Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive644

• Is this article really worth all the trouble it seems to be causing? It's apparently giving the subject grief, and notability is marginal at best. Deletion may be an option here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, though it passed an AfD less than a month ago. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, looking back now i see why my posting of the article subject's personal data is a no no. i wasn't thinking of it in that light when i did it, i was mainly focused on the creation dates of the websites which supported my conclusions about the wikipedia article(s) being discussed. i simply copy-pasted the whole record into my comment, the personal data was really irrelevant to the main point on the dates; i'll be more careful in the future. with that said, i would take the legal threats from the new account pretty lightly, after looking over their edits they bear the hallmarks of the COI editor who was the root of the issue. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No further action needed; duck-block reinforced by checkuser and IP also blocked. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor as a

• Wikistalk w/ Are You The Cow Of Pain?
• Wikistalk w/ Otto4711

No further administrative action anticipated, posting here for notification. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Confirmed, and  IP blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 17:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, pretty obvious. I'd preserve that Doctor Who trivia AfD though, it was a good spot even if they're banned. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't closed the other AfD he started, either. He took care to start pretty reasonable AfDs, but the contributions in other fictional AfDs were pretty obvious. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed; it was just in case someone took it upon themselves to revert everything they'd done. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

I was making edits to the Leonard McCoy (Star Trek) article and the next day my two good faith edits had been reverted by editor User:EEMIV and I noticed the (TW) after the edit synopsis. This was my first experience with someone using this tool. I read the tool's article and noticed that users have to be careful of it automatically reverting good faith edits. I wrote to the editor on his/her talk page, and mentioned the tool had done this. I received no explanation or apology. Yesterday while editing the Data (Star Trek) page, I noticed an anonymous user made an edit. It may not have been the greatest placement of the information, but it was true, wasn't mentioned anywhere else in the article, and looked like a good faith edit to me. Editor EEMIV's TW tool came in and reverted it. Now, I respect this editor because they are obviously a Star Trek fan :) but I am losing all respect for this automated tool. These are dits that a human needs to look at and decide if it is vandalism or good faith. Akuvar (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there are three incidents of this, the first was on Jean-Luc Picard. Akuvar (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because twinkle has been used doesn't mean a person hasn't looked into it. You need to talk to EEMIV, but as far as I can see, he has a point: You're asserting a fact (sawbones is no longer common slang for a surgeon) that he believes needs a citation. Talk to him, see what you can find... but

WP:BURDEN applies to your addition. Jclemens (talk

) 15:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you. I don't know how to do this (I'm sure there is an easier way) but look at this edit I made at Jean-Luc Picard http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean-Luc_Picard&diff=389581060&oldid=388133602 I added a wiki link to what enterprise he commanded and corrected syntax by adding the word "the" Twinkle reverted that edit. It was after that revert that I contacted EEMIV on his/her talk page and received no answer or explanation. You may be right, perhaps I am assuming that they are not looking into it and that the twinkle isn't doing this indiscriminately and automatically, but the evidence says otherwise. Akuvar (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

EEMIV should be answering your questions, though I don't think these are the most controversial of reverts. I can see a case for the Picard one, because the sentence refers to the Enterprise in general (i.e. E as well as D) and has most likely already been wikilinked earlier in the article. The 'the' is neither here nor there. I would advise seeing if EEMIV will get back to you now they have been notified of this thread. _{Star Trek is awesome} S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify for Akuvar - in case he hasn't realised it yet - but Twinkle isn't an automated tool as he seems to think - certainly his posts imply that's how he sees Twinkle. As well as talking to EEMIV, I suggest he also pops along to

talk

) 17:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Akuvar left a message on my talk page that I just haven't replied to yet. [My contributions that last couple of days have been minor, my time spent mostly doing rote chores; probably tomorrow I'll have time to give him a thorough response.] The conversation should continue on my talk page, and it will; I don't see any need for an ANI thread, and will not be watchlisting ANI for subsequent responses. --EEMIV (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds good. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle isn't a

Background: mention of what academics call polyandry in nair article. this is the third thread. User:EdJohnston and User:DGG had commented on the previous discussion. I have listed their comments here. User:DGG said, "I do have an opinion on that. I think covering it in the main article, both with respect to any current and also to historical practices is required by NPOV"

In the mean time, some users Robynhood.Pandey (talk · contribs · count), Pichaiyan Nadar (talk · contribs · count), Bhattathirippadu (talk · contribs · count) and 203.131.222.1 (talk · contribs · count) have been blocked as socks.

