Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive619

This new user has only made three edits, though this one concerns me [1]. I think this is a probable attack account problem. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Admin has deleted revision. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The Requested Move was relisted by User:PhantomSteve. But the admins evaluation did not mention nor valuate at all the claim (in the statements/!votes, my me): "This is a WP:PARENT posting". I would prefer to have another admin to take a look & decision on this. Any discussion is at the talk-page. Notification will be made there (shortly). -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have commented there, as an uninvolved admin, that I do not think PARENT applies and that I endorse PhantomSteve's decision to relist. JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting this here because I've been involved with the user on one AfD. The userbox (which I've already nominated for MfD indicates this user's intention (which he's carried out on over 20 articles earlier this evening) to !vote to delete in any article that's been nominated for deletion, and hence for rescue. In many cases, he has added ARSnote early in the discussion, giving the false impression that the article had been flagged for rescue that early in the discussion.

I'd request that the user be formally admonished for such behavior and directed to participate in a collegial, rather than overtly partisan manner in the future. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Tell me you didn't use your tools to revert all his edits. I can see you did, but what were you thinking? AniMate 05:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

And upon further investigation I see you are in an ongoing dispute with him. Unacceptable. AniMate 05:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what he did. See my complaint below at

talk

05:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain to me how I could possibly be aware that you reviewed articles for deletion and didn't comment one way or the other on them. Which ones were those? Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So, AniMate, let's explore that. Did I block him? Nope. Did I unilaterally topic ban him? No, but I did ask him to discuss here before continuing. Did I change anything related to the one AfD on which we're actually in dispute? Nope. Am I an ARS member? Nope. Was I the one who threw the {{rescue}} on the article related to the one AfD on which we're actually in dispute? Nope. So, how much more uninvolved do you really want me to be in the face of reactive disruption?

So really, here's the sequence of actions:

1) I rescued an article.

2) He !voted delete after I'd added reliable sources.

3) I pointed out how his efforts failed to dis-establish notability.

4) He went and !voted delete on a ton of other {{rescue}}'ed articles.

5) He created a userbox touting his efforts and their motivation.

6) I MFD'ed the userbox, reverted the AfD's in which I was uninvolved, and brought my actions here for discussion.

Again... how is this me becoming emotional or misusing tools? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a tad concerned that an older user with a totally uneventful edit history suddenly became almost 100% involved in deleting articles on 28 March 2010, almost as though he were a totally different editor. Out of the last hundred AfDs he has !voted on, he has a total of 5 "keep" !votes. From March 2007 to 26 October 2009, he was absent from AfD entirely. I fear that by so acting as a pure predictable !vote, and becoming known, that his !votes will achieve the same value as Ikip's did on the other side. Collect (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the account has been highjacked? Unlike Ikip, Snottywong gives valid reasons for his opinion, and hasn't been disruptive. Verbal chat 12:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jclemens abuse of rollback rights

ALSO SEE Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jclemens ZacharyLassiter (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jclemens has taken it upon himself to rollback all of my recent !votes on multiple, unrelated AfD's (approximately 20 of them). His reasons for doing this are the following:

1. He has interpreted a personal userbox that I recently created as a de facto admission of guilt to bad faith editing.
2. He has become emotional during an argument we've been having on an AfD for (presumably) one of his articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up.

Jclemens has not made any attempts to contact me for an explanation of my userbox prior to rolling back all of my !votes (unless you count the MfD he started on the userbox). Furthermore, this message he left on my user talk page proves that he is fully aware that I have voted to both to keep and delete the various AfD's in question, which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that I have not been editing in bad faith. These keep votes were made long before any of this happened, and long before the userbox was created.

It's apparent that Jclemens is letting his emotions get the best of him, and using his rollback rights to act on those emotions. I respectfully request that all of the rollbacks he has performed on my edits be undone. Whether or not his rollback rights are taken away (or some other punitive action is taken) is not something I can comment on, but I will leave that up to the admins who can better make that judgement.

05:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've skimmed the edits he reverted. All were reasonable delete or keep comments, with rationales that showed Snottywong had actually looked at the articles. Personally, I think you should ditch the userbox, but Jclemens pretty clearly abused his tools here. I'd undo his reversions but I'm going to be off for about an hour. If nothing has changed when I get back, I'll undo them myself. AniMate 05:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no question in my mind, AniMate, that many of his rationales were otherwise appropriate. The rate, focus, and virtually unanimous skew of his !votes, combined with the initial version of his userbox, clearly show bad faith. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the rate focus, and skew do not imply bad faith. Come on. If SnottyWong's single goal in life is to prune wikipedia of non-notable pages, and he's found a way to find such pages, then there is nothing bad faith about that. The box is arguably an attack, but even that does not imply bad faith. Please assume good faith. ErikHaugen (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Please post diffs that you allege show me "becoming emotional".

2) I did, in fact, contact you after I had reverted your disruptive edits. Please highlight a requirement that disruptive editors be contacted before their disruptive edits are corrected.

(Interjection by DustFormsWords) -

WP:AGF

suggests you probably shouldn't be declaring edits disruptive at all until you've talked to the person who made them.

(response to interjection: You may feel free to insert "which I perceived to be", if you prefer) Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

3) Prior to this discussion you have changed your userbox to be less directly offensive. Let the record show that I interpreted the prior version of the userbox as prima facie evidence of bad faith, not the revised version.

4) My rollback rights are not a discrete privilege; as an administrator, I would have to be desysop'ed for them to be removed.

Overall, if the user is going to be less blatant about blanket !voting deletion on anything flagged for rescue (With the exception of Upstate New York, which proves nothing) and going to fade into the rest of the deletionist camp, then there's really nothing particularly actionable here. But !voting in ONLY debates flagged for rescue, doing so in an overwhelming one-sided manner, and explicitly stating in a userbox the ARS-centric motivation for doing so is disruptive editing. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• From my (non-admin) perspective having come into the matter, they were bad reverts, admittedly triggered by what was (at that time) a pretty inflammatory userbox. Jclemens doesn't appear to be escalating the matter (other than in the heated response above), it's certainly far short of being worthy of a block or a de-adminning, so surely there's not much to be done here other than ask everyone to consider more friendly ways of interacting in future? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, please undo your rollbacks. There is indeed something actionable here, but it isn't Snottywong's edits, or even his userbox. Your argument is defeated by the fact that we have dozens of different ways that deletion discussions are sorted and lists created all over the place. There's no difference in someone electing to participate in discussion where the ARS has tagged an article, and electing to participate only in discussions about history, biography, transport, LGBT issues, or Hornepayne. Frankly, I am hard-pressed to understand why you think misusing one administrator tool is different than misusing another. Risker (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So, Risker, if a user were to follow every LGBT AfD, !vote delete on most of them, and then created and placed on their user page a Userbox saying how proud he was to be reducing the homosexual influence on Wikipedia, that would be OK? I gotta disagree. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A (very) brief search through the ANI incident archive reveals that this may not be the first time that people have had a problem with Jclemens' actions as an administrator. Perhaps a review of his adminship is in order after all. I have not gone through the past complaints in detail as I'm about to get off for the night and go to sleep. I will take a look in more detail tomorrow to see if there is a pattern in the past complaints. If anything, it's obvious from his comments above and his continual arguing that he still doesn't understand what he did wrong, despite the fact that no one has taken his side yet.

talk

05:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So, rather than defending your edits, you'd rather this focused on the person who cleaned up your disruption? Yeah. All past complaints on my administrative actions are available for public view.... Including all the people who've previously commented there, for instance. I welcome the scrutiny. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Snottywong seems to have voted perfectly normally in all the AFDs that he was involved in, he included a vote, and a valid and pertinent policy reason. His edits at AFD were not IMO in any way disruptive. On the other hand, you've gone through and removed a whole bunch of votes based entirely on his philosophy expressed on a completely different page. This is both wikistalking and disrupting the AFD process.- Wolfkeeper 06:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So you don't view the expressed motivation for the edits to "counteract the implicit

WP:POINT is all about? Jclemens (talk

) 06:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just revert the reverts, Jclemens. Even if you were right about bad faith, this wasn't the appropriate action to have taken. The closing admins are on the whole sharp cookies that I have a lot of respect for, and they're not going to be tricked into unwarranted deletions by spurious arguments. If an AfD turns on something Snottywong said it will be because it was a good argument, and that's the best reason for letting them remain I can think of. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, my impression of the whole matter is that Snottywong got frustrated with other editors (as we all do from time to time) and created a userbox expressing that frustration. When it was pointed out to him the userbox was offensive, he immediately changed it. It doesn't indicate anything more than very natural emotions, a momentary lapse of judgement, and a general willingness to work in harmony with an often difficult community. Extrapolating it into a series of bad faith edits is, itself, something that overlooks the principle of

assuming good faith. - DustFormsWords (talk

) 06:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You left out the bit where he jumped into more than a score of AfD's flagged for rescue with the expressed purpose of deleting them in between the part where he got frustrated and created the userbox. Other than that, I don't disagree with your summary. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If he'd gone through and just typed "Delete not notable" or similar next to every rescue-tagged AfD, then you might have a point about

WP:POINT. But on the ones I've looked at, he did include valid rationales (i.e. on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZipcodeZoo he says "All refereces are primary" and he's right). So it wasn't just a case of blind !voting - I note he took over an hour to comment at all those AfDs. You can argue about the motivation behind it, but you can't remove valid comments based on your own opinion of his motivation, I'm afraid. Black Kite (t) (c)

06:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Spending an hour sounds like a lot of work... but then you consider he !voted in over 20 (anyone feel like counting the exact number?) and has asserted that he looked over more rescue-flagged AfDs and didn't comment in them. I've never disputed that he included valid rationales, just pointed out his disruption in doing what he did. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT is when you're actually disrupting the wikipedia by actually doing something you disagree with to prove the point. Following the letter and maybe spirit of the rules is to be admired; trying to keep every single article because it might, someday, be reliably sourced, even though it isn't at the moment (which is more where some of the ARS are coming from) really isn't on. We need rules in the Wikipedia, they minimise arguments.- Wolfkeeper 06:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make this about the ARS. This is about Jclemens abusing his administrative tools. AniMate 06:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. We're here because I requested a review of my remediation of

) 07:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't the first time Jclemens has used tools unwisely to "defend" the ARS (of which I am a member). He should revert and be asked not to use his tools in this area again except in cases of obvious and clear disruption. Verbal chat 07:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This was obvious and clear disruption. Again, I'm not an ARS member and never will be. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that you are not a member, when you are so closely tied to the ARS, does not make you uninvolved and is not particularly convincing. Please justify the clear and obvious disruption with diffs in the section you created below. Verbal chat

I'll agree there was obvious and clear disruption... from you Jclemens. His AfD votes were supported by policy, and you have zero support for your actions. Undo them now, please. AniMate 07:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to someone else reinserting those edits, but if you want me to do them myself, I need to be convinced that the edits are themselves not disruptive, not merely that my actions were out of proportion to the disruption. That may seem like hairsplitting, but I won't re-do edits that I personally believe are disruptive. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Time to start answering some questions

I've directed questions in the above thread to a number of users. If anyone would care to convince me that my actions were incorrect, the way to do that is by engaging in civil discourse. I would welcome it if any editors, and not simply the original editors to whom those questions were addressed would focus on my position that Snottywong's edits were in bad faith and disruptive. Once his actions have been appropriately evaluated by the community, then we can look at what I did in response to them. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please justify removing AFD !votes that had valid and relevant rationales. Verbal chat 07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The edits were expressly made in bad faith, as evidenced by the original version of the userbox under discussion. I rolled them back as disruptive and explained my rationale to the affected editor. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did not check all of the diffs, but [2], [3], [4] & [5] do show an irresponsible use of

Snottywong's comments on the AfD. That is disruptive editing, as your edits represented a damage to open discourse. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism

07:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be operating from a position that those were legitimate edits, which I do not. I have never called them vandalism, I have called them disruptive. Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Under what criteria is it disruptive? I see a valid !vote with a proper rationale. If adding {{ARSnote}} is disruptive to you, you discuss with the user. You do not rollback every edit the user makes. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit."

[1] The edits you reverted do not fall under that description. Jafeluv (talk

) 07:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You're referring to the user-level rollback policy. I rolled back his disruptive actions as an administrator who was uninvolved with the AfD's in question. Is there an assertion there that all administrator use of the "rollback" button is restricted by

WP:ROLLBACK? I've never understood that to be the expectation. Jclemens (talk

) 07:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The principle is the same. Do not

wikilawyer. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism

07:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm, what? Of course the policy applies to administrators as well. Where did you get the idea that it didn't? Jafeluv (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a claim that rules don't apply to admins is going to go down very well. Verbal chat 07:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is why RfA can't have nice things. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it amusing that the guy succeded 80-2-3 > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

wat Jafeluv (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

HAHA, sorry, my bad. I meant this. Still amusing though, 77/2/0. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 08:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the reverted AfD !votes can be seen here. Jclemens also warned the user on their talk page, saying "Were I not already involved with you on one discussion, I would have already blocked you for disruptive editing." Jafeluv (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer a question you posed to me (So, how much more uninvolved do you really want me to be in the face of reactive disruption?) If you're to involved to block, you're too involved to do mass rollback. I want you actually uninvolved. AniMate 07:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see anything which justifies Jclemens actions, and he has admitted to being involved in a dispute with this editor about AFD. Jclemens, please stop this and don't do anything like it again. Verbal chat 07:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Stop" what? I've not done anything related to the user or dispute in question since I raised the issue here. Jclemens (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

By "stop" I mean undo your actions and either apologise or withdraw gracefully, and not repeat such disruptive tool use in relation to the ARS ever again. Verbal chat 07:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an odd usage of stop. I will apologize when and if I am ever convinced that my actions were wrong in that Snottywong's behaviour was not disruptive. So, if you want an apology for him... by all means, address the topic of his actions, rather than my response. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you noticed how much support your actions have? Unless you are able to show how each one was disruptive, please undo your rollbacks (which also broke rollback rules). Verbal chat 07:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The rollbacks have already been reverted by myself and others, except one that had already been closed. I've asked Sandstein to revisit the closure, just in case it would have affected the result. Jafeluv (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This would be a while different issue if

07:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there has been no evidence presented of any wrongdoing by Snottywong, whereas Jclemens misuse of rollback has not drawn any support. Verbal chat 07:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing others' comments in an AfD is not a step to take lightly. Even !votes cast by sockpuppets are typically just stricken, with an explanation. Removing !votes cast by someone whose philosophy you disagree with is a very troubling lapse of judgement. I understand that you were concerned about the userbox, and starting the MfD was not an inappropriate response. However, moving on to mass rollback -- apparently without awaiting any response from the editor in question or any answer to your "Is this disruptive?" question -- is very questionable. That you still do not appear to believe you've done anything questionable is... baffling, frankly. This isn't good conduct for an admin. Shimeru 09:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Can we ratchet down the hysteria?

Okay, we all know that Jclemen's use of rollback was wrong and that DRV is going to overturn and relist any AFD closed as keep if it has been tainted by having a vote struck, but am I the only one who thinks this is wholly uncharacteristic for an experienced, sensible and very well balanced editor? Please can we step back and give Jclemens space to review his actions and hopefully self correct without the pressure that this bout of ANI hysteria has injected into this dispute? I can't help worrying that something is affecting Jclemens and that we need to avoid making it worse.

08:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He decided to rollback 20 or so edits by a user who didn't do anything wrong. If he wasn't an administrator, his rollback would be removed. Administrators shouldn't be held to a different standard. AniMate 08:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not arguing at all that he was right in his actions.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

08:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, administrators should have a higher standard. Admins are trusted by the community as a whole, whereas rollbackers only need the trust of 1 admin. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 08:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean support above, but anyway I'm willing to give jclemens more time to cool off and then explain his actions. Verbal chat 08:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I should have phrased that as a question, apologies to AniMate. Verbal chat 08:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. AniMate 08:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I appreciate your willingness to stand back a bit and give Jclemens some space. Ratcheting down here will help and there are plenty of DR options available if given them space to think doesn't help. Anyway, thanks again for listening and being reasonable.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

08:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, let's give him some rest. But I would support a temporary suspension on rollback on AfD, at least until this matter is resolved. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 08:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Put it this way; if he does it again before the matter is resolved, a more serious remedy would be considered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, any repetition would probably lead to summary desysopping which is a significant enough act that we shouldn't allow the ANI lynchmob to add extra pressure on Jclemens that might further erode their good-judgement. That's why I'm asking for space.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

08:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is looking for his head, but an admission that this was a wrong action would go a long way to shutting this down. If he's unwilling after some time to reflect... AniMate 08:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this was a very serious breach of the trust we place in administrators to commit to the principles of Wikipedia. Reverting !votes on AFD is implicitly assuming bad faith, and in the situation there was very little justification. Rollback should only be used against vandalism, and it was simply

cowboy adminship to resort to it in this situation. If Jclemens is unwilling to apologise or at least understand that he has made a mistake here, I think his position in the community should be re-evaluated. Thanks. Claritas §

12:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can I ask what the people posting to this ANI hope to achieve? Going on at length here is likely to ratchet up the drama level. If there is actionable evidence of misuse of admin rights, JClemens should be subjected to a
  request for comment in the first instance. Stifle (talk
  ) 12:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• (And I'm not saying this because Jclemens's actions were appropriate; they weren't, but a long dramatic discussion here helps nobody.) Stifle (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Part of the problem is that if this weren't an admin they would have had their rollback rights removed pronto, and there wouldn't be any more drama. The appearance of this is that being an admin means you are protected if you misuse tools.
    talk
    ) 12:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • No arguments from me on that one. But if it is desired that Jclemens should be subject to a sanction, RFC or RFAR is the appropriate place for this. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• (EC) It looks like
  talk · contribs
  ) 13:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that Jclemens continues to not admit the error is what is causing this discussion to continue and escalate. The fact that he performed the rollbacks is one thing, and could be chalked up to a mistake or emotions getting out of hand. The fact that he is an admin on Wikipedia, and he still cannot see or admit that he did something wrong is what is truly troubling. I find it hard to believe that an admin can't understand that a userbox is an opinion. It might be humorous, it might be totally fictional or false. You can't base your actions as an admin on someone's userbox. If I create a userbox that says "This user likes to kill infants by twisting their heads until they pop off", then you can't use your CheckUser permissions to find out my IP address, call up my ISP and find out my address, and call the police to come arrest me. Userboxes aren't evidence of anything (even if they are poorly worded and are suggestive of an admission of bad faith edits), especially when there is other evidence which suggests that my edits are not in bad faith.
  talk
  16:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• To be honest I think that the ARS system is a primary cause of this. It is actually a form of canvas, you're inviting people to an AFD to vote keep; and it pushes the idea that you shouldn't ever delete anything. That's not... it... we have standards. We have to have standards. The ARS needs to be watered down, I agree that if articles can be rewritten or improved then they should do that before the AFD closes, but the guys from ARS (including Jclemens in the particular AFD that triggered this) are fairly consistently voting to keep articles that have no reliable sources at all; on the grounds that it 'might' be referenced later. On that basis absolutely any unreferenced article can be kept forever. We're supposed to be summarising reliable sources not unreliable sources. That needs to stop right here, right now.- Wolfkeeper 17:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC/U?

ALSO SEE Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jclemens

• Being somewhat new to the world of admins abusing their tools, I have not yet had the privilege of contributing to a RfC or RfArb. I would like the opinion of other uninvolved users here as to whether a discussion on this matter should be started at
  talk
  18:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No point. It would be quite simple for an admin to say to jclemens that due to their misuse of rollback, they should not use that feature for the next x weeks/months. As I have said above, if they were not an admin, there would be no discussion, as rollback rights would have already been removed. Forcing people to jump through hoops like RFC/U over something like this simply shows that the admins commenting here are not interested in fairness. They should treat admins the same as those without the flashy bits, or not be an admin.

talk

) 20:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

However pure your intentions it doesnt seem unreasonable to have decided your delete voting spree along with the confrontational user box might have been disruptive or at least likely to cause a

WP:Battle. Jclemens likes a peaceful accademic environment, including when that means going against the interests of the ARS. for example a few weeks back he deleted a thread on the ARS board advising that a squad member was in trouble on ANI. With hindsight, Jclemens seems to have been wrong to roll back your edits, but as you say everyone makes mistakes. As fellow volunteers it doesnt seem either best practice or collegial to insist on an apology unless we've been personally insulted. It especially doesnt seem helpfull to start time consuming proceedings against an admin who is clearly overall a massive net positive. Please take note of what Spartaz has to say, he isnt exactly known as an inclusionist. :-) FeydHuxtable (talk

) 20:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't require an apology from Jclemens. However, I believe as an admin, he should be capable of admitting that he made a mistake, and fixing that mistake. As it stands, Jclemens continues to argue that he was right, in the face of all of the admins and users who have told him otherwise. Another admin had to revert his rollbacks, because he was unwilling to revert them himself. It is this reluctance to admit one's mistakes which troubles me, and if there is a clear pattern of this behavior, then should this person really continue to be an admin? That is the question I would like to get comment on in an RfC, but being unfamiliar with the process, I'm unsure if it would be appropriate. However, I'm leaning towards starting an RfC.

talk

21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If you believe it warrants an RfC, then I would say go ahead. That's what RfC is there for. Before you do, though, you should be aware that, aside from the time and attention involved, you'll also be inviting close scrutiny of your own edits. Sometimes these things boomerang. Best to know what you're getting into. Shimeru 21:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable - A new hater This crossed the line. Talk about

WP:Battle. The title of the section says it all. - Josette (talk

) 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Barring some sort of intervention from ArbCom, an RfC/u is the next step here. Since there has been virtually no support for Jclemens actions (aside from FeydHuxtable, an extremely loyal ARS member) I don't think you have to worry about any boomerang effect here. AniMate 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have a problem with that discussion. I thought it was kinda funny actually.

talk

21:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Agreed...as did creating

talk · contribs

) 21:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Rollback has the potential to be abused in a content dispute. The ability can be granted or removed by any admin. Therefore, it is seen as an "easy-come, easy-go" tool, and there are explicit guidelines and limitations surrounding its use. In many ways, it is like Twinkle or other generally available tools - it doesn't give you the ability to do anything that any other ordinary editor cannot do; it just makes those actions more convenient. This is rollback, as it is seen by the majority of Wikipedians. For admins, things are different, because rollback is bundled with the real tools - the ones that do things that non-admins cannot do, such as block editors and delete articles. In this case, it's very unfortunate that Jclemens used rollback, because it has distracted discussion about what he did with considerations about how he did it. What is the difference between what would have happened if he had not used rollback, and where we are now? The edits were, after all, reverted by ordinary clicking on ordinary "undo" buttons. The difference is, of course, that people are calling for the other tools to be taken away. And of course if a non-admin had done this they would have lost the rollback bit. Any admin could have removed it, and a week later any other admin could have restored it in good faith. That isn't an option here, and we shouldn't be treating this situation as if it was. Two good solutions to this sort of situation - which is by no means unique to this admin - might be to unbundle rollback from the admin bit, such that it truly becomes an easy-come easy-go low-power tool that can be taken away from admins just like anyone else, or to recognise that the technical details are less important than community consensus, and impose a ban. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say rollback per se was the problem. I think the choice to revert (removing others' comments from an AfD) was the primary wrong. Use of "admin" tools to do so might've been an additional lapse in judgment, but this isn't a situation where using "undo" instead would've made things okay. Shimeru 01:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Unbundling rollback would be a good idea, but until then I don't see why you need community bans to limit the use of rollback by administrators. All that needs to happen is another admin says "Due to your misuse of the tool you are not allowed to use it for (however long)". That way admins are treated the same as ordinary users. No need for extensive discussions or anything.

talk

) 07:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens' Responses

In this section, I will post three different sections dealing with what I perceive to be the three outstanding questions:

1) Can administrators use rollback on non-vandalism edits?

2) Were Snottywong's actions disruptive?

3) Was I sufficiently impartial to be addressing the perceived disruption?

Comments are welcome, but I'm going to be responding in stages, and it may be some time between posts. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrator use of Rollback on non-vandalism edits

Here's what the current instructions are for the Administrator use of rollback.

• Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
  “Conventionally, administrative rollback is only used to revert simple vandalism or large amounts of mistaken edits (such as when a bot malfunctions). Using rollback to revert conventional good-faith edits is frowned upon because it leaves no useful message to the editor you are reverting and implies you thought their edit worth nothing more than the treatment of a vandal.”

“The "rollback" button also appears on the "Contributions" page associated with each editor. If you have examined a number of individual edits by an editor and determined that they all deserve(d) to be removed (for example, they all consisted of inserting the same WikiSpam), you may decide to roll back all recent edits by this editor. This can be done using the "rollback" buttons on the editor's contributions page.”

• Help:Reverting#Advanced_features “if you use the rollback feature other than for vandalism (for example, because undo is impractical due to the large page size), it is courteous to leave an explanation on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user, whose edit(s) you have reverted.”

At the same time, it's clear this topic has been a point of discussion for the last several years. This smattering of past discussions seems vaguely representative, and it definitely shows that while “administrators must only use rollback on vandalism!” is one position, it is not universally held.

• Wikipedia:Admin_accountability_poll#The_rollback_button_should_only_be_used_in_cases_of_clear_vandalism.2C_or_reverting_oneself
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive15#Using_rollback
• Wikipedia:Non-administrator_rollback
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive173#Administrative_rollback
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive617#Rollback_misuse From a cojuple of weeks ago.

Thus, those who assert that administrators are held to the same standard of usage (vandalism only) as non-administrators clearly have some backing for that assertion. The instructions, as currently written, do not prohibit my actions.

At the same time, it is clear that those speaking up in this thread believe that the actions I've taken do not mesh with current expectation of administrator rollback use. I would encourage those who believe that current instructions to administrators on rollback use (the top two links, above) differ from expected norms to modify those pages, perhaps starting an RfC as appropriate. I, as any other administrator, am incapable of reading the community's mind, and encourage full and prompt updates to relevant pages when the community's mind has indeed changed. Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish to wikilawyer; however,

Wikipedia:Rollback feature

does not discriminate between admins and rollbackers; the fact that the lead reads

The rollback feature is a very fast method of undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense. The name derives from the data management term rollback, meaning an operation that reverses the effect of changes made to a database.

Rollback is available automatically to all 1,727 Wikipedia administrators, and there are 3,489 accounts with the rollbacker permission. In total, 5,216 accounts have rollback rights.

leads me to understand that all users who can use the tool are expected to follow the relevant guideline, especially

Wikipedia:Rollback feature#When not to use rollback (in the latter, by the way, there's a reference to the fact that admins can't have it removed, short of being desysopped). I don't wish to appear naive, but, since admins are just editors who can use more tools than the average Wikipedian, I don't think that they can be expected to follow a different set of rules. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}

) 22:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that the instructions to administrators on how and when Rollback can be used differ from those given to all users. While it's reasonable to infer that

WP:ROLLBACK applies to administrators, there are plenty of other indications that it has not been universally so held, including the explicit directions on administrative use which allow far more leeway. Jclemens (talk

) 22:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In other words, the rules which everyone else has to abide by don't apply to admins. It's nice of you to say so so plainly.

talk

) 07:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Have they ever?

 Giacomo 

07:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well no. But usually there is some sort of pretence that they're the same as the rest of us, just with a "mop and bucket".

talk

) 07:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I take no stance on the rightness or wrongness of Rollback rules being less restrictive in the admin use. It's there, and I didn't put it there. If you want to change those admin instructions to match the user instructions, that's your prerogative. Jclemens (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that you were using rollback in this instance in an 'adminny' way? But right at the top of this page you seem to be asking for input because you were involved with the user. Isn't there

some rule

about taking admin action against people you are involved with?

It seems that there is clear consensus that you did misuse rollback in this instance. Simple question - if another admin were to prohibit you from using rollback for a period of time would you comply with that? If not, why not?

talk

) 15:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to propose that as a solution, I will read with interest the community's consensus. The problem with that as a solution, though, is I've already said I wouldn't use rollback in the same circumstance again, so such a proposal would be inherently punitive, rather than preventative. The issue of involvement is a different sub-topic. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely the same as when an 'ordinary' rollbacker misuses the tool. It is taken away until they show that they are OK to use it. There is very rarely even any drama about it. Why should admins be treated any differently? In any case it is just a tool, and not being able to use it is hardly punishment, easy come, easy go and all that.

talk

) 19:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, instead of wikilawyering, why not just actually read

16:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

To avoid this kind of mis-interpretation in future I have altered the

Wikipedia:New_admin_school/Rollback so that it includes "Use of rollback by admins is subject to the rollback policy which among other things, explains when rollback can be used and when it cannot." The rollback policy makes no distinguishment between admins and users and there has been no consensus to change that in the past.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk)

18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it also mention that compliance with this is unenforceable and therefore voluntary?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No,

WP:ARBCOM is for and are more than willing to do.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk)

19:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Do they know this?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm suggesting this is the case; however, it would also be possible for the community to impose a rollback ban on an admin, thereby restraining them from using the tool, if said admin made an habit of abusing it. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Snottywong's AfD edits

At the time

the second.

At this point, it's reasonable to suspect that Snottywong, who has never been previously involved with the article, only participated to (as he would later admit) “[attempt] to counteract the implicit canvassing by the Article Rescue Squadron by regularly reviewing articles tagged for rescue, and voting to delete most of them.” No biggie—he's not being disruptive at that point.

Well, everything is proceeding along just fine. Snottywong engages in some typical AfD shenanigans, attempting to put words into other editor's mouths, denies the reliability and sufficiency of reliable sources, and whatnot. While annoying, it happens all the time, and sources tend to win out. At that point, Keep !votes clarly outnumbered deletes.

Later, I notice a new thread on my watchlist. This prompts me to investigate Snottywong's contribution history, where it is clear that he has systematically gone through and !voted delete on only articles tagged for rescue, with a single keep vote for a no-brainer keep (Upstate New York), and then proceeded to crow his derision in a userbox, which has since been modified after I nominated it for deletion.

Snottywong's spate of editing to AfD's constituted disruption, by his own admission. Cynics may well note that his only “crime” was admitting he intended to “counter-canvas” the ARS. His own userbox, since toned down somewhat, explicitly admitted bad faith by both accusing the ARS of canvassing and explicitly stating that his intent was to influence the deletion process by only commenting on {{

) 22:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Given that you'd seen that and drawn those conclusions, Jclemens, what would've been the most appropriate response?—S Marshall T/C 23:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Given the reaction of the community to what I did do, had I to do it over again, I would have simply removed the non-chronologically placed {{
    spa}}-like note in each affected documenting his pretextual voting. Jclemens (talk
    ) 23:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, it sounds to me like Jclemens has learned from this, which means we're already in one of the top 1% of AN/I threads for achievement.—S Marshall T/C 00:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not completely convinced. So would Jclemens be happy if all of the people that frequented ARS had their votes labelled with "an {{
        spa}}-like note" to indicate their pretextual voting. To be honest that would probably be fairer than what he's proposing, a fair number of their votes are along the lines of "This article is currently without reliable references, even though people have looked, but could be referenced some time before hell freezes over, maybe, so I'm voting KEEP!!!!!". The fact that they're a member of a group of (largely) inclusionists also needs to be considered perhaps? I mean if they're on the up-and-up and not effectively vote stuffing they wouldn't mind, right?- Wolfkeeper
        03:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Absolutely! If anyone uses a {{rescue}} as a flag to get votes without improvement, that's a misuse of the ARS. Now, the ARS are pretty much guaranteed to be inclusionists, so if one stops by, improves the article, and then MORE stop by and say "great job!" to the first guy and !vote keep... that's fair game. Article Rescue (whether or not done by ARS) is for taking worthwhile articles that don't initially meet standards, and doing the actual work of improving and sourcing the article such that by the end of the AfD discussion, the nominator's rationale no longer makes sense because the objections have been answered by improving the article. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but how is labelling a long time contributor a single purpose account a positive way to handle the original situation? Could you imagine the uproar if every ARS member was labelled {{
        talk
        ) 08:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, we're going to achieve a small but genuine change in behaviour here, at least on Jclemens' part. That's progress in my book and it's more than I expect from the average AN/I thread. The ongoing !vote-stacking issues at AfD have been happening for many years, they aren't confined to the ARS, and they aren't Jclemens' fault. There should probably be a separate discussion about the problem of editors who only ever !vote one way and the potential use of spa-like tags on these editors, but I hardly think AN/I is the right venue. The immediate concern was to prevent unilateral mass rollback of AfD !votes and I think we can be certain Jclemens will not do that again.—S Marshall T/C 13:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
        • While you're probably correct, I can only speak for my own reaction: if an ARS member were to have a userbox that said "I go to rescue-tagged articles and make up a cool-sounding keep rationale on all of their AfDs" or the equivalent, I would expect any admin should be free to tag or remove those !votes, because they, like Snottywong, have admitted bad faith and gaming the system. Jclemens (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Except pretty much no one here but you thinks there was bad faith or gaming of the system going on.
            talk
            ) 15:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm your pretty much no one.—S Marshall T/C 16:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
            • Quantpole: I couldn't agree more, but its clear Jclemens is unable to grasp the simple concept that he was out of line.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, my userbox was one piece of evidence that arguably could have pointed towards bad faith edits. However, there were many other pieces of evidence that pointed towards good faith edits.

16:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• User:Snottywong's history of offsite canvassing seems relevant to this matter. Colonel Warden (talk
  ) 10:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Haha! Yes, that is truly damming! I encourage everyone to look (I assume CW was being sarcastic?) I see a neutrally worded post and then an apology when he is told it could be considered canvassing. Also, generally what happens off WP is irrelevant. Verbal chat 10:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • I see the ARS is finally getting off of their ARSes in an attempt to gang up on me and attack my credibility to save one of their own. Yes, Col. Warden, an isolated incident over 18 months ago (which has never been repeated since) is a great distraction from the serious discussions regarding an experienced admin who routinely violates
      talk
      14:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Involved, or not?

is without a doubt the least clear of the guidelines at issue. Seriously—go read it now.

What are “cases in which they have been involved”? Does the fact that Snottywong and I disagreed in an AfD prohibit me from reverting his disruptive edits to entirely unrelated AfDs? Apparently, some Wikipedians think so, but the last time I reverted another admin's AfD closure on the basis that he had been INVOLVED with me in a prior dispute, I was chastised for invoking INVOLVED in that fashion. Really: every time I think I know what the limits of INVOLVED are, I'm told I'm wrong by someone. I would genuinely appreciate it if that section of the policy were discussed and clarified.

My fundamental reasoning was that Snottywong's participation in an AfD in which I was already a participant did not restrict my ability to correct his disruptive actions in other venues. The concept that an editor can start a dispute with an administrator as a way to prevent that administrator from taking corrective action is

material, but that appears to be what many editors are suggesting. The pretextual !votes in ongoing AfDs were clearly in a position to cause (admittedly minor and non-urgent) damage to the encyclopedia by contributing to presumably otherwise encyclopedic material being deleted, and called for a remedy.

I intentionally avoided the most straightforward immediate solution to Snottywong's disruption—blocking him—in part on the basis that that would affect his ability to participate in the AfD in which we'd been disputing notability. (The rest of the rationale, somewhat ironically, involved my lack of desire for drama that I anticipated might follow such a block, as well as the fact that he was not currently making disruptive edits. I intentionally chose rollback as a least invasive method to repair the disruption) Likewise, I considered and intentionally avoided remedies, such as the single-administrator-imposed topic ban, which have had poor community support in the past.

Overall, I think the suggestion that once an administrator is INVOLVED with an editor to the bare extent of disagreeing in an AfD, that administrator becomes forbidden to engage that editor in an unrelated corrective action is not supported by the current wording of

, which states in part “Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.”

