Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Northern Ireland / Northern Irish

The standard denonym of someone from Northern Ireland is 'Northern Irish'; it quite clearly says so on that country's article. However, Vintagekits (talk · contribs) insists on reverting my edits on Shea Campbell to say 'from Northern Ireland' as opposed to the correct 'Northern Irish' - can we have some neutral input please? Regards, GiantSnowman 11:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The ignorance of this is at this stage becoming predictable. 'Northern Irish' is not standard denonym of someone from Northern Ireland - it is a politically loaded POV term that should be avoided - multiple discussion back this up.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence to support 'Northern Irish'. Not POV, fact. GiantSnowman 11:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If your arguement is correct Vintagekits, then we wouldn't be able to use English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, British, Spanish, Turkish... Eddie6705 (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Irish is a subjective identity, and would need to be properly referenced. It's like saying he's British or Irish. Please see the recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board#British_or_English?. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is also down the hall, second on the left. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, anybody from Northern Ireland is 'British'. Having said that, using 'Northern Irish' is a powdered keg. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean a powder keg? Maybe to some, but there are good ways and bad ways to resolve these matters. I just came by to point out this (recent AN/I thread where we failed to reach consensus for a ban "The only reason Vk was allowed back from his numerous indefinite blocks was because of his reputation as an excellent content contributer, which was seen by some as sufficiently valuable to counter the persistent incivility, abuse, personal attacks, threats, sockpuppeteering, and edit warring. If that content contribution is no longer occurring, and all we are left with is the personal attacks, confrontational attitude and edit warring, how exactly is this helping the project?") and this for which he is currently blocked for 1 week. Worth continuing to keep an eye on Vintagekits I think. --John (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

VK has a long record of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT type behaviour in regards to any and all opposition to his view of what 'Northern Irish' means. MickMacNee (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion is ridiculous. "Northern Irish" is a perfectly acceptable term used by people all over the world. The only people who seem to have a problem with it are the Republicanists in Northern Ireland, and there is no doubt in my mind that User:Vintagekits is one of those people. This petty argument over a single word is utterly pointless and serves only to incite disruptive behaviour amongst a particular group of people. – PeeJay 17:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there really so few Wikipedian's aware of the incendiary effect of such loaded terms as calling all the residents Irish in one degree or another and not British? You need look no further than here:[1] "A 1999 survey showed that 51% of Protestants felt "Not at all Irish" and 41% only "weakly Irish" where 77% of Catholics polled said they felt "strongly Irish"." Calling a Campbell that played for Linfield, Armagh and Ballymena an Irishman would have done you no favors when I was in Belfast.

This is a content dispute, one in which a distinct political battle is being played out. And it's ugly, you either support a British peoples right to self-identify with the state - or you choose, as here, to forcibly label a people against their will. - 99.142.5.86 (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether the people of Northern Ireland feel particularly Irish or not is pretty irrelevant here. Demonyms refer to a person's nationality, not their ethnicity. In this case, I don't actually see the difference between referring to someone as "Northern Irish" and saying that they are "from Northern Ireland". – PeeJay 09:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The very contentiousness of the issue and the sectarian response above in this section dramatically underscore how loaded a term it is. Much of the world has quite similar points of political hyper-sensitivity. Its bias as an exceptionally loaded POV term is self-evident. We either recognize that - or we take sides. It's a big deal and astonishingly complex - we even record it as notable[2], "Therefore, it should not be assumed that everyone in Northern Ireland considers themselves to be "Irish", as is often mistakenly assumed by outsiders." 99.142.5.86 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would avoid the term "Northern Irish". People born in NE are citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not of NE, although the Republic of Ireland long refused to recognize the partition of the island. Most residents of NE do not consider themselves ethnically Irish. Notice that the name Campbell is a Scottish name. BTW the term Ulster (except when referring to the 9 county province) should also be avoided. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying we can't refer to people from Northern Ireland as "Northern Irish" because that term contains the word "Irish"? That is a completely ludicrous statement, and is a corollary to saying that we shouldn't refer to people from South Korea as "Korean" because they don't want to be associated with North Korea. "Northern Irish" simply means that the person is from Northern Ireland. If you see any implications of ethnicity there, that's only because you want to see them. Take off your rose-tinted spectacles and see the words for what they really mean. – PeeJay 02:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That's just not the way it is, no matter how easy your rhetorical trap makes it appear. -99.142.5.86 (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Northern Irish" is a demonym, not a nationality, although some people seem to confuse these two concepts. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We should respect the names that people call themselves. We do not call Canadians Americans although they inhabit the American continent and we do not call Israelis Palestinians although they live in Palestine. BTW the two Korean countries are not called N. Korea and S. Korea. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) this is a pretty good example of a person who does not identify himself as "British", and considers himself "Irish" as opposed to "Northern Irish". "Northern Irish" is a reasonable default term to label someone from the country, but I think the Good Friday Agreement should be taken into account:

"Recognition of the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose."

As a default, I don't see the issue with refering to people as Northern Irish. But that if there is evidence that they consider themselves "British" or "Irish", we should recognise this in line with the aforementioned quote, with a phrase such as an Irish footballer from Northern Ireland.^<citation> WFCforLife (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The default setting is "from Northern Ireland" unless the person themselves identify himself/herself as "British" or Irish. This does not mean however that we cite a third party making the description for them.--Domer48_'fenian' 08:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How did we let this ANI report develope into a content discussion? GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "Northern Irish". A group of editors has recently taken to trying to erase the term from Wikipedia. Mooretwin (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is, it is not neutral, from Northern Ireland is the only neutral term that can be used unless it is proved that the person identifies as such. BigDunc 21:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We have ample verifiable references as to it's divisiveness and political use - we even, as noted above, discuss it within article sections in the encyclopedia.99.142.8.221 (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

'from Northern Ireland' is not the default position, it is the POV position maintained by edit warring by two or three republican editors. Whenever it is discussed properly, such as here, there is at best a no consensus outcome. Even when it is discussed on the Ireland Wikiproject, it is no consensus, which gives the lie to the idea that it is the 'neutral' position. I find it very dubious that it is argued at the same time that a) Northern Irish is not a nationality, and then b) that we expect people to self-identify as 'Northern Irish'. Sourcing for self-identification is only relevant when Northern Irish people declare they are British or Irish in addition or in preference. Labelling them as 'non-persons' by default is not neutral, or anything respecting BLP. MickMacNee (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

@MickMacNee, So someone form Northern Ireland is a non person? BigDunc 18:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee is saying by just putting "From Northern Ireland" is treating them like a non person (thats how i understood it anyway). They are either British, Northern Irish, or Irish. Infact they can be all 3. Northern Irish should be the default, with just Irish or British being used based on reliable sources about how they describe themselves. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That is rubbish to use a provocative term should never be the default, so what you are saying is impose a term on all the people who identify as Irish unless we have a source that says they are Irish complete BS. We should always use the NPOV ...from Northern Ireland. BigDunc 18:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about imposing it on people who identify as Irish? 'From Northern Ireland' is not NPOV, it is just your POV, just like the opinion that it is 'provocative' to describe someone 'from Northern Ireland' as 'Northern Irish'. It carries as much weight as an argument for NPOV as suggesting the 9/11 hijackers were not 'terrorists'. I.e. none. MickMacNee (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this stuff covered by arbcom sanctions on The Troubles? It's clear to me that WP might get a weak consensus for a standard phrase, but it's like the never-ending wars over gas/petrol, or aluminum/aluminium. (But with the added fun of people shooting each other over it.) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's covered. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits blocked for 1 week

Vintagekits has been unjustly blocked here [3]. The very maximum length should have been 24 hours, and that is debatable considering the circumstance and context. 1 week is unjust and worrying, one wonders why? The reasons given for such a long length are untrue and grossly exagerated, so the block cannot hold. Giano (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With a minute of me posting sandstein, with whom I am in conflict declines the block - how much longer are we to have to put with this so called Admin? Giano (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I came across the unblock request while browsing CAT:RFU, and was not aware of this thread prior to declining the unblock request.  Sandstein  15:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course you did Sandstein, no doubt you are again completely susprised by the instantaneous support your decision has received as you delve innocently into political minefields. Giano (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

One week for Vintagekits sixth block seems lenient. Tan | 39 15:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tanthalus and with Sandstein. A more appropriate block length would have been indefinite. See also this section above. --John (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sixth block? I think this is more like 30! GiantSnowman 19:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block, I took that article off my watchlist this morning, when it was clear he was simply going to try and edit-war his way around the on-going discussions about the possible BLP issues. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Tanthalus, this user has had way too many chances. Perhaps next time it should be indef? Jeni ^(talk) 15:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That is generally the case with editors whose block log is several screens long.  Sandstein  15:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• How speedily you all arrive. It must be just like old times for Sandstein! Giano (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

