Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive718

Resolved

 – Nothing to do here.

HiLo48 (

Ha ha. This cannot possibly be a serious complaint. I will let the precise words of that post stand as my defence, simply adding that my goal here is always to make Wikipedia a better place. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What is certain is that no admin action is required here - this is certainly the wrong venue for such a complaint. Marking resolved. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

File:Obamaarab mccain2008.jpg

File:Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.jpg

I have put up images and I have rationales on them. They are fair use according to wikipedia policy, and I have done everything to comply with wikipedia policy. Now, they are being marked for deletion by User:Melesse. I pointed this administrator to the rationales that I have given, but now I'm getting threats to block me. I want a 3rd party on this, because Meleese has been threatening deletion of 2 images without discussing the rationale.--Screwball23 talk 04:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Your removing templates that have a right to be there. It is normal to dispute fair use claims - go discuss.

Off2riorob (talk

) 04:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Both are images of living persons. Per our

non-free content policy, these are replaceable by free images of the people involved. Therefore, these are not allowable images to be used. --MASEM (t

) 04:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts have already been stated by Off2riorob and Masem, so I have no further comment. Just saying something now so nobody thinks I'm trying to avoid this discussion. Melesse (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Masem, there are limited circumstances where a non-free image of a living person is allowed. I don't know about the first image, but the second one may just fall under this exception. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Arguably, with Gaddafi being heavily sought after for crimes, he likely won't be a public figure that we can readily get a free photo. But I'd also say that until we know if he's actually incarcerated or other status to completely block this, then such a non-free image isn't appropriate. --MASEM (t) 05:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the issue on the talk page of the Gadaffi image re that image only. Having looked at the first image, I can't see that there is a very strong argument for its retention. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why either image should be kept, especially the first one. Notability does not override the non-free content policy. –MuZemike 10:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The first one can only be kept if there is sourced commentary in the article about it. Right now, there is no mention of the incident at all, let alone detailed discussion. The second one is a non-free portrait of a living person, which is only allowed if the subject is provably difficult to locate in public, e.g. J. D. Salinger (well, when he was alive we did use a non-free image on him). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not true - on both counts. Check out File:Dole Kemp Time Magazine cover.jpg. Jack Kemp has photos of him. I even told Melesse about this, but for some reason, he doesn't have the balls to target something like that, about a VP candidate that never won, but he'll give me a hard time for posting a cover that signifies the weakening of a leader in a 42 yr regime - from an African nation - despite the fact that the Time magazine is published in the United States. There is commentary on the McCain photo too, so that's also a huge crock.--Screwball23 talk 20:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with someone else on this particular image issue. Melesse (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure this thread was fully closed. It was archived by a bot to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive717.

• 14:36, 27 August 2011 MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m (401,211 bytes) (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 24h) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive717.)

There were two issues. One was about User:Jm1106's having been blocked. The other issue was the question of the full utility and "in good faith" addition of a seeming somewhat useful but possible commercial link to 40 articles in one fell swoop by Jm1106. A third party editor had re-added the link in the forty articles despite their having been reverted out by an admin just prior to that. There was a question about the supposition of the adds by Jm1106 being "in good faith" and also not to be hasty with a newbie editor's first additions to Wikipedia.

However, it was later raised that there was also a question about the possible relationship of User:Jm1106 and User:Patriotledger and prior reversions and blocking. On August 19 2011, User:Patriotledger had made the exact same link addition to one article, ( Abington, Massachusetts ), and an admin ( User:Alexf ) blocked User:Patriotledger for commercial spam and COI, etc. (From admin Alexf to Patriotledger: "Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully." and the block and link reversion stands now still. And that was the first and only edit ever by user Patriotledger. See the history of the Abington, Massachusetts article:

• (cur | prev) 11:52, 22 August 2011 Ravenswing (talk | contribs) (16,514 bytes) (Undid revision 446082715 by SchuminWeb I do not, by contrast, believe this to be spam.) (rollback | undo)
• (cur | prev) 02:11, 22 August 2011 SchuminWeb (talk | contribs) m (16,407 bytes) (Reverted edits by Jm1106 (talk) to last version by Alexf) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 22:21, 21 August 2011 Jm1106 (talk | contribs) (16,514 bytes) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 22:20, 21 August 2011 Jm1106 (talk | contribs) (16,513 bytes) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:38, 19 August 2011 Alexf (talk | contribs) m (16,407 bytes) (Reverted edits by Patriotledger (talk) to last version by 123JD) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:16, 19 August 2011 Patriotledger (talk | contribs) m (16,514 bytes) (→External links) (undo) (Tag: possible conflict of interest)

That was just before the User:Jm1106 incident around August 21/22 2011 (two days later) and when Jm1106 added the same exact link to 40 articles en masse, in alphabetical order, starting with the article on Abington, Massachusetts. These links were reverted out and the user blocked by admin User:SchuminWeb for commercial linkspam.

That's when an argument occurred between editors and admins over it. The upshot was that the links were put back in all 40 articles by User:Ravenswing and the block on Jm1106 was lifted by admin Floquenbeam without any request by Jm1106.

I just wasn't sure it was fully concluded and the User:Jm1106 / User:Patriotledger was fully vetted. And then there's the inconsistent behavior in allowing User:Alexf to revert and block User:Patriotledger, with no community objections, and the other admin, User:SchuminWeb, being challenged for doing the same block and reverts, two days later, to another subsequent new editor User:Jm1106. Thanks. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

- - - - -

<... last part of read-only historical discussion -- excerpt follows ...>

- - - - -

As a note, "Answerbook" is not a "local paper" - it's a link to enterprisenews.com/<TownName>, which publishes the AnswerBook. That could very easily be considered advertising. From the paper's about: "The Enterprise is an afternoon daily newspaper published in Brockton, Mass. It is considered a newspaper of record for Brockton and nearby towns in northern Bristol and Plymouth counties, and southern Norfolk County."

So the question becomes why this paper is somehow more trustworthy than other papers, and the simple answer is that it is not. In my community, there are two papers, the major paper and a local weekly nobody reads. I think that this paper is the latter, and its competitor is the major: "The Patriot Ledger has been the South Shore's newspaper since 1837."