Since INVOLVED is the most ephemeral of the policies, I accept the community's feedback that I should refrain from fixing such disruption myself in the future, with the caveat that the appropriate policy section really needs to be clarified to encompass current consensus. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is disingenuous. While I strongly disagree with the notion of "involvement armour" used by disruptive editors to avoid sanction simply by getting into fights with as many people as possible so as to be able to shout "previous" whenever challenged on future behaviour, in this case you had an obvious recent dispute with the editor, were privy to the thread on ARS talk which noted the actions in question, and didn't behave in an uninvolved manner: rather, you reflexively "defended" the AfDs in question by rolling back (not striking) the comments in question regardless of the points raised without previously discussing it with him. The damage done by leaving said edits in question in place until your suggested course of action had been raised with genuinely uninvolved parties would have been minimal, which in itself obviates the need to have used rollback. On a further note, you must have known that as one of the few explicitly inclusionist admins regularly involved in AfD as a commenter (only DGG comes to mind as a comparable figure) this would bring a ton of scrutiny on you, which should have been an additional cause for pause. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I acted to defend the integrity of the AfD process by striking self-admitted bad-faith !votes, not to defend the ARS. Obviously, hindsight bears out your observations that my actions have been presumed to be bad faith. At no point in this discussion haveI seen Snottywong actually dispute my assertion that his !votes were in bad faith, or more relevantly, that at the time his userbox was created, a reasonable man would have concluded that they clearly appeared to be bad faith. Thanks for comparing me to DGG... although I think he's a far better contributor and admin than I. Jclemens (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see the words "...which proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that I have not been editing in bad faith" in the first paragraph of SnottyWong's ANI post. As for the rest of it, I think this rather firmly points out why the repeated suggestions back in the day that those opposed to ARS's actions start an "article deletion squadron" were laughed at: because the project's inclusionists would take such a thing as a license to assume bad faith of people. That's what you've done here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not an excuse for your actions ZacharyLassiter (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I don't make excuses. I explain what I was thinking at the time. Jclemens (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, you were absolutely

16:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, "I acted to defend the integrity of the AfD process by striking self-admitted bad-faith !votes" Snottywong is a user, just like any other, he is entitled to his say. Now if he has a userbox saying he votes to delete most of the ARS articles, that is not an admission of bad faith. Rathor that is an admission that the user feels that its in the best interest of Wikipedia to delete most of those articles, however there are exceptions. You didn't defend the integrity of AfD, you blew it out of the water and abused your admin privleges in the process.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's been made clear that my interpretation was far from widely held. When someone takes an action based on their good-faith perception of a situation, which is not upheld by the community, that's generally considered a mistake, rather than abuse. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And when that same person relentlessly argues that what they did was not wrong (despite dozens of independent comments to the contrary), that's generally considered

talk

20:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, how about you both step away from wikipedia space for awhile? Unomi (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

JClemens was involved not just due to a dispute with the editor, but because of his membership (though he refuses to add his name) and very active support of the ARS. He also says above "I intentionally chose rollback as a least invasive method to repair the disruption" What disruption? He still does not get that there was no disruption until he broke rollback rules and acted in an administrative capacity in a subject which he was involved. He also calls snottywangs !vote "pretextual" another clear failure of

16:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Overreacting is bad

SnottyWong overreacted to Jclemens actions. Then Jclemens overreacted to SnottyWong's actions. Now ANI is overreacting to joke section titles like "A new hater". This looks like Conflict escalation. How about dropping the sticks and walking away from the matter. If Snottywong makes clearly wrong AFD !votes then we can discuss this again. (Meanwhile, Snottywong has opened Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jclemens, someone please make a statement saying that the dispute has been brought out of proportion, so I can endorse it.) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, overreacting is bad. But then so is stuffing an article with dubious references in the hopes that no one will check them, so that it will be kept at AFD, which it now appears that Jclemens was doing with article in question. Jclemens apparently overreacted when he was more or less found out by SnottyWong. And the majority of of the keep votes in the AFD are ARS members. None of this is filling me with warm fuzzies.- Wolfkeeper 05:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. Every reference is legit and I have accurately characterized each one in the article and discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Man, Wolfie, you're giving me a bad trip with all your negatively tinged comments about ARS. No matter, I'm off to vote keep on articles like

User:Milowent/On the Right Track, which I could not believe was not already covered. It received widespread press coverage, including reviews from Gene Siskel and Janet Maslin. All are invited to participate and drop this drama. Its a funny movie. Gary Coleman stars as an orphan who lives in a locker in a train station. Who wouldn't love that?--Milowent (talk

) 05:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that adding refs you don't seem to have read is a form of lying to the reader.- Wolfkeeper 06:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I read every single ref I added. Pretty sure I read every single one which was already there. I have Lexis-Nexis access, which means I can access content that Google cannot. On what basis would you presume that I'd added anything without reading it? Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If you did, how come it was deleted, and how come multiple people (other than SnottyWong) in the review indicated that the references you added were in many cases almost entirely nothing to do with the topic of the article? You're supposed to add references that unequivocally, self evidently support the material, but that doesn't seem to have happened, and when SnottyWong (quite rightly) pointed it out, you went through and removed large numbers of his edits at other AFDs.- Wolfkeeper 22:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

i'm glad JClemens admitted his fair share of blame... i agree that makes this AN/I less dramatic... people who make mistakes with no regrets need a warning to learn their lesson... but i think jclemens showed that he's learned that he can find a less dramatic way of handling this stuff.. i hope snottywong will consider scaling back the drama too. i'd hope he could try to generate more light than heat on issues that bother him like ARS... his userbox is creating a

borderlining and he's actually been civil and reasonable to me personally... as for ARS i think it might be fair to ask that someone who adds the rescue template should be obligated to add "this article has been tagged for rescue" to the deletion discussion itself just so it is easier to police for canvassing versus good faith improvement... again i think that's a fair improvement that would reduce drama.. Arskwad (talk

) 07:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arkswad and I think that, for the moment, the RFC is a little premature: Jclemens is discussing and seems to me open to input from uninvolved editors. I have, however, a simple (and blunt) question for him, hoping he will want to answer.

Are you still convinced that admins can follow a different set of rules when using rollback? This is a question about your future actions, I'm not trying to discuss your past ones. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You tell me: read the top two links I posted in the rollback section above (assuming no one's changed them yet--I don't have time to check this morning), and let me know if they allow for or encourage administrators to use rollback in a non-vandalism context. Jclemens (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

They don't. If you think they do, then you're mistaken. How you ever thought that is beyond me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Chris on this.

WP:ROLLBACK applies both to admins and to rollbackers alike. In my opinion, if you were willing to acknowledge this for the future, this entire incident might be marked as resolved, since you acted in good faith. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}

) 14:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot pretend that the current policies and guidelines say what they do not say, nor that they do not say what they in fact DO say:

• Conventionally, (a convention is not a rule, is it? It's a common practice) administrative rollback is only used to revert simple vandalism or large amounts of mistaken edits (such as when a bot malfunctions). Using rollback to revert conventional good-faith edits is frowned upon (frowned on is not prohibited, and there are plenty of non-good-faith edits that are
  not vandalism
  ) because it leaves no useful message to the editor you are reverting and implies you thought their edit worth nothing more than the treatment of a vandal.
• if you use the rollback feature other than for vandalism (for example, because undo is impractical due to the large page size), it is courteous to leave an explanation on the article's talk page or on the talk page of the user, whose edit(s) you have reverted. (emphasis mine, and note that I did this in this case).

It's clear from the feedback here that consensus does not match these written directions on Rollback's use. Now that I am aware of the disconnect between what is written and what is expected, I will continue to abide by the community's expectations, but strongly encourage that all relevant pages be updated to be consistent and clear. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you normally do things that are expressly "frowned upon", just because they are not expressly prohibited?

talk

18:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not usually. Honestly, the primary reason I used rollback was because you'd done both the votes and the tagging with {{ARSnote}} in a number of the discussions. Had it just been the first or had things been always done in the same edit, I wouldn't've used rollback. Jclemens (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Having a look over this, Im somewhat annoyed by the stupidity of it all. Jclemens showed extremely poor judgement by rollbacking a user's votes on a deletion forum. Not only was this a blatant misuse of rollback, but he is has indicated that (in his view) the rollback policy doesnt apply to admins. I suggest Jclemens chooses his next words more wisely or this will no doubt go to Arbcom and they can deal with it.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User QueryOne‎ (talk · contribs) has, since March 2010, been acting and editing in a disruptive and uncooperative manner, which I believe to be at odds with Wikipedia's goals, the goals of his fellow editors, and the welfare of the larger Wikipedia community. This user has repeatedly gone on disruptive editing sprees, resulting in the following ...

• Deleting factually correct information that is supported by reliable inline citations—particularly musical genres in infoboxes (see "Eight Miles High", "Walk Away Renée" and The Left Banke).
• Falsely accusing other users of
  Vandalism on multiple occasions (see QueryOne‎'s talk page
  and various edit summaries).
• Refusing to seek
  edit wars (see the edit summary and talk page of "Eight Miles High
  ").
• Persistent
  wikihounding of Freshacconci, in an attempt to keep reverting his edits (see J. G. Ballard and "Walk Away Renée
  ").
• Generally failing to
  civil to other users (see User Talk:QueryOne‎
  ).

Furthermore, a cursory glance at QueryOne's contributions over the last few months shows that his edits are limited to a fairly small number of articles and this (perhaps unfairly) leads me to conclude that he enjoys repeatedly annoying and antagonizing certain editors, rather than getting on with the business of improving Wikipedia. QueryOne has been warned about his disruptive conduct numerous times in a overwhelmingly helpful and polite manner by a number of different editors, including myself, Freshacconci, Collectonian (now known as AnmaFinotera), and Wwwhatsup. These warnings have been ignored and, in Freshacconci's case, have been met with vague hostility.

I propose that this has gone far enough and that the Wikipedians involved have done all that they can to resolve these problems themselves. I would therefore like to ask an administrator or administrators to step in and resolve this ongoing and intolerable situation. I hesitate to call for QueryOne to be

) 16:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I don't feel I can really add anything to what Kohoutek1138 has clearly put forward. What started as a dispute over genres of music has escalated into what appears to be disruptive edits for their own sake, including continuously calling editors vandals for edits that are clearly not vandalism and making incorrect edit summaries in a disruptive manner. freshacconci talktalk 16:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Also agree with Kohoutek1138's summary.
  talk · contribs
  ) 16:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Unarchived as no response nor resolution occurred. --

talk · contribs

) 14:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the contributor for 24 hours for disruptive editing, as s/he seems to exhibit a long term overall pattern of

battleground behavior. I hope that this will give him (or her) an opportunity to reflect and that when the user returns s/he will work constructively with other editors. If not, additional sanctions may be necessary. I am particularly concerned by the wikihounding. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

14:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully that will get his attention and get him to realize he's acting inappropriately.--

talk · contribs

) 16:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Say, would someone with Twinkle or other mass rollback tool take a look at this school IP's contribs and roll them back at once? The IP was reported for vandalism and it's easy to see why. Thanks.

) 00:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can be more specific, it seems the IP was mainly changing categories to more specific ones, which is constructive, not vandalism. I'm unsure of why they were blocked - when the block occured, there had been no edits for an hour, and the last several were all constructive.  --

(LiberalFascist)

00:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering too. Did you accidentally block the wrong IP? Or is this some long-term sock issue? Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It was on the AIV page as an abusive sock and I went ahead and blocked it per the request. If the edits were constructive, then plase feel free to revert my edits and unblock the IP. My bad if that's the case.

) 01:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, but the request was, and I quote, "I'm not sure if his current rash of edits are vandalism, but given the IPs history, and his changing of roughly 200 links in the past 2 days, it seems to at least deserve a look.". I admit I did not take a very close look at his edits, but I don't think they were vandalism; at least, before blocking, I would have approached the editor and sought a clarification on their talk page... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 01:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we get this IP unblocked? It is a public shared IP, so per

(LiberalFascist)

03:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

All reverted. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why, exactly? --auburnpilot talk 05:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

With a little help I've rolled back all Fastily's reverts. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm entirely confused by this situation. Why has an IP been blocked for three months for vandalism, and all of its edits reverted, based on edits like these? Where is the vandalism, disruption, or otherwise unhelpful contribution that resulted in a block? Why were these edits reverted? --auburnpilot talk 06:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

  I'm equally as confused as AuburnPilot. From the looks of it, the IP edits were nothing but constructive. I work extensively with categories, and I have to say those edits were right on point. I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to have reported IP in the first place, let alone block it and get all their edits reverted. Certainly, if it were block evasion, it would be a whole other story, but I see no evidence suggesting this. — ξ^xplicit 06:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am very confused now. Were the edits vandalism or not? -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 16:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock. The more I look at this editor's edit history, the more I think it was all a misunderstanding... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 07:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've unblocked. PMDrive1061 indicated this was no problem for him. I left a note beneath the block notice indicating that there seems to have been a misunderstanding. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, MRG. It was a mistake on my part. --

) 17:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

) 06:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:IllaZilla has started an edit war, and then accused others. This user has reverted helpful edits despite (i) the reason for the original edits being explained politely, (ii) not giving reasons for the reverts in the edit summary, and (iii) not giving appropriate reasons on talk pages.

The very, very small edits to which User talk:IllaZilla objects are to clarify to all Wikipedias reader whta currency is being quoted. It is confusing to use just '$' as over 30 countries use this as a currency. It is not correct to claim the articles are specific to any one country when the articles refer to films released worlwide, have earned money worldwide (inc. different $ currencies inc. from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore & The United States), and in some cases were written by & featured UK persons. Simply adding the prefix 'US' to $ is correct, and clarifies for all readers. Removing the prefix US does not help the articles, and actually damages them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

IllaZilla is quite correct, these are American films, and the US is completely unnecessary, and only confusing to you. Long standing consensus on American films is NOT to use the US as a prefix on $. Your edits are unnecessary. Further, your edit warring, inappropriate warning and claim that he's being nationalistic (incorrect)[18], demand that he "back off",[19] use of multiple IPs to edit war, and your edit summaries of "reverting unhelpful edit by same contributor" and many others I'm seeing in your history are inappropriate and frequently uncivil. The possible deliberate use multiple IPs is against [{WP:SOCK|policy]] and strikes me as vaguely familiar. Nor are your edits "helpful" in this regard. I'm also curious as to your seeming tagging of three editors' talk pages with claims they are sock puppets[20][21][22]--

talk · contribs

) 07:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Your reasoning is wholly flawed. The articles are not specific to any one country, and so which $ needs to be clarified. The article also reference earnings in a number of countries where $ are used, and so again which the $ needs to be clarified.

"The possible deliberate use multiple IPs is against [{WP:SOCK|policy]]" No, only if there is an attempt to hide identity which I have not done.

"I'm also curious as to your seeming tagging .." Why? These were appear to be attempts to hide identity.

My statement in edit an edit summary of "reverting unhelpful edit by same contributor" is valid. As this contributor was being unhelpful.

"demand that he back off" That was a heading to a section, and there is no evidence, as it was not made, of an order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, 124.197.14.239 began the edit war, as is clearly evident from the article history: He made an edit, I reverted it, and instead of taking it to the talk page, he simply restored his preferred version. That is the definition of

WP:$, would be "US$", which correctly reads as "United States dollar". By the way, whether the films "were written by & featured UK persons" has absolutely no bearing on this issue, as the United Kingdom uses the Pound sterling, not the dollar, which has a completely different symbol (₤). Unless 124.197.14.239 is suggesting that our readers are unable to differentiate the symbol $ from ₤. --IllaZilla (talk

) 07:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've left them a message explaining what they're doing wrong and am happy to block if they continue. --John (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:IllaZilla please don't make further unfounded allegations. It was you who started and continued an ediit war: both on articles regarding '$' and on a talk page where you inappropriately made accustaions of vandalism.

And please do not try to distort the discussion by creating a false argument: up until your last meassge there has been no mention of ₤. The entire issue regards the many countries that use $ and the confusion that arises when this symbol alone is used in non-country specific articles. Suggesting such as "our readers are unable to differentiate the symbol $ from ₤" is a groundless invention that can only indicate weak reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop making baseless accusations. You started the edit war, as clearly evidenced above. Let me be very clear: when you make an edit, and someone reverts it, and you respond by making the same edit again without attempting to discuss the issue, you are initiating an edit war. I certainly did not make any inappropriate accusations of vandalism. I politely informed you what was wrong with your edits and your editing behavior. I also correctly warned you about the 3 revert rule and gave you a courtesy notice about this thread (which is required, by the way, whenever someone initiates an ANI discussion about you). I'm confident that no one here besides yourself would interpret these notices as "inappropriate". You are also lying when you say that "up until your lessage meassge there has been no mention of ₤". I have in fact specifically mentioned it to you twice before: Here on June 7, and here not 2 hours ago. Since you replied to both comments, there can be no arguing that you were not aware of them. It is hardly a "groundless invention" on my part to bring up the topic, as you yourself have twice justified your reverts by the involvement of "UK persons" with the films: [28] and [29]. I am pointing out that this is a moot point, as the US and UK use entirely different currencies which cannot be confused. That being the case, why do you feel, as you have twice stated, that the involvement of "UK persons" is a reason to require "US" before all of the dollar signs? --IllaZilla (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Support a block of the involved IPs, the MoS recommendations above are quite clear and quite right. Despite ample notice, continuing disruption. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And now 124.197.14.239 accuses me of having an "insidious agenda" [30] [31]...indeed, the insidious agenda of enforcing our Manual of Style. Keeping Wikipedia articles consistent with Wikipedia's own style guidelines is hardly an act of nationalism. Yeesh. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No baseless accusations from me ... I've been entirely consistent throughout: many countries use $ and in non-country specific articles should $ be mentioned then the type needs to be clarified.

You made an inappropriate warning about vandalism simply because you disagreed with a (helpful) edit.

You reverted helpful edits without stating in the edit summary any reason (warranted or not).

You have recently created an argument that I was interested in ₤. Again, my reason for adding US infront of $ is to clarify which of the many $ currencies was beign quoted. I did mention the subjects were British, but this was to highlight one reason (and there are others) why the articles are not US specific.

More distortion. There was no accusation of an "insidious agenda" .. which is obvious because of the use of the word not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Another set of false claims. Here is the evidence:

• No baseless accusations from me

You baselessly accused me of starting an edit war. As I've plainly pointed out, you began the edit war when you restored your preferred revisions after being reverted the first time, and without discussing your edits on the articles' talk pages. We have a

consensus

. When you unilaterally restore your preferred revisions every time another editor reverts your edits, you are edit-warring. In this situation you initiated the cycle of edit-warring by not taking the topic to the talk page after I had reverted your initial edit.

• You made an inappropriate warning about vandalism simply because you disagreed with a (helpful) edit.

My warning was totally appropriate. Your repeated edits were unhelpful. As you can see from this thread, I am not the only editor who thinks so. That fact that you think they are helpful does not make it so.

• You reverted helpful edits without stating in the edit summary any reason (warranted or not).

I gave ample reasons for my reverts repeatedly over 6 edit summaries: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36][37]. After stating the same thing a half-dozen times, it became obvious that you did not care what my reasons were, so I did not see any point in continuing to state them.

• You have recently created an argument that I was interested in ₤.

No, you created this argument by twice attempting to justify your reverts to Brüno by stating that "a British comedian in a film that had a worldwide release is not an entirely US article" and that "the articles refer to films ... in some cases were written by & featured UK persons". Is is not appropriate for me to respond to these rationales you are giving? Especially since it relates directly to my points that the articles are about American films and that none of the articles contain any references to any currencies other than the US dollar?

• There was no accusation of an "insidious agenda"

Hmm, let's check again: "It is possible that you may have another agenda" (other than writing articles) "if there is not something more malign and insidious" (than writing articles)...how did you expect these comments to be interpreted? Please

focus on content rather than making accusations towards contributors

.

--IllaZilla (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• There was No baseless accusations from me. This is a valid statement as I made helpful edits which you reverted without noting the reason in the edit summary. When the helpful edits were restored you repeatidly reverted them .. and can be clearly seen you started an edit war.
• With no vandalism occuring it was inappropriate to post a warning.
• SOME of you summary-less edits include: [38],[39],[40],[41],[42]
• It was you who created an argument by referencing ₤. I never did, and why would I when it was irrelevant to the reasosn why $ alone is inappropriate and confusing. The mention of a British comedian is relevant to highlight why the article is not US specific, but this is just ONE reason. Other reasons include the fils were released in many countries that us $, and so earned money in these currencies. This is why the quoted $ needs to be clarified.
• Quote: 'accuses me of having an 'insidious agenda'. I did not and hence why I refuted thus false claim. If you do (let's) check again you will see that was no accustaion .. all accusations have been by yourself including those (falsely) of vandalism, and of making 'accusations'.
• 'Please
  focus on content rather than making accusations towards contributors
  .' It is ironic you should quote this as it as it is you who would do well to take heed civility and treating others with respect and politely.
• If you are unable to make logical and rational contribution to a discussion please do not create arguments (such as introducing irrelevant subjects as yiu did with ₤) or misquote (such as you did with the claim I accused you of having an 'insidious agenda'. To do such can be interpretted as evidence either of the paucity of you claim or a weakness in your reasoning.
• And having just noticed a recent edit summary includes '.. lying liars ..' it would appear that whilst you are happy to preach
  focus on content rather than making accusations towards contributors you are not prepared to follow this guideline. AND I have not lied, it is just another example of your distortions although in this case 'invention' is more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk
  ) 10:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Seconding support of block of involved IPs and semi-protection of involved articles, as IPs replies show he has no intention of listening to the now no less than four editors telling him he is wrong, his continued insults towards anyone disagreeing with him, and his continued pestering of IllaZilla on his talk page despite this current ANI. --
  talk · contribs
  ) 16:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thirding support of block, and offering NZ$0 (or £0 if you'd prefer) to the IP to stop this. TFOWR 16:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The date change vandal who has been plaguing India related articles is back. The range block which was in place for two months expired yesterday and his back with a vengeance. I request an extension of the block on the IP range - 117.204.112.0 - 117.204.127.255 (only 4096 possible IPs affected). --Sodabottle (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked 117.204.112.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for three months, since the one-month block on the same range expired, and this range covers the most recent vandal 117.204.125.94 whose date-modifications you reported above. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ed!.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Bottracker (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

• This editor keeps adding unsourced material into this article, claiming that Nigeria's cinema "success can also be attributed to the Ghanaian film industry". He has previously done so with the exact wordings earlier in April 2010 via IP.
• Next, the editor keeps removing a wayback-template from a reference, and as a result the reference has a dead link.
• Lastly, editor keeps adding a spam link into the article.

Editor has been cautioned to refrain from doing so, however to no avail. After I reverted his edits, he placed level 3 & level 4 warning templates on my user talk page. When you check this edit, you will notice that there is a reference on the controversial material about "Nigerian Cinema's success can be attributed to the Ghanaian film industry". However, this reference was not provided by the editor, was already in the article, and has absolutely nothing to do with the added material. It appears as if the editor simply placed his addition within an already existing reference to create the impression as if the added material is properly referenced. Since I do not want to be involved in or be accused of edit warring, I have brought the issue to this board. This is not a content dispute. This is an issue of an editor repeatedly placing unsourced material into an article. Please look thoroughly into this matter. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked Bottracker indefinitely upon review of his edits to Cinema of Nigeria and use of vandalism warnings to attempt to suppress Amsain's raising valid concerns, per the details noted above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A few months ago a sockmaster created articles or otherwise promoted a hoax around a supposed model named Brenda Williams, and it looks like the sockmaster is promoting the same hoax on the Spanish Wikipedia. Can an admin deal with this?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 22:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't in the English Wikipedia's jurisdiction. There are plenty of English speaking administrators of the Spanish Wikipedia. Just explain the situation to one of them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I tagged it for speedy deletion.

talk

) 00:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you userfy Sonic Mega Giveaway to my userspace? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EyeLoveKitties (talk • contribs) 23:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a hoax, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sonic_Mega_Giveaway. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do I think User:BandTigerTom is deeply linked with User:EyeLoveKitties? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

) 00:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Try

 Yo 

00:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

somebody please speedy admin this guy.

like now. Rohedin ^TALK 13:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this thread? There are still three days left, and admins cannot make other admins... Aiken ♫ 13:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Humour?   pablo_hablo. 16:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think they meant it, but in GF. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTNOW closures are rare. –xeno^talk

17:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No! Do it before they pass my 153 RecfA supports... Quickly!!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's let it get to 153 even and then pass it. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It has already passed 153. Right now it's at 155. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh oh...LessHeard vanU is going to be "mad" :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a strange one. This AfD focuses on a land developer in Austin who also published a book of old postcards from the area. I question the notability of this individual, but the most aggregious aspect of the article is the other editors involved, all of whom seem to have some personal motivation to ensure the article only focuses on the positive aspects of the individual's life, while circumventing any attempt at adding data (verifiable) that would balance the article. I seem to be the only editor on this AfD who thinks the article should be deleted, except for the original nom, and the others are viciously adamant that it be kept, which smacks of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. I have had edits I've made to the article reverted when the edit was intended to make the article more concise and encyclopedic, while the edit reversions always favor showing only the positive aspects of this person. It is believed that some people close to the individual are actually editing the article while he himself has weighed in on the discussion page, which leads me to believe he might have been writing it himself at some point, possibly while signed in as someone else. Additionally, the name of the article is actually the name of his business, which seems a method of using Wiki for free advertising. Some outside help and opinions would be appreciated. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Investigating. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you on the AfD, but the consensus is overwhelmingly to keep. Part of the problem with this article is that the things that seem like a resume here are actually also sourced assertions of notability. That being said, it's difficult to identify which one of the users involved would be the COI users -- since the article looks fairly decent at the moment, I'd suggest that the additional eyeballs from the AfD ought to keep whitewashing out, and if there's further problems try the COI Noticeboard or other DR measures. But I'm not seeing any obvious admin action needed here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment per the subject of the article requesting input of uninvolved editors I have made an RFC Talk:Don_Martin_(public_affairs)#Review_of_Nightmare.27s_Removals_of_Citations ZacharyLassiter (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - FYI, Nineteen Nightmares has repeated removed content, references, etc, ignoring the clear consensus of editors, has made baseless accusations which caused another admin to give him a warning on his conduct, has repeated dumped non-relevant material into the AfD discussion. GregJackP (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment FYI, GregJackP is a liar. I have done nothing but try to improve this article, while a handful of people obviously close to the subject continue to revert anything that does not amount to "puff" material to make this guy look like a
  Captain of Industry. I have made no accusations against anyone but did question why so many of the folks working on the article are oddly and vehemently protective of the article and/or any changes whatsoever. Everything seems to get reverted back to "look at all the great things he's done!" material, while anything that is not positive is quickly removed as "non-relevant" or any of a number of other bogus claims designed to distract the discussion from the purpose, which is to edit it to Wikipedia standards. The non relevant material referred to by GregJackP, by the way, was a transcript of the case against Martin and the company he represented. How is that non-relevant? None of these editors EVER answer these questions, instead reverting to attempts to get me banned for asking critical questions or trying to genuinely improve the article. Nineteen Nightmares (talk
  ) 15:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Ninteeen Nightmares

• That is a personal attack and a violation of
  WP:NPA. GregJackP (talk
  ) 15:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Nineteen nightmares is (to say the least) wrong about the editors at Don Martin. There seems to be an active mix, with some who are editing with a
  perhaps they did. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK
  15:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with that block, was page protection even considered as an option?

talk

) 17:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm a little concerned over the whole matter. In answer to Beeblebrox, I do not believe that page protection was requested, however Nineteen has been adequately warned on his talkpage, including by an admin (Sarah) who advised him that he would be blocked if he continued. He has been blocked in the past for similar problems, and continues to vandalize the article by removing references, changing sections, making personal attacks, etc. The content has been discussed at length, and it wasn't until an outside admin came in and made a suggestion that we came to a consensus on the lawsuit. It is not appropriate to completely disregard such consensus and arbitrarily change the article. At the least it should be discussed on the talkpage. In addition, his personal attacks are becoming tiresome, such as the one above and the one appealing his block. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  I just want to note for the sake of completeness of the ANI archive that my warning was a specific warning about Nineteen Nightmares being abrasive towards other editors and the article subject and moving messages about the article from his/her talk page to the AFD page. I have never warned him/her in regards to his/her edits of the article itself. I think s/he is genuinely concerned the article is being used as a promotional tool and is honestly trying to address that - whether s/he is going about that in the right was is another matter but I really don't see any deliberate maliciousness or intent to damage the article. A lot of the items on Nineteen Nightmares's list below look like worthwhile issues to review. Sarah 04:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - FYI, I reverted one edit of NineteenNightmares here: [47] because he included an external link that was unsourced, inflammatory, had nothing to do with the article, appeared to be an attempt to smear the article subject or his company, and was not a "full transcript" of anything although that what he called it in the external link. I believe I gave him a mild warning about disruptive edits on his talk page. In response he came to my talk page and accused me of COI, sock puppetry, trying to own the article, preventing full information, and said that I was taking the article too personally. See here: [48] and here [49]. When I did not respond to his demands that I address his comment, he informed me that he had reported me to the admin notice board/incidents. I have not been on wiki in a couple of days for any length of time, so my comment may not be timely - if that is the case I apologize. I think Nightmares has now been blocked. I don't think the page needs protection, as it is only one editor who is apparently causing disruption and he has been blocked. Minor4th (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• That article is a fantastic piece of advertising copy. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment It sure is. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

• Comment I've added six suggestions for the improvement of this article, much of which I began yesterday, and was banned for, ostensibly, vandalizing the page when in fact I was trying to make it better and bring it up to Wiki standards. Here they are:

(Copied from my Talk page)

• Change the name of the article from Don Martin (public affairs) to Donald G. Martin as listed next to his picture on the piece. This will quell any problems with disambiguation and actually list him by his name rather than his business name, in effect giving his company free advertising via Wiki.

• Reduce the opening paragraph to a concise single sentence. The opening paragraph reads now like a high school report, you know: "lay out everything you are going to say in the opening paragraph, cover it in the body of the assignment, repeat first paragraph for last but rewording it." In other words, the opening paragraph should be used to make a quick bio of the individual without listing everything in the article, i.e. redundancy. I tried to do this but my edits were reverted.

• Cut out the deadwood, grammar and punctuation mistakes and tighten up the article to read like a Wikipedia (encylopedic tone) article and not a PR or "vanity" piece, which in my opinion it is currently. I tried to do this as well, but these edits were reverted as well, including putting all the grammar mistakes back into the text.

• Review and retitle external links. The external links offered by this article are in effect the man's personal business website, his land development information website for a large area developed by him and others, and one on the postcard book, which incidentally I don't see as a problem. When I tried to make a more concise and specific name for the URLs such as "Don Martin Public Affairs official website" it was reverted back to simply "Don Martin Public Affairs." Likewise with the land development website that is listed, which is the advertising and sales website for the 300+ acre parcel he has developed. It was changed to "La Frontera development website" but was quickly reverted to "La Frontera" which is ambiguous at best.

• A user (Austin3301) with an admitted
  WP:COI
  has stated that the client lists have been removed. In fact, there are still two (yes, two) client lists on the article. One lists each large corporation and there are what looks to be a couple dozen roughly. It takes a paragraph just to list these companies and is really superfluous to the article. The article is about the man, NOT the business. There is also a URL link to his site with a redundant list of clients. It does not seem appropriate to list the clients. This is an encyclopedic effort, not an advertisement. Additionally, in the same paragraph, Austin3301 states "various boards and commissions were eliminated..." from the article. Also not the case as there is still a large section that is both messy and unnecessary.

• Clean up references. This is a pretty big one. I would say most of the references in the piece are not actually referencing Don Martin at all, but for example, there was a URL to a form ostensibly used by a company he sold, but no mention of him, his involvement, etc. To put this in perspective, it might say he was the president of the
  New York Times and then list a form for a classified ad for the newspaper to reference it. There is no way to verify what he is saying against the listed URLs and/or documents because he is not listed in any way, shape or form. Again, when these edits were made, they were reverted back to the original innappropriate content, including putting all the punctuation and grammar mistakes that I cleaned up back into the piece. Nineteen Nightmares (talk
  ) 16:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

User:PM800 appears to have a major problem with remaining civil. Within the last couple of months he has been warned at least twice to stop, but continues. Some examples: [50][51][52][53][54][55][56], and the most recent on my talk page. As you can see, the user has a problem with calling people names and such, and being just uncivil. So I was wondering if anything can be done, thanks.--Yankees10 01:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Yankees10

User:Yankees10 and I just had a disagreement over the content of Brady Anderson. I was willing to discuss the issue with him, but instead he tried to bully me by threatening to report me for a violation that I had actually not committed. When I pointed out to him that he was wrong, he then used some profanity on my talk page. I would like to recommend a temporary ban for this user.

Also, when he created the section directly above, he did not post the required notice on my talk page. - PM800 (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like both of you have incivility and edit-warring problems. Who cares whether or not it's in the infobox? His career home runs are there anyway. Besides, the article needs actual work rather than stuff like that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

AIV is backlogged since a lng time, Could an admin check it?. Thanks Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There are some editors who, when an AfD that they have started is running, continually badger any editor who !votes "keep" instead of allowing those editors to present their arguments and leave the merits of the arguments to be decided by the editor who closes the AfD.

This is something that really needs community-wide discussion. I'm not sure where the best venue for such discussion is. The continual badgering seems to me to breach

) 05:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've done that once, in an AfD which drew a lot of participation from new users who weren't familiar with the criteria which were being used. I didn't consider it 'badgering' so much as 'trying to give the supporters a fightin' chance to make a reasonable argument.' Am I the person you're thinking of, or is it someone else? Did you try talking to them? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 06:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

it's only fair to point out that this has been known to happen in the other direction also. (In fact , it even can happen after someone gives a compromise solution, such as merge or redirect, or suggests no-consensus or relist.) It's also necessary to distinguish between badgering, and trying to elucidate a problem with further questions. If done right, such a Q & A process can lead to consensus. I have seen it done right at AfD, maybe once or twice a week. As for how many times it's been done wrong, .... DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Once upon a time there was "Votes for Deletion", which is now known as "Articles for Deletion" because it's not a vote. Badgering shouldn't happen to be sure, but discussing the fate of the article is the purpose of AfD, not simply collecting enough "delete NN" or "keep ILIKEIT" votes. Responding to these statements to point out that no policy or guidelines are backing up their !vote is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. As long as the discussion is

(LiberalFascist)

07:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

FisherQueen, it wasn't you I had in mind. I also agree that continual badgering of !delete voters is just as bad.

In my opinon, the nominator shoud give their reasons for the nomination in the rationale. Any editor who either !votes "keep" or "delete" should give their reasons for the !vote there and then. There should be no further comment from the nominator on the vote, or from the !voter unless they are directly asked for a clarification (notification that WikiProject have been informed etc excepted) - yes, I've recently been guilty of this myself but I got a bit riled by what I saw as a possibly bad faith nomination and badgering from the nominator. It is for this reason I'm not going to seek any action against the editor in question over the particular AfD in question - what I want to achieve is an agreed set of ground rules for AfDs so that such badgering can be dealt with in future should it occur. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Although I freely admit I'm a relatively new editor (at least, new to things like ANI and AfD), it seems to me that what Mjroots proposes is entirely the wrong attitude. I think that, like every other potential change on a page on WP, the goal of an AfD should be to seek consensus. Consensus does not, generally, occur when each person gives their opinion and then is silent. That's really just voting with justification. I can certainly agree that badgering is bad, but the system you are portraying is voting by another name, and that seems contrary to what I perceive of as standard WP editing goals. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent summary, Joshua Scott: Responding to these statements to point out that no policy or guidelines are backing up their !vote is perfectly acceptable in my opinion. As long as the discussion is WP:CIVIL and on-topic, there shouldn't be any restriction on the length of discussion. There should be back and forth discussion. It brings out points which hadn't been made and raises the level of information and reasoning in the discussion, giving closing admins better insight. I've learned a lot from bringing up points that counter the points others have made and from others countering my points, and sometimes it leads to my changing my mind on some things, and even my !vote. I think that must be valuable to a conscientious closing admin. I think needless repetition can be an additional problem when a few people constantly repeat the same argument (I've been guilty of that) -- but that tends to happen when editors new to the discussion make the same tired point without seeming to consider the previously stated objections. I get the impression that a lot of editors aren't reading the whole discussion before commenting, or reading only small parts of it, and repeating a point sometimes influences the next several !votes as editors new to the discussion skip down and read a bit of the end. Generally upgrading the civility level in AfDs would remove most of the "badgering" complaints (I have no idea how we'd do that). Editors who are simply uncomfortable being contradicted are on the wrong website. We can't really limit discussion to asking questions, because making points that undermine another editor's rationale generally needs to be done with positive statements. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, some of the best AfD outcomes are due to the iterative process of reaching a true consensus. For example, it might start as an apparent decision between 'keep' and 'delete', and end in a consensus to merge when other editors question the rationale behind the !votes and persuade people to change their minds. I recently achieved the early end to an AfD when I dropped a note to the only remaining delete !voter on his talk page, and he sided with the consensus that had emerged to merge the content. I don't think I was badgering him or doing anything wrong. Aggressively challenging everyone who disagrees with you at length is disruptive though. Fences&Windows 13:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I think one of the Village Pump pages is the best spot for a discussion like this, and this discussion probably should be copied to a VP page and hatted here. It's about time for some curmudgeon to come along and complain loudly that AN/I is not for this kind of discussion, yadda, yadda, yadda. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

F&W, you've hit the nail on the head! This is what I was getting at. There are a few editors who get an idea into their head that their POV on an issue is the correct one, and anyone who doesn't share that POV is badgered at every opportunity. Such editors are difficult to approach via their talk pages. Their actions can sometimes drive good editors away from Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

One new account has made a verbal attack in German on this editors talkpage,

.

"Du verdammte Sau! Tzuol (talk · contribs) 06:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)" <-- trans. redacted --> Google trans.

Another account made an attack shortly after the above, this time their username is itself an attack.

Hättest Du Jutta234 nicht blockiert! Jutta234 onaniert beim Scheïssen! (talk · contribs) 06:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
(If you had not blocked Jutta234! (< -- Username trans. redacted -->) Google trans.

2nd attack already reported at UAA as a usernam violation. -- 220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 07:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the latter account. I have also deleted the revisions which were personal attacks - they are now not visible to non-admins -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Phantomsteve. I have also redacted the translations here. It's alright with me if you want to delete and revdel this whole section. Regards, --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 07:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't attack no one ... Verbal chat 13:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Kimberly camba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has twice recreated a deleted article, looking at the user's contributions I see the first act was to create a userspace draft, something I have never seen from a genuinely new user. The question is whether this is a legitimate alternate account or not. I'm not active in popular culture topics, does this ring any bells with admins who are? Guy (Help!) 07:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Guy, AGF dude. Maybe the user was a former anon and saw how things work? That we request articles sometimes be made in userspace. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

He's not assuming bad faith, simply asking for others' advice: The question is whether this is a legitimate alternate account or not. Seems fair to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 08:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Most of us were IPs before we were users. You threw around the term "NPOV" within 9 days of singing up for your account, which I don't think means you're socking, just that you had edited some before you signed up. I'd find it more suspicious if someone signed up without ever having edited before. Shadowjams (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's not

WP:BITE the editor, ok? Did you ask them before bringing this to ANI? Basket of Puppies

08:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And you did not inform this editor of this thread, as is clearly required. I will AGF it as a simple oversight. Basket of Puppies 08:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Which it was. Question remains: has anyone seen someone like this before? We have two G4s for the same article shortly after registering. Not an especially likely thing for a new user to do. I'm just checking that there isn't a duck quacking somewhere. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can't see the deleted versions, but the first two articles they created

Kanzaki Shiori don't appear to have a delete log. Which deleted article did they recreate? Shadowjams (talk

) 09:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Rakuto tochihara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the deleted Miguel same (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I guess they are a fan of Japanese pop culture. Guy (Help!

