Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive647

First of all, apologies to Sandstein for not discussing it with him first, but I've unblocked MickMacNee.

I have no reason to dispute the initial block. Indeed when I saw it reported here, my reaction was "well, he had that coming". Mick has a troubled editing history, and he and I have clashed and there's no love lost. I note the initial block was endorsed, but I also noted that people didn't rule out an unblock, if conditions were met, and if there was some expectation that Mick would change his ways. Initially there seemed little chance of that. Indeed after some of his responses on the talk page, I locked the page, and took that as the end of the matter. Throw the key away and forget him. The story looked inevitable.

However, pushed by Giano, I thought I'd make a final attempt to mediate something. Asking any Wikipedian to eat humble pie, admit their sins and promise to be good, is unrealistic. Yet that's what the earlier negotiations with Mick were attempting to get him to do. Has ANYONE ever done that? In the end, we don't need anyone to confess guilt, we just need them to recognise the behaviour that makes it impossible for them to continue with Wikipedia, and indicate a willingness to amend it/

Thus, I went as Nixon to China, and had this discussion with Mick. I had no desire to unblock him if there was no chance he'd avoid being reblocked for something pretty soon - but he did indicate he understood that. Please do read that discussion before commenting here. As a result of it, I unblocked him.

If I'm wrong, I'm a naive fool, and I'll be the first to block him. If, however, he does take "evasive action" to avoide the usual circle (of indef block - unblock - more drama - community endorsed ban) then we win. Anyway, if consensus is to reblock, then with a heavy-heart I'll admit my failure.--Scott Mac 17:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Given the discussion here[1] I believe you should have sought consensus for unblocking Scott. That said, I have not made up my mind either way as to whether I support this unblock or not. I recognize Mick's last comments as a step forward but not enough specifics were discussed for me to make my mind up immediately. As it stands I would support Sandstein's move to go to RfAr but if Mick can give concrete assurances I open to changing my mind--Cailil ^talk 18:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • He has indicated that he intends to edit in a way that will give no one cause to block. If he does that, great. If not, he'll be blocked. If the community wants a topic ban, let the community impose one. However, asking for "assurances" or him to suggest the sanctions is simply an attempt to demand contrition, that never works.--Scott Mac 18:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No but I would have preferred a comment saying that he wont make anymore pointy afds and will avoid ad hominem remarks ie an acceptance of site policy not necessarily of wrong doing that's all--Cailil ^talk 18:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm all for second chances, and for second second chances, etc. But this... well, it may have been unwise. The fact that this was acknowledged in the discussion with Mickmacnee should probably give one pause. There is some support for the unblock in that discussion, though, so the thing to do would have been to bring it forward for discussion. I have no specific reason to object to the unblock, but the fact that I had no opportunity to do so before the unblock may be a source of drama. It may even be a source of DRAMA. But, as you say - if Mickmacnee edits in an acceptable manner, it's a net positive for the project. Ding. Woo. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• From my superficial reading of the situation the block seems to have been a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason, and the same applies to the ban block discussion. To quote Sandstein, "This is not a ban, but a block, intended to prevent recurring disruption until such time as another equally effective measure to prevent further disruption is found." This was not a community ban, and Scott MacDonald did exactly the right thing. Mick MacNee appears to be sober now. If he can stay that way, great. If he can't, reblocking him is not a big deal. Where is the problem? Hans Adler 18:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• This discussion has moved into 3 venues now; I'd stopped one and directed people to the other venue at the exact same time as Scott put this here. Well, I don't mind where this particular discussion happens, but if it's happening here, could someone please stop that discussion and move it here, or vice versa if it's still going to happen there? Thanks in advance, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• No socks, no block. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Speaking as one of the editors who endorsed the provisional block in the original discussion, I think the resolution of ScottMac and MickMacNee is worth a try – Mick may not acknowledge the problematic nature of his edits, but he seems to understand the practical constraints of his current situation. I only wish this had been proposed, subject to rational debate, and concluded on by disinterested editors instead of the personal call of one. This is another instance of the disheartening trend of one administrator after another unilaterally taking action and then being overruled, without any calm, adult interaction between them. These practices are corrosive to our principles of collective decision-making. Skomorokh 18:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • If some admins were not so unhelpfully territorial when they make a block in a certain way in certain circumstances, then the major part of the problem is addressed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No, the major part of the problem would be addressed by not unblocking disruptive editors.  Sandstein  18:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I thank that is another significant issue, Ncmvocalist. If we could get away from "I've blocked X, no-one unblock without my say-so" and "I've unblocked X because I thought I should" to "let's, together, have a discussion on whether x should be blocked and come to a reasoned conclusion", dispute resolution would get a lot less dysfunctional and drama much reduced. Skomorokh 19:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I disagree with this approach. Preventative blocks are not suited to be the subject of a popularity contest, which is what any large community discussion of the sort you propose inevitably becomes. Blocks are the individual responsibility of administrators, and are only subject to community review after the fact. That is what admins are entrusted to do. That is why we do not have a long community discussion about every item on
        WP:AIV. The more discussions, the more opportunity for gaming and favoritism every which way.  Sandstein 
        19:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Except for elections, Wikipedia is not about popularity contests. I don't think I've ever interacted with MMN; if anything, one might think he's unpopular. The fact of the matter is you don't keep people blocked because they're unpopular (blocks which start out being preventative eventually become damaging). Similarly, you don't impose blocks as if you're getting a badge or trophy each time you do. Most admins are sensible and do the right thing; they aren't this alarmingly territorial over their actions and extend trust and good faith to their peers. You do nothing of the sort and assume that any block you make must be dealt with as if it was made at AE; reality check - that's not the way you interact with others on the project. The Community doesn't want to change what ALL administrators are entrusted with on the account of a few admins that act in this way; but if the few admins don't voluntarily adjust their approach after getting the hint, then we'll be stuck with less pleasant options for those admins. This is just one of the reasons why the Community is not going to endorse giving even more powers to admins - there's enough trouble with the use of existing "powers" or "tools". Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
          • As a non-admin, you may not have the experience to understand that admin actions do not work on the same wiki principles as editing articles, but briefly: We have policies that say:

            "Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion." (

            WP:BLOCK)

            I abide by these policies. Simply expecting other admins to do likewise, which Scott MacDonald failed to do here, is not being "territorial". I trust that Scott MacDonald acted in good faith, but that does not make up for his uncollegial conduct, not only with respect to me but also with respect to the several other admins that correctly declined to unblock MickMacNee until effective restrictions were agreed upon. Any continued disruption by MickMacNee is now Scott MacDonald's responsibility.  Sandstein 

            08:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Firstly, I did not directly undo your block. Your block was discussed and those discussing it declined to lift it without assurances. At that point it becomes a community decision not to unblock. I interpreted that discussion to mean that the community required some assurance that unblocking wouldn't just take us back to square one, and the community was sceptical that such an assurance would be forthcoming. I have a history of animosity with Mick, but I thought I'd test that conclusion. If he'd told me to "fuck off" then that would have been that. To my surprise, Mick gave what I interpreted as appropriate reassurances that he understood what was required to remain an editor and had the intention to meet those requirements. I interpreted that as enough to satisfy the community's requirements. I'm not stupid, I knew that not everyone would agree - and I presumed you wouldn't. However, given concerns expressed over the original block, and this movement on Mick's part, I judged that the conditions that had endorsed the block no longer applied - and thus I could exercise my judgement. Had I asked you first, what difference would it have made? You say "any continued disruption by MickMacNee is now Scott MacDonald's responsibility". I have no idea what that means. If Mick doesn't make an effort to conform to the necessary norm, I'll be disappointed and I'll have egg on my face, certainly. I'll also support a reblock. But I've never offered any guarantee of anything - how could I? There is a risk here. If the consensus is that we shouldn't take that risk (and I don't see that consensus), then someone should reblock now and I'll not object. No editor can be "responsible" for another. It sounds good and dramatic, but what on earth would that actual mean in practice?--Scott Mac 09:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
              • What difference would it have made to ask me? Well, you would have displayed common courtesy, to begin with (but I seem to have been mistaken in believing that this might matter to you, so I'm sorry to bother you with such trivia). More importantly, we might have reached, in discussion, a better and more stable solution than the unclear and volatile situation we are at now.

                As you say, there was a community decision not to unblock. This means that the community ought to have determined whether the assurances given by MickMacNee were sufficient – they are not – and not you acting on a whim and against admin policy.

                In practice, you being responsible means that if MickMacNee continues to disrupt Wikipedia (as he almost certainly will, given his record and his practice of editing while drunk) it is only your unblock that will have enabled him to do so. You took that unnecessary risk on your own, without consulting anybody, so you alone are responsible to the community (and possibly to the ArbCom) for any continued disruption, which it would have been your duty to help prevent instead. That, and respect for collegiality and process, not – to paraphrase your comment below – your pride in your "negotiation" skills ought to have been your priority.  Sandstein  12:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

                • That we would have reached a "better and more stable solution than the unclear and volatile situation we are at now" is nonsense. Either Mick will edit within acceptable limits, or he will not. The only "more stable" situation is a permanent ban - which is obviously the only thing you'd have agreed to. (Other than a grovelling apology, which no Wikipedian ever gives.) I've no idea what the rest of this means. If there's a consensus to reblock, fine. If not, then we will see what Mick does. I've offered no guarantees as to his future behaviour - I have no more idea than anyone else. We're taking a gamble - you think arbcom will want to punish me, in some unspecified way, if the gamble doesn't pay off? You're posturing.--Scott Mac 14:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Skomorokh is correct. The problem, Hans Adler, is that we will almost certainly have at least one another superfluous 100KB ANI drama as a result of this unblock. As I said on Scott Mac's talk page, I believe that he was entirely mistaken to unilaterally undo a routine block that is still needed to prevent disruption, in the face of clear (if subsequent) community consensus for the block, and without discussing his action with the blocking admin first. The discussion that is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BISE/October 2010#MickMacNee clearly indicates that if MickMacNee should ever be unblocked, then only with stringent restrictions that effectively prevent continued disruption. But no such restrictions are currently in place, and MickMacNee has given no credible assurances for future good conduct or even that he understands why he was blocked. Indeed his contributions while blocked are limited to blaming others for his predicament ([2] et seq.) and he has continued to act disruptively while blocked (edit summary: "fuck off you idiotic moron. is that clear enough for you you fucking special retard?"). In the absence of any recognition that he even knows what his own misconduct was, any assurances on his part are not credible.

We are not in the business of negotiating with people who disrupt Wikipedia. We remove them from the project until they convince us that they comply with our norms and stop wasting our time. This applies to longtime contributors as well as to run-of-the-mill vandalism-only accounts. This ill-considered unblock has all but ensured that more valuable volunteer time will be wasted containing the disruption generated by MickMacNee.

Unless this discussion results in agreement that the unblock was worth a try after all under these conditions, I intend to request that the issue be resolved by arbitration, because it would then be clear that the community cannot handle the recurring disruption by MickMacNee on its own.  Sandstein  18:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"The problem [...] is that we will almost certainly have at least one another superfluous 100KB ANI drama as a result of this unblock." Is that a threat? Do you think that's appropriate? You blocked an editor indefinitely, which means any admin can unblock after satisfying themselves that the reason for the block no longer applies. At the moment the only cause for disruption is your ill-considered opposition to the unblock. Hans Adler 20:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No threat, just a prediction. About which I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not optimistic.  Sandstein  20:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

which means any admin can unblock after satisfying themselves that the reason for the block no longer applies - could you perhaps point out where the admin satisfied themselves? I've read Mick's Talk page - nothing there as far as I can see. Was another discussion carried out elsewhere? Private emails? --

HighKing (talk

) 20:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Realistically you can't expect much more than what Mick promised. The last sentence in this diff is pretty good as a promise, and he seems sincere. Also note the section heading in the diff and take into account that Scott is apparently not exactly a fan of Mick. In some sense this is a pro-forma unblock (because the previous ANI discussion had very much the character of a lynching, which makes it defective and could have led to a lot of drama), complete with an invitation to other admins to get the next block right. (And I don't understand one of Sandstein's comments. I don't think Scott would insist that he must be asked before the next independently justified block. But it should really have a more solid reason than an indefinite block for post-tempblock talk page venting.) In the unlikely event that Mick manages to avoid that, as he promised – everybody wins. So what is the problem? Hans Adler 21:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit like asking a smoker to go cold turkey, or an alcoholic to just stop drinking. Hard enough if a problem is acknowledged - nearly impossible if still in denial. Please dilute my melodramatic example to the appropriate concentration. The problem we now have is that Mick has no structure or terms of reference in which to self-moderate. I agree with Sandstein - there's a certain inevitability about what is most probable to happen in the future. Mick's interests would have been better served with a more structured (normal) approach. But hopefully that won't happen, and Mick will find the right balance, hopefully with a little help from his friends too. --

HighKing (talk

) 23:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sandstein, "We are not in the business of negotiating with people who disrupt Wikipedia" - I assume you are not using the royal "we", it's rather hard to know. Rather than focus your attentions on McNee perhaps you ought to look at the greater picture of establishing a more fair, logical and peaceful system of justice than is acheived amid the noise here on ANI. In my view, taking this to Arbitration before McNee has a chance to prove his newly found intent to improve looks like a fit of pique on your part.
   Giacomo 
  19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sandstein, since when did "stringent restrictions" ever "effectively prevent continued disruption"? The only thing that prevents that it a user conforming to the necessary norms - or being physically prevented from disruption by banning. You say we are "not in the business of negotiating with people who disrupt Wikipedia". Yes, we bloody well are. If that negotiation means that the person understands what's expected then that's what it is all about. Now, it is quite clear, either Mick will wish to work as part of this project, in which case (whether he likes it or not) he'll modify his behaviour, or he won't and we'll reblock him. The simplest thing now is to take him at his word and hope for the best. Your wounded pride's vindication is not a priority.--Scott Mac 19:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would absolutely agree with you that this would be the way to proceed if this was the first, or second, or even third block of MickMacNee. It is, however, not. "Hope for the best"? Yeah, sure.  Sandstein  19:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, all right, this is not worth our time. Let's try it your way - with the understanding that you will be available to reimpose the block in the event of any disruption whatsoever on the part of MickMacNee.  Sandstein  19:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• * As a convenience: MickMacNee (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --John Nagle (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I believe Mick's block was harsh and too wide in scope, but overall acceptable as it addressed a systematic problem that was getting worse. But also for the record, I disagree with the unblock. There was a *clear* consensus for the block. The community blocked Mick until we got to the point where Mick would recognize and address the concerns voiced by the community. He's now unblocked. Hmmmm. Could someone please point out to me where Mick has:

1. Acknowledged the specific parts of his behaviour that are causing a problem
2. Indicated if he agrees or disagrees that his behaviour is problematic
3. Indicated which behaviour he intends to modify

The idea that Mick won't/can't/shouldn't admit mistakes (and that's acceptable?), or have a different code of behaviour when drunk (and that's acceptable? (if true?)), or that admitting anything is "climbing down" or "admitting defeat" is risible. In the absence of any acknowledgment or indications by Mick, he's effectively been given the green light to continue, and should he transgress again, there's nothing to indicate that the transgression falls within the scope of undesirable behaviour (since he's not acknowledged any wrongdoing, or indicated what behaviour changes we can expect). --

HighKing (talk

) 19:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The question of when we transition from problematic user to banned user is an open one and addressed variably in each case. I AGF on everyone's participation on this topic, and even on Mick, ultimately.

I think we're approaching the point that a community ban poll might ban Mick, rendering admin discussions about where we are in the grey area moot. I hope Mick understands that and really does reform this time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Poor unblock. The block had decent consensus, so there really should have been an unblock discussion regarding possible restrictions first. Now we have Mick on an effective one strike rule, with no restrictions. This did nether the community or Mick any favours. Courcelles 21:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I generally agree with Courcelles. This would have been better left untouched. There was no rush to unblock and an unblock undertaken with the knowledge that the original block was affirmed by the community (though not with any great vigor) is not a good step. That leaves some poor admin in the position of being the "third actor" which is the only person who can wheel war according to arbcom. However, what's done is done and i have no problem extending an nth chance, so long as everyone knows that is what is going on. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• I endorsed the block, I tentatively endorse the unblock and the way it was done, and I recommend folks keep an eye on Mick for any further crossing of the line between emphatic and uncivil, which I accept is a difficult line to judge sometimes. I have a feeling that Mick will make more of an effort to fit in with our norms after this; if he doesn't, it is one click of a mouse to block him again. --John (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• Unblocking an editor that was blocked by a different admin, without even apparently attempting to talk to that admin seems like a bad call to me.--Rockfang (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Bad unblock. Courcelles sums up my feelings on this nicely. AniMate 02:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Unilateral unblocking is a breach of etiquette but it's not a rules violation. The unblocking admin is being extraordinarily generous, and if the editor in question throws egg in the admin's face by letting him down, he can expect to have it thrown back at him along with a lengthy reblock that will likely stick for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock as the reason for the block seems to have passed (and noting that MMN is walking on a tight rope). I just can't shake the feeling that a block isn't the best outcome for the project at this particular moment in time. (I neither endorsed nor opposed the original block). The Community was not ready to treat him as if he's banned when he's not. As Scott has said, the wounded pride of a blocking admin is really not the priority. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

copied from original discussion so we can keep the unblock discussion centralized

• I never supported a block in the first place, and I'm glad to see it undone. My view was, and still is, that a block in this case seems to be more punitive than anything else. Like was noted by Scott, Mick doesn't always make it easy to see that his comments are in good faith, but they usually are, even if passionately worded. The original issue at ANI was a pretty blatant POINT violation, but that kind of disruption is the exception, not the rule. Gigs (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

copied from original discussion so we can keep the unblock discussion centralized

• I came here to say that unless MMN was willing to try to change going forward, an indef was a good outcome for the project. But this is a better outcome. Endorse unblock. Don't make a fool of Scott, please. ++Lar: t/c 00:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

copied from original discussion so we can keep the unblock discussion centralized

• I've spent some time reviewing some of MickMacNee's recent contributions. I see three types of edit: contributions to article development; discussion related to article development; and some
  WP:pointed
  actions. The pointed actions are fairly few, but clearly unacceptable. The discussion ranges from the civil and reasonable, through the assertive and forthright, to the aggressive and confrontational. At the latter end, there are swearwords aplenty, but more importantly things that come across as insults and attacks. His original point may well be correct in many cases, but this fact is typically lost in the resulting drama. I am left overall with the impression of someone with a great passion for building an encyclopedia, and some skill in doing so, but who has trouble stepping back and walking away when that passion overwhelms good sense and becomes self-defeating.
• There's been a bit of drama about the way this block took place. It had the appearance of soliciting a community ban, but the timescale was short and the thread dying down. I'd classify it as a unilateral block with some attempt to solicit community feedback in advance, presumably in anticipation of controversy. Communication regarding the block could have been better, but that's true in most cases, and I think we should move on.
• As I'd hope we'd all agree, when considering blocks or other restrictions on editing, we must balance the goal of preventing disruption with that of building an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Being a valuable contributor does not give licence to poison the well for others, but we must take potential future productivity into account in dealing with all but the most recidivist vandal, and let people have a little
  rope
  .
• I'm glad to see that MickMacNee is now unblocked. I hope we can make this situation work out for the best for all of us, but I think it will require effort on both MickMacNee's part, and on ours. I think two maxims are relevant here: If it's the right thing to do, then someone else will do it. and There is no deadline. When things get heated, when you find yourself about to post a comment in anger, take a break. Sleep on it. Let someone else edit for a while. Don't think of every point as a battle you have to win. It's better to leave an article with a minor deficiency for a few days than to escalate to disruption. Seek consensus and third opinions.
• That's my take on the situation. I hope it's helpful. Bovlb (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving my comment. I find it rather difficult to chase these threads across all the places they're happening. Bovlb (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I warned on 31 October 2010

User should have had a block for violating 3RR edit-warring in mid-October, is close to receiving one now. Edit warring final warning given, advised to use consensus and discussion before editing. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 00:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

_{I misread the times, warning and/or blocks would be applicable for editing warring still, though not an actual 3RR violation yet S.G.^(GH) ping! 00:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)}

The problem is not the frequency of the edits it is the persistence, with the total lack of discussion. --

talk

) 00:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hence how the edit warring warning was still appropriate. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Please move to Talk:Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah

 – No admin attention needed; content dispute. Fix it and/or discuss on talk page, please. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• I want Administrators to pay attention to these tow article:
  Wanna chat with me?
  05:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I redirected the list of characters to the main article, because the main article contains a list of characters. I've got no real comment otherwise, though Max Viwe is right that there is a large amount of in-universe detail in the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Secret ^account 14:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not certain what to do about this edit [3], so I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to discuss it. Cluebot NG reverted it as potential vandalism, but the "vandal" is complaining about being an abused child, so I have no clue what to do. These are his other edits [4] and [5], which both appear to be editing tests. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I have my doubts that any abused child would seek help by editing

Bencherlite^Talk

12:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That was my feeling too, I was just unsure. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:RBI, considering the first edit from the IP was vandalism ten minutes before that post. Yelling is not abuse either really and I'd beat my brother up to if he were and epic failure at Halo: Reach. The Resident Anthropologist (talk

) 12:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I continue to see the abused child edit when I go to Werewolf, although it was reverted. I've refreshed the page several times and I still see it. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the Pending Changes; that edit wasn't reverted by a user with Reviewer status (I don't think the bot has it). I went ahead and undid it. –MuZemike 14:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I no longer see the vandalism in the page, but I don't see you in the history of the page. Is there some bug in the system? It seems strange that a user would need some special status in order to be able to revert vandalism from an IP. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's the wonders of the flagged revisions, What I gather happened he untagged the edit as reviewed so it shows up unreviewed and so removed from public view, an action that doesn't appear in edit histories and someone else saw it and removed it. I personally am surprised that theres still some articles that have it as the trial was supposed to have ended in August. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism, resolved. Secret ^account 14:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is in the same category as the old one about opening a fortune cookie and finding, "Help! I'm a prisoner in a Chinese bakery!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

This, this and this are grossly unacceptable for BLP articles. This user should have been blocked months ago.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, indefinite block, plenty of warnings have been given and behaviour continues. I have also notified the user of this thread.

talk

) 14:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a case where both of us former admin tools would have been acceptable, indef needed. Secret ^account 14:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've also looked back and found other BLP violations and some disruptive, slightly abusive

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT talk page messages. The onus is now on the user to prove his or her worth to the 'pedia with an unblock message. S.G.^(GH) _ping!

14:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

His unblock request amused me. Almost wished I hadn't been the blocking admin so I could answer it! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And

Bencherlite^Talk

15:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This account-holder has repeatedly and in a considered way trashed the page Halifax Explosion (check the history) he also trashed the Oxymoron page, again check the history of that page. This person could be mentally ill or have some kind of grudge against wikipedia, but he has vandalised the wiki repeatedly. This IP address needs to be banned, at least for a cool-off period of a week.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a school account. I have blocked for a short period and we can reevaluate the block if needed. The Oxymoron vandalism was almost three years ago (January 2007). JodyB _talk 17:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall this sort of strange, idiosyncratic and rapid-fire redirecting from the puppetmaster some time ago. I blocked him for edit warring, he cut loose with this bizarre, anti-American rant and I lowered the boom on him. Would someone with Twinkle please revert this user's edits and redirects? Back to my wikibreak, or so I dearly hope. Thanks, all.

• He performed a shitload of page moves, too. I undid one, but because he edited the pages afterwards, the easy revert links aren't showing up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• What a mess! We now have, for examples,
  Lago Rimachi and Lake Rimachi. Clearly that wasn't improvement upon what was there before. Uncle G (talk
  ) 12:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • They are the same man! Please merge! TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• I've been going through using a "rollback all" script. I'm doing anout 30 at a time so FireFox doesn't crash.
  (400: Bad Request)
  15:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Take care with that, see below.

  Thank you; he was creating massive amounts of one-sentence, unreferenced stubs on Portuguese towns a few days ago, and I had to break out an atlas to verify these places even existed. Although mass-creation of these isn't in and of itself a problem, doing it with no references was very disruptive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

  At User:TigreTiger you didn't call em "very disruptive", not even "disruptive". And on that talk page, some users pointed out that it is fine to have stubs on towns. TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  Well, at the time I thought you were actually a new user, and I was trying to be encouraging; however, you're almost certainly not, in which case you should know better. It's disruptive when you create a shitload of unreferenced, one sentence sub-stubs, and it's almost worse when you do that on subjects that are inherently notable, because they're harder to delete and we have to be sure they aren't hoaxes. I had to get out an atlas and verify the existence of every single one of those towns, because there were no references for any of them. Fortunately for you I love geography, and I have the patience to do that; most people would have gotten extremely frustrated very quickly. But because I thought you were a new user, I cut you some slack; understand the attitude shift? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  Are you judging based on contribution or on whether OTHER people tell you TigreTiger=Schwyz? If TigreTiger=Schwyz what does that make the contributions worse? Why don't you check

  List of towns of Portugal? You seem to not have a problem with that one. Sorry I don't understand the usefulness of the attitude shift to improve Wikipedia. TTtertiary (talk

  ) 21:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  No, I'm judging based on the incredibly loud

  competence level. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい

  ) 23:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  In this case, should the master account Schwyz, be blocked? He claims to have left the project, but I see on his block log he was already blocked once, for sockpuppeteering, back in August. Seth Kellerman (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

  The SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Schwyz reveals that he socked once during his block, but he's off his block for 2 months now, so I don't see how he can be blocked for "block evasion" at present. This looks like a technical mistake that needs to be corrected, as you indicate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

  It does not. Only one person decided that User:TakakaCounty = User:Schwyz. But even if run by the same person, Schwyz was abandoned before. TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  Actually, he was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, but again, his main account's block expired a week later. Typically a sockmaster would be blocked indefinitely, regardless of his claim that he has "retired". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

  Where was the abuse BY User:Schwyz? TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  Now blocked indef. He hadn't edited since 30 August, but Bugs is right that the sockmaster account should be blocked until the user addresses the socking issue. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

  He did not edit since 13 August, see [[6]] - and he was never blocked during his active time. TTsecondary (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Note from TTsecondary

Just properly catching up on this after being on holiday for a bit. I was wondering whether, given the extra inconvenience in undoing moves, it was worth setting up an edit filter to catch users (ignoring say bots and admins) doing a lot of moves in a short space of time as there are relatively few circumstances where this would be appropriate behaviour. Obviously it would have to be set to log only but if we kept an eye on it we may be able to catch people being disruptive like this (or this user returning) before they disrupt too much. Dpmuk (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that. Mr. Schwyz inspired me to create this tool, which does just that. Primitive, but does the job. --JaGa^talk 11:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well that will do it instead, cheers. Really should get more involved in doing stuff like that myself. Dpmuk (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I've talked to this user a few times. The user seems either very incompetent or is just putting that on to look like a newcomer. Has there been a checkuser investigation? Inka888^ContribsTalk 01:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Using JaGa's tool I think I've found another one, although this one is much more suspect - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Schwyz. Dpmuk (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow s/he has a whole sock drawer. Inka888^ContribsTalk 01:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The socks were  Confirmed. Inka888^ContribsTalk 04:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Loose ends

Why does the master still have autoreviewer access? Shouldn't all userrights be revoked from the socks?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If the master is indeffed, does it make a difference? I genuinely don't know, just wondering. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The

Maybe this is a bit early, but I think a community ban may eventually be in order. I can only speak for myself as a New Page Patroller, but it severely disrupts NPP when people do what he's been doing; I almost missed a couple of truly libelous creations from sifting through the shitload of pages he created. I've about had it, and going off on vitriolic, semi-coherent anti-American rants pushed me over the edge. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Point of clarifiaction; while in the process of patrolling all of TigreTiger's "pages" (in the loosest sense of the term), I almost missed a couple attack pages created by other people, not TigreTiger. Sorry if that caused confusion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, lest anyone be left wondering, I joined in March; I'm most certainly not an admin, just a New Page Patroller, which is how I inadvertantly got tangled in this mess. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Good luck in the future, these are some of the worst messes to be tangled in, as they just keep coming back in a never-ending harassment pattern.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not as if it's particularly hard to spot; I just didn't know to look for it. Now I do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

We should not be proud of ourselves. We should be ashamed of ourselves. First there was a page move dispute. This should have be handled diplomatically and politely. Instead, we have a mad customer who creates socks. We then pat ourselves on the back for finding the socks. This is the Wikipedia way; don't like them, accuse them of sockpuppetry.

We still have a mad editor. This has been handled in the classic Wikipedia way but not the best way. The best way might have be an ombudsman to explain the correct way to page move and block if necessary. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, the user edit-warred and was blocked to stop the move-war. People did try to explain, but the user became irate and started socking instead. That's not something Wikipedia can fix. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually it is and it has been, if you know what I mean... HalfShadow 17:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that your first edit was October 20th, and none of your edits involved any contact with Schwyz and his myriad socks, how did you come across this? I'm not assuming anything but

good faith, I just don't know how you happened upon this discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい

) 19:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Now deleted as a copyvio. I'd be inclined to see what happens next.

Bencherlite^Talk

15:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

for now, I guess. I've watch listed his talk page and I'll keep an eye out for him at

says you, says two

18:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Move request needs closing

Resolved

Not sure if I should post here or at

It was closed by

WP:AN is the right place for reuests like this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu

19:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. DC T•C 19:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Content dispute. Use

WP:DR.  Sandstein 

20:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would really appreciate some help with Albanian nationalism page as a number of editors are not allowed to edit there. The page could be considered POV by any standards as it is offensive to an entire ethnicity.

- This is an actual line from the article: These ideologies and Greater Albania have proponents and patrons who are not only nationalists but criminals[56] and terrorists[57][58][59][60][61] involved[62] in drug trafficking, human trafficking and other activities motivated by profit.[63]

On his side (and as administrator)

• Edit: Removing POV tags. 09:24, 3 November 2010
• Edit: Making his own edit while supporting another RV. 09:26, 3 November 2010
• Comment: Pushing his own ideas. 10:19, 30 October 2010
• Comment: More suggestions based on his own ideas Albanian nationalism attaches the greatest importance to the Illyrian scenario, while it couldn't care less about the Thracian one—where did he find this. 10:13, 3 November 2010
• Comment: What you guys are doing here is not helping to improve the article, on the contrary it is distracting people from sitting down and working on it. 09:22, 3 November 2010

The article clearly needs to be viewed by other editors as, it seems, two contrary groups of editors cannot reach an agreement. RfC was called for the article, and User:Askari Mark offered help. But his suggestions were not taken into consideration.

Moreover, the article is not based on it's own references. Some reference are misinterpreted while others are false completely. For example this one: Pan-Albanianism: How Big a Threat to Balkan Stability (Central and Eastern European) by Miranda Vickers, 2004 such book does not exist. There is a similar document that is in total contradiction as it claims there is no threat from pan-Albanianism.

It would be very helpful if someone would read the article and check for these issues. Also, it would be helpful if someone could check

This report is misplaced. For assistance with ethno-nationalist conflicts please use

WP:AE.

The report also appears to be without foundation. You not only misquote but also falsely represent the words "backward redneck ideologists" as Dbachmann's opinion at [11], while it seems he was characterizing your own opinion as having the effect of (falsely) branding Albanians as such. I see nothing immediately wrong with the other diffs you cite. As such, I see no need for admin action here.  Sandstein 

19:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, Dbachmann has acted only as an editor and not as an administrator, and has expressly stated that as an involved editor he would not act administratively, so this is really just an ordinary content dispute at this point. Looie496 (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The Pan Albanianism edit was made over a year ago by another editor [12]. I have no idea why there is an ISBN number, it is an article at [13]. Before attacking people you really need to check that your facts are right.

talk

) 19:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I am glad that you responded so quickly. I asked you to look closely at all this. I claim that

WP:OWNing

. It could be that the report is misplaced.

As for backward redneck ideologists, please read the entire comment carefully. Also read what did that respond to. The Pan Albanianism edit was made over a year ago by another editor, but he is defending the article as sourced The article is based on decent sources and stays on topic while the Pan-Albanian source clearly shows that is not so. It would really be very helpful if you would check everything once again with more care. Also, I am aware that

User:Dbachmann stated his edits were made as an editor, not as an administrator. But, what am I supposed to do, edit-war? Talking does not seem to work, as what we guys are doing here is not helping to improve the article. —Anna Comnena (talk

) 19:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Also,

Dougweller I would beg you to read my comment carefully. There IS such a report, I have read it. The report clearly states there is no such thing as Pan-Albanianism contrary to the Albanian nationalism article. And it is not written by Miranda Vickers as cited in the article. And that served only as an illustration to what is happening. There are other sources that are misleading. —Anna Comnena (talk

) 19:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Hammersoft's olive branch results in total silence

Saruha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Today, I removed a number of non-free content violations from

I have shown this user the door until he expresses a willingness to comply with image policy. Some help reverting would be appreciated. Rodhullandemu 20:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Everything he's done today has been reverted. Thanks everyone. Now, to attempt to engage him in discussion (again). --Hammersoft (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to request a block for anonymous user 95.19.138.163. This anonymous user keeps adding a website to this article, which, on itself, isn't reason to be alarmed. This website, however, is represented as Ian Somerhalder's personal website (being put in the lead-in of the article). It is not. It is a Spanish-language fan site (the user has refered to it him/herself, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ian_Somerhalder&diff=386688967&oldid=386687896 . Ian Somerhalder seems in no way affiliated with this website. Perhaps some people would include these sites as a source, but I highly doubt there is anyone on Wikipedia who might reckon a fansite a site of a celebrity (unless specifically affiliated with the relevant person). If a blocking of anonymous user 95.19.138.163 is not reachable, then I would like to request a (semi-)protection. Best regards, Robster1983 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Image has been replaced by a high resolution version, with proper cropping to remove the random unidentified person from the photo.

babble

23:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/90.219.46.156 added a photo to Nicola Blackwood: [14], which was uploaed on Commons a high-res pic called "Nicola Blackwood MP with young person.jpg" by a new commons user 'Tysteele'.

The IP has now replaced this with the same photo, re-uploaded as a poor-quality png (but with no content removed) by new Commons user ' James1234'. He is warring to include the poor-quality image 'Nicola Blackwood MP in Westminister Hall.png', rather than the high-res 'Nicola Blackwood MP with young person.jpg', saying 'Tysteele did not want to be identified with the article any longer'. I reverted this, and a brand new 'Tysteele' user reverted it. I can't quite understand what's going on, anyone care to investigate, I think the user is a bit clueless? Sumbuddi (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The new image isn't "low resolution" or "poor quality". It is the same image, just cropped a bit tighter. Same resolution, same quality, different cropping.

chat

22:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And you've gotten pretty damn close to breaking the 3rr over an 'almost identical' photo... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

So? There's no reason to link to the low-res image, and there's no reason to take the word for all these different anon IPs/user as gospel. A good image was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which the uploader on Commons hasn't repudiated, but somebody else, who may or may not be the same person, claims that an image with identical content but low-res, and a slightly different name should be replaced. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Stupid question. Why doesn't someone just crop out the other person and reupload it? Courcelles 23:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. That would be reasonable, the other person in the picture doesn't add anything. But note that the anon IPs are not trying to remove the other person, they are trying to change to a low-res image with a different name, so that really wasn't the point here, the point is the anon IPs are determined to change to a crappy low-res image when the high-res image is still there. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I cropped the image and re-uploaded, but it doesn't change the fact that whatever this person/people is trying to achieve/hide/whatever, I don't think it's happened. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, image 1 is 4,416 × 3,312 pixels, image 2 is 558 × 575 pixels. That's a big difference. The colour is also out of whack on the downscaled image. You seriously can't see the difference?

Also 'Tysteele' doesn't exist, except for uploading this image. Debasing the image and reuploading it under a different name achieves nothing.

BTW, I have contacted Tysteele, as you would have seen. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You contacted Tysteele, but didn't inform him/her of this discussion about them (which is required). You're right that the images are of different resolutions, I missed that. I don't see any difference in the colors though. Also, since the images are being scaled down to thumbnail size on the article, it hardly makes a difference if the original is 600x600 or 6 million x 6 million. The thumbnail is not going to appear any different. Again, you brought this issue to the Administrators' Noticeboard, what administrative action would you like to see with regard to this issue? It appears that you're edit warring with Tysteele and you're looking for someone to revert him/her again so that you don't cross the line into 3RR. From the talk page of this article, it's clear that you're not a stranger to edit wars. I'd suggest you discuss the issue with Tysteele and figure out why s/he no longer wants to be identified with the article, and perhaps you'll find an easier way to sort it out. You started this ANI thread at 19:00 UTC, and then started trying to engage Tysteele in a discussion 3.5 hours later. It should have been the other way around.

gossip

23:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Eraserhead1 left a warning template on my talkpage just before I was due to go out at 19:00UTC complaining that I was reverting from the crappy low-res image to the substantively identical high-res one. So I started a thread here, having been threatened for (entirely reasonably IMO) reverting from the debased image to the original one, primarily as a response to the the threat by eraserhead1, but also with a hope that someone here would be able to address what this anon(s) is trying to achieve by doing this. I certainly didn't have time to work out which of these new accounts and IPs I was supposed to be dealing with here (yes I know, I could have identified all of them, like I said, I was due at my destination at 19:00 UTC, so I was late leaving, let alone arriving, so I wasn't exactly able to resolve all of this.)

It's ridiculous to say that it doesn't make any difference because the thumbnail is the same, when the loss of detail is quite apparent to my eyes in the thumbnail, in colour, shadows, and other aspects, and besides this, linking to the high-resolution image is useful for those that might require a high-res image, for publication, or whatever.

As you note, there have been some disruptive anons warring on this page before, I don't think it's unreasonable therefore for me to flag this issue up. There is no link that can be made between these new accounts without checkuser or similar administrative input, so all that I can see here is an attempt to link to a debased image over a high-quality one, or in plain Wikipedish 'vandalism', which I'm entitled to revert without being threatened (I'm only too aware of the effects of wikilawyering, so I'll make no apologies for explaining my behaviour in advance of someone blocking me (I was previously blocked for reverting spam, and I have no intention of going through the tedious process again, in fact I'd sooner leave, than repeat that tedious nonsense)Sumbuddi (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Martinvl (talk · contribs) manufactured a rape allegation that he added to the Air Rhodesia Flight 825 article. The content was removed by others, but he immediately re-added it. The (real-world) author who he claimed to quote was outraged enough to contact Wikipedia (OTRS 2010102910008463) to have the content taken down. I feel that this incident is serious enough to attract some sort of sanction. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary to bring this here. The discussion occurred 8 hours previously on the article talk page where Martinvl apologizes for the problem. The article itself is locked. There was no "edit war" and no problem requiring ANI attention. The OTRS notation is also on the article talk page.JodyB _talk 11:34, 4 November 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.

---

Thank fiddledy-dee for that. It's been hecky-darn resolved. -TS 18:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – Doesn't appear to be a

WP:CIVIL violation; "bad language" in itself isn't an issue. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE]

18:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for an admin to use foul language?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bwilkins#vandalism. Factocop (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be acceptable. No doubt administrators (rightly/wrongly) get alot of foul language thrown at them. Besides, colourful honesty is better then polite dishonesty. Furthermore, the f-word was used on that administrator's talkpage; so no probs. GoodDay (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

^^ this. Wikipedia is not censored. He didn't call you a fucker or a whiner directly. Syrthiss (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree. Furthermore, it seems that a raised voice is required to get the attention of the combatants. Favonian (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Duty obliges me to look sternly in the virtual direction of Bwilkins for using colorful language towards editors in connection with possible administrative actions by him. Naughty! That said, he is entirely correct in the substance of his admonition, so you are well advised to heed it.  Sandstein  12:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

ok great, ive been holding back on foul language, thinking it may be deemed offensive, so this is great news. I'll be swearing like a trooper from now on.Factocop (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just make sure your language fits the situation. If you're reverting vandalism and tell a new user that "their fucking edits are shit", you're probably going to end up with a WQA. Syrthiss (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

...or an immediate block for a

personal attack, which is not how the naughty word was used in the diff above.  Frank  |  talk 

13:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

ok, in the future, when I feel like swearing, Ill just ask Bwilkins, as he has a knack of when to use his colourful language at the right times.Factocop (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"

Would this be an appropriate time for a colorful metaphor?" --SarekOfVulcan (talk

) 13:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop, if there's anything about the message that is unclear due to the language in which it is couched, I am sure BWilkins will explain it to you. If not, you should drop this.  pablo 13:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll drop it. Its just a shame, however that certain people are above the law.Factocop (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of "law", you need to notify someone you bring to AN/I. I have done this... Doc talk 13:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No one's above the law; if you said the exact same thing, no one would blink an eye. --Golbez (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally,

Bencherlite^Talk

13:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Profanity and crude jargon should be discouraged or banned. There is no need for it and it is quite unnecessary. The English language contains a rich vocabulary and it should be used if editors wish to express themselves. Unrefined rants and words which are deemed to be offensive should not be tolerated anywhere on Wikipedia. It lowers the tone and is quite frankly, immature behaviour. Chesdovi (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

blatant incivility. Anything else is a non-starter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

14:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather see more AN/I energy devoted to halting edit warriors and POV-pushing partisans than time spent acting like a bunch of Mary Whitehouse acolytes. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A rich vocabulary indeed; and Bwilkins used his to good effect in the original message which was assertive, clear and unambiguous. Factocop is/was trolling here. pablo 15:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Three cheers for throwing AGF out the window. --William S. Saturn (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Who me? I don't consider it necessary to indefinitely assume that an editor is acting in good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary.  pablo 15:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't advise this personally, if Factocop wanted to throw some humor into the situation he could always tell Bwilkins to "Watch your fucking God damn language! =)" (exactly as in the quotes, including the smiley face)...but that would go down best if followed immediately in the same post by an apology for whatever actions warrented the swearing in the first place. =) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose simple courtesy and respect for other people enter into the equation anywhere. Oops, I forgot. We're on the Internet. Never mind.

