images into 1 image. I'm not even sure if both images have the same copyright holder, but that's beside the point. Whatever I do though, the image always turns into the new combined image, with the resolution of the old image. I can't seem to get the old image back. Can anyone explain to me what I'm doing wrong? These are the images:

• Peter GB1
• Ray GB1
• Egon GB1
• Winston GB1
• Janine GB1

--Atlan (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

They seem to be reverted to me, unless I misunderstand you. Have you purged/ctrl F5'd? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's it. False alarm then, thanks.--Atlan (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• 99.141.254.167 (talk · contribs)
• 99.141.250.125 (talk · contribs)
• 99.142.7.232 (talk · contribs)

This newly arrived user seems to be a sockpuppet account. He has been removing images and adding unsourced captions to

, ) 19:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be related to any at [188] [189] or [190]? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not know. Two sockpuppets of User:Jagz have been blocked recently, but he edits from Florida. Thank you for semi-protecting the page, which I requested a while back. Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

These are my only edits to that article, or related subjects. My edits are civil, well-reasoned, supported and constructive. Mathsci has taken exception to my pointing out that the people pictured in a Weather Underground FBI poster[191] were neither involved in the incident mentioned nor had even formed their organization at that time. He also takes exception to a well supported and informative caption[192] to Galton's image that I added - as well as every single edit, possibly even character, I've typed. I have made no edits to the article text itself, my only contribution has been in relation to images and captions. The numerous false, general and unsupported by even supposition accusations that he's made are hardly appropriate.

And yes, for those wondering, I am that 99.X ip editor that gets hauled here from time to time for being well, an ip. One would hope that my possibly 30,000+ edits over what is now approaching a decade would at least allow me to point in my defense to my supported, civil and honestly constructive good faith edits in my defense. Thank you for your time.99.141.250.125 (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Very few of this IP editor's edits seem to have been constructive. He first removed almost all of the images against consensus because "wikipedia is not a gallery". But each image was intimately related to the text and often the captions were sourced: this is common for history-related articles, at least the ones I've helped write as a wikipedian volunteer (

Handel organ concertos Op.4, Robert Yerkes, etc, etc). At each subsequent stage the IP editor provided constantly changing reasons for removing the same images, almost all of which contradicted wikipedia policy. I have no idea how an editor suddenly chances upon an article like History of the race and intelligence controversy currently under discussion in an ArbCom case. In circumstances like this there is zero prospect of good faith editing, just common-or-garden disruption for its own sake. Of course this IP editor might have some plausible explanation ... he might also tell us if he has previously edited under a registered wikipedia account and, if not, how he is so familiar with the noticeboards cited above on which he has forum-shopped. Where are those 30,000 + edits of which he boasts? Mathsci (talk

) 20:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) One of the interesting things about your style Mathsci is your ability to just produce a bunch of unsupported, general and quite uncivil accusations. Just saying something doesn't make it so. You've now made numerous accusations against me and still more self-serving mischaracterizations. My diffs and ref's have been produced to support my claims, and my edit history is available to you - please support your claims. At this point you resemble nothing so much as a Tasmanian Devil cartoon throwing off all manner of attack in the hopes that someone else will unthinkingly repeat the unsupported.... Hardly activity constructive to the encyclopedia mission.99.141.250.125 (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

On at least one of these images 99 seems to make a good case. This image has been challenged and hence policy requires that it be directly supported by a reliable source. I also note that this is a content dispute and there seems to have been no attempt to resolve it by dispute resolution. 94.196.199.229 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My editing style, dear newly arrived editors, is based on encyclopedic knowledge (you know what we academics teach to people in universities), neutrality and academic sources. On the other hand 94.196.199.229 seems to be an editor that has suddenly materialsed here, possibly through off-wiki coordination. How on earth does such an editor in his first two edits comment on a talk page and then

WP:ANI? Which off-wiki websites have an interest in issues connected with "race and intelligence", linking folks in such separated places as Sheffield and Illinois? Um, well, ... Mathsci (talk

) 21:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So everyone who disagrees with Mathsci is in some gigantic conspiracy against him? That seems - unlikely. And in fact, untrue. 94.196.17.49 (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Race and intelligence but I saw a notice of this thread at User talk:99.141.254.167 (which I had been the original poster to and so it was on my Watchlist). I've had a very poor experience with this editor also. I'm the editor having problems with this 99.141.*.* at PIGS (economics). 99.141.*.* persistently over-writes the text with a new version and fails to productively discuss these changes on the talk page - or say what the issues with the current text are. My main concerns relate to synthesis, OR and his/her approach to sources in general.

Third opinion were got during the forum shopping exercise pointed to above but 99.141.*.*'s ears appear to be closed to these. He/she overwrote the text again today. I was going to post to

talk

) 21:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RA, I restored the version that you supported as, "That looks much better. I still have some issues but the approach is a better grounding than the previous version from an encyclopediac point of view IMHO. ... Nice rewrite. A very good basis for the article going forward."(1) I also have fully engaged you on the Talk page where you have failed to respond (with the exception of your withdrawn comment) in nearly three days. Our issue is simple, one sentence.99.141.250.125 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you happy to go to

talk

) 21:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to your talk page.99.141.250.125 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

talk

) 21:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mathsci (disruptive & tendentious)

The user Mathsci is throwing a fit and trashing discussion at this talk page:[193] Here is but a representative sample, here he adds repetitive text without thought:[194] Note the turning on it's head of Wikipedia practice & policy, rather than support items for inclusion he demands secondary sources from those who question an items notability. Providing a secondary source (and creating a new standard equal to that we require for inclusion) to support an argument for non-notability is upside down. Also note that numerous sections do include supporting refs which are used to support arguments regarding weight and accuracy. One such section in which he demanded a ref - had Five supporting cites. Five.

Numerous examples exist from just the last few hours, one editor made the simple observation, "This image has been challenged and hence policy requires that it be directly supported by a reliable source." Mathsci's response? He told the Ed. to basically stuff it.[195] Then comments from Mathsci's regarding his ownership of the article, "Unfortunately you (a) don't get to edit the article and (b) don't get to dictate what discussions here are about." all interwoven with a ceaseless litany of unsubstantiated, uncivil and irresponsible accusations of the lowest kind. Absolutely deplorable behavior and beyond acceptable standards. Yet, it appears to be stock in trade for Mathsci. 99.141.250.125 (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(There's a

talk

) 23:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

(ec) This editor probably should be blocked. At the moment he is supporting himself by citing papers written by

WP:RS for writing wikipedia articles.[197] Comments like this are certainly not good faith editing in any sense of the word. His contributions at the moment seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel: he is somewhat reminiscent of Fourdee (talk · contribs), banned by Jimbo. Mathsci (talk

) 23:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Breathtaking. What a remarkable mischareterization of a discussion over this sentence: "Removed Burt, not notable and undue weight - Twin studies have been academically documented continuously to this day from back over 100 years...." The entire exchange can be found here:[198]. Everything from my simple claim that

Godwin's Law ... .99.141.250.125 (talk

) 23:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

{ec}I'll also add that his reprehensible, unjustified and unsubstantiated attack on me here above is but further evidence, if any were needed, that Mathsci is eager to stoop to any level in his uncivil efforts to harm. His near every sentence is an accusation that I'm a Fucking Nazi - and he does it all the time. Absolutely disgusting. Me: "Twin study's have existed for over 100 years". MathSci's reply, "You're a Nazi." Just one of dozens of exchanges in which Mathsci always stoops to questioning - nay implying, another Ed's motives. Unacceptable.99.141.250.125 (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

At no stage have I written, "You're a Nazi". I have written on this page that your editing patterns suggest sockpuppetry. Mathsci (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. You're a liar. You compared me to Fordee[199], you tied me to extremists, "Regardless of secondary sources like that, he, like those on many external websites," and you attributed my thoughts to those of a Nazi seeking to further POV in almost every exchange, often without even the pretext of decency "The primary source you have produced, however, reveals a lot about yourself." ... etc, etc,...99.141.250.125 (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It is true that the article has been semi-protected precisely so that this kind of disruptive editor cannot edit it. Above, he doesn't feel any need at all to refer to the 1995 book edited by

WP:TRUTH. Mathsci (talk

) 23:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For those interested, here is the link that 99.141.250.125 supplied [200]. Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why 99.141.250.125 is using such extreme language ("Fucking Nazi"). Perhaps, when he has calmed down, he could explain why exactly he used the above reference, since he was evidently aware exactly who the writer was and his position as director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics in Berlin during World War II. Is he playing some kind of elaborate game on wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

WTF has any of this to do with me challenging a captioned portrait's claim regarding the over 100 year history of Twin study's? Are you somehow trying to argue that I'm wrong - that Twin study's don't date back 100 years? Or are you just trying to demonstrate how obnoxiously disruptive & tendentious you are? Get a grip. And somebody please stop this madness. .99.141.250.125 (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are the editor who chose to cite a 1939 paper of

Nazi party in 1940. You could have chosen any other paper by any other author, but no, that's the one you chose. Please could you clarify why you cited that paper? Mathsci (talk

) 00:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You called me a Nazi because I cited a lecture given at the Royal Society entitled "Twin Research from the time of Francis Galton to the Present Day" to support my simple contention that modern Twin study's dated back over 100 years to Galton.