Current issue: I added a POV tag and suggested we resolve what needs to be added in the talk page (as recommended by User:EdJohnston). Shannon1488 (talk · contribs · count) who has no edits outside Nair related topics removed the tag for a reason i dont think appropriate. --CarTick 14:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am simply stating that some one who is neutral and having a good knowledge of India-related topics should oversee the tagging and related issues. The problem here is-

• Polyandry was practiced as a mandatory form of marriage by only the Kammalan and related castes in Kerala.
• For other castes (including Nairs), single marriage was the preferred form of marriage, but in rare instances polyandry was practiced along with polygamy.
• Therefore, the over-emphasizing of polyandry in the Nair article is outright confusing. This question was asked to Cartick many times, but he refused to answer.
• Polyandry of whatever type fell out of use in Kerala during the 19th century and not many people even remember it now.
• The language used in the Polyandry in India article is deeply offensive.
• The relevance of the type of marriage in Nair article should be reviewed by an admin who is having good knowledge about Indian ethnic groups.

Please look in to these facts. I will abide by any decision the admin takes on this. Shannon1488 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not content dispute, this is about removal of maintenance template.

even a casual search in google books or google scholar or jstor gives so many references.

I have access to all the academic references which discuss in detail about nair polyandry and can send it to Shannon if he wants (through an administrator, dont want to reveal my e-mail to him). The only issue is, in what form the information has to be included which will be discussed through

WP:RFC

. whether polyandry existed in Kammalan and other castes are irrelevant here and User Shannon can raise the issues in relevant articles.

In the mean time, the POV tag needs to stay in place to alert the readers. --CarTick 15:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You are again running away from the questions asked to you. I am not talking about searches and other things. I am asking you what is the special relationship between Nairs and polyandry. I can give you hundreds of examples for instances of polyandry practiced in Europe, Middle East and North America. Similarly, you might also be able to provide some references about polyandry among Nairs. But as long as you are not able to prove that polyandry was unique in someway among the Nairs, I am not going to agree with you. How can you add a link to polyandry in the Nair article, when it was practiced primarily by someone else? This is like saying that Turks are the major population group in Germany, when they are just 3% of the population. I will make it a bit more simple. Say, there are 100 instances of polyandry in Kerala. Out of these 25 were Nair, 25 were Thiyya, 25 were Kammalan and 25 were other. Now here it seems that Nairs are one of the major practitioners of polyandry. But if you look at the per-capita rate, then it will be something like this: 2% of Nairs practiced polyandry, 2% of Thiyyas practiced polyandry, 100% of Kammalans practiced polyandry, 2% of others practiced polyandry. Now, to which group is polyandry relevant?

And if admins feels that the removal of POV tag is wrong, then they can revert my edits. Shannon1488 (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

pls familiarise yourself with wikipedia policies first. relevance not uniqueness is the criteria for inclusion. --CarTick 16:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about relevance. It might be relevant in the Polyandry in India article or the Marriage Ceremonies of Keralites article. But what is the relevance of some obsolete marriage custom last practiced many centuries ago, which even at it's peak had no more than 2% or 3% of Nairs practicing it in the Nair article? If 100%, or at least one-third of the Nairs practiced polyandry during the 1500s, then it might have been important enough to get an inclusion in the article. But this is going way overboard. If you want to malign someone you don't like, then you better find some good tactics to do that. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry if this information is offensive to you. I am afraid i could not find any wikipedia policy or guideline which discourages inclusion because it offends somebody. There is also no policy which dictates your "percentage calculation" or "many centuries ago practice" as a criteria for exclusion. If an arbitrary one-third participation is a criteria, lot of information in the article and very many articles should go. --CarTick 16:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline which discourages inclusion because it offends somebody. But there is also no policy which says that irrelevant and disputed views should be added to an article just because another user doesn't like the ethnic group. Let me see if the admins agree with your views or not. I am just remembering you, the answers for my questions are still not here. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand how Polyandry among Nairs is not relevant in Nairs. but, that is your view and i dispute that and

WP:NPOV. so the POV tag needs to go back. we will sort the issue out in article talk page. --CarTick

16:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am saying if admins feel like POV tag is needed, then they can add it. A minor dispute should not be used to tag an entire article as neutrality-disputed. Just wait till we get more comments here. Shannon1488 (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