Neutron (talk

) 15:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever one's take on foul language, please do not quote

WP:NOTCENSORED supports that contention in any way shape or form. Indeed, NOTCENSORED is perhaps the most misused of all wikipedia policies.--Scott Mac

15:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As a compromise, I recommend that Factocop confine any use of profanity to the Irish language equivalents. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Since Factocop has started this discussion, they are now no doubt aware of the issue of civility. Having ignored the advice being offered here, they have also ignored it here and the intention behind the advice which prompted this discussion. This discussion is going down hill fast and a civility check is called for. Another editor has already been blocked, based on Bwilkins advice, which should have acted as a wake up call, especially having just been unblocked --Domer48_'fenian' 18:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Calling it "foul language" is a cop-out. The same kind that lets you get by with saying "crap" instead of "shit." Same meaning but, because one word is "dirty," we aren't supposed to use it. And yes,

WP:NOTCENSORED technically only applies to articles, but it also gives newbies a good understanding of where Wikipedia stands. We aren't here to gloss over the (sometimes unpleasant) facts of the world. I'm fine with restricting our language when it's abusive, but no one is going to agree on what words are too "foul" to use in common conversation. Oh, and the "lack of imagination" is an insult. Choosing to use those words doesn't imply any such thing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is abject nonsense. Whatever one's view of the use of inarticulate scatology, it isn't that ""

WP:NOTCENSORED technically only applies to articles" - it is that WP:NOTCEN has nothing to do with the issue of language in inter-user posts whatsoever. It simply doesn't address the issue in any way, shape, or form, technically, literally, or in spirit. It is about something else altogether different - and far, far, far, more important. No we are not here to "gloss over the (sometimes unpleasant) facts of the world", that indeed is the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED, but one does not advance that cause one iota by saying we're not going to "fucking gloss over the (sometimes fucking unpleasant) facts of the fucking bloody world". One then is simply misusing a fundamental principle to justify low-class cussing - and showing one is incapable of reading a key policy page to boot (inarticulacy and illiteracy are often connected). By all means make the case that we should avoid prudish moral witch-hunts over language - I tend to agree. But don't pretend that using such indicates some form of free-speech nobility, that advances human knowledge - that's a bit like using the Magna Carta to wipe your fucking arse.--Scott Mac

18:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget that policies exist as a record of how the community defines that editors should act, not the other way round. The fact that so many mistakenly cite

WP:NOTCENSORED is perhaps good indication that someone should propose expanding it to cover censorship of language outside of mainspace, as well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

01:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask you, Scott, to retract that blatant insult (seriously, "low-class" and "illiteracy"?). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Who on earth have I insulted. I described cussing as being in a "low class" of speech, and its over use as often revealing a poor grasp of literacy. Have I insulted cussing that I ought to retract?--Scott Mac 17:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, but he probably wouldn't mind. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You've insulted anyone who chooses to "cuss" as being low-class and having poor literacy. If you don't see how that's an insult... well, given your other comments on this page, I'm sure you do, but just don't care. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe "cuss" is a corruption of "curse", referring to cursing at an individual. Scott seems to be suggesting that individuals who choose to resort to name-calling as opposed to other forms of arguing a point are often poorly educated; that seems accurate: see File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg. Even if you take it to mean that Scott is saying those who use what could be considered profanity are frequently poorly educated, that is simply making a statement about a particular editing style and the comment is not aimed at either an individual or a group. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't call people who use expletives anything at all. I've not even criticised swearing. If you actually read what i said, I said cussing is "low-class". It is. It isn't a classy use of language. I use it sometimes, and it generally is not me at my most fluent, and certainly not me demonstrating my full command of the English language. The "illiterate" I was applying to people who can't read a policy page and understand it, and I suggested that such a limitation may also go with an inarticulate use of the English language. That again is a fact, or at least a valid observation. Those who believe that they can understand a policy page need not feel insulted, and those who cannot probably can't parse my rhetoric anyway.--Scott Mac 18:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's one hell of a spin. What, pray tell, is "classy" use of language? Miss Manners? Shakespeare? And disagreeing with the meaning of a policy does not make one "illiterate" or "inarticulate (in) use of the English language." And somehow, swearing is not showing "full command of the English language." I'd argue exactly the opposite, but I can see where this discussion is going.

Oh, and "those who cannot probably can't parse my rhetoric anyway," eh? Yeah. Real classy there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• (
  uncivil comment despite their choice of diction, so I'm marking as resolved since the question has been answered. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE]
  18:23, 3 November 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.

WP:ERRORS

Resolved

An error re. 'on this day' has been sitting there for nearly six hours now. Just letting you know. Arctic Night 13:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done

a/c

) 16:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Shahidburq

Resolved

Repeated personal attacks on User_talk:JzG. [15], [16] & [17].The-Pope (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable prattism. 48 hour block. Possibly not any good contributions in entire edit history. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Continued tendentious editing by User:Communicat despite warnings and blocks

Communicat (talk · contribs) has a long history of tendentious editing which is forming a significant barrier to progressing articles. Admin User:Georgewilliamherbert has previously looked into this in August and gave Communicat a stern warning on 25 August for 'fringe POV-pushing' (see also Talk:World War II/Archive 41#Communicat and fringe-POV pushing and the subsequent discussion) which was followed by two blocks for uncivil comments over the next few weeks. In short, Communicat has a tendency to want to add information which is not correct in articles (even when the sources they provide demonstrate this to be wrong) and is pushing a fringe source which has repeatedly been found to be unreliable and is edit warring when other editors try to remove the dubious material they add. I will provide two recent examples that demonstrate that this behavior is continuing:

• Communicat has been seeking for some time to include a claim in the World War II article that the United States was in charge of the civil administration of North Korea in the years after World War II, despite the country being occupied by the Soviet Union. This began with a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page on 9 September (see Talk:World War II#Arbitrary break onwards) in which there was no support for including such a claim in the article. Despite this on 17 September they added material to the article which strongly implied that the US was administering all of Korea and added some further questionable claims about how the division of the country took place (diff) which I reverted. This lead to further discussion of the topic on the article talk page in which the sources Communicat was providing to support their view were eventually demonstrated to say exactly the opposite (Eg, they stated that the USSR did in fact administer North Korea after the war) - see the posts from 1 October onwards (particularly the posts by Hohum and myself on 3 October) and other sources which demonstrate that the USSR was administering North Korea were provided. On 10 October Communicat edited the article again but did not include this claim about Korea (diff) - I reverted this again as there was no consensus to include the changes and it contained several other dubious claims (this reversion was supported by the other editors active on the article's talk page).
• Despite this, on 24 October Communicat added what was pretty much the text on Korea which had been rejected in the World War II article to the Aftermath of World War II article (diffs), again implying that the US was administering all of Korea (along with lots of other changes). This was reverted by User:Edward321 (diffs), leading to an edit war between him and Communicat. The end result is that Communicat is still trying to include statement about the post-war administration of Korea which had no support from other editors and was proven to not be supported by the sources he or she was providing. I note that Communicat has a history of turning existing articles into POV forks (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II.
• As the other example, Communicat has a long history of wanting to add dubious material sourced to someone named Stan Winer. Despite discussions at Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Industrial capacity and production, Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#WW2 origins of Cold War, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45#User: Communicat and Talk:History of South Africa#new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities (and in passing in several other locations) which concluded that this author is not a reliable source, Communicate is still adding material referenced to self published works by this author to the History of South Africa article (diff: [18] on 17 October) and edit warring to restore it after it was removed by Edward321 (diffs: [19] (20 October) and [20] (21 October). Once again, he or she is ignoring a consensus which has arisen from extensive discussions and repeatedly adding dubious material.

As such, it appears that Communicat has not learned from their previous warnings and blocks, and is continuing to push POV claims using sources which have either been found to be unreliable or to not support their position. Responding to this clearly disruptive editing is wasting a lot of other editors' time and I ask that they be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what this issue is doing on this "incidents" notice board. This is a content dispute.

Responses to some points presented above:

1. Quote: "forming a significant barrier to progressing articles". – The article Aftermath of World War II is or was unsourced crap. It was received absolutely no attention for many years. I have advised Communicat to work on that article instead of trying to tweak the limited space in the WW II article. I cannot see how Communicat's interest in the aftermath article could be a significant barrier to the article's progress!
2. If Communicat's "text on Korea" had been rejected in the World War II, it was mainly because of the space constraints in the "aftermath" section of the WW II main article. There has been extensive discussion on the relative importance of topics on the talk page. There seems to be a consensus that the section needs to be pruned down, but no consensus on what is important.
3. Stan Winer may not be a reliable source for WW II, but he is an respected South African journalist and a reliable source on the History of South Africa and apartheid.
4. The issue of the "civil administration of North Korea" has been blown beyond all proportions. The sources seem to support Communicat's wording, but I do not know if the interpretations people are trying to make of this are correct.
5. The last edit by Comminicat in the
   WW II article was on October 10 after extensive discussion and preparation on the talk page. This was blindly reverted by Nick-D two hours later. He made one edit in all of September
   with similar results. If any conclusions can be drawn from the edit history, it is more indicative of edit warring and stonewalling by Nick-D.

It seems that the content issues are mingled with some kind personal antipathy against Communicat. These dissenting editors are now extending the dispute to new articles they have never before been involved with. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Communicat has a record of making edits that are not supported or even contradicted by the sources he cites.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Communicat's most recent attempt to argue against this was to dismiss the sources that contradicted him as the product of McCarthy Era censorship.[35] This is in spite of Communicat previously arguing that some of these sources were reliable [36][37] and ignores the actual publication dates of most of the sources.[38]

Communicat's most recent edits to Aftermath of World War II involved him deleting a large section of sourced material as well as adding material that is not supported by the source he lists.[39] The source does not mention Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew [40] and does not say Churchill "virtually declared war" on the USSR in 1946.[41] Commincat's edits were also vague, so I clarified that Operation Dropshot was a contingency plan developed to counter of future attacks by the USSR if they occurred.[42] As the differences show, I clearly explained this in the edit summaries. Communicat blind reverted this and the rest of my edits.[43]

Communicat has also been trying against consensus to introduce a self-published fringe source, Stan Winer, into several articles for an extended period of time [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] as well as repeatedly advocating Winer on several talk pages.[ [68] Communiucat is the only editor to think this source is reliable. That's not why I listed Communicat on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I listed Communicat because he posted a (now deleted) file claiming to be to be the copyright holder, Stan Winer. The picture has since been reposted without Communicat making that claim. (Information provided by Petri Krohn leaves me with strong doubts that Winer is the actual copyright holder for the picture.)[69]) Even after all of this, Communicat continues to try to use Winer as a source.[70][71]

Communicat is often less than civil.[72] He has been blocked twice for lack of civility [73] and the statement that earned him his first block was left on his user page for 59 days[74], finally removing it 56 days after getting off the block he received for making the statement.[75] and three days after I reported it here.[76] Communicat has never apologized for his personal attacks.Edward321 (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly been making accusations that Communicat is falsificating sources. When you have been proven wrong, you have chosen new forums to make the same unfounded allegations.

The "large section of sourced material" communicat removed from the aftermath article was left-over material from the WW II article I had moved there – right before I asked Communicat to work on the article. I see little harm done if it is removed from the lede section, especially if corresponding material is added to the relevant sections.

The last reference by Stan Winer you have listed above was added on 1 September 2010, to the article History of South Africa. As I said earlier, Winer is a published authority on that topic.

As to the copyright issue, I have expressed no doubt that Winer is the copyright owner of the picture of prime minister

B. J. Vorster. The only place where it appears uncut, apart from Wikipedia, is this article

by Winer.

Overall, you seem to be arguing that Wikipedia should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view. Things look very different from the Southern hemisphere. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read and understood this thread. I refute all false allegations by Edward321 and Nick-D who appear to be working in tandem against me. I will not respond further in this forum to their allegations. These and other matters are currently the subject of an application to Arbcom, which application was formally lodged by me shortly before the apparent retaliatory posting of this incident notice. Communicat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

I don't think the crux of this issue is a content dispute. It's about disruptive behaviour. Communicat endlessly argues even when blatantly proven wrong, in the face of overwheling disagreement, when he has little to no support. He throws insults about bias and conspiracy, even accusing uninvolved administrator Georgewilliamherbert of bias when he tried to help. He has repeatedly pushed for Winers inclusion on WWII articles, and still refers to him on WWII talk pages, in the face of unanimous rejection by editors who voiced opinions there. Diffs to support this appear in earler posts in this thread, so I won't duplicate.

Communicat does, very occasionally, do something constructive, is suddenly polite, helpful, and engages in reasoned discussion. But it is sporadic and random. (Hohum ^@) 16:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Hohum on this. It's not about content. Sometimes, Communicat is pleasant and collegial, but mostly, he accuses everyone of belonging to a cabal that is out to get him. The simple truth of the matter is that Communicat typically is asserting a fringe position that no one else agrees is valid.

Contrary to what you assert, Petri Kohn, Communicat has quoted from sources that contradict him. He often cherry-picks quotes from various authors when the full context or other parts of the works contradict him explicitly. Two such instances are discussed at [77] and [78]. --Habap (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Petri, I am one of about 6 editors who has provided evidence that Communicat has added information that was not supported by the sources Communicat cited. Neither you nor Communicat have proven any of us wrong, or you would be able to provide differences supporting your claim. Of course, you should know that if you read the links I posted, just like you should know Communicat's last attempt at using Winer as a source occurred nearly two months after the date you list. I have never argued "that Wikipedia should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view" and am frankly baffled that you have claimed that I have done so. I don't even know what "a Northern point-of-view" is in terms of WWII. Finnish perhaps? Edward321 (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The issues here are already discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Edward321. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This Incident entry regards Communicat's behaviour, the Arb request is aimed at Edward321's, with no other involved party currently named by Communicat. (Hohum ^@) 17:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that Arbcom has been requested to include Nick-D as an involved party. The relevant posting reads: Nick-D (like Edward321) has the peculiar and disruptive habit of reverting within minutes and without explanation material that I have laboriously contributed. He is apparently allergic to the courteous, customary and practical method of simply inserting a tag in submitted text, asking for correction, clarification, verification or whatever, with which I'd be perfectly willing to comply. Instead, he unilaterally deletes, undoes or reverts. I have repeatedly, consistently but unsuccessfuly attempted to engage Nick-D in thoughtful discussion, both on article talk page and on his user page. I repeat my request to have him joined as a third party in this application for arbitration, and I will then provide evidence of numerous previous attempts to resolve content disputes with him.

Interested parties may care to note that Nick-D earlier refused consent to open and decisive mediation in respect of his own conduct, including partisan editing and gross POV bias. Communicat (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that even a casual skim of Talk:World War II and its archives is enought to demstrate that I, and several other editors, have discussed Communicat's proposed changes with him or her in very great length over the last few months (including posting explanations when they're reverted). As noted in my original post, Communicat has generally ignored other editors' comments and keeps rehashing the same issues and repeating the same unacceptable behavior. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have suggested some specific next steps that come from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution [79] as one or all of them may aid in resolving the current problems. --Habap (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Habap, I have no intention of withdrawing or otherwise backing down from my application to Arbcom, which is still under consideration by the committee.

Nick-D and interested parties, as regards Nick-D's recent posting above: no useful insight into the issues at stake can be gained by any "casual skim" of the current Talk:World War II "discussion" page or archived editions of the page as suggested by the filing party. Certain complex, important and perplexing matters were and still are at issue, and they also have a direct bearing on Nick-d's (and others') persistent violations of NPOV policy. Anyone sufficiently interested, and with the time and inclination to do so, should read the current and archived pages carefully, objectively and analytically, from top to bottom, before reaching any firm conclusions of their own. In particular, they should note my numerous, unsuccessful attempts to engage in constructive article content discussion with Nick-d, and his facetious replies or absence of replies thereto. It's all there in the record.

Suffice it to say that a perceptive reading of the discussions will prove that I have engaged in sustained discussion and serious attempts at negotiation with Nick-d (and others), with the sole intention of trying to find a solution to content problems, in order to help improve the article. My efforts have conformed fully with the letter and spirit of wiki's stated dispute avoidance policy. In response to which, Nick-D is now falsely and self-righteously alleging "Tendentious editing despite warnings and blocks". As Petri Krohn has correctly observed above, there has been no tendentious editing on my part. I would suggest that the wording of this ANI notice lodged Nick-d is itself tendentious.

Misleading reference is made by Nick-d to "warnings and blocks". I was blocked for 24 hours by an "uninvolved" intervening administrator for remarking that some particularly disruptive and bellicose discussants were behaving like animals. Later, I was blocked for 48 hours for remarking that a certain editor was "boring" because he kept reviving a certain dead-horse issue that had already been terminated. These blocks had nothing whatsoever to do with so-called tendentious editing. Indeed, Nick-D's own reasoning is tendentious, and his lodging of this notice is riddled with lies and distortions.

As for Edward321's claim that he is "one of about 6 editors who has provided evidence that Communicat has added information that was not supported by the sources Communicat cited": this party appears to have a slight problem with numeracy. He is one of only three editors who attempted to provide that so-called evidence, which in any event was not "added" to the article as falsely implied. In fact, Edward321 has himself submitted to the discussion page certain disruptive information that is contradicted directly by the sources he provides. All this too can be found in the discussion page, see my posting of 23:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Enough said. Communicat (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Communicat is correct that he did not add the incorrect info to World War II. On the other hand, has repeatedly proposed changes on the World War II talk page that are not supported or even contradicted by his sources (noted by Users Hohum,[80][81][82][83][84] Nick-D, [85][86][87] Edward321, [88] and Habap.[89][90][91]

Communicat has added posted information that is not supported or even contradicted by his sources to the article

Western Betrayal (noted by User 67.122.211.178)[93] and Aftermath of World War II (noted by Edward321)[94] Edward321 (talk

) 04:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

These and other issues are currently the subject of an application by me for arbitration, to which the filing party of this ANI has now been included as a third party in tandem with Edward321. An evidence page will be opened if and when Arbcom accepts my application, which is still under consideration. I consider it inappropriate to comment further in this forum at this time, which does not mean I concur with the allegations made. Communicat (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to note. The arbitration seems very likely to be rejected (currently 1/5/0/1), and shouldn't distract from this notice. (Hohum ^@) 20:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That's clearly the way it's going. Even if that unexpectedly and dramaticly changes, it would be best to keep this going as several members of Arbcom have said if they take it they will be investigating the actions of all interested parties. Edward321 (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This post was archived, but I've relisted it in the hope that an uninvolved admin will look into the matter. The RFArb is not at all likely to be accepted and Communicat's disruptive conduct there illustrates this ongoing problem rather well. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not being ignored, but it's not an easy or quick fixable situation either. Pls be patient for a bit; active discussions on moving forward in the community (Arbcom seems to be solidifying that they want us to handle it) should be happening starting Monday, I think. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks George. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason for Nick-D's filing of this notice, and the support given it by some commentators, may be summed up in just one sentence: They want to get rid of me so that they can continue allowing their personal political prejudices to get in the way of historical accuracy and objectivity, through practising a form of censorship by POV-bias and flagrant violations of NPOV.

Arbcom, contrary to Nick-D's false innuendo above, has not noted any disruptive behaviour on my part. Nick-D remains a named party in my application to Arbcom, which is still under consideration. Communicat (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom was rejecting the consideration 5:1 last I looked last night, and several members responded positively to my suggestion that we can handle it within the community.

I would like to request that all parties avoid further nastyness and retract any outstanding, such as your last above Communicat, that we can hold a constructive discussion on this starting now. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No offence was intended. It was a statement of fact, and it can be proved by me if or when arbom condones the opening of an evidence page.

As for community involvement: You know perfectly well that you yourself intervened some time ago, and absolutely nothing constructive came of it. If anything, you had the unintended effect of pouring petrol on the flames. Revived "community involvement" as mooted by you would IMO be pointless and irrevelant at this stage, because unless things change for the better in terms of POV bias and stricter adherence to NPOV policy, I want nothing further to do with that particular World War II overview article.

In the meantime, I suggest basic etiquette and procedure prevail by not prejudging the outcome of Arbcom's pending decision. Thank you for your interest. Communicat (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If Arbcom choses to take up the case they can do so. They have indicated that they want the community to handle it, though that's not final yet.

You don't get to pick and chose among uninvolved administrators, if you create an issue that rises to our collective attention. If others want to get involved as well, that's fine and normal. But you've got my attention and are going to have to deal with and live with it.

Your reaction here seems to be on the border of intentionally burning all bridges with the rest of the community rather than giving us a chance to discuss this in an organized fashion. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia as a whole is not just the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it's the encyclopedia we all edit together. Even if you walk away from those particular pages, issues have been raised that call into question your interest in working with others constructively. You have also raised issues of systematic bias that need to be reviewed, but whether you can work constructively with other Wikipedians on these or other topics in the future are obvious and evident parts of the discussion that is to follow.

If you want to burn those bridges, you can walk away from the project entirely now at any time. You don't get to burn them and just change articles, because if there's a systematic behavioral problem on your side it's going to happen again at those new articles.

I urge you to step back from the precipice and to cooperate in constructive discussions on this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

GWH Thanks for acknowledging that there may be issues of systematic bias at milhist project that need to be reviewed. We seem to be making some headway. But as for constructive discussion at milhist project, that may be another story. IMO, the people there seem never able to agree on anything among themselves, and that inability has been a longstanding characteristic of their talk page since longggg before I showed up there a few months ago.

Consider for instance the protracted dispute about the start date of WW2. which dispute commenced a long time before the advent of my arrival. The dispute was eventually referred to mediation, where the argument then dragged on for so long that the mediator eventually walked away. The argument, unresolved at mediation, still surfaces from time to time. I’m not saying the same people are necessarily involved, but it’s certainly the the case that the same ethos prevails to this day.

Separately, you have stated above and in messages to my talk page, that I must "retract" my "personal attacks" both here and in my Arbcom application. Forgive my confusion, but it's not clear which specific words you are demanding that I retract. I have made no "personal attacks" that I am aware of.

Are you saying that I am not allowed to reply bluntly but accurately to serious allegations brought against me? Are you saying I have no right of reply, or to defend myself against such allegations? Are you saying that I am not allowed to state my grievances when applying for arbitration? If so, then what you are saying is unacceptable. Nor do I believe you have any authority to demand that I retract anything submitted to Arbcom.

Speaking of retraction: I note that you yourself have not as yet retracted your incorrect and prejudicial assertion that I was previously the subject of ANI notices. I also note your reference to the possibility of "a systematic behavioral problem" on my part, while at the same time you’ve not suggested any possibility of "a systematic behavioral problem" on the side of the filing party and/or his active supporters.

This indicates bias and prejudgment on your part since, as yet, there has been no firm ruling by Arbcom nor by any other impartial entity authorised to pass judgment in respect of the facts and matters currently at issue, nor are you entirely familiar with all the evidence relative to those facts and matters. This apparent lack of impartiality, together with your failure to retract an incorrect and prejudicial statement, does not make it easy for me to assume good faith on your part. But I'll try, anyway. Communicat (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The above is a fairly typical response by Communicat: allegations of widespread "bias" on the part of just about everyone else, continued assertions that he or she is entirely right despite the comments of other editors and ignoring a blunt warning about their conduct. I think it illustrates rather neatly the problems here. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to this being handled as a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct ? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's worth trying. No objections on my part. Edward321 (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is fairly straightforward user conduct matter and can be handled by an uninvolved admin, but would have no objections to a FfC/U as suggested. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

GWH, you've not stated any terms of reference concerning your proposal. Only if you state specific terms of reference shall I be prepared to consider seriously the question of whether or not I should accept or reject your proposal. If I am asked what I think the specific terms of reference should be, I would support an Rfc that confines itself essentially to a review of alleged systematic bias at milhist project, which is at the heart of this matter. Communicat (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, having now noticed that "User conduct" seems in fact to be the term of reference, then a lack of context and impartiality is clear right at the outset. Viz., no reference to "Users' conduct" (plural). Presumably you want my alleged conduct, and my conduct alone, to come under scrutiny, and on those grounds I will not support the proposal, which is clearly biased from the start. Communicat (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrators will likely look at the conduct of all users involved. You need to make claims of conspiracies by milhist editors elsewhere, with proof, if you believe it to be true. It may be worth bearing in mind that it has been rejected by administrators and arbitrators at all venues you have claimed it so far. (Hohum ^@) 21:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC is being written, but not done yet. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Communicat. It is not yet complete or filed. If people want to comment, the talk page has a pre-filing discussion subsection created.

I am attempting to capture both claimed issues from both sides. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

My side of it has not been that I think there's been or still is a conspiracy against me, I do not claim it nor have I done so. The issue from my side is that if there's to be a review, it should be a review of systemic bias at milhist. (Not that I believe yet another talk-shop as proposed is really worth the time and effort involved. Communicat (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy, cabal, systematic bias. All are distinctions without a difference. (Hohum ^@) 21:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle is dead

Resolved

 – No longer dead. Rich Farmbrough, 20:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Gurch, developer of Huggle, has disabled it at the meta level (and locally) for all wikis [95]. The reason is a non-urgent bug. There was no discussion. I attempted to turn it back on, but I was reverted. Since Huggle is one of the few things protecting us from rampant vandalism, I would appreciate it if we could agree to a temporary injunction to keep it on until we can discuss the problem. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Gurch is on IRC, so I have notified him there. He confirms that he has been duly notified. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"Non-urgent bug" my ass. This was politically motivated. –MuZemike 06:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(

talk to me

06:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the bug? Someguy1221 (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ostensibly, that some users are lazy and don't check the revision they're reverting, so accidentally revert vandalism back in. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! — SpikeToronto 06:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it needed a hug. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the Huggle devs are working on a fix at the moment. I wouldn't worry about it too much. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I have restored Huggle access globally. On the night of a US election, BLP vandalism is going to be high, and we need Huggle right now. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a version 0.9.11 available here. But, the meta has not been changed to reflect this new number, nor has the project config. By the way, what does “political” mean, MuZemike? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the version numbers. Also, by political, he was insinuating that gurch may have had political reasons for disabling Huggle on the night of a US general election (allowing BLP violations to slip through). The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not AGFing as I should, but I find it awfully convenient that Huggle gets disabled for something minor on the night of a major U.S. election. –MuZemike 06:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I’d like to think that someone who was so dedicated to ridding Wikipedia of vandalism that s/he developed such a super tool as Huggle would not do that. Perhaps, s/he’s just

tired of maintaining the beast and people, perhaps, blaming HG for their not reverting to the right version? Thanks! — SpikeToronto

06:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Gurch was "responding" to my

WP:POINTy. Peter Karlsen (talk

) 07:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Here is an example of a BLP violation that slipped through while Huggle was down. I'm sure there are dozens of others. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Please also be sure to check changes related to the election for other pages that no doubt have problems. --slakr^\ talk / 07:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Good idea. The few hours that it was down probably caused massive damage to our BLPs, we should take care to fix it all. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to take the time to apologize for my less-than-
  civil remark last night. I still think at the least the timing behind taking Huggle offline like that was rather poor, but emotions were running high with the election results coming in and everything. Anyways, I'll leave it at that. –MuZemike
  18:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As a temporary measure during any similar emergencies

Editors reverting vandalism can using something like User:Peter Karlsen/vector.js. Please copy the text, rather than importing my vector.js file. This uses Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool, plus a custom invocation of Twinkle to issue warnings after rollbacks (all editors using Huggle will have rollback rights.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle does not work in Internet Explorer. — SpikeToronto 06:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

free as in freedom (much like Huggle itself, if it weren't tied to the Windows platform. AutoWikiBrowser is another example of Wikipedia's free software with a similar limitation.) Peter Karlsen (talk

) 06:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

NO offense intended, but anyone still using IE is in the dark ages. (IMO) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 07:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Way to write of 90% of our readers. You do recall that we're here to serve them, and not vice versa? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Browser_usage_on_wikimedia_Sep_2010.png Not quite that much :P It's incredibly important to maintain compatibility with internet explorer for the reader, and for the editor, although it's not an unreasonable assumption that if one really wants to do vandalism work that they could get firefox, just as they got huggle. I'm not sure why twinkle doesn't work in IE, but there must be some. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

People who want to use Twinkle or Huggle are by definition not readers. Rd232 ^talk 12:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, wrong. I READ Wikipedia almost every day. Just yesterday afternoon I was looking up the facts in the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit. Without it I would be spending a lot of time looking up template names. --*Kat* ^(meow?) 12:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of us are using IE against their will (ie, on a work computer). shoy (reactions) 12:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in this. It's a portable version of Firefox that you can install onto a flash drive, and run it anywhere. [97]

talk

) 14:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, Portable Google Chrome is available. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Those of you who don't like Vector are welcome to use my monobook.js, which also has Lupin's and TW (you may or may not like the aesthetics). You may/may not need some customization to make it happen, but it's worked mostly flawlessly for me since early 2006. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle is great, if the situation ( I hesitate to call it a bug) where you examine one version and between your brain telling your hand and the software recieveing the message, a later revison pops up, and hence gets reverted, is resolved, that is fantastic. Rich Farmbrough, 08:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

But did it have to be last night? I get that the fix is a handy one, but I can't imagine a worse time for dealing with the issue. I don't know where you live, Rich, but yesterday was Election Day here in the States. And last night was when the results were coming in.--*Kat* ^(meow?) 12:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This sort of thing is why I've urged that 'bot source code be open source and under public configuration management. Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise. Except for 'bots and some tools, which are private. This can be a problem. All new 'bots, at least, should be required to be under source control and under a Wikipedia-compatible license. That's how the Wikimedia code itself is managed. --John Nagle (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, Huggle is open source. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Pulling Huggle down during a U.S. election is an interesting call. As someone who has used Huggle to stop vandals, I'd call it a major tool in the (sadly) ongoing war. It does have to be operated with good intent and care, of course. There may be need to discuss this in some other venue besides here. Just a thought. Jusdafax 07:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Huggle is open source (and .NET for that matter). I could surely just strip out the code that's turning it off and release it. Then again, I still advocate a better solution, but that's a story for another place. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That is why there is a tool called WP:STiki. Anything Huggle misses goes to that tool. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Serial copyvio uploader needs to be blocked

Resolved

 – blocked by Georgewilliamherbert, images all deleted --Hammersoft (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User Legwarmers1980 (talk · contribs) has a long history of problematic uploads, which he/she has not really responded to adequately. This is evident from their talk page, which is filled with upload notices. A check of this user's upload log shows several uploads that have not been deleted and are currently in use in articles [98]. Most of them have to do with a kickboxer and a World War 2 veteran who has the same last name as the kickboxer. The user has categorically denied being the kickboxer [99], and since the other Bergman person is deceased, it's unlikely the editor is him, either. However, all of these uploads have been done under PD-Self. This also seems unlikely, as the elder Bergman photos are dated from 1944, with the kickboxer photos seemingly more recent. Given this user's refusal to stop uploading images that obviously do not belong to him/her, in spite of upload notices and even specific attempts by Shell Kinney to help, the account should be blocked and their uploads deleted. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've reviewed his image contributions:

• File:Bergman-Benamou.jpg I've tagged as db-f9, copyvio of [100]
• File:Plate-hbergman.jpg I've tagged as db-f9, copyvio of [101]
• File:Blue Devil-Hyman Bergman.jpg I've tagged as db-f9, copyvio crop of [102]
• File:Sgt,Hank Bergman.jpg I've tagged as db-f9, copyvio of [103]
• File:RussiaUSA2009.jpg I've tagged as db-f9, copyvio of [104]
• File:HymanBergman.jpg I've not found the source for yet, but I think it's very safe to assume it's a copyvio too. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

All gone, took a punt on the last one, so sue me. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I meant to post here a bit quicker, but life intervened.

I did indef block.

If another admin sees them responding coherently and working to resolve image source / ownership issues, feel free to unblock without prior discussion with me. They could be the copyright holder; they just haven't given us enough info to believe that at this point. AGF was stretched to the point of suspension, but not outright broken. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

BLP vandalism by longtime editor

Resolved

 – BLP Special enforcement warning given to user. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've run into a single instance of BLP vandalism from a long time, but sporadic editor. Ribonucleic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made this edit [105] to the Rand Paul article. I asked for an explanation on his talk page, however he appears to have gone back offline and seems to be fairly inactive. Due to the nature of the edit I'm uncomfortable just ignoring it. This is the sort of juvinile vandalism to high profile BLP articles that brings this project into disrepute. And further because of his longevity, it slipped right therough the pending changes. So I bring this for further consideration.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a BLP vandalism, but a trivial one in the scheme of things. Offensive but obviously so and not likely to mislead anyone.

Given the low activity level, probably not worth a short block, and a long or indef block would be grossly disproportionate for something that minor.

Stiff warning and a long memory in case they do it again seems warranted. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, with that type of vandalism, my concern is more for our reputation than the subject. No one's going to think Rand paul is Ru Paul. What they're going to say is Wikipedia is a joke. Look at what's in this article...--Cube lurker (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Spending time worrying about what people are going to think about wikipedia as a result of vandalism is exactly what the vandals want...fix it and move on. Bobby Tables (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

My point. There are 2 steps to fixing vandalism. The first is reversion, the second is preventing the account from continuing to add vandalism. That is why I'm here, to see what the best way to prevent Ribonucleic from ever vandalizing again.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a silly edit, leave him a note linking to this thread should be enough for him to realize he shouldn't have done it.

Off2riorob (talk

) 18:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I clearly disagree with the severity of the behavior, but if that's the consensus so be it.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't block experienced users for single unaggrevated stupid vandalism, even if it's on a BLP article. User's prior history seems reasonable. If they do it again, we hopefully remember or someone checks the talk page and edit history. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's my concern, the "hopefully remember". As a conceding sugestion, could I recomend that someone else provide a suitable warning. If I were to do it it likely would come out harsher then the apparent consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have given the user a
  BLP Special Enforcement warning. This should resolve the matter. The Wordsmith^Communicate
  19:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'm satisfied with that. Thank you.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

improper move needs repair

Resolved

This version of

=/\=

| 18:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done The

talk

) 18:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for both the help with the article, and the correct venue for next time. —

=/\=

| 19:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

SP that doesn't require SPI

Resolved

 – Cirt got them The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. I don't see the point in launching an SPI for 2012alatham (talk · contribs) (banned) and 2014alatham (talk · contribs) - similar names, identical edits, obvious case. Can an admin intervene please? Thanks, GiantSnowman 20:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably also linked to 10alatham (talk · contribs). GiantSnowman 20:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

All above-named accounts appear to now be indef blocked. -- Cirt (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. GiantSnowman 21:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Threats of harm

Resolved

 – IP range 86.176.0.0/16 blocked for 24h. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

t/c

) 20:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, any connection to the legal threat that was dealt with a few sections above this? --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no connection. This sounds like normal trolling. But on the minute chance there might be something to it - they speak of causing harm to a "small child" - an editor in the UK might want to inform the police of Southampton, which is the geolocation of the IP.  Sandstein  20:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe not. But this IPs edits starts out with a clear intent of vengeance for some earlier grievance it seems. It seems to be a sock of someone. The first edit being a threat of vandalism made on the talk page of another editor, the next a statement of intent of legal action, as well as various others. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop blocking me and perhaps we can discuss this without the small claims action :) If not I might have to login with sockpuppets :( 86.176.164.140 (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Rangeblock time? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good idea if possible.

WP:RBI sounds good here. Tony Fox (arf!)

22:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The threat of harm is not credible, but the user's being unreasonable and offensive to the point of demanding some sort of response. Problem is, it's a BT pair of contiguous /17 ranges (form a /16 together). We can block that sized range, but do we want to?.. I'm checking range contributions now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok; according to the range contributions tool, most of what has come out of those IP ranges in the last 24 hrs is this extended IP vandalism/threats incident. Accordingly, I have blocked the range (86.176.0.0/16) for 24 hrs. A couple of legit content editors are going to get caught by that according to the contribution history, which is regrettable, but this persistent guy has created a sufficiently annoying incident to require intervention, from at least 6 IPs that I see now spread across the range. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well done. Zero tolerance for threats. Jusdafax 07:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

At

talk

) 08:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe BT belongs on that list, based on recent lack of responsiveness. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a note mentioning that possibility at the talk page here [106] --

talk

) 18:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It may not be immediately clear, but the range and IRT mentioned there are for the response team and range of British Telecom's employees (at at least one office, anyways). They have, in the past, been very responsive about misuse of Wikipedia by their staff; but I'm pretty sure that the security services that handle internal users have nothing to do with behavior of customers of BT internet, or with the team than handles them.

Mind you, it might be worthwhile to engage them in discussion about the responsiveness of their customer security (or lack thereof) — while they may not have authority they may be able to apply a bit of influence and pressure. Corporate image and all that. — Coren ^(talk) 18:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's baaaack

[107]. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank god we found my ex-girlfriend!!! I'll notify my local constable as this proofs she is not under my kitchen floor..... doing well The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That one post suggests a song: "I hate you / For sedimental reasons..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

unconfirmed report of Death threats to Subject of BLP due to his BLP

Resolved

 – Taken to AFD

I patrol new pages and came upon this. Someone care to help here? Quite confused. — Timneu22 · talk 23:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The subject,

WP:BLP which offers him any more comfort than that the assertions made in the article should be verifiable by reliable sources and relevant to that which he is notable for. I see no hint of wishing to protect criminals from the consequences of their own actions. --Tagishsimon (talk)

23:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well He might not quite meet the guideline of notability Guideline for

WP:PERP. There might be a case for deletion The Resident Anthropologist (talk

) 23:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no say in that article at all, as I was just patrolling new pages. If you wanna AfD or something that's fine with me. — Timneu22 · talk 23:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I might, but I wanna here what other people opinions are on this as

WP:PERP is not my area of expertise The Resident Anthropologist (talk

) 23:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me he's notable under perp3 "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. " I've informed the OP about this discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

See I am not seeing that a I see a flurry of Reports about his sentencing for the crime but hardly "persistent coverage." The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

ug extensive sourcing exists The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No view myself, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Leone. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed Twinkle access

Consensus to keep user blacklisted.  Ⓢock  03:26, 5 November 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.

---

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

I'm bringing this to ANI to get a review on the action... I've removed Twinkle access for this user, as he's consistently been mistagging pages with CSD. His talk history is full of requests to slow down: a look through the archives should prove as much - please also note the user has removed notifications as well ([108] [109] [110]). Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable choice to me. A little more time to familiarize himself with the criteria may help him tag more productively and in the meanwhile removing the tool might help limit the impulse to use it inappropriately. He's showing a lot of interesting in helping out, and I'd hope that with some time he may become very good at it, but he isn't there yet. (Note: I have commented on his talk page previously about mistagging copyvios, which is how I noticed this conversation. His talk page is still on my watchlist.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse Removal. While I'm positive TCNSV has good intentions at heart, his recent level of tagging errors have been unacceptably high. Since repeated warnings are failing to get the message across, hopefully this will. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse I'm not sure how a talk page-full of warnings doesn't get the message across, but hopefully this will. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse - At some point actions have consequences, and that point is now. Jusdafax 07:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse, block for 48h In addition, track record at simplewiki shows incompetence and severe maturity issues along with what seems to be an occasional desire to cause disruption.
  talk to me
  09:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Blocks are not supposed to be punative, but preventative. The prevention here is the removal of access. --
  (t) (e)
  20:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition to that, he should not be blocked for actions that occurred on another wiki months ago. Kansan (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse temporary removal and block if problem escalates. Get a clue.
  mⓞnⓞ
  02:48, 5 November 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.

Problems with IP editors at 1Malaysia adding and re-adding coatrack content again and again.