) 10:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is just a fishing expedition. I've seen plenty of new accounts recreate deleted articles and start drafts in userspace. Many people only register when they want to create an article. Fences&Windows 13:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin review this AfD? I do not thing it was an appropriate one for a non-admin closure as it was not unanimous --

) 02:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Though this is not an AFD I would have closed, it's not backwards enough for immediate admin attention IMHO. Your best course of action is to discuss it with the closer and then take it to

deletion review. --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 02:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Morenooso notified of this thread. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Too many users are doing non-admin closures these days. They're not needed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Two weeks for an AfD? That's plenty of time. No consensus means the article is kept for now. What's the problem? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh the close itself was ok. An admin would likely have closed it "keep" or "no consensus" with an extended rationale and if it goes to

snout count would indicate. AnmaFinotera was right to question the close, she just didn't need to do it here. --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 04:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There are differences between "non-consensus" and "keep", at least for some editors. If a merge discussion, for example, were started, and the AfD is keep over NAC, there are certain editors who would vehemently argue against a merge discussion because the AfD ended in "keep". Articles that end an AfD on a NAC instead keep are also eligible for re-noming to AfD sooner. (note, just giving general answer, and not saying either may be applicable here - but it is important) --

talk · contribs

) 08:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I called for a keep on this as well, bit this closure is highly inappropriate; counting the nom there were 3 calls for deletion, which is absolutely not a case for a snow close. I'd really like to see an admin revert this closure and have a go at it, so yea, this was appropriate to bring to AN/I. Tarc (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This wasn't a snowball close; it had been open for 14 days. I would have theoretically closed it as "no consensus to delete", myself, despite good arguments from the delete side, so it really isn't something that should be summarily overturned. If anyone thinks the close was wrong, it can go to DRV. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

this is a particularly difficult case, as it appears that our policy for notability of books would clearly lead to a keep, while there is also good reason that this might not be the best solution for books in a series like this. That is the sort of close that a non-admin would be well advised to stay clear of, if for no other reason than if they close it , it is much more likely to be taken to deletion review. But that's where this belongs, not here. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly not clear that WP:NB would lead to a keep, because Carol Keene isn't a person but a name used by a wide variety of authors, and thus that clause most likely doesn't apply. What's the process for listing this at DR ? I've never listed an AFD discussion there as opposed to an undeletion request. Claritas § 07:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I brought it here, versus DRV, after reading

talk · contribs

) 08:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As someone who does a metric assload of non-admin closures, I have a love/hate relationship with

instruction creep

.

And yes, if a non-admin close were completely backwards, then it would be appropriate to ask an administrator to review the close. In the case of the AFD in question, I reviewed it yesterday and decided to leave it for an admin to close. My call would have been "no consensus". This was not the best of closes but IMHO it's not one that needs to be reversed.

Trout slap the closer and move on. --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 12:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd have closed this as no consensus. Same fate for the article... but this is not a non-admin close I'm a fan of. When there are delete !votes, it should be left for an admin to press the buttons. I'm giving serious thought to undoing this close and re-closing as no consensus, actually... Courcelles (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, I've struck the close and added a "no consensus" close with rationale. There's no need to go to DRV according to deletion policy - though if you disagree with my close you certainly may discuss it with me or go to DRV! I've reminded User:Morenooso that they shouldn't be closing non-obvious AfDs, and that they should stand at RfA is they want to close more complex AfDs. Fences&Windows 14:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with your close as I think it more accurately reflects the balance of the two main arguments. --

talk · contribs

) 17:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threat made by an IP user.

In this revision IP user 70.31.101.86 claims that he is a representative for Ariana Afghan Airlines which threatens with legal action against Wikipedia unless all information on the respective page is removed. As a reaction i blocked the IP for 48 hours for making legal threats and left a notice on the talk page.

While this is a heads-up, i would also point out that the IP address is in a pool owned by BELLCANADA, a Canadian based ISP. Since the head office is located in Kabul i would point out that this could equally be a joke or vandalism. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I also replied to the HD thread. The article in question is Ariana Afghan Airlines, from which the IP was trying to remove the section that related the airline's EU ban. I found a source for the ban, but not the findings listed in the same section. If anyone has any insight, that would be great. TNXMan 14:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A quick google suggests Sayed Hashemi is the chap for Ariana Canada --Narson ~ Talk • 15:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I re-added the supporting cite from the original 2006 addition, which seems to source the detailed assertions. The cite appears to have been dropped over the years. Kuru (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I felt I ought to bring this up. On Talk:United Kingdom in this section there has been an IP seemingly giving out someone's real name and e-mail address by posting it on there twice. I'm sure this is a violation of a Wikipeda policy on personal information but I hesitate to remove it in case i'm incorrect and with this being a Talk Page and all. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The only problem I saw was the email address, which I've redacted; but he seems to be giving his own address out, so I don't think this is a problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to remove the email from the history but it would mean hiding about 5 edits so will just trust that the above removal is sufficient. A word of advice to the IP is in order. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Template keeps being removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pavel2.jpg&action=history 80.176.233.6 (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've notified the IP and asked why the image is not replaceable, seeing as subject is alive. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoever "Pavel" is (Checkov?), maybe he's a recluse like J.D. Salinger was? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is just about the most clear-cut

) 22:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no sources for any of these accusations. An attempt to delete the article as an attack was reverted by

talk · contribs), who claims that BLP only applies to articles created recently. This article should be deleted immediately, or reliable sources provided; I am appalled that an admin doesn't understand BLP policy. Everard Proudfoot (talk

) 22:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at

) 22:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I was about to add two reliable sources ("The Quake That Hurt Kobe Helps Its Criminals". New York Times. June 6, 1995.; "Godfather of Japanese underworld steps aside". The Guardian. 30 July 2005.) to this article but it was deleted. Aiken ♫ 22:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(

biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced". Regardless of whether or not it's true, without extremely strong sources, that has no place on WP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

22:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As the article has gone my comments are to some extent redundant. I was trying to say, over an edit conflict, that I agreed that the article should be deleted but that I believed that attack-speedy was not appropriate. Also the

^"talk"

23:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You are misreading

talk

) 23:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, what about the sources Aiken found? They look quite solid to me.

talk

) 03:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've userfied it for Aiken drum to work on using those references: User:Aiken drum/Yoshinori Watanabe. Fences&Windows 18:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with a reliably sourced article existing, but given the nature of the claims about the subject it has to be very reliably sourced. My problem was with an editor restoring unsourced, very serious, negative content about a living person, and my shock that a trusted administrator would do so. This is nothing to do with the recently introduced

Phil Bridger (talk

) 19:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The article has two perfectly adequate sources as external links that verify his position as a Yakuza boss. WP:BLP does not exist to protect retired criminals from us writing about them. If you want, I can provide 50 more sources. Fences&Windows 22:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

To further comment on this, I agree that negative unsourced articles about living people should be quickly deleted - but searching for sources about this man is easy, even if he does have the same name as a musicologistlinguist and a biologist. Simply speedily deleting articles without stopping to consider if the article can be quickly and simply verified is not a great approach, even if it accord to the letter of

WP:BLP. I added the sources that verify the userfied article six minutes after userfying it, which I do not think is the greatest breach of policy ever, and surely nothing to be shocked about. Fences&Windows

22:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. My problem is not with your userfication, but with

Phil Bridger (talk

) 22:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's fun arguing about our rules, but I've sourced his bio and it's back in mainspace. I often find that this arguing over deletion vs inclusion is solved by just rolling your sleeves up and finding sources. Deleting the article would have been throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but restoring it without a single source was wholly negligent - so Phil Bridger is right to criticise this. It was basically all verifiable, but that ain't good enough for a somewhat controversial BLP. Fences&Windows 00:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

One last point. I concede the

^"talk"

20:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the template that you just linked? And, if so, how was the content that you chose to restore not "an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced" at that time? You seem to be making up policy rather than following it, and refusing to be corrected when your mistake is pointed out by multiple editors - neither of which is behaviour expected of an admin.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 21:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Inventor

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

This user has been on Wikipedia for nearly four years,

yet every single one of his edits is self-promotional. He was blocked for 31h last week for this. I tried LARTing this user in a deletion debate regarding his userpage, but he clearly doesn't get it. Can someone whack him a bit harder with a cluebat and/or banhammer please? MER-C

08:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the "promotional" aspect of his non-userspace edits, however IMO his userpage needs to be started anew - and his MfD defence is one of the most ridiculous I have ever heard. Deleting his userpage means the BP oil leak will never get solved? How is showing off your inventions on Wikipedia going to help cure the oil leak? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Somebody needs a patent attorney, not a wiki page. Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Examples of self-promotional edits: [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] -- all (but one!) inserting a mention of himself and/or his inventions. This is what he has to say about people who revert him: [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, methinks. MER-C 09:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree with this, but seeing as the MfD is currently running, he has been given a final warning by OrangeMike, and technically hasn't made any 'bad' edits since then, I'm tempted to let the MfD delete his page and then watch him to see what happens (

he might start editing productively :) ). If he makes any further edits along the same lines, I'd be perfectly happy to block for, say, a week, although an indef may be appropriate, dunno. Ale_Jrb^talk

10:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

He's been at it for four years, what makes you think he'll stop? MER-C 10:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The account has existed for four years, that's true, but it's only made about 20 edits a year... and like half of them were to his userpage, which will get deleted, or user talk page. You're possibly overstating the extent of the problem a little bit. Either way though, I generally disagree with issuing a final warning, and then blocking them anyway even if they haven't done anything else. Ale_Jrb^talk 10:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Ale. He's been warned; as soon as he starts spamming again, if ever, let's indef him and be done with him... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose I have a low tolerance to those who refuse to acknowledge WP is an encyclopedia. MER-C 13:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

He reminds me of User:Kils! Same refusal to accept what Wikipedia is about, same self-promotion. If he continues with the promotion of his own inventions he should be indef blocked: he is nothing but a time sink and has apparently provided nothing of worth to the project. Fences&Windows 13:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to block him for vandalism, because the "he clearly doesn't get it" edit linked by MER-C includes a claim that the photo on Inventor's userpage was added by a vandal, and the original version of the page, created by Inventor, included almost nothing except the picture. Inventor added picture; person who added picture is a vandal; q.v. Inventor is a vandal. Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am also, and have given him a final warning on the MfD to stop this nonsense. Whether I can actually block him myself having make a strong delete comment on the MfD is unlikely, but someone should if it continues. It's the strangest most illogical defence I think I've come across. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Since his block last week, he has created a now deleted article called Stopping the BP oil leak. He is only promoting his own inventions here - I can imagine no reason not to just indef him now. --B (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ban

I oppose the ban that is currently being imposed by the community. Thanks! Can I get it lifted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.114.245 (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

...and you are? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That is Zsfgseg (talk · contribs), who is currently looking at a community ban per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245#Community ban proposal - User:Zsfgseg. I have also blocked 71.249.0.0/17 for 24 hours for his continued disruption here and at AN (which includes blanking the ban discussion). –MuZemike 20:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually escaped!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.93.95 (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And your going back in the ban bin. Rohedin ^TALK 20:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

He's goin' back to Been Banned Bay. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, back in the day of iconic entertainers and big banneds :) –MuZemike 23:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User:92.0.63.81‎

I can't seem to get an explanation from this editor about why he or she is changing the wikilink

Bridge to Nowhere to Bridge to Nowhere (disambiguation), when the latter simply redirects to the former. It doesn't seem necessary to change a direct link to an article to an indirect one. See the editor's talk page for his or her inability or unwillingness to explain. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 23:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

They've given you an explanation several times, both in edit summaries and on their talk page.

WP:INTDABLINK says that you should link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect. --Onorem♠Dil

23:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it says that's how to link to a dismabiguation page, but there's no need to do that, since there's an article. What is being dismabiguated? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I note that this IP editor has been editing for only 4 days, but is clearly a seasoned editor. Beyond M} Ken (talk) 23:52 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Bridge to Nowhere is a disambiguation page. Where is the article? --Onorem♠Dil

23:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, it is indeed a disambiguation page. There's still no need for an indirect link. The link

Bridge to Nowhere in the "see also" section of Bridge was perfectly functional, what does changing it to Bridge to Nowhere (disambiguation) gain? Beyond My Ken (talk

) 23:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(Incidentally, User:92.0.63.81‎ is aware of this thread, since they just fixed the indents on it. Why are they not responding?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a completely different question that would be better asked at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Consistency across articles for the MOS crowd is about all I can think of for what advantage there is for the change. The edit has been explained. What response from them would you like? It could probably be handled on talk pages from here in any case. --Onorem♠Dil 00:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(out) So just above

WP:INTDABLINK

, the page says: (italicized text added later)

With very few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to give a user who has typed an ambiguous term into the search box a list of articles that are likely to be what he or she is looking for.

When to link to a disambiguation page

The exceptions, when an intentional link to a disambiguation page is appropriate, are:

• Disambiguation hatnotes –
  Watergate redirects to Watergate scandal, which carries a hatnote linking to Watergate (disambiguation)
  for other uses.
• Shortcut

  • WP:FURTHERDAB
  Links from one disambiguation page to another for further disambiguation – British has a link to Britain (disambiguation) for further disambiguation.
• Redirects from misspellings – Britian redirects to the "Britain" disambiguation page.
• Redirects from page names that have "(disambiguation)" in their titles – Britain (disambiguation) redirects to the "Britain" disambiguation page.
• Certain pages that contain lists of words or names – Britten (surname) contains a link to Britain (disambiguation).

So I would like User:92.0.63.81‎ to explain which one of these exceptions apply to his edit. As far as I can see none apply. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What

WP:INTDABLINK

actually says is:

How to link to a disambiguation page

Shortcut

• WP:INTDABLINK

To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect – for example, link to the redirect America (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "America". (If the redirect does not yet exist, create it and tag it with {{R to disambiguation page}}.) This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones.

Are you no longer querying the format for a link to a dab page?

Are you only querying the validity of a link to a dab page from a ==See also== section now? 92.0.63.81 (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are instructions about how to make a link. Above, in the part that I quoted, is given the circumstances under which you can make such a link -- as it says when to make a link. The first part that I quoted controls the second part that you quoted. Under which of the above exceptions did you make those changes? That's my question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I made the change ^[71] per

WP:INTDABLINK

.

Please clarify what you are now querying:

- Are you no longer querying the format for a link to a dab page?

- Are you only querying the validity of a link to a dab page from a ==See also== section now?

Thanks. 92.0.63.81 (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the entirety of the page, not simply that one section. The section just above it tells you what the proper circumstances are in which to link to an disambiguation page. Then, once you've determined that the circumstances apply, you go to the next section, the one you keep referring to, to find out how the make that link -- but you can't do the "how" until you've determined the "when", and none of those exceptions apply, so your changing the link there was incorrect.

You cannot continue to quote

WP:INTDABLINK as the reason you made the change, because that section doesn't cover reasons, it only covers mechanics. See? Beyond My Ken (talk

) 01:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I would think that the Redirects from page names that have "(disambiguation)" in their titles part could apply for the question of when to link this way, although after spending a bit more time reading that page, I don't think they do a very good job of explaining things. I did happen to think of another possible advantage for this method of linking. By linking to the page that has "disambiguation" in its title, you won't have to go back and fix links if someone comes along later and decides that the plain named disambiguation page should actually be an article instead of a disambiguation page. --Onorem♠Dil 00:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the instruction are somewhat confusing, but I don't think the circumstance you quote applies in this case. What is perfectly clear is that the instructions on how to make a link are controlled by the instructions on when to make a link, and if

Bridge to Nowhere to Bridge to Nowhere (disambiguation), when the latter redirects to the former, then the edits can legitimately be reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 00:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Trying again after reading again.

On the Bridge (disambiguation) page, links from one disambiguation page to another for further disambiguation clearly applies.

On the Bridge page, I guess the question is whether or not a link to a disambiguation page belongs in the see also section. If it does, the 'how to link' portion would seem to be what you'd follow in making that link. --Onorem♠Dil 00:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the first -- about the second, many disambiguation pages are not labelled "disambiguation", and they are routinely linked from "see also" sections. I cannot think of any rationale that would disallow that to happen, and no necessity to change from the straightforward link to the indirect link. The "when" section does not cover that circumstance in any way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:CREEP issue, or maybe it should be expanded/reworded. --Onorem♠Dil

01:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You know what, before this becomes a candidate for

WP:LAME - nevermind. I'll return to my little bubble world where Wikipedia edits are made to actually improve the encyclopedia, not just because something says it's OK to make them. Some nice person can close this as far as I concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs

) 01:06, 14 June 2010

Legal threats and article censorship

BLP article Phil Judd contains some seemingly well cited information which has been repeatedly removed (or censored) by a number of editors over recent weeks. I have reverted some of these removals as have others. Today I received an odd message on my talk page from SweetDreamz (talk · contribs) purporting to come from someone acting on behalf of Phil Judd. I would like to ask an admin to step in and take up communication with this person as legal threats are absolutely none of my business as a wikipedia contributor and occasional vandal-fighter. See User_talk:Biker_Biker#Re:_Your_recent_Edit_of_Phil_Judd_Page. Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... Rodhullandemu 23:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The history of that article looks a real mess with some serious COI issues. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done The content did not match the source, so I have edited it accordingly. Meanwhile, we seem to have a reliable source for this conviction, and here, erasing history isn't permissible unless it is

legal threats and advise the editor accordingly. Rodhullandemu

00:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dignity

The article Dignity - quite some time ago - went through a deletion process where the result was rewrite it and merge it with Human Dignity, which I took care of. Originally the article was a personal essay by Pyrrhon8 on the uselessness of Dignity as a concept in international politics, based on the writings of some minor academic named Aldegrove (Pyrrhon had originally started the article because he had been rebuff from making the same essay on the Human Dignity article, which was merged with Dignity as part of the deletion process). It was badly written original research, hence the AfD. Pyrrhon8 comes back periodically to reimpose parts of his old essay, and the result is always the same - I revert to the version that came out of the AfD process, and then the page devolves into a revert war where he either won't discuss anything with me at all or starts insulting the crap out of me in talk (look at the talk page and archives if you want some idea of what's happened in the past).

I've way too many experiences lately with mindlessly tendentious, insulting editors, and I no longer give a fuck. If you guys want to allow him to reassert his idiotic personal essay, then fine, he can do that. I wash my hands of the page, because it's an utterly thankless task trying to keep it even marginally encyclopedic. I'm just posting this before I unwatch it in case anyone else actually cares. --Ludwigs2 23:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I care - but I may be a little busy in the coming weeks so I would like to suggest a course of action that might resolve this matter quickly. Has there been a RfC or other process regarding Pyrrhon8 (talk · contribs) and their editing? Has there been any admin intervention regarding their edits to the article previously? Notwithstanding the answer to the above, it is fairly obvious that - in this matter - Pyrrhon8 is a SPA who persistently reverts to their preferred version of the article, which details the philosophy of an academic who is not linked (not saying that a WP article is an indication of worth, but...) and might be served with a topic ban. I would invite other comments, and I would also like to thank Ludwigs2 for their previous efforts in this matter. I would note that I have not reviewed P8's edits to other articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just notified the editor of this thread. I'd support a topic ban, however, if it came to that: it's the only way, short of a block, we can ensure he no longer restores his version... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Only as a start, I've left a warning about edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems there's enough fault to go around, but judging by the talk page, Ludwigs2 is making a good attempt to discuss the article, while Pyrrhon8 doesn't seem to have discussed anything on the talk page in about 6 months. There's also previous discussion from this noticeboard about the same subject.  --

(LiberalFascist)

02:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries about me - as I said, I am no longer interested in working on that page, at least while this situation pertains. Pyrrhon already left me this message; an unfortunate omen of things to come. I am not in the mood to go through the escalation of hostility that will most assuredly result from any action I make on the page, no matter how civil and reasonable I might be (and I do recognize that I am not very inclined to be civil or reasonable with him at the moment, which is another good reason to walk away from the page). The only action I might consider taking there myself would be to put it up for deletion again, as an intractable mess - I'll check back i in a few weeks, and if it's back to the sorry state it was in before the last AfD I'll nominate it again and see what happens. otherwise, sorry... I just don't have the stomach for it. --Ludwigs2 05:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems that there will be some fresh eyes on the matter, so you can step away from it now if that is what you wish. If there is any follow up issues relating to the editor and you outside of the Dignity article then you could note it here, or at my talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(shakes head) There are certain policies that always seem to be invoked by the people violating them -- & remarkably seldom by anyone else. (An example would be

WP:OWN should be added to their number. -- llywrch (talk

) 06:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've interacted with the article now as an editor because I felt this version was an issue under
  WP:NPOVN if there is disagreement with my reasoning. Sometimes wider input can help more clearly define consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)
  11:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. Hopefully this further input will lead to a resolution. I shall watchlist the article, but I am confident that any concerns regarding P8's editing stance will be returned here should other venues not address the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I join you in your hopes. :) The content question is now raised at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Dignity. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I do think Moonriddengirl's take, that the root editorial worry is

WP:UNDUE, is spot on. P8 is moreover both edit warring over this, mistakenly trying to call GF edits vandalism as a means to claim it's not edit warring. P8's PoV seems verifiable and hence can be cited, but not by skiving out other other sources and PoVs, much less without consensus and edit warring over it. Gwen Gale (talk

) 12:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Cala-boca-galvao joke

It seems there is a joke going around the Internet (Twitter, blogs, etc.) regarding a certain "Cala Boca Galvao". This is being reported as an endangered bird species but means "Shut Up Galvao" in reference to a Brazilian sports commentator.

In any case, I just noticed a new article on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cala-boca-galvao that adds credibility to the joke and is clearly false (as the Cala Boca Galvao is not a bird).

I wanted to bring it to your attention, as the article might help spread the joke and give it credibility.

88.3.33.170 (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted it as v/hoax. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, you beat me to it. Thanks to the anon contributor who spotted this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Same anon here, I just found another article highly suspicious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galv%C3%A3o_(Bird) it was created a few hours ago. 88.3.33.170 (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

... and we have another extinct species. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Very much

ex parrots, methinks I smell sockies, no inexperienced editor can spin up flawlessly crafted articles like that. Gwen Gale (talk

) 15:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The "flawlessly crafted" articles were probably created by taking an existing article about some other parrot and just changing a few sentences. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the

beans :) Gwen Gale (talk

) 15:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Coren's bot seems to have stumbled onto something, we'll see if the autoblocks stir something up. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, 88.3.33.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)! —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. Can an admin please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talula's Table, as I've withdrawn the AfD request, and there are no delete votes? Thank you. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 Already done by Floquenbeam! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

My first time using an AFD script; that's like 10,000 times easier... --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

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

This user keeps being on my back about edits, not allowing them to be compelted and saying that you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia for making very simple, and quite reasonable edits. The user seems to revert whilst I am in mid-edit, seeming trying to create an edit war. Another example is that, even though a request for deletion has been denied for a vote on a page such as File:The Time of Angels illustrative image.jpg he has just re-instigated it.

I have been a Wikipedia contributor for over four years, and this user treats me like some two year old. It does rather appear that he/she wishes for a certain point of view on certain pages and won't let anyone else near them, spouting rules that seem to require inaccuracy, and over content he/she seems to have never seen.

If there is some rule that I have missed I apologies, but it does not seem sensible that Wikipedia can't actually have accurate information because one editor decides not. Thank you.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide some specific diffs to what you're concerned about? TT is well known around here, and while perhaps stubborn at times (I've disagreed with him/her before), I haven't known TT to be reckless with things like this. Shadowjams (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

He may be referring to when I objected to him adding an unencyclopedic copy-paste from the BBC website. Or perhaps he's confusing me with the multiple editors who had problems with his edit-warring to include rampant original research – really don't know what he means... :P ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 09:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

About a month ago, the

ifd}} tag, and he used the semi-literate and rather unclear edit-summary of "delete already denied" – I have no further comment to make on this ridiculous issue. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat

─╢ 09:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are not permitted to remove an XfD tag from an article or file while the discussion is in progress. Editors are entitled to relist files, especially as it has been some time and the closing admin of the DRV was specifically open to relisting... so with regards to the only example you gave, you're wrong as far as I can see. What admin action are you after here? Ale_Jrb^talk 09:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. This is a case for

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ}

09:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

...well, it might be a case for WQA if he raised any substantive problems with me other than his own "delete already denied" intolerance... ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 09:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no point especially commenting on the merits of such a case here; in the event that a WQA is opened, comments can go there. I don't see any significant problems myself, but then I haven't gone through all the contribs and BRIANTIST may have other issues he wishes to bring to light. Ale_Jrb^talk 09:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can someone mark this one 'resolved' please, then? :) ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 19:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 09:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking for an uninvolved admin to close and summarize

15:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Falls of Cruachan derailment AfD

The

) 18:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, first off, a big thanks to administrator Roots for informing me he was having a chat about me in the section above this one. Secondly, if I may be allowed to tell people what I "know full well" in my own words, that would be grand - as far as I knew, if you don't agree with the appripriateness of a non-admin closure (a detail which Roots seems to have omitted from his report), all you need do is revert it and wait for an admin to close. If I'm wrong, and I sincerely don't believe I am, I'd be happy to trundle over to DRV and have it out there. As for the DYK issue, maybe if he had bothered mentioning it at all at the Afd or on the article talk page, I might not have risked exploding Wikipedia by restoring an Afd tag to a queued article. As it is, I knew nothing about it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

MMN, if you read the thread above, I never mentioned which editor was being talked about, nor which AfD as I was not after sanctioning you over that AfD, but trying to establish some ground rules for the future. This is not the first time you've badgered editors who hold an opposing view to yours, nor is it the first time your editing has been raised at ANI. I see nothing inappropriate in the closure, there is no way the article was going to get deleted following the debate. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

From - Wikipedia:Non-admin closure - Inappropriate early closures will either be summarily reverted by any administrator or almost certainly will result in a successful request to redo the process at Wikipedia:Deletion review.. - I'm not aware that MMN has been granted the privileges of an Admin yet. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Where did I say I reverted it for simply being an early closure? MickMacNee (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you didn't revert for early closure, then the only other rationale is that the closure decision of keep was incorrect. As this has been endorsed by an independent admin, the decision was correct in the first place. I can see no reason to take this to DRV in that case. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to read the policies. A non-admin closure is, if not for technicalities, is only appropriate for uncontroversial decisions that will not be a delete outcome (and yes, we can skip the reply where you will state you don't think it was controversial to close it as keep, that's a given). A non-admin closure is not appropriate just because they think they will get it right, otherwise they could try and close any Afd they fancied on good faith. The fact that an admin has now closed it as keep is absolutley not an endorsement of the idea that a non-admin closure was appropriate in any way here, and I have my doubts as to how much thought he put into that closure, given the impression he simply jumped on it and closed it to avoid the drama you kicked off here. The one line rationale is unconvincing, which is why, with his agreement, it will be going to DRV. MickMacNee (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It has run its seven days as far as I can see, if not to the exact hour, and consensus appears to be keep. I have closed it as an admin. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

When I had an AFD nomination I was involved in and it was closed by a non admin closure I went to the editor and asked him to reopen it, which he happily did and I would have also if been given the opportunity. I was perhaps on or over the line of non admin closure there, it was about 15 keep type comments and five delete type comments. The discussion had stalled for about a couple of days and after a good read of the article and the discussion it seems clear in my mind that there was only one outcome and so I closed it as keep. I think I was correct in the closure and that was the way anyone would have closed it. From my side I will take care in future not to close similar AFDs.

) 18:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Now at

WP:DRV. Mjroots (talk

) 12:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Marking every edit as minor

Resolved

Editor has altered their settings so that edits are not automatically marked as minor.

)

I left them a very polite message about this, which was immediately removed – as were the two left by John (talk · contribs) [77] [78] (the latter with the edit-summary, "enough already") and the non-minor edits still continue [79] [80]

So my question is: what's to be done? ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 07:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you have a problem with minor edits, you should seek to have the "Mark all edits minor by default" box on theadvanced settings removed. If I could, I would mark this issue as a "minor" issue. I think all of our time is spent better editing articles then arguing about whether it is appropriate to check a box.--TM 07:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What? I've not got a clue what that means. No—if you are using that box, you should be more careful. Your actions are your responsibility, you can't blame them on "mark all edits minor by default" – at all. However, as per

clear policy, please stop persistently marking non-minor edits as minor. This is not complicated. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament

─╢ 07:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I will speak more simply so you can understand. If you look under the advanced options of the editing preferences tag on the user profile, a box exists to "mark all edits minor by default". Since you seem to have a problem with most edits being marked as such, I think you should take your problem elsewhere. I've been a regular editor on Wikipedia for more than 4 years and you are the first editor to bring up this issue. If I remember to uncheck the box when I edit, I will. If not, I am not going to concern myself with it. This is an extremely minor issue to me. I suggest you find another issue to focus your energy on.--TM 07:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I do understand what you are saying. But it is nonsense. (Incidentally, I'm not the only person this week to comment on it, though, am I?) ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 08:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note to admins—he's clearly not going to do anything useful. Can someone issue him a final warning for disruptive editing? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 07:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Final warning issued, info given on how to change settings. Mjroots (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) TM, it can be an issue, because minor edits are filtered out of many peoples recent change patrol screens, and they are often overlooked or missed when looking for major changes. I'm sure you understand. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

He has just reverted it from his talk page, as is his right, hopefully he has taken it in. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) ANI notification and final warning removed, by which we understand that the warning has been read and is understood. Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually didn't realize that the edits were sorted. Anyway, I've removed the all minor edits tag, but this is a ridiculous issue to considering here. I hope everyone, especially the user who brought this here, will find better and more productive ways of improving wikipedia then paying attention to all of my edits and judging their impact.--TM 08:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it was productive to bring this to your attention otherwise you would've continued on in your ignorance of why certain edits are marked minor and others aren't. -- œ^™ 08:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously some would like to continue this discussion. Very well then. How has checking the minor edit tag hurt the hundreds of articles on under-represented people, places and things I have written? How has it hurt the thousands of stubs I have sorted? the DYKs I have written? The answer is that it has not. Ultimately, those are the most important features of Wikipedia, not the bureaucracy like this. ANI has a place and is important in some situations, but this is a petty argument to continue.--TM 08:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually you are the only person arguing. And I already told you some of the reasons why it's important. Read recent changes, edit review, page history and so on. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

...and one would expect that based upon your vast experience at Wikipedia, you would have understood the importance of minor vs non-minor edits, and also have been more free and willing to amend without having an ANI report to actually force it. (

BWilkins ←track

) 12:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to deal with an IP editor

Since I'm involved I should not act but an IP editor is edit warring to include an external link to cordwainersmith.blogspot.com/ on the page

13:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking into it. The last diff should be this, I think? TFOWR 13:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not any more, I ain't ;-) JohnCD has blocked the IP. TFOWR 13:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks folks for the speedy response.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

13:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hr for edit-warring. I don't think the legal threat is serious, and I think {{uw-ewblock}} plus the explanations already on his talk page make things clear enough. JohnCD (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

from the websites and Flickr account he'd snatched them from, he recreated the files, this time claiming they were his own work (somewhat implausibly, since he sourced them to third parties the first time he uploaded them).

He has since uploaded the copyvios File:First sowing GMO maize in Italy.jpg and File:Movimento Libertario rally in Pordenone.jpg, which, barring some intervention, will no doubt likewise keep reappearing as many times as they are speedied.

And just why, exactly, is EN hosting a bloated

) 16:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Answers' by

)

Sorry Rrburke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but I have just questions on the legality of Article-entry at Wikipedia English, now I do not think that you are within the project or Wikiproject Libertarianism and Wikiproject Liberalism to judge with the necessary knowledge and skills content of this page. In addition, the page has already been approved as a permanent discussion above. What happened in Wikipedia Italian is regrettable, unfortunately for political and ideological reasons tied to the users of the Italian version of our page and its content was deemed inconsistent with the present zeitgeist among users.

), that I remember how his approached in the past is not an authoritative source nor fair to have an objective version of events. I want also note that the presence of links to bibliographic reported refer to content on newspaper websites and third and authoritative information sites, outside the site of the Movimento Libertario. So I think your arguments are very disrespectful of myself and realized the purpose of the ML page. Bye.

talk

) 17:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have deliberately violated the copyright because these images don't have any copyright itself. I also followed the instructions for compiling the most appropriate license for the photos, considering the examples already on Wikipedia without objection. Bye

talk

) 17:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Images which appear on the Movimento Libertario website are copyrighted. They are not in the public domain nor are they released under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. (See for example, the bottom of this page which states Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved) Copyrighted images such as these can only be used if they meet Wikipedia's

WP:OTRS office from the original copyright owner, the images must be removed from Wikipedia. — CactusWriter | ^needles

18:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The images have been deleted. I suspect from your note above, at your talk page and on the image's talk pages that you are profoundly misunderstanding the copyright law that governs the Wikimedia Foundation,

copyright policy points out, "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." Even if you find an image on a site that does not indicate it is copyrighted, as User:CactusWriter rightly points out these are, you would not be able to import them without verifying that they are free, not simply widely used. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

18:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No opinion about other issues. Given plausible misunderstanding of copyright policy and law, I have issued a clear warning. I believe if this contributor persists in uploading images without verifying that they are usable, a block will be necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the reference to the website "2009 Copyright Rights" text refers to the kind of web structure of the site but not in particular to the articles or images contents, so that the articles and image in particulars are freely copyable on blogs and other sites (example http://liberalismoonline.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/giorgio-fidenato-contra-el-estado-italiano/ and this this site http://www.pnveneto.org/2010/01/pordenone-una-fredda-mattina-d-inverno-riscaldati-dalla-liberta-per-giorgio-fidenato/ is of another political party very close to the Movimento Libertario but the presence of this images don't create problems to the Movimento Libertario, the same images there are here in this blogs http://lasentinelladellalaicita.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/la-rivolta-di-atlante/ and in this http://www.buraku.org/2009/11/19/tuti-i-schei-in-busta-paga/ Where is the problem if the Movimento Libertario don't protest (and it doesn't protest for the use of the image in the correct context like this)?. Then if the problem is their bureaucratic permission, tell you to me that address the Movimento Libertario should send official email to Wikipedia English to request permission to usage the image so I can notify to them the next day. However, the contents of the article is also in line with the criteria of Wikipedia Project Libertarianism (I forwarded the application), so I hope that there are no other issues at least on the content of the article. Bye

) 18:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict]That the images are being similarly misused by other websites and blogs is not a rationale for compounding that error by uploading them to Wikipedia. Since they have been published elsewhere, they are presumed to be copyrighted unless there is proof to the contrary. You adduced no such proof nor attempted to. Instead, you then falsely claimed to be the creator of the works (after they had been deleted for lack of permission from the copyright-holder). Did you suddenly remember that you had created them yourself just before you uploaded them the second time, but the first time you thought they were by someone else?

Additionally, the claim that the article was deleted ("censored") for ideological reasons, which you have made repeatedly and which earned you a block for a personal attack on Italian Wikipedia, is false, self-aggrandizing and self-serving: the article was deleted because you could not produce adequate evidence of substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources to establish that the subject merited a standalone article (Hint: two guys and a website don't meet the

Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. -- Rrburke (talk

) 20:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The post by CacturWriter included a link to what is needed to get the needed permissions for the images.

Ravensfire (talk

) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Given his recent note at his talk page, I suspect granting him the benefit of the doubt was an error on my part. He says, "I uploaded the same image multiple times just because I have tried several times between the different Commons Licenses available at the time of the upload in an attempt to satisfy the licensing requirements of Wikipedia." The first time he uploaded

talk)) created this work entirely by myself" and listed under author "Lib3rtarian". This does not seem like he was attempting to satisfy the licensing requirements of Wikipedia. It seems like deliberate copyright fraud. The first two times it was deleted (on Wikipedia; it's also been deleted twice on Commons), he was told how to verify permission, if he was in position. (He was told that in conjunction with other images, as well.) He's been given several block advisories in the past. Given what looks like deliberate efforts to obscure the authorship of that photograph and what seems to be a lack of willingness to acknowledge the issue, is a block at this time appropriate? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

21:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this user is interested in getting as much information about this topic onto Wikipedia as he possibly can and is not terribly fussy about how that gets accomplished or very concerned about whether the additions conform to WP policies and guidelines. That said, I have encountered editors in the past who genuinely appear to think that the "work" of uploading a file makes it their "own work." A little implausible here, perhaps, but there may additionally be a language problem that might justify extending benefit of doubt -- if you're feeling especially charitable. There'd certainly be no excuse next time. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that his response below and the one I've quoted at his talk page make a good case that it was not ignorance that led to his repeated violations of our copyright policy (in spite of clear warnings, including two explicit block advisories from March). It seems evident that he chose to ignore them because he does not take them seriously. I have blocked for 31 hours. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The images are useless public walk around the installation procedures images in Wikipedia are not the least understandable, in addition to being inflexible, I do not understand where is the problem in reference to a widespread image in the public domain. I noted then as Oriana.Italy or other alleged owners of the image on Flickr or other holders are not at all certain of the picture, nothing precludes their use (and thus an alleged harm to the copyright) on these platforms or improper transfer unsanctioned . Also repeat the question as surreal as Leonardo Facco, Giorgio Fidenato and the ML do not pose copyright issues ever to their pictures by their respective board on Wikipedia. Also do not understand why Rrburke continue to defend the shameful censorship suffered by myself and the Wikipedia page ML Italy, he doesn't not know that history, nor can know how to block user has deliberately prevented the update and after comparison being teased by people clearly definable certainly not liberals and libertarians and the inability to implement a serious debate has quietly allowed. Rrburke not know how to repeat the question of which interest is to deliberately (perhaps to please a few friends of Wikipedia Italy) I repeat my opinion as user is equal to that of the Wikipedia censors Italy, which have seen a movement-political party of their ideological rating as a "gang of dangerous criminals". I assume that Rrburke not even know the criteria and rationale to justify its hasty exit cancellation. Try reading the ML article heading and the various links to references / sources and see how the ML is not a combination of only 2 people but a real political organization in the Italian Territory with links to a culture (libertarianism) present in many countries (example Switzerland). The ML is a real movement-parties not a fake or not existing as others parties-movements that doesn't exist in the elections and in the society (but they are presents in Wikipedia Italy only because they have got a relation with some politicians or special interests in Italian politics and economic reality), news and newspaper and many websites in the references show what I write here about the ML. I know better than Rrburke the political reality and the italian libertarianism, I live in Italy and I khow also as Italian Wikipedia works than its English counterpart. So stop talking about a scam copyright since the ML never made complaints directly to the question in Italy and in this question in particular, I also received further informed consent of Leonardo Facco and Giorgio Fidenato in putting their pictures on Wikipedia. Moreover you who accused me of colluding with the two characters, when I could just be a person informed about the facts. I think that level of interest between the owner and Oriana.Italy The two main characters there is a great difference. I say give me a contact email and inform the owners of the images sent all the material for the consent. Do not create hype, since I have not stolen any plan on the H-bomb... Bye.