User:DGG is an administrator and he said not including it violates NPOV. --CarTick 16:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Any admin (including DGG) can add the tag. But it will be better to wait till some one with more knowledge on this issue comment here. Shannon1488 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Lot of time is getting wasted on this non-issue. This is a very minor dispute and users like Cartick are hell bent on inflating it to their own needs. How else can anyone explain a dispute to add a link going on for two weeks now? If the admins were willing to spend a few minutes on this, the disruption caused could have been easily averted. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like two admins have spent time on this issue. Accepting what they said would seem, to me, to be the best way to end further disruption. TFOWR 17:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. I had earlier stated that I'll abide by whatever decision the admins take. Therefore I have added the link back in. But I don't believe it is relevant in the article. Also, the comments by the two admins were vague and inconclusive. I hope the remainder of the discussion, whether to keep the link or remove it, can be done in the Nair talk page. It will be better if someone with a good knowledge on this issue can help out on this matter. Shannon1488 (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Admins aren't going to settle a content dispute. What they will do (and, indeed, have done) is recommend how to solve a content dispute. For example,

request for comment

" ("RfC"):

The degree to which Nair ought to link to articles which discuss polyandry is a valid question that could be discussed in an RfC at Talk:Nair. If 'polyandry' is not the right way to describe the former customs, as an IP argues above, this could be worked out (with sources) on the talk page.

Likewise,

the neutral point of view noticeboard

("NPOV noticeboard"):

I think covering it in the main article, both with respect to any current and also to historical practices is required by NPOV. When I saw the subhead of this section it immediately came to mind that it must be about this particular topic, & I was right--those who know only a very little about the Nairs, know about this. There has been frequent efforts to include disproportionate coverage of the past or present customs of various groups--usually religious groups-- that are different from the common Western norm and might seem disreputable; reciprocally, there have been frequent efforts to give these aspects as little coverage as possible. Both are gross violations of the principle of NPOV, which is arguably a matter that does concern administrators. But if the discussion is to be continued, I 'd suggest the NPOV noticeboard as the appropriate place. I do not recommend it; I recommend compromise and a moderate degree of coverage.

Both these suggestions are sensible. I'd suggest you strive for compromise and a moderate degree of coverage. If you remain unable to reach a compromise consider either an RFC or taking it to the NPOV noticeboard. TFOWR 17:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

i will try to get a compromise with these editors, if not i will open an RFC. i will be happy if some responsible users keep an eye on the talk page. Thanks. --CarTick 18:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 –

Boomerang took out both the sock/impersonator and the OP. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい

) 16:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello community. Apologies if I'm interrupting the more serious discussions that are the norm of this noticeboard, but there's an impostor here that needs to be blocked: PirateCrackK (talk · contribs). Thank you. --GoogleUnderscore (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Imposter of whom, any similar usernames? –BuickCenturyDriver 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Notified user, as the page requires you to do. Hasteur (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess that he's referring to

WP:UAA, which is where this should have gone in the first place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい

) 15:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know if it's PirateSmackK, seems more like an impostor to me, perhaps Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has had a history of reporting himself to ANI just to cause a fuss ... trolling in its purest form, really. GoogleUnderscore was the creator of the userpage for PirateCrackK, as well as the creator of this thread, so it seems obvious to me that the two accounts are at least working together and quite likely actually the same person. They are now both blocked (one by me, one by another admin). —Soap— 16:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it seemed way too easy to be a legit sock... marking resolved. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

PirateCrackK (talk · contribs) and Hole Puncher (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed. CU investigation continuing. –MuZemike 17:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

All three are confirmed. Also blocked the open proxy this person (whomever he is) is using. –MuZemike 17:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Reverted and warned GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

an user posts non-English comment which appears to be offensive and unhelpful. --CarTick 17:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please let users know when you raise issues concerning them.