Therefore, there is no reason to be linking to it repeatedly for every town it covers (and the editor missed quite a few). There is likely a COI behind this, seeing as how this just came out both on enterprisenews.com and patriotledger.com (the competitor, owned by the same company) not one day ago. This is the very definition of linkspamming. I would imagine that the user won't make any more contributions, as the user has no more to make, having finished spamming the articles in question. MSJapan (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, a Captain Obvious! statement that not everyone would notice - the user went in alphabetical order through the towns, and by county as well, if I don't miss my guess. They were clearly using a list. This was not good-faith editing by any means, and while perhaps it could have been handled differently, I think the block itself was good. MSJapan (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the block wasn't good. The block notice was the first post to their talk page. We are supposed to discuss/educate/warn new editors first. You could very well be right about their motivations, but you could also be wrong. We shouldn't block if there is any possibility of it being a misguided but good faith editor. In fact, even if it was certain that this was someone affiliated with the website, a block would not have been appropriate until we explained that that isn't what we do here. If the link adding continued after a talk page warning, then a block might be in order. But "good block" doesn't mean "they were probably spamming, so let's block just to be safe". "Good block" means "we tried explaining and it didn't work, now we now they're spamming and unwilling to abide by our policies". --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, methodology could have been different, but the end result was likely correct. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it[s a very reasonable procedure for someone to find a source, and use it where it applies. It's a much more effective way of sourcing articles than taking an individual random article and finding a source, then taking another unconnected article, etc. Doing things alphabetically is also a good idea. To the extent we have information on local things, we need to use local sources. I don't necessarily support using them for notability in some topic fields (such as high school sports), but when we're dealing with an article on a town they're usually the best sources. We need to assume some degree of good intent from new users; even if their initial purpose or actions are not what we ideally would want, most of them can learn. Indefinite blocks of users should really be deprecated except for vandalism or repeated copyvio. Adding external links is not in that sort of category. I totally agree with Floquenbeam, but I';m saying it again to make plain how important I think this is. Without new editors, Wikipedia will first stagnate and then die, for none of the present editors will be around forever. The rule that a blocked ed. has to ask themselves is pure BURO. It is very good practice to remove things that would unfairly discourage a new editor. Remove, and apologize also. The statement that an admin considered the "merits" when they admit they just considered the formalities seems confused. The merits are whether the original work was block-worthy. It wasn't. But it's the sort of thing that's blocked here all too often. It's a disgrace, and anyone who has tried to work with new editors is surely aware of it. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to belabor the point, but I don't think AGF applies, and I don't think this was a new editor. I noticed the previous edit (before rv) to Abington, Massachusetts was by User:Patriotledger who added the exact same EL Jm1106 did. I think that was what Bugs was referring to earlier by "familiar". Alexf blocked PL for spam (and I'd say an obvious COI, as the Patriot Ledger is the other paper, and the publisher of the link). Therefore, "I have no beak and I must quack"; I would say it was the same user coming back from a different IP. Why else would two "new editors" start with the same edit on the same article two days apart and get the wl correct on the first shot? RFCU, perhaps? Again, it might have been handled differently, but there may have also been some good intuition. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If this was believed to be a sock returning in defiance of a ban, either that should be the reason for the block or the user page should be tagged appropriately to note that it is a sock. In that case, there was poor communication here. If this is a new contributor, it's appalling to block without advising them of the problem with their behavior and allowing them to stop. In that case, there was poor communication here. Either way, communication was poor. (And as a matter of principle, I agree with User:DGG. We can't lose sight of how important it is to bring in new contributors.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:MSJapan has made a very key finding and point here in the User:Patriotledger and User:Jm1106 saga. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

- - - - -

< ... end historical read-only excerpt ... >

Thanks. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• I was informed of this discussion by
  groupname issue as I saw in this case. -- Alexf^(talk)
  20:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Seems like reasonable behaviour on the part of both admins. Not to say we can't improve by encouraging people back to make more positive contributions, but that is down to refining the messages more than the basic process. Rich Farmbrough, 21:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC).
  

• • I continue to disagree. A new contributor may not realize the rule about usernames,.. They're likely to think that they are making an effort to be honest, by using the name of the group or firm they represent. rqaher than hiding it. (The paid spammer, a true hazard, knows better). Now, I agree with out policy that we don't allow it--I think it's very important in the war against OWNership of articles. But how can we expect a newcomer to use it. And I don't like that bit about returning as a sock either. If a person edits under a group name, and is told they are not allowed to, then they are required to use another name--it's not socking, it's following the rules we tell them to follow. I find it truly incredible that someone should be blamed for it. When I tell such people to change names, I tell them to declare their affiliation--making the same edit of course serves the same purpose, and I cannot see why they should think it wrong. I continue to think it was not promotion. A local newspaper is the proper source for local articles. We should be grateful for people who add these sources, regardless of COI. What would be promotion, would be if they were to add their local newspaper's stories on international events, where we already have major sources. The response in that case would be to tell them what sort of articles they should instead add to.

I recall a year or two ago, we were blocking editors from museums and libraries, for adding links to their holdings. We now have a major Ambassador program to get them to add this material to commons and have it linked to appropriate articles, on as massive a scale as possible. (some of them are still running into what I can only call ignorant and petty-fogging resistance when they add the links, not to mention the deletions for trivial errors in copyright statements that people at commons delight in).

I've learned to tell new editors I speak to or help here who I think can make useful contributions how to work properly and avoid being picked up by the people who think work with a COI is spamming. (I call that attitude spam paranoia, to go with the often co-existing copyright paranoia) Some of them for whatever reason do not learn how to do it properly. And if they are going on improperly and will not stop, yes, i do block them--though I almost never have to, because given the proper advice strongly enough and personally enough, almost all of them either learn or stop. A block is very often a sign that we are not doing our job right. Unless, of course, you think most people who need education are ineducable--and if you think this way, it seem quixotic to be writing an encyclopedia to educate them. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Nothing to do here.

HiLo48 (

Ha ha. This cannot possibly be a serious complaint. I will let the precise words of that post stand as my defence, simply adding that my goal here is always to make Wikipedia a better place. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What is certain is that no admin action is required here - this is certainly the wrong venue for such a complaint. Marking resolved. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what

The user continues to revert the images and list the old ones for orphaned fair use. We had a discussion about listing them on the fair use noticeboard, but even though the user listed them there, they aren't waiting for a discussion to occur.

208.40.217.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had a long history going back to 2009 of adding self-published sources (such as Lou Martuneac, In Defense of the Gospel: Biblical Answers to Lordship Salvation, Xulon Press, 2010) to the Lordship salvation controversy article. After repeated warning on his talk page, he or she continues to add them in. He or she was blocked for edit warring a few days ago, but continues to add Xulon Press books. StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved this thread from the archives, still not resolved. StAnselm (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, someone act on this. The anonymous user is still at it. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Question: Do I just need to keep on making comments here to avoid this thread being archived? StAnselm (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Missed it. We have a big problem with editors using self-published sources such as Xulon. Recently I've been trying to remove those when appropriate. Sometimes they are used in good faith, but that doesn't seem the case here. I've semi-protected it for two weeks since it's clear the IP is editwarring and has been blocked. Discuss it on the talk page, we'll see what happens.

talk

) 07:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm reporting here Titodutta (talk · contribs) who is continually opposing (currently his oppose count is 5) an RM at Talk:Swami Vivekananda. This isn't particularly about the requested move but about the behaviour of the user. The user claims in his infobox that he has been influenced by Vivekananda, and is going to any extent to oppose the discussion. I continually tried to warn him and told him to continue his point of view in his first oppose or start a "comment" thread, but he has till now opposed the move 5 times. I do not know what to do, so I bring the issue here. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not very experienced in this kind of discussion. Most probably this is my first participation in such discussion. I can't see where did you warn me, most probably I missed that! I am making a summary of the posts and making it compact . But, the amount of references I have collected there, it took me some time and effort! Yet, I am making a summary there! Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 16:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, a record 8 opposes by him at the most recent count. He closely associates himself with Vivekanand. Just take alook at his comments. Possible COI? Don't know. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have summed up the comments and I think it looks fine, there. And, BTW, the spelling of the name is Vivekananda, I don't what COI mean, but, the references I added there needed some study--Tito Dutta (Talk) 16:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Titodutta, to avoid confusion, please don't bold the word "oppose" repeatedly. It can make others think that many people share your view when this is not the case (speaking in general, not about this specifically). Avenue X, if he keeps doing this, remove the bolding and indent his comments to make it clearer. But the requested move appears to be sunk regardless, so I don't know if it's worth worrying about. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Please note, as I said earlier, I am not very experienced in Wikicreole and Wikipedia etiquette, I follow other's mark up. People were already using bold for "oppose" "support" there. I just followed that bold mark up. See that talk page discussion please!