To call someone a Nazi in order to avoid the subject, a subject that was the anything but contentious or disputed claim that Twin study's date back over 100 years, is a textbook example of the most egregious disruptive & tendentious editing. Your disgusting behavior is truly unacceptable. Seriously, I find your easy, common and repeated use of character assassination on myself and others to be a true stain on the project.99.141.250.125 (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Serious allegations of this nature normally require some kind of diff. I've searched the talk page for "Nazi" and I can't find any statement that vaguely represents what you're claiming. Are you perhaps looking at the talk page of another article and mistaking me for another editor? Meanwhile, could you please answer my question about your specific choice of source. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Does it get anymore disruptive & tendentious than to have a treacly little troll ask this, "Meanwhile, could you please answer my question about your specific choice of source." immediately following my just posted statement to which he is directly responding, "I cited a lecture given at the Royal Society entitled "Twin Research from the time of Francis Galton to the Present Day" to support my simple contention that modern Twin study's dated back over 100 years to Galton." You're either unable to comprehend simple statements or you're a seriously warped individual that derives joy from frustrating your fellow contributors. .99.141.250.125 (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is that, despite these protestations,

Burt Affair exists. Mathsci (talk

) 01:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

My only point, my only wording, my only simple sentences have never said anything other than twins have been subject to study continuously to this day from more than 100 years ago - and you're a lying scumbag Troll to continue to mis-attribute all these other outlandish claims to me. Your actions here really do bring into question your character. It's not a pretty sight.99.141.250.125 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Lying scumbag troll"? Too far. 24h. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ahem. AN IP who has only been editing for 2 days, almost exclusively in this topic area, 2nd edit ever is a Mathsci revert? Obvious sock is obvious. This is the sort of bad-faith AN/I fishing expedition that should be frowned upon. Tarc (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been editing here since before 9/11 and may have more than 30,000 edits at this point. And no I really don't feel like getting an account at the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" today. Forgive me if I'm not feeling all that wikihappy after being called a fucking Nazi for daring to state that Twin study's date back over 100 years. .99.141.250.125 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You would have to provide diffs to support this kind of allegation; and you have not yet explained how you came to quote Verschuer and an 1874 paper to support your claims about twin studies. Nicholas Mackintosh's 1998 book IQ and Human Intelligence has a succinct statement about Cyril Burt's fabrication of evidence on twin studies on pages 75-76. That's the normal way these things are checked on wikipedia. Nobody will believe your claims about being a regular editor of wikipedia. They would if you were editing under a registered account. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing, writing an example sheet for "disruptive & tendentious" editing? How many times do I have to respond to your bullshit? Here's the verbatim quote response I posted above, which itself is a quote ... of a quote: "Does it get anymore disruptive & tendentious than to have a treacly little troll ask this, "Meanwhile, could you please answer my question about your specific choice of source." immediately following my just posted statement to which he is directly responding, "I cited a lecture given at the Royal Society entitled "Twin Research from the time of Francis Galton to the Present Day" to support my simple contention that modern Twin study's dated back over 100 years to Galton." How often do you wish to repeat the same lying bullshit?

And frankly, your behavior and complete absence of ethics, honesty or decency does little to encourage me to associate myself more formally with a group that would allow such people as yourself such leeway. 99.141.250.125 (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have declined his unblock request. To me, it was one of those "apologies" which really just frames their personal attack in more lofty and loquacious terms while both continuing to imply the same statements towards Mathsci and neatly side-stepping any real responsibility. It's only been about five hours, he can serve out the rest of his block IMO. Feel free to review. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rvcx acting as proxy for blocked editor 99.141.250.125

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

This user decided that the unsourced criticisms of the now blocked IP editor above were valid. He has not made any attempt to check the multiple citations, but has simply blanked sourced content on the grounds of

his personal views override mutliple secondary sources. His statements about Samuel George Morton show no knowledge at all about the subject of the article; it's very hard why to fathom why precisely he's editing it at the moment, if he is reluctant to consult any secondary source. Mathsci (talk

) 08:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but how does the fact that this man was a Nazi affect a paper he wrote? I mean, yes, Nazis are bad, but just because he was a Nazi doesn't mean that the report is bad by association. I can't check the ref (at work), but I don't see what everyone is getting so excited about. Regardless of what else IP has done, why does the fact that the paper was written by a Nazi such an important bit of all this? If the paper is good, then it's good. If it's not, then it's not. The writer has nothing to do with it. Just my two cents. - Tainted Conformity ^SCREAM 09:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

While I can see the connection between Mengele, Otmar, and Racial biology, I think the long footnote in the image caption is overkill and unnecessary. Given the (brief but heated!) history between Rvcx and Mathsci, I can see a shouting match develop here and suggest that Mathsci drop the footnote before this escalates. Not everything that is reliably sourced needs to be included in wikipedia. --RegentsPark (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

May I point out that the photo is of someone not even mentioned in the article, and whose only relevance is that he edited a journal which is mentioned (and for which a half dozen other names are given in the article text). I'd thus be in favor of removing the photo entirely, but I did not do that. Instead I simply trimmed the caption, which does not even call the man pictured a Nazi, and instead ties him to Auschwitz by highlighting that he once worked with an assistant who was the physician there. Journal -> editor -> assistant -> Auschwitz -> Nazis; we managed to invoke the most inflammatory political movement of the 20th century and it only required four levels of removal from the content at hand. Whether true or not, such a huge detour from the content of the article for the purpose of a pathetic ad hominem attack is among the worst editing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Rvcx (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah; and I see it's been edit-warred right back in with no further discussion of these concerns on the [WP:Talk:History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy#Verschuer_image|Talk Page]. Honesty, with the perpetual refusal to engage in any constructive dialog about valid concerns I can see why so many people get so frustrated. Feel free to block me for having the temerity to disagree with Mathsci any time you feel like it. Rvcx (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rvcx: Hang in there! Working with MathSci is a, uh, challenge for all of us.

talk

) 13:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not quite what I would say about learning curves when sections like this keep reappearing ...

Rvcx seems to have approached editing with a few idées fixes. I suppose that it must be tough to edit history articles which use academic sources without any prior experience. In this case decisions have to be based on the secondary sources, not through some personal hunch. The point here is not whether Otmar was a Nazi: that is a complete irrelevance as far as the image is concerned. (I agree with RegentsPark that the quote in the footnote is too long: I was probably being overly careful, because the subject is a bit delicate.) The point is rather that Otmar was one of the main representatives of the

Rassenhygiene school: his twin study experiments post 1944, enabled by his former assistant Josef Mengele, were some of the most unethical experiments of the twentieth century. This is what is explained in secondary sources: I haven't synthesized anything as can be checked by looking at the secondary sources. He then went on to edit Mankind Quarterly. Editing the article requires quiet and slow scholarship. At present only images are really being discussed, no content. On the talk page of the article, as Slrubenstein pointed out a while back, there was consensus about almost all the images. The IP editor was the only editor to break that consensus. His comments were unconstructive, had no relation to the sources and did not take into account relevance to the text they were illustrating. David.Kane, with some later tiny tweaks from me (learnt from Europe, Marseille and Aix-en-Provence

), redistributed the images to match the text. I think breaking that consensus would be hard to justify, since it's really only a question of images. The captions can always be incorporated in the main text.

