Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive766

Justice007 seems to argue and believe an associate professor of English

It is note worthy that since May 2012 this is the second time Justice007 is brought for discussion here. Obviously, Justice007 is not progressing toward civility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juristicweb (talk • contribs) 12:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have notified the user in question, as you should have done when posting this on the board here. Remember that if youa re bringing an issue to ANI, you need to be sure you notify all the parties involved.

talk

) 12:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have notified Justice007 and will be notifying SpacemanSpiff, since I named it above. Thanks for reminding me though.--Juristicweb (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

He notified him before posting here which is fine.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply

• We should not lose our cool, it has realy not been my intention to any kind of reliatation to edit this, it seems to just happend that he commented his view before my edit, actually I am improving and expanding articles everywhere, where is needed tags, I first tags and then search the reliable sources to cite and remove the tags, that can be access on my user page which I have done many other articles. This privilege I have from
  own here any thing. Thanks.Justice007 (talk
  ) 13:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Justice007, the community's response to your choice of words, editing, responses and interactions with other editors has been one of disapproval as it was gently put to you by SpacemanSpiff in Articles for Deletion/
  WP:Wikihounding, but you insist that they are not. More reason for having this discussing. We should not Wikihound and once the rule is intentionally and repeatedly ignored, as was the case here, after being advised of it, there should be a consequence for the editor who violated it, which is you.--Juristicweb (talk
  ) 17:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone disentangle all the changes made at CBS Records and CBS Records International and CBS Records (2006). Consensus was established on the talk page on how to handle the various business entities called CBS Records, and one author has come up with a fix on his own that had lost the history for each article by cutting and pasting. The page history and discussion is now at Talk:CBS Records (2006). The problem is that there are 1,300 incoming links to the business entity known as CBS Records which is not the same as CBS Records International, both had their own presidents: "Mr. Yetnikoff was instrumental in the sale of CBS Records to Sony in January 1988 for $2 billion. ... Mr. Yetnikoff was made president of CBS records in 1975. Before that he was president of CBS Records International, which he took over in 1971." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Since you are both participating in the
  talk
  ) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see this diff and note that there is more than a content dispute here. Especially note the edit summary recorded with the diff. Inspection of the article history will then be useful

I had thought previously that this might have been a BLP Noticeboard issue, but it seems to need a wider set of eyes on it and an administrative conclusion reached. I will allow the facts to speak for themselves.

My own interest is as an uninvolved editor who has this article on his watchlist Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note please that there was an attempt by one of the editors to handle this at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, which was closed as inappropriate for a number of reasons. There may be other forums where an attempt is also being made, or is about to be made. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• The discussion on my talk page here is relevant to the issue. There is obvious strength of feeling here and a genuine perception of injustice. I am stating it as a genuine perception, but not as my perception. I am remaining wholly neutral. I simply wish to see the issues resolved in order that the article may benefit. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I see that Scholarlyarticles (talk · contribs) is new and has some misconceptions about Wikipedia. I'm going to dig a bit deeper and see how deep this hole goes. Likely, some mentoring is going to be a good idea to help prevent them from getting into trouble. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think that, however new an editor is, it should not have degenerated into a fisticuff. Somehow it needs to be rescued from that status with honour intact. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I've added a note on their talk page, offering to help mentor a bit. I have plenty to do but think this would be a better step at this point, to offer a helping hand and get them up to speed on some policies. Often, a lack of understanding of the complex web of policy leads to frustration, which leads to snippy remarks, so I'm confident that this is the best option to deal with the problem at this stage. Hopefully, they will accept the offer and I will help then along the way for a few weeks and they can be contributing in a more compliant way. At this time, my opinion is that this the proper way to deal with the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, SA had an editor go through every one of SA's edits to check them (declared by the editor). Many were reverted / removed for reasons that did not require immediate attention (not copyvios, etc). That would be enough to irritate most editors, I'd imagine, and wasn't likely the best course of action. It's not a good excuse, but it may explain some of what has happened. --Nouniquenames (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• That would try the patience of a saint. I think it is becoming clear that no-one who has interacted at edit/revert level here is blameless. This diff shows that SA seems to choose not to understand advice, however. I have reinforced the offer from Dennis Brown to mentor SA, both on my talk page and on SA's. I have not looked at all at the merits of SA's position nor at Diannaa's (spelling). That was the secondary reason I brought this topic here. The primary reason was the ad hominen words used in SA's frustration. I am very much hoping that consensus will prevail in the article and in assisting those concerned towards an amicable resolution. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nouniquenames: I'd like to outline the difficulty here as I see it. I hope perhaps you could refer it to the Administrators complaint board. I would also like to take you up on your kind offer for mentorship (as you seem to be aware of what has happened.) . Here is my analysis of the situation.

Mostly I’ve found the edit questions here to be fair since beginning in early June. My difficulty began around August 21th following an edit dispute with Diannaa and a few others (including Malleus) on Sean Combs page. I was simply correcting erroneous information about an article to which the page referred which was not in fact retracted in March but on April 7th. The retraction specifically read that the LAT did not mean to implicate Combs. A minor edit resulted in major edit war with her and Malleus and I think another person on the page. At the time, I was not quite as familiar with the Talk page to handle disputes. Nevertheless after several attempts to inject a note of reality into Combs page I backed off. I concur with another writer’s comment on the Talk page that the Combs page reads like an advertisement. Diannaa took bitter umbrage.