Editor(s) using very similar IP addresses have been adding coatrack and fringe junk to the 1Malaysia page. The page has already been semi-protected once, I have placed a POV tag in the section at question (which they promptly deleted!), and reverted their edits when I have the time to do so. This problem is really getting serious and I think something should be done. Monkeyassault (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

IMHO the behavior of these IPs is very similar to Roman888. Please also not that the IP addresses do not make edits to any other articles, do not engage on talk, and constantly switch to new addresses.Monkeyassault (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the NPOV/POV tag is as a tool to help the community create good balanced articles. I'd just like to point out that the POV tag was apparently issued to justify the removal of the whole section. Granted some items edit-warred (mainly the One-Israel section) might appear fringe, but other parts containing responses and reactions by the ex-prime minister of Malaysia (predecessor of the current prime minister who initiated the policy in question) and notable political organizations should remain. Just because the policy was not positively received by them does not mean that any negative response automatically constitutes a COATRACK. IT merely provides a balanced article (as another editor pointed out, the article was beginning to look like a PR whitewash). Whatever so called "negative wording" is due to the content being quoted, which has already been properly attributed to the sources as per wiki requirements. Blocking the IPs of offenders will fix the problem of socks, but using the situation as an excuse to remove a whole section is overkill and only leads to an unbalanced article. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all let me address the issue of the allegations of fringe and coatrack that have been brought up in the 1Malaysia article. All the information regarding the interpretation, Perkasa and OneIsrael have valid references and have been reported in the media in Malaysia. Even the OneIsrael sub-topic has been brought up in the Malaysian parliament with evidence presented to the online media by Anwar Ibrahim himself. (this was reported widely with the exception of the Malaysian mass media which is under the thumb of Malaysian government) Now the continued whitewashing of the information is not only irresponsible, but alludes that the person doing it has an ulterior motive. The 1Malaysia page was semi-protected previously because of some misguided information given to the moderator involved who did not understand the full situation. Agreed with what Zhanzhao said above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.153.217.92 (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The page was semi-protected because you engage in coatracking. Your talk of general style of writing, mentions of "whitewashing", and argument that media mentions alone justify including content seem incredibly similar to Roman888. In fact, I am 99% sure you are one in the same. Would you care to explain why you are circumventing your block?Monkeyassault (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(I'm probably involved) So we have continued edit-warring by Melbourne-based IPs after two uninvolved editors (one an administrator the other a former admin) considered the content inserted by the IP to be inappropriate. Protection didn't work, so guess what comes next.--

Mkativerata (talk

) 06:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it must first be made clear that there are a few points which are mentioned in the section in question. For a response by the Ex-prime minister and the political organization, it was misunderstood that the content was of dubious notability. After I provided a few more links from sources including mainstream news agencies, the editor did not raise further issue with its notability. Also another reason given by the editor for it being inappropriate was the editor considered it to lean more towards news than being encyclopedic, forwhich there isn't a clear guideline to follow. What I am worried about is that the POV tag is applied to the whole "response" section rather than the subsection which is being contested, the part about One-Israel. I would move the tag to only refer to the One-Israel subsection rather than have it apply to the higher-level response section. Alternatively, the POV tag could arguably be tagged to the whole article. As I said, the reporting editor is using the tag as a justification for the removal of the whole section. Does that mean the whole article would be up for deletion? Zhanzhao (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved in this dispute. I don't see how this is an issue for ANI. If there are concerns about sockpuppets it's better to file reports at SPI. This looks like a routine content dispute to me. The repeated blanket removal of material reported by reliable sources like Reuters needs to stop though. That is potentially an issue for ANI to deal with if it carries on. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Being sourced, in and of itself, cannot possibly justify keeping content that violates policy. Take a look at the policy on coatracks. We have IP editors here that do not respect Wikipedia policy or process and just do what they want regardless of what anyone else says. This sounds exactly like the kind of behavior that should be discussed here. Monkeyassault (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please be explicitly clear on which point you are exactly pointing out as the alleged COATRACK. As mentioned repeatedly, there are a number of points/subsections mentioned under the response section, and you keep alleging COATRACK without specifying which point you are referring to. There are rules defining what exactly is a COATRACK, and it does not apply to everything in that section. To claim that any reported negative reaction to a public policy as COATRACK is just plain wikilawyering and definitely not in the spirit on which the rules were created. Zhanzhao (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I object to the entire section but only the One Israel section can be fairly categorized as a coatrack. FYI insisting that rules be followed, especially when the result makes practical sense, is not "Wikilawyering". I am not here making technical arguments supporting an absurd outcome that violates the spirit of the rules as you seem to imply. Monkeyassault (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Using COATRACK as a justification to remove a a whole section of an article, when you yourself admit that you can only "fairly categorize" one particular part as COATRACK, is exactly "making technical arguments supporting an absurd outcome that violates the spirit of the rules". Either that or its WP:BATHWATER, which isn't any better. DanS76 (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not said that the entire response section is a coatrack and I am not hear arguing that the keeping the other content is somehow misconduct.Monkeyassault (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And yet you are flagging the entire section as POV and recommending it all for removal... I quote "The language in this section is clearly designed to get attacks in through the backdoor and add no value to the article. This stuff has got to go". I think as Zhanzhao suggested, you would do better to first start clarifying what sub sections you think are POV and which ones you think should be removed, so that we know which ones you think are being added back in error. You're not making this report easy for any of the admins with your vague statements. DanS76 (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I regard the whole section as POV but I only see misconduct with regard to the One israel subsection. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. My complaint is not just about the One Israel content though. I am very concerned about the behavior of the IPs involved. Monkeyassault (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly encourage you to look at the edit history and the nature of the content in question very closely before taking sides so strongly.Monkeyassault (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the policy of COATRACK, it says there should be an element of bias involved that overwhelms the article. Whereas we have 3/4 of the article discussing the advantages and merits of 1Malaysia (which by itself goes against NPOV rules). Sorry to burst your bubble, but Monkey is also cherry picking stuff in the article and removing the negative elements which goes against one of the tenets of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.140.40.212 (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You are deliberately mischaracterizing the content of the article and the policy on coatracking. This is classic Roman888 behavior. Monkeyassault (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this investigation, initiated by HansSolo54 who was himself indefinitely blocked from editing, is relevant to our discussion. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive142. Monkeyassault (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than addressing the issue, Monkey is trying to distract everyone including the editors about IP addresses, etc. The main issue here is that Monkey has a history of removing content or cherry picking stuff (even those that have valid references, notability and relevance to the article). Using sounding terms like Coatrack, Fringe and NPOV to buttress his arguments and removal of article sections in their entirety. Unfortunately some editors and admins are willing to listen to his lies, causing them to remove valid contributors and semi-protect pages for his benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.155.21.94 (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be very knowledgable about me and Wikipedia procedure for an IP. You are continuing the disruptive behavior that got your Roman888 account and all your sock account blocked. Monkeyassault (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If this is User:Roman888, the article will need to be protected again or range blocks considered, as he is evading a block. He is not welcome to contribute here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Monkeyassault and Moonriddengirl, can you file a SPI with Checkuser requested on this? I don't know the Roman888 pattern... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It is unlikely to be Roman888. When his SPI was done the IP traced to KL, Malaysia (

Mkativerata (talk

) 19:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

i am 100% sure it is him. I would not get to hung up on the IP. Proxies abound on the net and people do move. Take a look at the behavior and his writing style. The vocabulary he uses, his failure to sign comments, strange reasoning (specifically claims of "whitewash" and "censorship"), familiarity with my history as shown in his comments above, familiarity with WP procedures, employing a sock in the last 3RR investigation, the content itself, and the edit warring all point to Roman888. Unfortunately, I had to deal with him intimately for over a year so I know the signs.Monkeyassault (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the IP addresses used by one person change so quickly is a cause from concern. They do not not seem to come from narrow range and ISPs, even those that dynamically assign IPs, do not generally constantly change a subscriber's address. This is suspicious behavior and it could be deliberately designed to evade blocking.Monkeyassault (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The only possible coatrack I can find is "Currently the Malaysian government does not have any diplomatic relations with Israel due to its solidarity with a majority of Arab countries in the Middle East.", which really isn't that bad. The rest of it relates, although the connection could admittedly be made clearer. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

He is in fact using a coatrack with the One Israel stuff. It is called the "Criticism Gambit" which is mentioned in the coatrack policy itself. To a non-Malaysian it might just look like a random attack. But to the Malays it is a very, very serious accusation to say something is linked to Israel.Monkeyassault (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The criticism gambit deals with using a suggestion to go off on a tangential rant. The OneIsrael section is about a direct statement Anwar made in regards to 1Malaysia. Every sentence except for the one mentioned above directly relates to the issue at hand, which is Anwar's accusation that 1Malaysia is based off OneIsrael. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And that is what is happening here! The IPs are pushing the POV that Najib is secretly in league with Israel and that APCO is acting on behalf of Israel to control the Malaysian government and that 1Malaysia is One Israel. We would never let them write this directly. In fact, Roman888 has been putting up this stuff for more than a year. He even created two attack/conspiracy articles that were deleted via action at AfD. Every time he tried to add this type of content to other articles he got shot down by admins and editors. Having failed the direct route the new tack is to use Anwar's rather bizarre public statements about One Israel that have been quoted in the media to make same points. It is a way to attack the subject of the article with fringe material that superficially seems to meet the requirements for inclusion. It is exactly what the Criticism Gambit is talking about.Monkeyassault (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If someone thinks it is a very serious accustion to link something to Israel that is there problem. Reuters etc don't care, Wikipedia doesn't care. Get over it. It happened. We report it. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia does, Sean. We do not just reprint whatever the media does. This is not a news site.Monkeyassault (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny guy. My understanding is fine thanks very much. For example, I understand that Wikipedia isn't based in Malaysia, it isn't subject to the restrictions that apply there. It isn't restricted by you or me either. Reliable sources get to decide what is notable about a subject and policy entitles editors to include content based on reliable sources. In fact, we are obliged to report all sides of a story to comply with NPOV and thankfully people are watching us to ensure that we do. Trying to dismiss this issue as fringe or a coatrack or just news noise is simply not going to work and happens to be inconsistent with the very fundamental core policies of this project. The opposition leader of a country made statements about the subject of the article and One Israel. There were consequences. The parliament of the country took action. It was reported extensively by reliable sources. It is a notable event directly pertinent to the subject of the article. Really, if you are troubled by this, simply stop editing the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The section as it was, did indeed qualify as a coatrack (I am far from the only person who thought so) and the anti-government POV pushing and other bad behavior of Roman888 is of serious concern. I am not trying to dismiss anything with flimsy excuses. You should engage my arguments on the merits. In any even, I have closely read the sources and re-written the subsection to conform to them. The coatrack issue is no longer in play unless the other side decides to continue reverting and pushing conspiracies. Now that this subsection is no longer fringe or a coatrack I should say it does not seem especially relevant to 1Malaysia. It looks like it should be moved to Anwar's biography but that is not really an issue for ANI. The behavior of the IPs and their connection to Roman888 is still an issue though and it needs to be dealt with. Mark my words, if action is not taken their antics will go on and on and on. This type of disruption should not be allowed.Monkeyassault (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Darkness2005

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked. –MuZemike 14:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Darkness2005 (talk · contribs) has been editing since April 2008 yet has never engaged in discussion with anyone. The editor's talk page is filled with numerous messages that especially question the contributions made. This has persisted ever since, and I am wondering if action needs to be taken to actually get the editor to respond to the rest of the community. Is there a course of action that can be taken here? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC) [EDIT: For what it's worth, this editor reminds me of this discussion. Could similar action be taken to foster communication? Erik (talk | contribs) 22:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)]

Many of his gnome like updates are valuable but on other occasions they are very idiosyncratic and systematically so, demanding time-consuming reverts. I understand that he cannot be forced to respond to other editors, but if a way could be found to persuade him to use edit summaries it would make understanding his intention less frustrating.

talk

) 21:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I echo Erik's sentiments, this editor has become problematic. I believe many of his edits are sincere, but he displays a casual disregard for guidelines and policy. One of the more worrying aspects is that he often replaces sourced information with IMDB data, which isn't even accepted as a reliable source and then it doesn't match up with the supplied reference. Editors try to enter into discussion with him but the lack of acknowledgement means the issues don't get addressed and he continues in the same vein. Since he won't respond to comments on his talk page, people just tend to leave template messages now and nothing is going to get resolved that way. Betty Logan (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu had already left a message notifying the user of the likelihood of being blocked if the editor didn't engage before editing more, and they still refused to do so. Given the clear unlikelihood of anything else succeeding, at this point I've blocked the editor indefinitely. "Indefinite" isn't by any means "permanent" here—I'm happy to have anyone reverse the block if they indicate they understand the problem and will correct it going forward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't argue with that; it seems clear to me that the editor is competent in the English language, but ploughing one's own furrow here without regard to concerns of other editors is just unacceptable. Hopefully the block will concentrate the mind. Rodhullandemu 00:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable block. I have watchlisted his talk page as well, but at some point enough is enough. After 2.5 years, you'd think he'd have figured out how his talk page worked. --Jayron32 04:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, regarding the OP's concern over connections to the earlier user, I have reviewed the contributions of both users, and the connection appears to be purely coincidental. A quick check of the recent contributions of that prior user will confirm that. --Jayron32 04:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, I apologize, I did not mean to suggest that Darkness2005 was the other user. I was suggesting the same approach with Darkness2005 that we took with that user to force a response (and that user did start using edit summaries). Erik (talk | contribs) 14:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Image upload problem

Resolved

 – User warned. –MuZemike 14:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

[111] All their image uploads have no copyright notice and are almost certainly not free. E. Fokker (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(s)he's stopped uploading after your message. I've now tagged a whole lot more - currently 39 "di-no-license" tags or similar in place. There are no images uploaded by them that have a proper license statement. I'm going to place an only warning on his page.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Ss3991 trolling?

Resolved

Ss3991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Regarding this obvious personal attack and the user's other contributions, I believe I am being trolled. However, I would prefer another administrator to look into the issue since I'm on the receiving end. I have warned this user previously regarding civility issues. --Chris (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I just went back through the entire contribution history - I can't find any constructive edits, though I may have missed one. They seemed to be a low-rate vandal out to use Wikipedia for Lulz. As they graduated to attacking user Crazycomputers/Chris, I have indef blocked them.

If any admin feels that they are likely to contribute positively going forwards, you may unblock without consulting me first. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks George! --Chris (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparent legal threat on talk page of blocked user

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

 – seems to be pretty wrapped up, user should not be unblocked without first discussing with Arbcom as per

Off2riorob (talk

) 00:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This edit on the talk page of a blocked user appears to be a legal threat. Another editor cautioned the editor about

no legal threats.[112] TFD (talk

) 18:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That is not a legal threat, commenting that you will seek legal advice is not a legal threat.

Off2riorob (talk

) 18:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

While there are precedences either way, I agree with O2RR that no action is necessary now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The actual wording is "I am waiting one week, if by then the crap linking my name to porn websites and criminal gangs is not scrubbed i will seek legal advice on how to have that achieved." TFD (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That is, quite clearly, a legal threat.--Scott Mac 19:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's quite rich for TFD to come here and complain about it, after it was his and Petri Krohn's actions - the smearing of Mark's name, and committing various egregious BLP violations - which initiated the whole affair. Mark is quite within his rights to demand that all the garbage Petri posted to the SPI (the SPI which, btw, cleared Mark), which then TFD tried to make excuses for, be removed and over sighted. Perhaps Mark's not going about it in an optimal way, but usually when you've had something like that done to you, you are understandably emotional and angry. Probably what makes matter worse is that nothing is being done about this kind of despicable "strategy" - the smearing worked where the specious SPI failed in that these two appear to have now successfully driven Mark off Wikipedia.

talk

) 19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with most of what you wrote. The situation at the SPI is complex and the material that TFD and in particular PK posted is valuable in digging out serious disruptions. However, it is very likely that Mark is not involved. This has, by now, been repeatedly stated at

good faith. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 19:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

First, I'm not involved in anything on Communist terrorism. On Holodomor I am participating in the discussion, but even there I believe my involvement came after the SPI was filed (and one edit aside, it's limited to the talk page). I also believe that Mark is only tangentially involved in that discussion and his problems with Petri and TFD arise from other venues. The crux of the matter is not any content dispute but the obvious harassment that Mark was subject to during the SPI - and it is a scary form of harassment (which is why I just got my username changed). In terms of AGF, the thing is that Petri at least has been blocked for precisely these kinds of attacks previously, once for a year for making implied death threats [113] and once for another year by the ArbCom [114]. So his behavior at Mark's SPI is really just a continuation of an established pattern. Under those circumstances, it's very very hard to assume good faith, as several other editors noted at the SPI ([115], [116]), including checkusers, bureaucrats and even editors that Mark has had conflicts with in the past.radek (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Add: it's true that the material may be valuable in terms of busting some sock puppet ring. But that wasn't the venue to do it, particularly after Petri and TFD were repeatedly told by others that the IPs were not Mark. And it most certainly wasn't the proper way to do it.radek (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• It is clearly a legal threat. However, I'm fed up with blocking people for these and not asking "are we doing something bad, which justifies people making these?". There's lots of eyes on the threat now, but how many on the issue he's referring to. Can someone point us to the pages with the underlying problem so we can investigate that, before bannhammering the user for legal threats. (links would be nice.)--Scott Mac 19:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This[117] would be one example. It has since been redacted. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 19:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • A summary of events so far. A number of IP editors have made editors of a similar POV to a blocked editor, resulting in an SPI. The investigation turned up an enormous number of proxies and unsavory sites associated with these proxies. The blocked user's "legal threat" relates to the understandable desire not to have the unsavory sites linked to the proxies associated with an SPI with his name on it, given that the SPI has not connected the proxies to his accounts. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 19:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the entire thread that included the incivil remarks, legal threat, etc. BWilkins has indeffed and removed talk page privs. Toddst1 (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

How is this "resolved" when the behavior that led to Mark's response has not been addressed? Great job rewarding harassment here.radek (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Mmm. Telling an editor who just told a blocked editor to post on a page he can't actually post to to GFH would seem to fall under the heading of "justified venting", generally.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-opened. A long-time user has asserted he's been libelled. Until we are crystal clear that he's not been, this issue is not resolved.--Scott Mac 20:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is really a mess. A real messy SPI that is still not resolved, a half hearted legal threat from a user that was feeling very attacked and linked to rape comments and rape your sister comments and sex sites and the like, and it being his real name, its no wonder he was upset. It would have been easy to remove his talkpage access and let the SPI outcome be resolved first.

Off2riorob (talk

) 20:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The SPI is that way->. This thread is about the legal threat that grew into a civil issue as well. Toddst1 (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You are an idiot, sir.--Scott Mac 21:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Scott MacDonald, that is absolutely unacceptable language coming from an administrator. Are you no longer content with enabling others to disrupt Wikipedia – see the discussion about your unilateral unblock of MickMacNee above – but are now actively seek to emulate them? This becomes ever more concerning.  Sandstein  06:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

@Toddst1 If a legal threat changes into a civility issue, it has not grown; it has shrunk. Cardamon (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that Marknutley edits using his real name, the (apparently discredited) attempts on the SPI page to link him to racism, sex sites, and possibly running a botnet - see the comments of oversighter Alison here - could arguably rise to the level of libel, at least under UK law. Thparkth (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well it was a pretty low grade legal threat and as I can see he removed it prior to the block extension, so hes not been blocked for that has he? He has been indefd for telling a user to f off on his talkpage, a user that Mark has told not to post on his talkpage .. really its a bit much in punishment for his wiki crimes... can we wind it back in to the original block and work the actual issue out which is the SPI and the quite extraordinary claims there.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The remark he made on his talk page was definitely a personal attack and quite inexcusable - but it should be forgivable given the provocation he was under. An indefinite block seems disproportionate, and seems like a victory for those who provoked him. Thparkth (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have restored his talk page editing. That was disproportionate given the unresolved complaint he's made. I've left the indefblock as less important until the SPI issues are resolved (he blocked anyway).--Scott Mac 21:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• - The sockpuppet investigation that started all this has been closed as no action, I would like to suggest that under the circumstances we cut Mark a bit of slack and accept he was under undue stress and did actually withdraw the comment about the legal threat and we return his block clock to where it was before this whole mess began.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 21:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Something's borked along the way there; he was originally blocked until the 9th, Bwilkins' reblock kept that expiry but locked his talk page; Scott Mac's re-reblock to open the talk page went to indef... that probably needs fixed. And I agree with the reopening of the talk page and interpretation of the legal issues as being relatively less than requiring an indef. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The indef was for telling Four Duces to "Go fuck yourself you sick twisted sack of shite" but as we've seen here,

WP:Civil is obsolete, so hey, why not unblock the charming chap. We need more of that, right Scott? Toddst1 (talk

) 00:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the case at issue, but I note that this is the second time in a row that Scott MacDonald unilaterally and controversially undoes another admin's action simply because he knows better. I'm considerably less surprised this time around, though.  Sandstein  06:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Responding to a message on my talk page: Speaking as a checkuser who has been in contact with Marknutley and ArbCom, I have reblocked as indefinite as an agreed upon way to close the SPI for now. If and when Mn decides to resume editing he knows to contact ArbCom to discuss the SPI. I made the note in the block log to make it clear to admins, too. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clearing that up FloNight. I think under the circumstances that there is nothing else to do here. If Mark wishes to edit in the future he should contact Arbcom and work it out with them. I will boldly close this thread .
    Off2riorob (talk
    ) 00:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I now see that my actions are discussed in a number of places, yet no one has seen reason to inform me about it. For the record, I want to clear up a few things.

1. The SPI investigation has not linked Marks to sex sites. It has "linked" the proxy network used by the Mark lookalike to free ad sites, one of which seems to have a strict policy of removing non-confirming material. Some of the servers on this network have offensive l33tspeak domain names. No one has said that Mark is operating any of the servers on the network.
2. Someone has suggested that Mark would not have the capability to use a network as complicated as this. It is now turning out that all that is needed is a $30 subscription to a "Hide-my-ass" software. It is not yet clear which of the several products has been used, although one candidate has emerged.
3. In addition to the Mark clone, at least two permabanned users have been utilizing the same network – one of them has turned out to be a known racist. I have apologized to Mark for leaving open the possibility, that he is this racist.
4. It is absolutely incorrect to say, that the SPI has cleared Mark. The investigation only looked at technical evidence, and at first was unable to link the IPs using conventional checkuser methods. The overwhelming behavioral evidence has yet to be analyzed.
5. The joe job claim is bogus. It assumes that the network would be discovered. The discovery was in fact very unlikely, and was only made possible by lot of good luck and a determined effort. If JodyB had just semi-protected the disputed page as requested, none of this would have happened.
6. The SPI investigation started on the wrong foot. Initially the aim was to show that the servers were indeed proxies and that they were connected. In a previous investigation it was argued that IP on the server farm could not be Mark, as it it geolocated to a different part of the UK from where Mark was last seen. Now that the
   WP:OP investigation on this proxy network is almost finished, it would be possible to look at the behavioral evidence. Based on the comments
   on Mark's talk page it seems that Mark was in fact blocked based on a different, secret SPI investigation.
7. I have been surprised by the enormous hostility this SPI investigation has aroused. I have also been surprised by the cluelessness shown by just about everybody at the SPI page. If there really was an issue, I would have expected the functionaries, an administrator, or somebody to contact me.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Re point 5: Network discovery has nothing to do with it, all a

talk

) 08:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This case has been marked as "resolved". Any new discussion should be brought to a new discussion thread and I am therefore archiving. TFD (talk) 16:06, 5 November 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.

RPP Backlog

WP:RPP is quite backlogged, if an admin could take a look, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk

• 16:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Spamming at

Ebru TV

Resolved

• Ebru TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• 38.101.171.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Istemi2225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ebrutv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This TV channel is attempting to

own their article by filling it with unneutral and promotional material. Ebrutv was blocked at UAA weeks ago, Istemi2225 appeared a few days ago and after warning them today, they stopped, but 38.101.171.121 (which geolocates to ebru.tv) started reverting me. I'm at three reverts already, can someone please take a look and take the necessary action. Thanks SmartSE (talk

) 16:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is sorted for the moment, the page is semi-protected. Thanks for the rapid response. SmartSE (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Giano's

POINTed

comments on Rlevse's talk page

No one cares, thread is resolved and archived. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:10, 5 November 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.

---

Resolved

After numerous times being asked to drop the

vanish in peace, Giano continues to make POINTed comments like this and this. Giano also reverts or removes attempts to collapse his comments or the entire thread like this and this. He even went so far as to edit someone's (mine) post (see here). When warned for editing another user's post (again mine), the snarky and POINTed comments continued to flow with this being the latest. Giano is obviously using the misfortune of Rlevse to do a little "grave-stomping" and with his impressive block log for harrassment, disruptive editing, among other things, he has been given more than enough warnings that he should know better. Requesting admin intervention and possibly a block. - Neutralhomer • Talk

• 16:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User has been notified of this thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Retirement and vanishing are not the same thing. What basis are you using to state that Rlevse was invoking his right to vanish? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't see any reason to block - the concerns expressed are valid and the language is not vituperative. There's no suggestion that Rlevse's actions were bad faith, just incorrect. It is significant when someone who has been here years is still having problems with this issue (and all the evidence is that this was a recognised issue with the editor in quiestion), and it is significant that the community as a whole is having problems with this issue. It's a reasoned debate to have, and I'm not sure there is a more suitable venue at the moment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it's perfectly fine to edit the hat summary after another editor has placed a hat. You are also not the best person to warn Giano on his talk page, as you are the one in dispute with him. Lastly, Rlevse is not just any editor; he has been one of our arbitrators, was given a considerable amount of responsibility and privilege. I think the community is entitled to comment when such a user gives up all his privileges and retires under a cloud. Overeager policing of user comments is entirely the wrong approach to take here. I propose closure with no action. --JN466 16:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Giano was falsely accused of outing by Rlevse, an accusation that was found to be entirely without merit when investigated. I think Giano's comments at user talk:Rlevse probably should be hatted. However, having a Giano-block thread (and associated fallout) when Giano has a very genuine issue with Rlevse, one that ArbCom has declined to investigate, strikes me as a huge waste of time. Let's re-close the off-topic thread at Rlevse's talk page, rapidly close this, and move on. EdChem (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• I dunno. There seem to be a lot of people wanting to discuss it there. Since I unhatted it. Also there are so many unanswered questions - like: who wrote Rlevse's farewell statement? - that's the million dollar question. That's not a conspiracy theoru by the way - it's a fact. all very odd what's going on here isn't it? Perhaps it beeds discussing. I'm sure blocking me will hinder that - or is that the intention?
   Giacomo 
  16:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No comments on the statement, but agree that the community seems to want to discuss the issue of plagiarism, OR and how they relate. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• @Giano: Oh, perhaps maybe Rlevse wrote it? Since it says his name on it. @EdChem: I am all for hatting the thread on Rlevse's talk page. If that is done and the snarky comments stop, I will be all for closing this as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Giano is far from being the only editor to have made questionable comments on rlevse's talk page, yet he is the one singled out. DuncanHill (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Homer, I do think you're seeing more snark there than there actually is. Is there another venue to discuss the issues? If not, then let the discussion run it's course. It can allways be hatted afterwards. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am just seeing a lot of "grave dancing" since an admin and arb is gone. If people want to take the whole thing to RFC, I feel that would be more appropriate than his talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would you want to shut down reasoned discussion and debate? Rlevse apparently asked a proxy to post his self-justification/apology, and people are responding to that, since it brings up some important issues. If Rlevse would like to "vanish" that's something else again. If he has problems with what's written on his talk page, he can log back in and deal with them. I'd hold off on an Rlevse RFC/U until he decides to return. Some restrictions and/or mentoring would probably be a good idea if he comes back.

talk

) 17:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Bali, as you probably know, he can't (and probably won't) log back in since he has scrambled his passwords. So that isn't going to happen. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Just take it off your watchlist Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So that's it? Snarky comments are OK, "grave dancing" is OK, I should just take it off my watchlist so I don't see the snarky comments and "grave dancing"? Wow, interesting. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing any grave dancing. I am seeing a lot of idolisation of an editor who had gained just about the maximum extent of honours and privileges that one can obtain at Wikipedia and who in the end turned out to be not entirely deserving of them. It's not clear which of the editors commenting completely uncritically on his talk page actively support plagiarism and copyvios because they think they are a good thing, which of them didn't examine the situation and just assume it's a conspiracy, and which of them are rather extreme followers of the principle de mortuis nil nisi bonum even for people who are very much alive but had to give up a hobby. But responses that point out the facts are to be expected. Hans Adler 17:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

@NH - He can request a new password by email. I did that once. Worked a treat. If I'm asked to believe he scramble his personal email irretreviably as well, well, i'll just say i highly misdoubt that.

talk

) 17:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Either way, he is communicating, and people should be allowed to respond. Chances are he is reading the talk page. Communication isn't always pleasant, but I see no attempts to disrupt WP in order to illustrate a point. Just critical and perhaps pointed comments, but that's not what

WP:POINT is about. ---Sluzzelin talk

17:09, 5 November 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.

Wikistalking

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs)… Okay, seriously, what's up with this guy. I swear, he's wikistalking me just to whine about my edits. His recent charges include:

• Removing a "verify credibility" tag, calling my addition of it "baseless" when the site in question is plainly a fansite
• Constantly hounding me at AFD, often calling for completely out of process "speedy keeps" that don't meet any criterion of
  WP:SK
• Constantly blanking even good faith comments that I make on his talk page
• Constantly undoing redirects that I make, suggesting that I discuss them, no matter how uncontroversial

It's mainly the wikistalking that's getting to me. I can barely make an AFD anymore without him making a Kmweber-esque "speedy keep" comment, and I can barely redirect anything anymore without him kvetching about it. This has to stop, but seeing as I can't touch his talk page without him plowing it through, I don't know where else to take it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a case of

WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR (WP:NPA) to me. Let's see what others think. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs

|] 03:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Add to the charges: Saying that I was leaving "paranoid ranting" on his talk page when I asked him to stop wikistalking. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember being on his talk page, and I saw that message of yours. I believe taht I caught it Before he removed it! [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Has the editor in question been notified? I checked his talk page and talkhistory but couldn't find a notification. Basket of Puppies 04:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Why bother? He's just gonna revert it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Because reverting or blanking it means he saw it. Every editor has the right to know when they are being discussed on this noticeboard and to reply to any and all accusations. I'll notify him. Basket of Puppies 04:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Because "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use subst:ANI-notice to do so." Saebvn (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think there is sufficient evidence. The other editor may have looked at your contribution history or may have decided to look at AfDs that day. You would really need to show a pattern - reversals over a number of articles over a length of time. It becomes more obvious if the reversals/votes go against the editor's normal view or goes against consensus. My advice would be to see if a pattern develops and come back. TFD (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• It's been going on since September:
  • "speedy keep" (September 18)
  • "speedy keep…purposefully disruptive" (September 24)
  • "disruptive nomination" (September 27)
  • "Once again, we have a completely uninformed nomination of a major song by a major songwriter, possibly the worst since the Dead Flowers AFD." (September 29)
  • "trout slap the nominator for wasting other's time by frivolously renominating" (October 10)
  • "trout slap the nominator for acute and chronicnoncompliance with
    WP:BEFORE
    " (October 14)
  • "aggressive deletion posturing is clearly disruptive" (October 17)
  • I won't deny that some of those AFDs are misfires on my part, but I filed them all in good faith, and Hullaballoo clearly isn't replying to them in good faith. This is almost Kmweber levels of disruptive. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: Hullabaloo has been notified. Saebvn (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, further undoing of my good faith addition of a tag, without so much as really explaining how he thinks my edits are in bad faith. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will say that his comments are disruptive. He (Hullabaloo) is clearly commenting on the contributor, which violates WP:No personal attacks, so I say that he is the one who deserves to be slapped with the trout for his personal attacks. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As a further evidence, he undid my closure of the Reggie Young AFD once I withdrew and closed it, saying that the closure was "disruptive". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not have the time at present to look through all your evidence, but it is worth looking at. When posting it is always best to provide as much evidence as possible because it becomes more persuasive. If you have further examples that would be helpful too. TFD (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

When I asked him why he thought my self-closure of the withdrawn AFD was disruptive, he

Big Time Rush (band). I asked him repeatedly why he thought I should discuss what seemed like an entirely non-controversial redirect, and he also remained silent. (The article was then taken to AFD, where the consensus was to redirect.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention}

) 05:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

ETA: Apparently his grudge against me goes back further. I found this bit from November 2009 where I asked him a simple question and he also remained silent. Before even that, there was this AFD in September 2009 where he referred to the AFD as a "waste of time" and argued that directory listings on CMT.com and Allmusic were sufficient. I asked him about this and he said, "I pointed out those easy-to-find pages in commenting on your earlier claims that the album was a blatant hoax. It doesn't given one much confidence in the other search results you report." (The AFD closed as delete.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'd advise you, TPH, to be more diligent when nominating articles for deletion. Some of those noms have been pretty ill-advised. That said, it is clear that you are acting in good faith and it is also obvious from the diffs you've provided that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has a problem with you personally that prevents him from assuming good faith. Wikipedia relies on
  WP:AGF and consensus building to function, so HB's immediate assumptions of bad faith simply because it's you and refusal to communicate are inappropriate. Reyk _YO!
  05:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Tell him that then. I really want to put an end to this crap. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In reviewing some of the overlapping edits (some of which are clearly well into wikihounding/wikistalking territory) I think Hullaballoo Wolfowitz certainly has some explaining to do. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet another example: Undoing a redirect with an edit summary of "obviously notable" without proving how — that was done by another editor who provided a link to Google News. Even so, I'm still not convinced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• While TPH may need to be more diligent when nominating articles, he is doing so in good faith. There is nothing wrong with that and he has regularly recognized making mistakes. However, HW seems to be commenting on the contributor, not the content. This is most concerning and I would very much like to hear his reply. Basket of Puppies 05:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, but doesn't it seems that he makes a lot of mistakes? And, given that, wouldn't it be a good idea if he modified his criteria for nominating for deletion, and also slowed down a bit? After all, recognition of one's mistakes is not particularly useful if one doesn't change one's behavior based on that recognition. Have we seen that kind of change from TPH? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• • It is well after 2AM my time, and I'm certainly don't gave the time now to respond. If TPH hadn't deliberately violated the notification requirement, I could have responded promptly. Much of what TPH states is false, and is deliberately false. For example, in the November 2009 dispute over the Jerome Vered AFD, where he falsely claims I "remained silent," it's undeniable that I responded at length in the AFD itself, as TPH acknowledged at the time. Please note that TPH has been bringing variations of this complaint in various places for weeks; I think it's useful to review my lengthy response here [118] for example, which should leave little doubt that my complaints about TPH's inappropriate, policy-violating editing practices are well-founded and have been brought in good faith. I am hardly the only editor who finds fault with TPH's editing on such grounds, as a review of several of the AFDs he pulls my comments out of will make clea. Please also note that barely three days ago TPH was warned about inappropriate edits to my talk page [119]. Finally, for tonight, anyone who thinks that my statements might have crossed a line should not note edit summaries like these [120] [121] and comments like this [122]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 06:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • These diffs all appear to show Ten Pound Hammer expressing his frustrations (in a manner which isn't too constructive, might I add) and seem to focus on the same incident. At the same time, had Hullaballoo Wolfowitz responded to Ten Pound Hammer in a manner other than reverting his comment as "unwelcome ranting" [123] I doubt Ten Pound Hammer would have then felt the need to vent his frustrations in this manner: [124] [125] [126] This certainly isn't helping either: "remove paranoid ranting" [127] "unwelcome,, just read the original edit summaries" [128] Given these reverts, your comment of "If TPH hadn't deliberately violated the notification requirement, I could have responded promptly." really isn't holding water, since you likely would have just reverted his notification, and you were notified by two other editors anyway. [129] [130] While I can understand Ten Pound Hammer's venting, it seems you two really need to either engage in some form of dispute resolution or avoid each other completely (which includes not following Ten Pound Hammer's contribution history). --Tothwolf (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't really understand what the relevence of HW reverting other posts is to notification. As people have already said, and as we always say, reverting something to your talk page is taken as a sign you've read it. In this particular case, as you yourself said he/she reverts with comments like 'ranting' which would suggest he/she's read what being reverting. The fact that HW reverts TPH's attempts to discuss matters without significant comment is obviously problematic (although as I've said before some of those attempts have IMHO not helped either) but those reversions don't in any way justify not notfying him/her nor do they suggest they may not have responded sooner to ANI had they not been notified sooner. It is of course true that HW was notified by others, about 2 hours after this thread was started and 4 hours before he/she replied. Ultimately of course, not notifying someone when the rules clearly say you should and not trying to engage in discussion even if you are sure they will just ignore you is always going to be a bad idea as it's far more troublesome to explain (and may lead to whatifs) then it will be to simply write a quick message, wait a resonable timeframe when relevant and then show the diffs. In this particular case, I would say it's all the more disappointing that other then all the many places here which tell you to notify the people, the OP has been to ANI before so they should know by now they are expected to notify. (Which supports my view that while HW has likely made mistakes, the OP likely has as well.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • But, considering that the topic has come up, might we not also want to deal with TPH's criteria for nominating articles for deletion, which have generated other complaints, if I recall correctly? Without excusing any step that HW made have made across the line, such animosity would seem to be a natural response to the AfD overzealousness that TPH seems to have exhibited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Not really, no. There are painfully divergent points of view within the project regarding thresholds of notability. Unless there's specific, actionable evidence of bad-faith in nominations, (a recent example is Tedescoboy22, then one should just weigh in with an opinion to keep or delete or whatever (minus the "speedy" nonsense) and see how the decision unfolds. Tarc (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that every one of the AfDs (first list - I did not check later ones) was kept, it is unlikely that stalking had anything to do with the results. I would not point out a 0 for 7 batting average as indicating anything more than a lesson that one should be more careful in nominating articles for deletion. Collect (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And yet again... I ask him to comment on a removal at You Ain't Goin' Nowhere and yet he just bulldozes through the edit again. Can we PLEASE get some kinda of closure here, or are we just gonna babble on in circles forever? (ETA: His edit summary was "unwelcome,, just read the original edit summaries".) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 13:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

How about a sanction for the personal attacks in edit summaries instead.[131].--Cube lurker (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Meh. Politeness has gotten me nowhere, not just with him but also on many other portions of the wiki. Okay, that was over the line. I just get so frustrated with him, because even when I'm polite he still thinks I'm being "paranoid" and "useless" and what have you. And I really want him to stop being such a dick towards me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 13:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems that a WQA on his uncivil (or is it incivil?) edit summaries might be more worthwhile than this is. Collect (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're talking about TPH. There's really no need to discuss wether it's appropriate for him to call the other user a douche repeatedly in edit summaries. I suppose a block at this moment could arguably be considered punitive, however if after this fair warning he continues I'd support blocking.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In some cases editor A will make unreasonable edits and editor B may look at A's other edits to see if they are unreasonable too. In other cases A may make reasonable edits and B will contest them regardless of the merits. This case seems to fall in the middle. On their own none of the edits seem unreasonable. It certainly is not a good situation. But now it has been brought to the community's attention, the problem may go away, and I suggest revisiting it if problems continue. Abusive edit summaries could also be reason to revisit the problem. TFD (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with Hullabaloo, but if I called an editor a douche even one time I would be blocked. TPH has done it three separate times. Are some editors more equal than others? Vodello (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it works for George Takei... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

...And the Hullaballoo continues. This editor continuously bullies, constantly criticizes the work of others while contributing nothing of his own, and refuses to discuss with any editor whose opinion differs from his own. It is hilarious that in this case Hullaballoo's victim is TenPoundHammer, a staunch Deletionist. In my own experiences with Hullaballoo, I have found him to be an invariable, never-bending, ultra-Deletionist who continuously edit-wars, and absolutely refuses to discuss. I find in TPH's AfDs that Hullaballoo is using some of the very same arguments *I* brought up at deletion discussions in which Hullaballoo was on the opposing side. He ridiculed my arguments at that time. Now he finds them perfectly valid when stalking and harrasing an editor on the other side of the coin. Now, all of a sudden, Hullaballoo is the great Inclusionist. Hullaballoo is adding sourcing that TPH thinks inappropriate? Well, Hullaballoo repeatedly removed valid sourcing that I added, when it backed-up facts that he did not want to see on Wikipedia. He would claim sources such as the Los Angeles Times were "unreliable" or "Wiki-mirrors" and edit-war them out beyond 3rr. Comparing Hullaballoo's actions between me and TPH we see a consistency not in Wiki-philosophy, but only in his techniques of Wiki-bullying. And whenever his actions are brought up for review, guess what happens? The victim's history is instead reviewed and criticized-- Just what we see going on here... Bullying, agressive, non-contributing editors like Hullaballoo, and, more importantly, the tacit approval of these actions by the Wiki-community (as we see going on here), caused me to decide that Wikipedia is a useless as a place at which to contribute content. It is only valuable as a place for people with psychological profiles similar to Hullaballoo's to engage in trolling. I know, I didn't provide the diffs for the claims I've made. I've done things like this before and found them to be a total waste of time. As a contributor of over 600 articles over four years, a couple GAs, an FA, and I have no idea how many articles substantially improved, my leaving Wikipedia is just hunky-dory to the community. Better I should leave than stick around and call a thug a "thug", right? That would be "incivil". And that's what we're here to do right? Be nice and civil while we play our power games. There'll always be some other fool to come around and add content. Dekkappai (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Re the call for a WQA... don't bother, it was a complete waste of time and effort when I tried in September.