All articles develop organically. To me a possible next step might be to include in the early history section a summary of the brief account from the secondary texts of developments in Germany between the two world wars. That would be slightly non-trivial to do, but would fit in naturally. I'm a bit too busy to do that right at the moment, since I have another wikitext to summarise and shorten, but it seems to be one of the two main gaps in the current article. I think that if editors do see an image that disturbs them, they should not just remove it. There are many other possibilities and edit warring to remove images is just not a good way to edit wikipedia. I can give an example from the prehistory section of Europe. A Serbian added an image of a neolithic stauette with a caption and an extra sentence in that section about Danube settlements. That resulted in me completely rewriting the prehistory section, introducing Dbachmann's bronze age image of File:Nebra Scheibe.jpg along the way and providing a wider context for the Danube settlements. That keeps everybody happy (and incidentally puts Stonehenge firmly in its place). Hopefully the same kind of thing can happen here. I'm not sure what purpose is served by making sweeping generalisations about a user like me with 40 times more content edits. Suggesting deleting images is certainly a bizarre way to go about editing an article - it's just the icing on the cake. Mathsci (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again Mathsci is right and everyone who disagrees with him is in a gigantic conspiracy against him. Perhaps a short break from editing would help him? 94.196.17.49 (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This really belongs on the RS noticeboard, but , although I generally agree with Mathsci about the article, I think his refusal to use the source is a little absurd. To refuse to accept that the subject has been studied by discarding evidence that a Nazi/Nazi sympathizer has studied it, fails logic. Twin studies did not begin with Burt--he is the person who used them the most, not the person who originated their use. DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, scientists within Nazi Germany were reliable enough for the

atomic bomb, right? I suspect, as unpleasant as some may find the subject, scientific endeavours by these people make them reliable experts in their field. S.G.^(GH) _ping!

16:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely you mean rocketry and not the atomic bomb? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Allah-green.svg

Resolved

 – Not possible. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 15:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone get rid of the swastika from the upload history? Only the original upload is relevant. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That image is actually not on this wiki, it's on Commons, so you'd have to ask there. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 15:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It was done before you added the CSD tag. Please don't use speedy delete tags for that kind of thing, just ask a commons admin or commons veteran editor. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Iran

There has been a minor edit war on the

WP:DE and dealt with as such. Mjroots (talk

) 16:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In other words, the article "protected" by threat of punishment for

WP:DE in the version which does not contain the use of Persia outside of its historical context, until consensus is established? The edit war does appear very minor, and response to your well-worded comment has been positive and diplomatic so far. Perhaps a feather-touch observation is what is required. S.G.^(GH) _ping!

17:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In other words, the edit war stops and no action is taken against any editor for past actions there. Discussion is entered into on the talk page and if it can be shown that there is consensus for the removal of Persia from the lede, it can go (this is what the edit war was over). I believe that inclusion of Persia in the lede is something that is supported by policy. I feel it was necessary to add the edit note as a method of getting editors to discuss the issue rather than edit warring, with all that entails. I prefer not to have to block it it can be avoided. Mjroots (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Caden

I've tried to be patient, i've asked the kid to cool it. Just won't listen. There are two problems; endless accusations of censorship and conflict of interest and; no attempt to argue his point (i.e.

"is too!" "is not!" etc...

)

Over the past week or so:

• June 2 "The biggest problem I see here is the non-stop distruption of Bali ultimate and PhGustaf who appear to be working together as far as I am concerned after a long look at both their history. Both remove well sourced content WITHOUT consensus, both are POV pushing non-stop, and both are trying to censor the article. This is not how wiki works. Caden"[201]
• June 2 Ouside editor opines that he liked some edits that i made. Caden: "Nope sorry I disagree. The current version is the biased, censored POV of both Bali ultimate and PhGustaf. It is NOT neutral at all." [202]
• June 3 comes to my talk page to ask if a conflict of interest is why "you're fighting so hard to remove anything that sheds a bad light on (The New York Times) in regards to the Holocaust" (and no, I haven't stopped beating my wife either). I told him I had no involvement with the paper, now or ever. He also asked if i'm "working with PHgustaf to control the article." I told him I wasn't, that my only overlaps with that editor are in public forums on wikipedia. At this point, he responds: "::I don't believe you. Not a single word. As for your cheap shot above, I'll ignore your childish attack on me. And feel free to take action against me all you want. I know how to handle bullies like you. But do remember, the next time I see you accusing IPs as "socks" or next time I see you attacking newbies I will be sure to report you to ANI where you will be blocked. You are warned." (The Ip in question was soon blocked as the sock of a banned editor; the other editor has been around for 2 years, though i've probably treated him a little roughly). I told Caden to buzz off.[203]
• June 10 (didn't edit between June 3 and today) Says in response to another editors question about whether i'm willing to work with that editor that neither I nor two other editors are willing to collaborate and that "all three are working together to censor truthful (sic) facts" ... "call my honesty bad faith or whatever bullshit wikipedia excuse that you can find to hide under. I'm tired of the game playing by Bali and his team." I ask him to stop personalizing a content dispute, and stop with the attacks. He responds: "And why don't you stop your distruptive agenda driven goals here? What's your relationship to the New York Times? Why are you fighting so hard to protect the New York Times? You called the IP and Cimicifugia "liars" but the only liar I see here is you" etc... I did in fact call the IP (a sock of User:Malcolm Schosha) and the other editor liars earlier; perhaps my use was unkind. It's possible that massive cleanup i did on that article (which involved misrepresntation of the contents of multiple sources) was the result of a misunderstanding on the part of the other editor. [204].

What intervention am i seeking here? Just someone getting the kid to desist with the attacks, particularly the assertions of an agenda and a conflict of interest, and to either engage with actual content questions if he wants to participate or shove off. As some know, I don't much care for civility game playing and everyone goes off the handle now and then. The problem here is that he won't stop, and his participation on the talk page seems to only be about stirring up a fight (even the sock of Malcolm had something to contribute about the content, much as i disagreed with him).

talk

) 23:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed the history of

dispute resolution process; don't turn it into a battleground. Bali, while I'm here, you'd make things a lot clearer for outside reviewers if you'd take a little more care with emotionally charged words like "lying", or saying things like this, even if you feel goaded. People calling each other names makes it very difficult for uninvolved people to figure out what's going on and intervene, or indeed, for outsiders to have any desire to do so. That said, this is not a "pox on both your houses" opinion; Caden, you've stepped over the line a little, and need to scale back. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 23:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Having been here before with this user, I've left him a message. Completely up to him whether he takes any heed of it, of course. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really recall who started what Bali, but you are being a douche to him on your talk page, "Isn't their a biography of a footballer's girlfriend or a wrestlemania article that could benefit from you special talents? Why not run along and do that?" Caden apparently doesn't understand why you are defending the NY Times for things they admitted they did. You say the NY Times "dropped the ball a little" in reporting on the holocaust, where there is significant literature including admissions from the Times itself that they minimized the story of the Holocaust and that it was a severe failing on their part. When this article was first nominated for AfD back in the fall, I thought "what is this about?" but then saw there were all these sources discussing the issue, while you advocated in favor of outright deletion. I guess Caden got frustrated and accused you of COI because few seem to understand the genesis of your perspective.--Milowent (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's see Millow: Fellow comes to my talk page to accuse me of an eggregious conflict of interest and other ethical violations. I told him i had no conflict of interest. He called me a liar. I note that he spends all his time on pop trivia. And this makes me a "douche?" My argument on the AFD, long long ago, was that the article was a skewed hit piece AND there is no scholarship on the NYT and the Holocaust. There is scholarship on the general question of US press coverage of the holocaust and it's, unsurprisingly, complicated, nuanced, and involves conflicting views. An article on

talk

) 18:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you agree that your "dropped the ball a little" comment is not supported by the sources we have all been discussing? No one give a wazoo what the miami times said about the holocaust, the NYTimes was truly a (the?) paper of record at the time.--Milowent (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to template {{adminhelp}}

Resolved

 – answred by 2 admins and 2 non-admins on his talk page HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I placed an {{adminhelp}} template on my talk page and I got two responses and the template was changed to {{tlx|adminhelp}}.[205] I checked the list of administrators at WP:ADMIN to see if either of the editors who responded were administrators and as far as I could tell they weren't. Could an administrator here clarify for me what happened and whether those responses were credible? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no way to attribute your IP edit to your account, though you could make a subsequent null-edit and explain it in your edit summary if you wish. Is it important that it be attributed to you? You could always revert your IP edit and redo it with your own account if you so wish. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've answered Bob K31416 on his talk page.

talk

) 19:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Time for the community ban of Brucejenner

He has made many sockpuppets for almost a year now and I'm surprised he has not yet been banned. I propose a community banning of Brucejenner to hopefully force him to give up. 188.28.83.178 (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have been speared by checkuser. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 Clerk endorsed (well not clerk but I endorse the ban) as this user has returned to WP many times for far too long. 188.28.65.128 (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone deal with this IP troll? Rangeblock perhaps? Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Libb Thims/Sadi Carnot