I've warned the user, and I see you've already reverted them. I'd suggest that this could be marked resolved. TFOWR 17:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

i will next time. thanks. --CarTick 17:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The context of this is a series of edits made by

•  Confirmed the following are socks of one another:

• Disranter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Arnatorim (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Samosterat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hoogson (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Narwhal2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Tiptoety ^talk 18:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd wondered about Hoogson but hadn't connected him with Ellis.

talk

) 18:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• All blocked and tagged. TFOWR 18:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I started a discussion on Talk:Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games regarding how the article was emphasizing low-priority concerns while neglecting the severe adverse impact of the Games on the city hosting it. Perhaps it was my frustration which made me cross the line of civility while starting that discussion. Anyways, the point is that User:Lucy-marie has forcefully intervened twice in the discussion: first blatantly deleting my comments and then archiving it. According to her, the comments raised by me were not "related to the content of the article". I'm still learning how to have a meaningful discussion with other Wikipedians (I admit that I cannot give diplomatic replies) and this experience definitely didn't help. Not that I'm keen to participate in the discussion but "closing" or "archiving" it was rather too extreme and deeming my concerns as "inappropriate" and "irrelevant" was uncalled for. I'm pretty sure that Lucy would archive the discussion again as it doesn't serve her point of view. Therefore, I would like to seek administrators' intervention in this issue. --King Zebu (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't notify the user about talking here, as the page's rules mandate. I have corrected this for you. Hasteur (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have previous with Lucy-marie so won't take any action either way here, but as far as I can see, with comments like "Some people have twisted brains. It is absolutely disgusting to see that some Wikipedians here are rather too keen to highlight "clogged toilets", "empty seats" and "Delhi Belly" but the article barely mentions the fact that India (home to the world's largest concentration of poor people) spent billions of dollars on a 12-day sporting event. For any sane person, the latter is the biggest controversy related to the 2010 CWG.", "I will just strive to improve the article and not bother much about starting discussions because they will ultimately be "deemed irrelevant" without any logical explanation" and "Ah, I see that you are not an administrator. Interesting." (and editwarring with one of our most experienced sports writers, with an edit summary of "It seems that some people do not understand the difference between an encyclopedia and news outlet") the only one heading for any kind of block or warning here looks to be you. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not your personal soapbox. – 

iridescent

18:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is not a forum and that was made abundantly clear in the original edit summary, It seemed appropriate to then close the discussions when it was restarted in an identical vein by the same user who has now reported this to the ANI. The user was given a full explanation as to the reasons why the discussion was closed and the language used by the user in their comments were incendiary and inappropriate to the talk page and Wikipedia as a whole, as demonstrated above by Iridescent. The user appears to be someone who is pushing an agenda and a specific POV and someone who is unfamiliar with the rules and procedures of Wikipedia. I request that the user be either warned or blocked for a short period of time for being deliberately disruptive, rude and incendiary. Users cannot post incendiary language and then complain bitterly when someone says it is inappropriate. The user also seems to fail to realise all users are the same regardless of weather they are an Admin or not. I have been on Wikipedia for a few years now and understand what I am doing. I may though make mistakes from time to time but believe this is not one of those cases. This user believes Wikipedia is a place to discuss anything, anywhere, which it is not. Wikipedia is here to discuss article content and not POV push. I would also request this user be warned as they have made malicious claims against me such as making a "forceful intervention" and making personal attacks and POV pushing which are unfounded and cannot be allowed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lucy-marie's action of archiving that particular discussion. It was starting to get heated and personal, with approaching borderline NPA infringements. It would have worked as a cool-down measure if it had remained, but since the archive/cooldown-measure was undone/unapprecuated, we'll just have to monitor the situation more closely.

Oh as a final note to this post, the discussion that King Zebu started and Lucy Marie deleted was originally titled "Some people have twisted brains" before it was renamed as "My two cents". Though the title was since changed, the discussion remains the same. But with that sort of original title setting the stage for a discussion .... Zhanzhao (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – At least let's all pretend like it is. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've warned Heavydata multiple times, and he will not stop being uncivil to other editors. I made a report at

See the userpage, which I've now restored. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, turns out someone else made it. Nevermind that. But other than that, Heavydata been uncivil lots of times. He's gone over what I think should be allowed.

talk

) 22:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If I read the WQA discussion correctly, he agreed to change his communication methods; your misinterpretation of the vandalism on his user page seems to be the cause of the most recent comments directed at you. I tend to agree with his comments; he's agreed to moderate his actions, and you need to now give him the space to do so. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it best to delete the userpage again, especially in light of Tony Fox's comment. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Could probably just blank it, it's not really worth having visible. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

DUDE, would you knock it off already?! I said I'd stop, and all you're doing now is making things worse. I have no idea what you have against me, I'd appreciate it if you simple left me alone and stopped posting these ridiculous messages on the notice board. I have one question for you:

What do you want from me? Heavydata (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Here, look at the second paragraph (The first one was the one that started this in the first place, so ignore that): [18]. Is that OK with you? Heavydata (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm sorry about that Heavydata. I guess you really have changed. Good job. Please keep doing that, and you'll be absolutely fine. So, I'm going to mark this as resolved! :)

talk

) 23:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

AIV is getting buried at an rapid pace by bot reported attacks from IPs such as this. Not sure what to do about this. Toddst1 (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Reported the IP. Could you list the other ones, please?

talk

) 23:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

See

WP:AIV. Toddst1 (talk

) 23:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it really matter? Their posts literally never get seen. HalfShadow 23:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they're all being reported at AIV.

talk

) 23:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for repeating what I said above. Now, what to do about this seemingly coordinated bot attack? Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

RBI, deny and DNFTT. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• I see nothing. HalfShadow 23:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

See the history. It's changing rapidly [[19]. It looks like MaterialScientist figured out a rangeblock or 2. Toddst1 (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I still fail to see this as an issue; if the vandalism isn't actually making to the page, I simply don't care. HalfShadow 23:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the targeted article should be semi-protected immediately so that AIV won't get flooded with more reports relating to the same vandal; I've already requested the page protection at RPP. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This has stopped, hasn't it? I declined the RFPP because the article has moved off the main page, but that's easy enough to change if the problem persists. Looie496 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The Universe Is Cool (talk · contribs · logs)

As can be seen from the history of the user's Talk page, he has removed a series of warnings posted by other editors about his editing and his behavior in violation of

Editors are allowed to blank warnings, however it is taken as de facto evidence they understand the issue and have read it. If his editing behavior is a problem, then he has no quarter or excuse since he's been receiving the notes (whether they remain or not. ) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a long list of items that an editor can do to his own Talk page at

WP:TPO, but as far as I can see, it doesn't include blanking warnings. Wouldn't it be helpful to add this item to the guidelines, along with your description of the implications of the blanking?--Bbb23 (talk

) 00:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See the very bottom of that section: "On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but archiving is preferred. Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history. Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it." In practice people are allowed wide latitude in blanking (even if it's uncouth or just bad mannered) but it means you're responsible for reading it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That page is mainly about article talk pages. The relevant policy is at

WP:REMOVED. Looie496 (talk

) 00:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both, that resolves the issue for me (and I'm glad I didn't revert anything).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes well they shouldn't be allowed to blank warnings. The only people that tend to blank warnings are the ones who seem to be attempting to hide their behaviour. All it does is disrupt the flow of communication and many times we've ended up having disputes or disruptive users carrying on because they have busy talk pages and no one has the time or patience to piece together their fractured talk pages. Unless there is evidence the warning was given in bad faith it should be archived after a normal period of time like everything else. Blanking talk does not serve the community.--

Crossmr (talk

) 06:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

TungstenCarbide XXX (talk · contribs) again. → ROUX ₪ 05:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this Elsie? --Jayron32 05:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

All I know is it's the 30th incarnation of TungstenCarbide (talk · contribs), whoever that was originally. Can't we hardblock that username or something? → ROUX ₪ 05:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Temporarily forgot that one. I have blocked per

quack, however a CU would have to look into a possible IP-level block or rangeblock. I should note, however, that according to several prior CUs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TungstenCarbide/Archive several have declined to block the underlying IP as either impractical (collateral damage) or ineffective (uses too large a range). --Jayron32

05:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Diff and edit summary please

Does this really need to be revdeled? It just looks like harmless vandalism to me. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

[FATAL ERROR]

03:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

But I fail to see how it is grossly degrading and insulting. By your logic, if the aforementioned diff satisfied RD2, then just about one in every two incidents of vandalism would qualify for revdel. Honestly, somedays I feel like revdel is being unnecessarily overused. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If I was Osama bin Laden, I would be appalled that such a degrading personal attack would ever be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. I mean, saying that he's Jimbo Wales is probably worse than saying that he's the pope. This is clearly a gross slur against Mr. Bin Laden, and must be removed immediately. Buddy431 (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I kid, I actually agree with Fastily, that Rev. Deletion is used far too frequently. Buddy431 (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a couple of questions about these rev/dels. First, does this edit summary qualify since it attacks another editor? Second, do we have (or are we going to start) a page like AIV rather than using this page? Thanks ahead of time for your time in answering these. MarnetteD | Talk 03:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This really doesn't qualify for RD, and it would be a stretch to delete it as such. The diff is in no way grossly degrading and insulting. And yes, there is a discussion in progress regarding the establishment of an RD noticeboard at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Time_for_WP:RFRD.3F. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not make myself clear - it was not the edit that was a problem it was the edit summary. It looks like another editor agreed with me and did find it (and the many that followed) to be a gross insult to a fellow editor. I hope that there are going to be a hard and fast set of criteria for these rev/dels so that we regular editors don't get confused over things. MarnetteD | Talk 17:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Note for any who are wondering what edit summary I was using as an example please take a look at the revision history here [20] since the specific edit summary in question has been deleted. MarnetteD | Talk 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's just run of the mill vandalism,
  talk
  ) 18:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandals have been using a new trick to get around the abusefilter:

Examples (possibly objectionable content)

this is becoming common and we need a new edit filter

I suggest that the above example be removed and hidden, in order not to give instructions to other possible vandals. RolandR (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This probably belongs

talk

) 12:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

High school kid using IP inserting nasty comments about girl who shot down his date offer or some such. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In the California gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown's article, over the last several months there has been many photos and portraits placed and/or removed by consensus. Naturally, these photos have been moved to the talk page for discussion. Some users think some photos are bad, some don't.

But

"The picture I have posted here is unworthy of any discussion "[25]

When explaining that there is no content or photos "unworthy of discussion" on article talk pates,

Yes, unworthy of discussion, there is nothing to discuss at all, the pic is close to attacking and never had or will have any chance of insertion in the article, so , nothing to discuss at all.[26]

Slanderous

am not attempting to ban or delete discussion at all. As for the pics, I did not delete them I replaced them with the links for access, the discussion about the infobox pic is imo over, the clearly best pic is in the infobox.there is no reason to have a picture farm on the talkpage, I was especially wanting to remove this pic as it has no chance of ever getting in the article and as such does not need to be on the talkpage, it makes the subject appear angry and imo is a negative portrayal, user Oakshade has reverted all my good faith edits and I don't see what more he wants. I am a complete neutral in the American current elections and there is some awful partisan editing occurring across multiple such articles. Like this, what is the insistence to keep negative pictures on the talkpage that will never ever have any chance of insertion in the article, this pic I would remove on sight, so what discussion is needed and why insist on keeping it on the talkpage.   
Off2riorob (talk
) 19:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• - Comment, I also object to the title of this section.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 20:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  I changed it. Hope that helps. --TS 20:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks. I removed the bizarre bit. It was attacking

  Off2riorob (talk

  ) 20:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care much about this, but as far as I can tell this is an official gubernatorial portrait. What's the problem? Or is that some other edit war? --TS 20:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the image in dispute is File:Former Governor Jerry Brown.jpg. –xeno^talk 20:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC) that one →

Near as I can figure, the odd painting size is the issue -- which is not really worthy of an ANI complaint at this point (indeed, the file name in 2008 was apparently a bone of contention - with two different pictures bearing the same file name?). I think the game of using ugly pictures and other political silly season work should be viewed with a jaundiced eye for all articles. It certainly does not appear that Brown has much negative material in his BLP, to be sure. Collect (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I see that now in the hist of the article. –xeno^talk 20:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

He may not be the cheshire-cat, but that's definitely a smile there. Most likely the picture was taken whilst he was speaking, but as Freudian as it may be, I don't see any anger in the picture.

talk

) 20:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang on - if we're actually talking about this picture - [27], why are we showing another one in the discussion? I'm confused now.

talk

) 20:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User Off2riorob attempted to remove both, one from the article (the official Governor portrait because Off2riorob didn't like it) and the other as well as all photos from the talk page so they couldn't even be discussed.--Oakshade (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The glob pic imo is a poor representation of a living person and I boldly removed it from the article, it was replaced as notable, although it has no citations to support that the picture is notable for inclusion even though it is a poor representation of a living person, I requested citations to prove it is notable. user Oakshade replaced it and in an effort to reduce the effect of the picture I then reduced the size, it was also imo quite large, user oaktree then reverted my edit and again made the picture bigger

Off2riorob (talk

) 20:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If by "glob pic" you mean the Official Governor of California portrait, your opinion is noted but it is only your opinion. To clarify, it was a different user who reverted your removal of the Official Governor Portrait, not me.[28]--Oakshade (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)