How speedily Giano arrives. It must be just like old times... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't arrive speedily but I note that Bastun did. Kell supreeze as the French would say. Sarah777 (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Giano, I hope you don't feel that I am in any way biased against you or VintageKits, but it looks like a perfectly sound block to me. VK's block log is extensive, to put it mildly, and the three-revert rule is a very bright line that he was well aware of. His edit warring is pretty indefensible. I think it may be best to let this one go. HiDrNick! 17:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a fair block. 24 hours would have been fair, questionable, but fair. A week is suspect - does he have a long long history of 3R? No. One cannot sentance a man to 25 years for speeding because he has previous convictions are for shoplifting, which is what you are all advocating. Sandstein's presence here is very suspect, but then again, I suppose no one is surprised to find that while most editors are busy writing content Administrator Sandstein is monitering a page listing even more people for him to punish. I also find the speed of all the responses interesting - more intersting, in fact, than Administrator Sandstein who sets himself up for such things. Giano (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"One cannot sentance a man to 25 years for speeding because he has previous convictions are for shoplifting" You can on Wiki. There is little logic or proportionality from these admins. The support the arbitration committee has given to gangs of score settling cabals only encourages this kind of behavior. These admins are totally unwilling to try to alleviate disputes in a collegial and civil fashion. They are Wikicops run amok. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki. Equazcion (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like a decent block to me. I also don't want to have this thread turn into garden variety shit talking and whinging about admin abuse. We already know the opinions and positions of the usual suspects, it doesn't really help to remind us incessantly. Protonk (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  Good block. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a serious issue with civility on Wikipedia (and I'm not talking about calling someone an idiot). Abuse of tools and lengthy blocks of good faith contributors is very damaging. Did Sandstein engage in discussion with the editor before declining their unblock request? What efforts were made to resolve the issue amicably? Vintagekits thinks the terminology Northern Ireland is problematic and violated 3RR. Asking them to revert themself should have been the first step. There's also page protection and warnings. There are lots of tools that don't involve belligerence and abuse towards colleagues. Try treating your fellow editors with more respect instead of patting each other on the back your take-downs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just answer me this. Is there a way out of this where I can say "this doesn't look like an abuse of the tools, rather it looks like a decent block" and not be accused of colluding to support some admin? Is that possible? Protonk (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you were able to note that appropriate dispute resolution was tried first in a collegial and collaborative manner, appropriate warnings were given, and that Vintagekits was unresponsive or refused to self-revert, then you would be in a better position to justify a one week block for a 3RR violation. (post ec) I trust Tarc's trolling will be met with an appropriate response. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With CoM? Not a chance, no. This has be come another annoying habit; hopping around AN/I and making martyrs out of blocked users, esp if the block has come from or is supported by Sandstein. I really hope that this behavior is dealt with soon. Tarc (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not about Sandstein's lurking about looking for people to punish (though, I suppose, that cannot be ignored) this is about the old adage: "give a dog a bad name and hang him", it's a simple as that. And Oh my! Don't Wikipedia's Admins love to show their power and do that? If it flatters them, they will ignore even the most obvious. I thank God, I was never tempted to be an Admin. There is something seriously wrong with this project and its justice system. Giano (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I reported Vintagekits and support the Admin action, he was obsessed with his edit and also got a bit uncivil, I was suprised that such an experienced editor was attempting to make the edit, perhaps if he understands why he was blocked a reduction would be possible. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I can so understand where you are coming from [4]. It's just awful when people become obsessed isn't it? How dare you? Even comment - do you think we are all so stupid? Giano (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss my edits I suggest you do it on my talkpage Giano. You ask me, how dare I comment..I can comment like anyone else...I have commented in support of the Admin action and that is the issue here, isn't it? Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No we can do it here because YOU are the ne who reported VK for this "crime". Giano (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The three-revert rule does not apply to reverts of obvious vandalism, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. That is based on the "Definition of the three revert rule." --Domer48_'fenian' 20:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(response to Domer) There is no obvious revert of vandalism.

There is no obvious revert of biased unsourced information.

There is no obvious revert of poorly sourced controversial material.

What exception of 3RR do you believe applies here? Valenciano (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and the oppoint I am trying to make (poorly) in the link above [5] is that it seems quite OK for some to do (those who report VK for this "crime"), but not for VK himself. Just the usual rank hypocrisy, as usual endorsed by Administratir Sandstein. Giano (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits was blocked for edit-warring to insert multiple derogatory nicknames into the infobox of Audley Harrison. Per BLP policy, that cannot be considered an exception to 3RR by any means, even if those multiple derogatory nicknames are all sourced. Also, this has nothing whatsoever to do with his "Northern Irish" edits, despite that inference from this section's heading. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is my fault, I combined these threads thinking them related. –xeno^talk 20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it a big thing to put it vack where it was? It's biasing VK here. Giano (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all (done). Again, my apologies, I misinterpreted John's statement. –xeno^talk 20:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Easily done! Giano (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it now suggested that negative information on a BLP is prohibited? That we must only use positive information? That sounds like bias to me, and to remove correctly sourced information, either positive or negative is vandalism. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, Domer. Just because something is sourceable doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. For example, if you dug enough, you could probably find a newspaper clipping about my participation in the state Math Team, but it would hardly be appropriate to stick in here...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Here here Domer. I can here everybody reaching for their 'xyz is a terrorist' sources as we speak, given this new epiphany in understanding of policy. MickMacNee (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer, with respect you are wrong. Removing well sourced information is not vandalism. Simple. End of matter. It happens all the time to make articles clearer. Just because information is reliable and verifiable does not mean it must be included. I have many quality secondary sources that there is a tree in my garden (planning applications, third party images, secondary reports from councils etc.) Should we include this fact on Wikipedia? No. I don't dismiss your arguments but you need to be more dispassionate here about what value is created by adding facts to an article.

As to the block, which I believe is the point of this thread, Vintagekits is a problematic editor with a foul mouth. So am I. As a supporter of Giano, COM and Sandstein (yes - it is possible to be all three) I feel a reduction to this hideous "time served" concept may be viable. I regret that I suspect it is only a matter or time before VK meets the indef. block line, and I for one would prefer we at least get the benefit of his quality article input before that, somewhat inevitably, happens. Or maybe VK can prove me wrong in my gross asumptions of his future on WP? Pedro :  Chat  20:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• The simple long and short of this is that VK has been well and truly screwed for screwing up. He should not have 3Rd, but before anything could be done along came "Administrator Sandstein" adjusting his peaky cap, and upholding an overlong silly block to the echoes of delight from the well orchestrated heavenly chorus. In a nut shell that is it. Giano (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get a peaky cap... Tan | 39 21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Be glad, perhaps they only get made in certain sizes Giano (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think Vintagekits is one of the few for whom cooling off seems to work, at least for a while. 24 hours is not long enough for this. Indefinite blocking is not warranted at this time IMO but he is skating on thin ice. Giano is usually a good judge of quality of content writing so perhaps a mentor will come forward to help VK with his recurrent problems. To some above, baiting Giano is a really bad idea so please just don't. We're used to his ways and the best thing is to let the hyperbole wash over you. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yup. I had a look at this earlier this afternoon but decided I didn't really have the heart to enforce BLP on Audley Harrison, quite possibly the worst boxer ever to enter a ring. Objectively, however, a week is probably fair enough. Such things don't really belong in infoboxes. Moreschi (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In my view all info boxes are all horrible, but anyway all sorts of amazing things are allowed in info boxes. Giano (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A hat-trick of toxic personalities, all pleading for poor behaviour to be ignored. Delicious. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• • A mentor for Vintagekits? A splendid idea! I'm shocked that no-one's tried it ever before.. (for those of you are aware of the history, I apologize for the massive amount of sarcasm that's dripping from this post). From what I understand, another editor let VK know that he was going to help him in getting info to support him, and VK just charged in anyway. Which is, if you're aware of the whole thing, status quo. VK's first reaction to someone opposing him isn't to seek consensus or to get other eyes on it, it's to edit war. Maybe a 1 RR rule, or requiring him to seek 3O before getting in an edit war? SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits is good when he isn't heated up. But if you think mentoring would work for this editor, what is there to lose?--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, figured I would have to explain where the dripping sarcasm was from. Vintagekits had a mentor in the distant past (two years ago, now?). That poor soul was me. When I was a wet-behind-the-ears newbie admin. I fugred VK was getting a rough shake, and all he needed was someone to run interference for him, and smack him upside the head when he got out of line. That was 21 blocks ago. SirFozzie (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Something has to be done though. With all due respect for this editor, this is a never ending pattern that is doing more harm than good. Like I said, as long as this editor is out of the heat, there are no problems. But he needs to be pushed back into line far too often for comfort.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that we don't have consensus (yet) for an indef block, 1RR followed by 3O might be a valid last chance for this editor who says he has retired from content work and now just does all the stuff he gets blocked for, and is proud of his block log. Just that he has had so many last chances already. But sure, why not? --John (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It was I who blocked Vintagekits for edit-warring. I have read the comments above.