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive91#User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz_refusing_to_discuss_in_relation_to_the_use_of_BLP_cleanup_template They just send you back here or to RFC/U.The-Pope (talk

) 16:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the multiple attempts to deal with this obviously problematic user, getting an RfC certified and rolling should be a cinch at this point. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC filed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar:Named user using IP to edit

Accusations remain unsubstantiated and shall continue to remain so, thus, commenting further here is pointless.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing the majority of my edits from IP sign-ons for some time now after inadvertently attracting the attention of Wolfowitz and his subsequent stalking/trolling/vandalising of GF edits I had made under a named account. Got to the point where I felt I had no choice if I wished to continue contributing (mostly) constructively. I know I am not alone in having taken this action. Used to be in years past that Wolfowitz was just rude but his devolution is almost complete. He's still rude - aggressively so - but his tidal wave of 100+ daily edits now augment their sulphurous odour with deletionism (well documented), hypocrisy (well documented), wikistalking (why we're here, again) and, increasingly, incompetence - he's now getting so many basic things wrong (see above, he's not even bothering to sign his edits - that's Wikipedia 101) where GF and opinion are irrelevant. This is all underpinned by the most egregious wikilawyering and tailoring the rules to pretty much whatever he wants them to be. It's a concern. I'm a 'transient' editor but frankly I am astounded that this has been allowed to drag on for so long. There are hundreds, nay thousands of editors who police BLPs effectively but do so without Wolfowitz's nastiness and list of personal agenda. Time and again he bullies others and then hides behind matron when someone bites back. I simply don't like him - he comes across as a nasty piece of work who is channelling obvious personal issues through his 'editorial contributions'. He should have been removed from this community a long, long time ago for the greater good but, as I say this from an IP and with significant personal disdain, I accept that my comments may be taken with a pinch of salt. Doesn't, I feel, affect their overall veracity however. --78.101.227.119 (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Any particular reason why we should take your comments at face value, considering that you have just admitting to socking with the IP account? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC) No. Please see my penultimate sentence. --78.101.227.119 (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC) This, I think, would be acceptable under the "new start" bit of WP:SOCK so I think implying that this editor is not to be believed for that reason is a bit off. But I would like to see some evidence of these allegations. Reyk YO! 07:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I don't believe that WP:Fresh start applies to an editor editing under an IP, as opposed to making a new account, and then avoiding` making controversial edits in areas they edited in under the old account. Beyond My Ken (talk ) 07:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't think "fresh start" would apply to IP's, being as how one person could have many IP's, and one IP could have many editors. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Valid request; you've openly admitted you won't use the account anymore because of harassment, so who were you? HalfShadow 07:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I also wonder what the IP means when he or she says that they've made "mostly" constructive edits. My feeling is that, while there may be disagreements between editors about what is or isn't constructive, from the viewpoint of any one editor all of their edits should be "constructive". That is, if Editor X thinks that an edit is not constructive they should not make it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Let me clarify. All my edits are of course made with constructive intentions, some I will concede in subsequent discussion/consensus might be otherwise construed. --78.101.227.119 (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Fine, tell us the IP you used to make those edits, so we can take a look at thos edits and see how "constructive" they were. That way, we can make a judgment on how seriously to take your comments here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I think you've already made your judgement. I made it clear it wasn't that big a deal, I merely wanted to get something off my chest. This I have done. --78.101.227.119 (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Yeah, it is a big deal: you're accusing an editor in good standing of behavior which is antithetical to Wikipedia's policies. You need to support that in some way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Jesus. It's not a big deal to me. I can see why you're here! --78.101.227.119 (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Give us an example or two of such edits. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Yeh, no kidding. Also, wasn't there an issue with someone based in Qatar awhile back? Or am I mis-remembering? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Was there? Gosh, that's relevent comment in a country of 1.7million people with constantly changing IPs as standard! --78.101.227.119 (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, this IP has only three edits, one to an article and two to this page, so if what the editor says is true, they're using a different IP to make those edits they're too scared to make because of HW - yet another reason to avoid putting too much value on their comments. (Unless, of course, they come clean about who they are.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) It may be because the IP address had changed before the user posted the comments here. Some IP addresses change periodically: I remember that when I was an IP user before I registered, my IP address changed periodically, though the new one was usually similar to the previous one. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 07:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Socking as defined by WP:SOCK Creating new accounts to avoid detection - by HW in my case, to avoid his stalking. Constructive 'no' Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP - no Reviving old unused accounts and presenting them as different users - no Persuading friends or acquaintances to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute - no I'm not guilty of socking. --78.101.227.119 (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Named accounts using IPs to avoid detection is definitely aganst policy as enforced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Whatever. Like I said in the penultimate sentence of my original comment, you can do as you will with my comments. Dynamic IPs in this country that are beyond my control. If you can find WP:SOCK that says it's against policy to deliberately avoid a single, stalking individual... --78.101.227.119 (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict, again) It may be better if you create a new user account to get a clean new start, instead of using your IP address. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 08:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I'm going to do that when I get out of here next month. Counting the days. --78.101.227.119 (talk) 08:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Sure, dynamic IPs are beyond your control, but editing with an IP instead of with your account is completely within your control. Now, what I propose is this: tell us what that IP is, or, alternately, what your account was, so we can take a look and make a considered judgment. If not, I suggest we collapse this section as totally irrelevant to the subject, since it cannot be verified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC) The IP is engaged in a cowardly personal attack and has provided no evidence, so unless it responds in 5 minutes, you should box this one up. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I think I have to agree. While I would like to assume good faith of our anonymous friend, the fact is that they've levelled some pretty serious allegations against HW and these need to be substantiated. I would suggest that if they're true, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz will be taking a lengthy holiday and Mr. IP can edit under his own account in safety. There does not appear to be much to be gained by remaining anonymous. Reyk YO! 08:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Go for it. I've said my piece and the evidence that I am not alone in my displeasure is weighty. --78.101.227.119 (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflicts coming out of my ears) Just go look up an article you remember editing using an IP, and find the IP address you used to edit it. Now give us that IP address, and that is all that we want. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 08:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC) 78.101.170.55 --78.101.227.119 (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC) 78.101.227.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 78.101.170.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I have checked all 10 edits of User:78.101.170.55, and HW wasn't involved in any way in any of them. In short, this IP is full of shit, and I'm collapsing this section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Uncollapsing. The IP editor stated that they began socking to avoid HW; that means that the above shows they were successful, and indeed, the edits listed were not listed for being in conflict with HW, but for being constructive. Try a little good faith will ya? What you are also asking them to do, considering the situation, is rather out of line. They are trying to avoid a wikistalker, and you want them to say, in a thread that everyone can see, what their original account was? That completely destroys the original purpose of evading a wikistalker. The proper method is to ask them to contact you on another medium, that the entire world cannot see, then ask them to log into their account, and post an obscure edit that is only discussed on the alternate medium to prove what they are saying is true. Not every sock is a banned user.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Well, the problem is that the IP is leveling an accusation without providing any evidence. He may well be telling the 100% truth, but since we have no way to verify it, it looks like a cowardly personal attack. The IP should find a trustworthy admin and send a confidential e-mail, and let the admin comment here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict × 3)And as I said, posting their user account here would be against the purpose of the sock; they want to avoid being stalked, and providing a solid link for the stalker to see is not constructive towards their stalk-free editing. The best way to go about such confirmation of actual accounts is behind closed doors with confirmation via logins; not out in the open where the stalker can re-acquire their target.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, that's a good idea. I may well do this when I have a bit more time. In the interim, I will keep my counsel and watch proceedings here. I'm sorry i appear to have caused a bit of a stramash - I don't think anything I have said has not been previously levelled at Wolfowitz? --78.101.227.119 (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC) (ec) Good faith is a two-way street. The IP has made specific claims, but has shown us absolutely nothing to support their claims, so it seems rather unfair to all concerned to leave them open. We pulled teeth, got an IP number, and there was nothing there. Why, then, are we continuing to give these claims any validity? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Wrong; you asked for them to show that they had made constructive edits; they've given you several diffs, and instead you use those diffs as if they refer to another related, but different, matter. You didn't ask them to show you diffs of a dispute between them and HW, but of constructive edits. As to who they are, I explain that adequately in the above reply; if you're trying to avoid being stalked, you don't tell the stalker who your new identity is. You tell someone you trust, behind closed doors.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, I suggest you re-read the discussion again. I wondered what the IP meant by saying they made "mostly" constructive edits, but the thrust of the conversation was to show us some evidence to support the claims they made. I could, if I wanted to, log out right now and come back as an IP and spin a tale about how TPH forced me to use an IP because he AfD all my articles, but that wouldn't be true, and I wouldn't expect you to accept it if I didn't provide any evidence. Well, the IP made similar claims about HW, and was asked to provide evidence, and threw up an address, which proved not to have had any interaction with HW. I fail to see in what respect the IPs claims should continue to be given visibility. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict × 3)I suggest you do the same, as you have clearly forgotten your own question.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC) As a forwards, the above reply was made before the reply it was to said anything like the above.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Struck out, now let me take some time to reply.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Given the direction of the conversation, which I did read(there's such a thing a civil discussion. Try to assume the other parties have read the thread, completely, instead of partially), I find it difficult to believe the IP thought otherwise. As noted in my struck out reply, you ask the IP to provide diffs of constructive edits. Your reply in no way asks for diffs of conflict between the user and HW, and as I previously stated, and as can be assumed of the IP, they didn't want to give their supposed stalker a head start. As I have said, it is out of line to ask a stalkee to give their stalker their home address(analogy here). The proper way to go about such a thing is behind closed doors. I would suggest a pm window on irc, or maybe through email between their original account and yours. Anything else that is not behind closed doors, is out of line for the previously described reasons.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC) (ec)Incidentally, Beyond My Ken, I think if you're going to start a sockpuppet investigation on someone, the polite thing to do is to tell them about it. Also, don't use rollback to revert changes that are not vandalism. Reyk YO! 09:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC) @Reyk: You are correct, my use of rollback there was wrong - I wasn't even aware of it until you pointed it out, which means, basically, that I pushed the wrong button. Since Daedalus969 has reverted my rollback edit, I have now reverted the original edit using "undo", so all is right with the world. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC) (ec x many)@Daedalus: I'm sorry, your parsing of the conversation is incorrect. For one thing, the IP consistently broke out of chronology, bouncing up in the conversation to answer previous questions, which makes it difficult to reconstruct. I, however, was there, and it was clear to me (and to the IP, from their reaction) that what was being asked for was some support fir their claims. But even if I am wrong, the fact still remains that the IP has still not provided any support for their claims against HW, which is why I still maintain this section should be collapsed as lacking in probative value. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC) @Reyk: The IP made a clear and definite statement that they were an account editing as an IP. As such, notification of an SPI report was unnecesary; besides, it is not a requirement. (I am usually quite compulsive about giving notification; this was not a case, I judged, it which it was necessary.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I suggest you just give up on the SPI case. First, the quick case is going to be declined without action due to violation what quick cases are for; second, an actual SPI case CU would be declined as CUs cannot link accounts to IP address, as such would be a violation of Wikipedia's privacy policy. Lastly, I've read the discussion, and you cannot argue what you just tried to as the time-stamps show otherwise. The comments were after another, not randomly spaced.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC) CUs cannot link IPs to named users publicly, but, as I'm sure you are aware, there is CU activity that goes on behind the scenes. 09:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Again, your understanding of the discussion is second hand, and flawed. I maintain what I maintain, thanks. And... again, Where is the evidence? Isn't that really the operative question, to which all the rest of this is a sideshow? Where is the IP's evidence that HW stalked them? We should not find ourselves in the position of accepting unspoorted anonymous accusations, don't you think? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC) In any case, as I tried to say many edit conflicts ago, I'm packing it in now, so I can't carry on this conversation any longer. I look forward to either seeing some concrete evidence here, or a collpased section. Night. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)I'm starting to lose patience with your unwarranted personal attacks. If you cannot discuss this in a civil manner, I suggest you go take a break. There is nothing 'flawed' about my understanding of this discussion, nor of my understanding of SPI, which I have been contributing to far longer than yourself; give me some credit. CUs do not divulge that information to anyone other than other CUs, it is strictly against policy, and a violation of Wikipedia's privacy policy, not to mention that your quick SPI case was just declined for breaking the very thing I said it did. As I have indeed said several times now, the evidence you seek relies on the IP giving the stalker their home address; to the point, they cannot post any such information here, but must do it behind closed doors, where they will not link their stalker-evasion account with their real account, which would otherwise completely defeat the purpose of its existence.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I'm confused - "personal attack"? Where? Suggesting that you don't understand the conversation that took place because you weren't there when it took place isn't a personal attack. Jeez, chill out - I think it's you who needs to take a breather, considering this overreation. Sheesh. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I've moved your comment so it is not in the middle of my own. Do yourself a favor and follow your own rules about chronology... But yes, personal attack of calling my reasoning flawed, of claiming that I do not understand the thread; it is clearly a personal comment and has no place in a civil discussion. Nowhere did you say that I didn't understand the conversation 'because I wasn't there', and indeed, such a line of thinking doesn't work given all text is visible for all to read; you don't 'have to be there' to have read the thread in its entirety. So instead of back-pedaling to quickly throw blame off of yourself, why don't you apologize, and take a break from this thread as you said you would?— Dædαlus Contribs 10:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC) And again, just to be clear, telling me my understanding of something where time is not a factor(in regards to my comment refuting your 'you weren't there' argument) is second hand and flawed is a comment on the editor; a personal attack. I suggest you stop trying to act like you are in the right for such things; you have 25k edits. Surely you, who have been here longer than I, would know better than this.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC) The communication problem is that the IP said "All my edits are of course made with constructive intentions, some I will concede in subsequent discussion/consensus might be otherwise construed" and BMK said, "Fine, tell us the IP you used to make those edits, so we can take a look at those edits and see how "constructive" they were." So the wording was a bit ambiguous, but it should be fairly clear that what's needed is evidence to support the IP's allegations, and he has provided none. If the original complaint here is dropped, just file this away in the memory bank. But if the complaint is taken seriously, a checkuser needs to step in here and figure out who's telling the truth. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC) CU policy forbids releasing that kind of information to users who do not have the CU user right. It's plain and simple, and what have been saying again, and again, and again, is that the IP must contact someone here, or someone that they trust with the details, as revealing said details here would tip-off the stalker, to the victim that went off the radar to avoid being stalked.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I'm not suggesting that the CU violate any privileges, but only to come here and say, "Yes" or "No" as regards the allegations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I don't believe that would work either, as it would require the participating CU expend their time and energy looking over the edits of the involved accounts; it would be far easier for the user to just email someone here(as I've requested of them) with their actual account with the evidence.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor

WP:BLPCAT over the addition of religous categories. Numerous warnings have been ignored, probably not suitable for AIV so bringing it here for attention. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃

13:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed resolved tag, what is resolved I cant see no post to IPs talk since they were notified, and they are not blocked, so what has been done to resolve complaint made? Mo ainm~Talk 18:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Donkey

• Böri (talk · contribs)
• Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

I feel a little sheepish bringing this to your attention, but I seem to have gotten into a minor edit war with this user who repeatedly ([132] [133] [134]) deletes another editor's talk page comment. This comment quotes Atatürk using the word "donkey" about a vaguely specified group of people, and apparently that's a Bad Thing. Now, I don't think that word is particularly offensive, and certainly not if it's a quote from a source, but as can be seen from User talk:Favonian#Eşek = Donkey!, my opponent thinks otherwise. I am not entirely sure whether the escape clause 3RR applies here, so rather than revert again I've chosen to bother you all with the problem. Favonian (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Sheepish", huh? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to be an ass, but we do have guidelines against removing other user's talkpage comments. I'm not sure that Böri has made a convincing case that Donkey is an insult in Turkish. Without a better rationale from him or one of our other Turkish speaking editors, I'd say the comments should be restored. Syrthiss (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No comment on anything else. But it's highly offensive to call someone a donkey in Turkish, and in Arabic as well. I suspect a few other languages.

talk

) 18:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This kind of reminds me of a topic a couiple of months ago, where an editor had a statement in kanji in his sig which was offensive to the native speakers, but not to anybody else. IIRC the consensus then was to remove the offensive statement.

talk

) 19:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In this case, it is not the editor's own statement, but a sourced quote from Atatürk (I assume it's correct, but cannot verify it), and removing it from the talk page would amount to censorship. Favonian (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Just be careful who you call what; mule not hear the end of it if you aren't careful. HalfShadow 19:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I should have foreseen the horrors, which my feeble pun would unleash. Favonian (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall now reinstate the original talk page comment, but I foresee some trouble as Böri has been spreading the word: [135], [136], [137]. Hope others will watch the talk page while I sleep. Favonian (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This user, Böri, evidently has a rather inadequate command of English, and has shown some difficulties in Getting Things here on Wikipedia before. The quote that he's so upset about is a from an anecdote where Atatürk is reported to have himself made that self-deprecating "donkey" joke about his own name, as reported by somebody from his entourage [138]; as such, there can of course be no question of it being somehow offensive. (And even if it were, there is no reason we should maintain the quasi-religious taboo surrounding this historical figure, which unfortunately is fairly common in Turkey). Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Salting deleted articles

What's the actual technical process to salt a deleted article that keeps getting disruptively recreated again? I haven't ever had to do that, that I recall... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

See

talk

) 23:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Click the redlink, click the "protect" tab, and then set your "create protection" settings. Don't forget to leave a detailed rationale :) –MuZemike 23:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Pumpie's talk page

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

As I'm sure many of you know, or at least, those of you who participated in the indef-block discussion, this user has a very large

competence problem

, which is in the area of their understanding of English and Grammar.

They have been recently blocked indefintiely, until such time that they can show a dramatic change in their understanding of English.

Although many editors have offered their good faith to this user, it seems it has gone unwarranted. That it has been wasted. They were in fact just waiting for a 'newbie' administrator to come by and unblock them.

Per the above diff, and their persistent denial that they need to take a year-long break from wikipedia, I am requesting that their talk page and email privileges be revoked; from the above diff, it is in my honest opinion that they cannot be trusted with either. I do not think it would be wise to give them access to their email, when in the above diff, they stated they were waiting to trick a new administrator into unblocking them.

This request is not to last as long as the block; it is not to last forever. Only a year from the day their block was issued.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to shut out a good-faith editor from the project even on grounds of competence, without offering mentorship first, specifically from an experienced Greek/English bilingual editor prepared to take the time. I'm not impressed by the appeal to a "newbie Admin", but cultural values differ between countries where corruption is the norm, and those where it isn't. Absent anyone wishing to take this editor on as a protege, on balance a year's block might be enough to get this editor up to speed. Rodhullandemu 01:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It might not be easy to see in the fog of verbiage on that page, but it's been established that Pumpie is also incompetent in Greek. It has yet to be established what his native language actually is (or whether he understands the term). This alone gives mentorship a slim chance of success, and there are also issues of willingness. FWIW; I really hoped we could help him to improve, but he's just in complete denial/incomprehension. Back to claiming his genius will overcome all, talking about social class, etc. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This may be a totally stupid question, but as you say the fog of verbiage over there defies comprehension and sapped my will to live... anyway. Has anyone asked, directly, what language Pumpie speaks? Has Pumpie ever edited from an IP which geolocates somewhere a reasonable guess of a primary language could be ascertained? → ROUX ₪ 03:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, at least 3 times recently. He first said he would answer later, then he replied that Greek was his native and English his speaking language. Unfortunately apparently his grasp of Greek is also non-native. He's been here since at least 2004; early on, he edited a lot as an IP. There's a statement on the talkpage from someone saying that back then his IP geolocated to Canada. Since then, things he has said imply Greece, but he has also been referring to plans to travel to the US and to a knowledge of every street in Picardy. In short: another citizen of the world, native language unknown. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see this previous discussion from October 28 which may answer some of your questions Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646#Pumpie including why the block was restored. MarnetteD | Talk 04:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only is this editor incompetent, he/she has repeatedly made promises and then broken them. This editor really just needs to go away for at least a few months. Looie496 (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

So what of my proposal then? Revoke talk and email access for a year from the day the block was issued. Since they still believe they are going to be unblocked, and since they will try tricking others(newbie admins) in order to achieve that end, I do not believe they can be trusted with either, and the only way to drive through the point that they cannot come back(until the other conditions noted in the original indef block thread are met) is through those restrictions.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My non admin opinion is to aqree with your proposal. Heiro 04:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If Pumpie claims a knowledge of every street in Picardy, then I'd hazard a guess that he may understand French. Maybe a French-speaking editor could leave a message in French on Pumpie's talk page and see if there is a response (this being per IAR re English language on En-Wiki). Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And if they just post more of the same?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Several of us can vouch for Pumpie's poor knowledge of French, and he admits himself that he understands it (and German) less well. He's been leaving out non-repetitive passages in his translations of French stations because he knows he can't render them. This is why I and others have breached etiquette and asked him what his native language is. He has not demonstrated competence in any. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

AGF does not demand we ferret out a language in which a user is competent when the user himself is unwilling or unable to declare it. Either his English, French, and Greek are all roundly abyssmal and the user simply cannot comprehend the request to name his native language (unlikely), or he is playing us. Either way, there is simply no justification for additional effort being expended here. Absent any compelling argument to the contrary, I suggest we simply block indef, revoke talk page access, and give him the "standard offer", though obviously contingent on competent communications rather than adequate behavior. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Pumpie is already blocked indef. My proposal was to revoke talk and email access for a year from the day they were blocked indef, per the single diff linked in this report, showing that Pumpie was going to try and trick a newbie admin into unblocking him.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, I feel

WP:AGF has run it's course. There is always email. S.G.^(GH) _ping!

07:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My proposal included revoking email access, again per the diff above, we can't trust him with either. This would only last a year from the day of the block, though.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I ran across Pumpie some considerable time ago. I would imagine the questions about his native language are related to encouraging him to contribute to that languages projects. If my recollection is correct, one of Pumpie's goals was to "know every language in the world", which I respect, even if it seems a little tricky sans transhumanism of some kind. I too had difficulty of some of his edits, the best thing would be to find some substantial WP project or task to which he could contribute his energy without causing problems. Any suggestions? Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

Commons with photography? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have reblocked with talk page and email disabled, for the reasons given above. If someone wants to advise Pumpie about constructive contributions elsewhere that would be fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... one question. Pumpie has over 45,000 edits since 2003-09-17. This hasn't seemed to be a problem until recently (first block was 2010-10-13). Has anyone done any research into (a) this being intent instead of incompetence? (reminds me of another editor in that respect... "Bad edits..." blocked not too long before this started... but anyway...) or (b) that the account has been compromised? ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about A, but I'm pretty sure it isn't B.. although his last contribution to his talk page has sewn doubt into my being.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Query: 45 of edits since 2003 isn't really a lot, is it? I ask, becuase if there was a substantive gap, wherein the user left as a constructive editor, and came back a nonconstructive one, maybe we are seeing an account being hijacked (of course, blocking works for both instances), Secondly, I would submit that if the user is using broken English, his comment about waiting for a newbie admin might not have been him trying to pull a fast one. He might have just been asking for an uninvolved admin (ie., a new one to his situation, without preconceptions). I've seen that asked for before in proper English without anything sinister implied. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. I'm sure you guys have this all figured out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The date of the first block isn't really relevant in this case. Just look at this from way back in 2004 [139]. The same problem of mass translations from and to languages that aren't sufficiently understood, and the exact same reaction from Pumpie when challenged about it, even using the same grammatical constructs ("I will..."). Seems pretty clear it's not a compromised account. It's also beyond my imagination why someone would intentionally play stupid for seven years (but I guess it's possible.) --

talk

) 05:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I admire everyone's work to assume good faith but is there a point at which it becomes reasonable to wonder whether we're dealing with another Borat Sagdiyev? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that Pumpie's last post to his own talk page is interesting. He states "I am a first generation foreign born Greek" which is at least a partial answer to the question he's been asked repeatedly for months now. If his parents mainly speak Greek, he's mainly learned English from TV programs as he suggests, and (speculating slightly) in some parts of the country that his IP suggests he's in, he would also be forced to learn French in school - then he may be something approaching tri-lingual resulting in his not having a sufficient grasp of any of the three languages. That could also give him distorted ideas of his own linguistic abilities and how translation should be handled (and thus the problems with German, Portugese, etc). If true then we should still be AGF but when it comes down to it, we just aren't able to communicate effectively with him so what's been done is the correct course of action --

talk

) 05:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds the idea of someone lacking a first language, or full competence in any language, to be heartrendingly sad? ClovisPt (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would find it sad if it were true. I find it vastly difficult to believe that it is the case; I grew up in Toronto, one of the most multicultural cities in North America (if not the world), and went to school with a lot of kids whose parents were immigrants and spoke only X, then had to come to school and speak English. Not to mention mandatory French classes! I find it extremely, extremely difficult to believe that Pumpie grew up without learning a primary language. → ROUX ₪ 19:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Persistent trolling is sad in a whole other way. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I gave the impression I was at odds with the block. I'm not, and I think it well warranted. Was more than anything, simply curious as to how much "leg work" others put into looking into this considering the 45K edits, and if no one had, I was going to, simply to satisfy my curiosity - or if others had, it would save me the looking into... just seemed strange if it's been going on for so many edits, but that's been covered above (and my curiousity satisfied, thanks). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Pumpie's been noticed in the past. Have a read of his Talk page where other Wikipedians were complaining about his translations, & if you have a taste for schadenfreude have a look at his unsuccessful RfA -- allegedly his 9th attempt! I figure he went a way for a while between 2005 (when contributors of his quality were ignored, not banned) & 2009 (when they were blocked & eventually banned). -- llywrch (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Have we not suggested to him that he go over to simple: if we are so concerned about his fluency?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it has been. The problem is that this user insists on editing here, regardless of their poor grasp of language. This is likely going to be another indef block on a user who just doesn't get it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that a poor grasp of English is a good qualification for writing encyclopedia articles in simple English. We shouldn't shovel our problems onto other projects. Would image work be a better place to redirect those with poor language skills? Bovlb (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be a prerequisite for him being allowed back here. If he is able to constructively contribute to the Simple English Wikipedia, thereby showing that his language skills are improving, then he could feasibly be brought back here. If they ban him, then it just shows that he's not good for any English language project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

From Simple's An English Wikipedian's guide#What Simple English Wikipedia is not:

"Simple English Wikipedia is not a place for banned users to try and get unbanned from another website. In fact users banned on other Wikimedia Foundation wikis can be banned here without warning (see: here). Simple English Wikipedia is a separate Wikipedia in its own right and we encourage editors to join who believe in our goal of a simpler to read project."

They most certainly do not want our problems. Furthermore, writing bad English is even more inappropriate for a project where people already have English comprehension issue.

I think editors here would be incensed if they thought another project was steering their banned users to us.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If I understand Ryulong's intent, it is not to "dump" Pumpie on Simple English, but to send him somewhere he can improve his skills while being useful. There have been cases where users banned from one project go to another, successfully reform themselves, & are able to return to their original project. It's obvious that neither the Greek or French Wikipedias will take him, & were he to go to one of the other Wikimedia projects, it'll only end in frustration & anger for all involved. But regardless of the reasons for sending him there, I suspect if Pumpie goes to simple English, he'll just end up being banned from there -- not helped in any way. -- llywrch (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI: some concerns expressed on other projects:

• w:pt:Usuário Discussão:Pumpie
• w:nl:Overleg gebruiker:Pumpie
• w:la:Disputatio Usoris:Pumpie
• w:el:Συζήτηση χρήστη:Pumpie
• w:de:Benutzer Diskussion:Pumpie (blocked also on de.wikipedia; see this earlier talk page version)
• w:af:Gebruikerbespreking:Pumpie

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have left a courtesy note on Simple Wikipedia informing administrators there of this discussion:

• w:simple:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Fresh start on Simple for a blocked en.wikipedia editor? (permanent link)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am an active user/administrator at Simple, and I do ask that we take care in avoiding the appearance of using it as a "rehabilitation center". In the past, it was expressly used for that purpose as if it were a test wiki and not a legitimate wiki in and of itself (some administrators used to openly send banned users over to Simple). I share A.B.'s concerns with Ryulong's proposal. We welcome any editors who can cluefully contribute in a good faith manner, but I personally ask that they not be sent over as part of a "trial". Kansan (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, from w:simple:Wikipedia:Blocks and bans#Reciprocal Bans:

"Administrators also have the option to block users who have been banned on other Wikipedias or other Wikimedia Foundation projects. This is decided on a case-by-case basis. Usually, a user who broke the rules on another project is not blocked unless they also break the rules on the Simple English Wikipedia. They can be blocked if they break the rules here even once, and do not need the same amount of warning as a new user. This is often called the "one-strike" rule. It is made to stop bad users, who have a history of making bad edits, from disrupting this project."

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So he doesn't fit in anywhere. Why not take this to a global level then until he tells us the language he speaks at home?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As a comment from someone who writes for different levels of comprehension in real life, writing Simple isn't simple. Writing simpler English for those with less developed grammatical abilities still requires a good command of grammar. Pumpie's writing would be baffling to many Simple users, and would be damaging for people using Simple for developing their own English comprehension. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles Whitman article

I am not sure even how I got involved, but I have tried to intercede in what is turning out to be a

WP:COI

issue, and I am now appealing for help.

The discourse involving 98.94.163.97 (talk) seemed to deteriorate rapidly, I did remove two taunts/incivility: mild and name calling, but I am not invested in this article to go any further.

The editor,

talk · contribs), also see more sockpuppets

. By his own admission, he has been blocked (he calls it "banned") twice already for his actions on this article topic. This is starting to become more sticky that I had thought.

He also has a propensity to use racial slurs... See: example

Now, this has entered another dimension as the individual named above seems to have not only personal knowledge but also an ulterior motive for editing the Charles Whitman article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

• Blocked 31 hours. --John (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I haven't been involved in the talk page discussions on this, but I share Bzuk's concerns. I am much more immediately concerned by this series of edits to the talk page, where the IP removes comments by a number of other editors with edit summaries that deprecate those editors' opinions. In my opinion the editor behind this IP ought to be permanently restricted from editing on the topic of Whitman, Ramiro Martinez, and especially Houston McCoy, though if the sockpuppetry allegation is true the next step is probably a siteban instead. Post edit-conflict comment: I still think we should pursue more than a short block. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Jimbo Wale's involvement in this issue here that conclusively identifies the problem and the recommendation that a siteban or even an IPrange ban is probably the only solution. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Indeed, I recommend that people not waste too much time on this. Revert, block, ignore. This nonsense has been going on for years, and I think it will continue for years. Known problem user.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we have a clear and explicit siteban ruling, please, so others can revert on sight without warning or fear of sanction? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've lengthened the IP block and removed all the BLP vios I could find. Please keep in mind, any editor is free to rm BLP vios on sight. Likewise, given all the sockpuppetry and disruption, if/when he shows up again, all an editor need do is let an admin know about it. Meanwhile, this looks like enough support for a community siteban to me, so I've added ban tags, so anyone who stumbles onto this later will be aware of the background. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Indexer bot is logged out again

See here for example. Thanks,

talk to me

00:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've soft-blocked the IP as bots editing while logged out is against the bot policy. I'll drop the operator a line. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't new; it seems to happen every few weeks.

talk to me

00:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

So I see from User talk:Krellis, the operator of User:HBC Archive Indexerbot. Any bot people care to weigh in on what to do next? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The operator should be instructed to add &assert=bot to the end of the urls through which the bot submits edits, which will prevent logged-out editing and editing on a non-bot account, as well as automatically shutting the bot down if it is ever de-flagged. This feature is further documented at mw:Extension:Assert Edit. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't this url addition mandatory on all bots before approval?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Krellis shows no edits since 22 September. 26 October I mailed this via Special:EmailUser/Krellis:

I have blocked 71.244.123.233 twice at the English Wikipedia for making bot edits while logged out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.244.123.233

Is this HBC Archive Indexerbot operated by you? I posted to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Krellis#HBC_Archive_Indexerbot

I don't know how it works but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Configuration_tips says: "To avoid unnecessary blocks, the bot may detect whether its account is logged in, and cease editing if not. This can be done using the Assert Edit Extension."

I have not received a reply. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

RevDel request/question

Could an admin please take a look at the edit summary for this diff? It seems borderline to me, but it is directed at the subject of the article, a BLP, so it might qualify to be RevDel. I'm not quite sure that it rises to the level of "grossly offensive," but I figure it's safer to bring it here for admin eyes. Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Borderline disruptive, but this is a BLP and the removal does not effect the edit otherwise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Racially motivated changes of nationality

This user, Special:Contributions/Koorja, has been tampering with the nationalities of non-white Britons.
I don't wish to violate 3RR. Varlaam (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Warned, happy to block if this continues. For future reference

WP:3RR. --John (talk

) 17:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Without checking the specific edits (although I will, if asked, and it turns out I would be sufficiently uninvovled), reverting unequivocal

WP:BLP violations is not enough. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

15:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Intervention needed in spreading LGBT rights POV dispute

There is an ongoing dispute between what I will characterize here for convenience sake as stridently pro-LGBT rights and stridently anti-LGBT rights factions of Wikipedia editors, although the situation is likely far more nuanced than that. There is a slow but continuous edit war at such articles as American Family Association, Arthur A. Goldberg‎, National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, and several others. Recent edits to Equality Mississippi caught my attention due to the involvement of User:Allstarecho who "retired" in August 2009 with the words "This user is sick of the bullshit and is now officially retired. Don't believe it? Watch" but seems to have returned in earnest. Allstarecho has an acknowledged conflict of interest as the founder of that organisation which has prompted previous discussions at ANI ([140], [141], & [142] for example). I would prefer not to see the disputes over that particular article start up again, but it is actually just part of the larger pattern. The involvement of more editors who are not polarized on LGBT rights issues would be appreciated. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I support this, a greater participation by less-involved editors would be of assistance over a wide swath of such articles. National Organization for Marriage and the deleted-in-contradiction-to-AfD-result Category:LGBT rights opposition, are another two examples that come to mind, but this is as Delicious carbuncle describes a slow, consistent burning war across a wide swath of articles, made worse by the paucity of less emotionally-involved editors. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So... what's changed? I've seen tug-of-wars on any number of LGBT-related articles over the past several years. The topic is obviously contentious in the non-Wikipedia world, and some amount of spillage into Wikipedia space is unavoidable. What's new this week? Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there have been disputes in the past is not a reason to ignore the current situation. In other contentious areas there are various remedies enacted ranging from increased scrutiny (watchlisting troublesome articles), discussion, article probation, formal or informal dispute resolution, all the way up to blocking or topic banning individual editors. I'm not sure why you would treat this set of articles any differently when an escalating dispute has been pointed out to you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no ongoing anything here. I've made 3 edits, 2 of those edits removing {{tl:dead link}} tags because the links in fact aren't dead. The other edit was restoring content that wasn't a BLP issue but spoke to the fact that the organization did something, send out a press release, and they did as supported by the source link. Before these 3 edits, my last edit to this article was August 12, 2009, a whole year and almost 3 months ago. This only proves Delicious Carbuncle is babysitting this article looking for drama. The only "ongoing dispute" here is that apparently Delicious Carbuncle hasn't gotten rid of the chip on his shoulder regarding me and our past experiences well over a year ago. He of course fails to mention my page says I'm semi-retired and instead resorts to histrionics of only pointing out what I said when I retired back in August. Why is/was it even necessary to include my retirement message of a year and almost 3 months ago, in this complaint?? Seriously?? Grow up and move on. This will be all I have to say on this matter. Thanks.   allstar✰echo  07:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Allstarecho, I mentioned you and Equality Mississippi here because of the past issues with that article, but there is a wider issue that should be apparent to anyone who has watchlisted any articles dealing with LGBT rights issues. Your conflict of interest remains, however, and, as I recall it, your retirement came at a time when you were on the verge of being banned for repeatedly violating a topic ban relating to Matt Sanchez. Your last edits to Equality Mississippi were actually in April of 2010, not in August 2009. Nonetheless, your role in this larger POV dispute seems to be reactive rather than active, and I brought this here to deal with the larger issue, not to single out any particular users. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Image question

This has been uploaded by

Liberal Democrat activist, whose edits mostly consist of attacking Phil Woolas, a Labour Party politician. He claimed when uploading the poor-quality image that 'This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Joseph Fitzpatrick on behalf of Philip Woolas.'. I seriously doubt that this is true. Sumbuddi (talk

) 15:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As a point of information, there is an ongoing legal case involving Phil Woolas. The image uploaded appears identical to one shown on the Guardian website here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's quite possible they relied on the (presumably false) public domain tag on the image here. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is PD: see the gallery in the guardian, they won't just make that up, but will have checked. A similar case is

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. SmartSE (talk

) 16:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A bit of Googling confirms that a Joseph Fitzpatrick was Woolas's Election Agent, though that doesn't help much either way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You're telling me newspapers don't take false statements on Wikipedia at face value? This statement can be proven to be false. The Guardian image post-dates the Wikipedia upload; if it was the other way round I'd agree with you - clearly newspapers and other media sources use images found online, and the identical folding/crumpling on this suggests it was taken directly from here.

Why would Woolas' agent release the image into the public domain? So his opponents can use it to smear him? Not a chance. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

But what about the other images in the gallery? Where are you suggesting they got them from? More likely, is that they both got them from the same original source. I'm going to email The Guardian to seek clarification, over why they consider these to be PD. SmartSE (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• - That pic should be speedied, claiming that jonny who owns the copyright asked you to upload it for them is not a correct copyright claim at all.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 20:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It was listed for speedy deletion but the tag was removed by someone who said that Chronos appeared to be claiming to be Joseph Fitzpatrick. Something which is 100% not the case, as can be seen from Chronos' numerous edits attacking Woolas and other Labour and Conservative figures. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Notice the little PA at the end of the caption here? That means the image came from the UK
  Press Association. Which means its copyright to them. Elen of the Roads (talk
  ) 21:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible victim named, may need revision deleted

I brought this up on the BLP noticeboard with no response, figured I'd try here instead. I earlier reverted an edit by an anonymous editor in the article

John Todd (occultist) that claimed to name a victim of one of his crimes, and I'm wondering if we can get that IP editor's revision deleted, as naming this person (especially without a source as far as I can tell) seems to be against WP:BLP. Ian.thomson (talk

) 18:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it, and another admin can review it. It looks a bit like plain vandalism, but either way.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, BLP violation on the alleged victim - good use of that function. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Copy paste move

10GPON, 10G-PON

Resolved

Self descriptive, this edit changed the page into a redirect, this edit pasted it in the new article. --Muhandes (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Repairing ... - 2/0 (cont.) 19:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, editor notified of

WP:MOVE. - 2/0 (cont.

) 20:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, was a new article and wasn't sure how to request a move. The official name seemed more appropriate for the page title. Webwat (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

possible suicide threat

Handled. Thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Dying. I just thought it should be brought up here. --Ludwigs2 19:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, this could probably use the attention of WMF staff, they generally handle contacting the relevant authorities in cases like this. They're probably just trolling, but generally it's best to be on the safe side. It's a little disappointing that it seems to be generating some rather poor-humour replies on the reference desk. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I believe there's an e-mail like [email protected] to contact to inform WMF, but I'm not sure if that's the correct e-mail. I'm sure someone else will know, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I believe it is that email. I fired off a message. Better safe than sorry, and it's not like I'm calling 911 or something.  What did I do wrong? 20:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks everyone, we're on it. Christine Moellenberndt, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:86.154.83.210

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

At 12:55 today, I was sent this lovely message from an IP:

Don't worry Kthnxbye, he and Tbhotch are cut from the same cloth, they're a pair of wankers, who have threatened the entire Wikipedia community going back to the beginning of this year. You can be horrible to them as often as you want- hope this is a consolation for you! So Chasewc91, fuck off. 12:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why this was posted to my talk page as it was directed at another editor, but I responded with a 4im warning as these were some pretty nasty comments and the IP likely knew better. Surely enough, they revert at 21:51. –

Chase (talk / contribs

) 21:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. This was pretty straightforward, and might have been dealt faster at WP:AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Wasn't sure if AIV was the appropriate venue. –

Chase (talk / contribs

) 22:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Where did Keith Olbermann attend college?