User:Sadi Carnot was banned by ArbCom for 1 year for creating hoax/fringe articles such as human molecule, human thermodynamics and human chemistry (see deleted edits for originals). These promoted the odd ideas in the self-published books of an author called Libb Thims. Carnot has just created a new account User:Libb Thims, and has begun to replace his self-promotional fringe theories in Wikipedia and seems to compare his previous ban to book burning and himself to Galileo. I recommend reverting the spam/COI edits of Thims and blocking him for an extended period of time, since I don't think Thims is here to improve the encyclopedia. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I shudder to see this editor back. That said, you'll have to point out to me what he has done that would allow anyone to block him. Human molecule seems to check out, and his edits to Steve Fuller (sociologist) are to point out that Steve Fuller thinks the whole concept is hogwash. He has taken the step of identifying himself as linked to the old Sadi Carnot account. I think he bears extremely close scrutiny, as his previous contributions consisted of subtle vandalism by chronic distortion of references, misrepresentation of sources, and outright fabrications.—Kww(talk) 22:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Human_chemistry for an analysis of the claims that this is a real field of study, not a metaphor or joke. The first sentence of the "new version" of the human molecule article bears a strong resemblance to the one that was previously deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with that AFD. I lobbied for an indefinite ban on Sadi Carnot on the basis of that group of articles. It didn't happen, so we can't act as if it did. It won't take much for me to support a block on the basis of him having returned to his old ways, but he hasn't quite done so yet.—Kww(talk) 22:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That Human molecule seems to check out is... dubious. 2600-odd atoms of iron? Every hemoglobin protein include four heme groups built around an iron atom, and hemoglobin is around 30% of every red blood cell; which means that 2600 is at least five or six orders of magnitude too small for a single cell. Even being extraordinarily conservative about the number of red bloodcells in the average human (10¹³) is generally accepted), that "formula" would be some 18 orders of magnitude too small. — Coren ^(talk) 02:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Checks out" in the very limited sense of "accurately reflects the statements made in the quoted source."—Kww(talk) 03:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I am against banning Sadi Carnot. I think that the whole focus on him before he was banned and after he was banned was not healthy. Before he was banned his edits were wrongly accepted as gospel and after he was banned, the focus was only on removing his book promotions. But the fact that the core thermodynamic articles were deeply flawed eluded everyone until I became involved in that area (that was after he left in 2008) and rewrote articles such as Helmholtz free energy and Fundamental thermodynamic relation almost completely; they are more or less in the same state today as after my rewriting.

Reading something ridiculous about human chemistry is not going to do much harm. But reading a flawed explanation about basic thermodynamics can do real harm; clearly the focus on Sadi alone did not help to correct this more serious problem. Count Iblis (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, somebody who sounds like they are making sense and who pretends that they are an expert in a subject can inflict real damage on our articles. In a sense I'm asking for preventative action here, since once Thims' "ideas" have been spread about some more it will take a long time to unpick his tangled web. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

At a minimum, would anybody object to me deleting the recreated

WP:CSD#G4? Tim Vickers (talk

) 15:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are stretching things a bit, but not so much that I would raise a fuss.—Kww(talk) 15:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

His latest edits took it out of "stretch" land. Deleted it myself.—Kww(talk) 18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As I feared, thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the witch hunt is still on, more than eighteen months after the original events. Tim says "somebody who sounds like they are making sense and who pretends that they are an expert in a subject can inflict real damage on our articles": very true, but we have thousands of those every day! I still don't see why Thims should be treated so much more harshly than the other [people with idiosyncratic ideas] that we encounter on a daily basis here. Physchim62 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't been blocked, and at this point I don't think such an action should be contemplated. Making sure the whole human chemistry/molecule/Elective Affinities mess doesn't reoccur is a different matter.—Kww(talk) 19:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why the new article on the concept of the “human molecule” is being penalized? The new version is within the guidelines of Wikipedia and is representative of an established topic dating back to 1869. The 2002 Ecological Stoichiometry textbook alone, wherein the first published molecular formula for a human is found, has a Google citation count of over 770. It would seem that certain Administrators have past issues with the editor, who has served his time (and learned his lesson), and are taking it out on the article? --Libb Thims (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If you wish, you can appeal this decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As indicated by your Apr 22 comment to me: “You were banned for very good reason. Please don't return”, your initiation of this notice board thread, and your reversion of my edits, etc., it would seem that you are vicariously continuing an indefinite ban on me no matter what I might to do to become a better editor at Wikipedia? I will thus leave the matter in your hands and assume that the articles human molecule, human chemistry, and human thermodynamics are subjects permanently banned from Wikipedia. --Libb Thims (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a ban, but a decision taken at

WP:AFD that these were not encylopedic subjects. The best way to reverse such a decision is to find new independent reliable sources writing about the subject matter. But that presupposes one subject per article, not a horrible mishmash of subjects jammed together. Either compare humans to molecules, relationships to reactions, and sociology to thermodynamics, or write about the effect of actual chemistry on actual human interactions - without using any metaphors. The fact that this seems to be a case of an author trying to use Wikipedia to publicise his own work leaves very bad aftertaste. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

21:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• You seem to ignore, Mr Thims, that Wikipedia is
  reliable sources state about a subject (and, specifically, not to reach conclusions from them). This was explained to you numerous times, and your refusal or inability to understand this has led to sanctions by the Committee.

  Regardless of whether your theories are correct, they are not suitable for Wikipedia until and unless they are directly discussed by reliable sources unrelated to you or your theory. In practice, for theories purporting to be scientific, this means significant peer review. — Coren ^(talk)

  02:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I came upon this thread after noticing some unusual edits to

Chick Bowen

02:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User:ZacharyLassiter formerly User:TheZachDOTnet

I don't know where I should start. I have encountered the following within the last 24 hours:

• Violation of
  WP:3RR on Kalamazoo, Michigan here, here, and here
• Removal of at least somewhat useful talk page content here
• Accusation of {{
  spa}} towards users with four digit edit counts here
  (The COI accusation however holds water)
• Questionable AfD opened here

While the change to the second username has been

WP:U), frequent participation at ANI (check further down up this page), AfD and RfC seems unusual for a 2-day old account. Other editors also smell a rat, see this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspies For Freedom (4th nomination). --Pgallert (talk

) 14:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Talk:Amateur Radio Emergency Service#Dispute about adding the D-RATS link and other threads there, it looks like this user had been editing a while before registering an account. That would explain him being more familiar with Wikipedia policy and practices than the age of his account would account for. —C.Fred (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

So it seems your canvasing me.... whats your beef. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

• Yes, 3RR was violated. Sorry. I will point out that it was to remove obvious vandalism (promoting a local band not notable band, and a small waffle ball league that not notable)
• The talk page content violated
  WP:NOTAFORUM
• I used the wrong terminology as I'm new here with the SPA accusation, it should of been COI
• Its not a violation of rules to participate in ANI/RFC/AfD, the username issue has been delt with and has been an honest mistake.

I think you need to read and comprehend Don't bite the newcomer ZacharyLassiter (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Vandalism is editing done with the obvious intent to harm Wikipedia, promoting a band or whatever does not qualify, and therefore is not exempt from the policy on
  talk
  ) 17:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the rule of 3RR. Perhaps an AIV/UAA/ANI report on the 'spammer' would have been more prudent, however hindsight is... well, you all know. Incidentally, regarding the talk page removal, I think you will find that there was "positive" or "relevant" content in there also, and a shrinking of the forum sections may have been more prudent also. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you shrink?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How do you shrink? ZacharyLassiter (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Like that :) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional I've asked the complaintant not to bite the newcommer. [206]. Additionally as the only complaint here seems to be a 3RR violation it should be posted to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring - Not here. Also I've seen no warning for 3RR violations from anyone this does not even apply either. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above by C.Fred, you're obviously not a newcomer. If you know enough to post

WP:BITE, you probably know enough to not be considered a newcomer. As for a 3RR report, for future reference you don't have to be warned for that to be blocked. A warning is issued in good faith to users who may not be aware of the policy, it's not required on experienced editors. As you've filed a 3RR case against another editor, you obviously understand 3RR. Dayewalker (talk

) 19:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been here less then a week. That pretty much so makes me a newcomer. I find it disgusting how the community here attacks newcomers on a regular basis. Its a wonder you get any new editors at all with this behavior. I've been attacked for participating in ANI, RFC and AfD because I'm a newcomer and it seems that is supported by the community and administration. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel you're being

bitten here, although I don't see any attacks. You have to realize that if you're going to wade into some of the most involved and contentious parts of wikipedia, you need to know what's going on and be able to take advice and constructive criticism. Dayewalker (talk

) 20:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: I reported Zach because I find the overall editing pattern a matter of concern. I could not decide between SPI, 3RR, CIVIL, POINT, and WIKILAWYER, thats why I posted here. I do not intend to

WP:CANVASS. I further wish to state that I do not feel I attacked Zach, much less that I represent "the community here", whatever negative connotation might have been implied in this phrase. Quite the contrary, this is my first ANI report in 2.5 years at Wikipedia.--Pgallert (talk

) 22:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What would you like me to do as a new user - not participate in the community? If you don't think I'm a newbie feel free to offer proof or retract your baseless claim. ZacharyLassiter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC).