I based the duration on standard practice in responding to reports of edit-warring at WP:AN3 and upon the policies regarding blocking and edit-warring. Some people commenting have suggested that the block was too lenient; I would reply that a corrollary of assuming good faith is to err on the side of lenience. I have no opinion on whether, as some have suggested, Vintagekits ought to be indefinitely blocked and even had I any opinion it would be outside the scope of a run-of-the-mill edit-warring report to make such a block. Other editors have argued that the block was too harsh or was completely unjustified; this opinion I disagree with as not in keeping with either practice or policy. For that reason, I think their arguments would be better made at the relevant policy talk pages since a change in policy appears to be what they seek.

I have been trying to assist at the edit-warring noticeboard recently as it has been frequently backlogged since Dr Connolley ceased to be an administrator. I am not naive regarding the unpleasant consequences of responding to some of the reports that occur there but it would be helpful if more administrators could look in occassionally. CIreland (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

VK is unsurprisingly taking the advice of Giano QC and lawyering it up big style for his third unblock request, attacking Sandstein and claiming he did not edit war and he is not an edit warrior. If you were to suspend belief and pretend he has no other issues but edit warring, and were just concentrating on this 'I am not an edit warrior' claim, I simply scanned his last 500 contributions, which go back to 11 August, and found evidence of edit warring (using the proper definition, not the lawyer's one) on the following articles (reverse chronological order):

• Audley Harrison
• Shea Campbell
• Martin Rogan
• Joseph MacManus
• Matthew Macklin
• Derriaghy Cricket Club F.C. (and 9 other similar articles)

And if you do ingore that edit warring, in the same period alone by my reckoning he could have been blocked about 5 times for various other seriously tendentious behaviours, if admins were actually monitoring him properly. MickMacNee (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all MickMacNee, were I a learned QC, I would point out that in cicilised place QCs present evidence to a learned and wise judge. Here on Wikipedia counsell is shouted down and sentance handed out bu the ignorant mob. Giano (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd take mob-rule using the clarity of direct experience over special pleading to an uninformed judge anyday. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think myself or one of the other editors at the Audley Harrison discussion, should've requested page-protection there. That way 'nobody' would've been blocked. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. Clear violation of 3RR, with the number of previous blocks about the length of my cell-phone bill. Would he have supported "only" a 24 hour block for someone editing against him with such a history? WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks (a policy, btw) clearly states that penalties increase over time, not just stay lenient for the 6th, 7th, 8th, etc. times. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

While I note that 3RR is not an entitlement, this editor did not make 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. Edit warring, yes, 3RR violation, no. –xeno^talk 15:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

1 maybe 2 3 4. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"maybe 2" seems to be an unrelated edit. I was basing my comment off the actual EW report which stretches beyond the 24 hour window. However, not to ruleslawyer, there was edit warring, but it just wasn't over 3RR. Just wanted to point that out. –xeno^talk 15:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is just another example of Wikipedia's law-ignorant mob rule mentality. "If he has erred in one way, he must be punished for another" The mob wants blood so the mob is given it regardles of of any laws, justice or procedure. A project run in this way has to ultimately fail - the way justice is dispensed here is ignorant, without format, account of precedent and standards. In short, it's a beauty and personality contest. I think one only has to look at the Moreschi/Ottava Rima fiasco down below to see that. Giano (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So Vin did not violate 3RR but is still blocked, and not one Admin has seen fit to unblock them. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no consensus to unblock him; there is a consensus that the block was just. Don't edit war or you get escalating blocks, is the message to take away from this. 3RR is not an entitlement. --John (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that someone would defend all of this. Today, I have also seen people defending an editor that celebrated someone's death. Joe Chill (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody who understood Wikipedia's mission could defend an editor who boasts about his block log. Doing so is a clear statement of intent to further disrupt. I see he has blanked his user talk after unsuccessfully requesting unblock and "retired" again. We shall see. --John (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What amazes me, with this particular editor, is that he has been blocked perhaps 30 times now, over a period of years, by at least 19 different administrators. The blocks have been for transgressions that span the entire range of antisocial, disruptive behavior: sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, personal attacks, personal threats, off-wiki abuse, edit warring, pointy disruption, BLP.... Yet every single time a campaign is launched to attack the blocking admin with claims of bias or conspiracy.

Now perhaps some of these blocks were without merit, and perhaps some of the blocking admins had an axe to grind, but all 19, all of the time? Logic dictates that the common denominator is the issue, and the common denominator is VK, not the admins. Moreover as Mick McNamee rightly points out, the "poor Vk is being victimized" argument doesn't hold up. For every time his is blocked, one can find multiple examples of blockable behaviour that is ignored, simply because it isn't worth the mud slinging that will follow from the defense team.

The usual justification trotted out for his continuing participation is that he is an expert contributor on boxing articles, yet this time we are seeing a very questionable interpretation of BLP and our policies on censorship to justify adding insulting nicknames to a boxer, then edit warring over it. So this the kind of expert editing to boxing articles we are keeping him here for? Rockpocket 18:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Rock and John; neither of you appear to understand the issue of systematic bias on Wiki despite my best efforts to explain it in single-syllable words. You (plural) never fail to disappoint. But the fact that you are both totally predictable doesn't mean you are consistent, or right. That you are lining up with such as Mick McNamee should give you pause, but self awareness appears to be an insight neither of you have. WP:CIVIL allied to the Admin "hanging judge" system of policing is a goon's charter and anyone relying on a "block log" for their decisions isn't fit to be an Admin. Nor is anyone defending or excusing such an Admin. Sarah777 (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Given he has been given more second chances and returned from more indefinite blocks than any other editor, the suggestion that there is some bias against him is laughable. Every single other editor who has edited the way he has is blocked indefinitely, yet he is still here. But then again, every other editor does not have the loyal defense team that Vk does. Seems to me that you should be looking a little closer to home for evidence of systemic bias.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but am not and have not used a block log to make a decision on any given transgression. However, its entirely appropriate to use one's knowledge of a lengthy record of transgression to argue that there is a pattern of disruption that is not being resolved by short blocks. Rather than throw mud at me and John (neither whom have had anything to do with this block and thus who's self-awareness, of lack thereof, is entirely irrelevant) why don't you address the key issue here. Being aware of out polices, I expect (hope) you are not suggesting you support the actions of Vk in this instance. Assuming you don't, how do YOU suggest we stop it continuing? Because, guess what, insulting me will not solve the problem here. Rockpocket 23:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

And I might mirror the Bastun remark to Giano and ask why you both keep turning up here to attack an Irish editor when so many real problems within the orbit of both your Wiki-worlds get no response at all? Sarah777 (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the same reason you felt the need to turn up here to attack us. Rockpocket 23:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, your posts here sadden me. That you see this as my "attack[ing] an Irish editor" says an awful lot more about you than it does about me. I truly could not care less whether Vk is Irish, Lithuanian, Puerto Rican or Scottish like me. His behavior up to now does not give me any hope that he can reform, so I think it would be better if he was removed from the project. Anybody who supports edit-warring to add derogatory nicknames to an article on a living person, as you are implicitly doing with your comments above which criticize me and Rock but say nothing about Vk's behavior, has no place on this project. Anybody who sees every single problem in narrowly nationalistic terms as you appear to be doing, has no place on the project. Think about it. --John (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeking clarification: Will Vk's block expire after 1-week, even though he's retired? GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mick. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits unblock request

Could someone have a look at this, please? It's been outstanding for a long time now. I'd do it myself, but my inclination is to unblock and I've been involved with VK before, so I can't really do it. Black Kite 10:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I was just doing it when VK blanked the page and put up a retired notice. For the record I would have declined it giving the reason: The default for disputed material is to exclude it until there is demonstrable consensus for inclusion, whether it is sourced or not (it might, for example, be decided that it violates WP:UNDUE). The WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include material, to achieve consensus for inclusion. As such, your unblock request does not address the problem and gives no kind of assurance that you understand the problem and will not repeat it. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