Within about 20 hours she erased every page I worked on for months. Below tried to list the URLs but this has the effect of corrupting the file so maybe someone could advise me of how to do this. This a question that bears close scrutiny because in many cases the ostensible reasons for the edit are not in accord with what she actually did. The content areas she edited ranged as widely as MOCA-LA, Newspaper articles, Tupac, Who Shot YA, Eli Broad, Don Simpson, Ozzy Osbourne. Many of my additions were based on hundreds in not thousands of pages of reading (not to mention meetings I was privy to, the outcome of which were documented in newspapers and blogs.) She changed articles that I had worked on simply because I had worked on them. In many cases the changes were not related to my own work (although they always included deleting any reference to author Chuck Philips). Often although not related to my own work, her edits had the effect of damaging the legacy of individuals to whose pages I’d contributed, solely it would seem because I contributed to them. Note: I added a small note about Hilburn’s upcoming Cash bio. (I know Hilburn and did add a reference for his upcoming bio although it’s referenced in many places and by many newspapers.) For this she subtracted a number of words from his page with the editorial explanation that she was simply “cleaning it up.” One of her “clean ups” was to edit out that this famous pop music critic had a 36-year tenure at the LA Times. (I put it back in). Was it necessary to take out that Hilburn had a 36-year tenure at the LA times? Does anybody deny this? If there is one person who could, could she track down that person within a few hours after the Combs dispute to wipe out his contributions? To deny a 72-year old man with such a sterling reputation his legacy because of her rampage against me seems beyond the pale.

Here's a key point to consider: There was not time for her to read and understand the content section she obliterated. There were about 20 or 30 articles, hundreds if not thousands of pages, on which I based my edits, all of which I’ve read. She would have had to read all of these in many instances for her to make the comments she did and erase the work. She erased much of the work 30 minutes or so of her rampage. She erased a section on Broad with the explanation that the comments didn't relate to the article. The article to which she referred was only available by purchase from the New Yorker (Bruck, C Dec 6, 2010) and I'm sure she hadn't had the time to buy it much less read it when she wiped it out within 15 minutes. (II and could not have read that Bruck article in 2 hours much less the 15 minutes she took to destroy reference to it.)

Within hours of the edit dispute she wiped out all the author contributions of the original author on the Ticketmaster flap, stating that they didn't support the notion of congressional investigations. There is no doubt that they did. I know Washington staffer who ushered them through the process based on the work of reporter Chuck Philips. I have also been in touch with Philips who is deeply dissatisfied with the revision of history and the false designation of origin. These were six articles which she couldn't have read. She's reinstated them now but with an unusual twist on the event. She wiped them out within 3 minutes stating that the articles did not support congressional investigations. Did she have time to read those articles in that time? These were the original LA Times articles on the Ticketmaster issue. They did lead to the investigations. Even if she doubted this, which she had no reason to, why was there no correct designation of origin of authorship on that. LA Times coverage of the anti-trust issue did help trigger Congressional hearings (why did she wipe out the references to the author}?

She also mis-edited Tupac's page and "Who shot ya?” erroneously removing the most current articles on the subject, and to be in line with Combs preferred but incorrect version of reality.

Often in her hunt to undo every edit I've done she has made the contention of "copyright violation" where there is none. Sometimes she used "clean up" and then deleted hundreds and sometimes thousands of words of any article written in which Chuck Philips was the original author of the articles. She falsely designated origins of the Milli Vanilli, Don Simpson, and of the Ticketmaster flap stories where LA Times Chuck Philips wrote them. She deleted entire sections Osborne's page (because of a small section in which Philips had interviewed him on about pills.) In doing so she wiped out much of Osbourne's history.

Another change within roughly a 10-hour period was to add unethical behavior to Hiltzik's section that I had removed because it seemed a small event given far too much importance in the life of a man who has made such contributions. It appeared to be unfair and possibly also libelous given the entirety of his career. Maybe she has some argument here. However, by contrast is their any unethical behavior on the Combs page that she protects so vigorously? There certainly is documented evidence of his violent behavior and arrests. Recently much of it has been on the front page of All Hip Hop.com. How does Sean Combs’ page get "good ratings?" I have no doubt that if every person trying to edit that page to reflect reality gets the Diannaa treatment that no one would dare challenge it. But I digress...

She also dinged my submission of the jpg of Chuck Philips (basing it on “copyright violation”). It is public information – it exists on his open Facebook page.

I haven’t bothered to identify for you all the pages she corrupted about MOCA-la. But as someone quite familiar with the situation and scholarly on the topic she erred in the extreme. The ostensible reasons rarely matched the underlying content.