I am not going to edit the section anymore unless I get some info 1) What is the way to discuss there? Can't I add any other information if I think that will help too establish our points? I was planning to go to local library tomorrow morning to collect book where the same point has been thoroughly discussed. 2) What is the best way to add reference in such a discussion? You can see I have added table, I am not satisfied with that. Shall I add a reflist? Also note a comment like- He closely associates himself with Vivekanand how it is related to the subject? Is not it a personal attack? Anyway, no grievance... Thanks!--Tito Dutta (Talk) 17:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, everyone is new here at some point of time. To make your Support or Oppose "vote" (we call it

!vote here), use the bolded Support or Oppose. To add to your point, you can write about it below your original vote. Lynch7

17:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If you'll ask me, I'd advise you not to waste an otherwise productive Monday morning in the library for this purpose :) The discussion looks like its not going to result in a name change. That, however, is my opinion only. Lynch7 17:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I am not complaining but, I am mentioning some points. Consider on these

• Reporter says he has warned me. My question is where? Oops! I still could not find that!
• I don't know if it should be followed in such notice but, reporter has not signed my talk page. I needed to see 'last change' and 'page history' to see who edited that.
• Reporter has not given me direct link of this section. He has given me the main page URL. I did not even know that in Wikipedia there is section where user report like this. And in such a big page, actually I was almost going to miss this report. I think in such notification direct link of the section should be given
• The reporter did not try to talk or did not approach me (in my talk page) before reporting. This is not very friendly act.

About This Report! Why?

• The reporter has created multiple comments there. I don't want to comment on the standard of his posts, you can see yourself. So, what's wrong if I add comments there? I am working hard and studying hard to collect references, and I am being reported? (Yes, of course I am sorry if there were any formatting mistake), but, also see the standard of the posts I submitted there. Reporter says, I have made 8 edits, okay check each edit and see the changes I have made! Please answer this. Now I humbly challenge the root of this report.

Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 17:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reinstated your previous comments in a collapsible box. You may delete it if you feel you don't need it. In these situations, to give references, you can just give links by enclosing them in single square brackets. Don't add a reflist, it'll probably complicate syntax further. And about that comment by Avenue X, well, its not a

personal attack really, just his observation. You can reply to him on that. Lynch7

17:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think this is the first time Avenue X himself has been on ANI (this page). Nevertheless, lets hope he provides the section link next time. In any case, I think this matter is resolved now; it seems a mere matter of

Wikiquette than anything else. I think we can safely leave this report here without any action being needed. Lynch7

17:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It (I mean, the box in Swami Vivekananda talk page) looks really good now! One or two reference have been duplicated now, yet, okay! And thanks Avenue X for adding the sign in my Wikipedia talk page finally! Every bad thing has a good side also. Here the good point is, I have learned some new formatting and about a new page today. I did not know these! Regards --Tito Dutta (Talk) 18:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Catholics for Choice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The behaviors at issue relate to Catholics for Choice (CFC), an article under general sanctions. In a discussion about the inclusion of info about Canadian and Mexican bishops' statements, Roscelese tossed out some pseudo facts and accused me of "just trying to cram the article full of criticism instead of improving it". I refuted her facts point-by-point and reminded her to AGF. Roscelese conceded her bad facts, but in her very next comment implied that I am a "Wikipedia editor acting as [a] free PR agent" for the Catholic bishops. More failure to AGF, but I let it pass.

I'd also identified a statement about Vatican "obstructing consensus" without support. Before removing it I posted to the Talk page. Roscelese responded with no substantive info whatsoever but claimed that there were unnamed sources scattered throughout the article that I should search for. I removed the unsupported statement and restored the Can/Mex bishops' statements.

3 mins. later, Roscelese reverted me, with an edit summary stating, "restore exhaustively sourced statement about Vatican reps blocking consensus (see talk page)." Problem is, she'd provided no sources on the Talk page, exhaustive or otherwise.

Rather than edit war, I took it to Roscalese's talk page and warned her to AGF, to properly source material, and not to put false information in an edit summary. She promptly removed the warning tag from her Talk page and chided me for "wasting her time."

So I took my complaints back to the article's Talk page, and challenged her removal of the Can/Mex bishops statements as disruptive and violative of NPOV, and her restoration of unsourced material with a false edit summary. To the NPOV charge, she replied dismissively, "Oh dear." To the unsourced material charge, she directed me to "ask another editor who agrees with you politically." Both comments here.

Suffice to say, she has no knowledge of my political views, so I posted a 2nd AGF warning on Roscelese's Talk page, which she again promptly removed, directing me to, "no really, get off my talk page."

All this inside about 15 hours. She's a longtime editor who demonstrates contempt not just for other editors but for the community's rules. Cloonmore (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Cloonmore was put up to this by a user who was warned that the next time he harassed me at a noticeboard, he would find himself blocked. No comment on the frivolous complaints except to note that, quite apart from the more serious issue, the reporting user might do well to be wary of

WP:BOOMERANG when complaining about disruptive editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs

) 04:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Still more of the same -- imputing bad faith instead of engaging on the issues. The editor is utterly incorrigible. Cloonmore (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised you offered this edit as evidence in your favor, Cloonmore, when it shows you removing the "obstructed consensus-building" bit which was directly supported by two references listed at the end of the sentence: "=NGOs Call For Review of U.N. Status of Holy See" (IPS) and "Campaign to challenge Vatican's status at UN" (Irish Times). Both of those source speak to the Vatican's blocking of consensus. The failure to examine these sources was not a good showing, Cloonmore. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Bink, this isn't the place for your side discussion; in any event, you're wrong. Cloonmore (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I was showing the error of some of your supposed evidence. You saying I am wrong advances your case not at all. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like heated content disputes that result in marginally uncivil exchanges, not uncommon, not unsurprising, and not really that big a deal. Many of your complaints involve Roscelese's removal of material from her Talk page. She has a right to do that even without explanation, but she actually explains her removals, even if you don't like her explanations.

What administrative action are you requesting? Although not an admin, I don't see any need for intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You're off-base. I'm not complaining about her removal of material from her talk page. But those removals and the dismissive edit summaries, coupled with her contemporaneous edits to the article and repeated obnoxious statements on the CFC talk page, demonstrate a level of contempt for the rules and for other editors that goes quite beyond "marginally uncivil exchanges." And writing false summaries about "exhaustively sourced" info that's been shown to her to be otherwise has nothing to do with me not "liking her explanations." Cloonmore (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And she's been counseled about some of these behaviors before. Cloonmore (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah: "Editor asked to be more polite in future." Maybe, compared to January, she is being "more polite". :-) Putting aside historical baggage, I don't see anything here that goes beyond what I already described above. Perhaps others will view your complaints more sympathetically.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Fixed CIreland (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if originally put on the right board so throwing up here too just in case. Just need someone to delete page >>> Angel Carter 2nd nomination. Somehow TW did a double click on me and wound up with a 1st and 2nd side by side. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

On List of Freemasons, JASpencer added an entry on Jonathan Rees today, because Rees was involved with the World News phone hacking scandal. He then immediately reverted it (as the diff shows). This wouldn't be a problem, except he did the same thing with Anders Breivik. In both cases, the edits were made before RS sources established membership, and in Rees' case, JA is using an opinion piece, which is not appropriate per the guidelines for adding listings (we require a RS to establish Lodge, at the very least). It is not appropriate for JASpencer to be making POV edits (he has a history of anti-Masonic POV, largely as the result of his own religious beliefs) and then reverting them, as he is clearly just trying to hide them in the revision history for some reason.

We in the article have never tried to block members from being listed, good or bad, but when it is done to cast aspersion on both subject(s) by claiming membership based on rumor and also by associating individual criminality with the Fraternity at large (as if to say Masonry is "bad" because of one bad member out of hundreds of thousands or that Masonry somehow had something to do with it) is POV and violates BLP.