user informed of this discussion, he is still active on wikipedia. Ecoman24 (talk page) 18:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I had asked Vintagekits a question (seeing as how there was opposition to unblocking, and also support for blocking indefinitely) with an eye to lifting the block , but they did not respond. –xeno^talk 18:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that two pages on a block log from January 2007 till now is worth the block (maybe even indefinite). Joe Chill (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes, write the laws as we go along - never mind what the transgression, but he has a long block list so ban him for ever - don't bother to look at each "crime" individually - some of you people are totally amazing. I suppose where you all come from, five convictions for speeding and you can be sent to the electric chair for murder. Giano (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you such a dick in real life? No way that your comments are civil. Joe Chill (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• What an interesting choice of words. Twice in one day [6]. Good job I'm not a suspicious type of person - who ever it is you are - I'd be more careful in you choice of words if I were you. Giano (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You should choose your words carefully. Do you really expect anyone to believe that you were being civil? Also, that talk page comment isn't mine! Joe Chill (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll quote another editor, "The blocks have been for transgressions that span the entire range of antisocial, disruptive behavior: sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, personal attacks, personal threats, off-wiki abuse, edit warring, pointy disruption, BLP." Don't you think that he would have learned by now? Joe Chill (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to contemplate indefinite block for his small crimes. Vintagekits has been offered two olive branches, one admin said if he would remove the retired template then he would look at his unblocking request (why unblock when a retired template is at the top of the page?) Vintagekits resisted this and said he would rather sit the block out, Giano removed it, but that was not the point, also User Zeno has offered him a 1RR condition and if he accepted then unblocking, to this offer Vintagekits has not even responded. He has been offered avenues of opportunity, he could have easily been unblocked by now. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What are small crimes? Why can stuff like that get people blocked for a long time and not others? Joe Chill (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me, from you posts over the last 20 minutes (here and elsewhere) Joe Chil, that you have turned up here, with completely unconnected issues and proplems of your own that you feel are unresolved. Attacking me, VK or indeed anyone else is unlikely to resolve them. You clearly have a grudge against me, yet I have until 30 minutes ago never heard of you - I suggest you sort yourself before attempting to sort others. Giano (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I called you a dick. All of your comments here were uncivil and you said that I posted an uncivil comment on your talk page when I didn't (it seems like you were calling me a sockpuppet). I don't need to know an editor for a long time. I just need to see the type of comments that they make. You're the only one that I attacked. My comments about Vintagekits are similar to the other comments. Do you think that you are being civil? Joe Chill (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting. Same with this and this. Joe Chill (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It has obviously escaped your notice, but this thread is not about me, but VK. You clearly have some aother agenda, and quite what the link to Sandstein is supposed to prove, one can only speculate.As usual when anyone othet than the chosen few are "uncivil", Administator Sandstein is concspicuous by his absence. Giano (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an agenda. The link to the ANI added on to your blocks from 2006 till September 2009 show what I mean. I really don't take you seriously when you have been blocked so many times and you're attacking me (with zero blocks) and other editors that disagree with you since 2006. Joe Chill (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• No one has attacked you. No one is bothered about you. I shall not be responding to you. Giano (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"I suppose where you all come from, five convictions for speeding and you can be sent to the electric chair for murder." was towards me and others. If that was it, I wouldn't even bother. But I have seen more than that from you. You ignored "and other editors that disagree with you since 2006." Joe Chill (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact he has ignored those two olive branches shows what type of editor he is, and what type of editing he is likely to return to. For one, I'd support an indef of this user, the kind of incivilities that come out of his mouth are not welcome on WP. Jeni ^(talk) 23:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying: "Damn the content of the encyclopedia, my sensibilities are more important." That he has not (so far) picked up the proferred "olive branches" (for that read conditions) do indeed show the "type of editor he is" - one with some principles. A weeks block for 3R was ridiculous, and the fact that no Admin has had the guts to lift it, says more about Wikipedia's Admins than it does about VK. Giano (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There are over 1,000 admins from all walks of life who could lift it if they wanted, so I think it says more about you to be honest. And yes, I am quite sure you are going to take that as a compliment. MickMacNee (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In view of Vintagekits' most recent response [7] and a lack of willingness to lift what is only a 1 week block (WP:DEADLINE), this issue seems to be moot. Rd232 ^talk 08:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The retired template in this case is utterly meaningless. He was retired for most of the period of edit warring and other behaviour detailed above. When his block runs it course there is no reason to think he won't be back. The entire template should just be deleted to be honest, if its proper use cannot be enforced on the project. Interesting to note that Giano can freely remove it from VK's page, yet an editor was blocked for adding it to his page when he declared he had 'retired'. MickMacNee (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Other than to also note that this comment, as with several on this and related threads, is profoundly unhelpful, I will explain. VK and Giano are well disposed toward each other, and Giano's actions are in good faith and quite possibly with VK's approval - while the incident regarding Giano's page was done without Giano's permission and quite possibly in a bad faith attempt to get the reaction it did. Furthermore, the use of the template itself does not fall under any policy - it is only a courtesy notice which sometimes do not reflect the situation. Perhaps you should make a representation to Jimbo Wales that persons misusing such templates should be sanctioned, although I should note that Jimbo had a wikibreak notice on his talkpage until quite recently even after he had become active again. I am sure that such a fair minded and undiscriminating person as yourself will not allow such minor points to distract you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This entire thread, and his talk page, is prima facie evidence that pointing out that VK does not use the template in the way it is widely understood, is helpful to others, because they quite obviously didn't know. This is a notice board after all. Yes, sadly because the way this place works, the template is next to meaningless, a fact anybody with any real wikitime eventually realises, but you won't find that explained for anybody who does't know that (or has not found that out the hard way). And no, it is unlikely Giano had permission to remove it, given VK's previous comments to others pointing out the exact same thing he did, and the fact he replaced it immediately anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And I hadn't even noticed this either. MickMacNee (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the "retired tag" because it was being used by others as a silly excuse to not unblock him. I also knew that he would not see me removing it as an attack or an anoyance, he may not have liked it, but he would have known I was doing it with the best of intentions. He eventually replaced it, when his justifiable frustration with the project became too much for him to endure. I very much hope he will be back, obviously most of you here do not. So yet another editor bites the dust for failing to conform to a culture of manners which he finds alien. Whatever, it's a pity. Anyway You seem concerned Mick - has he complained about me or is this just another tangeant on which for you to complain? Giano (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "retired" tag was being used by Vintagekits as a euphemism for "You can't fire me! I quit!" And since he's evidently so intent on retiring, why don't we just remove his option of returning by giving him an indef block? After 30 blocks by 19 different admins, the guy has had more lives than three cats put together! – PeeJay 23:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, and to your final point, the issue is not resolved because an excessively long block still stands. The fact the editor says he has retired does not resolve an injustice, or are you suggesting it does? Giano (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a court of appeal. ANI's purpose is not to seek justice, but to ensure the project proceeds without disruption. A retired editor, whether blocked or unblocked, will neither help nor hinder the project, so our work is done (until Vk returns from yet another kneejerk "retirement", and we all reconvene here to dispute unfair block #31. See you then, Giano) Rockpocket 00:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, Rockpocket, the purpose of this page is to assist the aims of the project, and ensure it proceeds fairly. What we are seeing is one editor, Vintagekits, victimised and bullied with excessively long blocks for comparitively minor crimes born out of frustration. People here are always quick to condemn him never so quick to help him. Giano (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So, Giano, what would you say was a "fair" block for edit-warring to restore derogatory nicknames on an article on a living person? --John (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say so long as something is well sourced and accurate (which it was) - no block at all. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of fact - not a world of "lovely lovely la la land." However, he was blocked for 3R, not the material - so at the most 24 hours. Giano (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Twenty-four hours is a typical block for a first offense. Per WP:3RR: In cases where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is a common duration for a routine first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility when doing so. This seems to be VK's seventh or eighth block for edit warring (not counting the even more numerous blocks for incivility). A one week block is a lenient remedy.   Will Beback  talk  08:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me, that certain Admins are now digging deeper and deeper to find reasons to keep him blocked. The original blocking reason was wrong, so it's now a desperate scramble to find other reasons to back it up. Giano (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about a 1-week block of a frequently-blocked user who has declared himself retired. Go and do something useful. Rd232 ^talk 12:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Vk has retired. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Has he? that retired notice has been there for months and I can't see where he makes such a statement after his block. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

An assumption, sorry folks. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I took this edit by VK to his talk page on 10 October to be a (re)declaration of retirement. However it is true that the user page RETIRED notice seems to have been there a while. Rd232 ^talk 09:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Vin did not violate the 3RR rule, and should not have been blocked. End of story. Now deal with this and not be scrapping around for alternative reasons. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As a quick look at his block log would reveal, he was blocked for edit warring rather than 3RR. Do please feel free to comment further once you have researched what it is we are talking about. --John (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if Domer doesn't know the difference (hard to believe to be honest), VK certainly does - in his own unblock request, he stated "... I accept that I was edit warring and problably deserved a block ...". Domer doesn't need to read up about edit warring, he needs to study the blocking policy and our essay on wikilawyering. Or failing that he should just read this entire thread a few more times, accepting that by now over a hundered admins must have read it and not once come to the same conclusions he has. 'End of story.' MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

2C-B-FLY - someone please watch

According to a source on a forum [8] the alleged proprietor of a company thought to be involved in the distribution of this drug is supposed to have died from incautiously sampling his own wares from a batch which is postulated to be contaminated. Two IPa and User:Cegli have attempted to add the info to the top of the article, on the possibly good faith grounds that they are issuing a public health warning. They are arguing on my talk page that by reverting them I am somehow responsible for the death of anyone who might die from consuming an overdose of the product from the alleged faulty batch.