Among the most egregious errors that have been let stand is her corruption Jimmy Henchman’s page. A key point of the AHH article on Dexter's confession was that Dexter admitted to ambushing Tupac ON HENCHMAN’S orders. She edited out "on Henchman's orders" so that it makes Henchman look innocent when the whole point of the AHH article in which Dexter Isaac confessed was that Henchman set it up. She finally said Dexter was "an associate of Henchman." He wasn't just an associate of Henchman according to all the news articles. He was an associate who Henchman paid to ambush Tupac. Isaac admitted this in the AHH article. She removed a Village Voice article by Philips, the most recent on the topic which referenced Henchman's admission to setting up the Tupac ambush according to prosecutors. This article has been picked up by the Huffington Post, the New York Times, The Washington Post, AHH etc. She accused me of vandalism for putting back paragraphs that had been on Jimmy Henchman’s page since before I had been on Wikipedia. The more recent articles that I added show that Dexter Isaac confessed to the Tupac ambush at the Quad on orders from Henchman. They also cite the original Village Voice article picked up by the Huffington Post, the New York Times, the Washington Post etc., in which prosecutors noted that Jimmy Henchman confessed to the setting up the ambush in one of nine “Queen for day” proffer sessions with the government. It seems that her concerns relate to the fact that Jimmy Henchman is a close associate of Combs. And Diannaa is quite persistent in trying to knock down the truth on this point. ( Timrent put back "on orders from Henchman" and Diannaa erased it.aa

This is an encyclopedia and so it should reflect reality not the power of a cabal who wishes to clobber the work of anyone who injects a note of reality into Combs page. The articles on which I based by edits were documented. My point is there is no way she could have become familiar on background with all the articles she defaced within the minutes and hours it took to deface them.

Her reasons ranged from "copyright violation" which on Henchman's page there was clearly not, to attacking the substance of the articles to "cleaned up,” “ added dashes". By "cleaning up" she mean removing thousands of words on Hilburn’s and Osbourne’s page with seemingly no other reason than that I added to them. In some cases she did not remove what I wrote, but just dinged the legacy of an icon whose history I followed and wished to update. Although in almost all instances the effect of her work was to remove any of Chuck Philips well-cited references – the stories that he broke that were never in contention anywhere. Note that Combs has been openly accusatory of Philips simply because Philips began writing about him in the LA times. The 2008 article that was retracted became in May, the prosecutors exhibit number 1 in People Vs Henchman. No copyright violation here. I was there for the trial and got the PACER reference. This People’s exhibit number one, is a reference she removed inappropriately. This reference is appropriate on Jimmy Henchman’s page not only because it is the article documenting the theory of the attack at the Quad but also because it was also the government’s exhibit number 1 against Henchman on a case in which he was convicted on 13 counts. Also please note that Combs was implicated as an associate of Henchman in the attack of Tupac on the Quad. There is tight cabal here, with Dianna as Queen, (and Malleus whatever his name is et al.) protecting Sean Combs and going after anyone they perceive as in conflict with him. I am keenly aware of this.

I feel that this is an abuse of administrative privileges. I think a thorough investigation into the events of the 21-22 (the urls are below), and into her performance on the Combs page is warranted. I would hope that another administrator could reinstate the references that Diannaa removed. In particular, the Jimmy Henchman reference as it stood on August 19th or so. I realize this is a serious charge. But this is a serious problem.

That's all for now. I will come back though with more thorough documentations of the Jimmy Henchman references I'm sure ya'll are dying to hear more (joke). Thanks for your time in thinking about this Scholarlyarticles (talk)

One thing that has really made Scholarlyarticles angry was content I removed from Robert Hilburn: "Hilburn published a biography of Bruce Springsteen in 1985 as one in a series of

Tupak Shakur, and The Notorious B.I.G.

As I was convinced that the sourcing was inadequate I removed the content from several of these articles, but I did not get finished. I began to go through their other contributions and discovered other BLP violations and copyright violations. Here's some examples of my edits:

• Ozzy Osbourne: removal of copyright violation
• David Mack (police officer): removal of copyright violation
• Eli Broad: removal of defamatory material sourced to a blog

Here's some other examples of copyright violations introduced by this editor:

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Margo Leavin, art gallerist
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Saylor
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Schimmel
• User:Scholarlyarticles/sandbox
• File:Chuck Philips, picture.jpg

Another activity they've been doing is inserting information about reporter Chuck Philips into many articles, not neutrally worded additions, but more like promotional pieces. For example, in their version of the Ticketmaster article, Chuck Philips is mentioned nine times. So I undertook clean-up of some of that stuff too. Note this diff, where Scholarlyarticles threatened to smear my good name on a bunch of articles. The Jimmy Henchman talk page is loaded with personal attacks and bad faith. I stand behind my edits as being what I thought was right for the wiki. -- Dianna (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Posted by Scholarlyarticles

Mostly I’ve found the edit questions here to be fair since beginning in early June. My difficulty began around August 21th following an edit dispute with Diannaa and a few others (including Malleus) on Sean Combs page. I was simply correcting erroneous information about an article to which the page referred which was not in fact retracted in March but on April 7th. The retraction specifically read that the LAT did not mean to implicate Combs. A minor edit resulted in major edit war with her and Malleus and I think another person on the page. At the time, I was not quite as familiar with the Talk page to handle disputes. Nevertheless after several attempts to inject a note of reality into Combs page I backed off. I concur with another writer’s comment on the Talk page that the Combs page reads like an advertisement. Diannaa took bitter umbrage.