I would note that JA has never made a non-critical edit wrt Freemasonry-related articles, and the fact that it was done twice pushes this beyond a content dispute (which there isn't, because it was reverted, but if it was reverted, why was it put there in the first place?) - this is now an inappropriate editing pattern bordering on sneak vandalism, and an admin needs to intervene to stop the pattern from continuing. MSJapan (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I discovered this diff, where JA removed a prod from an article he created, thus violating the prod policy, and subverting the process as a result. That article had been one sentence for four years (with one initial edit by JA) until it was prodded for dicdef, and it still remains one sentence today, over a month after the prod was removed by JASpencer. So perhaps a wider inquiry needs to be made into JA's editing rather than just what is Freemasonry-related. MSJapan (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Article creators are allowed to remove prods from their articles. They can't remove speedy deletion templates from articles that they created.

talk

) 00:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. First part of the statement still stands. MSJapan (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This would put it back into a content dispute. Try talking it out and educating, then try the dispute resolution process. Phearson (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As some of the vetrerans here may recall thave been differences between myself and MSJapan that go back years (in brief, he's a Freemason, I'm a Catholic, and erm that's it). Every now and again he tries to get Administrators to act like Kindergarten Cops and get me banned or disciplined.

On this case: The reason I took out both people after putting them in was that I didn't want the grief. The Brevik one was going to go in at some time any way (although MSJapan was against even listing him, he says he didn't block it so I'll take him at his word). Jonathan Rees was a different case as the sources (two articles in the Guardian and a reference to a parliamentary debate in The Independent) were going to go through strong RS challenges. Yes it would get included in the end but I've got better things to do with my life than this.

I really think that it is better to simply talk about these things, assume good faith, ask what on earth someone's doing if there seems to be an odd pattern and only if that doesn't work to go to ANI.

It really would have saved so much time. And I'm sorry to have wasted yours.

JASpencer (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have requested CSD G12 of Restitution (theology) it is an unambigous copyvio. I have no idea why it was proded instead of G12's, it is verbatim from source.--Cerejota (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably didn't use that because it was the Catholic Encyclopedia and so it is out of copyright. JASpencer (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the copyright of the bottom of the webpage. Apologies. However, we are not a dictionary, the article should probably be merged into another relevant article that provides context.--Cerejota (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Some admin should take a look into that [7].

Well, there is a RoyPack (talk · contribs) and a Roypack (talk · contribs), both of which are clearly the same person, but the latter could be abandoned. This Upload, which lacks any licensing, is still concerning, and while I would be inclined to AGF and see if he would improve, but I'm afraid this is not the case. –MuZemike 21:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This user has been consistently uploading others' work as his own on both Wikipedia and the Commons -- including, just now, a photo to Wikipedia that was already marked and deleted from Commons. This user has also adopted the odd habit of trying to re-add the deleted images to articles. IFCAR (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin please add protection for List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1992 to allow edits for only auto confirmed users? --Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried

WP:RFPP? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

→ 23:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Now I get it. You're a meatpuppet and anti-Adams blogger. I'm sure you and a few others will be in trouble eventually. 12.184.15.242 (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a very serious allegation. Care to provide any evidence? Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

According to those who reviewed you and asked that you be banned from editing her articles any further, you referred to her as a "twat" (clearly you are probably upset that you don't know her personally) and seem to be obsessed with her in your hundreds of edits. Care to seek some mental help? 12.184.15.242 (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

12.184.15.242, if you continue to use personal attacks such as these I will block you. Stop.

I've also left a message about the content dispute itself at Talk:List of Playboy Playmates of 1992, specifically giving the ref previously used for a paragraph which included some of the information the IP is adding. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The part about Fasttime calling her a "tw*t" is apparently true, and the rest is a bit snippy but is a reasonable conclusion to draw. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It's only 1 IP adding the unsourced info at this point (the 12.184...above); I've issued a 3RR warning. If they revert again, that IP can be blocked; if the user switches IPs, then we can protect the page. As a side note, unless the issue is really critically time-sensitive,

WP:RFPP is a better place to request page protection. Qwyrxian (talk

) 23:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me where to go. One can learn a lot from this page. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Even after several notifications, this user is continuing to run a bot under his user account to create new article stubs without proper approval. He had started request for bot approval, but has not provided the function details nor has answered the questions that have been raised. The articles are one-line stubs that use unreliable sources as reference. I would like to request that his AWB access be revoked immediately. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that he is not on the

approved user list for AWB. Is blocking an option? — Ganeshk (talk

) 16:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you know he is using AWB? I don't see an AWB tag on his edits. See, for example, this edit from another editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I just confirmed that he is not using AWB. He is not listed on the AWB approval page. — Ganeshk (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply everyone, First of all i need to say that the articles i was creating yesterday got nothing to do with my BOT request. These are different and i just created only 27 for the whole day.i was just organising some articles that was created by some one and at that time i created a few with perfect references and sources.i think the admins can understand the situation.--Jenakarthik (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Tempest in a teapot.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. I flagged tagged three files:

Fastily, I'm looking for an indication that you notified Gimmetoo. Have you done so? I'm not seeing it in your contribution history. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Done now. I had it open in another tab, but I guess I never clicked save. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I had no trouble finding the images using the instructions provided by Gimmetoo in the edit histories of the images. I added the instructions to the image page as directions to the source and removed the no source tags. This could have been easily done by either Gimmetoo or Fastily if either had been willing to give a bit on their firmly held principles about what each very experienced editor firmly believed is required for source info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nor did I. It took me exactly 15 seconds to get to the picture. Gimmetoo's instructions were precise, and I see no "trolling" at all on the talk page. Also Fastily, since you are evidently not aware, there are some archival sources that do not assign permanent URLs to their images, so asking for a direct link is impossible. The Glenbow Museum Archives in Calgary are another such example. There was no need for this to end up here. Resolute 03:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just curious what is the right procedure for this. This user has made 1 edit, and it was vandalism.

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

Not to assume too much here, but this doesn't seem like they're going to become a productive Wikipedian.

Thanks for any advice. -- Avanu (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

On the basis of one edit? Give them the appropriate warning and put them on your watchlist, that would seem sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left a welcome and a warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Use a cn tag on the first day, then remove all on the second day, using the 24 hrs to come up with a suitably wry reason your own research failed. :) Penyulap _talk 06:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs) is once again having civility issues at at the talk page of Southern Adventist University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) yet another Seventh Day Adventist article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Fountainviewkid does not appreciate being attacked when he tries to follow

WP:BRD and when editors with open negative biases are ignored and other editors in opposition to the negative attacked.--Fountainviewkid (talk

) 03:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It takes a very selective reading to say that Raeky has a negative bias. All he seems to have said is that he used to be an Adventist. This doesn't mean anything, in and of itself. I used to play Magic: The Gathering, and just because I don't any more doesn't mean anything. Please stop commenting on contributors and focus on content, Fountainviewkid. lifebaka++ 03:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes Lifebaka my point wasn't about his being an "ex" so much as his accusation of Seventh-day Adventism as

WP:FRINGE which is certainly a controversial assertion. Nevertheless I will try to keep away from him as a contributor, a task that hasn't become easier now that I am not only one in the accusations "game".--Fountainviewkid (talk