) 22:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Lib3rtarian's responses to comments here and on his talk page, as well as in his unblock request, seem to indicate that he is unable or unwilling to accept Wikipedia's copyright policy. If he refuses to operate within our rules, I think he should be indefinitely blocked, at least until we have a reasonable belief that he understands the rules and is willing to abide by them. He's talking about obtaining permission for the images, which is good but there's still the underlying issue regarding his broad approach to copyright matters. We need to protect the project and I think it's completely unacceptable to allow him to resume editing as long as he's still refusing to accept that he cannot just copy material from elsewhere and post it here and then claim it's okay because the copyright owner hasn't complained. His comments about "proper usage" and such also seem to suggest that he doesn't understand that we don't do permissions that limit usage only to Wikipedia and once images and other material are uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons under free licenses, they can be reused by *anyone* for *any* purpose and that includes way that he might not consider "proper usage". Sarah 05:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The responses by User:Lib3rtarian indicate that they are not simply someone who "does not get it" -- rather this is someone who understands Wikipedia policy but refuses to accept it. The example given by Moonriddengirl shows Lib3rtarian has actively attempted to subvert copyright policy through deception. If Lib3rtarian cannot be trusted to edit within the rules, than they will be need to be indefinitely blocked. At this time, I have seen no response from Lib3rtarian which instills my trust. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, me either. I will not myself extend his block, but I wouldn't think it inappropriate if somebody else did pending some plausible indication that he will abide by our Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The editor appears to be attempting to evade his block by editing anonymously as User:109.113.45.247. I opened an SPI case, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lib3rtarian. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Misread timestamps: withdrawn, with apologies. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the above discussion and the comments on Lib3rtarian's talk page, I have upgraded his block to indefinite. I don't have a problem with giving him another chance, but I don't believe that he should be unblocked until we have a reasonable belief that he's taking the copyright policies seriously. At present, with his various comments dismissing the policy, claiming that the organisation didn't complain so what does it matter etc, I have absolutely no faith that if unblocked he wouldn't simply dismiss this whole conversation and just resume editing as before. So to protect the project, I think he needs to remain blocked until we get a credible undertaking to abide by our policies. Sarah 03:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restored this section as it's not resolved. I don't know what to do about this case. Lib3rtarian appears unwilling to address these issues and he has now resorted to using IPs to evade the block and continue editing the articles. I've semi-protected the articles and the response is to accuse me of "ranting", being a "hypocrite", a "fool", a "fascist", a "vulgar" provocateur, and something about me caring for "kangaroos and koalas, animals with a QI like (me)". He is also making some kind of reference to his organisation taking some "official behavior" towards me. His English skills are very poor but he refuses a translator (I have offered to find an Italian speaking editor or suggested he find someone at his end to help but he's not interested and insists his English skills are fine, that it's just some words not translating properly but it's clearly a lot more than that. Looking at the articles involved, they really are very bad and much of them don't make sense. I don't know anything about these subjects so I don't know if they should be sent back to AFD or if they should be re-written but they're not doing English speakers any benefit in their current form. Sarah 05:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought that your offer to him to locate a translator was a very good one, but if he doesn't accept it, there's not much to be done. Given his last notes, I suspect that we'd be dealing with attempts at copyright fraud even if he was unblocked. I am particularly taken by this: "The Wiki users continue to believe that these images do not even belong either to the ML (but at a certain Oriana.Italy only because she has posted on Flickr) although such images are present on the official website of the party." It was Lib3rtarian himself who said that she was the author of the image, the first time that he uploaded it. "Author = Oriana.italy; Source = http://www.flickr.com/photos/orianaitaly/1268563873/". Only after he was told he needed her permission did he begin to assert different authorship and now he acts as though we've made her up ourselves. This leads me to fear that even if he does begin to follow the permissions process, he will do so fraudulently: placing any images on the website with which he is affiliated and claiming them. I think under the circumstances that the indef block is essential, and I think protecting the articles as you have done may be the only way to circumvent socking. I agree with you about quality concerns. I'll have at least a go at it when I get a chance. It's hard to tell notability at this point; many of the sources have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject but are supporting the digressions, such as the side box that purports to define "anarcho-capitalism" with seven sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

[87] suggests he may be sufficiently notable - Chronicle Books LCC do not seem to have any association with the guy, and publish a wide range of books. Article is a mess though - it's got enough coatpegs for a primary school! Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Elen, that book on Amazon lists the publisher as an rather anonymous "Books LLC". Although Amazon links it to Chronicle Books LLC, the Chronicle Books website doesn't have a lisitng for that title (unlike all its other titles listed on Amazon). I suspect it is a self-published book and probably not a reliable source. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, in that case... That was my first thought, seeing the rather wierd blurb. Then when I checked on who Amazon said was the publisher, I thought it must be OK. I can find two other references to his crusade for GM crops, but only in Italian, and I can't tell how reliable they are as sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this definitely needs an editor who is proficient in Italian to guide the way in cutting through the fluff at these articles. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone offhand, but if you or anyone knows someone who qualifies, it would be great to notify them of this discussion. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah's and Moonriddengirl's assessments: 1.) The editor refuses to acknowledge there has been any copyright violation but rather suggests that WP policy is wrong; 2.) The user acknowledges using IP accounts to edit during their block but refuses to accept this as sockpuppetry; 3.) Despite their obvious deficiency in communicating in English, the editor refuses to accept the need for translation help; and 4.) The editor suggests the problem is Wikipedia and its administrators -- and includes personal attacks and a veiled legal threat. I'm afraid that this is a case where the editor's ideas clearly run counter to Wikipedia policy. The indefinite block should remain and the articles protected as necessary. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict]I did a search for sources at the time of nominating the initial article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Movement (Italy)). The conclusion I drew is that the organization's principals -- Facco and Fidenato -- might be marginally notable, but that the organization was not. It is mentioned in several published sources, so it turns up GHits when you do a news search, but when you actually look at the sources in detail, it turns out the organization is simply mentioned in passing -- and mere mentions are not sufficient to establish notability. Any publication in which the organization was given more than a passing mention did not appear to be independent of the subject.

I'm agnostic on the question of whether Facco or Fidenato are actually notable. I note that neither has an article about him on Italian Wikipedia -- though, of course, Italian Wikipedia has a lot fewer articles overall than EN, so that may not be a fair measure. Many (most?) of the sources cited appear to be communiques from the Movimento Libertario or some other organization not exactly independent of the subject, and many of the independent sources cited do not even mention either man by name. There are zero English-language sources on them. Of the Italian sources I have managed to find apart from those cited in the article, many are not independent.

I had a look at the Amazon link to the book Italian Libertarians. Possibly I've misread, but the publisher appears to be Books LLC rather than Chronicle Books LLC. I suspect Books LLC is a vanity press of some kind and I wouldn't be surprised if the work is a self-published pamphlet: it's 64 pages long and carries no author credit. I don't think this publication can be used to establish notability.

On the other hand, the indefinitely-blocked editor who created all three articles appears to be belong to the organization and created them on the its behalf: he refers in a post on the group's website to having been thanked personally by Fidenato for creating

Libertarian Movement (Italy), and complains that his block has prevented him from updating the page with information about their upcoming meeting. He evidently solicits

input from the organization's founders on the content of the articles. To me this means the organization is using Wikipedia to promote itself and that the articles are spam.

On that basis, I think

coatrack articles whose purpose is to advertise as much of the group's platform as possible under the guise of an encyclopedia article. If some independent editor wishes to recreate an article on these topics at a later date, he or she would be free to do so. In my judgment, in their current state, they're unsalvageable spam. -- Rrburke (talk

) 16:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Digvijay Singh (politician)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Two anons came in removing the Controversy section of this article, both editing from Houston, Texas. The second IP then started removing material claiming to be Digvijay Singh. When I asked why Mr. Singh would be editing from an account in Houston, all of a sudden, they changed their tune and provided an email address to contact in order to get "proof" for their edits. When I reverted them again, issuing a b3 warning, I was reverted by another editor altogether. What's the view on this? Should those last edits stand? Everard Proudfoot (talk

) 22:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair what was removed was uncited on a BLP. The email he gave does not match the name, and I doubt it is him, but a message about COI/AUTO/RS etc encouraging him to provide suitable sources wouldn't go amiss. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Which I have done now. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 23:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, SG. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:71.139.29.193 on BLP of Bob McDonnell

Bob McDonnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

The above user has violated the 3RR purely to push POV, see nature of tags on his summaries. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

An edit war has taken place on Bob McDonnell. I've invited all to a new discussion but this issue must be handled externally otherwise there be be edit conflict for the next few hours. Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am slow on the draw, I just filed another ANI on the same anon 20 minutes later. This anon either needs a topic ban or some time off. (full disclosure, the same anon has filed a SPI against me, it can be viewed here) - Schrandit (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I don't see anything that violates BLP about the IP's version of the article and would have either protected the article or blocked both. The edit filter tag is because of the repeated use of the word "gay", not because there is an actual problem. If there is a BLP problem there, maybe I'm incredibly dense. --B (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I also see nothing that violates BLP. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

IP 173.53.60.89 has been making disruptive edits since February 2010. He has consistently deleted any content that he views as detrimental to the image of Bob McDonnell. He has also shown far more familiarity with Wikipedia than would be typical for someone who has only started editing in February 2010. I suspect that he may be an established user who decided to edit just the Bob McDonnell article on an IP-only basis, so 71.139.29.193 may be only a part of the problem. Racepacket (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Living dead

Per a recent bot request, I have been doing some digging, we have about 365 people in

β^_command

15:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"those who have died on other wikis"? I've heard it's rough on the German Wikipedia, but I did not know it was that bad! (

BWilkins ←track

) 16:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my grammar, those who have been marked as having died on other wikis.

β^_command

16:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry β, was just being mildly humourous ... (

BWilkins ←track

) 16:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Repeated attempted outing

Resolved

 – No need to round up the usual suspects. Toddst1 (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Despite being warned,[88]

User :Breein1007 is repeatedly [89], [90] posting what he believes to be my real name on my talk page. I would like an admin to take steps to put a stop to this harassment. RolandR (talk

) 12:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a ridiculously inappropriate twist of the truth on so many levels. First of all, Roland makes it appear above as if he warned me and then I posted his full name twice. If you take a look at the timestamps, you'll see that he is misrepresenting things. Let's assume he didn't do that on purpose. Moving on. If you take a look at his talk page, you will see other editors referring to him by full name. He doesn't have any complaints about that. Only with me, for some reason. It is worth noting that we have previous history and he has shown a repeated pattern of reverting my edits in the Israeli-Arab area on Wikipedia, often without edit summaries or discussions. Finally, it is important to consider that the username "Roland Rance" redirects to RolandR's page. Calling this an attempted outing or harassment is so ridiculous that it's funny. He might as well accuse me of tainting his name; that would have a better chance of being true. Anyway, I have better things to do. Have fun,

Breein1007 (talk

) 13:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You were asked to stay off his talk page and not to use his full name. You did both. Obvious disruption is obvious. I'd support a block until this user can ensure he's not going to continue with disruptive behaviour.--

Crossmr (talk

) 13:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007 (talk

) 13:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the second diff was posted after his warning. But I'm not sure it's outing when it seems to be a common assumption, going back to the first note on his talk page. See [91]. And at this writing, it is indeed posted higher on his talk page, here. And while only admins can currently see this, I wonder whether this edit (not oversighted or suppressed; deleted after an AfD found the article merited deletion) doesn't take "outing" off the table in the spirit of "unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information." He doesn't seem to have taken exception to claims about his identity here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this isn't a clear-cut case of outing, as Roland has previously posted his identity as pointed out above. However, it would be a clear case of disruption if any user were to continue using his full name after being asked not to. So I suggest Breein1007 stops this harassment (yes I'll call it that), and that this all gets cleared up asap, as the longer it stays here the more people (like me, not that I'm going to do anything with it) will know the original posters identity...

Peter

13:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Posting to his talk page after being told not to is harassment, using his full name with that makes the intention very clear.--

Crossmr (talk

) 14:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Did I say that it had anything to do with WP:OUTING? No I didn't. I said you were asked not to use his full name and not to post on his talk page and you persisted in your harassment by doing both. Whether it's OUTING or just plain harassment it doesn't really matter. Since you don't seem to get it at all, I'd strongly suggest a block until you read up on the relevant policies and wiki guidelines on behaviour and demonstrate you understand them.--

Crossmr (talk

) 14:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

After a quick look at his block log and the fact that he apparently knows what it means to be told to stay off someone's talk page[92], I'd suggest at least a week as he seems to have had a little trouble getting it the last few months.--

Crossmr (talk

) 14:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think "outing" comes into it via the header title: "Repeated attempted outing." There may be some harassment going on, but I don't think this is actual outing, given the circumstances. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, that's true, but using someone's full name when it's an "open secret" or not readily and intentionally public has the same chilling effect as outing - it's as if to say (in my best 60's villain voice), "I know who you are". --B (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but so do we all. As

Wikipedia:Outing when you've already outed yourself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

18:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What I think is relevant from the policy is this, "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing." So while RolandR did not (that we are aware of) make any effort to redact the information, he did ask the user not to refer to him by his (I guess we're supposed to say "alleged") full name on his talk page. That he did it again is what really sets me off. --B (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

However, I'll note again that his alleged full name was already in use on his talk page and had been for years: [93]. If somebody asked me not to refer to them by a particular name, I would certainly refrain from doing so. It seems like taunting to do otherwise. Again, perhaps a harassment block is appropriate. But, still, it is not outing, not even within the spirit of "their wishes should be respected", when they are still actively displaying the name. He had made no visible effort to distance himself from it before threatening to block Breein for using it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, Miszabot did not archive some old comments, but left them on my talk poage. Following the comments earliuer in this discussion, I have rectified this. RolandR (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007, now that you've been asked not to post what you believe to be RolandR's real name (and any other personal information) can we assume that you won't do this again? TFOWR 14:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And stay off his talk page, he's been told he isn't welcome there.--

Crossmr (talk

) 15:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I would support a block for continuing in the behavior after being asked to stop, as Crossmr says, breen just doesn't seem to get it'.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 15:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support block - There is also a current arbcom enforcement request concerning this user at
  Wikipedia:AE#User:Breein1007. Though I had felt, when looking at that page before, that the issues therein did not warrant sanction, this incident makes it much less possible to view the user's behavior in a positive light. It is impossible to view in a favorable light using his full name in this particular incident. Even if you have a user whose real name is public, you address him as John or perhaps Mr. Smith under some circumstances, but not John Smith. I'm inclined to support a lengthy block and upon his return, either an outright topic ban or at least some kind of strong probation. --B (talk
  ) 17:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
• People who out themselves on Wikipedia don't get protection under
  WP:OUTING. User:Roland Rance redirects to User:RolandR, RolandR extensively edited the now-deleted Roland Rance, and RolandR said in April 2009 that "I edit using my own name" when his editing was raised at the COI noticeboard. RolandR can ask someone not to post on his talk page, but the name issue is a red herring. If he is blocked merely for "outing", I will unblock. Fences&Windows
  18:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • While it's true that RolandR did out himself,
    WP:OUTING addresses respecting the wishes of people who out themselves, but change their mind. Roland asked Breein1007 not to use his real name, then Breein1007 responded by using it again. I'm sorry, but I don't consider that to be acceptable conduct. Whether we call it outing, harassment, or being disruptive, whatever it is I don't believe to be acceptable. --B (talk
    ) 18:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Accounts are here are for encyclopedia building, citing sources, echoing them in article text and if need be, talking about those sources with other editors. Knowing a user doesn't want their name flaunted about, but doing it anyway, is harassment meant to sway editorial content, which is blockable. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Breein1007 for 7 days. PhilKnight (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous thread and one of the worst blocks I've seen in a while. I'll refrain from leaving comments on User talk:Roland Rance. Toddst1 (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether or not the block was "technically right" but there's a little rule I follow that generally keeps me out of trouble. If multiple editors in good faith ask me to stop doing "X" then I stop doing "X". "X" could be anything. It could be a request to not use someone's real name. It could be a request to not change "$" into "US$". It could be a lot of different things. If "X" was something I felt strong enough about, then I would discuss the issue with those concerned but I certainly wouldn't keep doing "X" after multiple reasonable requests to stop. If it turned out that there was a consensus that I shouldn't do "X", (or in the case of using someone's real name, that editor alone) then I would

drop it and go do something else. Follow such a rule and it's unlikely that one would ever come close to getting blocked, legitimately or illegitimately. (of course that doesn't excuse bad blocks) --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 20:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please delve a bit more into why you think this thread is ridiculous? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for Todd, but I'd be happy to delve. Gwen, it appears to me you haven't been following the discussion. If what Breein says is correct, Roland does not object when people he likes or agrees with use his real name (if it indeed is -- I have no idea). When someone he disagrees with politically uses readily available info that RR put on his own user page, it magically becomes "outing." It's a hideously ill-considered block, using that rationale. As for harrassment, well, I've had a very nasty user post to my talk page repeatedly, and refuse to stop despite being warned. Block length? Nil. People tend not to care about that sort of thing here, unless things get political... as I think you yourself can attest, Gwen.

IronDuke

19:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What? Politics? Here? I'm shocked... shocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Extremely unfair block. I believe that now PhilKnight should either unblock Breein or block an admin Toddst1 for this edit. Of course neither one of them done anything wrong, nothing to get blocked for even for a minute, leave alone 7 days!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

With User:Roland_Rance an RD to User:RolandR, how can he be unhappy with someone calling him by the former? I was thinking he didn't want his name openly known, but he clearly doesn't care. This isn't outing, the block should be lifted. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right Gwen Gale, and you are an administrator with the great experience and courage. So, why don't you lift the block yourself, and maybe even warn rolandr for filing false reports on AN/I and for his battleground mentality?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed the blocking admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't object if you want to unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

PhilKnight, it might be a good idea to apologize to Breein for the unfair block. I understand mistakes with the blocks may and will happen, but in such cases an apology will be nice.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked, I think the block was a good faith misunderstanding, outing is a big worry here. I have no on-wiki comments for User:RolandR about this, but I do understand why someone said this thread was ridiculous, it was. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My objection, as I noted when I made this complaint, was that Breein's repeated edit and use of a real name, despite my request that he stop, was clearly intended as harassment. The removal of the block suggests that he is entitled to repeat such edits. I request that he be formally warned not to do so. RolandR (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You post was named " Repeated attempted outing", and not "harassment". Stop gambling the system--Mbz1 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

He didn't gamble anything. The behaviour was part of his original complaint and I clarified the issue at the beginning. This was a clear case of

Crossmr (talk

) 01:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, nice catch on the typo -- pretty much obliterates Mb's point, doesn't it? And harrassment? I've had worse done to me and been met with yawns.

IronDuke

01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Roland, you got the (bad) block you wanted, angering Breein and embarrassing Phil. I'd leave it alone.

IronDuke

21:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Intentional harassment is a bad block? Wow.--

Crossmr (talk

) 01:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A 7 day block for a bit of unpleasantness? Please. If that was SOP, we'd be handing them out like candy.

IronDuke

01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Given previous behaviour, yes, it is completely appropriate and several people supported it.--

Crossmr (talk

) 03:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support block for evident disruptive behaviour solely intended to
  piss off another editor. Whether it's technically outing or not, it serves no useful purpose and should not be tolerated. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor
  ─╢ 21:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

RR, in my unblock post I brought that up. Outing is not taken lightly here. If you have username worries you can do something about them by first having a look at

Wikipedia:Username_change. Gwen Gale (talk

) 21:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Since the editor has been unblocked, I have now issued them with a 4im warning not to refer to RolandR by their RL name since they have been requested not to. My RL name is readily available, but I would not take kindly to being referred by it and if I asked someone not to do so again I would expect that wish to be respected. If anyone can provide a rationale by which referring to an account, as against their WP identity and contrary to their wishes, by their real name is of a benefit to the encyclopedia then I will withdraw the warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No - you are exactly correct. Much as I respect User:Gwen Gale, the original block was valid. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Can an official limit to useless pile-ons on Breein be instituted? Poorly conceived extra warnings will not help. Yes, Breein could have been a bit more attentive to Roland's new, special needs, but this was a block fishing expedition that, unfortunately, turned Breein into a victim (and Phil, too, though he is in part to blame himself).

IronDuke

22:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Either way, the user has been both asked (by me) and warned (by LHvU) not to bring this up again, he knows now and I'd support a block for harassment (not outing) if this does stir up again. That said, I think the link between those usernames and the overall background on this show untowards sniping by both editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

@LessHeard vanU, I cannot provide "rationale by which referring to an account, as against their WP identity and contrary to their wishes, by their real name is of a benefit", but even less so I can provide rationale why addressing to an account by its widely available real name should have been reported as "Repeated attempted outing". Maybe you could fint that rationale, and if you cannot maybe you will consider issuing the warning to rolondr, just to be fair,you know.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me to be more an issue of

civility than anything else. There are many editors whose real life names are "known", accurately or otherwise, through being outed on other websites than this. However, if an editor expresses a wish to to have their RL name not mentioned here, we should respect that, and not argue the toss about policies and guidelines. Commonsense and the co-operative nature of this project should make that obvious. Rodhullandemu

23:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

BINGO! --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, the filer real name is mentioned on his talk page of this very site by the filer himself. But here's the point, if the filer filed the report to civility noticeboard, it would have been probably go with no any sanctions taken against Breein. As a matter of fact such report would have sound laughable. So instead the filer came to this board and filed it under "Repeated attempted outing". It was done to attract an attention, and to maximize the possible sanctions. Such behavior of the filer deserves at least a warning.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've just checked, and I don't see it there. But perhaps that's not the point, as expressed briefly but eloquently by Ron Ritzman above. I'm not saying that the parties here are entirely free of criticism, but I do stand by my previous comment. It's a matter of basic respect, elderly redirects and Talk page mentions notwithstanding. Rodhullandemu 23:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Breein shouldn't have been poking his buttons and Roland shouldn't have filed the report in the way he did. I think that both should understand that from reading the discussion and doubt anymore admonishment is necessary. If we are to switch gears to Roland I think it should be done as a separate report at AE. We could also just drop it for now.Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu It is here. @Cptnono, disagree with you. There's not enough material to file AE on rolandr,but a warning for his report at this board should be issued IMO, and then the matter should be dropped.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Both editors should take the hint and stop sniping at each other now, because both will be unhappy if this spins up into more warnings, or worse. Would someone be willing to close this thread, please? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, I wonder if Phil would be willing to apologize, or at least admit he was wrong? I'd ask the same of Roland, but, well...

IronDuke

01:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? I don't think he was wrong, and several other people don't think he's wrong.--

Crossmr (talk

) 03:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Gwen, I'm sorry but that was a horrible unblock. Regardless of whether or not Outing was an issue, Roland asked him not to use his full name and to cease posting on his talk page. He went there and intentionally did both of those things to harass him. It's a clear case of disruptive behaviour and he didn't show any indication of getting it even though he knew what being told to stay off someone's talk page meant (As demonstrated by him telling an George to stay off his talk page). Your claim on his talk page that the original block was uncalled for is false and only enables him, I'd ask you to retract that (and black kite agrees with me above), and in fact he still continues to not get it. Yes, outing wasn't the issue, but harassment was. The block could be invalid for that, but a block was warranted, if yo uwanted the right words on it he could have been unblocked and blocked again.--

Crossmr (talk

) 01:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Horrible?" Overstate much? If this behavior is disruptive, there need to be massive blocks handed out. Phil appears to have gotten fooled by a misleading header. We should all move on, but if blame were to be assigned, it would be 1) Roland, for a frivolous and misleading report 2) Phil for so easily falling for it and 3) Breein for not playing as nicely with others as he should.

IronDuke

01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. His title might have been misleading, but the report wasn't. Breein was told to stay off the talk page and not use the name, he then went and did both to harass him. Maybe outing wasn't the best title, but it doesn't give Breein a pass to do what he did.--

Crossmr (talk

) 03:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• (
  reliably sourced. If we do that for our articles, it makes no sense not to do it for our contributors. Rodhullandemu
  01:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  It seems to me that a lot of people are trying to focus on the "outing" and ignore the real issue. [94] Breein was told to stay off his talk page and not use his real name. His response was to go to Roland's talk page and do both: [95].Whether we want to quibble over "outing" is irrelevant. It's harassment. Users being told to stay off another's talk page has a long history here of being respected and enforced. Breein demonstrates a couple weeks ago that he understands that concept [96].--

  Crossmr (talk

  ) 01:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, I can tell you from personal experience, most people care not at all when someone's precious talk page is invaded, much less do they hand out 7 day blocks.

IronDuke

01:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And I can tell from personal experience that the opposing sides of wikpedia's I-P battleground will show up on AN/I every time to support their factions and oppose the others, regardless of the facts on the ground or the details of the case at hand. "My fellow partisan is right, and his/her/its opponents are wrong" carries the day here. I see it in IronDuke, I see it in Mbz1 above. This is the sorta thing that needs to be clamped down on by the community. Hard. This is why I have largely abandoned the topic area and no longer have a scrap of it on the watchlist. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I can only say that your comment, combined with your spotless history of anti-Israel editing, reinforces that you have chosen wisely.

IronDuke

02:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot speak about Tarc's editing, but his general observation here is dead on. Pro-Israel and pro-Palestianian editors consistently act en bloc on various noticeboards and at ArbCom. I assume (but don't know at first hand, because I try to stay away from the quagmire of Israel/Palestinian-oriented articles) that they do the same on articles and talk pages as well. I think their actions do need to be curtailed, because their block-voting and -commentary makes it extremely difficult to ascertain what the rest of Wikipedia thinks about whatever issue is as hand. There may be a need for a blanket ban from Wikipedia space of a significant number of editors who are consistent in this behavior pattern, perhaps for six months or a year. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can speak to his editing, so please do take my word for it. As for bloc editing, I'm sure that goes on on both sides, just as it does on many nationalist/ethnic subjects, as well as abortion, Scientology, climate change, etc. "Blanket" bans isn't a clumsy solution, it's part of the problem. The people who are the most passionate about these subjects are (certainly in the case of the I-P area) usually far and away the most knowledgeable. The best course is to control that passion, not ban it. Also, this is kinda off topic. If you want to come by my talk page and continue the discussion, I'm all ears (or eyes, anyway).

IronDuke

03:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ken, my editing is best described as anti-stupidly-partisan, and starting with one of IronDuke's old cohorts, the famous Zeq, the Israeli fanclub seems to have no limit of that type. That topic area already saw one good sweep a year or so ago when many high-profile names were booted out by ArbCom. But this current case shows that the broom didn't quite reach all the nooks and crannies. Tarc (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your comments here belie your self-evaluation. If you must continue to vent spleen, could you do it elsewhere? The reboot below is a good reminder to us all.

IronDuke

03:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What I speak is the truth, and if you don't like being called out, rightly, for being a part of the problem, then by all means stop being one. Tarc (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

@IronDuke: Under normal circumstances I would be all in favor of focusing on the specifics of this case, but, really, that is part of our current problem. If, in each new instance, we only look at the circumstances of the present case, without putting it into the context of what's happening throughout the project, we miss the forest because of our focus on the trees. These cases are generated by the animosity between Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestinean editors, and no amount of dealing with specific incidents is going to put a damper on the general problem. This is something that needs to be dealt with on a meta-level a step or two above the petty harrassment and outing and incivility and edit warring complaints. Failure to recognize the global problem will simply guarantee that local problems will continue to multiply. I would urge admins to start taking a firmer line against infractions by both sides of this issue, and start handing out some significant blocks to convince folks that Wikipedia is serious about their not inflicting their ideological differences on the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I would urge sensible, careful talk, and good faith mediation. It won't always work, but it will be better than bans, in terms of improving article quality, which is what we are here for. It's too easy, especially on this board, to allow minor annoyances to cloud judgement -- to a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

IronDuke

14:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly a "minor annoyance", the stuff has been clogging up noticeboards and ArbCom pages for months now. I'm only suggesting that the problem be solved at the root instead of continually dealing only with the proximate problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant that this particular instance was minor, and the IP problems have been at various boards for years, not months, as have many other hot button issues. Your "solution" is offered in good faith, I've no doubt, but will significantly degrade article quality. In the last arbcom blood sacrifice, we lost some of our best editors on both sides of the IP divide. I see no net gain from that, and apparently you don't either.

IronDuke

22:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You assert that article quality in this subject area has been hurt by the sanctioning of editors. I would suggest that perhaps article quality has suffered (if it has) because the toxic atmosphere created by warring editors in that area drives away non-partisan editors, and that if ArbCom or the community of admins would take strong steps to suppress aberrant behavior, we'd have more people editing the articles, and better quality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reboot

Being asked to stay away from an editors userpage, is that something which should be honored?

Being asked to not refer to the editor by what is understood to be their real name, is that something to be honored?

These are the questions that we should be considering. Unomi (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the focus, Unomi.

Yes, one should respect requests to stay away from user talkpages, and those who fail to respect this should be warned once, then blocked.

Yes, people should not refer to editors by a name they do not wish to be called, whatever that is. I just had an editor tell me he didn't like how I shortened his name, so I honored his request. That is not, FWIW, what happened here, AFAICT. I believe that Roland has publicized his own name here, and had friends call him by it, then demanded that one, and only one, editor not call him this name. Then, when that request was not honored, used it as a pretext to launch this frivolous thread with ensuing drama. (If I have facts wrong here, I welcome a correction.) People who abuse this process should, at the very least, be firmly told not to do it again.

IronDuke

03:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A clearly blatant attempt by RolandR to silence an editor with an opposing view.--

Jiujitsuguy (talk

) 03:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference in letting you co-editors know who you are and having every insult they wish to throw at you in a searchable database under your own name. Claiming that user pages are not searchable is disengenuious they are only non-searchable by the free search engines with very little effort anyone can aquire search engines that can search all pages of a wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.198 (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Breein could have said what he wanted elsewhere without doing it on his talk page and without using his full name. Doing so intentionally was an intent to disrupt.--

Crossmr (talk

) 03:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen this brought up here numerous times, and blocks and warnings have been issued for it. Breein has been blocked several times in the last few months for his behaviour and can't quite seem to bring it inline with the community. Escalating blocks is the only way to deal with that. Quickly unblocking and calling the block wrong does nothing more than enable him.--

Crossmr (talk

) 03:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes and yes to both. The support for this Breein person to get away with doing what he has done generally comes from like-minded POV warriors who are bringing more heat than light to the situation. Tarc (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just tuning back in to this fiasco. It's clear that this was not outing and that the report of outing was used as a ruse to attract attention and garner a block. At first blush I might have blocked as well. However upon further investigation, it clearly was not outing and it's clear to me that both editors involved (Breein1007 & Roland) were being

dicks.

Perhaps some analysis:

• Blocks warranted for this? Certainly not unilatarally. This is a symptom of much of what's wrong with drama boards here on WP. Drama brings action. I'm sure I've been lured into similar action on more than a few occasions.
• Was Phil well intentioned? Yes, without question.
• Did Gwen do what she thought was best? Again, yes, without question.
• Are both admins fully competent? Again, yes, without question.
• Should we all do something else now? Probably.

Good night folks. Toddst1 (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Roland told Breein to stay off his talk page and not to use his full name, Breein did both. Can you provide diffs of any behaviour from Roland that would warrant a block or action? While Roland was blocked a few times 3 years ago, he's only got 1 recent block and that was months ago. Breein has had monthly blocks for several months now. In the context of him, he's an editor who has had issues getting along with the community and is continuing that problem. Forget the mistitling of the thread, and instead look at what actually happened, far too many people are obsessed with the title and are basically using it to give Breein a pass on what he did.--

Crossmr (talk

) 13:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Long standing content editors to be disenfranchised by any passing Admin!

This looks like a very serious incident to me and I very much hope that all editors are watching this closely. It's their own fault if they suddenly find themselves banned from pages they have written and watched for years, if they are not.

 Giacomo 

20:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly Giano, there's no such thing as a lowly editors noticeboard, and so this is like asking turkey's to vote for christmas. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(I don't mean to butt in but I felt like adding some humour to this) A lowly editor's noticeboard? What would it be? Wikipedia's version of a historic version of the House of Commons and this noticeboard would be the Wikipedia House of Lords? (With good old Jimmy Wales as the Monarch!) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought that's what

WP:AN & associated pages were a bad imitation of the Village Pump. -- llywrch (talk

) 21:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oh yes there is a lowly editors noticeboard (my talk page), but I thought we should let them justify themselves first.
   Giacomo 
  20:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Though I agree with you on this occasion, does it need to be on ANI? --B (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

For example,

WP:AN is currently protected and on "autoreviewer". Does that mean that under the new system those arguing at what passes for wikipedia's small claims court will have to have their contributions approved unless they have this privilege? Fainites ^barleyscribs

20:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. It also means "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" is dead and buried.

 Giacomo 

21:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? It is s-protected, meaning that right now, nobody who isn't autoconfirmed will be able to edit it at all. The new functionality is not live yet. Once it is live, if AN were set to use it, if I understand it correctly, registered users will always see the latest version so unless the target audience for your complaint is an IP user, it would be moot. Other than a sandbox page for testing the feature, nothing outside of the mainspace would ever need to be protected with pending changes. --B (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

But target audience's and commentators often are IPs at AN/I. I may just be being thick here, but currently, on semi-protect, non-registered users can't edit it but can see everything. Under the new system, non-registered users could edit but their edit would have to be approved by a registered user. And, registered users with rights would see the proposed addition but unregistered users would not? Or have I got that completely a..e about face? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If it works the way it does on the German Wikipedia, if you are not logged in, you will see the latest approved revision, but you can always go to the history tab and see all revisions. So in the case of one IP user discussing with another IP user on ANI, if one replies to the other and there are no other edits by editors with reviewer, the IP user could use the history tab to see the current revision. This is hypothetical, though, because we're not going to use it on ANI. --B (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the explanation. So on an article, a passing IP editing on a protected page can edit but his edit doesn't appear on the page but only in the history - whereas now he can't edit it at all. Anyone with "rights" can approve the edit or not. So from a passing IP's point of view this is an improvement? The concern remains the granting and/or removal of "rights".Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• It will be abused by admins and its removal held as a threat over all editors. It is absurd that editors have to go cap in hand to admins to ask for this in the first place and even worse that it will make admins, adjudicators on the value of edits to subjects about which they have no knowledge. Within a few months this "protection" and censorship will have spread from BLPs to FA, GAs and any page an admin fancies.
   Giacomo 
  21:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(

AWB and rollback are only given to editors who have demonstrated some level of competence and seem to exhibit common sense. Same with the reviewer privilege; I would expect reviewers only to intervene and not approve edits that clearly do not comply with our policies. And as with rollback and AWB, these rights are removable for misuse, yet appealable here. It's a non-argument, in my opinion. Rodhullandemu

21:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Combining your predictably sad anti-admin bigotry with hysterics isn't helping your case, Giano. Resolute 21:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm. If it's going to be some sort of status that's more difficult to revoke, then shouldn't it also be more difficult to grant? But we already have something like that:

WP:RFA. Is there really a need to limit granting/removal to Arbcom, as initially suggested? That sounds kind of ridiculous. Shimeru

21:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We have seen quite enough thuggish Admin bullying lately to realise that the system will be constantly abused.