Within about 20 hours she erased every page I worked on for months. Below tried to list the URLs but this has the effect of corrupting the file so maybe someone could advise me of how to do this. This a question that bears close scrutiny because in many cases the ostensible reasons for the edit are not in accord with what she actually did. The content areas she edited ranged as widely as MOCA-LA, Newspaper articles, Tupac, Who Shot YA, Eli Broad, Don Simpson, Ozzy Osbourne. Many of my additions were based on hundreds in not thousands of pages of reading (not to mention meetings I was privy to, the outcome of which were documented in newspapers and blogs.) She changed articles that I had worked on simply because I had worked on them. In many cases the changes were not related to my own work (although they always included deleting any reference to author Chuck Philips). Often although not related to my own work, her edits had the effect of damaging the legacy of individuals to whose pages I’d contributed, solely it would seem because I contributed to them. Note: I added a small note about Hilburn’s upcoming Cash bio. (I know Hilburn and did add a reference for his upcoming bio although it’s referenced in many places and by many newspapers.) For this she subtracted a number of words from his page with the editorial explanation that she was simply “cleaning it up.” One of her “clean ups” was to edit out that this famous pop music critic had a 36-year tenure at the LA Times. (I put it back in). Was it necessary to take out that Hilburn had a 36-year tenure at the LA times? Does anybody deny this? If there is one person who could, could she track down that person within a few hours after the Combs dispute to wipe out his contributions? To deny a 72-year old man with such a sterling reputation his legacy because of her rampage against me seems beyond the pale.

Here's a key point to consider: There was not time for her to read and understand the content section she obliterated. There were about 20 or 30 articles, hundreds if not thousands of pages, on which I based my edits, all of which I’ve read. She would have had to read all of these in many instances for her to make the comments she did and erase the work. She erased much of the work 30 minutes or so of her rampage. She erased a section on Broad with the explanation that the comments didn't relate to the article. The article to which she referred was only available by purchase from the New Yorker (Bruck, C Dec 6, 2010) and I'm sure she hadn't had the time to buy it much less read it when she wiped it out within 15 minutes. (II and could not have read that Bruck article in 2 hours much less the 15 minutes she took to destroy reference to it.)

Within hours of the edit dispute she wiped out all the author contributions of the original author on the Ticketmaster flap, stating that they didn't support the notion of congressional investigations. There is no doubt that they did. I know Washington staffer who ushered them through the process based on the work of reporter Chuck Philips. I have also been in touch with Philips who is deeply dissatisfied with the revision of history and the false designation of origin. These were six articles which she couldn't have read. She's reinstated them now but with an unusual twist on the event. She wiped them out within 3 minutes stating that the articles did not support congressional investigations. Did she have time to read those articles in that time? These were the original LA Times articles on the Ticketmaster issue. They did lead to the investigations. Even if she doubted this, which she had no reason to, why was there no correct designation of origin of authorship on that. LA Times coverage of the anti-trust issue did help trigger Congressional hearings (why did she wipe out the references to the author}?

She also mis-edited Tupac's page and "Who shot ya?” erroneously removing the most current articles on the subject, and to be in line with Combs preferred but incorrect version of reality.

Often in her hunt to undo every edit I've done she has made the contention of "copyright violation" where there is none. Sometimes she used "clean up" and then deleted hundreds and sometimes thousands of words of any article written in which Chuck Philips was the original author of the articles. She falsely designated origins of the Milli Vanilli, Don Simpson, and of the Ticketmaster flap stories where LA Times Chuck Philips wrote them. She deleted entire sections Osborne's page (because of a small section in which Philips had interviewed him on about pills.) In doing so she wiped out much of Osbourne's history.

Another change within roughly a 10-hour period was to add unethical behavior to Hiltzik's section that I had removed because it seemed a small event given far too much importance in the life of a man who has made such contributions. It appeared to be unfair and possibly also libelous given the entirety of his career. Maybe she has some argument here. However, by contrast is their any unethical behavior on the Combs page that she protects so vigorously? There certainly is documented evidence of his violent behavior and arrests. Recently much of it has been on the front page of All Hip Hop.com. How does Sean Combs’ page get "good ratings?" I have no doubt that if every person trying to edit that page to reflect reality gets the Diannaa treatment that no one would dare challenge it. But I digress...

She also dinged my submission of the jpg of Chuck Philips (basing it on “copyright violation”). It is public information – it exists on his open Facebook page. I haven’t bothered to identify for you all the pages she corrupted about MOCA-la. But as someone quite familiar with the situation and scholarly on the topic she erred in the extreme. The ostensible reasons rarely matched the underlying content.

Among the most egregious errors that have been let stand is her corruption Jimmy Henchman’s page. A key point of the AHH article on Dexter's confession was that Dexter admitted to ambushing Tupac ON HENCHMAN’S orders. She edited out "on Henchman's orders" so that it makes Henchman look innocent when the whole point of the AHH article in which Dexter Isaac confessed was that Henchman set it up. She finally said Dexter was "an associate of Henchman." He wasn't just an associate of Henchman according to all the news articles. He was an associate who Henchman paid to ambush Tupac. Isaac admitted this in the AHH article. She removed a Village Voice article by Philips, the most recent on the topic which referenced Henchman's admission to setting up the Tupac ambush according to prosecutors. This article has been picked up by the Huffington Post, the New York Times, The Washington Post, AHH etc. She accused me of vandalism for putting back paragraphs that had been on Jimmy Henchman’s page since before I had been on Wikipedia. The more recent articles that I added show that Dexter Isaac confessed to the Tupac ambush at the Quad on orders from Henchman. They also cite the original Village Voice article picked up by the Huffington Post, the New York Times, the Washington Post etc., in which prosecutors noted that Jimmy Henchman confessed to the setting up the ambush in one of nine “Queen for day” proffer sessions with the government. It seems that her concerns relate to the fact that Jimmy Henchman is a close associate of Combs. And Diannaa is quite persistent in trying to knock down the truth on this point. ( Timrent put back "on orders from Henchman" and Diannaa erased it.aa

This is an encyclopedia and so it should reflect reality not the power of a cabal who wishes to clobber the work of anyone who injects a note of reality into Combs page. The articles on which I based by edits were documented. My point is there is no way she could have become familiar on background with all the articles she defaced within the minutes and hours it took to deface them.