I'm going to bed. Could someone keep an eye on the article.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Watchlisted. Crafty (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reports of at least two deaths appear to be genuine despite having not yet been picked up by mainstream media sources (the Danish dead guys family and friends have set up a facebook memorial site for God's sake) so I added a brief note in the "Dangers" section. Agree a "Warning" section right after the lede is hardly appropriate though! Meodipt (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And not surprisingly I have been reverted already. I would cite cases such as this and this as precedent that WP:IAR can and has been in the past applied in the public interest to try and protect people from death under specific unusual circumstances. Certainly there are differences on which the cases can be distinguished, as in the cases of the kidnapped journalists there was a definite risk to an identified individual, whereas here we have a risk to an undefined class of individuals of unknowable size, but similar principles apply. It appears that a contaminated batch of 2CB-Fly containing an impurity which may be lethal at milligram levels, has already been sold to many people around the world before the "bad batch" was discovered due to the death of the person selling it. Obviously this has not yet been reported by reliable sources but when it does, those reliable sources will be reporting deaths that might have been prevented merely by allowing wikipedia's flexible rules to be bent temporarily. Can we get some consensus on this? Meodipt (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, for my money the info should only be added if reliable sources pick it up. How do we know the source in the forum isn't trying to damage the company's reputation? Protonk (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Meodip, you reverted back at a few minutes later, giving the very poor explanation "pending discussion"; pending discussion would be a reason to have the material deleted pending sourcing. My own view is the same as Protonk's. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

By pending discussion I just meant I expected it would be discussed here and consensus reached. The bluelight forum on the deaths is only reporting what is being said at a Danish drug forum psychedelia.dk which is a members-only Danish language forum, as many people are members on both sites. Reading it with google translate is slightly hard going but it appears a lot of people knew the guy personally and he is definitely dead after ingesting what was meant to be 2CB-FLY. There may be reliable sources already linked off there but they would be in Danish I suppose, foreign language newspapers were deemed good enough sources when the first deaths from mephedrone and bromodragonfly cropped up a while back though, as they were also in Scandinavia. It was the boss of the RC company who died so discrediting the company seems unlikely! Meodipt (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this content for lack of sourcing (saw the note, then came here). Just because something is mentioned on a danish drug users forum doesn't mean it should be here until picked up by sources. (I'd be happy with one in Danish, but google didn't turn up anything that mentioned the drug). And besides Wikipedia is neither a how-to guide, or place for medical advice. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Google didn't pick up anything? Look at this 2cbfly death search. Out of the top 7 results, 6 mention it, and one doesn't (that'd be Wikipedia, folks).

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 05:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PS Wikipedia may indeed be be neither a how-to nor a place for medical advice, but given IAR (and basic human pragmatics), maybe we should try and come up with a way to make it fit, at least for the time being. Maybe something similar to "On October 07, 2009, many internet forums suddenly began discussing reports of the death of a Danish distributor and purchasers of his products which were labeled as 2-cb-fly."^{Reffed with a bunch of message boards.} And yes, policy says "Primary sources may be used to make descriptive claims."

Relax, no one is going to be sitting at home thinking "now just before I pop these pills, I'll drop in to Wikipedia to see if the pills might kill me". If such a person finds the rumor online somewhere, they have been alerted, and the fact that it is not in Wikipedia (nor any reliable source) will not influence them. If in a day or two it turns out that there is some basis for the excitement in an Internet forum, we will again have not been a news outlet; so be it. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

@Peace and Passion: the top hits are not reliable sources as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why I say word it as such. I clearly realize what reliable sources are, I don't need to be linked there; why'd you think I suggested it be phrased in such an epistemologically-sound way as "On October 07, 2009, many internet forums suddenly began discussing reports of the death of a Danish distributor and purchasers of his products which were labeled as 2-cb-fly." I was just trying to be realistic and look on the situation in a healthy way. I fully well realized it wasn't fully in line with policy, that's why I phrased it the way I did and mentioned IAR. Nicely, Meodipt quoted the de facto standard of quashing something if it was believed to help someone, but it's now clear that such a "quashing" needs to be initiated by a newspaper editor and Jimbo at the upper levels of Wikipeida, not by us "regular" editors who are supposed to be the "flesh-and-blood" of Wikipedia.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 21:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We do not fix the problem of lack of reliable sources by saying "according to unreliable sources, X". The way we deal with stuff not covered in reliable sources is by removing it. That's a core value of the project. End of, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well actually if you look here page views for the 2CB-FLY page have gone up considerably since the guys death on the 7th, so it seems that quite a lot of people may be looking to wikipedia for information about this incident, perhaps precisely because it has not yet been mentioned in the mainstream media. But as I said I came here for consensus and that is clearly that this information should not be added until a suitable source is found, so I guess we will have to wait until some Danish newspaper picks up the story. Meodipt (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice sleuthing, Meodipt :) Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument that IAR should allow the publication of unsourcable (as far as reliable sources go) rumors is actually self defeating. In the examples given where reports of the kidnapping of journalists was concealed for their own safety, the suggestion of potential harm was based on reliable, if somewhat private, information. And the purpose was the opposite - to remove, not add, mostly unverifiable information. The reason we have rules like verifiability and reliable sources is that, as one of those pages mentions, anyone can go on the internet and make a claim. Wikipedia is not in the business of investigating rumors, and it would tarnish the reputation of the Encyclopedia to place warnings on the page of every chemical ever claimed by anyone to have caused a death. Alarmist email chains have achieved great followings in the past, so the fact that lots of people on the internet are pushing this is irrelevant. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, now I'm really interested in what happened with this "kidnapping of journalists" story on Wikipeida, as I've never come across it, though it sounds significant. Could anyone point me to a link which discusses what happened, if one exists? I'd be curious to read it!

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PS, I'm giving up on this one as the experienced consensus seems to say otherwise; but, Someguy, just a friendly reminder to be careful brandying blatant strawmen ("place warnings on the page of every chemical ever claimed by anyone to have caused a death.")!  :)

From the horse's mouth: NY Times — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, then, a case where it was decided that one person, based on a bit of circumstantial conjecture and newspaper influence, should have their article "influenced" on Wikipedia in order to "protect" them→and Jimmy raises a mini-cabal to suppress the info. I'm basically okay with that, but it's more than slightly debatable. Here, a case where many lives are much more clearly at risk, and this previous situation is not allowed as an analogical example of de facto policy here? Weak double-standards, community.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 21:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

...It's not like we took a poll and agreed to let jimbo do that. Also the two situations aren't really analogous. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh the situations are certainly analogous, in that they involve a definite risk of death to people in the real world which is potentially amenable to manipulation of the information posted on wikipedia. The difference is really in the remedy requested, and obviously adding unsourced information is a much bigger no-no (i.e. an explicit breach of the rules), whereas secretly disallowing the addition of properly sourced information is much more of a grey area, it may go against the spirit of established policy, but is not specifically forbidden by any rule I am aware of. My reasoning is that there was a greater degree of risk in this case (i.e. risk of death to an undefined class of individuals rather than a single person) although obviously without reliable sources there is no way of proving that the class of people supposedly at risk even exist, let alone estimating how many of them there are. So I didn't really expect the "bad batch warning" would stay up, but thought it was worth a shot and certainly worth testing what the community consensus was on the matter. Meodipt (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Moot point now seeing as someone has added the information back just using the erowid warning page as a reference and that seems to be ok with everyone! Not that a newspaper article would really be any more reliable than erowid I suppose...Meodipt (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The real problem is that we have no reliable information about the toxicology of these phenethylamines. Hence we cannot and should not say that they are "safe" or "dangerous", and there's little point in saying that we simply don't know. There's speculation that this was a 'bad batch' of 2C-B-FLY, but that's all it is – speculation. Physchim62 (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• very few refs, tag should be inserted to warn users of unverifiable claims in the article. Ecoman24 (talk page) 13:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Racepacket at University of Miami, again

Previous threads can be found at Racepacket at University of Miami and related articles and Racepacket at UMiami article

This is the third time that I've felt the need to bring the actions of Racepacket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to this board. Now he is constantly reverting changes made to the "History" section of the article because of what I feel are semantic word choices or paragraph structuring based on what he has told me. In the past 48 hours he has done so many reverts to this section that it is now impossible for me to improve upon the wording and structuring that I have tried to change because it is back to his preferred version.