 Giacomo 

21:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Granting will be almost automatic to auto confirmed users, if you vandalize and you will probably be blocked. If you are blocked for a couple of days you will not get the right removed, once you have the edits to get it you will not need it removed. If you repeat your vandalism you will be blocked again for longer as per usual now. As I see it there will be no need for the right to be removed.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This statement above, I would expect reviewers only to intervene and not approve edits that clearly do not comply with our policies seems at odds with statements elsewhere that it is for use against vandalism and spam and the like. I can see a substantial grey area developing where someone with rights decides someone without rights is not in compliance with NPOV or something. Particularly as many protected pages are the controversial ones. Is there some clarity somewhere as to whether this is meant for vandalism and not NPOV or content disputes? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll clarify that I do not expect reviewers to engage in content-based edits; other venues and remedies exist for that. However, when a change to an article is unsourced, I might expect it to become unapproved, and a note dropped on the editor's talk page. Twinkle and other tools will not vanish because of this innovation. Rodhullandemu 21:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What you should look for is here

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. For example, the review page does not indicate "unaccepting" because something is unsourced. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Right now, admins and others are warned about reverting or restoring material that may violate BLP, since such material ultimately becomes the responsibility of whoever added it last. I wonder if reviewers will likewise be considered responsible for material they approve. If so, that could slow down the process considerably.   Will Beback  talk  22:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I might be dense, but could someone break down this argument? Under this proposal, IP edits will have to be approved by admins (or those with "the right") before it goes live? This is to reduce vandalism, yes? We currently remove it on sight, now tyhey want us to screen for it? That takes more time and the end result is we piss off positive IP contributors and shrink the pool of users who want to take part in vandal fighting. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see, it is applied to specific pages? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two levels. One is semi-protected and the need for reviewer approval will apply to edits by IPs and (very) newbies. The other is fully protected and applies to autoconfirmed users (all but the above) unless they are an admin or a reviewer. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, it can only be applied on articles which would otherwise be semi protected so not possible to edit by IPs and new users (or fully protected for level 2). Also, rollbacking an edit automatically accepts the new revision so there's no need to manually accept it. Cenarium (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If all administrators are assumed to be corrupt, then not only this, but every function of Wikipedia, would soon cease to function. I'm not sure I agree that's a reasonable assumption, though- and if I thought all of Wikipedia's administrators were corrupt, I probably would resign and leave. This software has been in process for a long time, and it seems like a good alternative to semiprotection that would still allow new and ip editors to make edits. Maybe we should wait until it becomes active, and then see whether corrupt admins do in fact disenfranchise long-time editors with it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and I agree. Let's not scaremonger before there is a scare. Doubtless in the early days, mistakes will be made, and we should not assume them to be malicious. It's a big step forward for Wikipedia, and has been thrashed out on many levels, to which the poor devs have had to cope with accordingly. Please remember that Rome was not built in a day, and some tolerance would be worthwhile. Rodhullandemu 23:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Rome was built at night! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 23:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I proposed at the VP a little while ago the option of removing "autoconfirmed" status temporarily from trouble-users to avoid full protection when semi-protection would do, and to give a sanction that was short of blocking to give admins more options. It seems this new proposal sinks that! As for what FQ said, I do agree that

"We have a stringent selection process for administrators, they should be trusted to know what they are talking about." I almost ponder writing an essay on it. </shameless self promotion> S.G.^(GH) _ping!

23:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Taric25

Resolved

 – Uploader consents to deletion, image is at Commons. If they delete it and the article is moved to the mainspace, we can restore it and retag it as fair use. --B (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Extended content
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
Hi all. When cleaning out WP:AN3. Help on this matter would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, FASTILY (TALK) 07:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC) The following is a copy-paste of commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tokyo Electron Logo.jpg as of 07:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC) with an indent :, omitting templates that didn't work well in preview on Wikipedia, {{Keep}} and {{Vd}}: Collapsed for space This does not qualify for speedy deletion, since it consists of simple geometric shapes and does not meet the threshold of originality. If the person requesting the speedy deletion objects, then it should be a regular deletion, so I listed it here. Taric25 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Keep as nom. Taric25 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Keep like Taric25 states, it isn't original enough and would be put to good use if kept. QwerpQwertus (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Delete The design at the beginning is unique and not a simple geometric figure. The file was inappropriately transferred from en.wikipeida where it was always tagged as fair use (see File:Tokyo Electron Logo.jpg and [97]). -FASTILY (TALK) 19:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Fastily, do not change licensing tag on Wikipedia to support your own argument. This image is free, and it is not fair use. There is no assertion of the image being non-free, and the rationale is not a fair use rationale. In fact, there is no fair use template on the page at all. In addition, the rationale is out of courtesy, and the words “non-free” and “fair use” do not appear anywhere on the page. Taric25 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC) I linked the file's history on en.wikipedia for a reason. See the very first revision at [98]. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Fastily, your actions are growing more and more specious. You provide the link to the image's history on en.wikipedia? Fine, I’m going to discuss each edit now and expose you for what you are. When the QwerpQwertus uploaded the image to en.wikipedia, it had both the both fair use and PD tags and gave a fair-use rationale. Since QwerpQwertus tagged the image with a Fair-use tag but didn't have it in a main space yet, Melesse tagged the image for deletion, so I fixed the licensing, because this should not be categorized as non-free and marked that I moved it to commons. You decline, revert my edit and mark the image for speedy deletion for no fair use rationale. Well, that's odd, because when you reverted my edit, you conspicuously did not restore the original fair-use rationale QwerpQwertus wrote in the first place. I find this most disturbing, since you obstructed process by willfully disregarding it in order to propagate you own agenda to delete the image, and do not even bother to say that you didn't know that QwerpQwertus wrote the fair use rationale before I moved it to Commons, because you dug your own grave when you just wrote above “it was always tagged as fair use”. I then restored the PD tag and added a free-use rationale. Notice, I did not use any fair-use template to write the rationale, and it is not a fair-use rationale. The rationale I wrote does not mention the words non-free or fair use anywhere, and the only link in the rationale I wrote links to en.wikipedia's logo policy, which explicitly discusses use of free logos, which this logo is: free. You revert me a second time, and then you write here with a link to the image on en.wikipedia as "proof" the image is fair use. I restore the free license, and I asked you to discuss it on the talk page. You revert me a third time and accuse me of “disruptive editing” and “The file is non-free and you know it.”, after I had already asserted this is a simple geometric shape and is free. Do not revert the page again, or I will not hesitate to report you for violating 3RR. Taric25 (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Whatever. I've reported you to WP:ANI. Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 07:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)}} Taric25 (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Fastily, I am now going to point out your malfeasance in this very ANI. Do not state the image was originally uploaded as non-free. pd-textlogo }}. Do not state the image was flagged as not having a fair-use rationale. Melesse flagged as an orphan. Do not assume bad faith and state I attempted “To circumvent this problem”. Do not state I changed the license to a Public Domain license. It was already tagged with this as a dual-license when originally QwerpQwertus uploaded it. Do not assume bad faith and state I am “falsely claiming” anything. Do not state that I am the one who was initially “claiming that the logo consisted [of] geometric shapes”. It was already tagged with this, and I did not upload it. Do not assume bad faith and state I am “effectively creating a copyright violation”. Do not make a personal attack and say my response was not an “intellectual response”. I am not stupid, and I don't like being called such names. My responses were intellectual, although not workable to your liking, you should apologize. For the sake of the project, I now request you withdraw your statements and walk away from this situation in its entirety. Taric25 (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Attempting to eschew this argument right now (which basically everything you said here is over the top and you need to dial it back a few notches), why not just delete the image and let Commons handle it? Either Commons is going to keep it because it's not copyrighted or they are going to delete it because it is copyrighted. It is not in use here, so if it is copyrighted, we're not going to keep it around anyway. --B (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC) I agree with B. The community consensus on Commons should decide the threshold of originality, and it should be tagged {{ db-f8}} as it was since the exact same file now exists on Commons. Taric25 (talk ) 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC) I agree, this really has gotten a bit out of hand. I had originally uploaded it intending to use it as fair use as a logo with low resolution which would be used in the infobox of talk ) 14:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC) I agree with QwertyQwerpus, since our goal in the first place was to simply improve the Wikipedia by adding an article about this notable company, Tokyo Electron, and our actions were in good faith to do this. Taric25 (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC) I have deleted the image per the agreement of the uploader here. If/when Commons decides that it is not an appropriate image AND the article is moved to the mainspace, you can either re-upload it or ask me to restore it (or ask at WP:REFUND for any admin to restore it) and re-tag it as fair use. --B (talk ) 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you very much, B, we appreciate your assistance. Taric25 (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, thanks B. talk ) 20:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock

moved from

WP:AIV by HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

at 09:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Talk, My master
  04:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: I would take this to AN or AN/I if a rangeblock is needed. We need to know the upper and lower edges of the range, plus have it checkusered so we know in advance if we'll be needing

IP block exemptions for any editors in good standing in the range. Daniel Case (talk

) 05:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: A 75.223.0.0/16 block would, indeed, hit a range of IPs using Verizon Wireless, so on that basis it would be OK. But we still need to know re legit accounts ... who would be blocked? Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have asked J. delanoy if he can take a quick look. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be both 75.233.x.x and 75.223.x.x? DMacks (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Take this to AN/ANI if you think we should discuss a range block first, I say just block both IPs--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Any chance an amdin who understands rangeblocks could look into this? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

the only admin I know is Edotker, i don't know if he is online at the moment.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks :) The page is now semi-protected. Are there any other examples to justify the rangeblock over semi-protection? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

only the warnings on the IP's talk page, I've notified the IP of this discussion--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As it's dynamic that's unlikely to help, but fair enough. There only seems to be the one article affected, in which case semi-protection is preferable to blocking 65,000 IPs. In my experience people generally blank BLPs when there are problems with it, so perhaps someone could check it over to make sure it's fully policy-compliant. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok we will keep an eye on the article and the user to make sure they don't continue vandalising.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I remember blocking these ranges. Note, this vandal uses 3 ranges, not 2. The ranges are 75.223.0.0/16, 75.228.0.0/16, 75.233.0.0/16 . Elockid ^(Talk) 13:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz. Semi-protecting does not work. Once a page is semi-protected, they move to a new page until that page is semi-protected also. The cycle keeps repeating. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

BLPs are not the target page. I'm speculating that they just pick a random page to vandalize. Just to name a few Super Bowl, and Paper Cup. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I can see a few more now - some on 4th - 6th June, and today. I wonder if 75.228.226.35 (talk · contribs) is related? Either very short rangeblocks as you did before, or a temporary edit filter to stop blanking by the ranges would be the best ways to go if it reoccurs. The ranges look otherwise fairly decent. Perhaps if I keep checking the ranges over the next week or so and block them for a week if it happens again? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

yeah try an edit filter or block them, can we close the thread now--Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

75.228.226.35 at glance doesn't look related. I think a filter would be better since this seems like this is going long-term abuse. We could do short rangeblocks again in the meanwhile. Also Filter 3 catches them pretty well. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about User:CUNYTruther

(I'm writing here because this is a bit too complex for AIV but too simple for WQA or other venues.)

Can someone else please investigate the actions of

WP:UNDUE. ElKevbo (talk

) 16:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

CUNYTruther has posted statements which are well-documented and critical of the institution LaGuardia Community College. These have been deleted by people either with no explanation at all or with entirely false explanations (that they are using a single tainted source, for example, or that they are being used to steer the viewer to a personal website or that criticism is by definition out of line.)

CUNYTruther welcomes constructive criticism, but will not submit to being censored. CUNYTruther (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to follow

Wikipedia policies, whether you think they're censoring you or not. This is a collaborative effort, and we need rules in place to make that collaboration possible.--SarekOfVulcan (talk

) 17:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

CUNYTruther, given your stated aim on your

WP:AGF) might be to further your aims and not that of the encyclopaedia. Codf1977 (talk

) 17:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Garrett, tell me what rule I'm violating and I'll stop. But isn't there also a rule against having friends of an institution deleting criticisms of an institution? CUNYTruther (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the same rule that prevents enemies of an institution from adding criticisms without sourcing them properly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

you are quite clearly and blatantly violating

WP:NPOV - which is one of the basic policies. ·Maunus·ƛ·

17:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The
  WP:COI here, as well as edit-warring and a pledge to continue edit-warring. There's also an assumption of bad faith. I'd be inclined to block, myself. Enigma^msg
  17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - see above. Codf1977 (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, educate me. I'll cop to being a muckraker. So for that crime, I'm banished from Wikipedia? Now let's turn this over. The LaGuardia CC brass posts a blatantly self-congratulatory page, but that is acceptable? CUNYTruther (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering the article is now down to "LaGuardia Community College is a two-year community college in Queens, New York City and is a component of the City University of New York. LaGuardia is named after former New York City mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia. The college offers associate degrees in the arts, sciences, and applied sciences. The school also offers continuing education programs." I'd say the answer to your question is "no". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The username CUNYTruther is offensive in British English (although missing an N, it's a common misspelling). Verbal chat 17:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a reasonable objection here, as it's a common abbreviation for City University of New York.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a single-purpose account that is here for the purpose of

advacacy, and, according to the OP above, is editing disruptively. To me, that sounds like grounds for a block, unless they can learn to collaborate, and fast. At the same time, the number of "new editors" in the page history is grounds for concern. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

17:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarek of Vulcan, you left the following message for me: "Sourcing an article to a blog, especially when the information is unfavorable to a living person, is a violation of our Reliable sources policy. Please do not do that in the future. Thanks" My sourcing in this matter was not to a blog, but to ABC news and (in an earlier incarnation) to the New York Times and (in a later incarnation) to the Queens District Attorney's Office.

Another warning to me: "Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors." I will comply with that.

I am also accused of edit-warring. This is technically false. I did not use the "undo" feature. But if I violated the spirit of the law, I will cease and desist.

POV and UNDUE violations: The original article was purely self-congratulatory. It made a number of unsourced claims. I added material which would provide balance. The sources I used were mostly non-controversial. In extremis, where there were no other sources online, I made reference to a partisan blog. This involved uncontroversial facts (that the faculty had had a gag rule imposed on them, that the registrar had been removed). It is hard to see how this is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

I refer to myself in the third person: Does this belong in a serious conversation about Wikipedia policy?

I am willing to be educated in Wikipedia policy. But please let's be precise all around.

What you have done is taken a puff piece about a severely flawed institution and reduced it to a stub rather than allowing a balanced perspective on it. I offer you my balancing information. If there are specific instances in which my additions are over the top or a violation of Wikipedia policy, let's work together to correct it. But deleting the entire section hardly seems to be in line with Wikipedia policy. CUNYTruther (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

TRUTH out, you're in the wrong place.--SarekOfVulcan (talk

) 18:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You: "Edit warring has nothing whatsoever to do with the undo function"

Wikipedia: "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). This says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Policy generally forbids edit warring, and editors who engage in an edit war are often blocked, whether or not the edit war does or does not involve any violations of 3RR." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit_war

Educate me, I'm confused.

You: "If you're editing on Wikipedia in an attempt to get the TRUTH out, you're in the wrong place."

But I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth. And, if the criterion is verifiability, I annotated all my statements with neutral sources, as I explained, to the degree that they were available. The only time I used a partisan source was when it was in reference to undisputed facts. You do not take issue with this.

In any case, I laid out about a half dozen answers to the objections raised by yourself and others who want to bounce me out of Wikipedia in order to end this animosity. I would hope that you would reply in the same spirit. CUNYTruther (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: "undoing" -- you can undo an edit without using the "undo" link. Re: "putting words in your mouth" -- looked at your username lately?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case, I at least propose a softblock due to the blatant username violation. --Smashville^talk 19:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Since consensus here seems to be in favor of blocking CUNYTruther for disruption, I've gone ahead and done it. If anyone disagrees with the block, please feel free to unblock. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

First time I've seen "undo" interpreted so literally. I hate to mess with policy pages, but maybe this argues for some other word choice, to remove the possibility of anybody else getting the same mistaken impression. — e. ripley\^talk 19:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Support the block, as I also feel there was grounds for one. Enigma^msg 20:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for someone to defend a personal attack by claiming that they didn't personally attack them...they attacked them on the internet. --Smashville^talk 19:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL. In this case, the guy was trying to use semantics. I doubt he/she was so thick that he/she couldn't figure out what 'undo' means. Enigma^msg 20:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that requires a preemptive policy change. We need to be able to use common sense to be able to edit here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't propose changing the policy in any substantive way, but a simple wording change might be worth considering. — e. ripley\^talk 19:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of, "This refers to [[wikt:undo|undo]] in the traditional meaning of the word as well as the Wikipedia [[Help:Undo|undo]] function." as a footnote to "undoing"? ;) —

talk

) 20:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Enigma^msg 20:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Doncsecz

Resolved

WP:NPA. The user already got 5 blocks in dewiki, 3 of them within the last 2 days. The latest block for 1 week was because of a personal attack. Now he continues on my talk page here (and at commons too, but that's another story). --R.Schuster (talk

) 19:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I carried over his one week block to this Wikipedia, since it's the same sort of disruption against the same editors. Also issuing

WP:DIGWUREN warning, since the editor combines a fixation on Eastern European ethnolinguistic minority issues with a poor command of the language of the Wikipedias he edits, which is seldom a good sign.  Sandstein 

22:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Verbal and placing tags on community-approved articles

Resolved

 – Editors doing the whole congenial atmosphere thing.

I am concerned at this user's behaviour at two articles,

WP:RS

, he has an axe to grind as he wanted both to be deleted. I do, however, agree that both could benefit from extra sources, yet this should be reflected by appropriate tagging.

He also seems to harbour a grudge against the AFD for at least one article, calling it small and bad faith at

WP:NOTE

instead of showing how it fails it, thus attempting to put the burden onto me.

Finally, I do not wish this to be seen as an attack on Verbal. He is evidently a good editor and has not been rude at any point, our dispute seems to be stuck in a rut with no way forward, and could benefit from an experienced eye being cast over it. I will appreciate either outcome as a learning experience, and thank you for your time Valyard (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this needs attention here. Rather than airing the disagreement here, why not concentrate on finding sources for the articles which show they meet

WP:FTN. Or Mediation. Verbal chat

21:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems premature: I don't see any recent discussion with Verbal on his talkpage. At the same time, I fully agree that Old Souls does not seem (at least to me) to meet notability guidelines, and it's very poorly referenced. So, based on that, I don't see any issue with Verbal's actions so far. (

BWilkins ←track

) 21:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is the kind of repeated disruption from user verbal then it could be dealt with here.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've asked if Valyard will consider closing this until tomorrow or moving to

WP:FTN. I have to go now. Thanks, Verbal chat

21:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We are all editors here and we know the elephant in the room and should not ignore repeated POV disruption from users brought again and again for similar issues.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

BWilkins- I agree the sources could be better but note seems established. Saving on my userpage for today Valyard (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: I undid the removal of the section, feel free to archive it, I have no bone in this. Unomi (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As Valyard just tried to remove it, could an admin do the honours or close it in a box or something? Thanks, (Unomi, you have a bone in everything!)Verbal chat 21:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue with user verbal is a repeated issue. Does one need diffs or is it enough to mention the elephant in the room?

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Verbal and I are in agreement, could this be removed? Valyard (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is a bit hard to hide an

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Bg007

Resolved

 – Bg007 (

Wikipedia is not a religious battleground. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L

) 23:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive user

TALK

) 21:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked - attempting to wage religious or ethnic warfare on Wikipedia is absolutely not OK here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

To expand on that - in 2008 they were previously warned, and then blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise, for doing this same type of activity. Going back to it blatantly (even with the large gap) is unacceptable. Wikipedia isn't here to be a battleground. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

User:No More Mr Nice Guy

Resolved

 – edit self-reverted. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:1RR protection. The diffs are [102] and [103]. The user was warned numerous times during the last few days, and received warnings from other users regarding his recent POV edits and reverts on the article, both on the article's and their own talk page. They also received similar warnings from administrators in the past. Please note that Gaza flotilla raid is a sensitive semi-protected article about a current event. Numerous users already received 24-hour blocks for violating its 1RR restriction. Thank you. --386-DX (talk

) 23:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Didn't notice. Undid my last revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's go on, please. We all make mistakes. Suggest someone else please close this topic as "resolved". —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

94.170.26.123

94.170.26.123 (talk · contribs) has added false information to many articles since May 2010 replacing people's names with Phillip Westwick (presumably the vandal's name), and the IP should be blocked and all false content removed. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hrs for now. If they resume that behavior bring it back up here; a much longer block would be called for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious and disruptive editing by Pedant17

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

---

Resolved

 – Community sanctions 1 and 2 have significant community support and will be enacted and logged. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pedant17 (talk · contribs) has been engaging in disruptive editing for well over a year at a number of articles. Below is just one example of just how impossible it has been to deal with this behavior; the extra slow edit-warring and discussion are intriguing aspects in themselves.

• In June 09, Pedant made this edit with summary "update; restore per talk-page discussions" - this was reverted. In Sept 09, Pedant made this edit which was reverted. There was agreement on the
  talk page here
  that the edit was not constructive.
• In Oct 09, Pedant reverted to "restoring constructive edits pending explanations for their removal". This was reverted with the summary "edits violated
  this brief discussion
  ; brief given that the discussion took place between Oct 2009 and Apr 2010. Here, Pedant threatens to revert again on the grounds that an absence of response equates to support of Pedant's actions. Pedant also starts making assertions about no "fact-based" consensus.
• In other words, all the traits we expect in disruptive problem editing (
  WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
  etc.)
• On 11 Jun 2010, again without consensus, Pedant reverted with summary "update; restore per talk-page discussions" to his version.

Other examples (demonstrates pattern of conduct; lack of receptiveness to feedback; and so on)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive614#Pedant17_disruption.2C_after_two_RFCs.
• See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive577#Pattern_of_disruptive_editing_by_Pedant17
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pedant17 for similar issues that occurred between 2006 and 2008.

This behavior is unacceptable; it degrades the quality of articles and the editing environment - and burns out constructive contributors. Now...before we put our hands up in the air and run to ArbCom, this community needs to try to effectively deal with this type of problem. The most obvious solution is a ban proposal, but it seems giving a set of last-chance remedies may be more effective. Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Pedant17

I would like to thank

List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents

, which has remained basically moribund for too long while I have attempted to discuss and make improvements and expansions..

I agree that we appear to have a case here of

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

(2010-05-11) in the first place.

The talk-page

Talk:List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents

currently contains, I believe, adequate justification for my editing and for its patterns in this article. In particular it includes:

• Unrefuted discussion (dated 2010-01-29) of an alleged consensus against my edits - with an appeal for further discussion.

• A response (dated 2010-04-29) to generic charges of "disruption" by contrasting the process of improving and expanding and correcting articles - with an appeal (unanswered) for explanation.

• An appeal (dated 2009-12-09, and still awaiting a satisfactory response) for an explanation of alleged "non-constructive" edits.

Such discussion as has taken place may well appear "brief" in that it has taken place one-sidedly. I have consistently called for discussion of details and sought explanations and reasons for the reversions of my edits - only to receive general accusations of generic crimes, seldom exemplified and never proven in any follow-through.

The tendentious accusation that I have "threatened" to revert masks a clear statement of intent to revert - conditionally - in the absence of explanation and justification. (dated 2010-04-25).

The accusation that I have acted "on the grounds that an absence of response equates to support" amounts to an unjustified interpretation. I have never claimed "support", but simply bolstered my arguments with logic and reason with a view to defining and re-refining consensus.

I observe that the only specific charge of "disruptive editing" made against me in the opening of this ANI discussion relates to an alleged case of

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

(as discussed above). The vague "all the traits we expect in disruptive problem editing" smears my behavior unjustifiably. If anyone has specific evidence to the contrary, lets hear it.

Note that the quoted examples of ANI discussions and requests for comment on my alleged behavior have not resulted in any penalty, adverse consensus, or indeed any outstanding case to answer.

I quite agree that we should regard behavior involving disruption and lack of consensus-building as unacceptable. However, an examination of

Talk:List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents

reveals me as the victim rather than the perpetrator of these crimes - my proposals repeatedly rejected, by attempts at discussion repeatedly ignored.

I can see the danger of degrading the quality of articles and burning out constructive contributors. Thus I regard it as all the more important to defend good and constructive editing such as I have attempted to carry out. I welcome reasoned and reasonable criticism of my edits, but have a limited tolerance of unreasoned stonewalling and refusal to build consensus by discussion of specifics.

Apart from any issues of behavior or procedure, lets look at the substance of the editing which other Wikipedians have labeled disruptive, quality-degrading and unacceptable original research. Take my latest offering in editing

List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents

:

• I attempted to bring a little more precision to the opening discussion on the use of pejorative terms, toning down the lack of NPOV and providing examples of non-English terminology (as used in the article body). In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I inserted two "Request quotation" tags in an effort to get precise wording for citation. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I inserted citations for further examples of government document listings, as already discussed in the article body. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I inserted further cited examples of government document listings, as mentioned in an already-cited source. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I inserted an extra (sourced) sentence in the section on Australia with a view to mentioning a classic and well-known 1965 case of a government document addressing a "cult" issue. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I re-inserted a previously deleted reference (albeit tagged with "Failed verification") to match the orphaned heading relating to the Austrian government's 1996 document. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I added a sourced reference to the Austrian government's 1999 document, which also serves as a
  verifiable
  reference to the existence of the previous (1996) document. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I added a heading for the otherwise orphaned text relating to the International Religious Freedom Report 2006. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I corrected a French spelling of Énergo-Chromo-Kinèse. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I re-corrected the use of an imbalanced "{" to match a "]". In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I reduced POV in the characterization of Raffarin's circulaire by closely paraphrasing from the already-cited original. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I linked "Berlin" to Berlin. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I provided an extra translation of a German-language title. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

• I re-formatted the "References" section to one column with a view to making it more readable, better formatted, and sequentially scrollable. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

In summary: show where I've gone wrong. If you can convince me - no problem. Otherwise, lets talk about the issues, based on the facts.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Specific sanction proposals

I propose that any or all of the following sanctions be enacted by the community on Pedant17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) due to the long term nature of disruption.

Pedant17 is subject to the following terms of probation:

1) Should Pedant17 make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator. The sanction will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator and logged at User:Pedant17/Community_sanction. Sanctions are at the discretion of the administrator, and may include page bans, topic bans, blocks, or any other restriction.

2) Pedant17 is strictly required to discuss each change he wishes to make to an article on the page's talk page prior to making the edit (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations). This restriction may be enforced through blocks, and he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages, once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator and logged at User:Pedant17/Community_sanction.

3) Pedant17 is limited to editing with a single account.

NOTE: Please indicate whether you support/oppose each sanction. Eg; "Support 2 and 3 only", "Oppose all", etc. The rationale for #3 is to explicitly prohibit evading these sanctions under other accounts - something that certain tendentious editors have somehow argued as being non-explicit in the past. Hopefully, that sort of gaming of the system will as a result, no longer be an issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support all 3 as proposer. As an uninvolved user who is deeply concerned by the implications of this tendentious conduct continuing, I cannot think of any other way to resolve this issue, short of escalating or an outright ban. I have also looked at his response and there is no sign of change. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • If you can prove "tendentious editing" (as opposed to principled contributing based on reasoned debate), then you might have a point. -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose All He was never blocked at all. I thought the proposal of a sanction was caused by getting in trouble into the same area of editing. Clearly, he was never blocked for any reason, as you can see in the block log, and I haven't seen any evidence of sockpuppetry either. Minimac (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You thought incorrectly then; the community response to this problem has been inadequate. That the disruptive editing is occurring in multiple areas suggests that this is a chronic problem that cannot be prevented by a mere community topic ban or timed-block. If this route isn't going to achieve sufficient support, the alternative and more nuclear route will be used. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed, no blocks have taken place. I agree that the community has responded inadequately to the problem of pseudo-consensus. But the way to resolve this lies not in suppressing further input, but in endorsing Wikipedia Policies such as
      "consensus can change". -- Pedant17 (talk
      ) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Question re: sanction 3. Has Pedant17 used alternative accounts, or is this merely anticipatory? TFOWR^{Unchanged since 1894} 12:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Anticipatory; in light of the amount of socking many admins seem to encounter after problem editing is restricted on the first account. But I don't mind if the third is left out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. No strong views about sanction 3, I just felt that if Pedant17 had used alt accounts it should be taken into account. TFOWR^{Sale now on! Every sig must go!} 13:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support 1,2 (no strong view on 3). This edit in October 2009 looks very similar to this edit in June 2010. The latter edit refers to a talk page discussion, which indicates several editors' concerns about Pedant17's
  inability to take on board the concerns of other editors I regard sanctions as a desirable alternative to further escalation. TFOWR^{sigs are hazardous to the health}
  13:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The edits will look similar because no meaningful opposition to them has emerged - merely obstructionism. -- I count a grand total of two (2) editors (rather than "several") who attempted to raise a claim of
    WP:OR against me. I disproved that claim in a subsequent post to the talk-page. 29 Jan Do we have an outstanding claim of WP:OR ? -- Pedant17 (talk
    ) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, 3. I agree with
  WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues, is disruptive and harmful to the project. This is a sensible and logical proposal by Ncmvocalist. -- Cirt (talk
  ) 14:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Something of a turnaround from a colleague who once attempted to persuade me to edit more and discuss less... Please demonstrate sensible and logical objections to the edits in question at
    bold editing disrupts and harms the Wikipedia project. -- Pedant17 (talk
    ) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support all three. This has been going on for too long. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • How long is too long to wait for fellow-editors to justify their opinions? -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support 2, this editor shows a tendency not to
  listen to other Wikipedians; I think the most appropriate remedy is #2. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}
  ) 22:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Not listening to one's fellow-Wikipedians constitutes a grievous crime - one that we should condemn. I regret that an editor who has so promptly and thoroughly reverted my edits at
    WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavioral guideline to his attention. -- Pedant17 (talk
    ) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Question. On the face of it, would the proposed sanction 2 make it impossible for the sanctioned Wikipedian to add any new articles to Wikipedia - in the absence of a pre-existing talk-page for a non-existent article? -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No, it is possible for you to create an article, provided the first edit or so is purely to satisfy minimum requirements (eg; notability). The key thing to remember is that if you seem to be toeing the line of your probation in the view of an admin, you will be sanctioned accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    • That interpretation ("first edit or so") would appear to conflict with the wording of "strictly required to discuss each change he wishes to make to an article on the page's talk page prior to making the edit (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations)." Do we have precedents for this sort of scenario?-- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
      • We don't operate on precedents. As the sole drafter of this probation, I've provided you with the most lenient interpretation that administrators might take in such a scenario - the more intelligent thing to do, as I hinted, would be to ensure you don't violate (or be seen to attempt to violate) your probation in any form whatsoever. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 2. Much of my experience with this editor has involved him rejecting a clear and unanimous consensus, usually with an odd interpretation of WP:SILENCE or WP:CCC. It seems that he either doesn't understand or doesn't respect the process of consensus; requiring cooperation with other editors in order to apply edits seems like a useful direction to take this. --
  McGeddon (talk
  ) 17:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Hmm. I wonder whether we can possibly regard the alleged consensus wielded on
    WP:CONSENSUS speak for itself: "Consensus can change[.] Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions." And: "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner." And particularly: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion [...]". Here, as elsewhere, I regard this policy as relevant, applicable, and supportive of my editing. Can you prove otherwise? -- Pedant17 (talk
    ) 13:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• 3 isn't necessary and isn't really helping; Pedant17 has shown a willingness to ignore conventions or consensus that he doesn't agree with, but that hasn't yet extended to socking and we shouldn't assume it will. 2 does not necessarily help as Pedant17 does not have a problem with "discussing" his edits, only paying attention to the replies. So only 1 needs to be enacted to prevent further time being wasted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Anyone can "ignore conventions or consensus" - and the system will clobber them. On the other hand, I sometimes question and dispute conventions and consensuses, paying too much "attention to the replies".. I suspect that makes enemies of editors unable or unwilling to defend their chosen ground on the basis of facts and policies. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support all three, although I think only #1 will really be necessary. I don't think this user's motives are bad, having dealt with this over the course of a number of years, so I doubt there will be sockpuppetry problems; rather, I suspect that the user truly does not comprehend the line between tendentious and acceptable editing. I will also say that #2 probably won't be of much help, since Pendant17 is perfectly willing to write volumes on talk pages and does not act in bad faith in failing to see that the community consensus is squarely against him. But the edits are disruptive and so an administrator may have to step in and apply temporary sanctions just to keep the encyclopedia running smoothly. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 13:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Problematic IP user

A few days ago a vandal added to the Sherri Shepherd article that she had died.[104] The same editor added a number of perhaps non-vandalism edits relating to the parents or other relatives of subjects.[105] I reverted all the edits. Today, another IP address added to the Sherri Shepherd article information regarding Sherri's parents death.[106] It may be true, but I can't find any support for this claim in sources. Both IP addresses originate from Staten Island, New York, according to the Geolocate tool. Thus, it's most likely the return of the original vandal. Today's IP editor has similarly made numerous edits adding non-sourced information relating to parents and other relatives of article subjects.[107] I would revert all the IP edits en masse but first wanted to gain input from other editors before taking such action. Thank you, --PinkBull 01:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The first IP's edit saying Sherri Shepherd died (with enough detail to clearly be a hoax, instead of a misunderstanding) is evidence he's a vandal. Thus, all his other edits are suspect and should be rolled back. The extreme similarity between the first and second IP is evidence they're the same person. Thus, all their recent edits should be rolled back too. Sherri Shepherd seems to be a focus, I'll semi-protect for a little while, and roll back the edits if they haven't been already. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I presume the IP address should be blocked. --PinkBull 01:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I got distracted by something shiny. I mass rolledback the IP's edits a while ago, and blocked for a short time. After review, this looks like a very long term thing from this IP, so I assume it's static, and am going to {{anonblock}} it for 6 months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User:74.68.26.91 appears to be long term, [108] despite some edits from IP 68.174.243.102.[109] I'll keep some of the pages on my watchlist in case the vandal resurfaces elsewhere. For what this information is worth, the vandal tends to target the bios of African-Americans, more specifically, young African-American women.--PinkBull 03:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Johnsullivan10 and 206.217.72.82

A number of edits have been made in the past few weeks to Judith Regan by the user and IP address named above, with the obvious aim of depicting the controversies surrounding Regan as being a part of a Fox-backed "smear campaign." All of their edits appear to have been to the Regan article, save for one now-reverted edit by Johnsullivan10 to the Jane Friedman article concerning Friedman's alleged role in the "smear campaign." I already tagged the Regan article for cleanup, and believe those users should be blocked. I am an experienced user, but no wiki expert or admin, so I'm not exactly sure of the proper procedure. Niremetal (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't delved into the history of the article, but it's a mess on both sides. I tweaked the lede, if it's still in bad shape tomorrow I'll try and clean up some of the sensationalism and resume-talk. Dayewalker (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that Judith Regan article is atrocious. Terms like "made up" do not belong in Wikipedia articles, even if there are sources, and headers like "The Smear Against Regan Continues with a Mickey Mantle book" are far too POV. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I got rid of some of that just now, but more cutting may be required. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Source Issue

I wrote an article on a company called "TechSmith". Well a little while later i see it saying that i have source issues. Well i added sources, to the best of my abilities based off what i understood on how to add sources (I just started with Wikipedia) and it is still saying that I need to add sources. So could someone help me, show me what i did wrong; and or fix it. THANKS!! To find the article just search "TechSmith" or click here [[110]] Your #1 Man For Anything Techy Related! (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, give a look-see to

WP:REFB, that is the "references for beginners" page. That will teach you everything you need to know about references. - NeutralHomer • Talk

• 05:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Maniac, you need to find reliable sources which are independent of your company, such as newspaper or a professional journal discussing it in a non-trivial manner (i.e. not just a casual mention). The sources that are currently there seem to be the company talking about itself, which means they are

primary sources. What you need are reliable secondary sources. Also, the current article is written like a poor quality advertisement for the company, not a neutral encyclopedia article. Crum375 (talk

) 05:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I appologize if it seems like a poor advertisment, as I guess thats just some form of writing I use. But I can assue you its not my company; I'm litterly just a 15 year old kid who likes them, and knows more about their products than just about anyone. Well other sources should be easy since i can think of 126 reviews from other companies, and authors. And i know they deserve a page because they are an international company that sells to over 30 countries world wide; so this should be easy. Thanks for your help; it's much appreciated since I'm just getting started with this whole Wikipedia thing. Your #1 Man For Anything Techy Related! (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crash (1984 TV series) (2nd nomination) as speedy keep by User:Ktr101

Resolved

 – I reopened it and issues have been resolved.

talk

) 20:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I nominated this article for deletion first on the the 29th of May. The discussion was closed reasonably by a non-admin as keep, with "no prejudice against a quick renomination if sources aren't found". After a day, no sources had been provided by any other editors, so I looked for myself using English/Danish google, and found no citable significant coverage. I therefore renominated the article for deletion. After a few indignant Keep !votes,

WP:NPASR, the debate should be relisted. I've notified Ktr101. Claritas §

18:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note - BarkingFish has accused me of "taking the piss" over this issue. Claritas § 19:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Note: I did no such thing, claritas. Don't make a drama out of a crisis :) I compared the speedy renom comment with a 23h wait to do it. That's what I considered taking the piss, I accused you of nothing, personally BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 20:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I requested the AFD to be shut, since there's "quick renomination", and there's taking the piss. A renom within 23 hours of closure of the original one I'd say is the latter. Just to say, that just because you can't find any reliable sources, doesn't mean someone else wouldn't be able to. Sources don't just exist on the net, they're in printed material, books, etc... I'm sure that with some patience and some work, it can be verified to the point of being able to keep it. For now, let's see what we can do with it. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 19:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am impartial here and would've never even stumbled upon it if it wasn't brought to my attention. Basically I can see where you are coming from here. The problem is, you renominated it the day after it was closed. I have never seen an AFD renomination occur so quickly before and you should remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress so people don't normally fix articles in 24 hours. I agree that my closure rationale was a bit wrong but I also was basing it on the fact that the original ran for two weeks until it was closed. Clearly if more people wanted it deleted, they would've voted but usually when people see a sleu of keep votes, they don't bother because it would really be just restating the obvious. Also, you should seek help at the Danish Wikipedia as I'm assuming a few of them speak English and they might be able to help you.

talk

) 19:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The article has a source - IMDB. Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a reliable source which can be used to substantiate claims of notability, however. It simply verifies that the series exists. Claritas § 19:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If it isn't reliable, then why is it on thousands of articles and used as a primary source for many of them? Surely an unreliable source would be blacklisted by now.

talk

) 19:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source, nor can it be used to indicate notability, as it strives to list all productions regardless of notability.—Kww(talk) 19:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Kevin, for the same reason that Wikia and other non-reliable wikis haven't been blacklisted: they aren't reliable sources because it is still user-driven information, but it may still have value as an external link. IMDB definitely falls within this category...there is little to no editorial oversight, probably just enough to ensure blatantly false info isn't added, though I've certainly found a tremendous amount of inaccurate data over my years of using that site. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh okay, I guess I have been inept about the site all this time. Sorry for the accusations there.

talk

) 19:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That really is a quick renomination. It would've been better to wait a couple of weeks, at least. That gives others a fair amount of time to make the improvements, and it also makes your argument a lot stronger if they don't. Win-win. If you really think it needed to be reconsidered sooner,

WP:DRV would seem more appropriate. Shimeru

19:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Per

WP:NPASR, "the closer may specify no prejudice against speedy renomination. In such cases, if anyone wants to immediately nominate the article a second time, he/she is free to do so." I think my actions were appropriate per all policy I've read. Claritas §

19:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying it was inappropriate. Just that it might've been better to wait a little longer first. You seem to be well within your rights. Shimeru 21:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This close seems completely inappropriate to me: a "speedy keep" only applies if the nomination was purely disruptive or if the nominator withdraws and no delete votes have been registered: neither is the case here.—Kww(talk) 19:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Should it just have been a keep even though it was open less than 12 hours?

talk

) 19:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No. You shouldn't have closed it at all. Your closing of the AFD was simply the wrong thing to do.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been speedied, they should have asked the nom to withdraw and wait a week or two. The close was inappropriate. It would have been better if the nominator waited a bit longer, but I see no reason to abandon

WP:AGF based on a simple reading of the previous close. Verbal chat

20:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition, "this page won't be deleted so please accept it" is unacceptable in a closing statement, especially when the article is highly likely to be deleted unless significantly improved. Verbal chat 20:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've undone everything. I only wrote the rationale because I really couldn't think of anything at the time as I viewed it as a bit too soon. I was wrong and I am sorry for causing this drama.

talk

) 20:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Kww, I asked for it to be shut, since I feel that the original closer quoting WP:NPASR was wrong - the policy is misleading, since it states it can be used on "No consensus" closes, nothing else. I don't feel the closing editor was right to use it. The original one was open for a fortnight, obtained no delete votes, and I simply considered that the immediate renom within less than a day after closure was too rapid. I support the closure entirely, since it would help if the nominator gave people more time to find sources, than assuming they were the only one who could find them. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 20:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there was one delete vote in the original one.

talk

) 20:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, missed it :) Well even then, there was enough keeps for it to be shut as a keep after 2 weeks... Either way, NPASR shouldn't have been quoted in the close. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 20:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it shouldn't have been reopened so soon as well. It was a good-faith nomination, so it remains up to the nominator to withdraw it, though.—Kww(talk) 20:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the first AfD, it should have either been relisted or closed as a delete. There wasn't a single valid keep rationale presented. Verbal chat 20:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have significant doubts that this is a good faith renomination, given the nominator's practice of creating utterly unsourced articles -- eg, Muhsin ibn Qaid, Colegio Anglo Americano Prescott, Buluggin ibn Muhammad, Ángel Calderón de la Barca y Belgrano, andKar-Mulla -- him- or herself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I am the "non-admin snout counter" who closed the first AFD and I would like to apologize for indirectly starting this drama. The first AFD was what is sometimes called at

WP:NPASR closes where I say "speedy renominate" so I should have elaborated further and not just said "quick". --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 23:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't have closed the first one as keep. If an article is on the chopping block and no one can provide the sources, as far as we are concerned at that point in time they don't exist. While we normally don't have a deadline, I would consider an AfD a deadline and if someone can't provide sources in 7 days to establish notability, it probably doesn't exist.--

Crossmr (talk

) 06:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree if the AFD were on a "high risk" article such as a

WP:MADEUP). The subject in question is a Danish TV show from the 80s which is a "low risk" article. If an admin closed that AFD as "delete", it would be overturned at DRV. --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 23:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd support it. Local consensus on an AfD can't override an existing larger consensus, like notability, or the requirement for sources. If backs to the wall, interested editors can't find appropriate sources, it shouldn't be kept, because in the absence of sources, any keep vote is nothing more than

Crossmr (talk

) 12:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Stubbing an article at AfD - WP:Articles for deletion/Stevie Tupu

I would like some other views here. This article, probably largely hoax, about a 15-year old Australian boxer, was stubbed on BLP grounds by

WP:BLP

: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

It depends how you interpret "contentious" in WP:BLP, and the instruction "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked" in the AfD template. My interpretation is that the editing intended there is improvement of the article, e.g. by adding sources, and that stubbing the article amounts to "blanking". As regards WP:BLP, I don't think the intention, or current practice, is that anything unsourced in a BLP must be blanked - otherwise new unsourced BLPs would need to be blanked rather than given ten days on a sticky PROD; and the material here, though probably partly fantasy, is not particularly discreditable, and indeed was probably added by the subject or a friend.