Her reasons ranged from "copyright violation" which on Henchman's page there was clearly not, to attacking the substance of the articles to "cleaned up,” “ added dashes". By "cleaning up" she mean removing thousands of words on Hilburn’s and Osbourne’s page with seemingly no other reason than that I added to them. In some cases she did not remove what I wrote, but just dinged the legacy of an icon whose history I followed and wished to update. Although in almost all instances the effect of her work was to remove any of Chuck Philips well-cited references – the stories that he broke that were never in contention anywhere. Note that Combs has been openly accusatory of Philips simply because Philips began writing about him in the LA times. The 2008 article that was retracted became in May, the prosecutors exhibit number 1 in People Vs Henchman. No copyright violation here. I was there for the trial and got the PACER reference. This People’s exhibit number one, is a reference she removed inappropriately. This reference is appropriate on Jimmy Henchman’s page not only because it is the article documenting the theory of the attack at the Quad but also because it was also the government’s exhibit number 1 against Henchman on a case in which he was convicted on 13 counts. Also please note that Combs was implicated as an associate of Henchman in the attack of Tupac on the Quad. There is tight cabal here, with Dianna as Queen, (and Malleus whatever his name is et al.) protecting Sean Combs and going after anyone they perceive as in conflict with him. I am keenly aware of this.

I feel that this is an abuse of administrative privileges. I think a thorough investigation into the events of the 21-22 (the urls are below), and into her performance on the Combs page is warranted. I would hope that another administrator could reinstate the references that Diannaa removed. In particular, the Jimmy Henchman reference as it stood on August 19th or so. I realize this is a serious charge. But this is a serious problem.

• • I see from your talk page that Dennis Brown has offered to mentor you. I think that would be the best way to work out the problems. He's very good at doing this, and very patient. If you accept, we can simply close this for now. It would be an enormously more helpful way to go than continuing here. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • On his talk page SA has indicated that he would value the help form Dennis Brown. Indications are that once accepted this incident may be closed successfully. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to ask, Scholarlyarticles, are you at all familiar with

The answer is that I made SA aware, and that it seems a positive choice was taken to rehash the entire set of posts and arguments here. This, too, will be helped by accepting Dennis Brown's extremely generous offer of mentoring. I cannot commend the offer highly enough. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think you are taking this a bit too personal. "Spirited debate" is part of the process as long as it stays away from being personal attacks. And to clarify one point,
  WP:DRN as an option if you can't work it out on the talk page of the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER
  01:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, despite long, settled discussion on whether to keep

• The move may be contested but I don't see any discussion yet that addresses this. Have you tried to talk to
  WP:CCC. De728631 (talk
  ) 19:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Concordia University in Montreal has been determined to be the article to use the primary name via
    WP:RM discussion in 2010. Consensus has been established three times as of 2010.--The lorax (talk
    ) 20:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Have a chat with EdwinHJ first of all to see if you can resolve this with him. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Also remember that

WP:RM, not unilateral moving. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

01:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Lorax, could you link to the actual discussions? The only one I can find is the

2006 RFC, which was founded in the notoriety of an incident which may not be all that (in)famous anymore. That said, EdwinHJ has a history with trying to determine the article naming here, and he really should be going through channels here, as BR says. Mangoe (talk

) 05:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This editor keeps reverting additions to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FS_EMUs_and_DMUs&curid=15721842&action=history stating "it doesn't exist". I have repeatedly explain that the article

I've put a message on the user's talk page. I hope this helps. In the future, if you could try to steer discussion to the talk page rather than communicating via edit summaries? Even templates have a talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave a explanatory note on the talk page to see if that helps.

(Now an IP address is reverting the addition) - will see if a talk page note solves the issue..Oranjblud (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone put http:// (added spacing to get passed spam notice) media.ticketmaster.com/en-gb/img/sys/tournament/london2012/para-complete.pdf on the Whitelist as ticketmaster seems to be blacklisted and the table of events cites this here, so now every new posting of the table gets blocked. See

Why on Earth would someone want to use ticketmaster as a

WP:RS? dangerouspanda

10:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Becaus they have published the entire schedule of all events in a single, easy to understand, document. I see no reason to disparage their reliability in this case - they are after all selling tickets to the events, thus they are an authorotative source for what happens when. The same information is available from london2012.com but in a format that would require dozens of separate cites. Roger (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this user made the determination that the complete schedule of the Republican National Convention should be inputted without any form of paraprasing would improve the article. However, I've made the point that we are not a TV guide and that this is definitely a form of plagiarism / copyright violations as I've noted before this. Also I've made this determination based on the