Perhaps an RFC or mediation will settle this matter. It isn't really a matter for admins, except insofar as some editors are skirting a block. --TS 00:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that again. BuboTitan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to have but a single interest in Wikipedia, ranting endlessly at talk · contribs) is an Olbermann fan who's in on a conspiracy to hide this vitally important discussion because it archives old threads. This is getting rather tiresome and I was wondering if there's anything that can be done on an Administrative level to help BuboTitan understand that it may not be in his best interest to continue on his present course. --Steven J. Anderson (talk ) 22:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Oh man ROFLCOPT award. Why not just cite which one and be done? This is obviously Good faith question (Though WP:STICK might apply). The Resident Anthropologist (talk ) 23:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC) The issue seems to be that the college he attended is a state, not private one - but according to the Cornell article, the University consists of 9 private and 4 state colleges. So what? Why does it matter whether it's mentioned or not? is this some big class distinction thing in the US that the rest of us are not aware of? Fainites barleyscribs 23:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC) It seems to be political point-making thing. Conservative Ann Coulter said Olbermann didn't "really" go to the Ivy League Cornell,[143] leading to Olbermann showing his Cornell diploma on TV. [144]. --Slp1 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Has anyone asked the editor in question, "Why does it matter?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, for anyone who doesn't know, this all started when some pundit mentioned the Ag School in an effort to denigrate Olbermann's education. Since then there have been periodic flurries of talk page disruption advocating to put this in, in spite of the fact that no other bio on Wikipedia contains similar information. Is there anything an admin can do to help Bubo get it? --Steven J. Anderson (talk ) 23:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC) There's pages of this stuff. See archive 5 as well. BuboTitan is involved from here onwards, (January '10).Fainites barleyscribs 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC) I see. The fact that someone would be taking an implicit shot at the Ag School is fairly offensive in itself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC) In the absence of any reliable source indicating that there is some significance in having attended this college rather than any other college in Cornell (not as yet produced) this insistence looks pointy and disruptive. Fainites barleyscribs 23:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC) I'd agree. The vast preponderance of reliable sources refer to him as a Cornell graduate. The Ag school RS mentions, and they are few, occur only in relation to Coulter's comments. I'd suggest making a FAQ section on the talkpage, with links to the key discussions in the archives, so that editors can be pointed to that. If it continues to be a problem, then having a new RFC is probably a good idea to show that consensus has not changed. It's been a while since the last one. --Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Uh, yes, we established at the talk page long ago, that this doesn't belong in the article. I wasn't asking to relitigate that here. I was just hoping for some kind of admin help in getting this through to Bubo. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I agree entirely with Fainites. What Ann Coulter says has little bearing on how we choose to write our article on Mr. Olbermann. If these users are unwilling to follow the intent of WP:BATTLEGROUND, they need to be asked to cease and desist, and should be blocked if they are unwilling to listen. NW (Talk ) 01:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Speaking as a member of WikiProject Cornell, I can assure you that Mr. Obermann received a Cornell degree. See the article statutory college for further details. Each college at Cornell has a separate admission process and separate graduation requirements, but a single set of intercollegiate sports teams draw their players from all of the colleges, including the NYS College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Hence, all of Cornell is a part of the Ivy League. Racepacket (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Undoubtedly those kveching about Olbermann are not using "Ivy League" in the technical sense of the members of the sports conference, but more in the colloquial extended meaning of "old, elite East-coast private university". (You know, "Ivy-covered professors, in ivy-covered halls," as Tom Lehrer sang.) Why they think it matters is beyond me -- it's not like MSNBC is going to pull his show because his degree is from a state college within an old, elite East-coast university. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I think I'll jump in here for a moment since my position has been grossly misrepresented. I'm guessing that Steven J. Anderson came here first because he figured I was going to request admin help after he lost his temper on the page and resorted to ad hominems (look at his remarks there 02:08, 5 November 2010). Enough said! Now let me point out a few things: The official name of the school is actually the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University and in spite of what "Baseball Bugs" thought above, I NEVER said that it was academically any different than the rest of Cornell. I also never insisted that the full name of the school be included in the article. In fact, I've never even edited the article!! EVER. I wanted to discuss it on the talk page before doing any editing. I did argue that the issue should be discussed in some manner in the article, since it is a controversy in and of itself and Mr. Olbermann himself has addressed this controversy on the air. I was looking for some kind of compromise. In spite of what Steven said, there is no consensus on this issue; the robust amount of discussion on it is proof of that. The issue for the previous RFC was only whether or not to send the Cornell link to Cornell page directly or the the Ag School instead. It had nothing to do with mentioning the issue in the body of the article. Is this even important? Actually, my bigger objection here is the problem of Ownership of Articles. It's telling that I've been away from this article for 6 months and when I come back, the same three people are there within minutes if any comment is left on the talk page. You can also look at the old discussions, such as here, or here. The same users (usually Blaxthos ) put "hats" on discussions in the archives and label them as "irrelevant" or "trolling" or whatever in order to hide discussion of this particular subject as much as possible. So it's obviously very important to someone. The point is that this small group will not allow any edits at all other than their own, and get outright hostile over any contrary opinions even on the talk page. That's not what Wikipedia is about. Bottom line is, the article could really use a new pair of eyes away from the usual editors. Not necessarily mine, but someone new. As of right now, the article could almost be described as a fan page, even considering the subject is a living person. Certain editors on the talk page there, such as Blaxthos or Steven Anderson could also be strongly reminded of Wikipedia policy regarding civility. Thanks. BuboTitan (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC) See what I mean? It never ends. I made some intemperate comments, which I have no intention of redacting because they're substantially accurate, and in all fairness, I came here looking for help before it got to that point. Somethings gotta be done to stop this shit. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Do other articles about Cornell graduates make a point of specifying whether they went to the Ag school or whatever? (I don't know the answer, which is why I'm asking.) Also, everything Ann Coulter says is designed to cause controversy, so what's special about this? And why does her dissing of the agriculture industry have anything to do with Olberman's career? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Bugs your first question that's been answered dozens of times and the answer is no. Check article on the ag school , thereby getting the information to the reader through subterfuge.Oops, I misunderstood what he meant by "compromise". I guess he has no real ideas for improving the article and is disrupting for it's own sake. A Can anyone here honestly say that they believe he's acting in good faith when he does this? What bothers me about the question, however, is that it's a question about a content dispute that was resolved a year and a half ago, which Bubo knows. What he calls ownership is what everyone else calls consensus. There's no ownership. A wide variety of editors have no trouble editing that page without any problem. There are a few disputes but they are generally handled in the normal course of things. But, every time one of the trolls and POV pushers gets started on the talk page it turns into a complete, fucking shambles with hundreds of thousands of bytes on this subject alone. We don't need any more discussion on whether that bit of trivia belongs in the article. That was handled long ago by consensus. What we do need is some kind of consensus on how to deal with the disruption on the talk page, which becomes unusable every time the trolls start in on it. Blaxthos has tried hatting these discussions from time to time, but then, guess what? the trolls start to piss and moan about that. Is there anything an administrator can do about this or do we need an Arbcom ruling that allows this shit to be deleted from the talk page on sight the way it is with similar idiocy is at the Obama-related talkpages? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC) So Steven Anderson, I guess the strategy here is to sling enough ad hominems at me and make stuff up until something will stick? Are you going to make a comment about my mother while you are at it? I probably shouldn't even bother to address you directly, but I would really like to know where did I ever try to put a surprise link to redirect the link to Cornell??? Where did I even suggest that?? Put up or shut up. If I'm going to try to assume good faith, then the most generous I can be is to assume that you have argued this issue with so many others that you are confusing me with other people. But that still doesn't excuse making false statements about me. If you are so confused, and there is still so much arguing over this, then that alone strongly suggests that: 1) Maybe it's time for some of the page "owners" to take a break and recuse themselves for awhile, and 2) The issue does not have a consensus (see my comment below). BuboTitan (talk ) 14:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC) POV Pushers who play WP:DISRUPT and should be instructed to stop or they will be blocked. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Agreed. However, the RFC that is constantly being referring to here, was only over the issue of redirecting the Cornell link to the AG College. It didn't address including the controversy between Ann Coulter and Mr. Olbermann elsewhere in the article. There is no consensus on that anywhere. That might also solve a lot of the bellyaching over this issue - if anyone tries to change the Cornell link, just revert and point out that the issue is already addressed in the body of the article. Or another idea, as someone suggested above. Simply start a new RFC. BuboTitan (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC) This is a acknowledge the points from the megabytes of discussion on the matter, can we please start moving towards a stern warning, potential topic ban, or some other form of injunctive relief? Good faith editors shouldn't have to repeat discussions ad infinitum because of a few determined POV trolls... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Agreed. There plainly is consensus in wiki terms. No sensible argument or or suitable source has been put forward to justify including this pointy point in the article despite the many inches of discussion. BuboTitan, please desist this campaign and consider yourself warned, otherwise a topic ban or block will be seriously contemplated. Fainites barleyscribs 15:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Well, Faintes, we can settle this right now. If you or anyone else can do this, then I will stop making any comments at all on the article. Simply give me one single link or a reference that shows consensus on the issue of including the controversy in the article. Can you do that? (*sound of crickets chirping*). And consider this a "warning" as well, from now on, anyone who insists on making untrue statements about me, assigning quotes to me which were not made by me, disrupting the talk pages to hide disagreement, or making personal attacks will be reported. Fair enough? I can't assume good faith if this still goes on after repeated requests to stop. BuboTitan (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC) "Teach the controversy" is not a good argument here. There is no controversy. The original arguments made by editors and Coulter that Ag isn't part of Cornell proper are plainly wrong. Coulters view is not a controversy - just media posturing. Fainites barleyscribs 15:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC) So in other words, your statements are all empty air you can't produce this "consensus" for us. And you may think there is no "controversy", but Olbermann sure did (since he publicly addressed it on his show), and the article is about him, not you.BuboTitan (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC) The most recent one is Talk:Keith Olbermann#Edit request from 98.201.172.146, 13 August 2010, preceded by Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive_6#Keith's real college..., Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive 5#Cornell redux. Seems that there's been quite a bit of trolling over this topic over time, much the same way the Obama page gets attacked with birther/Muslim junk every so often. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Maybe there ought to be a sockpuppet investigation to find out if this is one person pushing the same POV and trying to make it appear as multiple people. Additionally, BuboTitan's particular brand of WP:TE bears more than a passing resemblance to Grundle2600 (talk · contribs). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Hey Burpelson, first of all, since I've never even edited the article ownership of articles is so bad on the Olbermann page that there are edit wars on the talk page. I'm not kidding. Moreover, this is the only Wiki account I have ever had, although I don't do a whole lot of editing with it. If you think I'm a "sock puppet", then give me a way to contact you, and I'll be glad to call you myself. I am only me. Additionally, I notice you just undid a small edit I made to an unrelated article. Coincidence? I hope this isn't leading to wikistalking. BuboTitan (talk ) 23:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC) On the content issue itself, I find this all a bit mystifying. For UK universities that have a college system, it's totally standard to state which college at that university a person attended, if it's known; I don't see why the same thing doesn't apply. Apart from anything else, it is interesting that a sportscaster attended an agricultural college ( Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences). By contrast, controversy about the college's source of funding seems pointless and manufactured, and eminently ignorable. Rd232 talk 15:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Because there's not the same kind of relationship between colleges and universities here, with some rare exceptions in some of the oldest American universities, such as Harvard and Columbia. Rather than the university being a (for lack of a better word) confederation of semi-independent existing institutions, as I believe is the case for Oxford and Cambridge, colleges in American universities are, by and large, completely subsidiary to the university. It's most often the case that the college has, in fact, been created by the university as a sub-unit, rather than having had a pre-existing identity. (And, yes, it does indeed happen that a university and an existing institution will merge, in which case the new "college" or school will carry on having a somewhat separate reputation, but this is not the norm in American universities.) Bear in mind that even our oldest institutions are very much younger than the Oxbridge ones -- and I wonder, does the model of OXford and Cambridge carry over to newer UK universities, or are they more on the American line? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Oh, and rest assured that when Coulter and her ilk bring this up, it's not because they find it "interesting" that a newscaster (he hasn't been a sportscaster for a while) went to an agricultural college. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC) The only other university that is very much college based is London which is a conglomeration of different institutions of different ages, far more so than Oxbridge. To people who haven't been to Oxbridge they would just say someone went to Oxbridge. It's mainly only people who went there who would care whether it was Kings or Balliol or whatever. However, at London, if you go to UCL or Imperial College, that is where you go and probably have nothing to do with any other aspect of London University at all.Fainites barleyscribs 17:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia should be as specific as possible. The other extreme would be that "Mr. Olbermann attended a university in the USA, but Wikipedia refuses to mention which one". பின்லாந்துF (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Actually, there's a degree of specificity which is appropriate, and "Cornell" is the answer to that question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC) ( St Edmund Hall at Oxford rather than just Oxford University. Is that correct? I must confess, I don't see the big deal with adding something like this to the article, but that isn't a discussion for here. What is up for discussion is a persistent IDIDNTHEARTHAT. NW (Talk ) 17:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC) With respect to Oxford (which may or may not be a good analogy for the Olberman issue), I describe myself as an Oxford graduate, but I am a member/alumnus of Wadham College, Oxford - the reason being that at Oxford and Cambridge students most closely associate themselves with their college, colleges are separate legal entities and all teaching is centred around the college, but degrees are awarded by the University. – ukexpat (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC) The opposite is the case here (again, with rare exceptions) - identification would be with the university and not the college or school. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Well here, if someone said where did you go to Uni and you said "Balliol" that would be fine if you were talking to an Oxford man but probably considered pretentious by anyone else. Fainites barleyscribs 19:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

BuboTitan edit warring

Please make edit warring reports to the appropriate page. --TS 00:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved BuboTitan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) After several stern warnings by administrators in the thread above, and a direct warning on his talk page, user BuboTitan has resorted to edit warring to un-{{ hat}} the closed discussion at Talk:Keith Olbermann . Evidence of 3RR violation: Revert at 08:43 Revert at 09:44 Revert at 09:48 3RR warning was issued by Burpelson AFB at 10:49 Lengthy discussion/warning from Fainites Revert at 17:35 Additionally, please note all the C&D's above. Administrative assistance appreciated. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC) If he has indeed broken the 3-revert rule, I suggest you post your findings on that page, since there seems to be no willingness to take care of it here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC) This kind of thing is taken care of much faster at WP:AN3.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, that one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC) LOL, I will be glad to discuss this in any forum, and let Blaxthos dig himself deeper in a hole, since I have never even edited the Keith Olbermann article. The only thing I am "guilty" of is removing "hats" that were placed on the talk page to hide the discussion, since certain user's own mudslinging had become embarrassing to them. These weren't "reverts" and didn't remove any information from the page. On the contrary, I merely unhid the discussion - a discussion that is currently an issue on this admin noticeboard, no less! BuboTitan (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Actually, the issue is not Olberman or what's-her-face or the college - it's YOU that's the issue. ¿Comprende? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Bugs, so you are admitting this is a personal vendetta? You are embarrassing yourself and wasting people's time on this admin board. I advise that you cease and desist this nonsense. BuboTitan (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Bugs, I brought it here because it's not a singular incident of 3RR violation, but rather a demonstration of this editor's willingness to violate Wikipedia policies with a pointy disruption after several admins told him to stop (and said continuing will result in topic ban discussions). I'm sure you don't speak for all the admins here when you say there is "no willingness to take care of it here". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Well following the warnings BuboTitan has rather lost his cool and responded by edit-warring on the talk page about a hat, implying I have some personal issue in this matter (Maybe you had a traumatic experience arguing with other users), accusing Bugs above of having a personal vendetta (!) and implying bad faith all round. Whilst it is true that a number of editors are quite bemused as to why it should matter in the slightest whether the college is mentioned or not, the problem here is WP:TE. Fainites barleyscribs 19:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

MSNBC Suspension

Please discuss editorial matters on the talk page of the relevant article. The other remarks made in this do not help anybody. --TS 00:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If this story is accurate, it's about a thousand times more important than the question of which college he went to. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC) That's already in both WP:ANI? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC) To illustrate the magnitude of importance (or lack thereof) of the issue in question here, vs. the real-life situation he's gotten himself into. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Based on the subject of your pronoun "he", I think you're confused (no offense) as to the purpose of this discussion at ANI. The issue at question here is the disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point after being warned by several administrators; the issue is not whatever you think about the underlying content. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I know what the purpose of this discussion is - it's to decide what to do, if anything, about Abdul the Bubo. I'm simply trying to make the point that even if he stops harping and finds reliable sources who think it's a big deal that Olbermann went to an ivy league's ag school - it still doesn't belong, because it's too trivial. Getting suspended for donating to candidates is not trivial. I've always liked Olbermannn, but this was an incredibly stupid thing that he did. So what I'm saying is that if Bubu wants to edit something about Olbermann that's a criticism, he should drop this college nonsense and get some good sourcing on something that matters. And in the process he should also stop acting like a troll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Wow. What does "Abdul the Bubo" mean? Is that supposed to be a racial remark? And you guys still don't even understand the real issue. I'm not pushing a POV and am not out to "criticize" Mr. Olbermann or anyone else. You still have me confused with someone else. The only thing I want, is to be able to discuss the issue of including information in the article without being flamed, insulted, edited, or censored by having the conversation hidden under "hats" so that no one can discuss it. IMHO, this is the result of can't stand any dissention. This is against wiki guidelines, and is not healthy for any article. You have already accused me of multiple sins, but none of them have stuck. But it's your life, so you can keep spinning your wheels in the ground if you want. Good luck with that. BuboTitan (talk ) 18:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC) No, it's just playing with your user ID, since I didn't remember the whole thing, just the "Bubo" part. Seems to me the issue already has been discussed and you did not persuade. So drop it already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Bugs, who is "Abdul the Bubo" ? Fainites barleyscribs 22:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Half of duelists in an old story or poem or something. The other guy was Ivan Skavinsky Skavar. I was just playing with the name. I could just as easily have invoked Harry Belafonte and his old song, "Mama Look a Bubo". Or Yogi Bear and Bubo. Or the famous expert on plagues, popularly known as Bubo Nick. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Need consensus before mass-reverting TigreTiger's edits

Resolved

Under control. This is starting to do nothing but attract sockpuppets. talk to me 22:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note:Original discussion in a recent AN/I incident-archive I started reverting his edits then stopped after realising the master account (Schwyz) is indeffed but not banned, so I'm hoping to gain consensus here. Of course, if anyone found anything construcative that would get reverted, you would be free to restore it. talk to me 00:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Just grab the "rollback all" script out of my monobook.js, go to his contribs and click the button if the ratio of unconstructive to constructive edits is so high that the constructive are so negligible as to be worth sacrificing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC) That;s the script I started to use. I also have a revert moves script. talk to me 01:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I think that if nobody objects within the next hour, I'll get started. talk to me 05:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, the negative to positive ratio is essentially 1/0. Please, just deal with it so we don't have the train wreck he left behind. I'll be watching on NPP to see if/when someone starts mass creating on similar topics; I'll tag them as necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Ok, I'll do it now. Complaints go to my talk page. talk to me 05:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Can an admin please make this 100x faster by using talk to me 05:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Unless someone has done it before me, there's nothing to nuke. Nuke only removes new pages created by a user, not their edits. Courcelles 05:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I undid a few moves, but doing it by hand is very slow. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I'm sure, especially since his latest sleeper sock, TurkChan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), did some more of them before being indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Enric, why are you moving against naming convention for South American lakes? Also, re-introducing typos into Wikipedia is bad. The typo was there for over a year. Thanks to TigreTiger it got fixed. And he fixed a lot of other things. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huangacocha_Lake&diff=prev&oldid=395160534] Catanzaro (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Also, Iguaque is a lake, not a lagoon. Spanish laguna has another meaning. Why re-introducing this mistake [145]? Catanzaro (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Also, why re-inserting ambiguity? [146] Catanzaro (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Read again the warning posted by User:TTsecondary - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive647#Note_from_TTsecondary - it got collapsed and is not easy to read, but TigreTiger did lot of disambiguation and other contributions. Catanzaro (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Contributors who are indefinitely blocked are not welcome to edit Wikipedia under other accounts. If you are interested in making positive contributions, negotiate an unblock under your primary account by convincing the community that you will no longer disrupt. If the account is unblocked, nobody will mass revert you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Schwyz was not blocked. Nevertheless TigreTiger got blocked. Lift the block undelete Tuma River etc and things are much better. It's up to you to end this. Huelva (talk) 14:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC) "Holy frijoles", another calcetín títere. He's got a million of 'em, folks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC) He gawn. The next one that turns up, instead of the "duck test", we could say, el calcetín títere huele a tigre. I translate that as "smells like a sock". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC) If you found 200 you may have all. Definitely I have not a million old accounts. But future accounts - why not. It's easy to create them. Use other IPs, even other ranges ... Huelva (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC) There are many of us, and just one of you. Knock yourself out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC) And the thing is, you cannot prevent me from editing. Yes, you can make it harder. But you cannot prevent. The latest stuff was easy to detect for you, I was aware of that fact, so no surprise to me. But the thing is, life is easier for you too, if you just let it go. No actual harm is done. There was a vandal allegation attached to the block of the TurkChan account. I never did vandalize. And I also did not use accounts to have more votes somewhere. I had different account for unrelated fields, or in those cases where the fields were related I used the account one after the other. So no abuse according to the WP policies. I would like if we could all work normal. Everything was ok with the TigreTiger account. But someone opened a SPI case related to an abandoned account - one that never was blocked. The TigreTiger creates a stub on Tuma River, this gets deleted, he re-creates, deleted again and so forth, he makes it longer to address a concern by the deleting admin - BOOM. He gets blocked for 24h. And less then 15min later he is indefinitely blocked. And then Schwyz gets indefinitely blocked. And since then, all accounts that the user behind TigreTiger uses get blocked. But not for vandalism, only for the sake of it. And only for the sake of it, edits of TT get reverted, errors re-introduced etc etc. And the real vandals are happy, that people that want to improve Wikipedia are occupied by investigating on TT accounts and by blocking these accounts. And are also happy that TT accounts have a hard time to work, since TT accounts also revert vandalism. Why not work together? White flag and lets sit together? Huelva (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC) BTW: These all are not socks of User:Schwyz. Huelva (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Could be. You're sounding more and more like Elsie. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC) It cannot be all socks of Schwyz. Since Schwyz account is younger than some of the others. They are wrongly grouped right now already. Huelva (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC) It doesn't matter. It's the first one found, so it will do fine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC) In practice, there are certain unwritten criteria for choosing the name of a SPI case: first discovered sock is usually chosen as the sockmaster name sometimes the account with more edits is chosen, instead of choosing the older account if the sockmaster name is very difficult to spell, then people might "forget" to rename the case, for the sake of having an easy name to remember sometimes the sockmaster uses a younger account as its main identity, and that account is chosen as the SPI name --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC) @Schwyz, you said above "But the thing is, life is easier for you too, if you just let it go". How about we revert you, block you, and ignore you . Or, as an alternative. How about you stop making the massive moves that everybody opposes (like moving "Lake X" to "X Lake"), and instead you concentrate on doing stuff that people thinks that it's contructive (like creating the disambiguation page for Nueva Colombia). Then we wouldn't to clean up after you, and the encyclopedia would still be improved. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC) And citing at least one reliable source when creating stubs of geographical places. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) I've had a feeling for a while that this may be someone else from a long way back although I've not been around long enough to have any ideas who. As more and more socks come to light it becomes obvious this has been going on for a long time (latest account is nearly two years old) and by this edit it looks like we may have a lot more to discover yet. Huelva's right when he says that, technically at least, they're not all socks of Schwyz as that's not the oldest account but it makes sense to group them that way until we discover an older sockmaster we already have reports on as Schwyz was the user that started all this. Dpmuk (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC) The reason it reminds me of LC is that it's taking the same tack: "Stop blocking me for disruption, and I'll stop disrupting." Which is a lie, of course. As with the mouse in that video I posted earlier. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Done reverting moves (I think) And since the "rollback all" script is acting up on me, let's each choose one sockpuppet and revert a few hundred edits by hand. Ok? talk to me 15:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC) G5 Should we just G5 all of his unreferenced stubs? talk to me 15:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Sounds reasonable to me. This guy has more socks than a goddamn Hanes factory, and zapping these articles (the unreferenced ones, at least) wouldn't be a bad idea as long as there aren't substantial contributions from other people. It might discourage him, and it'll give us something to watch for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC) BTW, I changed the header to G5, which is what I think you meant.

Personal Attack

I've been equated to being a racist, and the owner of the talk page is attempting to retain the remark even after redaction. Can this be RevDel? Statement was applied here, redacted here and restored here. I believe there are also a few other revisions in the page history where the comment is edited, I can dig those up if necessary. Will notify users of this AN/I after submitting. Akerans (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If an admin has any questions, please let me know on my talk page. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally, as long as they do not violate policy the "owner" of a talkpage pretty much decides what is kept and what is removed from it - the question is whether you said those words, and if so are they being so taken out of context as to change the meaning and disparage your reputation. You may need to make that case here if you want admin intervention. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a plenty, but I definitely won't sweat this one, and have gotten adverse to wiki litigation even when I have cause. Unless there is a persistent pattern of abuse, such as block evasion, or disruption, I'm cool with letting anomalies slide. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• LessHeard vanU, the comment in which 82.135.29.209 considers an "unfortunate and baseless smear" was in reference to a disparaging remark against single purpose accounts. 82.135.29.209 notes that I would "defend" such a comment, even if racially worded. She/he is more than welcome to say I would defend remarks against single purpose accounts, but race has absolutely nothing to do with this. Akerans (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I proudly claim credit, and was properly quoted by IP209, for saying"unfortunate and baseless smear." I gotta go and fight terrorism now that WP is safe from another instance of silly litigation.

Okay I understand the context, now. No, it is not a personal attack - because you are not being represented as a racist, but as someone who would find a reason under which a comment, possibly harsh, could be construed as uncivil; in fact, if my understanding is correct, further than being equated to a racist you are possibly being compared to someone who is overly "politically correct" and taking umbrage accordingly... You might politely request that the editor finds a less sensitive metaphor for their opinion, but I don't think it necessary to remove the edit if they do not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess we're understanding the comment differently. To me, s/he's saying I would "defend" a racist remark by another editor. So, no, I'm not being equated to being racist. Rather, I'm being equated to someone who condones racism. Akerans (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It must be a stretch if you need to explain it, regardless of my limitations, and it is possible that your perception of the comment is not that which was intended (and in fact may be the point the editor is trying to make). I don't think this is going anywhere, so my suggesting you make a request to have that wording changed seems the best route. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe IP209 poorly and clumsily tried to argue that Arzel and Akerans did not understand that SPAs are not all automatically bad. I never studied logic, but Arzel's argument could be seen as A is a B because he did C. But IP209 failed analogy seems to go along the lines of This (A) is coming from a black person (B) because I can prove that the black person (B) is a black person (B). I know, it doesn't make any sense to me either.

It would be impossible for Akerans to understand, let alone defend, the statement, and his confusion leading to frustration is understandable. Is it possible for the parties to agree to have IP209 concede that the statement was inartful and should not have included race? And could presumptions of good faith allow the benefit of the doubt to grant that IP209 would never intend to smear Akerans as a racist or a defender of racists? And if IP209 agreed to remove the statement (with no objection from me), and not try to update with another analogy, would that be a better resolution of this dispute? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Swearword username

Wrong venue. Please move to

WP:RFCUN

TALK

) 00:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The best thing to do, if the editor is not responding properly to inquiries about the username is to bring it up on

Join WikiProject Japan

! 00:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• (
  WP:UAA. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]
  00:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, my mistake :P --

TALK

) 00:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have requested a name change: [148] --
  talk
  ) 00:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Username has been changed. ···
  Join WikiProject Japan
  ! 01:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Man

Unresolved

 – Topic Ban still under discussion for non-sock Editor and can probably be closed by an uninvolved admin by now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – A bunch of socks blocked plus an IP range. Let me or another admin or CU know if the disruption continues. –MuZemike 14:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong venue for this (and I expect plenty of people have seen this already). There has been a content dispute going on at Man over an image of a naked man for some time, with an RfC that petered out. In the past few days some of those arguing for the removal have been taking unilateral action by removing the image (one has been blocked, along with a sock), and now removing the {{censor}} tag from the Talk page.

I know it's a content dispute, but I can't help feeling it might help for an uninvolved admin to have a look, offer a judgment on whether any consensus has been achieved and whether the {{censor}} tag should be removed, and recommend the next stage for those who are still dissatisfied. I know it's asking a lot, as it's a very lengthy disagreement, but any who could help would certainly earn my gratitude. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I should just point out here that I haven't deleted the explicit photograph at any stage. SAT85 (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, those in favour of explicit photographs have been edit-warring them in, sans consensus, for several months. SAT85 (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

They really could use more opinions there so if anyone has a moment, please take the time to give an opinion. I've already done this for the record. I've asked them to calm down a bit to allow others to come and comment. I don't want this to get out of control which is possible. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll keep my hands off it now and see what others offer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Mostly Outside Observation

My only comment was a short statment in the RFC, but I have been observing it for a while. Its been two months of IDIDNTHEARTHAT and quite tedious editing. There may need to sanctions imposed here becuase its a brick wall of one sided dialogue of accusations of Nudist perverts controlling wikipedia The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, "Nudist perverts controlling wikipedia". What are you talking about? --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a fairly accurate summary of what the people saying the pic shouldn't be included are saying. → ROUX ₪ 15:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

@Crohnie: Didnt you know that being supportive of anatomical figure on the page means your a POV Pushing Nudist Pervert? You can see why exactly why i think some action needs to be taken as its been going like this for a while. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for info, the dispute goes further back than what's currently on the Talk page - see Talk:Man/Archive_3 too. My main desire here is really just to get the endless argument to stop, to stop the intermittent edit wars, and if necessary get people to progress to some future stage of the resolution process - that's why I was hoping for some reviews of what's gone on already and some opinions on whether any form of consensus was reached (I think the answer to that is obvious, but my opinions don't belong here). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of that comment. I guess I fall into that category. ;) I think an administrator needs to go and remove the problem editors. Some have been blocked I noticed but if this has been going on for so long than it's time to stop it now. Editor Boing (sorry name too long, hope this will do.) has been kind enough to stop responding to allow others a chance to read and comment. I didn't look at any archives when I commented. To me it was obvious that there is nothing wrong with the male image. I just didn't like the way the montage was set up which can be reworked once the problem about the image is resolved. The only editor still arguing about the nude image is SAT85. Would someone talk to him and get him/her to back off? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Since when do adult white males lack pubes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What Softball Lola doesnt like it shaved there? thats a rarity The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

She likes lotsa hare. (

BWilkins ←track

) 20:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

As an update, we have just had another attack from someone else starting an edit war to remove the image, and the article is now protected. I really think we need someone to force this to a resolution by some means, as it cannot go on indefinitely like this - I'm open to any suggestions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I don't see any corresponding edit war at Woman. Maybe what's needed is a more clinical illustration rather than what looks like some show-off editor's self-portrait. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem strange, though there does appear to have been some argument about the images on Woman. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That was the first thing I checked on too. Double standards ftl. Resolute 19:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I posted this on the talk page, but then realized the discussion had moved here. I agree that a more clinical picture or perhaps a sketch could be a compromise. Here is my original statement:

Outside perspective: Saw this thread on ANI. The image is useful and has a purpose, and the article would NOT be improved if it was removed. The picture illustrates in a clinical, NPOV way that a men are visibly different from women, in that they generally have flatter chests, more muscular builds, and, more specifically, a penis. Note that the Woman article includes a picture of a naked woman. The Boy article has a picture of naked boys (non-clinical; they are swimming). The Girl article does not contain nudity. If anything, the picture is blurry and is not of good quality. Could a sketch or drawing of a nude male be a compromise? Still, the "does removing it improve the article" argument is going to be hard to overcome for the exclusionist camp. It seems to me that those wanting to get rid of the picture in this article would most likely be in favor of removing all nudity from Wikipedia. I am sure there is a forum for that discussion somewhere. If so, perhaps someone could link to it. The Eskimo (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems like all those things are addressed by the Davinci picture further down in the article.--

Crossmr (talk

) 22:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This is just a suggestion, but I think some of the recommended remedies at

WP:PUSH should be employed with regard to SAT85 (talk · contribs) --Steven J. Anderson (talk

) 23:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

SAT85 was created a year ago, made a handful of edits, and then "sat" dormant for a year before becoming an SPA on this topic. Most curious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bugs (if I can call you that). I created my account a year or two ago mainly to make a couple of linguistic contributions. I haven't got myself very involved since then, but to me the nude photograph seemed to represent a deliberate step in the wrong direction--unnecessary in the non-anatomical article in question and below the standards of professional encyclopaedias for such pages (see Homo Sapiens in Britannica online). Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It clearly illustrates the subject, period. Objections to its inclusion boil down solely to prudery, period. It's a naked body in a wholly nonsexual context. Guess what? We all have naked bodies. Deal with it. → ROUX ₪ 02:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Heck, I'm naked right now. That was too much information, wasn't it? HalfShadow 02:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

All of these objections to deletion (or replacement with a diagram) have been discussed on the Talk:Man page. This is not about hypersensitivity or prudishness--it is about achieving an emphasis in the lead image that reflects the typically clothed state of men, and about the sort of standards expected of an encyclopaedia (hence see this policy). Regards, SAT85 (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In a word: bullshit. Define 'typically clothed' state of men? What is 'typical' clothing for a Kalahari Bushman? Or indigenous peoples in the Amazon? Or at a nudist colony? What is 'typical' clothing for a man in Minnesota, Yemen, Romania, Antarctica? This is entirely--as it always is--about prudes being terrified that other people might see OH MY GOD NO a naked human being. Period. → ROUX ₪ 03:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As a rule, men wear clothing (I can provide a reference if this is what you have a problem with)--Typically doesn't mean invariably. There is currently a silly and unencyclopaedic emphasis on nudity. And as I said earlier, I have no qualms about explicit anatomical diagrams in the appropriate places. SAT85 (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In an article about "Man", it is an appropriate place. Yours seems to be a "silly and unencyclopaedic" quest.

WP:NOTCENSORED, get over it. Heiro

04:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is this "silly" emphasis? Just in this article, or more broadly in society? HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that sentence was a bit ambiguous--in the article. If it was in society as a whole I wouldn't bother with getting the image removed or replaced. SAT85 (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm lazy to check the history but the article currently includes multiple images most men with clothes on. I presume it has always done that. I agree it would be silly to fill the article with pictures of nude men and nothing else but I see nothing wrong with include one or more appropriate images of what a man looks like without clothes. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. There are three such images in the article already; this dispute is about the gratuitous photograph, and in particular its prominence at the top left of the collage. SAT85 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute here. This is really all about the penis, isn't it? Let's call a spade a spade, and discuss if the model had underpants on, would we be losing something important to describe Man? It seems like everything else is just dancing around the fact that we are talking about penises. The Eskimo (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course we are. Nobody would suggest that cat not have a picture of a cat, or that chimpanzee shouldn't have a picture of an engine (and they're naked all the time, genitals hanging out and everything). Ergo, man has a picture of a man, without clothing, to illustrate what a man looks like. I find it tedious in the extreme, and depressingly predictable, that the people most concerned with AHMAHGAWD TEH CHILLUNS invariably see sex everywhere. Gives a clue to what's going on in their heads. The rational rest of the world sees a naked human being. Ho hum. Yawn. The regressive paleocons see OH NO A NAKED SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX. I see absolutely no reason why we should even pretend to entertain the notion that they have a valid viewpoint. Wikipedia is not fucking censored. Deal with it. → ROUX ₪ 03:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And, isn't there always

Wikipedia:Options to not see an image? Saebvn (talk

) 03:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Do have a look at the talk page, where we have discussed the fact that the lead image in

Hermit Crab portrays a shelled crab. In my view the issue is quite straightforward, and the real tedium consists in having to go through the minutiae of what explict means in the OED, when an image looks dirty and when one does not, why private anatomy should not be considered exactly the same as other anatomy (just as, ceteris paribus, pictures of decomposing corpses would be uploaded less freely than pictures of live humans, non-censorship notwithstanding)--and so on. You obviously have a very different notion of propriety to me, so let's both of us defer to the standards of Britannica. Best Regards, SAT85 (talk

) 03:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As the 3 above users have stated, agree. Especially Roux comments. Heiro 03:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, so if the image is used for encyclopedic purposes only--as all Wikipedia images should (i.e. used in accordance with Wikipedia policy), then its use in the article is justified. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason I hate situations like this: some guy visits one of those articles mentioned above (for example, boy) not expecting that there will be a nude picture (something other than an obvious anatomical diagram) there. He later takes his computer to another country and finds out they can search your hard drive as you enter. If he hasn't cleared his cache and otherwise scrubbed the image from his computer, he may now be in a legal mess over what may otherwise be an "innocent" image. Kcowolf (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Best reason ever for censorship. The secret police in another country might not understand why I have a picture on my computer. Heiro 04:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to say, some of us have reasons other than "Protect the children!" to prefer removing the image. Obviously consensus is against my opinion, and I respect that. Kcowolf (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously we all come from different backgrounds. I think it's worth describing my perspective. High school science teacher. A regular occurrence is a visit to our city's museum, a great place with 1000s of kids visiting every day. It has wonderful, life sized, naked, accurate models of humans of all ages which all the kids see, close up. It's just the culture where I come from. To do as SAT85 is suggesting and hide this image in this article is just kinda weird to me. The kids in my town would wonder why, as I do. In fact, to want to hide the non-sexualised naked body, presented for informational purposes, is in some ways obscene to me. While I accept that there are other views, I think that the knowledge that an encyclopaedia will likely contain nudity should be enough for those who want to avoid it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggest reducing protection level

All of the registered accounts that have been edit warring the image out of the article [149] are blocked for abusive sockpuppetry or vandalism. For all of his argumentation,

WP:DUCK; the accept=reviewer pending changes protection will ensure that even if the sockpuppet accounts manage to bypass the semi-protection, they will be unable to alter the article that most readers see. If we let them keep Man locked indefinitely, disrupting the normal editorial process, then the sockpuppets win. Peter Karlsen (talk

) 07:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. The consensus that is emerging here and at Talk:Man appears to be to keep the image and not allow it to be censored, and the Talk discussion seems to be moving on to how best to present the collage. The only really disruption (other than endless arguing on the Talk page) is indeed from SPAs and socks who unilaterally delete the image. I don't believe they will accede to the community consensus here and won't go away. So yes, I think level 2 PC would be the best longer term approach here. I also think it would be good for one of the admins here to summarize the developing consensus, in the Talk page ANI section, at a suitable point, so if the argument carries on, we can point to that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what gives you the impression that the "consensus that is emerging here and at Talk:Man appears to be to keep the image". Most contributors seem to think that it looks out of place and that the entire collage should be reworked without it. Quite a few people have commented that Michaelangelo's David and the two other anatomical diagrams lower down are sufficient. SAT85 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is simply untrue that "most" contributors think it should be removed - you can't have been reading all the latest comments if you think that. Yes, many think the collage could be improved, so how about we drop the "Urgh, nasty evil nudity" stuff, which has been pretty roundly rejected, and just let people get on with constructive work now? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What Zebedee said, Heiro 13:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree to lowering the protection and using the pending changes as suggested above. I also think that

tendentious editing that needs to stop already. For this editor to claim that editors are saying to remove the image is just plain wrong. Yes, we have said the collage needs to be reworked and some other ideas but removing the image isn't one of them unless things changed lately. This editor has be relentlessly commenting and keeping the discussion going in circles which is not at all helpful in my opinion. I don't know who agrees with me but if you look at the talk page I think you can see what I am talking about. I am not a regular editor to this article. I went there because of the AN/i report asking for more eyes from Boing! said Zebedee. There has been a good turn out too to respond to that request which also can be seen at the talk page. It's time to stop the circular arguements and allow the regular editors to get on with improving this article. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk

19:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. It would be more helpful if you addressed the substance of the dispute instead of engaging in this sort of commentary. It seems to me that your first reaction to the image was the correct one, when you said, "I am not offended at all by the human body but I have to say that the image looks out of place in that collage. What is the need for it there? There is a statue down in the article. I just don't think the image is needed in the collage unless someone has a reason I missed in the above comments." Best regards, SAT85 (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. We can not forget

Wikipedia is not censored, so if the image is used in accordance with Wikipedia policy, then its use in the article is justified, and thus, just becuase some people do not want to see it, does not mean that it should be removed from the article. Just choose the options necessary so that only you can not see the image, other people can still see it if they want to. I do agree with the proposed protection level changes. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs

|] 23:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the protecting administrator, Bongworrior, refuses to reduce the protection level in the manner for which there is a clear consensus here, because he believes that it would be unfair to to the abusive sockpuppeteer creating an endless supply of accounts (Special:Contributions/We233ws Special:Contributions/Smzugzwangerq Special:Contributions/Itiiti2itiitiitiitiitiitiiti) to remove the image. I encourage editors to participate directly in the discussion on his user talk page to help clear this matter up. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the protection should be lowered to PC, but I also see a possible benefit in leaving as it is for a little while longer - I've commented at Bongwarrior's Talk. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban?

WP:CPUSH

. Frankly after multiple editors in ANI and there have communicated with him. Its a rather large farce to engage in any more Dialogue. I honestly almost could mistake this for deliberate trolling at the rate its going.