) 04:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Raeky actually stated, "So I'm probably not 100% impartial as well." Assuming a bias doesn't require selective reading at all, it can be based off of a direct statement. However, that is the kind of admission I'd rather not see turned against an editor. I'd rather that we encourage editors to self-disclose when they feel that they might have a personal bias on a subject and not penalize them for doing so. -- Atama頭 06:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just want to add that my statement that I'm not completely unbiased was to state that by attending there (which was only part of one semester) that my personal knowledge of the school would be potentially biased in some direction, as opposed to an editor who has never heard of or doesn't know anything about SAU. I didn't have a bad experience there nor do I have any animosity or grudge against the school, which I have also stated. — raekyt 11:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Again my main dislike/negative reaction was to the

WP:FRINGE label. I connected the entire statement made into an idea that to me made it appear as if the other editor were entering with a strong anti SAU/SDA bias. I'm glad to see a clarification and hopefully we can work collaboratively (by working towards rather than assuming consensus) in the future.--Fountainviewkid (talk

) 12:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Being within the religion it's hard to see but SDA beliefs are certainly fringe to Christianity as a whole, which is all I was saying. — raekyt 15:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, a claim that has not be verified. As Donald correctly noted it depends on which SDA beliefs one is discussing. On health, salvation, and the role of the church SDA's are like any other denomination. In fact they are even classified by many as Evangelicals. The only real

WP:FRINGE beliefs are Sabbath, Sanctuary, and eschatological views, though I might add that the later is in various forms within other Evangelical groups. I would suggest that Rakey not focus on the background of the commenter as he has asked FVK to do the same.--Fountainviewkid (talk

) 16:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The problems at

assume good faith in Raeky's proposals on content, which seem completely reasonable. Mathsci (talk

) 09:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure the next step ... we've tried a RfC at talk:Comcast#RFC for discussion on criticism in the lead section, and I made changes to the lead based on that discussion (although the consensus was not entirely clear, I made a good faith effort to abide by the talk issues identified) ... now Weneedmorescience (talk · contribs) is reverting back to their version again, ignoring all but one of the issues and concerns brought up in the talk. This editor has only had one edit outside of this article, so appears to be here for the sole purpose of pushing their bias into the lead.

Can an uninvolved set of eyes take a look to provide their perspective, and/or to provide suggestions for an alternate DR path (although, having already gone through an RfC, I'm not sure what could be next). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think Barek has captured quite well the consensus of the RfC in his edit. Your edit seemed to be mostly cosmetic, without really addressing the legitimate concerns expressed by other editors in the RfC. I'm sorry to say, but I think you're on the losing side here. My advice: Let it go. VanIsaac_WS 17:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I thought it was User:Weneedmorescience that wrote here (those dang red links are SO PRETTY!). Sorry about that. Yeah, I absolutely agree with you. I think you did a very good job at capturing the RfC consensus, and I'll keep the page on my watchlist for a week or so and help revert it. VanIsaac_WS 18:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone.

• I have yesterday restored an edit by a banned user (whose continued ban I recently endorsed myself I might add) as I would have repeated excactly the same edit becoming aware of its need (long story with articles at wrong titles and ambigous titles) The deleting admin was fully correct to delete the edit unchecked because the burden of checking every edit and article creation of a banned user for its validity is too much to ask. On the other hand the the banning policy explictly states that obviously useful edits do not have to be reverted. Speedy G5 was created as it is impossible to revert fresh articles as there is no other version to revert to. I have restored the edit as I feel it is wrong to just redo the edit over its deleted equivalent. This would go against our spirit of attribution that has been the core of wikipedia since its inception. I felt that this restoration would be the equivalent to restoring an individual edit as useful in a page history when it was originally correctly mass reverted. Just that In new article creations this option is technically not given. The artice (or redirect) is Islamnager the discussion sofar is at User talk:Fastily#Islamnager where I informed the admin and he disagreed. I have deleted the redirect pending this discussion if banning policy trumps copyright attribution. Agathoclea (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin observation) I have a couple of comments:

• On the other hand the the banning policy explicitly states that obviously useful edits do not have to be reverted. -- This statement is wholly supported here.
• I have restored the edit as I feel it is wrong to just redo the edit over its deleted equivalent. This would go against our spirit of attribution that has been the core of wikipedia since its inception. -- This seems to be inconsistent with
  bot
  !) 07:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• This isn't really the correct venue for this discussion - that would be DRV, but were this here I would be prepared to bet that the outcome would be to leave things as they are as the deletion was obviously correct but any user is allowed to restore a G5 deleted edit if they are prepared to take responsibility for the edit in question. Undelete/recreate? Honestly, we need to waste anytime discussing this? Fastily you need to get a sense of proportion...
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  09:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Spartaz is right about the best course to follow, but I am unsure about what to do with respect to attribution in cases like this. Wikipedia respects everybody's copyright, even the copyright of banned or disruptive users. If the same words are used in the recreated article, there needs to be some way of attributing them. (A possible solution is to rewrite completely, but it sometimes happens that t that banned editor did so good a job of it that this would seem pointless. Anyway, using such a source for a rewriter and not acknowledging it somehow amounts to plagiarism. I absolutely do not want to encourage banned editors to contribute, but the observance of copyright is a legal requirement and a Wikipedia principle that far outweighs any considerations of our local rules for dealing with editors. We can IAR -- but we cannot Ignore copyright law. Spartaz, any suggestions? ` DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm confused. :) There's no copyright issue here that I can see, since what was restored was a redirect and that's all it ever was. There's no creativity in #REDIRECT [[Islamnagar]]. Attribution is only required for content creative enough to warrant copyright. I fail to see how this would even be an issue of plagiarism. :/ If we want a redirect, it takes almost as little effort to create a new one as to restore an old. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

O was asking in general, about our practice of deleting articles by a banned user & re-creating them if another user wants to adopt them DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

For your perusal: these IP edits, all allegedly adding trivia and extraneous examples to articles such as Ro (kana). I can't verify this, though I can say that the edits and editing behavior (no edit summaries, etc) look suspicious. But I don't want to roll them back en masse without being more sure. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor has made absolutely no effort to respond on his talk page to the concerns, and summarilly reverted all of my edits without an edit summary. The fact is, these pages contain a large number of links that are completely inappropriate, and the editor has made no effort to address the concerns that my edits corrected. I will be reverting those contributions, but will not do so again. I'm not going to get in an edit war, but someone needs to keep an eye on him. VanIsaac_WS 22:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And it's happened again. Ki (kana) O (kana) I (kana) and Ka (kana) were reverted without edit summaries or comment on the user's talk page. I'm going to ask for a short ( < 3 day) topic ban be imposed on User:98.237.20.196 until the editor answers for their reversions without edit summary. VanIsaac_WS 21:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

PS, I am voluntarilly abstaining from reversions to avoid an edit war, but I would appreciate a neutral observer taking a look at the changes and making an impartial determination on the matter and commenting at User talk:98.237.20.196 and my own talk page. VanIsaac_WS

The edits are entirely unnecessary and unhelpful in the articles. I have restord every single kana page to a place they were some time earlier this year or late last year. And topic banning an IP is pointless. The IP should just be blocked and prevented from screwing up these pages with unnecessary video game references and nonsense words that had no place on the articles to begin with.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I reported the IP to AIV and User:Ronhjones blocked the IP for 31 hours. I have notified him of this thread to see if he has opinions on further actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved

• Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )

• [12]--This is bullshit. Nowhere, ever, anywhere, in any history book, encyclopedia, anywhere else would this happen. ; Saturn is absolutely bonkers if he thinks that the fact that 4 candidates worked for Fox News was "irrelevant" while he wasted days, weeks of his life to edit war me on some candidate like this. People who read this article years from now will not learn history from Sharkey's candidacy.
• [13]--You're full of shit and you know it.
• [14]--I want the admins who completely blocked this page to look at its history and the talk page to see the facts. I've added valuable info. All Saturn has done has been editwar and display ownership to anyone who stood between him and Sharkey