I don't want to edit war about this, and so have not restored the article, but I would like support for doing so. JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If the material is "probably largely hoax" then I would call that contentious. Anyone with a brain is not going to speedy an article with an active AfD on A7 grounds without checking either the history or the AfD itself for context. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be kept as a stub.

talk

) 11:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems easy to resolve. Just put a hatnote at the top of the AFD nomination saying something like "This article was recently stubbed on

WP:BLP grounds. You may wish to review the full version in the article history before commenting on this AFD, the link is here <insert link to full version in article history>" Exxolon (talk

) 14:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Good solution, done that, thanks. JohnCD (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit by blocked user Vote (X) for Change

Can someone how this edit by blocked User:Vote (X) for Change is possible? Is there a technical failure in the blocking system? Jc3s5h (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A blocked user can still edit their talk page unless that has been specifically disabled. Sodam Yat (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree, there are no technical failures in the system. The administrator who blocked that user has not specified the option to prevent the user to edit his/her talk page. Heymid (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware of that feature. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User Mk5384

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

The user is currently on a 1-week block following up on a 55-hour block for various forms of contentiousness. Venting is one thing, but he's threatening to sock and "settle scores" with various editors.[111] His talk page access is currently blocked, but I have notified him of this posting nonetheless. I pose this as a question of whether he should be indef'd and/or banned. I'm just one of many that he had a run-in with on the

Black Jack Pershing article, and his approach seems to have gone on from there after he lost that battle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

→ 18:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I had intended to bring up MK's behavior at RFC/UC, but this has now taken a much more serious tone. MK has been involved in a string of disruptive edits, personal attacks, and harassment like edits for quite some time. The complete listing of evidence links (which I had planned to use for the RFC) can be found here. -OberRanks (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an RFC would be more productive than a discussion here. This editor clearly wants to make good contributions, but is having a really bad week. It must seem that everyone is against MK, and no one wants to talk about the real issues (as MK sees them). In my experience, "Unblock request / declined" is not a good venue for resolving such situations; nor is AN/I. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A bad week dating back to March? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, RFC would probably be best. In addition, if MK does return after his block and engages in even more personal attacks, it is likely he will receive an extremely lengthy block in any event. Same can be said if he uses sockpuppet accounts of ips while blocked during the next week. -OberRanks (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think an RFC/U would be a necessary first step here -- we shouldn't jump straight to a ban discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of holding off with the RFC/U until MK5384 is in a position to respond? Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How about we open a

RFC/U, but let him have access to his talk page, so someone can post what he posts on his talk page to the RFC? Then he would be in a position to respond. If he abuses his talk page rights again, he can be reblocked without talk page access, and the RFC will go on without his opinion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L

) 19:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I had not planned to file the RFC until after MK was unblocked plus a few days as well to give the editor time to ease back into editing and perhaps calm down a bit. It still might not be necessary if MK returns, agrees to work with others, and does not continue to engage in disruptive behavior. Its really up to MK at this point. And, in addition, we're not dealing with a vandal or a troll, we're dealing with a productive editor who needs some help. I truly believe there is hope here. -OberRanks (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that the threat to sock and settle scores was just bluster. If nothing of that sort apparently happens during the next week, maybe we should forget about that and just focus on future behavior issues, if any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would an RfC be a necessary first step? A block is to prevent disruption. We have an open ended threat of disruption. He should be indef'd until such a time that the community is satisfied there is no further thread of disruption. Has an RfC on a user ever solved anything? ever?--

Crossmr (talk

) 23:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

ObDisclose: I'm the "corrupt admin" that issued the initial 55 hour block, based on block record, and ignoring warnings and advice given to change approach. I have no strong view on what the appropriate next step is, just wanted to self-identify. Would be happy to see an outcome that ended up retaining a productive editor but lost the troublesome behavior. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Doubt so, read
  WP:OWB for more details. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™}
  19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, sure. But I still would be happy to see it. (and it's actually more probable than me winning the lottery, which I would also be happy to see!) ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block

Considering the unsettling behavior and threating of block evasion, this leads me to believe that sooner or later we will have to eventually block him indefinitely. I agree on Crossmr's statement that requesting for comment on a user's conduct will never fix anything. Rohedin ^TALK 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If there were evidence of block evasion, that would be different (and would be covered by

WP:EVADE, which says that e.g. a reset of the block might be in order). If there has been any disruption since the block began, please post diffs. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

17:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No evidence thus far, however MK stated he was going on a trip for 2 days and would return [112]. If there is to be sockpuppet and/or evasion tactics with further disruption, over the weekend will be the time that it occurs. Based on MK's behavior, I too am beginning to believe that eventually this user will be indef blocked, but I will still file the RFC after MK is unblocked in the hopes that it does some good. -OberRanks (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for an extension to indef at this time. Let the block go to completion and see where things stand then. ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What Lar said. Keep paying out the

WP:ROPE for a while, the result might even be reform. Guy (Help!

) 15:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The biggest fear that I (or any editor has) have is that he will come back, make socks, harass, and waste time of all editors involved. Maybe an indef block is not the best option now, if anything continues, I would not oppose. Old Al (Talk) 17:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I was pretty upset at how fast Mk went from zero to nasty with me over a minor capitalization issue, but that said, a person actually CAN have a bad couple of months, things like losing a job, or death of a loved one, sickness, or lots of other chronic things can get someone off kilter and they may not want to discuss a personal matter publicly on wiki, yet the emotionality comes through nonetheless. So maybe we should give him one more chance. I'm in favor of seeing if he will accept a mentor or something like that. However, that does need to come with a clear understanding that threats of disruption and such are not acceptable, and neither is use of personal attacks and insults. Montanabw^(talk) 00:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The block is due to expire Tuesday, I believe, so I guess we'll see what happens. My projection based on past experience with this user is that MK will probably immediately file an ANI report again me, Lars, and anyone else who participated in this block. While MK might very well calm down and be civil, the underlying issue is that MK truly believes he is doing nothing wrong. And I also agree this is probably tied into real world events and/or who MK is in the real world. MK has advertised that he is British but also has stated openly he lives in the United States. I believe we may be dealing with an exchange student, or perhaps someone who is young. That is of course rampant speculation on my part and I do not wish to pry into MK's real world identity - just an observation. -OberRanks (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose an indef block (I get the feeling that "permanent" is meant by indef). Let's not jump the gun here. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is normal behaviour for Mk, unfortunately. He can be reasonable but he can also be completely unreasonable and that has caused significant trouble. He really needs to understand that it's time to stop the aggression. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Guy. I've worked with him before, he's a bright editor but just a bit stubbon sometimes if things don't go his way. I think maybe just point him towards some helpful Wikipedia guidelines but I think an indef block is a bit extreme unless he actually makes good on his threat to evade and starts to cause trouble. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think filing an RfC is an unnecessary step: this editor initiated a dispute over an amazingly trivial matter (which ought to be added to

WP:LAME), & as a result was banned several times. It would be difficult not to conclude he has been sufficiently warned about his inappropriate behavior. And I agree with Chris Cunningham's comment above -- trying to explain his behavior as "a bad week" is needlessly bending over backwards to accommodate the guy. If everyone wants to wait to see how Mk behaves once his block expires, that's fine by me; handling problems like this works best when the least amount of effort is needed. Maybe he's had an epiphany & will start being far less adversarial after this last block. (I actually am always hopeful about that these kinds of changes could happen.) But if he immediately returns to his old ways, then the only thing left to debate is whether an indefinite block or a community ban is the appropriate solution for this individual. -- llywrch (talk

) 16:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Montanabw^(talk) 17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It might benefit this situation if an administrator posts a message on MKs talk page before tomorrow (when the block expires) cautioning MK to avoid posting on ANI, attacking those who blocked him, and asking for punishments against other users with which he has had disagreements. If MK does in fact engage in that behavior, and shows up tomorrow looking for vengeance, then I would say that would be grounds for an immediate re-block on the grounds of disruptive editing. At this point, MK is well aware that his own behavior has caused most of his troubles on Wikipedia - he has been counseled, cautioned, and warned at one time or another by no less than seven administrators (at least by my count). The best thing for MK to do now would be to go back to peaceful editing. -OberRanks (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm the best person to do that, but if no one else has posted that friendly advice OberRanks suggests on MK's page in the next few hours, I will do just that. The idea is to nudge worthwhile editors towards civil/professional behavior on Wikipedia -- which will only help good-faith editors in their off-Wiki activities -- not to get rid of volunteers just because they are incivil without knowing better. -- llywrch (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is about but the ip address traces to an area close to where MK has edited from before. Might be a random vandal or a VPN operating out of a common server, who knows. MK is due to be unblocked in a few hours- if everything remains civil and calm there might not be much more to discuss. I plan to stay out of this editor's way unless it is absolutely necessary, such as responding to an ANI or filing the RFC that I have prepared. My mere appearance seems to really fire up MK, tied no doubt to the previous sockpuppet debate. MK and I don't appear to have much common interest in the same articles, though, so there should be no danger there. -OberRanks (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Hippo43

The latest block against User:Hippo43 has just ended and already he's already announced his intention to resume his disruption[113] and has launched a personal attack against me, accusing me of being dishonest.[114] I warned him about resuming his disruption[115] and the PA[116] but he doesn't appear to be interested in getting along nicely with his fellow editors.[117] Given his history of disruption and repeated blocks, can someone just block him again? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've notified the editor here.[118] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hippo43 has a history of being blocked for edit warring. They have been told that their next block for edit warring is likely to be indefinite. I can't see any reason to rush to block them for saying something is "dishonest" and then immediately explaining why they think so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no intention whatever of being disruptive, and have said no such thing, as Quest knows. While I was blocked, he re-inserted text for the fourth time, against a clearly-established consensus. ([119], [120], [121], [122]) Surely this behaviour is edit-warring on his part? After my block expired, instead of simply restoring the version supported by consensus, I re-engaged in the discussion. [123] I am entirely open to discussing this, but said that if no consensus emerged within a few days I would remove the disputed text. This is obviously not disruptive at all and seems more than fair to me.

Given his previous hostility toward me, I was no doubt naive to describe his edits as 'dishnesty'. I'm genuinely sorry if he felt that this was an attack on him - that was not my intention. However, as I explained in my reply to him at my talk page, some of his actions have been dishonest - his representation of the disagreement, his failure to inform other editors that he started a thread at RSN, and his discussion comments, and now his false claim that I "announced my intention to resume my disruption".

Again, to be clear, I have no intention of being disruptive and have actually sought discussion with Quest on this very point. Given his repeated reverts to a version clearly opposed by consensus, who is really being disruptive here? --hippo43 (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a need for immediate action here. Hippo43 is perfectly capable of being productive if he chooses, and his opportunities for choosing not to be have pretty much run out considering the scrutiny his edits have attracted. If he keeps his nose clean he's benefitting the encyclopedia; if not, I doubt there will be much uproar following an indef for persistent edit warring. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I see hippo as a good user, who has got a bit stuck on one article. I interact with him on football articles and he seems pretty sensible there. He should probably avoid that one article for a while. Certainly hasn't done anything wrong since his last block. --John (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as this is an open invite with regards to what john has said, user hippo has got a bit stuck on more than one article, since his last block he has engaged in another argument / war

here(Monkeymanman (talk

) 17:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

Well, YMMV on that one. I see this as a civil argument rather than a war myself. I think his last edit was a good effort to streamline the article. If you have diffs that show him edit warring there, please bring them to our attention of course. --John (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were against streamlining the article? I understand it takes 2 to tango but still, he has reverted material on the rangers fc article four times since being unblocked (23.12, 13 June), (16.54pm 14 June), (19.53, 14 June), (1.39am, 15 June).(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

Harrassment of Arthur Rubin?

Someone ought to take a look at this.[124]

Cleopatra VII and Son of God. Not sure what's going on but it doesn't look good. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 19:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WillBildUnion is a new user and might not realize he's doing something wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I placed a

WP:AGF. He has been told repeatedly that his behavior is unacceptable. Ian.thomson (talk

) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the AfD notice since it linked to an old discussion. There have been three previous AfDs for

disruptive editing in this case. Rodhullandemu

20:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't touched Abraham article and I haven't posted anything controversial. I did however post on talk page of the said article. My time here have been nothing else than to assume good faith but I got bitten, hounded, harassed, vandalized, terrorized and dominated by useradmin(s). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:WillBildUnion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Caesarion_section

I beg pardon and hopefully things will sort out smoother in on due, as is future.

WillBildUnion (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This wasn't something you were intending to bring in the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen posts to a number of talk pages by WillBildUnion such as [125], others asserting that the Hyksos were Hebrews - the problem being that he is not just doing this on multiple pages but is not providing sources (although he says they exist) even when he has been told that this is OR. He hasn't been vandalised. terrorized, dominated, etc although I think people are understandably getting impatient with him.

talk

) 00:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

He (shortly after this post) started adding sources, but they don't seem

reliable, and 2 didn't support the material sentence in question. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

16:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent proceedings have made me indicate that harassment was a false claim. Pardon me. eod. WillBildUnion (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the accusation was that you were the one harassing, I don't think you get to declare the thread closed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This guy is edit-warring across a range of articles, see for instance

talk

)

Abd r Raheem

There is currently a new user

Qur'an alone

page beyond comprehension. for example

• removal of external links here.

I don't understand what he means by 'beyond comprehension' and I have already explained twice, maybe three times, elsewhere why they were removed. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

reply He hasn't given any good enough reasons for removals though. Accorrding to User:Abd r Raheem al Haq the external links he removed were websites promoting a so-called number 19 miracle, saying it promotes a sect who call themselves Submitters. But abd r raheem obviously hasn't a clue what he's talking about as here is the biggest Sunni miracle website also promotes number 19 meaning his argument is void. (even though it wasn't a good reason to remove external links anyway)

• Undue weight and bad
  layouts here
  . He makes a heading for every single sentence.

This is a ridiculous exaggeration. On one occasion, being new, I made the headings too bold. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

reply On one occasion? Don't be dishonest please. You engaged in continuous edit warring whenever i removed them.

• His talk page suggests there is a conflict of interet too as his reasoning for deletion of external links was to minimize Rashad Khalifa POV even though Rashad is a Quranist. Either way, there is no evidence that the external links are Rashad Khalifa or United Submitters websites.

I do not need to prove what can be readily verified by going to the old list and clicking on the top five links, four are 19ers sites. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

reply See above (first bulletpoint).

• here he is also adding a forum website called Free Minds to the list of sub-sects. (Free Minds is simply a forum website)

Free-Minds is a prominent, online, Quranist community and forum, as the article describes it under 'Quranists Groups and Communities', this addresses an ongoing concern that Quranist purists, (non-affiliated Quranists) who have no leader to interpret the Quran for them and who very probably make up the majority of Quranists, especially in the English speaking world, are not even mentioned at all, whilst small sects in Egypt are. The mention of the Free-Minds community is short, at the bottom and can not realistically be considered to have been given undue weight. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

reply I have given you the benefit of the doubt before, and will do so again

• Then we have the most outrageous claim that Quranists face towards Jerusalem rather than Mecca here and make pilrimage there. Then goes on to say that "Quranists often outright reject beliefs that are fundamental to orthodoxy." without reference.

Many Quranists do pray facing Jerusalem, myself included, I mentioned it, but it was removed. On reflection, it probably is a bit too fringe of a belief to mention in such a short article, but it is not rare to hear of Muslims who reject the notion that Mecca is the House of God as a Sunni corruption. I have not mentioned anything to do with it since. As for not giving a reference to back up the assertion that Quranists often outright reject beliefs that are fundamental to orthodoxy, I didn't think anyone would question it. By definition, Quranists reject fundamental, orthodox beliefs. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

reply You admit "...On reflection, it probably is a bit too fringe of a belief..." Be more careful next time please.

• The very definition of "Quran alone" means without hadith, but in this edit summary he says that Quranists DO follow hadith essentially destroying the very nature of this article.

The article talks about groups who accept certain hadith and reject others. Quranists interpret the Quran without reference to the Hadith, they do not always reject the authenticity of every hadith - they are not all 19ers. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

reply You have not even responded to this accusation because you know you did wrong. You just skipped this question and made it sound like you answered it.

• He also added "it is not uncommon for Quranists to derive their own personal approaches to prayer" which is untrue and extremely controversial.

It is true and I fail to see how it's extremely controversial? Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

reply The reason it is very controversial is that by this edit you are alienating Quranists as apostates of Islam. (which is a serious issue)

He has also added many other unreferenced passages and obviously doesn't know anything about Quranists. I have left some warnings on his page but am currently considering calling an administrator now that he doesn't seem to learn and is unwilling to read wikipedia policy guidelines. I think this user should be blocked temporarily until he learns not to make major revisions everytime he visits a page as he has done again here Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see very much wrong with this chain of edits. This is little more than a normal content dispute, although you're certainly not above scrunity yourself in pretty baseless accusations of vandalism. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP address edits and Abd r Raheem al Haq are the same person. Have you read all my points? Or should i consult someone more familiar with this

Qur'an alone topic? Iwanttoeditthissh (talk

) 09:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Relax Dude. Not everyone is going to see things your way. Maybe things will sway in your favor, maybe not. Just relax, let the thread take its course and be available for input. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I come across nonchalant in my responses to Iwanttoeditthissh's complaints, but if anyone reviews all that has gone on, on this page, his page, the discussion page etc., they'll see that I've explained myself at length already and got nothing, but abuse from Iwanttoeditthissh in return. Abd r Raheem al Haq (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, im not trying to alienate new users and sorry if i've made you feel unwelcome but try to take a more cautious approach to articles please. I noticed you seem to aggressively dive in and completely rewrite things. By the way, Chris, i didn't say he was a vandal. I'm just saying that he writes carelessly that's all. I just thought he should have received a warning thats all.

I'm going to Re-edit the mistakes Abd r Raheem made at the moment, and i if he resumes edit-warring i hope appropriate action will be taken. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Uncollaborative editing on the

National-Anarchism

article

I spent this afternoon tracking down five new academic sources to improve the

listen to my arguments about phrasing, desist from immediately reverting complex changes, and stop archiving active threads on the talk page. Ottre

11:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying not to laugh because this “incident” is not worth any administrator bothering with. Ottre, if you have a problem with me, let's discuss it on

Talk:National-Anarchism page instead of trying to manipluate outsiders into helping you push your biased National-Anarchist POV into the article. --Loremaster (talk

) 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Loremaster's history of sockpupperty and ban evasion (and lying about it to admins) is no joke. [126] --86.29.78.131 (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside that it is unfair to bring up my history of regrettable acts (for which I have apologized for and never repeated since) that is unrelated to this current dispute, I NEVER lied to a Wikipedia administrator. That being said, your comments would be taken more seriously if you actually had the courage to write them with a registered user account... --Loremaster (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Adminstrators interested in sanctioning anyone should be aware of Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-26/National-Anarchism, where Loremaster (and everyone else involved) worked dilligently to reach compromise and consensus. I haven't worked yet on figuring out this current dispute, but will spend some time right now to figure out what the problem is. I am confident that if all parties work together as was done before, this can be quickly and amicably resolved without the need for any tooluse. I suggest that the next passing admin shove a resolved tag up top. As former mediator - Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This piece from the Southern Poverty Law Center entitled "'National Anarchism': California Racists Claim They're Anarchists" might be a another useful source. It seems an obvious oversight considering that the SPLC is generally considered an expert source on far-right racist and white supremacist groups. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Harassment of Ari89

After I got a page protected (actually for the second time) because an anonymous IP user was edit warring, I have been the subject of extensive harassment by this user. They received a final warning by an administrator for their disruptive activities previously. The harassment ranges from repeatedly posting personal attacks on my talk page after requesting they not use my talk page for anything but article related discussions [127][128][129][130] to numerous false attacks on user talk pages in an attempt to some how poison the well. Really, this is at the limit for me. The user has been edit warring, their POV pushing has been pointed out by multiple editors who have in turn received the same personal attacks documented here.

The editor is currently using the IP 207.81.154.64 although I suspect it will again change when an editor gives them their next final warning. They have previously used 96.22.215.70 for much of their edit warring activities. --Ari (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Response

1. Please note that the toxic material above has been falsified and it is important to check the talk page.
2. Here is where it is tricky. Ari has also falsified the Talk page many times. I keep restoring it.
3. The personal attacks and slurs against me are untrue. I am a Biblical scholar who tried to merge the different P.O.V. of the Gospel of the Hebrews into a N.P.O.V last week. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Without digging through the whole situation there is one thing you need to note.

WP:UP#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings gives guidelines regarding user talk pages. If you leave a comment on someones talk page they are allowed to remove it. It's understood that this means they have read it. Restoring a comment that someone has removed from their talk page shouldn't be done barring a few very rare situations that I don't believe apply here.--Cube lurker (talk

) 16:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Regardless of whether or not it is determined that there was harassment, the IP had a pretty blatant violation of 3RR (as indicated in the diffs above). Since he's posted on the 3RR noticeboard in the last day, he should be fully aware of the policy. Thus, I've blocked for 24 hours. --Smashville^talk 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

AIV is backlogged, could a couple admins take a look-see, please? Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User:RohanMalik1999

Resolved

 – RohanMalik1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked indefinitely as a sock of MrRohanM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

RohanMalik1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not really sure where to go with this. The editor repeatedly uploads non-free images without descriptions/licenses and moves pages using edit summaries like "because" or "cuz i said so". They have been left numerous warnings and notices on their talk page, but never respond to them, nor do they seem to amend their ways. While I believe there may be an language barrier issue involved, it gets old having to "clean up" and/or correct their edits (add licensing etc). They're trying to honestly improve Wikipedia, but how much is an "improvement" worth, when it only creates more work for other editors. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 00:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I also believe they may be a sock of blocked user MrRohanM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ... --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 01:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Now he's just straight engaging in

sock puppetry. RohanMalik1999 indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. –MuZemike

02:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat and COI I just read a talk page post by User:Sven_nestle on talk:Violence_Against_Women_Act. He claims to be involved in legal action to appeal the Violence_Against_Women_Act law and stated in his talk post:

"Anyhow I do not appreciate technocrats nor feudalism. Leave my words alone. If there is better criticism fine. But deleting all criticism might just get you sued."

Now, I've advised him of

WP:COI, WP:TGP and WP:NLT but should he be blocked until he withdraws this? Since the threat is not directed at a specific user I haven't blocked him but I'd appreciate input as if he does not withdraw the remark I will.
Also, since this person claims to be involved in a case related to his law, he should not be editing this article per WP:COI - I'd appreciate mor eyes on the page in case my advice is ignored. Any input would be welcome--Cailil ^talk

03:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That was a little vague to block over, but I'll go reinforce your warning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sven has continued the behavior after warnings yesterday. The legalish-threat was minor, but they're violating

WP:COI on the Violence Against Women Act article and its talk page. I have left a final warning on his talk page a little while ago. If they continue past that final warning I will block; if I'm offline and more happens, I urge other admins to review and act if they feel it's appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk

) 23:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on this as well re: WP:BATTLE and WP:OWN. He's also not engaging with our talk posts - which isn't helping--Cailil ^talk 00:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have been using the IP 70.174.180.147 account (as a logged-out editor rather than a sock) which was blocked, for 31 hours, tonight by Excirial--Cailil ^talk 02:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at that; they both have long edit histories and edit date ranges for the two overlap, but they have distinctly different sets of articles they work on, right up until the last couple of days. I think the IP editor is someone else.

We could ask for a checkuser SPI to confirm that, but I'm inclined to think it's likely enough not the same user that we can leave it alone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Cnrail37592114

Resolved

 – User blocked for unapproved article making script. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like Cnrail37592114 is using a script to create articles such as Yujiazhuang Railway Station. I was doing newpage patrol, and cleaned up a couple, but then looked on the talk page and realized the user has admitted to using a script to automatedly create all of the articles. I'm not sure exactly what actions (if any) need to be taken, but I'm not sure if it is good to have a user mass producing articles with a script without approval. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Unapproved bots/scripts are forbidden anyway (obviously), but any article creation is entirely prohibited regardless. Since the articles are there, they're there and need normal deletion channels if you'd like to make a case for that. Would need to check with the railroads project to see what their precedent is on station articles but something seems a bit fishy (I'm reminded of the state highways mess of years past). ...If the creation and/or editing is ongoing, I'd (sadly) have to suggest an admin indef block until there can be some level of communication with the user and the articles looked over. Sorry I can't personally be of any more help. ♪

(talk)

02:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Account blocked as a sockpuppet of

talk

) 02:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean that article creation is entirely prohibited? We've permitted content creation bots in the past. Or do you mean that unapproved content creation bots are even worse than other unapproved bots? Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

JordanPegram

WP:OVERLINK. He has been warned at least four times within the past couple days and is in no way responding to the warnings piling up on his talk page. This has continued even after a level 4 "only warning" and needs to be stopped now since it's clear that he's just plowing through and blatantly ignoring rules. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer}

) 04:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I gave him a 48 hour "Wake UP!" block to get his attention and get him to read his user talk page. I suspect this is a user who hasn't got it all figured out yet. I doubt he's being intentionally disruptive, but

WP:COMPETENCE is coming into play. --Jayron32

04:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell

We've got a "new" (puppet?) editor publishing original material in this article. Rather than risk 3RR (even though the problems with these edits are blatant and might not fall under the 3RR restrictions), I figured I'd make note of the problem here. If I'm right, this matter won't take more than a minute to resolve. If I'm not, then at least someone can point out the error in my thinking. Rklawton (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a sock of a previous editor or just a new enthusiast, but those edits of his are completely inappropriate. Some/many are outright vandalism (bad-faith changes to cited quotes, inverting meaning of cited material, etc.). Others are just outlandish claims without site. Revert. Ball's in his court to discuss, or get himself blocked if he continues to war it. DMacks (talk)

I've blocked him for 3RR. If someone would undo his reversion, I'd appreciate it. Rklawton (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. DMacks (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User Irvine22 again?

See

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive609#Sockfarm Stauner/Irvine22

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irvine22/Archive

• Irvine22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Dreary Steeples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Is this ducklike enough for a block, or need we go through with another SPI report? Neutral admin opinions please. --John (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(Non-admin, neutral) Would this not have been identified in the SPI case for the previous one? The account was created back in December, and the Blocked one was only done in April. -- /

Notify Me

\ 02:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Full disclosure: John and I have been in a content dispute today at Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Dreary Steeples (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You may regard it as a content dispute, Irvine; I regard edits like this as pure

WP:POINT violation, which was one way I twigged what (I think) is going on here, besides the "stauner" addition. MWOAP, I am not sure how comprehensive a checkuser was done as part of that SPI, and there may also be an element of BEANS involved here of course. --John (talk

) 03:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That's just one of a series of edits. I gave my rationale in the summaries, to whit: if allegations about the conduct of the soldiers are to be featured in the lead, so should the rebuttal by their lawyer. You don't want to allow the rebuttal, I think balance (and WP policy on Living Persons) requires it. That's the dispute we are having. I will observe that just about every U.K. newspaper includes the quote from the lawyer in their coverage of this story. And what is the element of BEANS? Dreary Steeples (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Its a similar pattern to Irvine22 but if so its a sleeper account. We also have user:Cbowsie established after the last Irvine22 sock was blocked. I had similar suspicions to John but was waiting judgement while monitoring the edit history, Given the major level disruption that we saw from Irvine22 and the time it took to deal with him given the intelligent gaming of the system I'd support a checkuser on anything that looked like it might be the reemergence --Snowded ^TALK 05:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually this is a give away - its Irvine22 again --Snowded ^TALK 05:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You certainly seem to have had a bad experience with Irvine22. Almost traumatised, I'd say, to the point where you seem to think that anyone who edits on Saville Inquiry/Bloody Sunday is him. Funny thing, I've just run through his contributions (or as many as I can stand) and for the life of me I can't see hardly a single article I've also edited. It's quite bizarre. Now, I'm almost afraid to ask, but I'm going to: why are you and John so obsessed with the "stauner" edit? Dreary Steeples (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is a give-away; blocked. Black Kite (t) (c) 05:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yeah; the Duck quacks at Midnight. Zap. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. Sorry, but I feel too involved in this one to issue the blocks without oversight. --John (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, that looks like a sleeper account. Got him. Might be worth a SPI to check other editors near that article, given that they're suddenly very active again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations by Aayan1

Aayan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has previously been blocked for uploading copyright violations, and their talk page is literally full of warning notices about copyright. With the exception of a fair-use image that is not fair use, every image they have uploaded since 23 May is a copyright violation. Request an administrator take the appropriate action regarding this editor please. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Final warning issued; will indefblock on any further uploads (and I really mean "indefinite"; as soon as he undertakes to follow copyright policy properly, the block would be removed). Stifle (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

GameFAQS Sports and Racing: NBA Board Delete and Salt.

We have a emerging sock and or meat puppet issue on this article. It is a self promotional article ad thus far I have nominated for A7 however now it is a blatant advertisement platform. Can we please stop this before the water gets deeper?

talk

) 09:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Have deleted the page. Not sure if it warrants salting as it is a first time creation as far as I can see - will add the page to my watchlist. Camw (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Me too. Sorry, HIAB, I got distracted. – B.hotep •talk• 09:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

no worries thanks for the help. I'm going to bed it's 3:30 where I'm at so I shouldn've went to bed hours past. Nite

talk

) 09:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:ShalomOlam

WP:1RR protection, in contradiction with the long discussions and consensus on the talk page. The diffs are [131] and [132]. The user received multiple warnings from other users regarding his recent POV edits and reverts on the same article, both on the article's and their own talk page. Please note that it is a sensitive semi-protected article about a current event. Numerous users already received a 24-hour block for violating its 1RR restriction. Thank you. --386-DX (talk

) 21:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

These 2 edits that I have made were according to previous discussions in the talk page of the article. These are not my POV (or any POV), on the contrary - they were made to make the article more neutral. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits were not in line with the general consensus on the talk page. Even if they were, it doesn't really matter. --386-DX (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to act based on what happened yesterday. However, "I'm moving it back to the current talk page consensus" is not an excuse for violating edit warring restrictions, including the generic 3RR and the article specific 1RR here. If this happens again someone is likely to get blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

ShalomOlam's excuse ("they were made to make the article more neutral") is not admissible, but

a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. -- tariqabjotu

12:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors user group

Moved to

WP:VPT § Editors user group

–xeno^talk

13:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Alex latham

Resolved

 – Non-newb admin has had a word. TFOWR 11:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Could someone else please "have a word" with this user, Alex latham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who first came to prominence at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Could_someone_have_a_look. User continues to ignore all advice, warnings and suggestions. Continues to create pages on reserve team football players which, although largely based on fact, contain deliberate misrepresentations in an apparent attempt to disguise the fact that the person is not notable. A number of pages created by this user have already been deleted for failing notability criteria. User has to date ignored all attempts to communicate. The user has potential to become a valid contributor, but seems intent on creating articles that don't yet meet notability criteria. Not sure the habit of adding deliberate factual errors is a good one for a new user to be developing.--ClubOranje^T 09:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I dropped a note on the editor's talk page at the time; since I am newbie admin more experienced eyes than mine would be appreciated. TFOWR 10:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This not so newbie admin has given the editor a few suggestions and explained the notability threshold. Mjroots (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'll copy-and-paste your response next time the need arises ;-)

ClubOranje, if you notice this again, do

WP:AIV. I'm going to mark this as "resolved", but don't let that stop you adding anything further if you need to. TFOWR

11:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No interest in Israel or Palestine? Excellent! A moment of your time, if you please...

Resolved

 – Nothing sanctionable, editor hadn't been warned. Edit notice created. TFOWR 12:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen an editor at

WP:3RR

. I have a remaining concern: that 3RR may not even apply.

The article in question is Shayetet 13 which may (or may not) be covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.

The edits in question are: [133], [134] , [135], [136], [137].

My question is... is this article subject to the Arbcom sanctions on "Palestine-Israel articles"? If so, I'd like to dodge this as far as possible: I'd prefer to avoid getting bogged down in this area at the moment, as I'm already bogged down in this area.

TFOWR 09:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Editor informed. Since I haz blocked them, I've offered to copy any comments they wish to make from their talk page to here. TFOWR 09:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added the sanctions header to the talk page. It should have been added when the article was created. Shayetet 13 certainly is within the area of conflict and covered by the sanctions. The article and editors remain within scope of all other policies and guidelines such as 3RR (assuming 1RR isn't in place) i.e. being within scope of the sanctions doesn't require people to raise policy non-compliance issues through the arbitration enforcement process. The user would also need to be informed about the sanctions by an admin and the notification logged. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclining towards "if this happens again it's a sanctionable issue, but right now the editor wasn't informed so no sanctions apply" — is that correct?

Incidentally, and by way of "repayment" for your help here, would an

WP:Edit notice at Shayetet 13 be appropriate? If so, I'll copy-and-paste the top bit of Template:Editnotices/Page/Gaza flotilla raid

(ignoring the Mil Hist part, unless you need that as well?)