As a newbie, I would like you to ask polite questions, use the {{

WP:DUCK might be sufficient to substantiate my claim. --Pgallert (talk

) 22:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Whats the basis of the claim of me being a sock puppet? Who am I a sock puppet for? Geesh ZacharyLassiter (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

user:Monkeyevil War Editing/Harassment

Kalamazoo, MI

he has been warned by two users on multiple occasions. War Edits:

• [207]
• [208]
• [209]

He has been warned by myself [210][211] and User:SGGH[212]

Further - the user has been violating WP:Harassment sending me the following messages on facebook

Message 1: Daryl HutsonJune 11, 2010 at 5:25pm Subject: Stop deleting KWL on wikipedia. Thanks.

My Reply:

• I sent the following via facebook

Please see your talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Monkeyevil

• I warned the user on their talk page [213]

User:SGGH's actions

• Warns the individual[214]

Response from user:Monkeyevil

• Sent me the following message on facebook after SGGH's warning

Daryl Hutson

Daryl HutsonJune 11, 2010 at 7:18pm

Re: Stop deleting KWL on wikipedia.

Please stop being a self important douche.

My Response: I have blocked the user from facebook and started this ANI

Requested Response: As the user is clearly not a new comer (has been war editing Kalamazoo for over a year trying to get the same info included after reversions from different people) I think the user should be prohibited from editing that article. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional: As a courtesy before blocking the individual on facebook I sent the following I'm sending this to you as a courtesy. You have been notified by Wikipedia admin not to contact me on facebook. Please see your talk page.

Here is the link as a courtesy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Monkeyevil

I have blocked you from contacting me further on facebook, I do however invite conversation on this topic on Wikipedia. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Question do you know this editor? Or have they just tracked you down? Per policy:

As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning.

BUT

Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.

So one says this is blockable, one says it's aggravating only. With no disrepsect to ZL intended there is obviously only their word (thus far) to go on. Thoughts? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE to QUESTION by user:SGGH: I do not know this editor. ZacharyLassiter (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

War editing sounds like I'm a terrorist. Thanks for pointing me through all these wiki channels though ZacharyLassiter, I had no clue they were here. It's way more democratic than you repeatedly deleting my additions to the Kalamazoo page with either no response, or the response "Not notable." What I thought was hilarious is you adding something on the page in the same realm of obscurity. It seems like the only time your willing to have decisions made though the proper channels is when it involves something that directly effects you. I apologize for contacting you on Facebook, but I let my frustration get the best of me... not a very Godly thing to do. I'm neither a terrorist account nor harassing ZacharyLassiter, but that is up to the admins to decide. Monkeyevil (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

REPLY

• You are not being accused of being a terrorist. Quit interjecting more drama.
• You have harassed me according to WP:Harassment after being warned by both myself and an administrator.
• I did make an attempt to discuss with you the edits here: [215]
• You have been attempt to War Edit the addition of your Wiffleball league for approximately a year which has been removed by several editors - not only myself.
• After discussion had started you again without consensus being reached [216] and another independent editor has removed it. [217] ZacharyLassiter (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be real great if someone other than you responded to me, your dry robot character really rubs me wrong. Monkeyevil (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that all involved parties are communicating on the talk page of said article, I don't think this thread needs to go any further. I agree with ZacharyLassiter that the wiffle ball team info Monkeyevil has been adding to the article does not meet notability requirements; I also agree with Monkeyevil that this is issue is escalating to the point of unnecessary drama. Let's drop it and move on. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

New editor's experience as evidence of guilt

Unresolved

I wanted to mention that I find the discussion on User talk:Inniverse disturbing. Inniverse was blocked as a sockpuppet by User:Kww on what seemed to be quite circumstantial evidence.

While I've had minor altercations with contributions and found him annoying as an extreme inclusionist, I felt that his edits weren't deliberately disruptive and didn't rise to the level of needing a block, so I rose to his defense. As did a few other editors.

I am disturbed by the block admin Kww's blatant disregard for

assuming good faith

:

• Kww implies that a new account can get into trouble if extensive Wikipedia experience is demonstrated from the start, and that this is evidence of sockpuppetry.
• Kww assumes that a new account showing experience and knowledge of policies must have had prior accounts in the past (rather than anonymous edits, or gaining experience through studying policies), and that this is evidence of sockpuppetry.
• Kww assumes that stale checkuser evidence revealing a geolocation similarity is enough to equate a nondisruptive account with a previously blocked sock.
• Kww asks questions of Inniverse in a "witch hunt" fashion such that, if Inniverse is indeed innocent, no acceptable answer is possible.
• Kww has created a Catch-22 situation where if Inniverse wants to make constructive edits as a registered user, he has no choice but to create another account -- and then be blocked because the Inniverse account has been branded a sock.

Inniverse may or may not be a sock of an old blocked account. At this point, I don't think that's relevant. There is insufficient evidence, only a circumstantial "possible" returned by checkuser. The point is, blocking this editor doesn't have the desired effect of preventing abuse, and Kww has demonstrated a "guilty until proven innocent" position that creates a difficult situation for the accused. ~

talk

) 17:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look at the situation. However, a checkuser "possible" plus behavioral similarities are usually quite sufficient to justify a block under normal admin response standards. See among other things

WP:DUCK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk

) 18:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

More often than not, an account that comes out the door know how our system works (especially the use of tags and such, though I merely use this as an example) tends to be a sock. I myself have never witnesses an 'experienced' new account that wasn't a sock. HalfShadow 18:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page, you'll see at least one other user contending that Inniverse's behavior is not similar to the behavior of the previously blocked sock. I just think this editor hasn't gotten a fair shake. My account "came out the door" with similar experience, although I concentrated more on article content than Wikipedia maintenance. ~

talk

) 18:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not for me to say, really. I have no actual interest in the subject, I'm just explaining the admin reasoning. George'll find out what's what, I'm sure. HalfShadow 18:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is going to take some time - there were 18 named accounts and dozens and dozens of IPs involved here, so doing an in depth user history comparison is not a simple task.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this happen on more than one occasion by more than one admin.

WP:DUCK in most cases. What's the harm in letting a user edit until he/she misbehaves? At worst, the user turns out to be a sock and we block him/her and are done with it. Please, let's try not to alienate newbies because they are too knowledgeable. FunBob1986 (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)— FunBob1986 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits

outside this topic.

Agreed. The assumption here is that an editor who shows editing experience is a sock, and the fact is there are so many IP editors who make the jump to registering that it effectively becomes an overapplication of Occam's razor. I've looked over the page, but as I am not familiar what-so-ever with the alleged sockmaster, I can't review the block. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

First things first: most sockpuppets are blocked on nothing but circumstantial evidence. The whole system is set up around admins evaluating behavioural evidence, not checkuser evidence.

Second, the question is not that the editor is experienced. There are numerous new editors that show signs of having experience that crop up every day, and I don't run around on a blocking spree dealing with that. However, when a new editor shows up that has signs of experience and matches the behavioural pattern of an indefinitely blocked user, I tend to take action. When a new editor shows up that has signs of experience, matches the behavioural pattern of an indefinitely blocked user, and geolocates to the same medium-sized city as the indefinitely blocked user, it's highly likely that I will block him. Inniverse stands accused of being a sock of Azviz. Azviz had numerous socks:

• Beltline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thiruman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Olsys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rterrace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cochranerossst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alfnetwork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Varbas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wordssuch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Esasus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Unionsoap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Untick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14Ave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

Look at those contributions: Beltline (talk · contribs) spent most of his brief editing career screwing around with prod tags. Rterrace (talk · contribs) was obsessed with prod tags. Alfnetwork (talk · contribs) removed a prod tag as his second edit. Varbas (talk · contribs) deprodded numerous articles. Wordssuch (talk · contribs) deprodded for a hobby. Primarily AFDs and prod tags for Untick (talk · contribs). Inniverse has spent his editing career doing deprods and AFDs. The parallel is obvious. I can only assume that people that are saying "doesn't look like Azviz to me" aren't looking at Azviz's socks.—Kww(talk) 21:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What policies and guidelines are being violated by deprodding? None that I know of.

So if an unrelated and innocent editor comes along with inclusionist tendencies that spur him to deprod articles, he gets blocked on suspicion that he's the same as a stale sock account? What recourse would such an editor have?