• "Not a valid measure or a relevant basis of comparision. See "19 Momentum: The Campaign for the University of Miami" on talk page"
• "History: going back to prior version that gives national benchmark and does not attribute fundraising strongly to Shalala"
• "see discussion page under "19 Momentum: The Campaign for the University of Miami""
• "hearing no objections, we are returning to the last consensus version except for Ryulong's "During Shalala's leadership""
• "History: moved consensus version back to main article"
• "History: added hospital acquisiton. Please work off the consensus version"
• "fix date of acquisition of UM hospital" (misleading)

In the last diff he is even hiding his change to what he considers the "consensus version" (a revision he put on a subpage at User:Racepacket/UMhistory). In his arguments he seems to be throwing in non sequiturs and it is becoming impossible to work with him or even understand him through his verbosity. He is obfuscating too much at this point, and I want something done because he obviously doesn't blame the edit warring for the failed GA nomination he put through.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I deeply respect Ryulong's devotion to Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Miami, however a sense of ownership, incivilty and even profanity, [9] [10] makes working through editorial disputes very difficult. He dismisses my attempts to be polite to him and to try to discuss our differences as "verbosity." He is in such a hurry to make changes that he misreads his sources and takes logical leaps that cause the assertions he makes in the article to go beyond what his references say. Hence, we have had several differences of opinion that took time to work out.

For a long time, the history section was written in short, easy to read paragraphs covering separate ideas, most of which had 3 or 4 sentences. Ryulong, without first discussing it, decided to reorganize the history into paragraphs organized around each UM President, and I reverted that change. From Sept 2 - 5, there was also a debate over how to report UM's 2003 fundraising campaign in the history section. I thought that consensus was reached on Sept. 5. But since last week, Ryulong has been edit warring over trying to make comparisons between the size of UM's fundraising campaign and those of other schools in the State of Florida. I feel that his comparisons are not objective and have tried to draw in more views from WP:UNI.

In order to avoid confusing the main article while we worked out our differences, yesterday morning, I created a draft of the history section on User:Racepacket/UMhistory and posted a {{caution}} template on the history section of the article inviting editors to work out a consensus there. I also left a message on Ryulong's talk page and that of another user. Instead of contributing to the effort, he deleted the caution template. After incorporating one change from another user, this morning, I reposted the draft as the history section of the main article preserving the long-standing paragraph structure that had existed before Ryulong's reorganization this week. Now that he has made clear that I misinterpreted his removal of the caution template, I have offered to return to working on a new consensus draft with him, but he has posted the above complaint. One problem is that we are both making extensive edits to the history section at the same time, resulting in "edit conflicts" as we both try to save our changes. This results in his (I assume accidental) deletion of various additions that I have tried to make. I have proposed third party mediation before, but Ryulong did not agree.

Ryulong is coming within 20 minutes of violating 3RR:

• Revision as of 04:50, 9 October 2009
• Revision as of 04:38, 9 October 2009
• Revision as of 03:57, 9 October 2009
• Revision as of 04:28, 8 October 2009

I think if we put aside "ownership" and "control" issues, we could make the article at least a Good one. Racepacket (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This extensive text is one of the issues I can't stand. This four paragraph reply is ridiculous. This is why I can't work with you, Racepacket. I cannot sit down and read all of this to understand your issues. I don't know why you oppose the minor changes to paragraph structure or order because I can't tease it out of your essays. And I would like someone else's input before you say anything else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, I have to say that what he has said makes perfect sense to me, and characterising it as 'ridiculous' is unhelpful. This should not be at ANI, this is a content dispute, and content disputes often require lengthy discussion to hash out versions of the text that are agreeable to all. The idea of working on a draft may be a good one - I've certainly seen it done before. And you do need to agree whether the history should be done by topic or by President (which is perfectly clearly set out as the basis for the disagreement in Racepacket's statement) - either would work but they can't both be used at the same time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The four paragraphs are ridiculous. Not their content. It is nigh impossible for me to meet every single one of his needs when he keeps undoing the edits I've done in good faith by only referring to the version he is replacing them with as the "consensus version" in his eyes, when he is merely going off of a version that has sat on the article for over a year until he began editing. He's done several reverts to his preferred version since he decided whichever instance of the article was the "consensus version". And this is not a content dispute. This is a behavioral issue on Racepacket's part, coming about as the content issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, his characterizations of my behavior (ownership, incivility, source misreading, etc.) are wrong. I have not tried to take ownership of the article. My blunt statements and use of profanity are not incivility. And I certainly have not been misinterpreting the sources. I don't know why the current state of the history section is such a contentious issue that it requires Racepacket to continually replace it with his preferred version, even after myself and other editors have been working on the section live.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope this has not become personal, but I find it very odd that in the diffs you cite above I repeatedly removed your incorrect claim that Coral Gables was a part of the "City of Miami." However only after a third editor, User:Do go be man raises the issue that you start to take the matter seriously. If a version of the history sat for a year with a given organizational structure, then it is "consensus." Ryulong's reorganization of the history section into Presidential paragraphs starting last week has been very unilateral and disregards my stated concerns. Again, what I propose going forward is that 1) we set up a separate draft of the history section. 2) we each take turns revising it. 3) When one person is through with his turn, he lets the other have free reign without overlapping edits. 4) We share thoughts about the other's proposals 5) We work toward a consensus. 6) When we get consensus we move the draft to the main article page. Racepacket (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is no longer part of the content dispute. It is your behavior in regards to the content that I have issues with. You have been obstinate in any change to occur. When I removed a handful of items that I didn't feel fit with the flow of the article, you reverted me because the content was there for a year and was therefore "consensus". When I reorganized the short single sentence paragraphs together into larger paragraphs, you began to revert me and because of this "consensus" that you think existed. Consensus can change and forcing an article to be static is not going to help the project in the long run.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ryulong, who else agrees with you? Also, WP:BRD applies here. You made some changes to an article that had been static. You were reverted. Now you have to DISCUSS the matter. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

ElKevbo and MiamiDolphins3 seem to be in some sort of agreement with my edits and disagree with Racepacket's. BRD is fine, but it doesn't seem to hold when it's Racepacket being reverted for his proposed changes (not my reverts from his "consensus" version) as was the case with the previous "commonly/locally"/"the U" dispute.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me, nothing requiring admin action.--Cameron Scott (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

How are multiple reverts and misguiding edit summaries not requiring of admin action?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Again he uses misleading edit summaries. Here he claims to change the paragraph structure, while at the same time removing content he disagrees with: the fact that something was the first of a series of things, the name "Momentum", the fact that something was the most within Florida, and the reference that supports the last claim.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Edit summaries must be short, which is why I spell things out on the talk pages. (Hence "verbose.") By the edit summary in the above diff, I meant that I was proposing a change in the context of a paragraph structure I still think is wrong and was trying to be concise with the matters changed. I have also responded to Ryulong's specific concerns on his talk page and on the UM talk page. Since he has been blocked for 24 hours, the conversation really can't continue here, but i regret an inconvenience this has caused. Racepacket (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Momentum" removal

Every single time the same sentence has been changed in his edits, and he flat out ignores mentioning it in the edit summary and has yet to provide a reason as to why this particular aspect of the article has to keep getting changed: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. This has been going on for a week now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Lamer than a lame thing. It's crufty but I don't see why it needs excluding either. The obsessive reinsertion is also incredibly lame. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I was not aware this dialog was continuing here. I have left a detailed discussion under Talk:University_of_Miami#Momentum:_The_Campaign_for_the_University_of_Miami, and also exchanged comments with him on his talk page and sought additional views at WP:UNI, so I don't understand the claim that i have "yet to provide a reason." We all know that Miami is not Harvard University, so why can't we find a way to present it in Wikipedia without claiming "bragging rights" on the fundraising front? Racepacket (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Have you checked WP:PEACOCK lately? Just asking. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved administrator to close a slightly messy RfC