TFOWR 10:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, thankfully I'm not an admin so an admin should answer the what happens next bit but your approach sounds sensible. Anything at all to stop the general partisan nonsense, silliness and lameness, even if it's just a little bit, is certainly appreciated by me. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 10:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Re the edit notice. I'm in favour of these being used as an editor will always get the edit notice when trying to edit the article directely. Thus they can not say that the didn't know about the problem when later challenged. Mjroots (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. My actions are subject to the "Moonriddengirl" disclaimer: revert me at will, I won't consider it wheel-warring. TFOWR 11:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

user:Galassi and the inline citation tag

The other day the article

Polish Auxiliary Police was created. Since at least half article lacks inline citations I have put a tag on the article but user:Galassi keeps removing it. His edit summary was "the article has 12 INLINE citations" [138]. Well that doesn't change the fact that the first 50% of the article doesn't have a single inline citation. I believe the first half of the article needs citations as well. I don't want to engage in a revert war over the tag and I request an Admin checks the situation and restore the tag if necessary.  Dr. Loosmark 

14:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't need an admin for this, though good move to not engage in an edit war. The article talk page, the user's talk page, those are the first ports of call before an ANI thread. In the end, I just created a "history" section for the uncited portion and put the tag in there. Seems to more accurately reflect the problem. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you did message the user, but you didn't "discuss it" rather just heard his one line response and came straight here. Nevermind, things get fixed anyway (hopefully). S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There is another problem with this article as there is already an article on the subject, see here: Blue Police. Check the pic of the Policeman, it is the same in both articles. I propose to delete the Polish Auxiliary Police article (and if there is information which the other one lacks it can be added to it).  Dr. Loosmark  14:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Nutriveg?

Nutriveg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and I are in dispute about the proposed wording for the section Abortion#Health risks. Nutriveg is a long-time contributor to the page and I came to the page two weeks ago following a request from MastCell (talk · contribs) at WikiProject Medicine for more input. My impression is that there are two rough groupings of editors: those who have a pro-life perspective and those who object to favouring that. I'm sure that each grouping sincerely believes that they edit in line with the neutral point of view, but a conflict has been underway there for a long time before I came into it.

After an edit-war on 8 June, editors were cautioned and one editor was blocked temporarily. On 10 June, Nutriveg was blocked for 24 hours following an ANI report (for edit-warring over his removal of reliable sources that he questions), and the page fully protected.

Since then the dispute has moved to the talk page (currently 365 kB), and I have concentrated on trying to get editors to find sources related to the issue.

Doc James put forward six sources

, but Nutriveg is always able to find an objection to any suggested source. He eventually accepted one source (that didn't mention the figures for maternal mortality rate) and crafted a piece of text that reflected that source alone. I have consistently objected to discarding other sources, as they raised other issues, but Nutriveg has now unilaterally decided that the scope of the text should be just that which his preferred source covers, and then claimed that I was the only editor holding up consensus. This is a manipulation of the fact that most of the editors found all of the sources reliable, including his preferred source, allowing him to claim that that single source had the approval of all editors. I proposed an alternate text that I believed covered all of the issues raised by all of the sources, and suggested mediation of an RfC to to resolve the dispute between us.

So far this is a content dispute, but Nutriveg then, without discussion, posted an informal "request for comment on the talk page", phrased in such a way to define the scope of the dispute in his own terms, and making no mention of my proposed text. He then notified the participants on their talk pages, asking them to express their opinion on his text. When I responded by adding further questions to present my side of the dispute, he removed them from the section and created a new section for them, thus marginalising my side of the dispute. His claim is that they are a "different discussion". I replaced my proposals into the original section and cautioned Nutriveg that I regarded his refactoring of my talk page contributions as disruptive and that I would seek sanctions if he repeated that. He then reverted me, putting my part of the RfC back into the section he wanted, and removing my warning. I will not further an edit war by reverting him, but I cannot accept the degree of ownership that Nutriveg exercises over both the article and its talk page. It makes it utterly impossible to work in a collaborative manner while he feels he can dictate the terms of any dispute resolution. I am now unable to exercise any further AGF and request that uninvolved eyes review the conduct of editors at Abortion (mine included) to find a solution.

I request that action be taken be taken to prevent Nutriveg from edit-warring on the talk page in order to marginalise those he disagrees with; and that, if necessary, he receives a topic ban to allow consensus to be formed. I will now step away from the focus of this dispute and will not edit the article or its talk page until such time as the dispute is settled. --RexxS (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've left a warning. I agree that the ownership needs to stop, and that the refactoring of your comments was quite unjustified. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(As an involved editor): There is a behavioral issue here, which is fairly pronounced ownership and

sourcing policy on Nutriveg's part, combined with a resistance to taking on board outside input.

It started with Nutriveg removing material from The Lancet and other mainstream medical journals, because some of the authors were affiliated with Guttmacher. The talk page thread is here; notice he also dismisses the WHO as a reliable source in the same thread. It goes downhill from there; this heroic effort, in which literally dozens of reliable sources are rejected by Nutriveg on various goalpost-moving grounds, is typical but not unique.

RexxS and others have actually been much more patient than I, but I think everyone is reaching the limits of their tolerance. I think progress can be made - in fact, the article has enjoyed periods of relative calm when Nutriveg has been away from it or blocked. There are a number of solid editors working there right now. I would strongly favor asking Nutriveg to leave the article for a few weeks, because I think that will lead to a lot of constructive progress. I'd actually be happy to stay away too, if people are concerned that I'm pushing to have a "content opponent" sanctioned. In fact, if something is not done about Nutriveg's editing, and soon, I'll leave the article anyway in the interest of my own sanity.

Again, please take this as the input of an involved editor, with whatever grains of salt you think are appropriate. MastCell ^Talk

21:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a long time contributor to that article. You joined that discussion answering a call from MastCell where he did so in a

WP:MEDRS

and pushing for the use of all sources.

In another moment yourself also decided to campaign in that same place using the same kind of biased messages.

You joined that discussion redoing a change of MastCell early did, what eventually lead to an editing war and the blocking of that other user that reverted once.

Later you started raising minor issues, like complaining of any source ever "removed" from the article without caring about in what context they were (re)moved or having a good argument to support of how they should be used. In the between you kept asking for the interference of a specific administrator who had earlier showed disagreement with me (SheffieldSteel above), which finally led to an ANI open by that same administrator and my blocking.

Later you took the same strategy, this time more careful about the content of the sources you were pushing, to decide to push for the use all the sources in the article, instead of the one that better fit MEDRS and was commonly agreed to fairly represent the problematic issue in discussion, except for you (RexxS) and your fellow MastCell, that changed his former minor restrictive opinion on that issue to a completely different one, maybe after seeing you pushing so much for that position.

You make claims that "your discussion" was moved when it was you who created a new section in the middle of an existing section which already had comments from another user and me addressing the issues immediately above in a serious provocative action of disrupting that consensus building process. You repeated that action, when that discussion had further evolved, to move that discussion section, reinserting your questions in the middle, at the same time you also commented in that same discussion section so I had to have the extra work of readding that commentary beyond reverting your discussion section move.

Now you create this ANI about that discussion you were a minor voice at the same time you call other users who had problems with me in the past (Doc James bellow) to join this ANI discussion.

Your way of handling these content issues to lead them to administrative actions in a scenario yourself is a major problematic actor is what I truly call disruptive!--Nutriveg (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I say that (Lloyd, 2005) "satisfies our needs for sources" this in no way means we should limit ourselves to only this source. And while the second suggested wording is okay it can be improved upon / clarified.

talk · contribs · email

) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nutriveg, I have no "dog in this race", and I thought I was trying to paint a fair picture by referring to you as a "long-term contributor". You have 56 edits to Abortion, while I have one, where my edit summary was "please don't remove sourced content without good reason". My apologies if I have misled this forum. I hope than anyone reviewing the links that Nutriveg has provided would be able to conclude that I have acted in good faith throughout. I have tried to be reasonable, while maintaining my stance that reliable sources are the solution, while removing or rejecting them is the problem. Nevertheless, if anyone here feels that I deserve censure, then I will accept that, and look to improve in the future. I now see that Nutriveg still does not believe that moving my part of the RfC to a new section twice is both refactoring and edit-warring. Please note - it's not entirely clear from the diffs - that I added my questions at the end his questions (below a level 3 sub-heading, "Another option"), while his action was to remove it from the section he created and make it in an entirely different level 2 section with a new title. The ownership of the talk page continues and there is a real need for uninvolved administrators to review the situation. --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your behavior so far is one of trying to create administrative problems. I started editing this article just a few weeks ago. While recently you're the only one stopping article progress toward a commonly agreed solution for a specific problem by insisting in using all sources and lately insisting for the discussion of many new unrelated issues (developing countries, unsafe abortion) in the middle of an very problematic unfinished discussion about a restricted point that is taking several days. You may have had the opportunity to make few edits on the article, but in the last two days you've been the single loud dissident voice, since the very moment we were almost reaching consensus.

Now you create this ANI under false claims I moved a discussion section, when it was you who initially moved that discussion section to the end a section you created, an action I had to revert for the sake of continuing that discussion that already started, but you inserted unrelated questions in the middle of the existing one, that I had to properly attribute their authoring to you.--Nutriveg (talk)00:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Having watched the debacle unfold I can only say that the original complaint is spot on. I see issues with
  WP:MEDRS) added to unfamiliarity with circular reasoning, the scientific method and confirmation bias. In short somebody is fighting for The Truth. At this point a RFC regarding behaviour appears more apt than on article content.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions}
  23:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: looking at other (pseudo)science-related articles I feel we have a widespread attempt by the

teach the controversy, which may need a general approach. Include all science (inclusion criteria?) articles in the original ArbCom case?--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions}

00:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Nescio, make yourself clear. Abortion is medical practice not (pseudo)science, as isn't

WP:WIN by destructing the discussion process when consensus is being reached and forging situations that he can later call for administrative interference. Please keep bias outside of this discussion!--Nutriveg (talk

) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(Pseudo)science = pseudoscience + science. Iow, my suggestion is that the ruling on pseudoscience might/should be applicable to science-related articles such as abortion. --- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 00:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Changing comments after others responded is a big no-no. Please resist the urge to do so in the future!--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 00:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's sometimes called edit conflict when two editors are still editing their comments and other write something. It's not my problem if you analyzed and answered my comments so fast, at the same time I saw problems with my commentary and was fixing those. If you likely want to complement your former answer I'll likely understand that as good faith.--Nutriveg (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This ANI matter began with a complaint by RexxS about certain talk page edits by Nutriveg. Before those talk page edits by Nutriveg occurred, RexxS madethis talk page edit, and I am curious whether people think this RexxS edit was okay or not. My cursory look at the RexxS edit suggests that it may have inadvertently altered the meaning of another editor's comment by putting new material immediately prior to that other editor's comment. In any event, I would urge Nutriveg to only edit talk pages when doing so is clearly appropriate (e.g. removal of vandalism), and the more appropriate thing in this instance would have been to ask RexxS to move his own comment to a less confusing location.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The general practice in content RfCs is that following any preamble, questions come first with support/oppose comments below each one. Further general comments then come below that in a discussion section. I added my questions (3,4,5) below Nutriveg's (1,2) and before the "---" which marked off the general discussion taking place below. If someone can suggest a better position for my questions than immediately below the previous ones – bearing in mind that I firmly believe I should have the right to offer alternate proposals in a content RfC – then I'd be happy to hear it. At present there is still the appearance of two RfC's being conducted at that talk page. --RexxS (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

RexxS, whether Nutriveg was right or wrong to move your comment(and I'm not sure yet), I think it's pretty clear that the moved material was at least somewhat confusing. You inserted it immediately before another editor's comment that he had "no particular opinion about the phrasing specified above.". Thus, you made it seem like the other user had no objection to your phrasing. That seems like a no-no to me, because editors must not change the meaning of other editors' comments. Moreover, even if this were a formal RFC, I think the person who starts the RFC should get some deference regarding the format. If it were a user RFC, for example, I don't think the subject of the RFC would be entitled to modify it much.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I should mention that I am involved at the article in question.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify Anythingyouwant point: it wasn't just another user who had commented in that section before RexxS moved it in the first time. The second time he moved that discussion section it had even more comments. Those comments there were clearly about the two questions above, where RexxS isolated that discussion section by moving it to the end of a new section he created, where he starts that new section by expressing his own opinion about the topic above instead of using the already created discussion section he moved to end of his comments/questions and where theses issues he pointed could be further discussed in a consensus building process. Those questions RexxS created weren't about the same issue: if (Lloyd, 2005) was a source that satisfied our needs for a updated reliable source about a specific problematic sentence, which has been discussed for several days. The questions he created were mainly about other issues he would like to see better represented in the article (developing countries/unsafe abortion, increased risk risk of complication with increasing gestational age), when many of these issues were already represented in that article (in the same "health" section, in other sections and specific articles) which content he is not well acquainted since he assumes to have edited that article only once, reverting an edit and so reinstating a recent change that was already reverted twice, what eventually lead to an edit warring that resulted in the blocking of a user that reverted that recent change another time. In all those cases RexxS made that move he took care to comment in that or another section at the same time he moved the discussion section, without making those two distinct actions clear in the edit summary, turning a revert of that move inherently problematic since that had to be done manually where he later could say I was making a deliberate move when I was actually just reverting his own move.--Nutriveg (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously this is not the venue to go into a content dispute. There are real behavioral issues here, and administrative oversight and/or intervention is sorely needed to help address them. RexxS is not the problem - in fact, he's been more patient with Nutriveg than most. MastCell ^Talk 18:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are the ones seeking administrative actions to silence those voices in disagreement with your supported POV in an content dispute.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What POV is that? The one in all the sources that you're trying to exclude from the article? If the situation were as you painted it, you wouldn't have been blocked by an uninvolved admin. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I won't discuss content here. But I can say that POV is one of pushing for

WP:MEDRS

, specially the when it talks about the use of up to date sources, a requisite ignored in face of the very few updated sources supporting such POV.

I was blocked for being a minor voice under such same kind of attack that created this ANI, by those same POV supporters, including you which early said to be neutral, but now revealed your real position in that content dispute.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You were blocked for edit warring, a form of disruptive editing. When an involved admin warns you about your conduct, you complain that it is a content dispute. But when an uninvolved admin sanctions you, you really ought to pay attention to what they say. That is partly what

blocks are for

.

You accuse unspecified other editors of POV pushing, but you seem unable to define the POV that you think we are pushing. Is it perhaps the view that abortion is safer than childbirth? That is certainly what all those reliable sources seem to say on the subject. Your POV, on the other hand, is evident from your first edit to Abortion, where you (whether through malice, impatience or incompetence I do not know) misrepresented a source in order to get a pro-life talking point into the article. And yes, you are correct to observe that I am now happily wearing my editor hat, getting involved in content discussion at the article talk page, and improving the article. It makes a refreshing change from wearing the admin hat all the time. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no POV in that I just saw and used the information in the head of that news article, it's there, you recognized once already, so stop making false accusations against me and assuming bad faith on my edits.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I helped write

WP:MEDRS clearly defines them, review articles are secondary (and preferred) sources. So despite your constant appeals to MEDRS, you don't understand its basics, you translate your misunderstandings into edits that detract from the article, you don't listen to anyone who tries to discuss things with you, and you edit-war to keep your misunderstandings in the article. What should we do about this? MastCell ^Talk

22:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict, twice)This is not a place to discuss content, you deleted a tertiary source and included a secondary source contradicting the previous text, then I reverted such edit to restore that deleted text/reference to later reinclude the new text and cite the secondary contesting the tertiary one. You should not feel exempted to follow a policy just because you feel you're the source of true.--Nutriveg (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of: "At this point a RFC regarding behaviour appears more apt than on article content."--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 00:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose. But the last time I dealt with tendentious editing on an abortion-related article, it took six months of begging for administrative intervention, followed by a futile user-conduct RfC, followed by a drawn-out Arbitration case, just to deal with a single obstructive editor (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Strider12). I don't have the patience or time to spend another 6 months dealing with this. RfC's tend to be useless when the central problem is that the user refuses to listen to anyone who disagrees with them. MastCell ^Talk 00:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nescio, you should not repeat the same mantra until you get support for it, and you should have waited to listen to the other part before taking conclusions about MastCell accusations above .--Nutriveg (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it f***ing unbelievable that after repeatedly being warned to stop you continue to rearrange talk pages in order to

create an incomprehensible mess. Not only that but you cowardly disguise your manipulation by calling it "edit conflict." Having seen your total disregard for policy I will comment on the article and more specifically the techniques used to obstruct and obfuscate.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions}

00:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

AGF and all that jazz Nescio. Heck, I just ec'd with you when you just edited your last comment. Arkon (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

AGF is a two way street. Let's see. My first warning, above, is about a so-called ec with 13 min in between his two edits. Unfortunately he missed my response when altering the initial comment (see above) so was unable to just leave it and make a new response. The just above you will find the following timestamps 1 MastCell Talk 22:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC) -question by MC- 2 Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 00:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC) -my response- 3 MastCell Talk 00:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC) -response by MC-. For reasons beyond my comprehension at 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)!!! Nutriveg is moving the three comments I cite out of the way in order to ... why exactly? The original discussion is at best difficult to recognise. Regarding amending my own comment, you may have noticed that nobody had responded yet. Which of cource is the principal difference between the two actions! As a rule of thumb I allow small alterations, but only untill others respond. Then I will not change but add a new comment.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 01:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on! I was answering MastCell, looking for diffs and stuff, then when I hit submit I got an edit conflict from you, rearranged my comments in another page so I could submit again, answered you and ... another edict conflict from MastCell. Now Arkon,(sigh) don't put the blame on me if you're so fast to emit an opinion.

To make clear my last edit was 00:03, when then I started answering MastCell here, then you edited 00:05 (when I was probably still editing), when I tried to submit I got an edit from you, tried again (as described) and got one from MastCell (00:17) and I could finally submit the answer only 00:20, and didn't edit elsewhere in the between. I'm sick and tired of people assuming bad faith with such frequency.--Nutriveg (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I see Nescio has been doing some recent edits in Abortifacient so please provide a disclaimer next time you get involved in discussions of issues you're already a content editor.--Nutriveg (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Section break. Disruption continues

Nutriveg is edit warring again diff. Every time there is a dispute, Nutriveg will discuss and discuss on the Talk page, but will always revert the article to their preferred text. This is not the collaborative editing environment we should be working in. ETA I left a hand-written warning about edit warring and asked Nutriveg to follow

WP:BRD and it was removed with this comment. They've been blocked already. What will persuade them to collaborate? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

14:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked Nutriveg for 48 hours, for edit warring. He has 4 reverts in the last 24 hours, and seems unwilling to listen to warnings ([139]). His last edit to the article ("It already was discussed and you were not there. Undid revision 368390001 by SheffieldSteel (talk)") indicates an unwillingness to work through disagreements by discussing them. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Brandmeister move request

• In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=368249856 there was this uncontroversial-type move request:

  "

  talk

  ) 11:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)"

  But a look at User talk:Brandmeister gets me wondering if this move request better be looked at first. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an odd request. A userpage of a user with 12k edits to a user with only 5 edits? I think Brandmeister's account has been compromised, but I'm not sure. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed a claim that the account is compromised, see

WP:AE#Brandmeister. I don't think that the page should be moved until that is resolved.  Sandstein 

12:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's me, checkuser can verify that. I left my IP at AE and consulted Stifle about possible password theft. The

t

16:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Number 57

Resolved

 – Classic

Plaxico - indef blocked. Toddst1 (talk

) 18:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Number 57 has continuously edit warred on the Kadima article. He acknowledges that his edit lacks consensus and I and other editors have given him several opportunities to explain himself in Talk:Kadima. We have waited before returning to the sourced, agreed-upon version. He has not replied to editors in discussion who have deemed his argument faulty and chooses instead to edit-war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 15 June 2010

I have asked for editor assistance on the matter per

User:JamesBWatson

: " I suggest a quick browse of Shamir1's edit history and block log, amd involvement in disputes in many Israel-Palestinian-related spheres. I leave the rest up to you. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)"

I can see this issue as no way other than a deliberate intent to smear me and attack me personally so as my honest efforts at dispute resolution would not be taken fairly or seriously. We must be treated credibly, and I believe Number 57's actions (edit-warring and personal smears of past non-related issues in an effort to influence a third party) are disrupting this harmony. --Shamir1 (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Shamir1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s block log it appears that s/he is subject to a topic ban. Is Kadima part of the topic? Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Toddst1. I have not edit-warred on Kadima. I explained my edit in talk and this has been supported by other editors in that article. Other editors in fact have also reverted Number 57's edits. I have been restrained and tried to avoid it. Number 57 has not explained his actions in the discussion page. Editors are waiting for a response from him.

Although I have edit-warred in the past, this was on one specific article as I was accused by one specific editor who himself had edit-warred too. This is a separate and complex issue that I dealt with for a long time and still am dealing with. This should not tarnish my honest efforts at dispute resolution for an article in which my edits are supported by a majority and I do not believe to have edit-warred. I have learned my lesson from the past and have been editing responsibly. I am focusing on Wikipedia policy and am opposed to being smeared by another editor. Thank you.--Shamir1 (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain your topic ban. Toddst1 (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Never mind - I found it here and Shamir1 is in violation of condition 2 of the unblock and is now indefinitely blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Toddst1, do you have any evidence that what Shamir1 is doing is actually edit warring? I only find two edits, separated by five days, to that page in his last 50 contributions. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course: [140] [141] [142] [143] constitutes "edit-warring or ownership of articles especially returning periodically to revert to a preferred version." I'll gladly defer to the

WP:ARBCOM#BASC since they've apparently dealt with this user on this behavior before. Toddst1 (talk

) 01:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Shamir1 posted on my talk page asking for help, here. This post is clearly aimed at asking me to help Shamir1 to maintain his/her preferred version of the article. I see this as a breach of unblock condition 2, which forbids "any type of edit-warring or ownership of articles especially returning periodically to revert to a preferred version" (my emphasis). Attempting to recruit other editors to maintain one's own version is a type of ownership, quite apart from whether or not Shamir1 has been edit-warring in person. I have also been told that within the last few days Shamir1 has made at least one other similar approach to another editor, but I have no details of this.

talk

) 08:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin...

Please give Cluebot the reviewer right, so its edits are autoreviewed? Thanks, {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 06:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Is that a good idea? With serial cases of vandalism (e.g, User 1 vandalizes, then User 2 vandalizes, then ClueBot comes in and reverts User 2), shouldn't ClueBot's version not be autoreviewed?

talk

) 06:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, true. Never mind then. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 07:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Aren't rollbacks automatically reviewed in the first place?

Talk // Contribs

13:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Only if you are rolling back to an already accepted version.

talk

) 15:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Disruptions and personal attacks of user:Stubes99

Resolved

 –

WP:BOOMERANG Complaintant blocked as sockpuppet of User:Samofi – Beyond My Ken (talk

) 18:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have found a problematic user who personaly attacked me to my talk page. He was a lot of times warned and did not stop - I have found these disruptions from him:

[144] - personal attack to me (user should read

WP:AGF

)

[145] – user has used POV and personal attack, he used not sourced informations

[146] – user deleted for a few times a sourced text (user tries to censure wikipedia)

[147] – blanking of sourced matherial from this user

[148] – user has used POV and unsourced informations

[149] – user has used unsourced POV – user was warned in his talk page

[150] – vandalism in the next article, user was again warned in his talk page --

talk

) 15:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Other warnings are here: [151]

User again attacked me in my page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CsabaBabba&action=history He thinks that Iam a blocked user but this is nonsense. Iam a new editor and I was 2 times investigated after my first edit. I demand an admin to do something with the behaviour of this user. --

talk

) 16:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that comes remotely close to a personal attack is the shitty nickname part. I'm not seeing anything really actionable at this time IMHO.

talk

) 16:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Additionally the questions posed is actually one that would seem to be valid. I have asked for a checkuser to clear things up, if you are truly not a sock my apologies.

talk

) 17:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

On what PLANET is this a personal attack? --Smashville^talk 17:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I read it as an accusation of sock puppetry, in evasion of a block: CsabaBabba is the new nick of a deleted Slovak nationalist. ("deleted" = "blocked"?) No comment as to whether the claim is (a) correct, or (b) an attack. TFOWR 17:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dont shout to me with capitals. If you would read his explanation of the change in the article you will see this: "CsabaBabba is the new nick of a deleted Slovak nationalist" Iam not deleted Slovak nationalist. He has no right to says about me that Iam a nationalist. Its personal attack according to this:

talk

) 17:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

His threats of vandalism to my talk page are also personal attack

talk

) 18:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't shouting. My little toolbar got script blocked, so I used that in exchange for italics. --Smashville^talk 18:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is shouting at you exactly?

talk

) 17:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

*points up at Smashville's all-caps* There, maybe?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User

talk

) 18:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops overlooked that one sorry.

talk

) 18:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a personal attack to think that you're using multiple accounts. It's just true, or false. I'm curious about User:DusanSK, who seems to be making the same edit as you, too. Have I made a personal attack by pointing out my curiosity? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I know who Iam. I think its naturally that a lot of Slovaks make similarly edits (classical disputable articles in Slovak-Hungarian history - historical tension between 2 nations) - they tries to put to Wikipedia Slovak point of view and Hungarians tries to put there Hungarian point of view. Do you want to ban all Slovak editors whose are interesting about own history? I have close to a both nations and I have done nothing nationalistic (I have used English and Hungarian sources) - so nobody has a right to say to me that Iam an "Hungarian-hater slovak nationalist". He has no evidence and his claim "Hungarian-hater slovak nationalist" without evidence is a personal attack. (I agree "It isn't a personal attack to think that you're using multiple accounts" personal attack was all what user:Stubes99 made around this his idea) --

talk

) 18:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked [[153]] and [[154]]

talk

) 18:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, User:Samofi that's what I came here to post. Nice catch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I thank you but the credit is due to the other editor accused of NPA. I just filed it for him

talk

) 22:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Death threat

Resolved

Is this a death threat? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's worthless and has been removed entirely. (Note: The edit summary was worthless, not your report!) TNXMan 19:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just another vandal. RBI'd. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

tick tick tick

Resolved

2 hours, no update? Just Not Right. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to announce that the jet-lag from China really sucks. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

We were going for the record on ANI idleness. Thanks, Sarek. Thanks a lot. *sob* Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Sorry. You mean 2 hours isn't the record? :-) (Anybody know offhand, not counting crash time?)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have seen both AN and ANI go both over 2 hours late at night (after Midnight EST). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem seems to be solved now, as there's a new problem to solve below. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User attempting to revoke cc-by-sa-3.0 and requesting deletion of massive amounts of information

In the past, User:Rovington has contributed significant amounts of text and many images. After becoming miffed that we're not permitting him to require his own preferred method of attribution on top of the "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." statement below the editing window, he's announced that he's revoked cc-by-sa-3.0 and that his contributions — even PD-art and other PD-old images — are now copyvios. I have three questions:

1. Is it appropriate for me (or any other admin) to restore all of his recent contributions that have been deleted, without asking permission of deleting admins? He tagged many images with db-author that have since been deleted; I assume that the deleting admins didn't realise that the tag was a bad-faith attempt to revoke licensing. In particular, Explicit deleted a large number of them; I've asked his permission to restore the ones he deleted.
2. The link that I gave above to his announcement includes the addition of the address of his attorney. Should we take this as a legal threat?
3. On the technical side, Rovington tagged many articles with {{
   prod
   }}, because it's able to tell when it's not on an article.

Thanks for the input. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

IANAL, but it seems to me that his including of his attorney's address is not a legal threat, since he is not threatening any legal action at the moment and presumably just telling us that this counsel advised him to withdraw his material. Regarding the other issues, I would restore his article space material, and block him after a warning if he continues to remove it or be disruptive in other ways. Crum375 (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go legal threat on him, but there is no question that you can't revoke permission this way, and that he needs explaining that removing contents is vandalism even if he's the one who put it there originally. Restoring it (if it has value) is SOP. — Coren ^(talk) 02:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Besides notifying him of the ANI post, I've told him that the licenses aren't revocable, and I've included a link to the CC website's FAQ page that discusses nonrevocability. Just curious, though: what's "SOP"? Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Standard Operating Procedure" --

talk

) 02:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for starting this discussion. I'd been saving notes to do the same. From my perspective, he's extremely confused about copyrights and attribution. Perhaps he actually has gotten some (bad) legal advise as well. Maybe it's simply a

talk

) 02:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he's requested the deletion of tons of PD-old images; as far as I know, the only ones that have been saved are File:Rivington Little Lake Distr.jpg and File:Rivington c1780.jpg, and that's only because I came upon them while deleting images and moved them to Commons (the former file is now File:Lakes in Rivington.jpg). Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As for the PD files, any admin including myself can undelete them & there's a list available from his "deleted contributions" page, accessible to admins. If there's consensus here to undelete, I will unless someone does it before me. As for the articles,, I do not think it matters, because the material dependent only on his web site is not necessary to write a good article; some of it is, in fact, quite unsuitable--therefore, the simplest solution is to start over without him and do it right, just as Ronz is doing. If anyone wants them,though, they can be undeleted also. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember which one, but there's at least one article from which he removed well-sourced information — it was a bulleted list of individuals, each of whom was cited from a reliable source. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to undelete: <spam>

talk

) 04:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I do believe there's consensus DGG, not only in the thread but as a standard of community practice in the past. --

M^ask?

04:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Licenses are revocable as there exists no valid contract. That is, people make a "gift" of their work without payment. Without any meaningful payment, there is not contract. Yes, I'm familiar with the CC language, but without meaningful payment, it's meaningless. Without a contract, the creator has the right to revoke his or her gift. If we were a book, we'd simply remove the image(s) from the next edition, and the creator would have no recourse regarding the current edition since. However, we're online, so it's reasonable for us to remove copyrighted images immediately upon request. It's a nasty little problem with CC licenses, and there's not much we can do about it - except not advertise the problem and hope people remain good sports about their gifts. Rklawton (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a useful source providing further detail regarding this type of problem[155] Rklawton (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• You (and your lawyer) are misunderstanding the article, Rklawton. It's making the (arguable) proposition that the CCBY licence attaches to the user, not the work, and suggests the licence can be revoked for the work, but not for the user. Even if true (and it's untested), that doesn't help you in the present case, as the work is already licensed to Wikipedia and the licence for Wikipedia to use the work is irrevokable even if there exists no licence attaching to the work itself. Your other claims seem to be based off a misunderstanding of the formation of contract - you're arguing that there has been no
  policy on legal action. - DustFormsWords (talk
  ) 05:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oops, confused Rklawton with Rovington. Argument still stands but there's no need for it to be personally addressed to Rklawton. Sorry. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The link is stipulated in the CC agreement as a requirement, but it's not compensation. If you wish to respond constructively, please read the source I provided above and comment on that. Rklawton (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I did read the blog you linked, and find it interesting, but you and they are making two separate points: you are saying a license agreement does not exist unless actual (rather than nominal) consideration is made (more accurately, paid), while they are saying a purported licensee would not be able to readily prove that they obtained any given photograph under a Creative Commons license (and that the burden of proof would be on them). They are two separate issues (one being basic contract law, the other being the burden of proof in a civil action), and they do not necessarily support each other. In any event, I think how to move forward in this case is something that should be determined by the Foundation and its counsel, given that both of those points could potentially be valid — and we are not lawyers. jæs (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes - that blog was less than clear. The point there is that if a user wants to revoke the CC, we need to remove the CC from the image, and that would render it unusable for our purposes. Our article on Contracts spell out the matter a little more plainly. For a contract to be valid, several conditions must be met, one of which is "consideration". We must not confuse consideration and "condition" - complying with the CC (links, attribution, etc) is a condition and not a consideration. Consideration, plainly, is payment. But I leave it to you to read our article on the subject and see for yourself. As I recall, when such matters are referred up to the foundation, the standard response is to immediately remove the requested material and dispense with legal hand wringing entirely. However, it's not something we advertise lest we get hit with a flood of spiteful requests from angry editors. Rklawton (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The following is entirely for the purpose of an interesting discussion - as mentioned, the actual legal merits of this particular case are ultimately a problem for Wikimedia's lawyers, not us. But as someone who's worked in (Australian) contract law, I think you're still making two errors, Rklawton. The first relates to consideration. Consideration is anything of value gained by a party to a contract as a result of being a party to that contract. Where any party to a contract does not receive consideration, a contract binding upon that party has not been formed. Consideration does not need to have monetary value. In this case, the party granting the CCBY licence has gained the right for their identity to be associated with the work when it is displayed via a hyperlink, thus garnering them the possibility of respect and publicity. The Wikimedia foundation gains the right to display the work themselves, under certain conditions, and to grant a similar licence on to other parties. Both parties have therefore received consideration and a contract is formed. (There are of course other preconditions of contract not relevant to this discussion.) Your second error is in misunderstanding the nature of a licence. A licence is a permission. When a person licences content under CCBY, they are granting certain permissions to a class of people. The permissions include the right to display the work under conditions, and the right to allow others to display the work under identical conditions. The class of people are all people who obtain the work from you while it the CCBY licence is in force. So you may revoke that licence - that is, stop offering the work to people under the licence. However, people who have already obtained the work under licence - in this case Wikipedia - retain their rights associated with that work, including the right to display it and allow others to display it. New people acquiring the content must obtain it from someone in possession of a licence; they can no longer obtain it from the original location, where a CCBY licence no longer attaches. That's the nature of the entrapment referred to in the article - while many instances of the image are CCBY licenced, a particular original no longer is, leading people into confusion. Revoking CCBY licence only affects the original you hold; it has no effect on the copies held by Wikipedia or the rights Wikipedia has to use them or allow others to use them. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful response. I respectfully disagree. For example, not all CC license require attribution. But I reserve the right to be wrong. If you can recommend further reading on the subject, I promise to give it a read before boring more people with my opinions ;-). Rklawton (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. To avoid choking up ANI, how about you leave a message on my talk page, I'll have a think overnight, and see what I can find. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DGG on this. Whatever the legal position may be (and I don't claim to know that) do we need the information provided by this person? Do we want information provided, it seems to me, with the intention of forcing us to include spam links with it? Would it be better to ditch the disputed material and carry on without it? Clearly this would not apply to public domain material which it has been suggested Rovington has included.

talk

) 09:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of it is useful. We have no need to add the link, because Rovington copied the information himself: if you write text somewhere online, and then you copy it to Wikipedia, you've agreed that the text can be properly attributed with a link to its Wikipedia page history. You have no right to force us to include a link in addition to the terms that appear under the editing window. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The page to which I referred, which had at least some useful information, was William Willoughby, 6th Baron Willoughby of Parham. While much of the text is unsourced, some of it cites A general and heraldic dictionary of the peerages of England, Ireland, and Scotland, extinct, dormant, and in abeyance. England, which is likely reliable. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's reliable in the sense that we routinely accept it if there's no source that contradicts it; it not as reliable as proper academic sources, such as Dictionary of National Biography--there are known to be many errors. But it's so convenient that everyone uses it, on and off Wikipedia . DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats on my talk page.

WP:NLT, I'm bringing it here. Claritas §

05:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I left the standard legal warnings template on the user's talk page. Let us know if this problem persists. Rklawton (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

...at the same time as I was blocking him. After standard warnings, he escalated his incivility rather than going back to article-centric discussion, culminating in the clear legal threat that triggered this ANI. But this wasn't even his first legal threat! I stand by my block, but won't argue the point if other admins want to reduce it or unblock and wait if user takes Rklawton's warning to heart. DMacks (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to the block. Rklawton (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've extended the block to include the user's talk page where he continued both legal threats and incivility. Rklawton (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm really hoping his filing uses the word "chickenshit" as much as he used it here. --Smashville^talk 14:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI - I've blocked his ability to e-mail due to more of the same to me in an e-mail. Rklawton (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

SamEV

Note: Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User SamEV.

Edit warring repeatedly. Has been blocked in the past for edit warring and seems to strong arm multiple pages. Is the subject of various wiki discussions due to his editting style. He ignores attempts to dialogue as can be seen here [[157]] . Please take a look at his edits for possible sanction. CashRules (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Includes: 17:05, 3 June 2010 (diff | hist) m Latin America ‎ (Undid revision 365757171 by Juleon Powe (talk)/rv unencyclopedic crap)
also has been reported here before http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=358558914#User:SamEV_reported_by_User:Salaamshalon_.28Result:_.29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CashRules (talk • contribs) 22:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ignore obvious attempt at character assassination by a user who's almost certainly the latest guise of the indefinitely blocked

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), etc, etc. SamEV (talk

) 22:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Character Assassination right? So I wonder where this comes from [158] 07:03, 29 March 2007 Viridae (talk | contribs) blocked SamEV (talk | contribs) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (3RR on Spanish language) 21:54, 19 March 2007 Asterion (talk | contribs) blocked SamEV (talk | contribs) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit war at Spanish language) You consistently violate wiki civil rules on different pages. Maybe more admin's should take a look at you! CashRules (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so you've found a couple of blocks from an honest content dispute from a time when I was, despite having joined Wikipedia 2.7 years earlier, still relatively inexperienced (did I even have 1000 edits? Count them and let me know) and unacquainted with Wikipedia's ways. And did I mention that they're from over 3 years ago? Shouldn't I have committed some much, much more terrible offenses in the 3-plus years since if I'm the kind of editor you claim I am? You're not trying hard enough.