It is quite conceivable that there are many editors on Wikipedia, who don't even know one another, with similar editing patterns. If you're an inclusionist extremist, the most obvious activity you'd undertake is deprodding. That doesn't make someone a sock. It does absolutely no good to ask what prior accounts Inniverse had, if he had none. You're basically saying that an innocent editor will be blocked on an automatic assumption of bad faith, when the edits are not disruptive, only annoying.

I also find it incredible that Wikipedia doesn't at least record the most recent IP address used for each account. Valuable information that could prevent arguments like this could easily be avoided if checkuser worked properly. ~

talk

) 23:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If it were up to me, all IP information would be retained forever, and never discarded. What you are really objecting to is the whole sockpuppet detection/block process. It's primarily done on behavioural matching. Go look over

WP:SPI, and see how many cases are processed on less evidence than this one. Having any checkuser information at all is the exception, not the rule. You treat "geolocates to the same city" as if it's a trivial point and it's not: I don't know exactly how many editors there are in Calgary, but there aren't thousands of them. The chances of such a good behavioural match and location match being pure coincidence are very small. The evidence in this block is stronger than it is in most. Misbehaviour from the blocked account is not required for a sock block, only matching behaviour. Evidence beyond reasonable doubt isn't required either, only evidence sufficient to convince one admin to block and all other admins that that block was not made improperly, even if the other admin would not have made the block on his own. There's certainly enough evidence here to clear that hurdle.—Kww(talk

) 23:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been hesitant to weigh in because an AN/I can eat one's wiki-life for several days (grin), but I do not think Kww was too quick to act, nor was there an AGF problem. The current talk page doesn't tell the whole tale. The initial Inniverse as a possible sockpuppet review was here, redirected from my original post and was thoroughly considered (Including here) before anyone acted. The evidence is very strong that this user was a pro. I filed the initial request for a sockpuppet investigation and here is why: This user threw up some red flags for me when I went to the user's talk page to comment on a minor matter. (How the talk page appeared when I first saw it before my comment I noticed that Inniverse already had a pile of warnings on an account that was very very new, but for issues requiring sophisticated use of wikipedia. I checked contribs and noticed massive numbers of edits on each of the few days the account existed. I'm not an admin, but felt someone who was should take a peek. Usually when you see behavior that includes immediate proper use of syntax and templates, massive numbers of policy-style edits yet few article content contributions (most truly new wikipedians start by making article edits that are somewhat clumsy but improve with experience), plus dozens of daily edits and multiple talk page complaints on a brand new account, it's clear that someone with wikipedia experience is behind it. (talk page as it appeared immediately before the block) Then pleas of innocence combined with tenditious arguments are classic behaviors of people who make choices to be difficult on Wiki. Here, I respectfully beg to differ with those who say this user's behavior was not disruptive. Inniverse was already upsetting a fair number of other people. But the bottom line is if sockpuppetry itself is the first problem. And here, I think we have a sock. Montanabw^(talk) 07:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I was one of the people who engaged with Inniverse over some of his deprodding. I have to say that I did not feel that his behaviour merited an indefinite block and am concerned that in this case justice is not being seen to be done. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

kww, what do you mean by a pile of warnings on an account that was very very new, but for issues requiring sophisticated use of wikipedia. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken, but if i understand this correctly, these warnings are received by everyone who edited the article nominated for deletion. How is article editing an "issue requiring sophisticated use of wikipedia"?--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to address that question to Montanabw. I didn't say it.—Kww(talk) 18:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the term "a pile" is not terribly specific, so let's analyze this link, which contained 12 topics, one of which was a welcome message, two of which were warning templates, three were standard AfD templates, and the remaining six were all related to prod issues, three of which expressed displeasure with the user's behavior. I'd say that's "a pile." Then two days later, the messages had grown to 18 (it says 20, but that's because my own message to this user suggesting an article improvement posted three times identically, for which I apologize, not sure why that happened, mouse click happy or something) with two of the five unique messages being more AfD tags and two being users expressing displeasure (one via the link posted) with this user. I'd call that an overwhelming pattern. Now, a truly new user might get slapped for poor content and formatting edits, but a new user is not going to be lecturing those who post on the details of Prod policy. Montanabw^(talk) 21:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Inniverse on this discussion, copied from his talk page

The only account I have used are Julpet and this one. I have made other edits without logging in. Nobody has ever asked me the question: "What previous account did you have that caused you to gain considerable expertise in deletion related policies?". I was under the impression that I had annoyed other editors because I did not know what I was doing in relation to deletion discussions - but you are accusing me of being too knowledgeable? Excuse me, but that makes no sense. My talk page received several comments from users who were telling me to read the policy on deletion nominations and discussions to learn more about what I was trying to do. Earlier on this page it was pointed out by another editor that I was "almost certainly not Azviz, simply because [Inniverse] demonstrated an extremely superficial understanding of policy"[218] I thought it was my ignorance that you were upset about. Now you say my editing is too advanced? I was confused when I was accused by the admin who claimed that I made infoboxes on my first day editing as Inniverse. Take another look. It was a cut and paste. My first edits made were to try to perform a move by cutting and pasting the entire article into a new article name. I now realize that I should use a "move" to do this. I am just learning my way around Wikipedia - reading policy, cutting and pasting, and learning as I go. I am not guilty of what I have been accused of. Inniverse (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I will point out that the alternate explanation for the move behaviour is that the tag has moved, and is no longer displayed for accounts that are not yet confirmed.—Kww(talk) 22:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to some edits that you made as an IP? - Mgcsinc (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I will not point you to my IP edits as I have reasonable concerns for my privacy. Further, I now feel that whatever explanations I give will not satisfy those who have already made up their minds and decided upon their position. I am gratified to see that some editors have taken note that my account has been superficially judged by other editors who have jumped at conclusions and have slapped labels on me. I find it ironic the the blocking admin who is accusing me of having too much knowledge made this [219] comment to another editor with his 2nd ever edit (his first edit was to create his user's page). Conflicts are better resolved through discussion and finding a mutually agreeable solution. I will try to limit my involvement in this discussion. I hope and trust that common sense, fairness and the spirit and words of Wikipedia policy, in particular Wikipedia:Assume good faith are fully considered. I believe that I have the skills to be a good editor and I have respect for Wikipedia and its volunteer editors. I ask that you allow me to contribute to the project. Inniverse (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(Will someone be kind enough to add Mgcsinc's question and my response to the on-going discussion.) Inniverse (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You probably should note this anonymous edit from nearly a month earlier. Think that anonymous editor signed his edit KWW by coincidence?—Kww(talk) 04:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not accusing KWW of any wrong doing. I am just trying to make the point that even new editors can have legitimate editing experience. That KWW edited as an IP prior to creating his account supports my argument. Inniverse (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Kww was trying to make the point that revealing some of your anonymous edits would only help your case, not hurt it. ~

talk

) 17:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I do not know whether or not this user is a sockpuppet; though this is a difficult sort of judgment to make, I think Kww is possibly right because the answers above do seem evasive. However, it is not ideal that Kww should be the one who made this block, because the basis of the block was behavioral evidence that the user was unreasonably opposing deletions, and Kww will surely not take it amiss if I say he is known as a relatively deletionist editor. Suppose a new editor came along, and engaged in very frequent consistent deletion nominations, while showing a considerable knowledge of the deletion process to the extent it might possibly be sockpuppettry, but there was no confirming checkuser. If I blocked that editor on the basis of the behavioral evidence, though I might be judging the situation perfectly accurately, I would be doing wrong, because I am about as inclusionist as Kww is the opposite. If I encountered such a situation, I should have either bring it here or to another admin board, or requested that an admin who I knew had a different orientation in this respect evaluate the matter. Had I done the block myself , I would expect to be expect--certainly if I did it with the experience I have now-- to be reprimanded. In fact, as a new admin, I made a block where I came a little too close to the line of blocking potential opponents, and though the block was upheld, I was indeed advised to unblock, and I did so, and learned from it & I hope have never repeated it. It is no reflection on Kww, likewise a new administrator, that he should do the same sort of thing I did, and i expect he too will learn that the only safe way of using the buttons is to avoid anything that might be seen as favoring ones one's own inclinations, even when fully objectively justified. It's frustrating, because he and I must wait for others to take action when we know we could do it fairly, but if anyone might think it unfair, we do better to put up with the frustration-- if only so that the people who should be blocked get blocked without such a question arising. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• That could be true, though sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and he blocked the user as a sock because he matched patterns that Kww was familiar with. As an aside, I'm pretty bloody sick of the battleground mentality between inclusionists and deletionists. As an outside observer who doesn't self classify into either camp, I wouldn't have made a "Kww's a dirty deletionist so of course he would notice an editor hindering his deletionist pogrom" connection (extreme hyperbole added for comedic effect, I know you didn't phrase it as such). Syrthiss (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I was asked by e-mail to take a look. I think any examination of my block log will show that if I have any pogroms, it's against socks, not articles.—Kww(talk) 14:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks, that was my point. :) Syrthiss (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