My involvement in this has been to attempt to resolve conflict. I asked the editor to avoid personal attacks as they are unhelpful to the discussion ([15]) and warned the editor on their talk page ([16]). The editor later added a general tirade/

• Note that he also claims to have been removing stuff per consensus, while no consensus had yet been reached, and the motions for consensus had been moving toward just removing a picture, not deleting everything about a candidate. Thunderstone99 (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• This has been incredibly sad. I supported his idea to remove Sharkey from the start. But then he decided to become a bully. A month ago, he ad a clean talk page, and now its a rap sheet, basically a full criminal record. It's troubling watching an otherwise smart, thoughtful user turn into a disgraceful vandal. I fear that if he's blocked, the attacks would continue. It is troubling to see a veteran user act like this. It's almost like his account's been hacked. SOXROX (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I endorse your view on account being hacked. He filed a time-wasting SPI page (now deleted) and listed an account name which does not exist (plus the non-existent account name is identical to an existing account listed in that SPI investigation page without the "User:" prefix in front). We were laughing that according to Screwball's evidence, this user is his/her own sockpuppet. Ok, seriously, someone with a 5 year editing record should have no problem determining if an account exists or not before listing it and asking for checkuser. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The solution is easy. Develop clear and unambiguous rules. It sounds like those are currently being developed.

• Major Candidates (meaning those who have filed with the FEC and participated in at least 1 debate)
• Other Candidates (meaning those who have filed with the FEC and not participated in a debate)
• Speculative (other people that seem to be newsworthy or notable)

Lack of clear rules leads to disruptive behavior as people try to hash things out and get frustrated. -- Avanu (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

All right, I can see the discussion here. I'm going to take a voluntary leave until September 6th. I firmly believe in everything I say, and that's why my additions to the page have been valuable and thoughtful. I don't want people reading this page in 10 yrs learning garbage and following an indiscriminate load of debate dates, speculated candidates, non-running candidates, etc. I want to leave positive contributions, and I have. However, the talk page discussion has really detracted the page and myself from more productive edits. I'm smart enough to see from this discussion that it would help if I let it be. I think SoxRox, Kessy, and Thunderstone are doing a good job, and I trust them to reach a healthy and reasoned compromise.

I give admins permission to enforce that leave of absence on my editing account, since I don't know how to do it. I am not guilty of anything except telling the truth, but I could have used better words. I am genuinely concerned about the presence of speculation and trivia on the page, and I will take time to simply focus on other things for the week. I can't believe I let myself engage in such a long discussion with an editor so incompetent and over a candidate so minor. I stand by everything I said and I firmly believe the priorities that exist on the page should be focused on history. Moving forward, I am optimistic about the productive and lively discussion that has emerged on the talk page as of late and I hope to see some sense will be taken in the direction of this page. If a solid criteria on candidates is announced, which I am confident will happen, I would agree to follow the criteria. I will not, however, sacrifice the historical integrity of this page to William Saturn, who said Fox News was irrelevant to this page, and more than happy to delete that info in the heat of his editwarring for Sharkey.--Screwball23 talk 05:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't this edit violate restrictions against

Yes, but what can you do now, except say "don't do that again"? -- Avanu (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I endorse a topic ban. I think that him not participating in this debate again would probably be beneficial for all parties involved. Screwball, I'm sorry, but you've gone too far. SOXROX (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I support liberal use of topic bans from this presidential primaries, 2012 area. Clearly there is going to be a lot of partisan disruption and COI editing here and previous elections and primaries have suffered high levels of disruption. A warning to

Off2riorob (talk

) 15:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm personally of the opinion on this matter that a full out topic ban is not the way to go. Yes, Screwball has made some questionable remarks, however his additions to the article when not edit warring have been productive and constructive. Is it possible to impose a more narrow topic ban, or even call it a section ban, where Screwball cannot edit areas talking about candidates in the US Presidential Election 2012 articles, but can add information as he has been in other areas? Kessy628 (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

On the article

This would probably be under

WP:NOTCENSOR. Also, this should probably go to the help desk, not here. LikeLakers2 (talk

) 21:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Only admins have the ability to delete edit summaries.

talk

) 21:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course; I was simply replying. LikeLakers2 (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Not Censored refers to article content, not people's conduct.--

Crossmr (talk

) 22:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Don't see any need to delete it (do not think it be
  eligible anyway). –xeno^talk
  21:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you.
    talk
    ) 21:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • The appropriate response to this thread as well as to your earlier stress level is probably "Joe, Chill." Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

149.140.34.124. Chesdovi (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There's been quite a few of these turkish jew hating IPs (and I think we can agree we don't want turkish jew hater ips) recently - see for example this lovely chap who is clearly a meat/sockpuppet. Worth doing a checkuser and perhaps page protection? Egg Centric 19:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That particular IP has already hopped several times today, enough variability that range blocking is unlikely to be effective. Monty₈₄₅ 19:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

At the very least an edit filter may be possible - see this history Egg Centric 20:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblocks and edit filter modifications now in place. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User indef blocked and talk page locked. — Satori Son 03:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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

This is a rather peculiar situation. There's this user McAusten who allegedly won't communicate with other editors, yet insists on tinkering with their comments about him at WQA. This,[19] for example. Can or should anything be done to get his attention? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And he just did it to my entry above, also.[20] Apparently he's trying to prove some sort of

WP:POINT, but I'll be hanged if I know what it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

→ 01:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This user is becoming a serious issue in a multitude of ways. In the past two weeks he's been blocked and shown up at no less than two ANI threads for three apparently unrelated issues. It is growing wearisome; he is reluctant to engage with any user directly, but is not above personally attacking them and/or being disruptive in other ways, as noted by Bugs above. This needs to stop. --Jayron32 01:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

McAusten, please see my note on your talkpage, and follow the advice given there, or I am afraid I do not foresee an extensive future for your editing career.

Baseball Bugs, I think you can probably leave it to others to address the situation from this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I brought it up. Also, he's been editing for nearly 6 years, with nary a block until this month. I wonder if his account has been hijacked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a pretty unusual situation, but the main area of editing interest seems pretty consistent over the editing history.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I edit the same topic area as McAusten (Australian rules football) and can confirm that his account has not been hijacked. He edits the same articles in the same manner, only discusses when he feels like it, blanks any messages left on his talk unless they are very positive, blanks other people's comments in the general Talk namespace if they portray him in a poor light, marks every edit as minor and makes irritating little tweaks to other people's talk page comments. It can be pretty frustrating and the issue has probably gotten worse since he was blocked a week or so ago. Jenks24 (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he's taking my advice. I agree that the situation is a little ridiculous and I suspect a long-term block is inevitable if the disruption escalates further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on recent developments on User talk:McAusten (see the page history there), I'm seriously considering indeffing. Input would be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that he hasn't responded. An indef could be justified in order to alert him to his behaviour and help prevent similar, unresponsive incedents in the future. If he's serious about continuing to contribute to the project, it should open up a line of communication between him and the community. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I beat you to it NYB. Blanking one's user talk page is, of course, allowed. However, steadfastly refusing to engage other editors despite repeated, direct, and clear requests to do so is unacceptable for a collaborative project. I have indeffed the account; though I would concede to any admin unblocking if this user showed one iota of interest in engaging other users at all. --Jayron32 02:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And this was his classy response: [21]. Good stuff. --Jayron32 02:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's time to block userpage editing, too. [22]

bot

!) 02:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done –MuZemike 03:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Azra singh (talk · contribs) vandalized the Anna Hazare article by changing religion and other entries to mean exactly the opposite (Hindu was changed Islam or Muslims). [23] I went to his talk page to post a warning but I found that he has a history of vandalizing in the same or similar fashion at other articles. Just reporting it here to see if admins feel some sort of action is needed. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• I can't really see a "history" of vandalising in that fashion; can you point out diffs, please? Ironholds (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow...I agree with Zuggernaut here. If you look carefully at each of their past diffs (looking back through April), every single one adds false information. Things like changing the number of US representatives from 435 to 400 (and 325 to 300 for an earlier time period); changing who won elections, etc. This is clearly a very slow-moving, but very deliberate vandalism-only account. The user wasn't officially warned until today, but was told that they were making incorrect changes as far back as March. I can't find any examples of legitimate edits in this person's history, so I'm blocking it as a vandalism-only account. Feel free to chastise me here for being too extreme...Qwyrxian (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Nope, seems acceptable; I came back to this thread having carefully gone through myself and reached the same conclusion. Unfortunately, you got there just before I did :p. Ironholds (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