As for you, CashRules/UnclePaco, your abuse of Wikipedia is egregious and a proven fact. Your edits, under your various accounts, speak clearly: you're a bad faith editor, and I will file an SPI on you as soon as I find it possible. SamEV (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

point of view, with a goal of skewing that article toward a more negative tone, and I don't see consensus on the article talk page for your desired edits. I don't know whether or not SamEV is correct that you are the same person as blocked editor UnclePaco, but I can see that your accusations are unfair, your evidence is outdated, and your motivations are murky. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 23:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Everytime I place in anything SamEV will simply delete it. I tried to speak to him and he will simply revert my comments, even on a talk page [159]. There are a number of places in the world who have issues. With the issues of sex tourism, I stated that it has happened in DR and it is cleaning it up. I simply used governmental websites from the USA as proof. I tried to speak about it but was reverted and no one would speak to me at all. He simply accuses me and provides no type of evidence. I provided some sort of evidence towards him, even if it is yes, outdated. CashRules (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Missing Picture of the day

Resolved

 – Protected version created by User:Tariqabjotu. Intelligentsium 01:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This is probably the wrong venue, but the protected POTD doesn't seem to exist for today. Would an administrator please create Template:POTD protected/2010-06-17 with the content

{{subst:POTD row
|image=Ixodus ricinus 5x.jpg
|title=''[[Ixodes ricinus]]''
|texttitle=''Ixodes ricinus'' tick
|caption=A [[macro photography|macro]] shot of the [[chelicerae]] of an engorged '''''[[Ixodes ricinus]]''''' species of [[tick]], which is a [[Vector (epidemiology)|vector]] for [[Lyme disease]] and [[tick-borne encephalitis]] in humans and [[louping ill]] in sheep. 
|credit=Photo: [[User:Richard Bartz|Richard Bartz]]
}}

Thanks, Intelligentsium 01:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I created the page. An hour and twenty minutes... that sure is embarrassing. -- tariqabjotu 01:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've noticed this happening a few times now; concerning considering they are supposed be ready 48 hours in advance—maybe we should have a nomination procedure like for

DYK? Marked as resolved, at any rate. Intelligentsium

01:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Strange edits that I did not make appear in my contributions.

Resolved

 – Admitted to trolling on his talk page, indefblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is Rohedin, what I am about to tell you has been happening for some time, but I feel that someone else is editing in my account to make contributions to soap opera lists. I did not report this right away because who ever is editing in my account has not done anything that leaves me unable to use the account.

Even though the answer might seem obvious and simple to make, I am still pondering on if I should just let this guy continue to make harmless edits to my account or if I should ask someone to provide me with a list of IPs that might have been using my account. What do you think I should do? Rohedin ^TALK 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please change your password. Is there an example of a particular edit that you did not make? Is it possible that a roommate, family member, or coworker is using your computer or that you left yourself logged in on a public computer? --B (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

List of All My Children cast members. Rohedin ^TALK 23:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps you saved your password on a public computer or friends computer and they are editing without realising that they are editing on your account? It is possible that your password has been hacked but this seems less likely if the edits are constructive. Perhaps changing your password would resolve this issue? Have you tried doing this?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You're saying this is not you? That's from today, so that probably points to either you stayed logged in somewhere or someone guessed your password. Either way, change your password to something secure (letters, numbers, and symbols). --B (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe someone was editing via my account. Rohedin ^TALK 23:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just change your password, it's the easiest way if you still have access to your account. If you don't, but you have an email set, you can email a new password, then change your password. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You may also want to check your email address, under "My preferences", to ensure that it hasn't been changed. MastCell ^Talk 23:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And also, you should set a hash and leave it on your userpage to prove your identity, in case you lose access to your account; see

compromised accounts indefinitely. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L

) 23:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A checkuser would be able to tell if more than IP had edited using your account. Looking at the difference in topics, I have to ask if there is a female member of your household who could be using your account by accident? My partner is also a wikipedia editor, and we have to be careful that we switch to our own user settings every time we use the pc, or we could end up editing as each other. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Changing your password would be no help if you use a password list, and someone in your house is using the computer.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you change your password, it logs you out of any other computer where you are logged in. --B (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that if Rohedin uses Firefox, it automatically stores the changed password. He hasn't come back to us to say if there is a possibility that his sis/mom/gf is using the computer. If they are, changing the password won't fix the problem.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I use Firefox and Ubuntu 10.04, no one in my family has an understanding of Linux. Rohedin ^TALK 23:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

They wouldn't need to - in fact, it's more likely to happen if they don't. Does each member of your family have a separate logon, or do they just turn the computer on and load up Firefox? If it is the latter, then what is happening is that Wikipedia routinely holds a logon for 30 days. So if your partner/sister or whatever goes to Wikipedia, it's automatically logged in as you. If she takes a look at the cast of whatever soap opera she's interested in and makes an edit, it will appear under your account. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please request a password change immediately. From what I can tell, the edits you claim you did not do are done from a different geographical location (Near Milwaukee). I'll keep an eye on your account, and if it edits from that location again I will block it as compromised. — Coren ^(talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you run a CU on any users that were blocked in Milwaukee? I would really like to know who this guy is. Rohedin ^TALK 00:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if I did, I would not disclose that information. Sorry. Please simply fix the problem by changing your password posthaste. — Coren ^(talk) 00:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have, but I am going to search and find a person with a similar editing style and see what I can do from there. Rohedin ^TALK 00:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

G. ツ

03:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What was this: [160] either the user doesn't have control of their account or they're just running around vandalizing. they should be blocked until this is sorted.--

Crossmr (talk

) 00:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Crossmr. This has gone from hypothetically bad to actually disruptive, so blocking until the problem subsides is advisable. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I am in control of my account. No foregin I.Ps have sailed on this account since the ANI topic. Rohedin ^TALK 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you should be blocked for whatever that was. Both of those edits were disruptive.--

Crossmr (talk

) 00:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the account (as either compromised, or vandalising). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I may be stating the obvious, but if this guy changed his password and then it got rehacked, it may indicate that his computer is infected with a trojan and/or the malicious user has his email account password. A computer reformat might need to be done based on what has been said here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Whichever admin reviews this mess and the unblock request, I'd very much urge a really careful look at Rohedin's editing history before granting the unblock. It is quite possible that Rohedin is a previously blocked/banned user who is just playing some game and yanking everybody's chain here. Rohedin started editing on May 27, 2010 and it is pretty clear that he is not a new user. Within several days of opening the account, Rohedin proceeded to do the following things (among others):

• Opened an RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies affecting deletion outcome, where he complains about the banning/blocking practices being too tough
• Plunged into SPI investigations, such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MidnightBlueMan/Archive
• Plunged into a number of ANI threads
• Started a bot, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TotalDramaBot
• Nominated an unprepared user for adminship, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hadger
  • The RfA was nomination was for a user who was clearly not ready and several participants characterized the nomination as "trolling". I myself thought that it looked rather fishy. Among other things, the RfA page was quickly vandalized by a couple of IPs, including
    User:Rohedin/Newgrounds Linux
    .
• When questions about his possible prior accounts were raised at his talk page, including by an admin User:Rodhullandemu, Rohedin pointedly refused to answer them. See the June 4 version[162] of Rohedin's talk page, section "Prior usernames".

Now he says[163] (at Coren's talk page) that his current account is hacked by some other sockpuppet, User:Onelifefreak2007 who, according to Rohedin, "turns out to be a blocked user who does follow the same style of editing". All this sounds as rather too much to me. Nsk92 (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I became aware of this account more or less straight away, and was concerned that no new user would be making such edits. When I challenged the editor, I got no reply. Perhaps an

I let it pass. However, what has happened since does not fill me with confidence as to this user. He claims "computer savvy" but cannot even secure his own account. I do not think so. If he's on the level, let him start a new, clean account. If he's a sock, let him be cast into the eternal pit of damnation. Rodhullandemu

02:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Swastika concern

This may be nothing, but Rohedin nominated the article Swastika for Good Article status [164] -- despite never having edited it -- and was immediately turned down [165] because the article was nowhere near meeting the standards. Recently, two socks of Pickbothmanlol, Main Edges, and Kalakitty were identified after using swastikas in their sigs. Given the strange behavior of Rohedin, and this boast by Kalakitty "I happen to have another account that I edit from my aunt. I have a account already about to be over one month old that you will not find unless you know what town from North Florida I am using to evade your stupid blocking," I have to wonder if something socky isn't going on here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I was having the exact same suspicions. (X! · talk)  · @218  ·  04:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Kalakitty's parting remarks indicate that Pickmanbithlol sees this as a kind of game. It looks to me possible that Rohedin got bored with just editing, and, annoyed that no one was picking up on his new identity, cooked up the whole compromised account drama to stir things up, and then did the nomination of Swastika to see if anyone would pick up on the signal. If that is the case, things didn't work out quite as they wanted, because they're currently blocked -- and perhaps it's best if they stay blocked, now that we know that the strange edits on AN were definitely made by Rohedin and not the putative account compromisor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering the fact that an IP has logged in from a different geographic location, it is very likely this account was compromised. But after looking at his edits and the edits from his IP, I am certain that this user has used at least one prior account (not witholding

Talk

) 06:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's just odd for an editor to nominate an article they've never been associated with in any way for Good Article status, especially when the article was not close to meeting that standard. I found it strange, but I suppose it could be a coincidence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw a notice on Luke's talk page which can be found here. I didn't recognize the name so I went to take a look and brought my questions to Luke about what was mentioned on this user's page about being a blocked or banned editor but to give them a chance. [166] You can find the dif in the dif I provided to Luke. This is apparently a new account from an old account. Look at the history of the user's talk page. This user was asked by Luke about the comments and the reply was that they would only share with arbom via email if my recollections are correct. (I haven't looked at it today or recently.) I believe that maybe Luke could add some insight to this too. Hope this helps, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Change to block rationale / review welcome

After reviewing Nsk92's issues outline above; the other comments in this thread; Rohedin's comments on his talk page; his edit history; and the edit history of some of the trolling accounts mentioned above, I think it is clear that (a) the account wasn't compromised last night, and (b) Rohedin is a returning troublemaker, very likely Pickbothmanlol. Thus, I have changed the reason for his indef block from "compromised account" to "repeated disruption, very likely abusing multiple accounts". If someone wants to file an SPI, they can copy/paste some of this discussion, although since the decision is made I don't know that there's a point. If someone wants to disagree with this block, we can discuss here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, nevermind, no one is going to disagree with this block. Resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

For formalities' sake, as the original blocking admin, I agree with your change of the block reason. Good call! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I now wish I'd blocked them as soon as they first appeared at ANI as an obvious troll. I didn't file an SPI as it's not meant for fishing expeditions, but they had sockpuppet and troll written all over them from the start. Fences&Windows 01:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just curious, but this editor was putting a lot of things up for deletion and other activities which is what caught my attention to begin with. Is anyone needed to go through the account to make sure there wasn't anything that should be cleaned up? I agree with this block too. Just a thought, --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Guy Sebastian article

User talk:Phantomsteve suggested I leave a message here for Admins - I am wanting to have you look at this for me

Hi Steve

Sorry to bother you when you are having a baby... just didnt know who to turn to and I investigated and know that you have had some experience with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ozurbanmusic&action=history on some other articles.

User talk:Ozurbanmusic is causing havoc over on the Guy Sebastian article - I havent really become involved yet but I have observed another editor there NatBelle

trying to keep content from being deleted without any good reason for it being removed as well as images being added or replaced with other images ... so I did some more investigation and have found that Ozurbanmusic has a history of disruptive edits. There seems to have been good faith by Natbelle to discuss the sweeping edits that Ozurbanmusic is constantly making but this editor just blanks his talk page.

I know you are very busy so congratulations in advance on your new arrival... but could an admin editor take a look at Ozurbanmusic to get him to see some reason in not changing or removing contributions of work that has been refined and tweaked for the better of the article over a long period of time.

Best wishes, Di --Diane (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Di, thanks for contacting me. Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to look into this (I have to go out soon) - I could perhaps look at this later today, but your best bet might be to leave a message at

the Admin's noticeboard (ANI)

and ask for other admins to look into this?

Thanks for your congrats - we've still got just over 2 weeks until the baby is due, but at the moment my girlfriend needs to go to the hospital 3 times a week to monitor the baby - all's OK at the moment, but we'll see what the consultant says today!

If you have no luck at ANI, drop me a line this evening (UTC) and I'll see what I can do -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks Steve for pointing me in the right direction - I will leave a message with other admins - have fun becoming a father soon! --Diane (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

anyways any help or advice on how to diffuse or rectify this situation would be gratifully accepted

--Diane (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Diane. I've had a quick look: I looked at the article's history (who contributed, and when), and at

Ozurbanmusic's talk page

.

It looks like there's a discussion on the talk page: NatBelle has participated. Ozurbanmusic hasn't, but I'd imagine that that's because they simply don't know about it (I couldn't see anything on

their talk page

. I'll drop Ozurbanmusic a line, and steer them towards the discussion).

It looks to me like both Ozurbanmusic and NatBelle are very close to stepping over

WP:3RR

rule.

In summary: thanks for raising this; the talk page discussion is good, and should continue; I'll keep an eye on things for a while, and please let me know if any problems recur.

Happy editing! TFOWR 16:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Message received, though no sign yet of them joining the discussion. TFOWR 10:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jalapenos do exist

WP:1RR restriction on the article, and along with their other POV edits also totally ignoring talk page discussions, may have irreversabely damaged the article for the same reason. The article is about a sensitive current event, under semi-protection, and has been subject to very long talk page debates. Many users have already been blocked for 24 hours without warning for violating the restriction once. The user was also previously warned numerous times by others both on the article's and their own talk page for making discretionary reverts and the ignoring talk page discussions of the same article. --386-DX (talk

) 11:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jalapenos do exist has made about 15 POV edits to Gaza flotilla raid in two hours, as noted in Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#String_of_new_edits

POV is in the eye of the beholder. Discuss the matter on the talk page. Not actionable from our end.

Their re-insertions .. had been extensively discussed and removed following former talk page discussions.

Are you certain Jalepenos is aware of that?

Reverts of these removals clearly violate the

WP:1RR

restriction on the article, and along with their other POV edits also totally ignoring talk page discussions, may have irreversabely damaged the article for the same reason.

Cut the drama, please. No edit anyone makes can irreversibly damage an article. Further, consecutive edits are considered one revert for revert-counting purposes (there are so many experienced editors at that article, and it's embarrassing that none of them have pointed that out yet). Nearly all of the edits mentioned on the talk page are consecutive or close enough in time that they ought to be considered consecutive.

Unless you elaborate, or provide some other evidence, I see no problem here other than the fact that there is a (predictable) dispute at the article. Further, these edits are now 36 hours old, and so shouldn't be within our purview anymore. -- tariqabjotu 12:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Cuncur. And the thing to do is to engage with other editors, not carefully count to two and come running to AN/I. This is a hot potato article, and it cannot be run from AN/I. People have to engage. Looks to me like they've been doing it. Get on with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Tariq, [NPA REDACTED], I request that you refrain from making any comments on this issue. You are clearly biased here. It is yet another shame that an administrator like you is not being

WP:1RR restriction on a heated article and some user makes 15 discretionary edits in 2 hours, then yes, it is practically impossible to undo all of these reverts and there is a real danger that the article becomes damaged irreversibly. --386-DX (talk

) 13:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read the above responses and take this to the article talk page and discuss it with the editors on that page. --Smashville^talk 14:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling you misunderstand how the reverting works. A single edit that undoes the edits of multiple editors or undoes multiple edits by one user is considered one revert. One edit, one revert. So, it is not at all impossible to undo all of those edits without violating the 1RR sanction. (That being said, I am not encouraging you to use reversion as an alternative to actually discussing an issue; the latter is the better route.)

Further, as I said above, how do you know Jalepenos was aware he was reverting other people's edits? None of his edits include the word "revert" or make any reference to previous edits. Further, it is not clear from the recent history that his edits are closely related to others. So, again, how do you know his intention here is to revert? From his perspective, he may just be making changes to the article that he thinks are appropriate, and may not realize similar edits have been rejected previously. You can easily describe his edits as reverts because you have been following the discussion on the talk page. But has Jalepenos? Now you certainly have made him aware of these dicussions, but I'm still unsure whether he was aware of them before.

Lastly, let me say it is not uncommon for people involved in this area, especially those who have been blocked by me, to allege that I'm biased against their nationality or people who have their ideology; all requests to not comment in this area for that reason are summarily ignored by me. The only people I'm continually biased against are people who see this topic area as a battleground, those who see a "pro-Israeli" and "pro-Palestinian" side (or, more commonly, a "neutral side" [people who agree with them] and "POV side" [everyone else]) when editing. On Wikipedia, you should simply be editors trying to improve articles; it's not a place for proxy wars. -- tariqabjotu 00:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure his edits might have been POV from your perspective, but there is no indication, from what you have shown, that he was aware that his It should be noted that this is the third AN/I report 386-DX has filed in the span of a day and a half. In every case this was against people he has content disputes with, while not reporting similar behavior by people who's POV he shares. Perhaps a warning about

WP:BATTLE is in order. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk

) 13:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• This thread is far more
  Palestine-Israel enforcement}} and leave it at that? Physchim62 (talk)
  14:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I clearly explained in detail why I am reporting the user and also provided links to their diffs and previous discussions regarding their reverts. As opposed to other editors who were blocked without any prior warning, this user has received countless warnings. The fact that they are still refusing to acknowledge their mistake proves my point. --386-DX (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The previous time you reported an editor here, the editor very courteously reverted themselves. I'd like to think that if you'd raised this with Jalapenos do exist before bringing it here, Jalapenos do exist might very well have done the same. In future I'd suggest it would be a good idea to bring the matter up with the editor on their talk page, and bring the matter here only if that doesn't resolve the problem. TFOWR 17:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• @ Physchim62: my understanding is that we're all, already, notified about {{
  edit notice at Gaza flotilla raid. I'll concede that additional notification won't hurt, however ;-) TFOWR
  17:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified Jalapenos with the ARBPIA template and logged it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• A similar warning against
  Jiujitsuguy (talk
  ) 23:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits made on a protected page/ Caroline Glick

Resolved

No action required, poser misunderstood purpose of protection. Mjroots (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

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

---

I am simply looking for a clarification on the following activities which make me unsure as to whether there are supra-editors or not. With regards to the page Caroline Glick the page has been protected from editing up to 21 June 2010 1.

I had previously brought this to attention on 7 June 2010 [1]. My comment regarding this had to do with the previous discussion regarding the blocking which I felt was non sufficient. As a response, it was stated that it is a BLP issue and that one should simply wait for the expiry date of 21 June 2010 to occur. I did not contest this response.

My concern as stated was that an editor that had blocked this from being further edited could edit further without any question. As of June 7, there have been 3 edits on this page even though the page is protected from editing. All from the same editor. 1.

My question has nothing to do with the edits in question but I would like to ask just so it will be stated clearly. Are there supra-editors who stand above normal editors who have the ability to edit pages which are blocked? Is there in Wikipedia an ability for supra-editors to block editing content for a certain time period and include edits in such a blocked context which is not accessible to all?

That I would like to know. GaussianCopula (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The first 2 edits seem OK to me...assuming that the edit summaries are accurate for both. The edit today is more than I'd like to see done on a protected article. --Onorem♠Dil 22:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I should add...I don't know anything about the subject of the article and don't necessarily think the last edit was bad from a content standpoint. I just don't think that an average editor proposing the change with an edit request template on the talk page would have been seen as having consensus for the edit. --Onorem♠Dil 22:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And I should read more, post slower. I'm guessing that consensus would have been found had the template been used. Seems most of the talk page was in favor of toning the section down. Doesn't look like what specifically should be changed/reworded/removed was approved, but in general seems ok. --Onorem♠Dil 22:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of protecting an article and stating "bring it to the talk page, folks" if you are going to have supra-editors coming in and changing the content anyways. It seems to me that "all editors are equal but some editors are more equal than others"?GaussianCopula (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me Guassian, I just nudged your comment against the margin to format it properly. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked both Talk:Caroline Glick and User talk:Shimeru, but I don't see it on either place- did you try talking to Shimeru about your concern? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a page that has been protected by an administrator stating that until 21 June this should be discussed. The protected page has been modified by someone who has the tools to modify such page and go against what has been clearly stated as a block to editing. I have previously indicated my concerns regarding this block.

And yet, it seems that the burden of question falls upon me as to why an editor with the tools to override this was not notified? Seriously, 3 edits?

A supra-editor with the tools to override this was not informed that a protected article had a "bring it to the talk page, folks" tag?

Look I don't expect this to be reverted. The editor in question has been notified by Onorem as to why he made such modifications on a protected page. He is not here and why should he, considering the responses. I believe there is an "all editors are equal but some editors are more equal than others" circumstance. I do find it strange that when I point at an egregious misuse of the admin tool that it somehow falls upon me to have the burden for not telling the supra-editor that there is a 21-June protection on the article.

With all due respect, it makes no sense.GaussianCopula (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that admins are not permitted to edit protected pages? They are- in fact, they're supposed to, in certain situations. The way it's supposed to work is that, when there's a disruptive dispute, the involved editors can come to a consensus about what changes should be made, and then an administrator will make the agreed-upon changes on their behalf. There seems to be clear consensus on the talk page that the section on alleged racism was biased and should be re-written in a more neutral way, which seems to be what User:Shimeru did in those edits, in accordance with the discussion. You seem to be objecting to her editing the article, but that's exactly what is supposed to happen. Is your objection that you don't think her edits correctly represent what the consensus on the talk page indicated? If so, you should simply say so, on the talk page, suggesting specifically what you think should be changed. Perhaps she could have waited until the discussion agreed on an exact wording for the changes, but the discussion doesn't seem to have gone in that direction, and her changes do seem to be in the spirit of the consensus on the talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As to your implied accusation that User:Shimeru has not contributed to this discussion because he is in the wrong... you only opened the discussion an hour ago. It's possible that Shimeru is eating, or sleeping, or spending time with his family, or watching television, or having drunken-weasel sex with his husband or wife, or any of a thousand things that people do when they aren't on the internet. I don't think that spending an hour away from Wikipedia is definite evidence of wrongdoing. I occasionally sign out, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Shimeru is an admin folks. Toddst1 (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that point was overlooked by anyone commenting so far. --Onorem♠Dil 23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be a bit confused, GaussianCopula. First, I am not the admin who protected the page ("blocked this from being further edited"), nor did I have any influence in causing it to be protected. Second, the first two edits are entirely uncontroversial: the first, eliminating a sentence that was not supported by the source it was cited to; the second, correcting a misspelling and a mistaken citation that had been pointed out on the talk page by another user, Potterjazz (talk · contribs). Third, I had in fact proposed the third edit on the talk page 6 days prior to making it, and there have been no objections. Fourth, I was entirely aware that the page was protected; even if I'd missed the notification, the entire editing window shows up in pale red-orange, rather than its usual white, which is very difficult to overlook. (And fifth, I wasn't here because I wasn't online.) I'm open to reverting the third edit if a good case for it is made, although I don't think making it was an error. I'm not open to reverting the first two, because reintroducing factual errors would not in any way be helpful. Shimeru 23:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is protected until June 21. The first edit made was on 7 June a day after it was protected. As someone with the editing tools, as an admin, why did you not resort to the discussion pages instead of making 3 edits to a protected page?GaussianCopula (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Which edit do you think is in contradiction to the consensus on the talk page? Do you object to all three of them? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand the context which you are bringing up. I object to an editor changing the "context" of a protected page. It has little to do with me objecting to the content of how the page has changed, it has to do with an editor (a supra-editor) (admin) modifying the content of a page that has been previously deemed as protected. I do not object to the modifications in the article, even though it seems ABSURD, that said article can only be modified by the supra-editors.

It is just a question of an editor making continous modifications on a supposed protected article. Protected in 6 June and modified by a special admin starting on 7 June.

I have always clearly indicated and will further indicate that it has not to do with the edits, it has to do with edits made starting a day after the article was protected. A protection which stated "take it to the talk page, folks" and yet was ignored and modified.

FisherQueen, I have stated it over and over that I am not discussing the edits but that admin tools where used (have been used) to circumvent a protection. That is it.GaussianCopula (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you read my response to you above? Administrators are supposed to make changes to protected articles that reflect the consensus on the talk page. Do you think that these changes did not reflect the consensus on the talk page? Or, as you seem to indicate, is your complaint based on a misunderstanding of the rules about who can edit protected pages? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Then why bother giving on 6 June a 21 June deadline for commentary if on 7 June a super-editor is going to come along and make changes. Consensus, a day after? I mean seriously. Seriously. Seriously. Why bother? GaussianCopula (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you aren't objecting to this specific situation, but to the fact that Wikipedia has administrators at all. If you'd like to discuss changing that, I guess the right place to do that is at the talk page for

WP:PROTECT. I don't necessarily agree with you, though, and I'm not sure that the results of those changes would be good for the encyclopedia. If you don't have any objection to these specific edits, but simply object to administrators being able to edit protected pages, then that's the guideline you want to try to have changed. I'll be honest, though- I don't think you're going to be successful in making that change. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 00:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are completely taking a tangent here and I can't blame you for that. I have stated specifically as to why an article deemed protected on 6 June was edited the next day even though it was clearly stated that "take it to the discussion page, folks". You have changed the conversation regarding this to something about me objecting about "Wikipedia has administrators at all". Fine you are free to do that. I do stand on previous argument which states "why bother giving on 6 June a 21 June deadline for commentary if on 7 June a super-editor is going to come along and make changes. Consensus, a day after? I mean seriously. Seriously. Seriously. Why bother? " GaussianCopula (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What rule did User:Shimeru break? What administrative action are you requesting? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus does not allow for unsourced negative information to remain in a BLP. Since my first edit was removing negative information which the cited source didn't actually support, it falls within the BLP policy. There was therefore no need to seek consensus before removing the erroneous information. Shimeru 00:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth, I give credit to Shimeru for doing a decent job in fixing and re-working a POV edit created by a fluctuating IP, in a manner that is more consistent with

Jiujitsuguy (talk

) 00:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Conversely, Toddst1 has some explaining to do in light of the fact that he gave deference to a fluctuating IP (who was the subject of a Sock investigation as well as an ANI complaint) over the consensus of nearly all established editors on this thread. Clearly, the accusations of racism by marginal bloggers amount to defamation and libel and violate

Jiujitsuguy (talk

) 00:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Admins always protect

the wrong version in a content dispute. I don't think the matter's as clear as you're making it out to be. Shimeru

01:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

3 edits were made to a protected article. You have the tools to make such edits. I am tired of indicating what makes an "editor" more equal to another "editor". The article was protected on 6 June. You made changes on the protected article that were supposed to be discussed starting on 7 June. You proceeded to make 2 other changes on such article which at the moment seems to be only accessible by the person who protected it and by you.

Fine.

It's not like I can be playing around with this circular logic all day.

I mean give me a break. Have a good one.

GaussianCopula (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The circular logic is indeed getting annoying; the problem is that you have misunderstood the rules. It isn't against the rules for an administrator to correct problems in a protected article. It's a very helpful thing to do. You are correct that there are two tiers of editors, and that administrators can do some things that other editors cannot do. I don't understand what you want to do about that- you got angry when I asked if you thought we should stop having two tiers of editors, or if you thought we should stop allowing this specific administrator function. Your choices are now (a) accept that you misunderstood the rules, thank User:Shimeru for making the article better, and apologize for wasting everyone's time, (b) work to change the rules to whatever you think they ought to be, or (c) save your own pride by pretending that you didn't misunderstand the rules, and keep saying the same things over and over again. I don't think there's anything more I can do to help you, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I never got angry. I did get frustrated that noone had previously indicated to me what you have indicated to me now. There are TWO TIERS OF EDITORS IN WIKIPEDIA. I was not aware of that. I was always aware that there are editors and other editors who have administrator tools. Tools which are supposed to be used judiciously.

It appears that there are indeed tiers with regards to editors and some editors are indeed more equal than others.

For the record, I did NOT misunderstand the rules. You are putting the burden on me for an editor that made 3 changes on a protected aritcle.

Work on changes regarding what? The stated two-tiered editor situation? Why? Should it not be that way?

Attacking my pride is silly. I mean, what pride? GaussianCopula (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are different kinds of editors. Registered users have functions that anonymous users don't. Administrators have functions that registered users don't. Bureaucrats have functions that administrators don't. Rollback-approved editors can do things that most registered editors can't, and checkuser-approved editors and bot-approved editors can do things that I can't do. The ability to edit a protected page is one of the things that an administrator can do. You have not even claimed that the ability was misused in this case. You're simply saying that you don't think the ability should exist. So go, start a discussion about eliminating the ability to edit protected pages from the list of administrator tools. Or stay here, and make a clear case that the ability has been misused in this case. Or, I guess. just keep saying the same thing again, if that seems useful to you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly that exclusive a club. Any administrator could edit the article, or any other protected article, if he had reason to. There are 1,729 admins as of this writing, apparently, and

the status is pen to any editor who 1) wants it and 2) achieves community support for it, which basically boils down to showing an understanding of policies and guidelines and an involvement with the project. I just happen to be the one who came along. Shimeru

01:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with FisherQueen with regards to some editors being above other editors and I do not agree with Shimeru and whatever his obfuscated arguement is with regards to why 3 edits were made on an article that was protected. That remains my point of view.GaussianCopula (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that some editors were 'above' other editors, merely that administrators have tools, and are allowed to use those tools. Shimeru's explanation was extremely clear, and not difficult to understand at all. If you are not able to understand written English, though, I don't know what other means I have to communicate with you. I'm not comfortable calling you on the telephone or visiting you in person to explain that administrators have the ability to edit protected pages for exactly such cases as this- to make edits in support of the consensus on a disputed article, and to remove potentially harmful, unsourced information and bias from articles that are being damaged during such disputes. To make the encyclopedia better. Written English is the only way I have to communicate with you; if you can't or won't understand written English, there are no other methods of communication available. Again I ask you: What action are you requesting here at the administrators' noticeboard today? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

" If you are not able to understand written English, though, I don't know what other means I have to communicate with you.". This kind of language is not needed.

"I'm not comfortable calling you on the telephone or visiting you in person." This is also not needed.

"Written English is the only way I have to communicate with you; if you can't or won't understand written English, there are no other methods of communication available." There is very little I can respond to this.

I do not understand this latest comment you made, considering my adequate English. I can only state again my point of view but will also indicate that I'm concerned about your comment since it was very strange.

My continuing comment states that "I don't agree with FisherQueen with regards to some editors being above other editors and I do not agree with Shimeru and whatever his obfuscated arguement is with regards to why 3 edits were made on an article that was protected. That remains my point of view."

If you have a problem with my English there is very little I can do about it. As far as I know it is native. GaussianCopula (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What action are you requesting here at the administrators' noticeboard today? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

convenience break

GaussianCopula - Whether you agree with the protected article admin edit policy or not, that is in fact the policy in existence today. Admins are not supposed to use protection to "win" content disputes, but previously uninvolved admins editing protected articles is normal, expected, and desirable.

Protection of an article does not put it in a complete freeze state in which even admins are not supposed to edit it. You misunderstand protection.

Protection is supposed to prevent editors who are misbehaving on the article from continuing to do so; forcing them to discuss issues on the talk page, and allowing uninvolved administrators to both continue to make normal direct edits and to update the article per talk page discussion conclusions.

If you believe that editors who are already involved in a dispute on an article page have used protection to win that dispute, please lay out specific evidence for that.

If that has not happened, then there is nothing to discuss here. You can propose policy changes if you object to the current policy. But the policy as it stands has not evidently been violated here.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What prevents an editor from locking an article and then selectively editing this article? That is the situation which I believe happened, where an article was protected and then an outside editor made 3 edits even though it was supposed to be protected so that it could be discussed up to 21 June. I mean, that is the only question I have. Can an editor with administrator tools circumvent a protected article and edit 3 times an article?GaussianCopula (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The answer is "Yes". The coda is that if the admin was making edits against consensus, or in favor of their own prefernces, they can be raked over the coals, because doing that is against policy. The consensus here is clear: that didn't happen in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This editor's apparent inability or unwillingness to understand straight-forward declarative statements of fact, and their acting as if they were opinions to be agreed or disagreed with, is either legitimate – in which case serious questions of

WP:COMPETENCE arise and the corpus of their contributions should be closely examined to see if they've done the encyclopedia any harm, with their future contributions closely watched – or feigned, in which case this is simply standard trolling behavior and they should be blocked forthwith for disruption. I would say that, at this point, the distinction hangs in the balance, and may depend on how they respond to GWH's statement above. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 04:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are indicating that I should be blocked. You must be kidding me. GaussianCopula (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, try reading what I wrote again. I said that if you were deliberately screwing with our heads, you should be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's a third option as well, that the editor is operating from some kind of highly inaccurate fixed idea of what people will be saying to them, and this prevents them from perceiving what is actually being said. If this is the case, then I urge the editor to try to clean their mind of preconceived notions about what's going on here, and try re-reading the entire conversation from the start. You are being told a point of fact, that different editors have different editing capabilities, depending on their status, and that a protected page cannot be edited by regular editors, but can -- and should -- be edited by administrators under certain circumstances. That is not an opinion, it is an accurate representation of the current state of Wikipedia policy. You may disagree that it should be that way, but if you're objecting to that as a statement of fact, you're dead wrong. In addition, you're being told that, in the judgment of the commentators here, almost all of them long-term and experienced editors, there was no breaking of Wikipedia policy. You may, of course, disagree with that, but if your aim is to get the admin who made the edits admonished or reprimanded in some way, it is apparently not going to happen. Given this, an answer to the question asked above needs to be forthcoming from you: this is an administrators' noticeboard, where one goes when one wants administrators to do something -- what is it you want them to do? If you simply want them to agree with you, that's apparently not going to happen either - so what's your purpose here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

GaussianCopula -

Responding to your first response to me - What prevents an editor from doing that is that if an editor involved in a content dispute protects the article, and then that same editor or someone working in concert with them then edits it to win that content dispute, you report it to ANI and they are blocked and possibly have their administrator rights revoked.

You have not established that there was any connection between the administrator who protected it and the administrator who then edited it, and whether the administrator who then edited had any prior involvement with the content dispute. Uninvolved administrators getting involved after a protection is normal, expected, and desired. It's only if there's collusion or an administrator acting directly to cheat like that that there's a problem.

Regarding Beyond My Ken's comment and your reply - what I just told you has been said a number of times in the discussion previously. You have created a large disruptive discussion on ANI and are apparently doing so without listening to the responses, many of which have answered your specific questions. You appear to not have believed the answers. The end result of all this has been disruptive.

Editors who are sufficiently disruptive can, in fact, be blocked. This is not there yet, but to give you fair warning, if you keep this up for another day you are likely to face a block.

Again - we've told you what the policy is, that uninvolved administrators are supposed to come edit after a protection. If you believe that the administrator in this case was not uninvolved you need to present some evidence. If not, you should feel free to object to the policy and feel that it's somehow wrong, but it is thoroughly discussed and community agreed established policy. Believe that. You can always start a discussion on the WP:Village pump to change that policy if you think it's wrong. But the policy is what it is.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand. It is clear enough that I should not post further. I have indicated my comments and concerns previously and I thank you for you acknowledgement regarding my concerns.GaussianCopula (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't feel that the talk of disruption was an attempt to stifle you going on to discuss changing the policy, if you feel that the policy is wrong. It is up for community discussion and could be revised if people conclude it's a bad thing - I don't think it's a bad thing, but don't let that keep you from forming your own opinion and acting on it. That community discussion should generally happen at the Village Pump board, rather than here. The primary point of this noticeboard is to respond to policy and behavior violations and incidents, not discuss long term policy shifts, though there are some exceptions.

We do take involved admins abusing protection seriously, and that would be entirely on topic here.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I was threatened to be blocked or else stop posting my opinion. Are you serious about your comment? Can't you read the previous comments? As I have indicated, I will not post a comment regarding this subject but please don't patronize me and tell me that I should not feel this or that. I will not comment any more on this subject simply because there was a clear indication that I will be blocked if I do. Are you kidding with me telling me this fluff about not feeling bad about not continuing the conversartion? You have the gall to write about not feeling bad about not writing any more about this subject even though I can't because of a threat to be blocked? You think people can't read up to the several comments above me? More importantly, at least regarding me, should I care? Just don't patronize me with some silly comments about how I should not feel bad about what I think. Spare me whatever pity comments you have in store for whomever you previously blocked. GaussianCopula (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the overall interaction here has gone poorly between the way you posted and the way we all have responded. I don't think there's any way to undo that now. I think your reaction is overly emotional and that you're overreacting to what we've actually said - but that's not a policy problem. You obviously feel what you do,.

Your opinion on the policy isn't disruptive. What was disruptive was you not listening or believing that the policy exists and says what it says. Now that you understand it there's no problem with your holding or espousing any opinion about to the policy that you care to.

This noticeboard not being entirely the right place to discuss reforming or changing that policy makes ongoing conversation here less than optimal, but not overtly disruptive. The best place would be the Village Pump.

It may not make you feel better about this all. But, going forwards, you shouldn't feel afraid to have opinions on policy or to get involved in discussing changing policy. Everyone is welcome to participate in that. Even if you are upset by the way the discussion evolved, don't be intimidated from wanting to have a voice in how Wikipedia structures itself and why. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

GWH, you're much too nice. Please don't apologize for anyone here, the only person misbehaving in this thread has been the editor in question, who seems bound and determined to behave like a

WP:DICK, and has throughout. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 05:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User was unfamiliar with the noticeboard and with the policy - the fight against

WP:BITE is constant and must be attended by all, experienced and not so experienced. Pretending that our responses don't put people off sometimes is silly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk

) 06:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The user's unfamiliarity with this noticeboard has nothing whatsoever to do with their

WP:CLUEBAT when it's being swung by numerous polite and patient people (other than my cantankerous self, of course) is a sweet doe-eyed innocent. Beyond My Ken (talk

) 07:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are OK George and it's pretty obvious. I'll stick to football scores which is what was my intention from the start. I still think that an admin abused the tools but to be honest, I really don't give a fark.

I will also state that the whole "please don't feel that you are being stifled in your opinion", is a bunch of BS. But still, it is what it is. There are people WAY WAY invested in all this stupidity going on in certain parts of the world and I'm thankful that I'm not.

I was stifled though with regards to my opinion. I know and you know that I was. Like I said, some people have some big vested interest on a big bunch of stupidity happening in certain parts of the world. I am glad I can walk away from that. That's it. The World Cup = Bread and Circus. I can live with that. GaussianCopula (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I still think that an admin abused the tools Why? When the rules clearly state that what they did was not only permitted but expected. That's like saying that the cops broke the law by running a red light, when the rules not only allow them to do so, it is expected that they will run red lights when chasing villains. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive619&oldid=1145855756"