  • • Let us not pretending individuals do not have individual views about Wikipedia and that they can possibly influence our decisions without our being aware of it. This can be so invidious that the only protection against acting unfairly is to never act in a way that can possibly be perceived as unfair. As I said, with my relatively little experience of these investigation I think Kww was correct about the socking, and I accept his expertise in this area. That isn't the point. No admin should ever take action against someone whom he has a RW or WP ideological difference with, or where he might be perceived to have such a difference. I think I'm less an inclusionist that people sometimes think, but it's the way I'm perceived that matters. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

KWW has a conflict of interest in this matter. KWW reported me as a sockpuuppet of User:A Nobody[220] and then when that comes back negative he is the same admin who implements a block against me for being a sock of User:Azviz[221]. Since implementing the block KWW has been arguing with verbosity to justify the block that he himself implemented. My question is: When will I be able to edit again? If the answer is "Never" then that would be in gross violation of everything that Wikipedia espouses to stand for. Inniverse (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Please copy my above comments to the bottom of the parallel discussion. I would like my comments to follow the most recent comments of DGG, and not placed in the middle where they may be overlooked by someone who is trying to follow the discussion. Indefinite means "not yet determined". I asking for a non-conflicted admin to determine the length of time that my block will be set for. Inniverse (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll move your latest comment, but not the one's that follow logically from the conversation. Your block is still flagged as a contested block and, as such, is being periodically reviewed by all admins that review such things. At this stage, it's highly unlikely that anyone will choose to lift this block.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your block log says blocked "with an expiry time of indefinite", which means without end unless changed.--Milowent (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Inni, dude, don't laywer me, its FREAKIN' UNTIL DOOMSDAY unless someone lifts it.--Milowent (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin i would point out that indefinite means "Without limit; forever, or until further notice" in this context. "Not yet determined" could be valid as well, if the derived meaning would be akin to "ending not yet known because there is no expiry time". In other words: The length of this block is infinite unless changed. See

Wikipedia:INDEF#Indefinite_blocks as well. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs}

) 20:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have had a good read of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and if anyone is wikilawyering (read wikiprosectuting) it is KWW. Concerning KWW's Wikipedia:Standard offer, I point out that the last edit made by an accused Azviz-sockpuppet was by Beltline on June 23, 2009. That was over 11 months ago. By the "Standard Offer" Azviz is now in a position to request to be reinstated. So logically, if I am Azviz as accused, I am now in a position to request to be reinstated. And if I am not Azviz, then the current block is not warranted. So logically, either way that a non-conflicted admin might look at this situation, an unblock or a time-defined block is appropriate. (please move) Inniverse (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The standard offer applies only to people that make requests from their original account, and have not socked in the interim. I have applied the same standards to this case that I have to all sockpuppeting cases, and it would appear that no other admin has found fault with my determination.—Kww(talk) 02:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Which again brings up a question I have asked of Kww repeatedly, and Kww has so far failed to answer: If an innocent editor happened to be blocked this way, what recourse would the editor have to become a useful contributor to Wikipedia? If you assume in good faith (which you haven't) that Inniverse has answered honestly to the charges, what recourse would Inniverse have? ~

talk

) 18:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

6 months break from Wikipedia, and then e-mailing an admin asking for the account to be reinstated, at which time it would be taken before Arbcom. WP:Standard offer applies.—Kww(talk) 18:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Having spent a while reviewing...

The behavioral evidence here matches normal standards for a largescale sockpuppeteer response. Geolocation plus the behavioral rough match is good enough by our normal standards.

With that said, it's entirely possible that this is another human being associated with the account. We always know that Duck test based behavioral blocks will of necessity be imperfect (and even checkuser based blocks have a nonzero false positive rate, though it's pretty good).

I am going to invite Inniverse to send unblock-en-l some form of identification if he would like to resolve this. That list is private and routinely handles basic identity information. If we can validate an identity then I'm comfortable unblocking.

There's no reason to abandon Duck test or behavioral based sockpuppeteer detection and responses. That was not misused here IMHO. But it's necessary to do so with some awareness of how to handle the occasional false positives.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved

 – Unbacklogged.

talk

) 03:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

AIV is backlogged, could an admin please take a look at the page. - NeutralHomer • Talk

• 02:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion improperly declined

Yesterday I nominated File:Richard goldstone inside un car.jpg for speedy deletion. This image is from a series by Ashraf Amra of Associated Press, taken on 3 June 2009. Another from the same series (taken a few seconds after this one) can be found online at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2009/1104/p02s13-usfp.html . The uploader's assertion that "the source of the image is unknown, its copyright status is very hard to verify" is patently false. I was surprised to find that it's been declined; it's an unambiguous copyright infringement and it's very dangerous to rip off agency photographs with false assertions about copyright - especially as the owner of this image, the Associated Press, takes an aggressive line on copyright infringement.[222] Could an admin with more clue about copyright please deal with this asap? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the declining admin was absolutely right. The image was tagged as non-free and had a

fair use rationale. Therefore the "blatant copyvio" criterion does not apply. (Did you discuss this with the admin before bringing it here?) ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate

─╢ 09:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fastily was, IMO, correct. You tagged the image as F9- and I quote, "Images (or other media files) that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case. A URL or other indication of where the image originated should be mentioned. This does not include images used under a claim of fair use," (emphasis mine). When you tagged it, the image did have a fair-use rationale, at the bottom, making F9 non-applicable.

WP:FFD is the next step in this process, not AN/I. Courcelles (talk

) 09:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, I'm afraid. Agency photos are specifically excluded from fair use on Wikipedia except in certain very limited circumstances: "Unacceptable use ... A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article."

WP:NFC#UUI This is not the case and as I've already stated the uploader's claim about the image's status being unknown is false. It was ripped off from a website which ripped it off from the AP. This is an open-and-shut case of unacceptable use that isn't covered by fair use. -- ChrisO (talk

) 09:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If you think that the image fails the

FfD. Speedying is not appropriate. Did you discuss this with the admin before bringing it here? ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters

─╢ 10:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Doesn't stand a chance of being kept" is quite a bit different than being

speedy deletable under F9. Courcelles (talk

) 09:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all whether the claim is valid - that's for the deletion debate to decide. As long as the claim is present, it cannot be speedied under F9. This is similar in style to A7, where there merely needs to be an assertion of notability, even if that doesn't meet the notability guidelines. This was a fine response that you should have discussed with the admin in question before coming here, imo. Ale_Jrb^talk 10:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Any admin with a decent knowledge of copyright should realise immediately that a ripped-off agency photograph, used without any valid claim of fair use and with a false claim of unknown status, is an unambiguous copyright infringement and thus covered by F9. But since there seems to be a refusal so far to acknowledge reality, fine - I'll notify AP and suggest that they send a takedown notice to the Wikimedia Foundation. Really, we need to raise our game here - this isn't good enough; this is copyright 101. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(

WP:CSD#F7 for future reference, which I think is the correct tag - invalid fair use claim - as you seem to be disputing the fair use rationale. Ale_Jrb^talk

10:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If admins, who are supposed to police copyright violations - I did that for six and a half years myself - can't recognise an obvious copyvio then there is a real problem. A kick up the collective backside would not go amiss, in my opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—Chris, who opened the thread, did not notify
  effectively required. He insulted Fastily by suggesting that they lacked "clue" without giving them a chance to defend themselves. That is extremely poor behaviour on his part and I think that he should apologise. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands
  ─╢ 10:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  I know perfectly well what Fastily's reasoning is, and it's wrong. If Fastily doesn't recognise an unambiguous copyright infringement when he sees one he shouldn't be doing speedy deletions. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  No, Fastily was absolutely right. You are wrong: and in so many ways. Please explain why you ignored the

  large notice at the top of ANI which clearly states, "You must notify any user that you discuss." ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor

  ─╢ 10:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  That was an oversight on my part - apologies. I see you've notified him though. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  Chris, the correct way to solve this procedurally is to tag it as {{

  Dfu}}, or even more safely, simply to list it at FFD. It will be gone in a week. You are of course correct about the essence of the image policy here, indeed it has no chance of being kept. Please just list it for deletion, and since the copyright status and lack of legitimate FU is so obvious, I'm going to keep it out of article space until it's gone. Fut.Perf. ☼