149.140.34.124. Chesdovi (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There's been quite a few of these turkish jew hating IPs (and I think we can agree we don't want turkish jew hater ips) recently - see for example this lovely chap who is clearly a meat/sockpuppet. Worth doing a checkuser and perhaps page protection? Egg Centric 19:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That particular IP has already hopped several times today, enough variability that range blocking is unlikely to be effective. Monty₈₄₅ 19:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

At the very least an edit filter may be possible - see this history Egg Centric 20:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblocks and edit filter modifications now in place. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User indef blocked and talk page locked. — Satori Son 03:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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

This is a rather peculiar situation. There's this user McAusten who allegedly won't communicate with other editors, yet insists on tinkering with their comments about him at WQA. This,[24] for example. Can or should anything be done to get his attention? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And he just did it to my entry above, also.[25] Apparently he's trying to prove some sort of

WP:POINT, but I'll be hanged if I know what it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

→ 01:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This user is becoming a serious issue in a multitude of ways. In the past two weeks he's been blocked and shown up at no less than two ANI threads for three apparently unrelated issues. It is growing wearisome; he is reluctant to engage with any user directly, but is not above personally attacking them and/or being disruptive in other ways, as noted by Bugs above. This needs to stop. --Jayron32 01:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

McAusten, please see my note on your talkpage, and follow the advice given there, or I am afraid I do not foresee an extensive future for your editing career.

Baseball Bugs, I think you can probably leave it to others to address the situation from this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I brought it up. Also, he's been editing for nearly 6 years, with nary a block until this month. I wonder if his account has been hijacked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a pretty unusual situation, but the main area of editing interest seems pretty consistent over the editing history.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I edit the same topic area as McAusten (Australian rules football) and can confirm that his account has not been hijacked. He edits the same articles in the same manner, only discusses when he feels like it, blanks any messages left on his talk unless they are very positive, blanks other people's comments in the general Talk namespace if they portray him in a poor light, marks every edit as minor and makes irritating little tweaks to other people's talk page comments. It can be pretty frustrating and the issue has probably gotten worse since he was blocked a week or so ago. Jenks24 (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he's taking my advice. I agree that the situation is a little ridiculous and I suspect a long-term block is inevitable if the disruption escalates further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on recent developments on User talk:McAusten (see the page history there), I'm seriously considering indeffing. Input would be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that he hasn't responded. An indef could be justified in order to alert him to his behaviour and help prevent similar, unresponsive incedents in the future. If he's serious about continuing to contribute to the project, it should open up a line of communication between him and the community. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I beat you to it NYB. Blanking one's user talk page is, of course, allowed. However, steadfastly refusing to engage other editors despite repeated, direct, and clear requests to do so is unacceptable for a collaborative project. I have indeffed the account; though I would concede to any admin unblocking if this user showed one iota of interest in engaging other users at all. --Jayron32 02:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And this was his classy response: [26]. Good stuff. --Jayron32 02:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's time to block userpage editing, too. [27]

bot

!) 02:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done –MuZemike 03:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Azra singh (talk · contribs) vandalized the Anna Hazare article by changing religion and other entries to mean exactly the opposite (Hindu was changed Islam or Muslims). [28] I went to his talk page to post a warning but I found that he has a history of vandalizing in the same or similar fashion at other articles. Just reporting it here to see if admins feel some sort of action is needed. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• I can't really see a "history" of vandalising in that fashion; can you point out diffs, please? Ironholds (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow...I agree with Zuggernaut here. If you look carefully at each of their past diffs (looking back through April), every single one adds false information. Things like changing the number of US representatives from 435 to 400 (and 325 to 300 for an earlier time period); changing who won elections, etc. This is clearly a very slow-moving, but very deliberate vandalism-only account. The user wasn't officially warned until today, but was told that they were making incorrect changes as far back as March. I can't find any examples of legitimate edits in this person's history, so I'm blocking it as a vandalism-only account. Feel free to chastise me here for being too extreme...Qwyrxian (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Nope, seems acceptable; I came back to this thread having carefully gone through myself and reached the same conclusion. Unfortunately, you got there just before I did :p. Ironholds (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe (talk · contribs) is continuing his conspiracy theory campaign. As noted in a previous AN/I thread (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#Mystichumwipe and conspiracy theories), Mystichumwipe is a proponent of the view that Al Qaeda's crashing planes into the World Trade Center etc. is merely one of a number of "conspiracy theories". After being notified of the discretionary sanctions around 9/11 conspiracy theories, he has generally avoided the actual 9/11 articles themselves, and instead focused on the Conspiracy theory article, where his intent has been to prove that conspiracy theories are not fringe theories.[29][30][31][32], while arguing at length on the Talk: page. Today he decided to completely re-write the lede of the article, insisting that the term has a "primary meaning" and a "secondary meaning", and that one of the world's foremost experts on conspiracy theories, Michael Barkun, is a proponent of the "secondary meaning".[33] As it probably obvious, there are no sources that indicate that the term has a "primary" and "secondary" meaning - this is merely an invention of Mystichumwipe, as part of his larger project of re-habilitating the 9/11 conspiracy theories. He on-going campaign has now driven the article's main contributer to abandon the article. This cannot be good for Wikipedia, so I've brought the issue here. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reposted this to

the fringe theories noticeboard. —Tom Morris (talk

) 07:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, but the problem hasn't gotten any better. He continues to edit war against multiple editors,[34][35], and on the Talk: page insists that Barkun is a primary source, and that the editor he drove away from the page actually left because he agreed with Mystichumwipe. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any indication on the editors talkpage that they have been notified of possible edit warring, nor that it has been explained that it is entirely appropriate for people not involved in the discussion to revert a disputed paragraph/section/lede to the prior version while it is being discussed. Unless those steps are taken, and ignored by the party, there is not a lot admins can do - it remains a content dispute involving someone not adept at adhering to procedural processes. If you are requesting some third party provide those notifications then I, as an uninvolved third party, can certainly do that. Is this sufficient? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand - are you saying that each time someone is edit-warring, they must be warned anew that they are edit-warring before any other action can be taken? He's been warned about 3RR in the past, and even blocked for a month for (among other things) edit-warring. Regardless, please add whatever notices or warnings to his Talk: page you feel are appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

They haven't been recently warned on their talkpage, nor blocked, when the two reverts noted by you are under 48hours old. If they have recently been warned elsewhere a link would be appreciated. I shall now warn them, noting that they have already been sanctioned previously for policy violations and thus increasing the likelihood of an extended block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow! what can I say? I regard this as such a travesty of what has occurred and what has been written that I am not sure where to begin.