Unresolved

[18] will spiral out of control if it is not ended soon. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Jake, could you offer some commentary? I don't think it's an outrageous request to let the RfC end of its own accord. The debate seemed to be making some progress despite certain disruptions. And on handling said disruptions, any advice would be appreciated. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw a lot of discussion and no chance of getting the criteria removed. There is consensus to close the RfC in the last section. Please just let it die. — Jake Wartenberg 13:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm not enjoying this either. I can understand that the FLC regulars are tired of it, I've seen arguments going back to 2006, but the fact of the matter is that the RfC was opened to get community input. The regulars have had years to figure it out where the community received less than ten days. And this sets a very bad precedent when five oppose votes—all regulars too, I believe—can shut down an argument which closes in their favour. Forget every other argument, forget that criteria 5 contradicts the last part of 5a, forget that there is community consensus stating that red links are good and none labeling them "ugly" or "distracting". I will let this matter drop if you or anyone can show me that there is a consensus that minimal means definition 1c and not a or b. Going through the FLC logs I've seen about half a dozen regulars that oppose based on red links and everyone else either doesn't care or reads it the same way I do. Maybe Dabomb can confirm that as his name appeared quite frequently. Otherwise, I would ask that you reopen or restart the RfC, possibly with a reminder of its purpose—even the FLC director seemed confused about it. I'm sorry that it's "messy" but I didn't ask regulars to repeat themselves ad infinitum, or to attack my character or insult newcomers. A couple more days isn't going to hurt anybody. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a second opinion. The editors asking for a close are "tired of the debate", the debate is long and muddled, this is not a recipe for "spinning out of control", this is a recipe for fizzling out. The ones who wanted it closed are young and don't listen to me as I'm "the enemy" but they respect authority and an admin will do. If you could reopen with a note briefly explaining the purpose of an RfC and why more than a week is desirable (honestly don't think they're familiar with the process) and as soon as comments dry up I'll close it myself an you'll never have to think of this again. I'd like a few more days as the subject of compromise and clarifying the wording had come up which had been little commented on previously. In my opinion, most had got hung up on stubs. It may well get zero new comments, that's fine and I'll close, but shutting it down early because a couple editors who voiced their opinions before the RfC even started and don't want to wait for more than a week of outside opinions is a bad idea. Thanks. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"The ones who wanted it closed are young and don't listen to me as I'm "the enemy" but they respect authority and an admin will do..." what? If you tried not to patronise the community so much, people may respect your arbitrary re-opening of this RFC at FLC and your arbitrary re-opening of this AN/I thread, on both occasions without notifying the closing admins. Think again if you believe we're all "young" and we "don't listen to [you]". The overwhelming and startlingly obvious consensus was that there was no consensus to change our criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That was bluntness, I wrote that on my way out the door. Excitable would have been a better word. If you're familiar with WP:Requests for Comment, you'll know that the purpose is to get community input in the form of opinions, ideas and dispute resolution. Not everyone checks the RfC lists every day, so leaving them open for a couple weeks at minimum is par for the course. If a handful of regulars are tired of the debate—why wouldn't they be if the issue has been coming up again and again for years?—they are not required to participate. They've stated their opinion, it's been counted, they're free to go about their business. The discussion is so muddled by this point with the interruptions and that bout of infighting at the end that it may well not get anymore comments, but there might also be a good idea out there somewhere. If no action is taken by tomorrow I'll cut through the red tape myself. I can only assure you that this is not a big deal. A week or two from now this'll all be ancient history. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Help again please-

Resolved

 – Content dispute, one editor has left Wikipedia, nothing for admins to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No one took seriously my complaint about User: Hippo43 regarding his removal of information in articles I work on, specifically Administrative divisions of New York. He has now gone to Albany, New York and removed referenced material that I added claiming it is trivial. It is clearly stated the notability of why the information was added and plenty of articles on cities have sections regarding their library systems, especially the larger and more important metro cities including nearby Syracuse, New York of similar size and importance. I will be over time adding further information on the history of the public library (one of the oldest in the country) and of the current building of several new branches and renovation of existing ones. The library system is clearly relevant to the city, it is supported by city residents through a separate tax from the city property or school taxes and city residents elect a library board as well. I find this to be further proof of a vendetta and disruption posed by an Hippo43 who continues to have no history of ever improving any article covered under the wikiproject WP:CAPDIS but yet continues to go around to the articles to remove information without ever adding or finding references for unsourced material. This is disruptive and takes time out from wikiproject members who have better things to do. I'm sure he will respond here, again I will not respond directly to him, only to questions posed by administrators. Please, I beg anyone to do something to keep him out of articles regarding the Capital District. His claims are always of me claiming "ownership", which I have never done, I have collaborated immensely with several other editors of the wikiproject ports, wikiproject warning templates, wikiproject nrhp, wikiproject capital district, and wikiproject new york; I am the cofounder of the wikiproject Capital District, if I didnt want other people working on articles I work on I wouldnt have ever brought up the idea of that wp or continue to inform others of articles I start and ask for help from them. I simply dont want this disruptive editor on articles that I think have potential when all he does is remove information that in his opinion doesnt matter, he never brings concerns to the talk page nor does he listen to others. He often cites the matter at the Siena College article as me not listening to others, but he fails to mention that it was 8 against 2, in my favor, with two of the supporters on my side being administrators and a third later became an admin as well so I dont know who I was not listening to. Please help!Camelbinky (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You should have informed Hippo43 of this so I've done it for you. Jack forbes (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable - so Camelbinky again thinks I have to seek his approval for changes to 'his' articles. Can someone please explain to Camelbinky that removing trivia (which may have value in a more specific article) can also be a way to improve an article. --hippo43 (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, and should be discussed on the article's talk page first, which unless I'm mistaken hasn't happened yet. Equazcion (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This isnt about the content dispute, its about the long standing disruption that the user in question has continued to do. I'm not going to continue to have my contributions subject to hippo43's approval and removed if that one user objects to them. I have the right to edit as anyone else, but hippo seems to believe that my edits stay only if he agrees. I will not edit like this. I am requesting a topic ban on that user to keep him off these articles which he has clearly shown he has no relevant knowledge about to contribute to them. Bringing this to the article talk page will do no good, as shown in previous discussions where he was clearly outnumbered a consensus means nothing to Hippo43. I have shown the notability and relevance of my inclusion and that similar sections already exist in other articles. I am here requesting administrative and disciplinary action to be taken, I will not continue to be a member of Wikipedia if my edits are only allowed based on Hippo43's approval. This is the last time I will stand by while he reverts sourced material I have added, I've had enough. If something cant be done then there is no reason for me to continue to contribute at all to Wikipedia. I should not have to get clearance from another editor to add information. IAR means nothing if one editor can decide the "rules" on their own.Camelbinky (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Camelbinky, Hippo43 is right about the Albany information. If you care to produce an article on Albany library, or libraries in the district of NY, or whatever, then information about the change in how the books are stacked on the shelves would be hugely significant I'm sure. In an article on Albany, it's trivia, and that level of information on libraries in other areas is trivia. This is a content dispute, and does not belong at ANI Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, you don't need my approval to add material, and I don't need yours to remove it. How many of your edits have I actually reverted or changed? In what way have I acted as if your edits are subject to my approval? I removed some tangential content from an article which is already tagged as 'too long'. You have no idea of what knowledge I do or don't have, and your patronising statements on the subject do you no favours.

The only consensus established in our Siena College dispute was the consensus among the reliable sources. They disagreed with your view - I suggest you move on. --hippo43 (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this isn't an issue of the removal of WP:TRIVIA. The information might be trivial, but it doesn't fit Wikipedia's definition. The cataloging system could be seen as excessively specific for the article, but on the other hand if formatted the right way and perhaps cut down some, it could integrate well. Either way these are thigns to discuss on the article's talk page. Please give that a shot first. Equazcion (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[EC] I agree that this is not a situation requiring administrator intervention. It's a dispute over content, and I haven't seen evidence that the parties have tried to resolve it through discussion. Furthermore, I agree with Hippo43 and Elen of the Roads that the library's plan to abandon the Dewey Decimal System is too trivial for inclusion in the article about the city, particularly in view of the 84-kB length of the article. Have you thought about creating a separate article about the city's public libraries? I suppose there might be some merit in including information about Albany's abandonment of this system in Dewey Decimal Classification (but I'm not a library maven -- this would be a topic for discussion with Wikipedians interested in that topic) ... --Orlady (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

ARGH. The matter at hand is not the specific incident of whether or not the specific information should be in the article, though I still say yes, other articles on cities have library sections, yes, right now all Albany has is the one paragraph I added but I was in the process of researching to put more on how it is one of the oldest in the nation and other relevant information. A library section is no more trivial than an education or transportation section. The length of the article is so long because it is still very much a work in progress. The history section will be cut down significantly once we are done with History of Albany, New York (and watch, now that I've mentioned that article Hippo down the road will visit and disrupt there too, as is his practice, but hopefully by calling him out that wont happen). Media in New York's Capital District will similarly allow a significant cut to be made to the media section in the Albany article as well once a rewrite is done to accurately reflect the change done by the switch to digital. Other sections as well need rewritten, that is why this is a work in progress needing to be done by those with knowledge and not by those willy-nilly taking out information they dont agree with. A library section is relevant. Allow work to be done on the article to improve it, removing information is not improving anything, this information is not vandalism. Hippo should have taken his concerns to the talk page first. I see all this talk about "it should have gone to the talk page", ok then address that to Hippo instead of to me, I havent reverted his move. This is not a stand-alone event that everyone is making it out to be and I am done with his propoganistic lies and half-truths he spouts everytime he posts a comment, the sources in Siena College never came to a consensus, and if they did it doesnt matter, consensus of editors is all that matter in Wikipedia and eight said he was wrong, but of course Hippo has to spout his lies to make himself look in the right, therefore I'm quiting Wikipedia. The articles relevant to the Wikiproject Capital District will be worse off without me than they wouldve been without Hippo43 around, but I guess if choice is between me or him the consensus seems to be to keep him. Removing information should be a last resort, not the default. I'm through with this crap. I'm sure we'll see a last word by Hippo making himself look good and me bad, he always has the last word and try to goad me into responding another time by spouting another lie that will rankle me, hoping I'll come back. I wont give in. This is ridiculous and I hope someone picks up articles I created and worked hard on to continue to make them better. This is not self-centeredness, there truly are articles only I have cared to work on, we all have articles like that. I wont stand by and let Hippo continue his rampage of finding them and hurting them. Check his archives on how many complaints there have been of articles he's done this to before. Nobody cares though. Have fun on this endeavor and hope you like it when he or someone similar gets to an article you care about.Camelbinky (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, I think you may need to take a break. I looked back at Administrative Districts of New York, and saw that Hippo reverted you twice, and you reverted him twice. That's it. Not a rampage of destruction in sight. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky is justified in feeling extremely frustrated with Hippo43's entering in on a new article. Hippo43's characterization of the Siena College article dispute in this edit above is irritating. The consensus of all but Hippo43 there was that Hippo43's tendentious editing was the problem. There was an administrator nominally in charge there who opened an RFC but in the end, IMO, did not act forcefully enough to stop Hippo43. Eventually I and others walked away. The net effect was that Hippo43 won by edit-warring and obstinacy. If I were Camelbinky I too would have a horrible sinking feeling to see Hippo43 enter in against what Camelbinky was working on in a different article now. doncram (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not entering a new article. My first edit to the Albany article was months ago.