1. Diff 1: [26]
2. Diff 2: [27]
3. Diff 3: [28]
4. Diff 4: [29]

ViriiK (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is the question of whether the schedule is copyrightable. After all, a list of times and events does not require a high level of prose originality (that is not a slam on the Republicans so please don't hit me).--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

However the source is from the Washington Post which the editor is attributing it to which is hosted on a copyrighted website. I'm also following

Wikipedia:Copy-paste which is not a rule but it does elaborate the issue here. ViriiK (talk

) 10:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User continues to post bits on Joan Juliet Buck article with poor references. Michael Totten continually cited even though World Affairs quotes are from Totten's personal blog, while deleting out media blogs: [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] Takes out sourced new information about Buck and tries to dig up dirt on subject.[43] Prone to edit-warring over recent items. Could we block for two weeks?--

I'm not involved in this dispute (I happened to come across it because of some mediocre edits of IPWAI to articles on my watch list) but it looks to me like there are several involved editors who could do with a cooling-off period, including IPWAI and Aichikawa. --

talk

) 14:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverts by User:CartoonDiablo Article:

Reported by User:Collect

[44] 18:51 26 August [45] 19:25 26 August

Warning and request to self-revert at [46] 23:28 26 August

Response by CartoonDiablo at [47] 23:39 26 August with content:

that aside the reverts were done in response to his reverts and everyone at

WP:EW/N

will see that.

I did not think that violating 1RR because one does not like edits from others was a valid excuse, but I suggest that this excuse be weighed as he wishes it to be weighed. Collect (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice given of this at [48] 23:48

Report made here per clear instructions at [49] saying Violations can be reported at WP:ANI.

I suggest that when one editor has violated 1RR and been given a polite opportunity to self-revert, that such an editor is seeking to test the rule. Collect (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For anyone interested in this issue, here's what took place, with numbered diffs in sequence:

1. Back in November 2010, User:CartoonDiablo adds three sentences to the article's Media Coverage section which become longstanding content in the article.

2. Today, on August 26, 2012, User:North8000 removes the three sentences originally inserted by CartoonDiablo.

3. Next, User:Ian.thomson reverts North8000's removal of the material, adding the three sentences back to the article.

4. Next, North8000 reverts Ian.thomson's reversion, removing the three sentences a second time.

5. Next, CartoonDiablo reverts North8000's reversion, restoring the three sentences he or she originally put in the article, and asks that its removal be discussed first.

6. Next, User:Collect reverts CartoonDiablo and removes the three sentences again from the article.

7. Next, CartoonDiablo reverts Collect's reversion and adds the three sentences back again a second time.

By my count, in the span of 6+ hours today, that looks like 2RR by North8000 in removing the three sentences, followed by a 2RR by CartoonDiablo in returning them. As Collect points out at

WP:BRD and expected that the deletion be discussed first. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk

) 00:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that only one editor was given proper warning of the 1RR violation with an opportunity to self-revert, and that opportunity was specifically rejected by that editor in the apparent belief that 1RR does not mean 1RR absolutely. Had North been warned and not self-reverted, I would hold him to the same standard, but Wikipedia believes that people should be given a clear chance to self-revert. AFAICT, however, North hit 1RR -- his first removal does not count as a "revert" under customary Wikipedia standards defining "revert." As it is, CartoonDiablo is the one in clear violation of a brightline rule imposed on that article. As for the problem -- the material was specifically under discussion on the talk page, which you appear to elide, and there was no apparent consensus for inclusion (mainly - the material is of exceedingly tangential relationship to the article topic, and was totally unrelated to acts or positions of the TPM, but only related to how the "nedia" covered the topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the 1RR rule served its purpose by stopping y'all from edit warring before it could get really nasty. My advice is to withdraw this ANI and go discuss on the talk page. You're all established editors and you know how BRD works, so get to it; getting an editor(s) blocked here will solve nothing.

If CD had self-reverted or acknowledged that 1RR is applicable - fine. CD not only did not self-revert, his post to me indicated that he would edit war again in the same situation, and that is what is the problem, in my view. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Collect's analysis. If notice is required and it wasn't given, you can not legitimately block someone. As for CartoonDiablo, if he (I should say all) takes a deep breath and does not repeat this offense, and edits productively, a block should not be given here. PumpkinSky talk 01:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Approximately 22 minutes after North8000's second edit removing the material, I posted a polite note to him about self-reverting here, as I didn't want him to stumble into a block either. However, North8000 hasn't made any further edits today since that last edit, so in all likelihood he may have left his keyboard after his last edit and had no chance of seeing it, hence no chance to self-revert. Academic as far as I'm concerned, as I had no intention of pursuing a block and only got involved here when I saw Collect's ANI posting. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Saedon just about sums up my opinion of it and yeah in retrospect it wasn't the best idea to violate the IRR even if it was with regards to someone else. Also for future reference to Collect and AzureCitizen, AN/I is generally used for vandalism while 3RR is for edit conflicts like these, it's not a big deal but it's good to keep in mind. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The 1RR notice page specifically states to come here. So much for your "interpretation" of process -- when a specific process is called for, that is the process I use. Cheers -- and I still find your refusal to self-revert when given a very polite note to be the problem here. --Collect