Support as nom The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I wonder if, to avoid the impression of bias, you might also want to consider David Oakes, Boing! Said Zebedee, and others who have not only been doggedly engaged on the Talk:Man page longer than I have, but have been edit-warring over the photo as well (though I personally think that banning any editor here would be a silly case of censorship--and I have no issue with either of them besides a disagreement over content). Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverting the operator of some (now blocked) abusive sockpuppet accounts (Special:Contributions/We233ws Special:Contributions/Smzugzwangerq Special:Contributions/Itiiti2itiitiitiitiitiitiiti), and almost certainly the IPs as well, is not considered to be edit warring. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that sock puppet accounts have only been used recently, by a user exasperated at being banned for removing the controversial photo. If you follow the history back, I think you'll see that it has indeed been repeatedly edit-warred back in without consensus. SAT85 (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ony if by "edit-warred back in without consensus" you mean that respected editors have repeatedly reversed the disruptive actions of We233ws (who was actually banned, for amongst other things, abusive sockpuppetry), his army of IP socks, and a one edit single purpose account (the situation since September 28 of this year [151].) This deplorable behaviour certainly detracts from any claim that there's a legitimate editorial dispute here. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

We233ws was just one of many users involved. Moreover, calling supporters of the explicit photo "respected editors" (when they were edit-warring--do have a look at the history) and then lashing a disillusioned user for "deplorable behaviour" suggests a fairly substantial bias on your part. I would once again respectfully encourage you to focus on policy and rationale--"ganging up" with six or seven supporters and attempting to muscle through is a poor way to approach genuine content disputes. SAT85 (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, the suggestion that consensus is "ganging up" and "muscling through" when things don't go your way does, I think, say a lot here. Anyway, I have not been active in the discussion longer than SAT85 - I joined in the argument quite late to try to help it towards resolution. I have not been in breach of 3RR, and reverting the anti-consensus removal by a sockmaster and his socks in tandem with other editors seems like legitimate anti-vandal action to me. I have not refused to stop repeating the same arguments over and over again when there is clearly a consensus against me. Further, I have been happy to bring the issue here for help in resolution, to listen to the opinions offered by the people here who have been trying to help (and who have my thanks), and to shut my mouth for a bit and not approach it by trying to drown out everyone else. I have also made it clear that I am happy to abide by consensus whichever way it goes, and if the community decides to remove the image that's fine with me. All I want to do is get this argument stopped so people can move on constructively. I see nothing whatsoever in that which would call for a topic ban on me, but anyone is, of course, welcome to propose one and see how it goes. (As an involved party, I will not !vote on this proposal) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had forgotten that you (unlike David Oakes) joined this discussion at the RfC. I actually joined quite late in the piece as well--a little after you (see the RfC). And by "ganging up" I am not referring to a genuine consensus--the consensus over time has been to remove the photo. Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Does it at all concern you that a number of respected editors not only disagree with your claim that "the consensus over time has been to remove the photo", but are actually supporting topic banning you for endlessly and falsely asserting it? The human body has been considered an expression of beauty and the subject of art for millennia, such as

WP:NOT#CENSORED, then the Citizendium and Conservapedia, both of which have "family friendly" policies prohibiting photographic nudity, may prove to be more hospitable editing environments. Peter Karlsen (talk

) 08:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't concern me in the least, or particularly surprise me--I have obviously stepped on some ideological toes. It is not clear to me why you think that I have been "endlessly and falsely repeating" the claim that the weight of opinion over time has been against the picture. As I recall I've made the observation once or twice, and if you consult the archives, you will see that it's true. For the rest, see the Talk:man page. Regards, SAT85 (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a censored David up on the page for a short time in September. —Soap— 18:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, my mistake, SAT85 and I did both start contributing at about the same time (Oct 2 and Sep 28 respectively). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the "Wikipedia is not censored" line has been repeated a lot more than the reasons for deletion (all quite straightforward, in my view). I accept that the recent consensus of six or seven chaps from AN/i--together with attempts to censor the rest of us--is making further efforts to improve the page pretty futile at this stage (though it does seem to be now generally recognised that the collage should represent men in natural costumes). Alas for policy, readership and professionalism. Anyway, it has been an interesting discussion, if a bit tedious at times, and I have found you cordial to deal with. Cheerio for now, SAT85 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support, as someone who keeps trying to get
  WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Heiro
  03:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support While, in his defence, he hasn't edit warred the image out of the article itself, the excessive and repetitious argumentation of a lost cause is disruptive. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Once an editor gets on the moebius strip and won't get off, some action is needed to derail it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - This has gone way past any honest attempt to support a minority view into talk page disruption. If SAT85 won't
  drop the stick, it's time to take it away from him. --Steven J. Anderson (talk
  ) 06:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - and would support the same in the future for any editor attempting to censor the encyclopedia. → ROUX ₪ 11:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Putting the claim about censorship to one side, this encapsulates the real motive behind banning: WP:IDONTIKEYOURVIEW. SAT85 (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - if ya wanna get a guy to be more cooperative, a topic ban will help. GoodDay (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from the Man and Talk:Man pages. There's only so many times you can tell a person something. If they don't want to hear it, they won't, and it's time to cut them loose. -
  talk
  ) 15:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support There needs to be something in place to prevent further disruption. I would suggest a 1 year topic ban. Inka888^ContribsTalk 21:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion - It might be useful if those expressing an opinion here also indicate whether they support nude photography in the non-anatomical page in question. This should help to clarify the extent to which partisanship is involved. SAT85 (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support
  WP:IDHT ; Disruption Fifelfoo (talk
  ) 01:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Question: What's the scope of the proposed topic ban? I hope it's not "man"...see
  WP:TBAN. T. Canens (talk
  ) 01:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oops yes that would be bad. Scope
  pointy additions as well The Resident Anthropologist (talk
  ) 01:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support SAT85 has just lost credibility in my eyes by connecting the non-sexualised picture of an adult male with child pornography. A stupid and inflammatory contribution. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope I've cleared up this misunderstanding on the other page, Hilo. I was not connecting the two, just trying to offer an example of something we all consider to be inappropriate on Wikipedia; the point was that

WP:NOTCENSORED is not absolute. If you browse back through the Talk page, you'll see that others discussed child pornography before I did. Best regards, SAT85 (talk

) 04:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Is strange that only with man and never with woman, so for prevent he continue doing it (though I do not think so) he cannot contribute positively with only one pic. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think it should be noted that the editors who are against adding this image, there appears to be two now, with another who just showed up as a new account, is religious reasons. The quoting of the bible finally appeared when there was nothing left in policy to use. You can find the comments quoted in this section. I think the time has come to allow the article to be opened for editing and the editors arguing against the addition to be told to either stop or be removed from the discussions now. The arguements have also been that having an image of a naked man is the same as child porn to the taliban which shows how out of control this discussion has become. I don't want to have to remove anyone but the time has come for this to stop either by the editors doing so themselves or by force. I'm hoping for the editors to accept the consensus and stopping on their own. If they won't then I do support banning them from this article. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be a reasonable person, CrohnieGal, so I think it is worth clarifying here that in my view nothing has been advanced to counter the charge that

WP:PROFANE and wikipolicy on what professional encyclopaedias include are triggered by the insistence on the nude photograph in its current position when three other nude illustrations are already included. Moreover, if you have another look at Ben Dawid's citation of the Bible, I think you'll agree that he was candidly elaborating on his own convictions (something we could do with a bit more of here)--not in that instance trying to get the picture removed. As I said earlier, though, with policy and rationale a fading force, and no fair attempt to find a consensus among the readership of Man, I have little more to offer here--banning or no banning. But thanks for the more neutral tone. Cheers, SAT85 (talk

) 13:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Appeals to a silent majority cannot be used to override consensus. A consensus in an RfC is determined by the analysis of the people who actually contribute to the RfC. However, I will say that if there were such a silent majority, I'm sure we'd have heard about it long before now. —Soap— 18:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(i) The majority

WP:NOTCENSORED. Now that we have an editorial clique from AN/i stampeding over the policy-based, rationally-defensible concerns of the rest of us, "consensus" is back in the ball-park. (ii) If you are genuinely convinced that the readership of Man now supports your view of the matter, conduct the experiment: put a neutrally-worded template on the page itself, indicating that the dispute is over photographs, not images, remove the partisan disclaimer (since "standards of decency", not "censorship" is the key phrase here), and see what unfolds. This would not be bulletproof, since quite a lot of people who unsuspectingly bump into the photo at (e.g.) work or school are likely to click back without further ado, but if there was a very clear majority in favour I would consider the reasons for removal not worth persuing. No doubt this suggestion is unnecessary, superfluous, unfair or even perhaps "deplorable", but a guy who stands back and observes a no will, I think, suspiciously scratch his head. SAT85 (talk

) 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I see you've altered your previous arguments somewhat, as the "many editors" in the current discussion, which you had previously invoked for support, have now been reduced to yourself, and maybe one other... and a sock farm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You've spent a lot more time worrying about sock puppetry than focussing on the issues--you seem to have trouble with the idea that "IRL" there are a good many of us who find nude photography in commonplace areas ridiculous. A lot of the people from AN/i initially echoed this view about Man, but some of them apparently jettisoned common sense when they suspected that an ideological skirmish was underway. Anyway, you can have the last word. Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not a "commonplace area", it's the internet. If you don't like what you see on the internet, then don't use the internet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Draconian solutions do not work. And the precedent of banning anyone on the basis of their opinions is contrary to WP fundamental policy. We can tolerate dissent here if anywhere. And if we squash "wrong opinions" here, there is no way to prevent it happening everywhere on WP. Collect (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • We are not banning him for his opinion, but the manner he chose to express it. T. Canens (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I typically agree against such things, as a respectable minoritiy should never be silenced. But a month of Tedious Discussion make it clear this editor needs help Dropping the stick and backing away from the horse carcass The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to agree. This editor refuses to follow consensus and keeps talking in circles. The last few comments prior to my posting here shows the frustrations of other editors of the comments made by SAT85. It's time to stop it and allow the article to begin normal editing now. I am really sorry but it is time. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Slightly regretfully, as SAT85 has been unfailingly civil. However, as long as he continues to repeat arguments that do not reflect policy or consensus, and to misrepresent consensus on the Man discussion, this debate will never end.--Korruski^Talk 23:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

whack a puppet?

Resolved see SPI for more information The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
One just popped up on Talk:Man the number of SPA on this topic is quite annoying. sock or meat? dont know dont care The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC) For the record see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/We233ws The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Span id around image?

Maybe I could wrap the image with a span Id to hopefully calm this down. That way the editors who REALLY don't want to see it could hide it through CSS code.

talk to me

07:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that how the Muhammad images are handled? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Editor continuing slow edit war at date articles

After an incident that was discussed at ANI

talk

) 17:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug, my suggestion would be to use escalating blocks. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I should note that as I've reverted him and have been involved with him before on other issues such as OR, it would be inappropriate for me to block him.

talk

) 20:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

AN3 filed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring and POV by موريسكو / Morisco

Hi,

I'm reporting here a contributor who, since he joined the English WP [154], started edit-warring, justifying his actions by the fact that "it has been discussed on the French WP" [155][156] , and editing articles by removing any reference to French Algeria, which are, in my opinion, POV edits [157][158].

I think that what is happening on English WP shouldn't be linked to French WP and that this kind of POV edits shouldn't be tolerated (I can even mention that this user had already been blocked many times on the Fr.WP for POV, personal attacks and references tinkering, but as I said before, what happened there shouldn't interfere with the Eng.WP) ; this user's contributions are meaning that, in my opinion, he's not here to contribute to the WP, but to "act on other user's contributions".

Thanks.

talk

) 18:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I will issue a warning, per your correct understanding of the relation between different language wikipedia's. If they ignore it, we determine whether the English language wikipedia sanction function differs from that of the French... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone, if Omar-toons reported here, it does not mean he is right. I initiated an arbitration against him on Wikipedia in French, so he began to introduce informations on Wikipedia in english because he could not did it in french.

Algeria has been used during the french colonisation to qualify it, this is not a POV at all. Regards--موريسكو (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the note on my talkpage. Whatever issues you might have with the reporter on the French language Wikipedia, the concern here is that the English language Wikipedia may differ in naming conventions from the French Wikipedia and decisions from that project do not apply to this one - if there is any doubt, ask the question on the article talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok,thank you.--موريسكو (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems that he didn't understand at all [159][160]

talk

) 03:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Carolyn Baker III

This discussion is now taking place at

WP:WQA

; closed as it would be considered forum-shopping if both happened simultaneously.

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.

---

It seem that this editor want want to be uncivil by using the F bomb as seen here and previous instance here. Sarujo (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the big deal? Carolyn Baker III (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

See User:Bunkerdiver. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's me. I admit it. I already explained that and I'm not using that account anymore. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that you had already been warned about alternate accounts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This does not excuse you incivility. Sarujo (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have found two more instances of your incivility here and here. And you don't see a problem? Sarujo (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The four linked diffs above use swearwords, but are not otherwise especially uncivil. Our

civility policy is somewhat silent about the use of swearwords, other than to say that "gross profanity" can "contribute to an uncivil environment" without defining the term. Is it just the swearing you're bothered about, or is there some other gross incivility I'm not seeing here? And what sort of administrator intervention are you expecting? When you next reply, please include links to diffs prior to this ANI report where you have raised this issue directly with the editor, and explain why their response was unsatisfactory. Thanks, Bovlb (talk

) 05:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is thataway. Please try to resolve this at WQA before coming straight to the admins. Thanks. --Jayron32

05:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I to take it that anybody can say any four letter word in the book and get a pat on the back? Manly most of the instances that their language was called out was from regular editors. I personally have refrained from responding to the editor directly as I felt that any attempts to properly educate the editor would prove fruitless as the editor has made it clear that it's who they are and that they will continue to use foul language in the future - which they have. I brought this to this board as I don't believe that the people on Wikiquette alerts would help. I had a simular situation with the editor Divebomb over the F word and after a week with no admin assessment it was deemed a

stick discussion and was thrown out. So what's the point of going to someone when they'll just throw it out? So I felt that this was the only place left to handle this. But if everybody here insists that go the WQA, then so be it. Sarujo (talk

) 06:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to speak to what others have said here. My concern is not that the user's behavior isn't problematic (in my opinion, it IS problematic) but rather that the proper attempts were not made to get the user to correct their own behavior before coming straight to the admins. Asking admins to intervene is NOT step 1 in the dispute resolution process. So, let me clarify: Yes, this user's behavior was unacceptable, but as all admins can do is block them, we should at least try less extreme measures of stopping the problem. In my opinion, all pre-blocking options have not been exhausted in this case. --Jayron32 06:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see. It had been my belief that when an editor didn't take any advice from another editor to improve their Wikiquette, case in point this comment by another editor on their talk page, then that was when the admins had to step in. But anyway, I'll go to WQA. Sarujo (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Irfaankhanabadosh

User: Irfaankhanabadosh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Call it a coincidence or the pages on my watchlist show this particular user constantly violating the

WP:IUP. He has a very poor history of image uploads on the commons. His account is currently serving a 1 week block on commons. Instead of updating himself of the image use policy or the topic of copyrights, he has repeatedly continued violations despite several warnings on his commons talk page. In the past two days, I see another trail of image violations here on en-wiki - three of which I have Ffd'ed for speedy deletion and tagged one with possibly unfree a few minutes back. Can somebody help? Mspraveen (talk

) 06:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Irfaankhanabadosh has been informed of this ANI. Mspraveen (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As the editor has never responded to warnings, I've given them a 3 day block with a warning that it will be made indefinite if they don't start communicating and responding.

talk

) 07:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Eugeneacurry requests unblock

Unresolved

 – thread was archived through inactivity, no Administrative action was taken -

Off2riorob (talk

) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I note that User:Eugeneacurry, who was blocked for creating an article about an editor with whom he was in an edit-war on June 19, has posted a third request for unblock on his talk page. Once again, this is an unblock that might require a little consensus-forming, so I place it here: you may discuss amongst yourselves. I have put the unblock request on hold.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• - note - here is the last unblock discussion at ANI, closed as no consensus to unblock a little over three months ago.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 22:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I think it's a bit soon to be considering unblock. I'd be interested to see rationals supporting unblock and User:SlimVirgin's opinion. Tiderolls 23:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I emailed SV hours ago, right after Eugene posted the request. No idea when she'll see it, though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock- It's been four months, and Eugeneacurry has agreed to not repeat the problematic behaviour. Indefinite blocks are not supposed to be the same as infinite blocks, and are only supposed to prevent disruption. If Eugeneacurry acts up again, he can be blocked again. Reyk _YO! 23:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry made that identical commitment three days into his block. I agree that his actions in the short term will be under intense scrutiny, which is the main reason I'm not strenuously opposing unblock. However, harassment is a practice that must be suppressed with diligence. That's my main concern. Tiderolls 00:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that's fair enough. I've never had anything to do with Eugene but per

WP:AGF I'd prefer to believe that they were sincere three days into their block and sincere now. Reyk _YO!

00:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• I feel obliged to oppose an unblock. The actions of creating a nasty attack page (which had to be oversighted) making all sorts of allegations about an editor with whom he was in a minor dispute are not the actions of somebody well suited to a consensus-based project. Eugene is intelligent, he knew exactly what he was doing and, I believe, how egregious it was when he wrote that attack page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• We do not and should not usually indef ban (which this essentially is) editors for one-off offenses. Yes, he made a mistake. A terrible one. But I think he understands how tight of a leash he would be on, and I would highly doubt that anything like this would happen again. NW (Talk) 00:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• I oppose unblock as well. This isn't the one-off event all the people above are claiming; besides the sheer nastiness of his attack page—which frankly AGF doesn't apply to, as it can't possibly be explained away as a misunderstanding—since then Eugene's also been using his talkpage to engage in some rather spiteful bitchiness, and to canvass for people to POV-war on his behalf. I see no good from allowing someone who thinks this is appropriate back to stir the pot again. – 
  iridescent
  00:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Both of those are from the end of July and the beginning of August. It has been over four months since then. Perhaps things would go better with a topic/interaction ban on top of everything else? NW (Talk) 00:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Still oppose; a topic ban would be effectively meaningless in his case. He only has one interest—more than 50% of all his mainspace edits are to
      iridescent
      01:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think anyone wants a repeat of that last kerfuffle, frankly this user's been given way too many chances and we can only
  Champagne?
  • 12:06pm • 01:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No opinion, but the last thing the pages dealing with the historicity of Jesus needs is a disruptive editor. A topic-ban might be a good compromise. Let him prove he can edit other topics in a collaborative way, before going back to the extremely controversial topic that got him blocked previously.

talk

) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Per Noloop, what indeed are these editors intentions should they be unblocked? Apologising for the singular incident, and promising not to repeat it, is fine, but what do they intend to do were the block to be lifted? LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment- He didn't get blocked because of anything to do with historicity of Jesus pages, so that point is irrelevant. Since he has been strongly opposed to your POV, Noloop, as I have, your comment seems to me in all honesty to be self-serving and should consequently be rejected as not having any bearing on his matter. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't he blocked for disputes arising from Jesus-related articles? I've never edited with him, so I don't actually know his POV in depth, or whether I oppose it, or the detailed history of the dispute. And since I gave no strong opinion on this question, but expressed weak support for unblocking, you're seeming a bit catty, Bill.

talk

) 15:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock- per NW and Reyk. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the man is an unreconstructed POV warrior. MtD (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Never Not just no, but no until after the heat death of the universe. What he did was absolutely unforgivable- you do NOT create an attack page about a fellow editor trying to out them. No, no, no. The only thing this behaviour merits is throwing away the key. Whenw e're done here, can we lock his talk page, please? Courcelles 02:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

  Oh, get over yourself. The issue should never be that he was less than gentlemanly to SV. Seriously, she can chew through metal. A little old attack page is beside the point. The real question is can we trust this strong holder of odd beliefs to be a constructive editor? I think not. MtD (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• A "(redacted)"? Ok, let's see...in the past, he has been falsely accused of being an anti-Semite (in which case nothing was ever done; the person got a free pass), there has been an implication of him being ok with pedophilia, and now he's a "religious loony". Why do I get the feeling that Eugene is not going to get a fair hearing here? Hmmmmm.... Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You're supposed to say "Ack"! Remember? Doc talk 03:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL, you made my day! (So few people are familiar with the user name I have chosen.) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, but can we be careful with language please? --John (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose -I have great difficulty believing that there's been a sea-change in his view of the world, and that's what it would take. I see no reason that we should expose ourselves once again to the problems this editor caused, and is likely to cause again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

His "view of the world"??? How about we put a condition on his unblock? If he just denies that there is a god (especially the "Christian God"), becomes a "faithful" militant atheist, or at the very least a quiet agnostic, then he can become "one with the body" again. Is that what you mean? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, a little AGF, please: His "view of the world" is that a certain truth has to be told, and as long as he holds this view and sees Wikipedia as the medium through which he can promote his views, he should not be unblocked. All editors have to edit from a stance of NPOV, no matter what their views, and he has shown himself to be incapable of doing that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock with a full indefinite topic ban on issues relating to Christianity, broadly construed (to include article pages, talk pages, as well as userspace), as well as enhanced civility requirements (like those put on BI restriction). If the editor violates those restrictions, then xe will then be reblocked and directed to the
  WP:AN and make the ban official. But it seems improper to me to essentially dangle the option of unblocking in front of the editor with no intention of ever actually unblocking. Qwyrxian (talk
  ) 04:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No one "dangled" anything. He asked to be reinstated almost immediately, and it's been clear since then that he hadn't done or said anything sufficient to convince the community that he had changed. It's called an indefinite block - there's no set length, and there's also no guarantee that it will necessarily end. Whether it does or not is up to the blocked user. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

By definition, an indefinite block implies the possibility of unblocking--that's the whole reason we distinguish between bans and indefinites, right? And so if it's up to the user, what is xe supposed to do to demonstrate xe belongs back in the project? If it's "go edit another project and prove you're capable of being nice," then we should say that. If it's "explain exactly what you did wrong and what you will do to ensure it doesn't happen again," then we should say that. But if it's just "do some more hard thinking, because you what you did was very very wrong..." well, it's hard for me to read that as punitive rather than preventative. Or if you/others have come to the opinion that "since xe requested unblocking too soon, xe's blown xs shot," then say that. Note that I'm expressing no opinion on whether or not xe should be banned, as no case has been made regarding that yet--perhaps this person deserves to be permanently shown the door. But my reaction comes in large part because a number of people posted above that they will never or probably never accept this editor returning. Well, that's not really leaving it in Eugeneacurry's hands, is it? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If he's not made any real effort to show that he understands what his problems were before -- not just the attack page, but his entire Wikicareer as a POV-pusher -- than how is anyone supposed to believe he's changed in order to believe it won't be harmful to the project to give him another chance? Wishful thinking isn't such a great criteria for a community to run by (AGF doesn't apply here, he's blown that already and needs to earn it back). No, things are definitely in his hands. He's got to work to convince the skeptics that he should be allowed to come back, and that's going to be difficult, because he's put himself into a deep deficit situation. Not impossible, though -- but it is true that it probably will never happen if all he does is ask again at intervals, so if that's his chosen course of action, he might as well give up. In the meantime, there's no reason to community ban him, as he's not a threat to the peace of the community. As far as I know there's no evidence of socking, or editing with an IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

He seems contrite in his comments. We need to hear from SV, the target of that page. But before considering unblocking any editor who goes way over the line, it's a good idea to watch this short feature (try to ignore the ads) and consider the question, Does this[161] fit the situation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• support unblock We spending time here discussing an Unblock. the beauty of Block are is there is no need to have a lengthy discussion. Any admin can block him the moment he steps out of line. Lets give him a chance. I am would be interested in hearing from Slim Virgin as her comment is much needed and will affect my position The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the adamant "NEVER" of Courcelles and others is that it is not enforceable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Ultimately, if this editor decides he's not going to succeed working through accepted channels, he may very well just decide to sock-puppet. In that case, we've further alienated an editor and incentivized disruptive editing over collaborative editing. Giving 2nd, 3rd...8th chances isn't just a Wikipedia philosophy, it is mostly necessary due to the privacy policies.

talk

) 15:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose unblock. Not yet, per SlimVirgin. Comment On his talk page, Eugene has acknowledged the attack page was intended to destabilise SlimVirgin and expressed regret. If blocks were punitive or exemplary I'd recommend it not be lifted for 15 years. But they're meant to be preventative. He has also undertaken to treat other editors with respect in future, and agreed to submit to civility restrictions.

I found him so difficult to work with in the past, and find it so difficult to forgive him for the attack page, that I cannot bring myself to support unblocking, but I won't oppose. However, if the block is lifted, and he continues ad hominem editing, I will take action to have him permanently banned from this site. Anthony (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock - He has promised not to let us down. Let's give him a chance to keep his promise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock But if there is more bullshit it should result in an indefinite hardblock. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 18:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent, but if we really must unblock then a topic ban as suggested by Qwyrxian would appear to be a prerequisite. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Give it a year from the original block and I will swallow my misgivings, but for now I see no reason to consider this. Even Wikipedia:Standard offer suggests six months, which would be early next year. This is not a case where a generally sensible, respected, and productive editor made a particularly egregious mistake. This is a tendentious inveterate edit warrior who has engaged in extensive gaming of the system and shows long term disregard for the standards of civility and collaboration expected of editors here. Leaving aside religious myths and historicity, we have:
  • game the system
    against SlimVirgin back at the beginning of May.
  • Edit warring a vast misunderstanding of the standards of scholarship in science and unwillingness to deal productively with other editors (see talkpage at the time). This included adding {{dubious}} to the statement While the detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is not known, the basic picture makes a number of predictions that have been confirmed by observation. See also related AN3 report.
  • Edit warring an op-ed attack piece into the {{
    WP:BLP
    against editors here had they been written onsite. This is a very disturbing pattern that I hope will be considered by those supporting an unblock above.
  • The AN3 report filed just before Eugeneacurry created that attack article is also instructive: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive133#User:Eugeneacurry reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result:_moot/indef). - 2/0 (cont.) 19:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I was asked to comment here. I can't see an unblock working at this time. The attack page was just the tip of the iceberg, though it was illustrative of Eugene's desire to use WP as a battleground. Before that there was serial reverting, strong religious views that brooked no contradiction; an attempt to transport those ideas to at least one physics article; and regular personal attacks against other editors and living sources. I could perhaps support an unblock in future with mentorship and a topic ban (at least for a time) on anything related to Christianity. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - No particular reason to believe this user can change. He was only here to push a POV. --B (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock: As the old saying goes on/per WP:ROPE: "Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves." Let's make this his last chance, if he screws it up then he has only himself to blame... nuff said~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock As per Dave's suggestion above
  WP:ROPE and watch the naysayers be proven right or watch the user flower into a productive member of the editing community Hasteur (talk
  ) 04:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Might support unblock after a year with topic ban. ^^James^^ (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose based on SlimVirgin's comments, until and unless the party agrees to mentorship and/or a topic ban as proposed by Slim. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock with topic ban User appears to want to return in good faith, and blocks are preventative. If he steps out of line he can be blocked. However, it's probably a good idea to avoid Christianity articles for now. --NYKevin @787, i.e. 17:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Also I think that some people opposing should look at the user's talk page; this isn't the same commitment all over again. --NYKevin @792, i.e. 18:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• - comment - I have had a little chat with Eugeneacurry on his talkpage here where he states his intensions for editing if his privilages are returned and his willingness to accept a possible interaction restriction as regards the user he wrote the article about and the areas she edits. If something could be arranged as regards some kind of restriction acceptable to all, then I could be moved to support an unblock as there is a chance of a decent contributor.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 18:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Per my comments further above, the only restriction I think would be acceptable would be a restriction from Christianity-related topics (broadly construed); the root cause of all the problems with Eugene was his relentless "sources that agree with me are reliable and neutral, sources that disagree with me are fringe and should be ignored" POV-pushing in that field. Since almost all his history up to now has been in Christianity related material, I'm not sure he'd want that, but if he's willing to accept that—and possibly an "any attacks on anyone and you're out permanently" provision, I don't see why he can't be allowed to come back. – 

iridescent

18:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The user objects to being called a "fundamentalist" and a "religious loonie", but apparently has not understood how he has attracted these labels. If I am reading the discussion on his talk page correctly, this is all still about editing religious topics, although he has now understood that a broader approach might increase his overall credibility and thus make things easier for him in that area. I doubt very strongly that the user would be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. He has earned himself an indefinite block, and I don't see why we should let him back after only 4 months of piece in that area. Hans Adler 18:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of a three month restriction to - Religion, broadly construed. This would allow the editor to grow into a better editor without editing the area he has a very strong opinion about and that caused him the previous issues, and as Iridesant says, a very short civility rope.

Off2riorob (talk

) 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I see practically zero chance of reform and expect disruption wherever that user decides to edit. Under the standard offer we can have users returning, trying to behave and getting reblocked twice a year. I don't see why we shouldn't enjoy at least these full 6-month intervals between any two attempts. Hans Adler 19:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• - The thread was archived after no response for 24 hours and I am editing the archive to add the unresolved outcome. User:Eugenecurry was not unblocked and no administative action was taken and as the thread was archived unresolved he commented on his talkpage here that he would try again in a month and a half.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Resolved

 – No personal attacks here. This is a personal attack-free zone. Onay ersonalpay attackay appenedhay. Okay, I'll stop now. HalfShadow 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:Turco85
• Personal Attack

Turco 85 obviously abused Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Takabeg (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed him. But he abused again. Takabeg (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you develop a thicker skin. He vehemently disagrees but I am not so sure that it qualifies as a personal attack. Someone else might disagree and that's fine. JodyB _talk 16:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's definitely not a personal attack. Not even uncivil. Just a disagreement.

talk to me

16:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we use such expressions in English Wikipedia ? If possıble, I'll use them. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

talk to me

16:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

100% not a personal attack. Vodello (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack. Personal attacks are things like this Inka⁸⁸⁸ 20:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User Whwya

After a dispute over the Hamersley & Robe River railway, which I considered resolved, User:Whwya has taken to wikihound me now, only editing articles I've recently crated. He has now also gone and nominated and tagged 12 articles on mines which I created in the last 24 hour for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio Tinto Mines. It seems, the users sole motiviation is to disrubt my editing and force me out of Wikipedia. Calistemon (talk) 02:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have twice [165][166] warned Whwya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over personal attacks and twice had the warnings removed. He/she seems to have a misunderstanding of basic civility codes. –Moondyne 06:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

He/she also appears to be a former editor recently returned with an axe to grind. –Moondyne 06:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's worth nothing that in this comment/edit [167], as well as describing another editor as "an incompetent 2003 admin" (I think accusing someone of incompetence is a personal attack too), they mention "other victims, like (name redacted) and me". So presumably there is some history before their 31st October 2010 account creation date. Perhaps an SPI is called for?

In any case, in this new account, they do not appear willing to abide by Wikipedia's fundamental principles; [168] "As for civility, what is the point of that again?"

--

talk

) 09:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked the editor indefinitely, since it is obvious that they are not here for the benefit of the encyclopedia but to be rather
  WP:POINTy about something or other - possibly regarding plagiarism, but more likely civility. I have advised them that if they are to stop acting like a silly billy then they may be unblocked. LessHeard vanU (talk
  ) 12:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, it really is much appreciated. Calistemon (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The now-indef'd editor is obviously a sock, and don't rule out that he might be trying to impeach a couple of outspoken editors by "association" - a not-uncommon tack used by banned editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

<groan> OK, can someone check whether his or her edits to an RFC need to be removed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The AFD he posted was rejected, anyway. We'll see what else he was up to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any RFC's reference in his edit summaries. Do you have an example? I be blind as a bat. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly an RFC in his contribs; don't make me forum shop or canvass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty then, I'll look at his individual contribs and see if anything looks like an RFC. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, duh, must be this one. Given that his voice is just one of a number, and that he is currently trying to negotiate an unblock, probably best off leaving it alone for the time being. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

His initial unblock was declined. His argument for socking is, "I was an established editor, but when people started railing on me all the time, I had no choice but to leave." So he came back with a self-styled "fresh start" and managed to get himself run out on a "rail" within a week. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Somehow, I will find time to read FAC today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Eretz Yisrael Shelanu

This article has been the focus of two separate disputes over the orientation of the party. The first (in April 2009) was a 2 vs 1 situation, which only ended when the article was protected for a week. It was reopened at the end of October this year, and continued again till the page was protected for a week, which was requested after the dispute attracted some sockpuppets and IPs.

Currently there is deadlock; on the talk page; three editors have stated a preference for one description and one in favour of another (there are also two other comments, one by one of the sockpuppeteers and one mocking the arguments of the sole dissenter, but I'm not sure these really count either way). Despite the (small) majority in favour of the current version, I have no doubt that the edit war will resume as soon as the protection ends. I have requested input from WP Political Parties and WP Politics, but there has been no response. I'm sure many people will recommend an RFC, but having tried this many times before, it simply doesn't work in the Israel-Palestinian sphere - as soon as the RFC is advertised, the same set of editors will arrive and !vote in a predictable way, drowing out the responses of the uninvolved parties and leading to further deadlock - I would much rather input from editors without a history of edit warring on either side. Hence a request here for some input on the talk page, or some other action. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In spite of your reluctance, I would still suggest opening an

talk

) 17:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Horst Mahler

For the last few days, a German Anonymous editing from the Deutsche Telekom AG range 62.226... is being making the case for Horst Mahler with increasingly obnoxious arguments. Horst Mahler, it should be reminded, is a Holocaust denier and former left-wing terrorist with a long criminal record. The arguments made by the German Anonymous, derisive of Mahler's condemnations for Holocaust denial and Volksverhetzung appear to be those, of the very least, of one of the man's spiritual fellows and could be made by the man himself. I know that it is not illegal and not even against Wikipedia policy, but it certainly is problematic. German Holocaust deniers take advantage from the freedom Wikipedia, a a foreign-based media, offers them to argue their case quite openly. Maybe that range should be blocked to make sure this is not stretched even further? --Insert coins (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this rises to the level of need for admin attention. I have made a small edit that should be sufficient to shut them up, addressing the tiniest core of their concern. If the article is subsequently edited to distort NPOV, then perhaps request semi-protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand that second quote. Is he saying that if Hitler had actually conducted the Holocast, then he would be forgiven? Or is he saying that if Hitler's only violent act had been the Holocaust, then he would be forgiven? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The German version is slightly ambiguous but more likely to mean something like the latter. Unless the last sentence is taken out of context (there is an ellipsis before it), that must be the intended meaning. As soon as I find a complete version to verify this I will correct it. Hans Adler 17:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, actually it was taken out of context. What he really said: "Milliarden von Menschen wären bereit, Hitler und dem Deutschen Volk den Völkermord an den Juden zu verzeihen, wenn er ihn denn begangen hätte, nur weil sie sich keine andere Lösung der Judenfrage vorstellen können, als die Ermordung der Juden." In English: "Billions of people would be ready to forgive Hitler and the German people the murder of the Jews, if only he had committed it, because they cannot imagine any other solution of the Jew question then murdering the Jews." IIRC he argued that there is a "Jew question" (even today), and proposed a non-violent "solution" or something like that. Hans Adler 17:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand the quote now. And he's really talking out of both sides of his mouth with that one. Sounds like O.J. Simpson saying, "IF I did it... Not that I did it... but IF I did it..." Yah, sure, you betcha. It also presupposes that the world agrees with his own hatred of Jews. It's a good quote for the article, if used in its entirety, because it leaves no doubt how he feels about Jews. It also vaguely echoes something a Nazi, maybe Speer, said in justification: "They had the chance to leave, and they wouldn't leave." So maybe this character's "non-violent" solution is to ship them someplace. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am unwilling to read all that dross again (I did years ago), but I think the idea was that the Jews only exist because the Germans need them in some absurd way (something like God needs Satan, or some other stupid metaphor). If the Germans go back to the early Middle Ages, which apparently involves barter trade instead of money and splitting the country into many little states with borders between them, then they don't need them any longer. I would like to see a South Park episode about that. Hans Adler 18:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Return Germany to a collection of little fiefdoms with a barter system? There's an idea. Should be good for tourism. Though I would hate to have to run a chicken or a goat through a credit-card machine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hoax, FAC, who knows what else

Could someone deal with this mess? I've got to go dig back in my archives to recover past similar incidents-- I suspect the article is a hoax, but haven't yet checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

More pieces as I find them (since I'm not an admin, I can't see deletions):

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russia/archive6, SPI needed.
• User:Great Pumpkin.
• [169]
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Santana discography/archive1

There were other "Pumpkin" FAC submissions, but since I can't see deletions, I can't find them. I also can't find the evidence that seems to link the "Pumpkin" accounts to

Real Madrid C.F.. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) may have that. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 19:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a hoax, it has pertinent references to mainstream media.  Sandstein  19:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

NPR doesn't seem to consider the group a hoax. The nomination for featured article is pretty much a hoax though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks-- I just hadn't had time to check, and a ctrl-f on the first source didn't turn up the text I queried. The Rambling Man took over the "Pumpkin" accounts for me a while ago, so I've pinged him to peek in here. We have repeat, ill-prepared noms from "Pumpkins", and I suspect an SPI is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Have deleted the next ill-advised FAC. I can't SPI things, so suggest a comprehensive report is collated, or else just sniff out a

duck and be damned. The Rambling Man (talk

) 20:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't even find all the pieces-- I can't recall how or when I linked the Pumpkins to Hadrianos; perhaps if you have time, you can find our first discussion? I have not yet read FAC today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't look at the refs, I went into google and entered the name of the group. Sean Lennon's presence would seem to make the subject notable. The article itself... well, let's just say it could stand some improvement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I found my mistake-- I queried "Sabre" instead of "Saber" (misspelling). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, all (I just spent an hour and a half dealing with two disruptive issues, instead of reading FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm on my way to bed, but if I can drag up some more detail, I'll see if I can instigate an SPI tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. Now get back to real work...!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Blocked for block evasion GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Alex "Coyle" Latham (talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet of the banned puppetmaster 10alatham (talk · contribs); other accounts that have been banned but not formally linked include 2012alatham (talk · contribs) and 2014alatham (talk · contribs); can an admin intervene please? Thanks, GiantSnowman 19:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Procedural note: the above named accounts have been

banned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

19:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am apparently reporting myself.

With respect to this thread on the ref desk:

wp:IAR 3rr on this particular issue - the template is harmless and functional, and I can't get TFM to talk to me about it in any meaningful way, and I'd prefer to keep the template there in order to keep the tone of the discussion low-key. But I will bow to your collective judgement on the issue. --Ludwigs2

19:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The tag needs to stay, since the question looks like a trolling question. It also has a vaguely familiar ring to it, but I can't think of the particular troll (probably not LC). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Image deletion request reverted repeatedly

Resolved

 – Larger image deleted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I downsized

WP:NFCC#3b. Over a week passed, as is the threshold required for deleting old versions of an oversized image. A user who seemed to disagree with it removed the template,[170] so I (hopefully politely) reverted, explaining why I thought it was necessary.[171] Now an IP (no idea if it's the same user) has decided to take it upon his or herself to repeatedly remove the tag: [172][173][174] and has twice escalated to personally attacking me for re-adding the template.[175][176]

Each time they remove the tag it takes another week before it's eligible for deletion, and has never actually made it that far since the IP got involved.

As it did last the minimum requirement to delete the image on one occasion (it would have been eligible on October 24; tag was removed on November 3), could an admin go back and delete it now? As far as I'm aware it's a pretty open-and-shut case. As is, it's just gonna go back and forth, which is a little frustrating, tbh. Cheers.

talk | contribs

) 20:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon

Recent User:Runtshit-related vandalism. User:Soap has reverted and blocked the IP as a proxy, but the edit is a BLP violation and should be eliminated from the history. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

User (bot?) is adding (nonexistent?) template to numerous articles

Mhiji has added {{Italic}} to the top of numerous articles recently. Doesn't look like any kind of vandalism I've seen before; AGF prompts me to post this here. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It redirects to {{Italic title}}, which makes the article title italic. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• This doesn't seem to require admin attention; likely the user just needs to be informed that the edits are unnecessary / don't have consensus. Just plain Bill, do you have any objection to the thread being closed? Discussion can continue on the user's talk page and return here if they continue to make the edits and fail to discuss it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OK to close, if you see no damage being done. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My sock pupper investigation

Attention all admins. I am Ezekiel, and I want you to look at my long sock puppet investigation, having individual evidences for each subject showing how familiar they are, what they, did, and how they reveal they are the same user, created by me. ;) Link;

Ezekiel! ^{Talk to meh.See what I'm doin'.}

01:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Posting here won't make the SPI go any faster. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV-title and NPOV-section tags

An involved editor/administrator believed that a NPOV-title tag was not needed and has removed it [177]. There was also a NPOV-section tag for a different dispute, which he removed it twice [178][179]. As attempts to resolve the NPOV-tile dispute, a compromise was proposed [180] without success and mediation and other solutions were suggested [181][182][183][184][185], but editors deny the need for it. I can provide diffs for the NPOV-section dispute as well (the section is the Intro). Despite long discussions these disputes are still not resolved. See [186].

Notice sent to the concerned editor/administrator: [187]. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute, no abuse of tools or anything else to do here. Discussion at

requesting page protection if normal discussion is insufficient. - 2/0 (cont.

) 19:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you noticed the dispute, but this is not about the content dispute itself, but about the systematic removal of the NPOV tags. I only refer to the dispute to explain the need for these tags. Page protection is not a solution since there is no edit warring. However, no edit warring does not mean that the dispute is small. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Was away the last few days. It is interesting as Edith just replaced the tags herself here [188]. There continues to be no support for her concerns from editors outside a group of

WP:SPAs who admit to the practice of Transcendental Meditation. Outside editors who have commented are all okay with how the topic is currently dealt with [189]

Further more Edith was warned regarding harassment here [190]. This appears to simply be a continuation of that.

talk · contribs · email

) 16:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, unless I was misinformed here [191], this was not the proper forum to bring this issue. I am not harassing anyone. A NPOV tag should not be removed until after a consensus is reached and the dispute resolved, that is all. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We have a differing opinions on whether or not a real dispute existed. The current RfC is just showing what was clear already.

talk · contribs · email

) 02:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia administrator?

This page is not for discussing issues at other language projects. For English speakers at ja.wiki, go to ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is anyone here an admin at ja.wp? I'd report it on their noticeboard, but I'm bound to have my comment deleted for speaking the wrong language. The issue: HighSpeed-X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): I've just laid down an indef block on him for an obnoxiously high level of disruption, cluelessness, and only being here to press an agenda. Not to mention he did no favors to himself by spamming User:Benlisquare on other wikis during his block. Benlisquare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): has been the recipient of this spam, but has been quite uncivil in the meantime. He's also earned himself no favors by me by curtly ignoring my warning to not throw out personal attacks: [192], an issue for which you'll notice his talk page is full; I gave him the warning for this. However, after I gave him this warning, he gave this comment on ja wiki. Can I request an administrator block him on ja, or someone who speaks Japanese place a request there? This is totally inappropriate IMHO, especially after warning. On a similar issue, would it be appropriate to block Benlisquare on en.wp? Thoughts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC) En.wiki and ja.wiki are different places with entirely different rules and controls, I'm afraid. I think it's probably best to keep en.wiki's drama on en.wiki and ja.wiki's drama on ja.wiki, and not to mix the two.—S Marshall T/C 00:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC) I notifed the WP:JAPAN editors of this request [193]. Some of them are active in the ja.Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Comment on User:HighSpeed-X. He doesn't listen and is a broken recorder. Coupled with His edit-warring, relentless POV-pushing, show of touch of racism, spamming, and stalking, he should get a permanent ban. While it may seem harsh, I highly doubt he'd actually learn to listen. Comment on User:Benlisquare. He is just as bad. While he has done a lot of constructive editing in the past, it'll be wrong to exempt him from criticism. When faced with irritation caused by User:HighSpeed-X, he quickly lost his cool. Even after being given advice and warnings, he still decided it is okay to throw massive tantrums instead of filing a simple ANI/RfC/Mediation/Arbitration. If he melts down this easily when tailed by a simple generic pest, one'd need to stretch imagination a bit to estimate how User:Benlisquare'd behave when a much more annoying and creative editor is after him in the future. With this said, a permanent ban is too harsh for him given his contributions to Wikipedia. However, a several-day ban would be appropriate for him to learn how to be an adult. Note: The links I provided do not include every instance of offense mentioned. -- Bobthefish2 (talk ) 02:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Comment by Benlisquare: Well, what you see in front of you with your own eyes is clearly the truth; I have no intentions to explain what I have done in any other way from what everybody can see by denying my allegations of straying from policy, because otherwise that would clearly be my own POV. I do not deny that I have done horrible things last night, that I will make clear. However, there are a few points that I cannot leave unspoken. Starting from the most simple: Magog the Ogre, [194] was not an ignore blanking, it was an acknowledgement blanking. I have read your post, acknowledged it, and have subsequently removed it, becuase I personally don't keep subst-ed template messages on my talkpage as a habit. If you look through my talkpage history, I do that all the time. I would like to suggest that you might have misinterpreted my action. Whether or not you believe me is up to you, I cannot change your opinion even with further words. As far as I know, Japanese Wikipedia's talkpage policy places the user's talkpage as within their own jurisdiction. Things that are illegal under law, such as death threats, copyright violations, et cetera are prohibited to be placed in user-talk namespace of course, but the civility policies for the article talkpages and other areas are kept separate from one's own user talkpage, as far as I've been told. Correct me if I am wrong. There are various individuals on the Japanese Wikipedia who keep lines such as "I hate cooled down a bit , I do acknowledge that I have gone a bit over the top, and that there were better alternative means of dealing with the situation. But past is past, and I cannot change the mistakes that I already have done. Obviously, I don't expect anyone to be able to sympathize with my emotions. "Why would he be so upset?" you might ask. Well for starters, most of HighSpeed-X's comments to me, regardless of whether in English or Japanese, were politically motivated and anti-Chinese. I took his comments as a direct attack against myself, based on my ethnicity. Case in point, he criticises the Chinese people to be "unable to think in a democratic way unlike more educated peoples", posts images to prominent historical Chinese individuals that are controversial (which I subsequently have deleted as they clutter my page), and uses a link to 1938 Yellow River flood to taunt me. Think of it this way, if you were American, and people continually wrote "derp derp 'murrikans are killing children in Afghanistan, why do you call yourselves 'murrikans, 'murrika is a continent not a country, you should be United Statians, derp derp, what's with your gun laws", would you not feel upset? Even though they have never said any profane words, wouldn't you still interpret their words as a direct attack against yourself? Why else would they be saying those words, other than to taunt and humiliate you? Yes, [195] was wrong of me. Yes, [196] was wrong of me. However, I see my circumstance in a much different perspective to what I expect most of you to see it in. Now, I have nothing else to add to that. Also, sorry for the WP:TLDR, I tend to do that alot. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Comment @Magog: No, I wouldn't think a block on Benlisquare appropriate from what I've seen. He's a long-term editor with plenty of contributions, no obvious warnings on his talk page, and a clean block log. He's admitted he lost his temper, and understands that he could have dealt with things better. It's always possible I'm wrong, but I don't believe that a block would prevent disruption of any kind. I'd recommend encouraging him away from conflict, and offering a sympathetic ear and guidance if he should find himself in this sort of position again. --RexxS (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrator eyes needed on unblock-l

As happens from time to time, we don't have very many administrators active right now on unblock-l, which is the mailing list on which blocked users are invited to submit requests for unblocking. If a few more admins would get involved on this list and respond to some of the pending and incoming requests, it would be very helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm subscribed to the list, but it's really annoying because I get "spammed" every day, and can never figure out which requests have been handled and which haven't. Is there any chance that unblock requests can use an OTRS system? I don't know if this is viable, but it would certainly prompt me to respond more. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I use Gmail for my Wikipedia mailing list subscriptions, so a response to a given request shows up in the same thread. That makes it easier to tell which requests have been responded to or not. That might help. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Slow moving editing on Troop Beverly Hills

Resolved

 – Monkeyajb has been blocked as a spammer as that seems to be their only purpose, based on their contributions. ···

Join WikiProject Japan

! 05:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So over at Troop Beverly Hills, I helped give a third opinion about the inclusion of trivia/linkspam. Monkeyajb (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly inserting the same text on and off since early October; here's the text that's being added. Myself and two other editors have repeatedly told him on the talk page that the text doesn't belong, yet he still insists on adding it. They've been warned several times on their talk page, but it's never fast enough for a 3RR. Could someone take a look at this and see what they think? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Banned user returns

SM Prime Holdings, Inc.