  10:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  I've tagged it under CSD F7 as suggested above by Ale jrb. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I actually think it could possibly be speedied immediately under F7, as a blatantly inappropriate claim of fair use, but I also think that calling an admin incompetent with no clue and threatening to invite a corporation to take legal action is not the best way it could have been handled... (And I still don't think you could delete it under F9.) Ale_Jrb^talk 10:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  You should note that I refactored immediately [223]. However, I still think this incident does indicate a worrying lack of awareness of the seriousness of the copyright issue. AP is the most aggressive news agency around when it comes to enforcing copyright. They're even suing Sheperd Fairey over his famous Obama poster, which is based on one of their images. Copyright is probably the greatest single liability we have. We simply can't afford to take a casual attitude to it, particularly when the infringed party is known for aggressive enforcement. - ChrisO (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Fastily applied policy correctly. Whether policy is correct or not is another matter. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  It looks like this could be solved with F12 - unacceptable fair use of agency photos. Mjroots (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  We don't actually have an F12 at the moment, as I'm sure you know, but I think it would be a good idea to have one addressing this issue. I've raised the question at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Additional category F12: news agency photographs. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

A

WP:TROUT

to ChrisO for:

1. Not contacting the admin in question first in order to discuss
2. Not notifying the person being reported to ANI

Clearly, the CSD was declined as per policy, and his is now being dealt with using the correct policy - which could have easily been determined without

BWilkins ←track

) 11:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• The CSD shouldn't have been declined; the rationale should just have been changed to F7. Just because the wrong tag has been applied isn't a reason not to delete something that clearly isn't going to be useable; let's not tie ourselves in red tape here. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• it's a good thing we've got those little niggling rules so that we can sidetrack issues if someone makes a tiny mistake rather than properly address them. I propose we add a new rule, users reporting issues to AN/I should only do so wearing blue pants and failure to upload a time stamped image of themselves sporting blue pants with the proper case sensitive file name will result in a total invalidation of anything they have to say.--
  Crossmr (talk
  ) 12:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry, your sarcasm (while riotously entertaining...) makes it difficult for me to get your point. Are you saying that you think the requirement of notifying other editors that you have posted a threat complaining about, or badmouthing, them here is a bad idea? ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 12:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  Or are you trying to say that, by reminding ChrisO of the rule, TrerasuryTag was stifling discussion of the copyright issue? Becasue I really don't see that that's the case. 163.1.174.65 (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  TreasuryTag brought it up twice, and Bwilkins brought up as two different points. This is not the only time this kind of thing has been brought up in an AN/I discussion to try and characterize the person starting the thread and take some focus off the issue. So I'm going to propose a new rule: If someone forgets to notify someone about a thread,

  Crossmr (talk

  ) 23:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• F7 doesn't immediately apply: it's not a "clearly invalid" use of fair use. It is tagged as disputed fair use and it is tagged as replaceable, and it will be deleted accordingly in a few days unless a defence of irreplaceability and fair use can be found. There's no need to rush things or get upset when admins apply the letter of the speedy deletion rules. Fences&Windows 15:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  The point is that we specifically state that fair-use never applies to agency photos, unless the article is about the photo - thus any claim is, obviously, clearly invalid. However, it isn't a wrong tagging, as suggested in the example, so for 'immediate' deletion under F7, I think you could read the criterion both ways. With that said, I considered deleting it under F7 from when I first mentioned it, and decided not to, so there we go. :) Ale_Jrb^talk 16:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  I've decided I wasn't very clear just then. What I meant was, there isn't a defence - the image isn't allowed full stop, and it will be deleted, so I can understand where the 'we should just do it now' argument comes from. Ale_Jrb^talk 16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Late to my own party again!! :( @ChrisO - Chris, please bear in mind that a copyright violation does not exist until a user claims work that is not their own as their own. Just because a file is non-free/copyrighted does not mean that it should be deleted as a copyright violation. Frankly, the use of Associated press/Reuters/Getty Images photos is not prohibited, it is only strongly discouraged. From the relevant policy page (

2 and should be tagged as such. An immediate speedy deletion under F7 would only be applicable if the file bears an invalid fair use claim - (e.g. inappropriate license tag). Regards, FASTILY_sock^(TALK)

18:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fastily, but I'm not entirely sure that I actually need you to explain F7 to me... F7 allows immediate deletion if the fair-use tag is clearly invalid. The fair use tag clearly is invalid, because we don't allow fair use tags on agency images. Thus, it could quite easily be read that F7 applies to this particular image. I'm aware that this is reading F7 in a slightly different way, but stating flat out that it an incorrect reading is, imo, not something you can just do. I'd also point out that while being prohibited by a guideline rather than a policy doesn't actually mean it's prohibited, it gets pretty darn close. Ale_Jrb^talk 10:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Fences&Windows removal of the tag was also wholly inappropriate, especially as the matter was under discussion. Ale_Jrb^talk 10:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think this discussion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the speedy deletion process. Per
  WP:CSD "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." The key words here are "save time" and "most obvious." While I understand there are concerns about admin's wielding too much power, I think they should have the unquestioned, unchecked, absolute right to say a deletion's justification isn't completely obvious. There should never be an appeal here of an individual CSD decision. If a speedy deletion is made, the appeal is to deletion review; if declined to XfD. Period. Anything else is wasting the time the speedy process is supposed to save. I propose amending WP:CSD to make this clear.--agr (talk
  ) 20:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  As I've indicated above and Newyorkbrad has commented below, this isn't just about "appealing a deletion" - there is a real problem with the way that we approach our copyright priorities. This is an issue that goes wider than an individual CSD decision. If some admins are unclear about NFCC, which is clearly the case, that need to be discussed at a high level and with maximum visibility - not just in an obscure corner of XfD or DR. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

With apologies to anyone I would be overruling, I am seriously considering deleting this image under the NFCC, with a dose of IAR thrown in for good measure if required. I find it highly unlikely that a valid fair-use claim could be made for any press agency photograph from last year, other than under extraordinary circumstances. And this particular image is an in-situ photograph of a living person of a type that is routinely found to be non-compliant and deleted, even under circumstances where the invalidity of any fair-use claim is far less obvious than it is here.

If this discussion is a typical one, I think we need to have a serious internal discussion about getting our copyright priorities in order. We spend a great deal of time applying nuances of our policies and guidelines to images, many of which are decades old, as to which any claim of copyright or copyright violation is purely theoretical. In some of these instances, there is no reason to believe that any living person or active entity holds or seeks to enforce rights to the material, and there is no significant chance that anyone will be or feel damaged by our reuse of it. On the other hand, the copyright holder here is a for-profit news service has a subsisting economic interest in this recent image and I am certain it would legitimately feel aggrieved by this use of it, in a context where our use could be considered competitive with the news service's own right to use such image.

The issue here is not whether one could attempt to cobble together some sort of fair-use argument for this file; I am sure that someone could do so, although quite clearly so far no one has, if one were committed to push the envelope of what is permissible under fair use, legally and policy-wise, to the furthest extent possible. But that is not the approach English Wikipedia has usually taken, and this would be quite a poor place to start. As I've said, I think we err often in deleting images based upon purely notional concerns concerning their copyright status, and I would not mind some loosening of some of our guidelines with respect to these. But here, I think it is sufficiently clear that this is not an acceptable fair-use claim that speedy deletion would be justified, even in the face of the prior decline. Comments welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I could think of several situations. For example, any photo taken in an area or of an individual that we could not realistically expect wikipedians to have access to to take photos. If there were some kind of major news even in North Korea for example and there were some photos released of it, it would be completely unreasonable to expect that anyone on wikipedia would have had access to that event. I believe we had a discussion in the past about a notorious drug lord and I believe his image remained because it was unreasonable to expect anyone to break into jail to take his photo.--

Crossmr (talk

) 00:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Scarcity creates demand which creates value. An image of something which is difficult to obtain - say the picture of your drug lord - is a valuable asset precisely because it's difficult to obtain. If, for instance, AP is the only agency to have a photo of your drug lord then that photo has real commercial value which the agency will not want to see diluted by other people copying it without permission. And of course, that increases the risk involved in pirating the photo. Let's not forget that Wikipedia's role is not to compete with news outlets. If Wikipedians can't take their own photographs of a thing, that doesn't mean that we have a justification to steal images from someone who's taken the time, expense and (in some cases) risk to do so. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You might want to give

Crossmr (talk

) 11:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• F9 should read "reasonable claim of fair use". This images needs deleted now, not some random time in the future. — Coren ^(talk) 02:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries about Fastily's take on how it was tagged, but I've deleted the image as a blatant copyvio with a fair use rationale which falls outside the bounds of policy. If an admin doesn't agree and wants to rs it on their own pending more discussion in a deletion thread (not here), that's up to them. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide&oldid=367249753
2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide&oldid=367250660
3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide&oldid=367259971