Collect, the Template doesn't "specifically state to come here", it just says that you can (but not that you must) - something to consider when we speak of interpretation of process. Looking at the timing of your contribs (your conversation with CartoonDiablo about reporting him if he didn't revert, followed by your ANI post), it's also apparent you didn't spend a lot of time considering whether or not this ANI post was really necessary. Lastly, please consider that you ignored WP:BRD when you joined the fray between North8000, Ian.thomson, and CartoonDiablo. Many editors find that sort of thing discourteous on contentious articles that have 1RR restrictions, thus your polite demand to CartoonDiablo that he self-revert was unlikely to be well received. Maybe it would have been better to just go straight to the Talk Page and start working out the issue instead of trying to have him blocked? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the place it says to use. Yes -- I could have ignored the absolute refusal to self-revert -- heck I could ignore every infraction, I suppose. But when a report is made, it is rational to fgo to eht place the notice says to go to. I did not post here until after CD made clear his position what he would not only not revert, but that he would defend what he had done as the only clear 2RR person on the page (North's first edit is not a "revert" per Wikipedia usage). And I absolutely did use the article talk page so much for that absurd aside. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the place it says you can use; restraint can be a virtue. Also, you absolutely did use the Talk Page, after you reverted, right? Revert diff, Talk diff. You have to keep the sequence of events in mind when considering what WP:BRD means in this context and how you approached the situation. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not violate 1RR, I only reverted once. The one note that raised this question made the error of considering an edit to material added 1 3/4 years ago (November 2010) to be a "revert" of that addition. By that standard, ANY removal from any article would mistakenly be called a "revert" which is not correct. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

^talk

03:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that every instance of removal of any material, even the oldest item in Wikipedia is a "revert" for the purposes of 1RR ? ! That's unimaginable. And doubling up on that, we're talking 1RR not 3RR. Frankly, I think that I was being used to obscure the report here which involves someone who did two reverts within hours both on the same hours-old edit by trying to say that my first edit, the first one on 2-year old material was a "revert". How would anybody even know that it came about by some method in ancient history which the current edit would be considered a "revert" of vs. going in some way where it wouldn't? This isn't a report on me but if someone is trying to raise the question about me this would certainly need a broader discussion on this which is only a side-topic on this current one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The wording of the policy seems pretty clear and mentions nothing about a time period. If you are going to assert that removing material isn't a revert if it happens after a certain time period you need to be able to point to a policy that says that, otherwise you're just stating your opinion on what the policy should say. Additionally, it appears to me to be in line with

^talk

04:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

North8000, I'm sympathetic to your rationale, and don't think you should be blocked here either. Since the 3RR rule doesn't make exceptions for time frames, however, it's probably better to err on the side of caution on hotly contested articles. The Tea Party Movement article sees a lot of edit warring and continues to be on 1RR restriction for 1 and 3/4 years now, during which time you've made many edits and comments. We also both know that for the past few weeks, removal of content has been especially contentious. If you make an edit on a 1RR article, and the edit quickly gets reverted, it's more appropriate to follow WP:BRD instead of promptly reverting it back to the way you just changed it, touching off a mini-edit war today with those three sentences flip-flopping back and forth six times. Just something to think about going forward from here. Peace, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: It is not infrequent to see an editor under "0RR" -- the definitin being used by some would mean the poor editor could never emend any articles at all, ever. The customary usage is that it means undoing an edit from the recent past. Any other meaning is indefensible.

A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it

Does not posit that the bold edit is also a revert. In fact it appears to state that the bold edit is not a revert. Period. Collect (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had some significant content disputes with North8000, but even if he's technically in violation, I don't think a block is in order. He acted under the good faith belief that he wasn't violating 1RR, so punishingblocking him for not being a wikilawyer would be punitive. 08:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"...punishing him...would be punitive." Huh? 149.135.147.1 (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Point taken and I'm off to bed! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The interpretation promulgated by some (i.e. both claiming it it such for 3RR and then transferring it from 3RR to 1RR and 0RR) is very unusual, and that's putting it mildly. By that standard, 0RR would mean that an article could NEVER be edited, period. There is no exception for discussed or consensus edits because it is clear that it is not intended for the first edit on ancient material to be considered a "revert". Again, I think that this side discussion where it takes a tortuous creative unusual syntheses of policy pieces to come up with this is a diversion on a report which is not on me and which is about a clear 1RR violation. 2 edits within hours, both reverting hours-old edits. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I just realized that that interpretation promulgated by some would mean that just editing four different parts of ANY article in one day would constitute a 3RR violation. That is preposterous. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's incorrect. You are assuming all edits are reverts. They are not. For example, if this page was under 0RR, my edit posting this comment would not be a revert. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant 4 edits that involved modifying or removing existing material would be considered a 3RR violaiton under 3RR. That is clearly not what it is about. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It may sound preposterous but I have had that exact interpretation levelled at me before while editing a page. I have also had a wide ranging thread on Wikiquette where basically some users were backing up that position. That discussion can be found here. Sport and politics (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing or altering content is a revert. Tiderolls 12:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that the wording should be clarified to prevent that mis-interpretation. But the intent is already clear. Simply editing ancient material is not intended to be considered "revert". Again such an interpretation would lead to preposterous situations. Under that interpretation 0RR would forbid ALL edits to existing material, and 3RR would prohibit 4 edits on one day to even ancient existing material. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How is my statement a mis-interpretation? That is what the policy states. Tiderolls 13:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think North8000 missed the "within 24 hours (more or less - don't game the system)" part of the 0/1/3/9001RR rules. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how 24 hours even comes into play on this. The implausible interpretation (counting the first change to ancient material as a "revert") aside, I only made one revert on it. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The question is whether an edit of something which was there a long time counts here as a "revert" - no one asserts that North removed material which had been there a short time. And AFAICT, the "first edit" does not count as a "revert" under normal meanings - ese a person who is on a 0RR restriction is enjoined from ever editing at all <g> which would be absurd. The only person who expressly refused to abide by the 1RR is, alas, CartoonDablo, who would not have been reported had he not made a rather odd post on my UT page saying that he thought he did nothing amiss. The claims that others were "edit warring" is absurd - the extensive discussion on the article talk page belies that excuse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