• They appear to have returned on 1 May 2010 as Balubz123 (talk · contribs), editing the same articles and still making cut/paste copyvios. See this edit diff where the text (word for word) originates from www.smsupermalls.com
  Note: they have not edited since 21 October 2010.
• These articles on SM operated malls read like adverts and are poorly or not referenced.

Regards, - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Balubz123 has been informed of this discussion diff - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the blatant copyvio shown in the diff. To think that this person actually added the website that he cut-and-pasted from to the article is... mind-boggling. Doc talk 19:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked indefinitely for block/ban evasion, and noted the original account accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Doc, I have also made a post at wp:Copyright problems/2010 November 6 as there is a pattern of similar copyvios on SM Prime Holdings shopping malls. There seem to be several editors who have a disturbing interest is shopping malls! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 20:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, LessHeard vanU too!- 220.101 talk^\Contribs 20:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Xander134 (talk · contribs) seems to be one of these "interested" editors for sure[197]. What a mess... Doc talk 20:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Note - Xander134 has thrice restored copyrighted material after its removal, apparently thinking better of his second reversion, but doing it again today after being warned. He fails to communicate: if fact his only communication ever has been these two edit summaries[198][199]. This is a SPA copyright violator, and maybe a fourth time restoring blatant copyvios shouldn't be waited for. The site he cut-and-pasted from is in the article infobox - it's absurd... Doc talk 20:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Xander134 indefblocked per

WP:OWN issues, so I think it's better to limit damage now and negotiate later if an unblock request goes up. EyeSerene^talk

10:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Pandas do not eat bananas

Not an admin issue, and people need to bear in mind

WP:FORUM, which overrides even such plaintive cries as "What is it with all this hating and archiving, can't we even have a little laugh without authority being shut down." ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent

─╢ 10:38, 8 November 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.

---

Resolved

 – Sources appears to support that pandas will eat bananas when available; in any case this is not an admin issue. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed to avoid cluttering up the noticeboard; thread was already off-topic, and is becoming even more so.

Wrong venue. Please move to Talk:Panda I cannot edit the article about pandas because it is protected. But it is claiming that Pandas' diet includes bananas. In zoos, maybe. But in the wild? Come on guys, that's total bullshit. So can someone change that please, since I'm unable to cause of your nanny state not trusting IPs crap? Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.253.37 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC) ( editsemiprotected}} template to request that an edit be made to the article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC) I would be more likely to use civil langauge if I haven't been fucked over a few times today by strange people on the encyclopedia! Anyway I don't need a source, I only need some common bloody sense, the panda's natural habitat simply doesn't overlap with bananas... I suppose it's just about possible in a few tiny locations it does now, I don't know where banana farms are, but if that is the case it's a historical fucking aberation, jesus. Pandas live on Off2riorob (talk ) 00:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC) The source cited in the article says their diet is 99 percent bamboo, but they will eat various other things, including bananas, when available. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Bananas are found extensively across SE Asia, and as far as I know that includes parts of SW China - and the reference provided in the article does actually support the claim. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC) And yes, it's a common falsehood that pandas eat nothing but bamboo. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC) {ec)Based on the warnings (final, huh?) on his talk page and some of the diffs, I doubt this IP really cares that much. Anyways, it is sourced. Cptnono (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC) i changed the text in the article so its more like the text in the reference. but 86.161.253.37 your just going to make people mad if you complain about this here. Aisha9152 (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Pandas will eat pretty much anything, including dead animals, they just primarily eat bamboo. HalfShadow 00:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC) No way, them Pandas is Off2riorob (talk ) 00:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Nope, just *mostly* vegetarian. They possess an ursine digestive system - they're bears. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Hence they are omnivores, they just have a thing for bamboo. For comparison, cats are typically considered carnivores, yet they will graze like cows when given the chance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC) And the IP is blocked now - moving along... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC) It's a welcome change to discuss the ursine digestive system from the point of view of its input rather than its output. Me, I just don't go to the woods any more, since I'm not geared up these days for a big surprise. Rodhullandemu 00:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC) haha - when you are in the woods and bears may be living there you tend to keep your eyes and ears open. - Pandas have the digestive system of a carnivore, but they have adapted to a vegetarian diet of bamboos. A panda may eat 12-38kg of bamboo a day http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/giant_panda Pandas have been ridiculed for their decidedly non-bearlike vegetarian diets, http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/05-could-pandas-be-an-evolutionary-mistake2014or-proof-of-an-intelligent-designer - just sayin there are differing opinions, some of the claims are from captured zoo animals..... moving on... Off2riorob (talk ) 00:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Naturally you'll keep your eyes and ears open when there are bears about - you don't want them stealing your bananas :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC) If you google [panda diet facts], you will find overlapping info about what they eat. The sources all agree they eat 95-99 percent bamboo. Ironically, they don't digest it well, so they are constantly eating, and their output is significant. The other 1-5 percent of their diet appears to be just about anything, including mice and bananas. Seems like the endangerment to this species could be alleviated by finding a bamboo substitute. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC) "Output". That's a polite way of saying these bears shit in the woods. A lot. HalfShadow 00:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC) That was an interesting discussion - or at least it made me laugh. It occurs to me that the statement 'Pandas do not eat bananas' would fall foul of WP:RS though. You can't actually state what Pandas don't do, only what they've been observed doing, and having seen Pandas not eating bananas is no proof that they don't do it when you're not looking... All right, only kidding. Back to serious issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC) - What is it with all this hating and archiving, can't we even have a little laugh without authority being shut down Off2riorob (talk ) 00:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• - What is it with all this hating and archiving, can't we even have a little laugh without authority being shut down and running to the report board instead of discussing it like adults.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 00:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Facepalm So much for humour, let alone wit; this is a noticeboard for Admins, and Admins should decide when the horse has been flogged beyond collective tolerance. Some levity in the face of all the other tendentious crap we have to put up with here is welcome. And they say the Germans have no sense of humour.... Rodhullandemu 01:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I would think we all have better things to do than clutter up ANI, both in terms of space and edit conflicting, by having an off-topic talk about pandas eating bananas and then criticising an editor for rightly collapsing it. Talk pages aren't general chat forums, and neither is ANI. Frankly this thread is just getting ridiculous and demonstrates how ANI gets its bad reputation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Lighten up man, wikipedia is not a
        Off2riorob (talk
        ) 01:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Hey, dude, don't go bananas. We can't bear it.
        BANG! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots
        → 08:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • This home movie from a zoo says shows they prefer bamboo, but will eat at least "a" banana[200] At least in a zoo. Doc talk 08:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Given how much bamboo they consume, I'm surprised bamboo itself isn't an endangered species. Or maybe it is? Maybe Chinese scientists need to develop an artificial bamboo that looks the same and tastes the same and provides the same nutrients - only maybe with a lot less cellulose, to reduce the output. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:34, 8 November 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.

Policy on using

http://proxpn.com/

What is wikipedia's policy on using such sites to edit pages?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.22.12 (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Open proxies. — Edokter • Talk • 13:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

if u spend a lot of time on AN/I

WP:DNFTT — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) u r a douche. LOL.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC) A douche is a cleansing mechanism, so you've unwittingly issued everyone here a compliment. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Your point being?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC) well i just would like ppl to um roll up there sleeves and "get back to edting the encylpedia" and things of this nature. because a lot of these threads are seneseless wastes of time and bickering, and if this is wut u do all day u r a douche.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC) His account is either compromised or he's deliberately committing Wikicide. Block him. VoteJagoffForMayor (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Block him for what? Stating an opinion? Since when was that a crime? Fatuorum 03:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Please block that guy, look at what hes doing [201] his last few edits are all disruptive. VoteJagoffForMayor (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC) His last few edits are not disruptive. What he was doing was fixing the format of querent's signature after (kindly) splitting his double question into two questions. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Reminds me of User:Bad edits r dumb    Thorncrag  03:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC) He did the same thing about a year ago; his account probably isn't compromised. HalfShadow 03:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC) He's vandalizing then and disrupting VoteJagoffForMayor (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Ok, so is it ok if I just start posting all kinds of stupid BS here and chatting about Justin Bieber on the ref desk??? VoteJagoffForMayor (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC) It wasn't him who asked the question, for goodness sake. He splitted up a double question, for the sake of clarity. Look closely at the history before you make these statements. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Blocked. Nakon 03:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Truly idiotic block. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Yeah, because everyone knows coming here and calling everyone here a 'douche' is the new "Hello, how are you". HalfShadow 03:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Based on his quite extensive block log, it's clear that he's not here to contribute positively. Nakon 03:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC) But apparently this behavior is tolerated in this instance, so please feel free to reverse the block as appropriate. Nakon 03:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC) A mere cursory review shows a fair amount of subtle vandalism and other nonconstructive edits. Sounding more and more familiar.    Thorncrag  03:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC) My "mere cursory review" didn't find much. Can you supply a few diffs to demonstrate a "fair amount" of "subtle vandalism"? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Seems moot now since the account is blocked. The user can of course request an unblock and will no doubt be watched closely henceforth.    Thorncrag  03:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC) No, it's not moot. Your statement, if supported, would be relevant to the time and circumstances of an unblock. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Jimbo did create this policy about half a year ago, but the implementation is apparently delayed a bit. Count Iblis (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC) You aren't on my Christmas card list right now, but I will confess you gave me a chuckle.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC) I thought calling WP:SPADE. Bad block, for what it's worth. I can understand 24 hours, maybe. Indefinite is obscene. --MZMcBride (talk ) 03:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Aside from that, they shouldn't be threatening people with blocks.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC) I've reduced the block to 48 hours. Nakon 04:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks Nakon. You might consider reducing it more. I think this whole thing came about because TFM is pissed at me for being determined about a ref desk warning template (see the above thread) and is acting out in annoyance. I think once he's cooled down a bit he'll be doing some serious repetitive face-palming. You might want to set him free before he develops carpal tunnel syndrome of the nose. --Ludwigs2 04:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Given the decline of the soap opera we perhaps need a thread like this once in a while. A great while. Would the project really suffer much if everybody went home till Tuesday? PhGustaf (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Vandals don't take breaks.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC) lol - it would be an absolutely fascinating (if brutal) experiment to simply lock every single page on wikipedia for three days and give the entire project a forced wikibreak. I wonder which would increase more worldwide: the homicide or the heart attack rates? --Ludwigs2 05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Now that's funny. :-D [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 07:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Hey, you might be onto something. Maybe lock wikipedia for the Thanksgiving weekend and/or the Christmas weekend, with the message that wikipedia is closed for the holidays, and that regular hours will resume on Monday. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Support...everything else is closed on Christmas, why not wikipedia? Then maybe I'd spend more time with my family and less in front of the computer. =P Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC) It would make my wife much happier if Wikipedia were closed for the holidays: I'd be more willing to do chores around the house. And I wouldn't need to let the tv babysit my 2-year-old daughter in order to update the demographics of Ethiopia. Edits like this, I mean. -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag

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

Editors' requests on communication with them should generally be respected unless there is good reason not to. If there is a disagreement between them and others as to whether there is "good reason", their interpretation should normally be respected. If doing so causes significant problems in communication, that can be handled as and when necessary, as sensitively as possible, eg by quietly asking an admin for advice. Rd232 ^talk 16:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Can an admin please advise TreasuryTag formally about proper use of talk pages and respecting other editors' communication preferences, especially w.r.t. the orange bar. That user has left a number of frivolous talkback templates and similar messages on my talk page and so far shown no willingness at all to respect my wish not to be bothered with them. See User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2010/Nov#Talk-back-like messages. After the second formal warning to stop this behaviour, the user started copying their messages to my talk page instead and suggested that I have no control at all over what they do there. ("Furthermore, WP:UP#OWN suggests that editors do not have the authority to ban others from their talkpage, either in general or with specified contractual conditions.") I responded to this by banning the user from my talk page for 6 months, to which the user responded by posting on my talk page to say that they don't care and will post there anyway.

While the user's last post on my talk page was not of the kind to which I would ordinarily take offence, it does seem to be part of a general pattern of harassment. The user has made it clear that they want to bully me into responding to them. Hans Adler 13:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If Hans is under the impression that he is entitled to

precisely regulate other editors' posts to his talkpage, then he is very much mistaken – and that is all I have to say on the topic, other than recommending that anybody bothered to be interested should read Hans' and my exchanges on our respective pages. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate

─╢ 13:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

From my past interactions with TreasuryTag, I don't think that this is a case of deliberate harassment, so much as a general obliviousness to the value of acceding to the reasonable requests of one's fellow editors. I would urge him to consider changing his approach in this regard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that these messages were accomplishing nothing apart from antagonising Hans Adler.  pablo 13:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Treasury Tag has a very long history of posting on talk pages (even when specifically requested not to) He does this to troll and irritate. He is a problem editor who needs to be addressed.
   Giacomo 
  13:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This link has clarified things a bit for me. Porcupine = TreasuryTag. My guess is this is one of those users who go from one extreme to the other. I can't read User talk:Porcupine/Blacklist, so I can't easily verify this theory myself. But if it is true:

This is a general problem. Editors make a mistake, for example break

WP:V. Once they have been made understand that it was wrong and will not be tolerated, they go overboard in the other direction, e.g. by breaking WP:Plagiarism. I have seen many instances of this general pattern and should perhaps start making a list. I think it's often done in good faith, so structural changes in our policies and guidelines might help. Hans Adler

13:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The last sentence here makes the good-faith explanation less likely though: "It's probably worth you noting, for future information, that I would have been significantly more inclined to go along with your request if it didn't come in the wake of false accusations of harassment etc." Unless he means "in the wake" literally and is referring to events I missed, this is a misrepresentation since my "false accusations" only started after he failed to react to my edit summaries [202] ("see notice at top of page", "oh please; do you think I am not watching that thread?") and my only slightly irritated request on his talk page. ("Talk-back-like messages: Can you please respect my wish not to be bombarded with those for no reason at all. I think I have made it clear by now that I am watching that ANI thread. We don't need two completely unnecessary edits on my talk page for every post of yours.") Hans Adler 14:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify the chronology, the first accustion of harassment came at 11:19am, whereas Hans did not "ban" me from his talkpage until 12:59pm. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 14:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest you simply stay off his talk page? Is that a ridiculous request? Let's move on and play nicely together. JodyB _talk 14:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Ooops. Got it now. By "request" he is referring specifically to my ban. Still, in that case it's blatant wikilawyering. If he is prepared to stay off my talk page on request he should also be prepared just not to bombard me with talkback notices, even though they are not specifically mentioned in any guideline. Hans Adler 14:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm Wikilawyering? [203] ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 14:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That's how I communicate with editors who have made it clear that they make it a principle not to honour polite requests. This is usually followed by later wikilawyering, so it's best to be very precise. Hans Adler 14:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

::::May I suggest you simply stay off his talk page? Is that a ridiculous request? Let's move on and play nicely together. JodyB _talk 14:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, and Hans seems to have moved onto the personal attacks now. How refreshingly original. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 14:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Believe it or not, but I meant obstinate, not obnoxious. One of those occasions when I am reminded that my English is not quite on the level of a native speaker. Hans Adler 14:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A repeated refusal to accept that unnecessary postings on a user talk page are unwelcome is indeed obnoxious, particularly as presented by the rather prickly TreasuryTag. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests. . . . dave souza, talk 14:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's alright though, if a fellow forgets he's not wanted around. Something that I forgot at Giacomo's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So far as I am concerned this thread has served its purpose. By now it should be clear to TreasuryTag that further rampages on my talk page would be very unwise. Hans Adler 14:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I still reserve the right to post on your talkpage as I would for any other editor. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 14:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about whether you reserve that right so long as you don't make a point of (ab)using it. I wanted you to get a formal warning from an admin, and instead you got an informal warning from an Arb (presumably without his hat on), and a bunny made fun of both of us on my talk page. That should be enough for now. Hans Adler 14:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You consider, "I would urge him to consider changing his approach," to be a warning? ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 15:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a reminder on TreasuryTag's talk page, and strongly suggest that he or she should not persist with unwanted and unnecessary contact with others. . . dave souza, talk 15:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

YeeeEEEEeeee... did someone put something in the wiki-water that's making everyone act crazy? Let's all spend a day or three paying scrupulous, painstaking attention to point #2 of the Trifecta, and see how many of the recent problems reported on this page find themselves effortlessly resolved. --Ludwigs2 15:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Treaury Tag is a complete menace who has fequently been warned about this behaviour, making a nuisance if himself on talk pagesL [204]. I had to twice remove him from my tlk page yesterday. Ignoring can be done, but he does not seem very good at taking hints.
   Giacomo 
  15:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  It is just beyond me why you would resurrect a thread where you got slapped on the wrist for threats of harassment, Giano [205] [206] – ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 15:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  I agree. It is beyond you.

   Giacomo 

  15:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  Good one. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 15:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Mrengjellprekazi

Mrengjellprekazi (talk · contribs) has, since October, been creating masses of articles about certain government parties; he's making bare-minimum stubs and then goes on to the next one. I think at this point he's just going through the alphabet. Literally every one has been tagged and in several cases he simply remakes the article after deletion. He's been warned at least three times to stop. Could someone stuff a cork in him, please? HalfShadow 18:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The unacceptable aspect here is the recreation after being deleted, which he's done several times. I've blocked for 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Right! What's going on with RLevse?

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.

---

These discussions have no useful purpose here except enabling more vitrol to be thrown over the walls. The last few sections appear to have useful purpose in dealing with the heart of the matter, please try and continue a civil discussion on topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As requested by email I have backed off! However, it now seems Rlevse[207][208] is not "retired" but just on "wikibreak" who is pulling the strings here and why? He's seriously broken all the rules and I agreed to let the matter drop because he was apparently upset and not returning. However, if he's just on a wikibreak then we need to investigate his behaviour, I'm not swallowing all these excuses. He's either with us or he is not, at the moment he seems to be controling by proxy?

 Giacomo 

18:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Honestly you should cram it in your ear. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'd add to that, why is his talk page protected? I can't see any possible legitimate justification for that, especially if he's "on Wikibreak" rather than retired. Since there's an obligation in certain circumstances to notify people (if a file he uploaded is tagged for deletion, say) this seems extremely dubious. – 

iridescent

18:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• His page was protected because there was grave dancing upon it. If he ever does come off break, I'd say
  he knows he'll have to deal with all kinds of things. Gwen Gale (talk
  ) 18:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Really? and since when have the dead been able to edit [209]? It's truly a miracle. Lazarus lives.
   Giacomo 
  18:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's his ghost (and his own talk page). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

GiacomoReturned, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight#Casting aspersions:

"It is unacceptable for an editor to repeatedly make false or unsupported accusations against others. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all."

I understand from your contributions that you have concerns about Rlevse's editing. However, in the light of the aforementioned finding, continuing to voice them in this manner, without citing relevant evidence and by making broad allegations, is disruptive. Please use the appropriate

dispute resolution procedure to resolve any current concerns. I do not think that this discussion is useful.  Sandstein 

18:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Take a look Sandstein. The page was briefly unprotected for him to edit. What is going on?
   Giacomo 
  18:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like it was unprotected for a very short time so he could put up a new break template (so short a time, he made a typo which someone else later fixed for him). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

So he is far from "dead" and in a land where his failures can be kindly ignored - is he?

 Giacomo 

18:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no point in seeking to address any alleged failure unless or until he returns. Rd232 ^talk 19:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Did this get hatted and then unhatted? Saebvn (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it did; by me. The matter needs to be aired and discussed not swept under Wikipedia's already filthy carpet.

 Giacomo 

19:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It was twice closed by an admin and twice reverted by GiacomoReturned ([210], [211].) This is beginning to become disruptive. This board is for requesting administrative intervention. Since no admin intervention is being requested or looks possible here, the thread should be and remain closed.  Sandstein  19:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering to clarify. I've got it displaying 2 ways, and my "refresh" button wasn't doing the job, apparenly. Sorry to intrude into the discussion; just trying to follow and track the comments properly. Thanks for the clarification. Saebvn (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah Administrator Sandstein, suddenly not so ignorant are you [212]?

 Giacomo 

19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Giano has a legitimate complaint here. When Rlevse left, he had SirFozzie post this on his behalf, in which he says he's scrambled his passwords, and (by implication) saying that he won't be coming back. A week later, he makes this edit. So either Rlevse didn't really scramble his passwords, or he did but left the email-me-a-new-password intact (which makes his first statement a lie of omission). Either way, the issue of whether or not he's coming back is clearly in doubt. Raul654 (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter? He cocked up. That makes him human, not a criminal. Who does that remind you of? Surely not every single Wikipedian? Leave the guy alone and if there are matters beyond a desire for a pound of flesh if or when he returns, we can deal with them then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A lie of omission? Huh? Raul that makes very little sense. Nothing in what SirFozzie posted made any suggestion that email-me-a-new-password had been disabled for the Rlevse account, and indeed someone pointed that out publicly very quickly. No great secrecy or confusion. --

talk

) 20:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, we can't. It needs dealing with now, while it is fresh on everyones mind and before he comes back with all powers restored. We have gone from retired and never coming back to back within a few hours.With both Admins and Arbs all complicit in playing this deal in and off wikipedia. Let's deal with it here and now.

 Giacomo 

19:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Deal with what? Your need to get back at a user you very clearly have issues with? Given you are not asking for any kind of adminstrative function here, give me one good reason why this shouldn't be hatted again? Resolute 19:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

OK! Rlevse needs to be banned from editing until his edits can be trusted, mentored and approved. As per the many recomendation where this matter has been debated eslewhere, Now he's back and able to edit - we have to deal with his editor.

 Giacomo 

20:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1

Why is this such a big deal? GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. This has got something to do with plagerism stuff. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggest hatting. There is nothing any admin can do here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is; he can be banned pending an enquiry for the reputation and good of the project.

 Giacomo 

20:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative; not punitive, not pour encourager les autres, not to make

talk

) 20:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

His page is protected by an admin, it is perfectly in order to raise on the admin's notice board the question of whether that is appropriate. It looks to me like it isn't. If Rleverse is exercising a RTV, then fair do. We talk about the issue and not the person. But a RTV is not an "indefinite wikibreak". Further, if he's posting statement on his talk page (or Fozzie is for him) which address the community and raise issues, it is the right of the community to question and discuss those statements. I am minded to unprotect his talk page. What say you? (Please no hatting till the issue is really resolved).--Scott Mac 20:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• As has also been proven this eveing, he is also quite able to edit hiself - so what is going on here?
   Giacomo 
  20:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep his talkpage protected, until he comes off his wiki-break. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with GoodDay. There is currently no statement posted by SirFozzie on Rlevse's talk page to discuss. If a subsequent statement is indeed posted, it can be unprotected for discussion at that time. In the meantime it makes sense for people to get on with something useful instead. --
  talk
  ) 20:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not. we have a former Arb editing by proxy, claiming not to be able to edit, but well able to edit, we have Admins edting clearly on a timescale to allow him to edit protected pages and we have Arbs lying in emails. What is going on?

 Giacomo 

20:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's that there cabal I keep hearing about, I'm sure of it. I could tell you things about them that wou*BANG!* Arrrrh... HalfShadow

This is all part of a great conspiracy. But don't tell anyone.. --Conti|✉ 20:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one struggling to find the actual disruption here, save for what appears to be Giacomo's persistence on the matter?    Thorncrag  20:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(Posting hurriedly, so as to resist the temptation to remove HalfShadow's silly babble. Are you posting under the influence again, HS?)

"[This thread] was twice closed by an admin and twice reverted by GiacomoReturned. This is beginning to become disruptive." (Sandstein, above.) "Disruptive.." that word again. So, by saying that, are you implicitly warning somebody you're getting ready to block them, Sandstein? Who? Threads should not be closed until they're all talked out. The purpose of closure isn't (supposed to be) to gag other people.

WP:BOLD, and Giano reverted him. Then you closed it yourself, and Giano reverted again. The disruptive action here, if any, was IMO your re-closure. Your edit summary with it was interesting, running in part: "Please respect the decisions of the administrators curating this board."[213] Certain specific admins are curating ANI, really? Who are they? Are they listed somewhere? Why haven't I heard of them? Are you one? Can I be one? Or does your edit summary simply mean "Please respect the decisions of administrators when contributing to this board, because they, not you, have power over what may be discussed"? [/me makes note of "curate". Useful word!] Do the people who want ANI off limits to this discussion, and Rlevse's talkpage protected, have any suggestion for where discussion could appropriately take place? For me, I agree with Scott: unprotect user talk:Rlevse. Bishonen | talk

20:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC).

It would also be helpful if those administrators instituting page protection on User Talk:Rlevse and the associated user page would put the page protection icon in the corner or a notice on the page, for the convenience of those of us trying to follow what's going on here. Since this has gotten Signpost coverage, interest may increase. Recommend something similar to the notice Uncle G posted at Darius Dhlomo's user and talk pages after that incident got Signpost coverage. Saebvn (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

For convenience, here is Uncle G's notice:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darius_Dhlomo&oldid=384887496

Saebvn (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And, for anyone interested in historical context, why was this diff RevDel'd or Oversighted?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rlevse&diff=393956984&oldid=392445532

Here's the Signpost article:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-01/Arbitration_report

Actions like this make it hard for other non-Admin members of the community to follow the trail of individual actions, spread out over multiple pages (as Iridescent recounts below), that are somehow related to this incident. If an editor reads the Signpost article, and tries to follow its links there to gain a better, more well-rounded understanding of this, what conclusions will s/he draw (or even a non-editor member of the public at large) when things are removed from the record or invisible to non-Admin editors? I'm still trying to get a handle on this so I can even begin to form an opinion by reading the relevant elements of the record. Saebvn (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure what the big campaign is here. Let's say Rlevse had not quit after this incident; would there have been anything to "deal" with? No, of course not. He made a mistake and he knows it (it has been emphasised in the strongest possible terms by those on his talk page and those commenting here). After years of dedication to the project, it would displease anyone to come under fire as he has. Can I please suggest we leave this alone now? Constantly throwing it back into the public arena is only going to keep Rlevse away from the project for longer, which would obviously not be a good thing. This sort of discussion isn't doing anyone any favours. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No we cannot leave it, we left it when he annopunced he had retired. He is no longer retired. The matter was hushed and swept under the carpet on the advice of the arbcom because he was not coming back. He is now back. It needs to be dealt with - block the acount until the matter is dealt with. Or do former Arbs have special treatment?

 Giacomo 

20:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(

copyright investigation, and the editor would normally be blocked unless they persuade the community that it was a mistake, and they offer to clear up the mess. That didn't happen, the whole process was stalled by the editor apparently and dramatically leaving forever. Therefore the "what should we do with an editor who regularly plagiarises" discussion remains to be had, and such discussion would not normally wait for an editor to come back from wikibreak, where the matter involves plagiarism and copyvio. Elen of the Roads (talk

) 20:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he'd be more willing to come back and have this discussion if everybody put their pitchforks down. Just sayin'. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The only process discussion related to Rlevse I know of is here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1. If you have anything relevant to say on that topic please say it there. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You forgot

iridescent

21:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing these out. I thought the AN/I discussion had been archived, but now I see that it has been moved to its own subpage. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Am I correct in understanding that the plagiarism concerns are one passage from one article or are there more? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Your understanding is faulty, which would be easy to see if overly officious admins stopped deleting and protecting Rlevse's talk page.
    Fatuorum
    21:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • HJ, besides the FA, there are concerns about at least one of his DYKs that I've seen, perhaps more. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It's two articles, one was a list that wasn't properly attributed and another was the Grace Sherwood article, this is an anti-arb crusade (especially by Giano) right here and this thread should be closed, I was the one who mentioned Rlevse that he could edit because he never disabled his email. We are talking shit behind his clearly not here back, and we should stop it. If Rlevse decides to go edit again, then we could discuss this further. Secret ^account 21:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh, only two articles? I haven't verified the one reported here, but it looks really bad, too. Hans Adler 00:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't this supposed to be the ArbCom that would be out in the open, honest and restore the confidence of wikipedians? VoteJagoffForMayor (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that Elen makes the most thoughtful, on point, and actionable observation in this string. As she says, "the "what should we do with an editor who regularly plagiarises" discussion remains to be had, and such discussion would not normally wait for an editor to come back from wikibreak, where the matter involves plagiarism and copyvio."--Epeefleche (talk) 10:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Bullying and tag teaming at ANI

Several administrators have tag teamed against Giano in order to get a very necessary discussion suppressed. Claiming to disappear completely and then reappearing a few days later is not an acceptable form of crisis management, especially not for an ex-Arb. Rlevse's copyvios appear to stretch back over many years, and checking and fixing everything is going to be a lot of work. He should not be allowed back if he doesn't help with this work to the best of his ability, the standard condition for such cases. I am going to reopen the discussion, but first I want to start the inevitable discussion about admin abuse.

Also: Saebvn asked about a diff that is linked from the Signpost but no longer visible. The thread was closed before the question was answered. As a result I bothered the functionaries list with an unnecessary question. For anybody else who missed the obvious: It is because the user page itself is deleted. Hans Adler 23:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Reopening the discussion is reasonable. I appreciate the ability to participate in it, whether here or in another appropriate forum. In specific response to Hans Adler, thank you for the explanation about the deleted comment. I really appreciate it, and I'm sorry I missed the obvious. Thank you. Saebvn (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator or not, why can't we let the guy come off his wiki-break first, before unprotecting his userpage? GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(

WP:AN, and start a community proposal for a ban, to be reviewed upon Rlevse's return. That way time wasted on this is minimised (in that the community won't be pointless addressing the issue of an editor who is never coming back anyway), but Rlevse won't be able to rejoin the community, should he decide to, without community acceptance. That seems to be the only real concern: Rlevse returning without this being cleared up. However, do not reopen this thread, as it's not properly focused on that topic, and is more of a Rlevse bashing thread. - Kingpin¹³ (talk

) 23:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Experience tells that Rlevse is very likely going to be back, as this was not his first "retirement" and a lot of uncritical fans have implored him to return. And in fact he has already restored access to his account. Hans Adler 23:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) There is a difference between bullying & tag teaming and multiple people coming to the same conclusion independently of each other. --Conti|✉ 23:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hans, just so you're aware of the current situation, Giano has been blocked for 48 hours. I'm obviously not going to take any admin action here, but my advice would be not go over 3RR, even if you consider the discussion to be necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "tag-teaming"? Improper coordination of edits? Please refer to my comment about casting aspersions, above, before making such claims without evidence. For my part, for the record, I undid GiacomoReturned's unarchiving of the above thread, in my capacity as administrator using this board, because while the underlying concern may well be real, this is not the way and not the forum in which to address it: no admin action is being requested here. We have a

WP:DR process for such issues, and ANI is not a part of it. I recommend that this subthread be likewise closed.  Sandstein 

23:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(

TKO for having the temerity to want to discuss something that is actually worth discussing.  pablo

23:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone mentioned above, this stuff should be taken to AN. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The tag team:

• Rschen7754
• Sandstein
• HJ Mitchell
• Gwen Gale
• Secret

By tag teaming I mean working together to avoid breaking 3RR in an attempt to enforce an edit that cannot be enforced by arguments. It was very obvious that this needs discussion, and a small number of admins who felt uncomfortable with that tried to suppress the discussion. That is not acceptable at all. Hans Adler 23:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hans, do you have any proof that they were deliberately working together to a common aim and with a common scheme, as opposed to independently agreeing with each other and carrying out the same action? ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 23:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

  I explained what I mean by tag teaming. I am using this handy metaphor in a loose way that covers any situation in which several people work together to win by force rather than argument. It would be absurd to suspect any secret communication in this case. We have more than enough admins who can independently have the same bad idea. Hans Adler 23:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

  "Working together" (your phrase, not mine) by definition requires conscious effort and co-ordination. The definition of "tag-teaming" also specifies that it is a situation where "editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." So I repeat my question: Do you have any evidence for your claim that tag-teaming and co-ordination of actions has taken place? ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 23:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

  You asked a question and I have given you an honest answer. It is not my fault if you don't like it. I used a different definition. The outraged reactions have shown me that it is an idiosyncratic definition, so I will try not to use it in the future. Perhaps

  you would like to ask your question once more now? Working together does not require coordination. That's why wikis are so efficient. Hans Adler

  00:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  Your definition of tag-teaming is clearly nonsense if it does not require co-ordination: if you can't see how this is obvious, then I can only yet again refer you to

  the standard definition which you clearly eschewed in favour of your own one with a lower standard of proof. Since your "honest answer" to my question was essentially "no" I feel no need to engage in further discussion with someone who makes such ludicrous attacks on their fellow editors (those you accuse of tag-teaming, not me, before you ask). ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium

  ─╢ 09:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  You are continuing your

  WP:IDHT. People can reasonably disagree about the way words are used. In this case the spirit of WP:Tag team applies. It often does, even in situations in which the tag team is doing nothing wrong at all, such as several established editors taking turns reverting the NPOV or BLP violations of a sockpuppet. That's precisely why that essay is so contentious. In this case the tag team was wrong, and its members should have known it. You can't keep such a discussion under a lid, and if you try there is an explosion. Everybody must know this by now. Instead of keeping the discussion open and steering it into constructive waters, several admins jumped on the chance of getting Giano blocked on a technicality. He had already announced that he was willing to become a martyr. There was no need to humour him. It was the perfect crime. No need for collusion. This pattern is being replayed all the time, especially in relation to Giano. We can't cure Giano of his apparent martyr complex, and we can't cure the admin class of their fixation on blocking Giano. But we can call a spade a spade. Hans Adler

  09:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  If you consider that a group of editors independently reaching the same conclusion and editing to that effect constitutes a tag-team, then any form of consensus-building is open to attack. It is quite normal at an AfD discussion, for instance, for six or seven admins to all argue for Keep – under your so-called definition, that would constitute an illegitimate tag-team. That is the problem I have with it:

  I did hear you, loud and clear, but what you say is simply impossible to work with. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote

  ─╢ 10:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  You are still not listening. I think I have made it abundantly clear that under my definition of the term there can also be legitimate tag teams. I am often part of one, in fact. And for the hard of hearing: Collusion was not involved in any of these tag teams. It was simply obvious for everybody what to do. Hans Adler 11:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  Well, I guess I may be hard of hearing, because I didn't notice any explanation of any distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" tag-teams as defined by your good self. Perhaps you could run over that part again? ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 11:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  Facepalm Colour-coded for your convenience. One more talk-back-like message on my talk page and you will be reported for harassment. This discussion is over. Hans Adler 11:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  You have said that "the spirit of

  WP:TAGTEAM often applies even in situations in which the tag team is doing nothing wrong at all." Your colour-coding is very pretty, but you clearly have no coherent idea of what it is you are talking about, nor of precisely what behaviour from whom you are complaining about. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas

  ─╢ 12:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  Seems coherent to me; editors can effectively act as a tag-team without actually forming a collusive

  WP:TAGTEAM.  pablo

  12:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  Maybe TreasuryTag meant the question literally, after all, and is interested in my criteria for the distinction between legitimate tag teams and others. They are of course the same as for every use of a powerful technique: Whether you use it to a legitimate end. A majority of numbers must not be exploited to suppress legitimate concerns. It's unfair, and ultimately it doesn't work anyway. Thus it's pure disruption If anyone else has further concerns I am open to discuss them, of course. Hans Adler 11:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not a martyr; a martyr stays dead and they have yet to silence me for ever. It was imperative that the thread remain open as so many wished to comment, the matter has stil not been properly dealt with, but as I have said elsewhere, that was a testing of the water on Levse's behalf and they now know that the water is very hot indeed. He's not some kind of hero who has fallen on his sword and invoked RTC; he is a common fugitive from his responsibilities, and that is making a lot of people who have lauded him look pretty silly. They need to cut the cackle and start to concentrate on clearing up the mess he had fled.
   Giacomo 
  10:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TreasuryTag, this redefines "tag teams" as "any number of admins who disagree with a loud editor." No actual communication or agreement would be required. By that logic, if Giano wants something in an article changed, and consensus is against him, well, that consensus is illegitimate, it's just a tag team. So convenient for ICANTHEARYOU editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Many of us know plagiarism is rampant on en.WP. What admin action would you like, Hans? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's run with this statement. Whatever it's called - variously copyright violation, plagiarism and close paraphrasing, all currently being used interchangeably to describe more or less the same phenomenon, it is not only rampant, it is a standard editorial practice throughout the project. In a recent case, I read over 500 articles, checking histories and sources in many of them. Deviation from what exactly the sources said was penalized, regularly, with blocks, reverts, and kilobytes of discussion on talk pages. Editors, including those with extensive writing experience, administrators, RC patrollers, and editors who just happened to be interested in a particular article almost invariably brought articles closer to the original sources and penalized original expression. This area is not out of the ordinary; it is far closer to the project-wide editing standard than anything else that I've seen expressed in the past week. Indeed, at the same time as we are commenting favourably on the number of BLPs that have recently been sourced, it seems nobody's noticed how a few thousand of them got sourced: look for the key phrase in the article, use it as a google search string, and then use the non-WP-mirror link that comes up to source the article - because that's probably where the information came from in the first place.

Many people who have commented here are embarrassed that an article with (very) close paraphrasing made it to the main page. Perhaps you should all go back and look at the articles to which you have made any contributions over the years, and see how many of them have unattributed information in their histories, and how many were built on what was unattributed information from their earliest edits. Only after everyone who wants blood here has done that should any of you cast the first stone. And yes, I mean those articles in which you've simply done "vandalism reverts" too, particularly if you've readded material removed by another editor. How do you know you weren't reverting to a copyvio/plagiarism/close paraphrasing state? Risker (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it ANI is not just for requesting specific admin actions, it is also for discussing incidents. The Rlevse copyvio incident was not properly discussed because Rlevse claimed to leave forever. A few days later he suddenly edits his talk page to announce a "wikibreak". The poor judgement shown in this action is almost worse than that exhibited by his copyvios.

A minor incident is that an admin (I think OlEnglish) unprotected and then protected the page to enable this inappropriate edit.

But since you were asking for possible admin action: How about blocking the Rlevse account indefinitely to avoid further disruption? How about unprotecting Rlevse's talk page to enable discussions with Rlevse about possible unblock conditions such as his cooperation in the cleanup? I would have thought that things can be handled with more dignity than this, but after this thorough mishandling it seems impossible. Hans Adler 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are meant to be preventative and Rlevse has straightforwardly stopped editing articles, on his own so there's no need to block and no policy support for a block, for now. As for the userspace protection, why should any other editor need to post to his userspace if he's no longer editing? Truly meaningful notices, say from arbcom, can be relayed to the page through an admin, bot notices aren't very meaningful to someone either retired or on indefinite wikibreak. There is truly nothing an admin can do here and hence, ANI isn't the page to talk about worries as to Rlevse's bygone behaviour. I'd say take it to arbcom, but he's already given up all his bits. There are highly meaningful worries about how content is built here, but it goes far, far beyond anything Rlevse may have done. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In other words, just wait a few weeks (if that; Rlevse seems to be very impatient) until everybody has moved on to other matters, and when Rlevse quietly starts editing again without cleaning up his mess first, his fans will be in a better position to avoid any consequences. Excellent plan.

One of the "highly meaningful worries about how content is built here" is that apparently you can even make it into Arbcom by plagiarising, and once there, the bootlicking admins will protect you from criticism. I don't think that should ultimately be the lesson learned from this episode. Hans Adler 00:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not how I closed the above thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I know. I found it a relatively good way of closing the thread. But there is no way to enforce that kind of thing. The wiki forgets quickly. Hans Adler 01:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone should unblock Giacomo and Rlevse should get his ass back here and discuss and see the music and work it out, his leaving like this is just not on.