1. So I am apparently "continuing [my] conspiracy theory campaign"? :-0 I thought I was just contributing to pages by explicitly following wiki policy.

2. In my opinion the accusation "He continues to edit war against multiple editors" I regard as a very misleading and biased accusation. I DID twice revert undos that were made without any discussion by people not involved in or contibuting to the discussion who claimed I violated the consensus. That much IS correct. But I requested they engage in discussion as I had reached an agreement with one involved person to actually make changes so that we had something on which to base further discussion. When they edit-warred and undid my reverts I initiated discussion deliberately to avoid an edit-war and have not done anymore undo's. In the discussion pages there were three for and three against. So i don't believe I did do anything against a consensus. Thus the claim that I was going against consensus is debatable as the two people opposed to my view never objected to my edit, someone actually slightly adjusted it, and a day later one of the two editors explicitly gave permission to "do what we will" to the lede so that they have something to discuss.

3. Jayjg has also slightly misrepresented my views in his simplified version of "crashing planes into the WTC" etc., and his version allows for a misunderstanding of my view.

4. And he has misrepresented me again by writing "his intent has been to prove that conspiracy theories are not fringe theories". In actuality I have just included material backed up by reliable sources, after explaining my reasoning on the talk page, as every editor is entitled to do. I ask you to notice how Jayjg hasn't questioned the accuracy of my sources, but merely attacks his guess regarding my intent.

5. Jayjg wrote: "As it probably obvious, there are no sources that indicate that the term has a "primary" and "secondary" meaning - this is merely an invention of Mystichumwipe. " that is not correct. I provided sources for that which Jayjg has either not read or if he has, appears to be practicing a deceit. Its well known the term is being applied differently today, one a broad and neutral usage and one a pejorative usage. All this I have clearly outlined on the discussion page and supported clearly with the sources I provided. I am also not a lone voice as two other people have been in agreement with me and we have expressed our views openly and our reasoning.

6. The accusation that I have forced the main contributor to abandon the page appears to me to be another deceit and deliberate misinformation. That editor has stated that he became frustrated with the discussion, sure. But that was NOT just with me. And he has implied he is leaving as he has other concerns at the moment i.e implying untill he has more time.

7. Whatever, he had clearly been in infringement of wiki policy with his lede (

VERIFABILTY

) so I need no defence against pointing that out to him and insisting he change it. He left the discussion after being confronted with that infringement by THREE editors (not just me), and because of our continued disagreemenet with the lede which remains based upon that infringement.

8. Regarding:"someone not adept at adhering to procedural processes." What is that referring to? I assume it is to your acceptance without enquiry of Jayjg's misrepresentation of what is going on? I am now forming the opinion that the man has a personal vendetta against me from previous interactions on other pages. This misrepresentation of my views and what has occured at this page appears to be just another episode in that.

9. The accusation that I have' "insisted the editor he drove away from the page actually left because he agreed with [myself]" is a blatant deception and distortion of what both of us wrote. I never insisted any such thing. Read the talk page to check for yourself.

10. I did NOT "completely re-write the lede of the article": I only "completely changed" the first sentence of it. Yes, ONE sentence "completely changed". How outrageous of me. (n.b. sarcasm)

11. And then there's this: "while arguing at length on the Talk page". Hmmmm? So now discussing, reasoning and giving examples of wiki policy in support of a suggested change is now also some kind of 'crime'? Yet undoing contributions without discussion and ignoring a clear mandate to make changes is fine and dandy? Yet I am the one Jayjg accusses of edit warring?

How do articles get refined and improved then? And more appropriate to this article and these accusations from Jayjg, is the question. 'how do infringements of wiki policy get corrected then'?

12. "generally avoided the actual 9/11 articles themselves" This again is another guess in apparent attempt to mislead and defame me. He obviously can have no idea of the amount of time at my exposal or why I have not come back to my involvement there recently.

13. Finally, I dispute that I have ever knowingly violated 3RR in the past, or that I have even been blocked for a month. Interestingly I actually was attempted to be blocked, after what I came to suspect was some dirty tricks by Jayjg in a previous dispute with him. He also instigated that attempt at blocking me. But the facts are that that blocking was lifted upon appeal as it was agreed it should never have been applied.

I have previously asked for mediation with Jayjg which led no where and the person who accepted mediation responsibilites did nothing. That person also did nothing in a similar and totally seperate mediation request around the same time complaining of the exact same behaviour of Jayjg that I also complained of.

In conclusion may I ask you what do you suggest I do with my previous complaint and now the ones mentioned above of these current examples of Jayjg's misrpresentation and clear cases of deceit about me? The above I now regard as a clear evidence of at least lack of good faith which was one of my previous complaints against him. But this example has gone way beyond that. What courses of action are open to me to address this? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to Mystichumwipe the

Here are some definitions that conflict with Barkun's:

"A conspiracy theory is the idea that someone, or a group of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence, or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store, or as big as a group of revolutionaries conspiring to take over their country's government."(Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley; pg 9)

"a conspiracy theory that has been proven (for example, that President Nixon and his aides plotted to disrupt the course of justice in the Watergate case) is usually called something else—investigative journalism, or just well-researched historical analysis." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO;

(Non-administrator comment) I think this is a content issue, and warrants attention by the fringe theory noticeboard. Phearson (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

BruceGrubb's material is somewhat more of a content issue, but the issue with Mystichumwipe is behavioral. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

How so? --BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, one example would be filling up the talk pages with repetitive walls of words that don't really respond in any way to the points being raised by the other editors there. Another example would be giving repeatedly giving lists of sources that don't actually support the point being made, and ignore the fact that editors have already pointed this out more than once. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As opposed to claiming consensus where there clearly isn't any and repeatedly ignoring the references that show Barkun's definition has problems and citing part of a policy and ignoring other relevant parts (

WP:LEAD case in point)? Your claim that "the reliability of these sources is highly variable" when said sources are published by ABC-CLIO, Ashgate Publishing, Columbia University, Edinburgh University Press, McGill-Queen University Press, University of Oxford, and Wiley-Blackwell with no proof is ludicrous.--BruceGrubb (talk

) 08:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, you say the problem with me is behavioural yet I have answered and refuted all your accusations. Please point to one contribution from me that has "repetitive walls of words that don't really respond in any way to the points being raised by the other editors there"?

And also please point us to "repeatedly giving lists of sources that don't actually support..." etc? I maintain have never done anything remotely like that. I think you are confusing me with another editor.

And you haven't addressed my points. You have avoided every single point of my detailed refutation of what I regard as your unfounded, untrue and therefore apparently personal attack against me. Why is that?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• I archived the above thread in which I did not participate because, as indicated, no administrative action was required.
  talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).[37] In normal circumstances, persistent personal attacks of that kind would result in restrictions on editing privileges. Please see WP:HORSE. Mathsci (talk
  ) 09:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

All this started out with repeated and increasingly public personal attacks against me by editor Hrafn as detailed at

WP:UNINVOLVED policy in regards to Dougweller, Black Kite, and Mathsci (if he is actually granted admin privileges). As you can see, I decided not to participate in his edit war. Drrll (talk

) 12:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Threads here are not necessarily closed by administrators, particularly if they involve forum-shopping and

WP:STICK. Nobody has agreed with your "assessment" of Dougweller, so please could you just drop this matter? Thanks, Mathsci (talk

) 14:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Lastly, I was not forum shopping, as is evident from the turn of events which took place after I filed the WQA complaint. Drrll (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)