He wouldn't have been reported had he not said what he said? I thought you told him that if he didn't self-revert, it would be reported. AzureCitizen (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Tide rolls, I meant contrary to the obvious intent and to the way the Wikipedia works. (in good faith in your case) A clarification in the wording is obviously needed. E.G. 4 edits to ancient material in one day is not a 3RR violation, and 0RR obviously does not mean that existing material is uneditable. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

0RR means exactly that; and 4 edits can very easily be construed as a 3RR violation. I can see where the 4 reverts could be explained, but it had better be a very good explanation. Tiderolls 13:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh? That is completely contrary to how Wikipedia operates. What you just said is the 0RR means that (even ancient) existing material is absolutely uneditable, and that 4 edits to existing ancient material on an article constitutes a 3RR violation which might be given a pass! North8000 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, edit wars are completely contrary to how Wikipedia operates and the edit restrictions are used to divert editors to the talk page. Tiderolls 14:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are changing the subject, but on the new topic are saying something I agree with. :-) Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

0RR almost always, and 1RR frequently, define "revert" differently than 3RR. 0RR almost always says that you cannot revert to restore your own edit, and 1RR almost always applies only to reverts of the same material, and frequently applies only if the the first revert is that of a recent change to the article. I haven't checked the specific edits here, and I would be considered "involved" even if I had. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I realize this argument supports what I think should be in the article. Sorry about that, but the reasoning makes sense to me, anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What is revert, again?

I see no real progress on defining this in two years or more. The standard definition is that a revert is whatever the (non-)blocking admin decides it is. That's how Wikipedia always worked. Check the archives of 3RR, going at least two years back on this issue. And I admit to sometimes reading this page for the lulz nowadays. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The overall report was on someone who clearly violated 1RR. They did two reverts. I did ONE. The "creative" work regarding myself (going back ~2 years to find and list when the material was originally put in, calling the first edit on ancient material a "revert", an interpretation that would lead to chaos as described in detail above) derailed/diverted the conversation, hopefully unintentionally. North8000 (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you check the times on the posts and edits North8000, you'll see that my note to you about 2RR was a couple hours before the next 2RR, lest you think this was all some sort of stunt. I gather that by the way things played out, you wish that the conversation here had been solely about a potential block for CartoonDiablo, but when an editor brings an EW complaint to WP:ANI, everyone who is involved comes under scrutiny for their role in facilitating the EW. I hope you can see that, and I hope you have also reflected on your own actions as well. If you remove three sentences from a contested article on 1RR restriction, and someone reverts you, is reverting them again yourself really such a good idea? etc. In any event, I'm glad that nobody was blocked and people went back to discussing it on the Talk Page. Also, I agree with Tijfo098's comment above as well, this is an issue that would be useful to settle. Should a better standardized definition of revert be adopted in the

WP:3RR rules? Should there be a time limit specified for 3RR? Should there be separate subsections added to include rules for 1RR and 0RR as well, if there are key differences about timing that should be specified? It makes all our jobs here easier when the lines spelled out in bright line rules are as bright and clear as they can possibly be in every conceivable scenario, and this scenario has obviously come up plenty of times before. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk

) 14:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Very busy today, just a quick note. I don't understand your chronology note; I only reverted ONCE on that content. Not once in some time period, just once ever. I didn't have ANY wishes for this report, I didn't even know it existed. And, to be honest, my first guess is that somebody came up with the creative interpretation to try to involve me to cloud the issue on the actual clear-cut 1RR violator. I'm not too happy about that. If it was you, I'll note that my "first guess" is nothing more than that and I'd be happy to forget it and move on with zero hard feelings. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

178.61.14.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked several times in the past for incompetent and disruptive editing. The account has recently resumed the behaviour, including removing content from articles without explanation, removing copyvio tags, and removing maintenance templates. The user has persisted in this behaviour despite recent final warnings. Judging from the behaviour and the articles being edited, it's clearly the same person as before. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This IP has been blocked several times. The WHOIS report specifies that it's registered to a specific person, not to a company or educational institution. Electric Catfish 13:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked for 6 months. The last block was for 6 months in February, so it seems unlikely the user intends constructive editing.

WP:AIV might have been quicker. Dlohcierekim

14:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's vandalism. The user appears to have a genuine interest in improving the articles. Unfortunately, his idea of improvement isn't very sound, nor is it executed particularly well. This is lack of competence and an unwillingness to play by the rules, not an intent to disrupt for disruption's sake. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)