Off2riorob (talk

) 23:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC

Was that supposed to be a serious and/or helpful comment? ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 23:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hans Adler, I have no particular opinion about the situation involving Rlevse. People can discuss that all they want as far as I'm concerned. But I have an opinion about what our administrative noticeboards are for, and evidence-less accusations against unspecified people and requests for banning are not it. If there is a concern that needs admin action now, it should be clearly stated, with the requisite evidence, not just a handwaving "He's seriously broken all the rules" and a lot of hot air. If a longterm contributor needs sanctioning for copyvios or similar problems, there is a

WP:RFAR if necessary. Please help us stop this pointless drama and bring any real concern to the proper forum in the proper form.  Sandstein 

23:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(Re Sandstein) I did have a point, which somehow got lost in the heat and light above; that restricting Rlevse's talk page to sysop-only goes against countless principles. There are any number of reasons (completely unrelated to the current mess) why someone might want to leave a message, even in cases where there's for more certainty that the user's not coming back, as otherwise it opens up all kinds of "you failed to notify me!" potential issues in future (even

iridescent

00:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That does sound like a valid concern. But that particular issue was not what this thread was started about. Wouldn't

WP:RPP be the forum in which to request unprotection, and if it is declined there, open a thread here for community discussion about the narrow issue of protection?  Sandstein 

00:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So your excuse for your part in the edit war is that you slept over the entire story and have no idea what it is about? Great. Hans Adler 00:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

@Sandstein - Where would be the proper place to discuss this. We have a member of ArbCom who has several copyright violations. He has retired and scrambled his password (but not really), and any attempt to discuss this on his user talk page has been described as grave dancing. The talk page is now protected. Should we file an RfC/U on a user who has retired and scrambled his password (but not really)? Where do you suggest interested parties discuss this? AniMate 00:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A good start would be a clear exposition what the actual problem is, with relevant evidence in the form of diffs. You cannot all assume everybody here follows your private drama in obscure venues. If copyright is the problem, the proper forum for acting on it would be Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If longterm user conduct is the problem, then RFC/U is the correct venue. That RFC may then need to be suspended until Rlevse returns to editing.  Sandstein  00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer is that Sandstein doesn't want it to be discussed, he wants it to be swept under the carpet.

Fatuorum

00:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest directing these inquiries directly to ArbCom. Little that admins can do, and little that admins are willing to do given the touchiness of this situation. --Rschen7754 00:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Where's a good place for Giacomo to discuss Rlvese? GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There isn't any place to discuss what actions should we do with Rlevse that isn't attacking the user. We are setting fuel to the fire, and if Rlevse comes back then we could discuss it. No Giano shouldn't be unblocked for this as his editing was disruptive. I also did a revert to close the page, all of this has been unhelpful. If anything we should focus an RFC on Rlevse contributions, if he had any copyvio in the tons of FAs he had. I don't see one. This discussion should be closed. Secret ^account 00:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There are obviously inappropriate ways of carrying on this conversation, but the notion that "it isn't acceptable to discuss Rlevse" because it's an attack, followed by ridiculous attempts to silence the thread with forced archiving an blocks is utterly counter-productive. As long as a user chooses to participate, his action are a legitimate subject of debate. The thread gets archived only when users are finished.--Scott Mac 00:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"if Rlevse comes back"? Are you joking? Rlevse has come back to announce his return. That's the incident we are discussing here. In future please acquaint yourself with the subject of a discussion before closing it. Hans Adler 00:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This clip[214] might fit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

He's also

iridescent

00:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Currently the only place where Giano can discuss Rlevse is his own talk page, but under Carcharoth's (and a few others') novel totalitarian policy interpretation he could then be blocked for "canvassing". Hans Adler 00:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Also, sombody's being a naughty boy. HalfShadow 00:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vivalet Secret ^account 00:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse has every right to return form a wikibreak. There is no rule on wikipedia that retirement statements are binding, also not for ex-arbitrators. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

His wiki-break timing stinks. It sure would be nice if he returns sooner, rather then latter. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

True, but "retirement", followed by a "wikibreak", is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. He had the choice: Suffer a discussion of his copyvios or escape from it by disappearing for a long time. He is trying to avoid both. That's a problem. Hans Adler 00:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is free to discuss his alleged copyvios whether he is here or not and the community can impose sanctions with or without his participation. If someone thinks that he has committed a bannable offense and is likely to repeat it unless sanctions are imposed then that should be the topic - not whether or not he has a right to edit now. He has that right untill the community takes it away, and we haven't.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The standard reaction is to block such an editor until he has promised to help with the cleanup work, and then unblock him under the condition that most of his edits go into that. We never discussed whether we treat him in the same way or whether he gets preferential Arb treatment – because he ran away. Now he is back, and quite a few people are filibustering the discussion after the attempt to simply close it failed. Hans Adler 01:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard of anyone being blocked for one (possibly two) instances of close paraphrasing/copyvio. Block is not punitive and would have to be grounded in fear of repetition.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither have I. We tried to sweep things under the carpet, but with so many idiots who defend someone as if he was innocent without looking at the facts first, it turned out to be impossible. At this point it seems most efficient to create the

WP:CCI subpage, after all. Hans Adler

01:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If somebody wants consideration of some action against Rlevse, I can't imagine that process occurring unless/until he returns. The only alternative would be asking for a trial in absentia. Or decide to give him an immediate 7 day block?  :-) The latter brings up a second point, unless WP wants to expand it's sentencing powers (e.g. to decide to send somebody over to break his windows), any decision would be a moot point unless / until he was back. North8000 (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This comment is completely beyond the pale. Rlevse ran away and didn't have the decency (or the strength [215][216]) to stay away. This has given him a few days in which everybody could calm down, but it's not OK to give him enough time so that everybody has lost interest when he is discussed. If he wants to participate, fine. If he doesn't, also fine. I would imagine that he is informed of this thread. Hans Adler 01:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(added later) My points were really just 2 observations: 1. That there is currently nothing to ask for except a trial in absentia and 2. All of the normal Wiki punishments are moot against someone who is not in Wikipedia. Is either observation even disputed, much less "beyond the pale"? North8000 (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Participate in what? You've already been directed to the proper location depending on what it is you actually want to discuss. Or is it just more fun to haul your pitch fork out and act indignant for no real benefit to anyone? Resolute 01:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, great. The old "We can't continue the discussion at ANI because it really belongs at AN" gambit. Well, there is still an incident that requires admin action. As of this writing Rlevse's talk page is still protected without any policy-based reason, and I can't see a firm consensus to IAR in this case. As a result, he has not been formally notified of this discussion even now, hours after it started. Hans Adler 01:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And to be clear: I am not personally interested in drastic action. I am currently in reactance mode due to totally inappropriate attempts to stifle discussion. Once sane discussion has started I will argue for a solution that minimises stress for Rlevse and the potential negative publicity. Hans Adler 01:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Dumping my thought on you: I often see people here rushing to demonstrate how something is not an issue for this board. Come on, we're not that kind of bureaucracy, are we? If there is a need that something be discussed elsewhere (because that's where the interested and affected people might look for it) then please post the request at that locus, and leave a link here. If there is no clear locus where this should be discussed, then what is the harm in letting a discussion take its course and eventually result in some action or change, or peter out... ? Seeing the same discussion bubble up at several places only to be stifled in order to bubble up anew somewhere else is frustrating to me, and I don't even understand what the hell is going on. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Specific to this case,

WP:ANI if there is a desire simply to create drama. Resolute

01:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

See, I don't understand all these distinctions. I'd hope that an administrator (or other savvy editor) would assist me with finding the right venue and form to deposit my concern. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI when there are several different concerns at the same time and it is not clear which of the other places are appropriate and how to coordinate them. As I wrote above, we tried to spare Rlevse the CCI although it should have been opened. According to the admin who has looked at Rlevse's articles, almost every one of them is problematic. I am just reporting what he wrote discreetly by email, I didn't check myself, but only verified that the examples he sent me were indeed problematic. See this blog post for a (different) example [217]. Hans Adler

01:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• -
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 01:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done that as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Aw, ,thanks Maunus, excuse me for spelling your name wrong.

Off2riorob (talk

) 01:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest anyone who attempts to close this thread again be blocked. This matter needs discussing. We'd pretty much left it behind because Rlevse was believed to be gone; that's clearly in doubt now. How dare anyone try to say we may not discuss this? I don't agree with the solutions Giano proposes, but this matter needs to be settled by the community. Giano's been blocked 48 hours for edit warring because he was unwise enough to not wait for someone else to be the one to reopen this discussion, but he was spot on in his edits to do so, and those people edit warring with him should be judged equally guilty. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Wouldn't it be better for someone to convince Rlevse to return to the project to face the angry mob? It looks to me like the pitchforks started coming out because a group of editors (several of whom are admins) have decided that Rlevse deserves a room in an impenetrable fortress. Protecting Rlevse's talk page, hatting and rehatting an ongoing ANI discussion without community consensus, and baiting and blocking an outraged member of the peasantry look exactly like the reasons why people are getting more and more perturbed and less and less willing to let it all go. What are the chances that Rlevse will do the right thing and participate in a discussion about his actions when this anger keeps on escalating because of the actions of his body guards?Griswaldo (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the chances are zero if we're to believe what we're being told this time.

Fatuorum

01:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Since this issue is still being discussed, wouldn't it be appropriate to unblock Giano? Or perhaps block/censure the admins who inappropriately attempted to close this thread before discussion was ended? Gimmetoo (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Threads that generate more heat than light are routinely closed. No reason to block or censure those who were simply trying to keep a drama fest from getting out of control unless they, you know, actually broke a policy. Edit warring, for instance. Resolute 01:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• And you are setting yourself up as the judge and jury?
  Fatuorum
  01:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• And who, pray, gets to decide which discussions are causing more heat than light? This thread was certainly generating heat, but there was light that needed to be shed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• The five admins Hans pointed out, and several others, myself included, who share the same opinion. The point being, there was nothing unusual in a desire to not let a thread that initially was incredibly unproductive blow up into something even less productive. Choosing to disagree with that opinion is fine, but unless there is an actual reason put forth as to why blocking or censuring anyone else would prevent damage to the project, such calls are simply punitive. Resolute 01:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Punitive ... much like the way that a growing number of people are seeing the block of Giano. Mistakes are made all the time, and it really isn't a big deal, but when they are brought to light people ought to make them right. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• And yet, at this point, one editor is still blocked. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The matter seems to be resolved [218]. I personally have no further objections to closing this thread. Hans Adler 01:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Peace everyone — Rlevse • Talk • 01:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey,thank you, welcome.

Off2riorob (talk

) 01:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Giano block

• I was personally a bit disturbed by the suggestion made in this comment on Giano's talk page. According to the comment Giano made it clear that he would continue to keep the conversation alive and admins took turns reverting him and then in the end sent him to the chopping block. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy to get him blocked, but it's hard to imagine that those participating didn't know how it would end and weren't desirous of that solution.Griswaldo (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• - I support unblocking Giacomo his block was silly and unneeded, the discussion should not have been closed down, we are able to discuss it like adults without closing it down and leaving people hanging and unresolved. The blocking of contributors should be a last resort, we are short enough of acual content contributors as it is, the idea to keep in mind is to avoid blocking editors if possible. Also as it was the locked talkpage that Giacomo was wanting to discuss and it is now unlocked the issue of contension is now resolved and the continuation of his block is punitive only.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 01:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• I also support unblocking Giano. The admins who were trying to shutdown this thread prematurely were clearly in the wrong. Raul654 (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• - I think Giacomo's behaviour was fairly disruptive, in that it was loud and hysteric, but with no actual substance, It was probably not necessary to block him for it though and I would not oppose and unblock.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) We have now had an administrative action directly consequent to a request arising from this thread. This is some two and a half hours after Giano was blocked to prevent him from reopening this thread again after multiple closures. Isn't about time that we accept that his judgement was correct? The block is now preventing nothing. I'm happy to accept that block was originally made in good faith to prevent edit-warring, but I think it would be best if some consideration were made to what purpose it is now serving. If it's no longer a preventative block, what is it? --RexxS (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Uphold block The rules apply to Giano. He violated 3RR, and then some, and has not indicated he has learned anything from the block. If he is properly regretful, perhaps an independent admin can evaluate then. I hope I will not see a cowboy admin act to unblock him. As for Rexxs's comment, Giano clearly believed he was right. Do we block many people who think they were wrong? Plainly, RexxS, that's no excuse!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• From Wikipedia:Edit warring - "Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block; these are intended to prevent, deter and encourage change in disruptive behavior, not to punish it." Now that it is clear that Giano's reversions weren't disruptive at all the current block can only be seen as punitive and as such against policy as I read it.Griswaldo (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed with Wehwalt. Giano knows the rules, he knows that edit warring is a quick route to a block, and he went there anyway. If he wants to play at being a martyr, that is his decision. Resolute 01:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• I oppose an unblock for the reasons I set out here. The block was issued independently of any reason why Giano made the reverts. Even if he was right, even if consensus was behind him (and I see no evidence of either), 3RR is a bright line. The block will only stop being preventative if there is a credible indication from the user concerned that it is no longer necessary to prevent edit-warring. --
  Mkativerata (talk
  ) 01:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? What credible indication is that that he will continue to edit war. The very suggestion is illogical since his version was restored. I don't understand.Griswaldo (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• No, we don't go around insisting that editors have to humble themselves and agree with a blocking admin's view. It's demeaning to demand that in any adult area. Once the purpose of the block has expired, then the block needs to be removed. It's only common courtesy.

--RexxS (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, RexxS, I'm afraid we do. I see it all the time. It's the single most distasteful aspect of Wikipedia to me. :-( Bishonen | talk 02:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

• That Giano has not already been unblocked is just another demonstration of wikipedia's corrupt system of governance.
  Fatuorum
  02:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a system of governance?    Thorncrag  02:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that was a bit of blind leap of faith. Another problem that arises now is that any admin with the balls to do the right thing has been pre-labelled a "cowboy" by Wehwalt, piling corruption upon corruption.

Fatuorum

02:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, in some places in the world, being a cowboy admin would probably be considered a compliment. B-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Where are your usual cowboys?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be right here.

Fatuorum

02:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The thing is - he was right. Do we want to be blocking editors for being right? The thread was open over two hours after he was blocked. Administrative action was requested and happened. Consensus is clear that editors wanted to discuss and request admin assistance. The admins attempting to close the thread had misjudged the consensus, that's all. Are you really going to go on record as supporting a punitive block? --RexxS (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  • "Being right" is not a defence against edit warring. Resolute 02:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

    • Yes it is. --RexxS (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

      Hmm, I agree with RexxS here. At the most extreme, we shouldn't block people for "3RR" for removing unsourced and incorrect info from articles. I can see the application to policy or incident pages, where encyclopedic accuracy doesn't matter, might be a little less clear to some, but Giacomo's view prevailed (and is likely to prevail for the duration of the block), so there is nothing "preventative" about the block now. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I would argue the fact that he routinely gets off easy for his disruptive nature represents even more damning evidence of Wikipedia's corrupt system of governance. Resolute 02:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • So you want to punish him now because you think he wasn't sufficiently punished in the past? Does that really make sense to you?
      Fatuorum
      02:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Like you, I wish only that he be treated in the same fashion as anyone else. Given it is very, very rare for a 3RR block to be truncated, logic argues that if we were to treat Giano fairly, his block would last until its expiry. This, of course, is the problem with Giano. Any time he crosses the line, his friends come along to wikilawyer his way out of it. The truth is, until we begin to treat Giano's disruption the way we treat that of others, he will continue to believe the rules do not apply to him. Unblocking him early serves only to encourage future disruption. Resolute 02:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • You see "disruption" in the strangest places. The disruption has actually been caused by the tag-teaming admins who colluded in this block to silence criticism of their caste, but they will escape without censure.
          Fatuorum
          02:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I can easily show Giano crossed 3RR. All you have is an unsubstantiated claim. As noted above, casting aspersions isn't going to get you far. Resolute 02:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Wikilawyering is "asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express". I'm not quoting policy at you, I'm just asking for common sense to prevail. I do understand that you feel an unblock now would "encourage future disruption", but punitive blocks don't modify behaviour; they merely cause resentment. --RexxS (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
              • Resolute's point is, I think, why we are not seeing cowboys appearing. If he were blocked for incivility, they could argue interpretation of the rules, and say what he said wasn't uncivil (the fact that it implied that the other editor was all sort of nasty things being quite beside the point). Cowboys are a little less likely to act for 3RR, a brightline test where the block is rarely reduced.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• (ec) I've got no comments atm on other aspects of this whole mess, but freakin' a, undo this ridiculous block of Giano already. And I say that as someone who's butted heads with the guy before. If nothing else, this LOOKS like a huge Conflict of Interest. Even if Giano broke the letter of some rule, surely this constitutes an exceptional situation and he was perfectly within his rights to continue the discussion. Or wait ... maybe Giano can retire for... say, 6 hours, the block is removed, and then he comes back as if nothing happened. Problem solved, ey? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(eyes boggle) Conflict of interest? Would you mind sharing with the rest of the class?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Giano brings up legitimate issues with regard to an admin's (and also an arb's) behavior. Other admin's flock to beat him down and one of them eventually blocks him under a flimsy pretext. Sorry, but this looks very much like the "rule police" is protecting one of their own, or at least smacking down an uppity content creator who generally has problems with the way this place is run. I can't see how one can avoid the interpretation that this is a "must silence non-admin complainers" kind of block. So, if you'd like, it's a "class" conflict of interest though maybe not a "personal" one. The whole thing also illustrates clearly the deep polarization on Wikipedia between content creators and those who police/smack them around (I'd actually exclude you personally from that Wehwalt). Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, yes, I do have a foot in both camps, don't I? :)--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's rare but it happens and more power to you. The general point still stands. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock, or at least reduce to time served. Giano technically breached 3RR - bad. But it wouldn't have happened if people hadn't insisted on repeatedly closing down discussion on an incident. Blocking here goes with the letter of the law, but I don't think anyone's covered themselves in glory here. Rd232 ^talk 02:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There were other things Giano could have done. He chose to violate 3RR. He Just Didn't Care. To unblock him without him even asking would be a mistake.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There were other things the admins involved could've done as well, rather than tag team on Giano. I'm getting a sense that for the first time a few of these admins are getting an idea of what it is like to edit a controversial topic. The difference is that there's nobody to block and bully them around. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I oppose an unblock he was clearly edit warring on a thread that should have been closed because it was bashing another editor whose not here to defend themselves. (Note I did one of the reverts, and I don't consider it disruptive unlike several people, block me if you want I still stand by it). Secret ^account 02:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well of course you do, since you were one of the people tag teaming Giano. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't tag teaming, I did what was right for the project and Rlevse, that discussion didn't serve any purpose but to attack Rlevse. The only thing is that he did stop edit warring after I did the final revert, and did some edits after my warning, so if he's unblocked it's for a reason. Secret ^account 02:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Giano should be unblocked right now. Neither the block (nor the belated report at
  WP:AN3) served any preventative purpose. Edit warriors may be blocked, not must be blocked. Moreover the way I read it, the edit-warring policy mainly reflects practice regarding article space, not this noticeboard. ---Sluzzelin talk
  02:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

He shouldn't just be unblocked, since there's always the "scar" of the block in his block log. The unblocking description should indicate that this was a "stupid block". Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Giano has a thick enough skin not to bothered about such scars. The block was made in good faith, even though it is well past its "sell-by date" now, and we don't need to be making demands of any unblocking admin. --RexxS (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide the thickness of Giano's skin. If it was some no-name editor who did the same things as Giano and got blocked in the same way, it's still be a bad block. Of course then we'd not be having this discussion but that's a reflection of the problem withno how Wikipedia is run not with this particular issue. Volunteer Marek (talk)

I agree with all four of your points, and stand by all four of mine. --RexxS (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock. Poor admin behaviour. --JN466 02:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a serious accusation. Would you care to detail the admins you feel behaved poorly, and the manner in which they breached WIkipolicies?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• • I have a strong feeling that a wheel war is about to start, there's no consensus so far on the unblock. Secret ^account 02:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Nor is there consensus on the block. So which way would a default direct us? ---Sluzzelin talk 02:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, there is deep polarization. But there's no reason why the default of "no consensus" should be to screw an editor over by keeping him blocked. Unlike article space edits, "no consensus" in terms of a block should lead to an overturning of the block. If enough people object then chances are the block was bad, and since blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive unblock him already. There's no "tyranny of the status quo" here. The threshold for overturning bad blocks is a lot lower than for changing some edit on some article somewhere since a block is alot more serious. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Status quo.
        WP:3RR is usually a non-negotiable, bright line rule around here. He broke it, and the fact that the discussion continued without him anyway shows that it was not necessary to do so in the first place. Giano indicated he was willing to cross that line anyway, and he knew the consequences of doing so. The only question now is whether we actually show the rules apply to him or not. Resolute
        02:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly do you get the idea that "

WP:3RR is usually a non-negotiable, bright line rule around here"? It depends on the circumstances. Policies like NPOV or NOR or no plagiarism and copyvios are bad are "non-negotiable". 3RR is totally negotiable. You've been spending too much time on the social-network aspect of this site, but this is after all an encyclopedia, not Facebook. Volunteer Marek (talk

) 02:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You very clearly have little understanding of my history at Wikipedia. Not to mention of how 3RR is routinely applied. Resolute 03:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And you very clearly have little understanding of my history at Wikipedia, or of which part of Wikipedia's policies are "negotiable" and which ones are not. To spell it out for you, content-related policies, such as no-plagiarism, no-copyvio, NPOV and NOR are non-negotiable. Behavioral policies such as 3RR, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and all the rest ARE in fact "negotiable" since they represent only a "means towards an end" of writing a decent encyclopedia, and they are not an end in and of themselves. Please read up on these policies again and look for which ones actually say "non-negotiable" in their respective pages. I don't care how 3RR is "routinely applied" - I have no idea either, but if it's applied badly then that's no fault of mine, or Giano's. The fact that many of Wikipedia's admins have their priorities topsy-turvy is not an sound argument for "topsy turvy is good". Freakin'a you're an admin and I'm not and I seem to have read actual Wikipedia policies way more than you have or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • Outside of those directly involved (reverting, reporting, blocking, etc.), there seems like a growing consensus to unblock. Let it grow further, by all means.Griswaldo (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock Seems a tad hasty to me to shut down a discussion that is attracting comment a couple of hours after it has been opened. To do so repeatedly is poor judgement. Giano is in the right here, 3RR or no 3RR.--RegentsPark (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock Irresponsible action at best. Vodello (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Undo this bad block. Resolute, above: "He routinely gets off easy for his disruptive nature" ? His disruptive nature?[219] Kindly think for a few seconds before you hit save. Are you kidding? Are you an admin? Yes indeed, I see you're an admin of five years' standing. And you make such a blatant personal attack—attack on somebody's personality—in a public forum? Have you ever heard the phrase "Comment on the content, not on the contributor"? (FYI, it's the nutshell version of
  WP:NPA.) I hardly ever make personal attack blocks, but say something like that again, about anybody, and I'll block you. Bishonen | talk
  02:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

You do realize we are discussing Giano here, right? G-i-a-n-o? Who is wont to make statements about other editors which imply negative things about their intelligence, understanding, competence, and integrity?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd never impugn your intelligence, understanding, competence, or integrity, Wehwalt. They're fine as far as I know. And I admire your articles. But the intelligence and integrity of that particular post of yours stinks. S-t-i-... oh, never mind. Bishonen | talk 03:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

Well, there's room to argue on the intelligence. Saddened that you'd question my integrity, though. Thank you for the praise on the articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with a personal attack made by another editor, who ironically is arguing for a "letter of the law" application when it comes to Giano. Maybe Resolute should block themselves.Griswaldo (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Giano's block log and history speaks for itself. Resolute 02:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, as some missed my point, it is not his nature that has led to sanctions, it is his actions. And those were, and are, his actions.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please bear my warning in mind, Resolute. Bishonen | talk 03:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

Please continue to talk down to your opposition. It will surely make you seem like the most mature and competent admin in this discussion. Vodello (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock Everything here has been blown way out of proportion. Copyright violations and plagiarism are big deals, but they're not the end of the world. As I recall, User:Steve Smith, also on ArbCom, brought to the community's attention that some articles he had worked on contained copyright vios. He didn't retire, he fixed them. I don't recall his talk page being protected or threads discussing the articles being prematurely archived. Rather than dealing with this head on, we've had admins and others going above and beyond in an attempt to protect someone who has broken the rules. That's not acceptable and Giano was unfortunately right in undoing some poorly thought out actions. Yes this discussion is about Giano, but perhaps it should be about the wagon circling that occurred here. AniMate 02:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Steve's alleged copyvios were an instance where he didn't paraphrase a couple of sentences enough for somebody's likings. Roger Davis had same allegations leveled against him but there it was mostly an interpretation of whether or not he adequately translated a passage or two from French. Neither one of them copy-pasted stuff from sources. Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, Giacomo is now unblocked. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunaly that was the correct consensus, who ever tries to reblock should be desysopped for wheel warring. Secret ^account 03:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Good call. When a normal editor is TKO'd by the powerful on a political issue, the optics and substance of the action(s) are terrible. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• No shock here. Why bother blocking the unblockable. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Why bother defending the indefensible? This was a dreadful block.
    Fatuorum
    03:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • When everything is amplified into shrill calls of shock and horror, it becomes difficult to differentiate which offenses truly matter to you and thus must be handled immediately by the rest of us. It is so hard for us to tell which block of giano is a rude affront to decency. Protonk (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• I have unblocked Giano per discussion on that page. I don not how he can continue edit warring if the page is in his version anyway. Still, if he continue edit warring on any page in the next 48h I do not object of him being reblocked. I have left a pretty stern message on his talk page Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That's sure to do the trick. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, reminds me of the tale of the old English judge, who when someone in the courtroom threw a dead cat at him, said, "If you do that again, I will be most severe with you."--Wehwalt (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No wonder Wehwalt believes that "good" admins will be lost if there would be term limits for Admins after which they would have to stand for re-election  :) . Count Iblis (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No wonder indeed, as he's quite right; many of them would be shown the door.

Fatuorum

03:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Good call, Alex. Bishonen | talk 03:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

It would be interesting if all the admins agreed to take no admin action of any kind for a day or two. Then see how much "better" things get under total anarchy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That was my thought, but it needed a non-admin to actually say it ...--Wehwalt (talk)

• It might be more entertaining and educational to have a period like Saturnalia or the Feast of Fools in which roles are reversed. Giano and Malleus would become admins while the admin corps worked upon articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• That would indeed be a fitting punishment. If they had to deal with the steady stream of malcontents for a few days, it might give them a new perspective. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I would enjoy acting like they do, to them. And if one of them blocks one of us, all our friends come out of the woodwork and attack them, calling them idiots in barely civil language.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

but wouldn't the writing part be a bit of a problem for you all?

 Giacomo 

10:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Why bother with writing, when they could spend all day attacking admins? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I could easily get addicted to rubbishing others all day instead of writing FAs. It astonishes me that a few find time for both. Do you think they are actually committees? Perhaps in a home for brilliant, wayward youth or some such?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that could be construed as a personal attack (by the guilty, at least). :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, they might prove to be excellent admins. Never know until you try. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(reply to Giano) Because there is some technical complexity in each role, the event would best organised as pairings of admin and content creator. Each partner would mentor the other in the technical details of the tasks which they customarily perform. This would help ensure that they are done properly and both partners might profit from the instruction. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunate outcome

We could have used this situation to everyone's benefit. The issue of inadvertently plagiarizing needed a higher profile (that's the one good thing to emerge from this). The FAC and TFA review processes could use a bit of tightening, because what happened was part of a systemic failure. Rlevse could have stayed around and taken responsibility for his role in it, and helped to identify any articles that might have the same issues, but could otherwise have continued as a valued Wikipedian. I think he wanted to do that, but it's hard in the face of such hostility. Now instead he's exercised his right to vanish, throwing away years of work. I'm wondering whether there's still time to turn things around. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed entirely. That's why I tried to close the vitriol-filled discussion above. There is probably a real issue here that needs discussing, but in the structured environment of an RFC, not the sort of wiki-lynching that some seem to be intent on.  Sandstein  07:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's time. Not necessarily for Rlevse.. trust me folks, considering the things he said (in public and private) about RTV as used by others, I don't think there's any way he'd feel comfortable coming back. However, I think rather than finding someone who has inadvertently slipped over the line, and piling on to them to the point where they felt that they wouldn't or couldn't fix the issue, what we can take from this is find a way to improve everyone's editing habits.

To use myself as an example, I asked a user I was friendly with to go over two articles I was the primary person who expanded the articles to make sure I hadn't stepped over the line myself, and the response was positive (The two articles, if anyone else wants to take a whack at them to make sure I haven't stepped over the line, are Art Heyman and Connie Hawkins.) I'd suggest that's a good way to try to move on from this massively unfortunate situation, and to improve the encyclopedia, which is what we're here for. SirFozzie (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a section to

here. But what I meant about Rlevse was: is it too late for him to rethink his RtV? Not return as a different person, but just undo it? Because to move within one day from wanting to return to disappearing forever is a drastic step for a long-term editor. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs}

07:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Having worked with him, I'd have to say the chances of him undoing this are slim to none (no pun intended). We all have various stages of burnout at various times, this... incident or series of incidents comes at the worst possible time. I honestly think the best way to move on from this is to let him deal with it. If he comes back, we can deal with any remaining issues with his editing at this time, however, repeatedly trying to drag someone back who wants nothing more to disassociate themselves from Wikipedia (ESPECIALLY in an attempt to get a

pound of flesh), doesn't do anyone any good. SirFozzie (talk

) 08:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well whether he chooses to return or not, I think somebody still needs to go through his old articles to check for plagiarism - it's not clear to me that that has been done yet. Gatoclass (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:PLAGIARISM needs looking at. If, as Risker said above, standard editing practice is in breach of it, then either standard editing practice has to change (which will require a major effort to achieve any semblance of success), or the guideline has to change, or a bit of both. There are ongoing discussions at WT:Plagiarism. For the record, the last messages Rlevse received on his talk page, before it was deleted, were all friendly ones encouraging him to stay. --JN466 08:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to extend an invitation to Rlevse to undo his RtV, help us sort out any remaining problems in particular articles, help to develop a useful plagiarism guideline, and ways of spotting it in future. It isn't easy to straddle the line between OR and too-close paraphrasing. We place a big burden on editors, some of whom are not used to writing, some of whom are very young. Then there are the wikicups, and bronze stars, and the insistence that we all be content contributors with the baubles on our user pages. I often wonder what Wikipedia would be like if there was an insistence that we all be technically minded first and foremost—to get through an RfA you were grilled about how many bots you'd created. I'm not making light of what he did. I just think the best way forward (for him and the rest of us) is for him to be part of the solution. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's a nice thought and would be a much more healthy and positive outcome all round. --JN466 09:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with your proposal. Something like this has been my desired outcome from the start, but as far as I can tell it was mostly Rlevse himself who has made it impossible so far, as well as his uncritical supporters who didn't bother to actually check a few articles of his before trying to defend him.

Wikipedia is an attractive social environment, very similar to a

MMORPG

. This attracts users who are not fully qualified for working on our primary goal, and in fact it even attracts users who are not interested in our goal. As a result we have a system in which a lot of users pay lip service to the encyclopedia building and engage in perfunctory actions to keep up appearances in order to become admins and enhance their reputation. This is not healthy at all.

IMO we must employ carrots and sticks if we want to fix this.

• We must make it clear that if you see your role on the social side, then that's fine. There are plenty of technical things you can do in main space, plenty of RfCs to be replied to, plenty of AfDs that need people who look for sources, etc. These are all legitimate roles that should be valued as much as content creation. The attacks against admins who don't create content must stop. (I have sometimes made that mistake myself, but I will try to stop.)
• We must also make it clear that copyvios and large-scale plagiarising are worse than not creating any content at all, and that if you do it the odds are you will be caught. Given how widespread the problem is, I guess we need a conditional amnesty: Actions done before the new rules come into effect don't count, so long as the editor credibly undertakes not to repeat the behaviour. We must also simplify our copvio/plagiarism rules so that everybody can understand them, and become proactive about educating every active user about them. Hans Adler 09:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've also been guilty of insisting that new admins be content contributors, but I'm not going to do it anymore, because it leads to forcing people to do things they can't do well (I can only imagine the chaos I'd cause if I tried doing technical stuff; even editing an infobox is a fraught occasion). This is a huge site and we need people of all talents. The only thing that can't be allowed is that admins look down on content contributors; that's the thing that really gets people's goats. It's partly because of that that editors insist admins should know what content looks like from the contributor perspective—to make sure no entirely separate management tier develops. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• That's a subtley different point from the one that Hans Adler made. What he said was that "The attacks against admins who don't create content must stop", which is of course a perfectly reasonable position. Attacks in general ought to stop, against anyone. What you are suggesting though is that it is improper to oppose an admin candidate because (s)he lacks content building experience, which is an entirely unreasonable proposition. Somewhat akin to saying "well, you're a crap teacher, so why don't you try running the school instead?"
  Fatuorum
  13:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Question, is there a noticeboard where one can ask for their work to be reviewed for potential plagiarism? I'd like to think I know the rules and have been careful, but a few extra set of eyes would be reassurring. -- Avi (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Is

WP:CCI what you're looking for? GoodDay (talk

) 14:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No; I don't think I am in violation; I'd just like another pair of eyes because I may be wrong. -- Avi (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

How did things get this bad?

How did things get this bad? How did plagiarism vs OR (sometimes a tricky balance for any editor, if very little information on an issue is available) get so out of hand, how did dealing with it lead to such an experienced editor leaving (and then kinda perhaps-not leaving and then leaving again), how did attempts to discuss the issue get repeatedly closed down, etc. We have problems every day, but collectively we rarely handle them this badly. Think on it. Rd232 ^talk 10:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A little bit of hyperbole there.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• No, things got so bad because the editor in qiestion's friends do not wish to discuss it, and wrongly used their considerable powers to attempt supresion. That's not hyperbole its corruption.
   Giacomo 
  10:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Things got so bad because other editors did not feel a lynching was appropriate. And I wasn't aware that throwing a hatnote on a discussion section required any powers beyond what the standard autoconfirmed editor already has? Resolute 14:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, I guess that's an answer of sorts, illuminating in its own way. Rd232 ^talk 13:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Grrr, this is a good place to acquire a massive headache. GoodDay (talk) 12:05, 8 November 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.

A word from the trenches My goodness, some people have yet to learn the lessons to be learned from Usenet!

Whilst you lot have collaboratively managed to put together 104KiB of text here, I've been putting together some 36KiB of text of my own. It's

User:Uncle G/Grace Sherwood, a rewrite that I'm hoping to hand off to Secret (talk · contribs) and drop in place of Grace Sherwood, revision deleting the content that we keep finding problems with.

All of the detailed exegesis over the difference between "retirement" and "wikibreak" is an attention-diverting irrelevance. The problem to work on here is the articles, and they are where the attention is needed. I actually asked for help with the Sherwood article, from people whom I thought might be interested in rescuing a featured article from having to go back to this state

because of foundational copyright problems. As you can see, even there the discussion rapidly lost the focus on the task.

Yes, Secret and Iridescent are right, above. If you want to discuss this, there are plenty of on-going discussions of the many things that have fallen out of this affair, that are the proper venues to talk about it. There's even a whole sub-page of this very noticeboard devoted to it. Here's your roadmap:

• If you want to talk about modifying our plagiarism guideline, go to Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism
• If you want to talk about strengthening the review procedure at DYK, go to Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Changing DYK
• If you want to talk about strengthening the review procedure at FAC, go to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Plagiarism issue
• If you want to talk about the problematic featured article and what's being done about it, go to Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Problem article and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1
• If you want to have an ever-lengthening AN/I discussion of the incident, go to /Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page (where, indeed, this very noticeboard section all properly belongs)
• If you want to read more about plagiarism, go to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches
• If you want to read about the difference between plagiarism and copyright, go to User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright#Is it a copyright problem or plagiarism, and what difference does it make?. There's also a debunking of a very widespread copyright myth at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1. (I hope that all of the things pointed to have eliminated any need for Project:Copyright guide for Arbitrators.) Please note that the problem that we found and have acted upon was a copyright problem.

There are also, of course,

Jan Stewer, Peter Gurney, Peter Davy, and … well … all.

If you want to help, rather than go the Usenet route, you can help with finding Syer1959, mentioned at Talk:Grace Sherwood#Source query. Kudos to Slimvirgin, Secret, and the others who have decided that this isn't about "governance" or Giano in any way, and who have mucked in with the content work with respect to finding and evaluating sources. Examples to all, I suggest. Uncle G (talk

) 15:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Er, I assume you mean "finding Syer (1959)". From the way you wrote it, Uncle G, it would appear that a now-missing contributor with the user name of "Syer1959" has some information needed to fix the article. -- llywrch (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL, that's exactly how I read it. Knew I was spending too much time here, this proves it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

CCI

I think at this point that a

WP:AGFC is our guidance here, and it's a good one. The purpose of a CCI is to make sure that content is clear of concerns. That's all. I've considered just going ahead and opening this one, but the situation is so fraught with tension already that I decided it better to announce it first. (Which I hope will be the better choice, because for all I know the announcement may cause more tension than the fait accompli would have done. :/) Are there any reasonable objections to a coordinated, systematic review? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

13:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Support as it's best to clear things up. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No objection, it seems necessary. --JN466 16:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. There is evidence by now that material was copied over in good faith but without understanding the underlying issues, or too closely paraphrased. Due diligence requires that we investigate issues we're aware of, and that's the short and the long of it. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. There's nowhere to put 500k of threaded commentary in a CCI (thank G-d), but it does provide a mechanism for checking a user's contributions in an orderly manner. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Opened, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vanished 6551232. It covers 1,000 articles. As always, the most difficult cases are at the front. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vanished 6551232 2 has more articles, but these should be substantially easier to check and clear. Where possible, the program eliminated reversions, but it doesn't pick up every instance. As usual, help from anybody without a history of copyright concerns is welcome. We've got more than enough work at CCI to go around. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Vanishing act

Seeing as Rlevse has vanished, how are we to know what his 'new' account will be if/when he returns? GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to trust that he meant what he said? Why all the assumptions of malfeasance prior to it happening? -- Avi (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Without trust (all the way through to letting IPs edit most pages as they please), little here can work anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We trusted hin with all his award winning pages. Remember? You are not a person to be relied upon here Gwen, with your blatent bias and disreputable tag teaming behaviour.

 Giacomo 

17:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought RTV was exactly that, you are supposed to be going and not coming back. If you are found editing it is basically sockpuppetry, or that was what happened to ChrisO.

Off2riorob (talk

) 16:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering, that's all. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, can you expand on your comment about vanished user User:ChrisO? Their user page was deleted by Avraham and remains deleted as of now.Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• -
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 17:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • • FWIW, I was the CU who checked and indefblocked, carrying through on the principle of RtV :) -- Avi (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yea it's hard to fight off addiction to this website, vanished users do comeback, with my private email conversations with Rlevse I don't think he's one of them. Secret ^account 17:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • So you are saying ChrisO, who was already under sanctions, invoked his right to vanish when he was very likely to be placed under further sanctions in the then-open ArbCom proceeding about climate change? The sockpuppet was blocked by Avraham who noted it was checkuser block, so Avraham was aware that this was ChrisO. It seems odd that Avraham would not have alerted ArbCom of this. Surely if one of the Arbs knew that ChrisO was using sockpuppets they would not have written this: "Because ChrisO retired from the project and exercised his right to vanish while sanctions were being actively considered against him in this arbitration case, should he wish to resume editing under any account name at a future date, he is instructed to contact this Committee before doing so". Fortunately, they were wise enough to include a note about abusing the right to vanish and states in part "their previous identity will be fully restored". I don't know how the Arbs could have missed this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I also said this yesterday, Wikipedia is not a
      Off2riorob (talk
      ) 18:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• ArbCom knew all about it, DC. -- Avi (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I find it strange, then, that ChrisO's vanishing has not been reversed. Can that be done now, or does this need to go back to ArbCom for enforcement of something they overlooked when they added that clause about right to vanish? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at this link mentioned above. Really, if a source states simple facts or basic sequences of events, there are only so many ways to paraphrase that thought. Plagiarism is verbatim reproduction of full sentences/ paragraphs. And I must mention the manner Rlevse is being pilloried here by editors some of whom who have no notion of decency and fairness themselves or are here because they have appear to have mistaken gutter-sniping for constructive commentary is stomach-turning at best. No wonder Wiki-participation has taken a dive. This isn't an encyclopedia, it's a cage match. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Or a MUD. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Again?

Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again. Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the universe than we do now. - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Once again, I have to ask: is there any direct action to be taken by admins here? Or is this just more saber rattling by those who want to rail against the powers that be? If the former is "no," can we close this and open a proper RfC to discuss the real issue of plagiarism on Wikipedia? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've archived the earlier discussions (whether that sticks is another question.) I don't believe that admin attention is needed at this time, especially since flow seems to be moving towards CCI which is a more appropriate venue. The question of R. vanishing might have some worth, if discussed in the more strict terms above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• About the only thing I can see which concerns Admins is that some thread, no matter how bitter & contentious, are better & more quickly handled by letting them run on. (And no, I'm not expressing an opinion for or against anything that had been said. The thread had some entertainment value, but I support Der Fuchs' archiving of this thread. The horse is dead, folks, & we now know what everyone thinks about the matter.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• I've said it before and I say it again: Stop warring over discussion closures and just move this entire section, which I see you've all collaboratively expanded to 122KiB now (Where's all of this collaborative text-generation capability when it comes to rescuing a featured article, eh?), to /Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page, a subsection of this very noticeboard for the lengthy and on-going discussion of this incident. Uncle G (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Slow down

Would everybody please table all complaints and questions for a few days and let the participants in this (whatever it is) have a chance to think about what they are doing, and make calm decisions? The rapid changes in status only seem to exacerbate problems. These matters can be discussed in a few days just as effectively as they can be discussed now. Jehochman ^Talk 21:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)