Further, my characterization of the dispute at Siena College may be irritating to doncram, but his description of it is simply dishonest. I was not the only editor who took my position - while I was especially unwilling to cave, my view was shared by User:Squidfryerchef, User:Akhilleus and User:Gnhn, as well as User:Dicklyon at WP:RSN (not to mention the reliable sources).

In any case, how does my history of disagreement with Camelbinky affect the validity of my recent edits? The material I removed was clearly not appropriate for the article. There was no 'incident'. --hippo43 (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(This is Camelbinky on an IP address) I am only coming back to Wikipedia to address lies presented by Hippo43. His "first edit to the Albany article months ago" was to delete an entire section that in his opinion was unreferenced, I had to undo his "edit" and mention in my edit summary that the information had the name of the magazine and year and while not in the proper inline citation it was still enough information to be a citation. Siena College and Albany are not the only two articles. There have been Loudonville, Newtownville, Adm. div. of New York amongst other Capital District articles in which has not shown any knowledge of the subject. This would be different if he had shown any interest in adding knowledge to an article in the NYCD area or has shown in any of our disputes any knowledge of the area or the people or the particular topic of the article, he has not despite his continued insistance that I "dont know what he knows or doesnt know" if he has knowledge, let him share with us. I'm asking for a topic ban on him to keep him away from any article relating to the New York's Capital District, that is all, so I can continue to edit in peace without worrying about him popping in. If I make an edit that may (in good faith) be too in-depth or whatever like the one to Albany then there are plenty of members of wp:capdis such as admins Daniel Case, Juliancolton, and UpstateNYer, and non-admins and non-members of the wikiproject such as Doncram that watch the same articles that I edit and they will bring it to my attention in a polite manner. The issue is Hippo's arrogance and self-centeredness regarding he is always right regarding the application and interpretation of policy and guidelines, he does not recognize consensus or IAR and has been riled by my fighting against the very kind of editing and interpretation of policies that he has at the various noticeboards and village pumps at which I participate including the strengthening of IAR and a new warning template for use against those who delete sourced material or non-disruptive/non-controversial unsourced material without first bringing it to the talk page first; which is why it is strange that right after learning of this new template he on the same day I edited the Albany page he goes there and deletes sourced material. It is a vendetta by him for my actions to continue to stop the type of "editing" he and similar editors on Wikipedia do that I find disruptive and who hold the belief that policies are for them to decide and implement strictly by the book and discussion is not relevant. I will return to Wikipedia to edit when I am guarenteed that Hippo will not bother me, either his voluntarily deciding to stay away from NYCD articles, or an admin putting a topic ban on him. Until then I will watch this noticeboard and hope more people who have had a run in with Hippo stand up or an admin goes to his talk page and look through the history and talk to the many who have had similar run-ins with him, there have been many, this isnt just me.148.78.245.13 (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What "lies" exactly? --hippo43 (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Camelbinky's reference to lies was somewhat of a mischaracterization, meant to provide emphasis for effect. Relatedly I'll forgive Hippo43 for calling me dishonest, above, after i made a small mischaracterization. I recalled the Talk:Siena College discussion as showing consensus of all but one, but I did forget about Akhileus' view in support of Hippo43. I apologize for forgetting that there seemed to be a 5-2 consensus, not an all but one consensus. Hippo43's naming of several others in support of his view seems to me to be a misleading characterization. There were no others persisting who considered the totality of the situation; one he mentioned made just one comment and another did not comment once at Talk:Siena College but rather commented in a different forum in response to Hippo43's prompting there. So there have been mischaracterizations by me, by Hippo43, and Camelbinky. Enough!

And, this thread was marked "resolved" at 20:52, 11 October 2009, with identification that it is a content dispute, which I agree with. Perhaps the Siena College issue could be revisited sometime at the newish Content Notice Board wp:CNB. doncram (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your numbers, but I do remember the consensus in the reliable sources, and I don't believe I said anything about editors "persisting who considered the totality of the situation"! Still, at least we've moved on from arguing about Siena and are now arguing about the argument. I am glad. Maybe you should let it go? As far as I'm concerned, it had nothing to do with the recent edit Camelbinky took exception to. --hippo43 (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Offensive username HonestJew

Resolved

 – Indef blocked, the deleted page was telling, and all the edits are antisemitic trolling. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The username User:HonestJew is offensive due to the implied claim that Jews are generally dishonest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.19.5.251 (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice the user was blocked 72 hours for "reverting too much", and his user page was deleted as it was considered "vandalism". If someone can look at the deleted content, it might offer clues as to what this user intended with this username. I've also notified the user of this thread. Equazcion (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The user is question may or may not be a productive contributor (and if not

will certainly be blocked), but I find the assertion that the username is automatically offensive to be ridiculous. The far more likely meaning of such a phrase in general is a user describing him/herself. Would "OldJew" imply most Jews are young? Of course not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I can't really agree with that logic. People like to poke fun with their version of oxymoronic titles. In this case, there would be no reason to describe oneself an an honest jew, unless the assumption is that jews are not normally honest. I'm not well-versed in username policy but I have a suspicion here regarding the intent. I could be wrong. Equazcion (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The username as such is borderline. It looked offensive to me first also, but Thaddeus makes a good point. Looking at his contributions would likely give a clue as to what his intent was. Which apparently someone did. Username issues can be taken to WP:UAA →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My point wasn't that this user in particular was describing himself (he wasn't), but that there shouldn't be a blanket ban on such descriptions. Certainly my first assumption based on the name alone would be someone who was proud of being 1) honest and 2) Jewish. Does the user name "HonestPerson" imply most people aren't honest, or does it simply describe the user who registered it? If a user named "HonestXYZ" is making disruptive edits they can be blocked for making disruptive edits - no need to rely on username policy for the block. If not, than there is no reason to try and read implied racism into their user name. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting a blanket ban either. It was just a suspicion -- and a well-deserved one in the end, it would seem. Equazcion (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Baseball Bugs; the name may ring alarm bells, but we cannot judge further without looking at contribs- as we have done, and come to an apparently correct decision. End of. Rodhullandemu 00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for people with borderline names to edit is useful. "give him enough rope". I'd ask for people who send names like this to various boards to watch them first. This saves biting newbies, helps to quickly block disruptive editors, and helps with cleaning up bad edits. Sending them to UAA first slows the process down. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism on Phyllis Schlafly

Elstong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring to add "Jewish" labeling and general antisemitic content to the Phyllis Schlafly article; when I reverted his partial page blanking/sourced content removal and inappropriate content, he very oddly started calling me a vandal, accusing me of abusing him, and has made the allegation that I'm anti-Semitic on the article talk page and in edit summaries. He is, to put it bluntly, obsessed with Jews. I request someone take a look at this SPA and Schlafly fan and see what can be done. IMO he's here to whitewash her article, malign Jews who dare criticize her, and call anyone who attempts to prevent him from doing so names. Were I not arguably involved I would indef as a disruptive account. I could, of course, be in error. Contribs include the telling edit summaries (most recent at top, as in History):

1. 15:10, 10 October 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Elstong ? (remove inappropriate abuse from KillerChihuahua|talk) - this is removing a warning I left him
2. 15:09, 10 October 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (remove false jewish comment by KillerChihuahua|talk)
3. 02:45, 10 October 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (?"Stop ERA": removed anti-semitic accusation against Critchlow)
4. 23:56, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (the weasel words were written by the Jewish columnist about a Jewish issue; see the talk page if you want to change it)
5. 06:56, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (?"Stop ERA": jewish columnist complained about ignoring jewish winking)
6. 23:41, 12 August 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (?"Stop ERA": change jewish accusation to what NYT said)

Followed by [19] and [20]. thanks for your kind attention - I will be offline for a bit but please post questions here anyway if you have any and I will answer when I return. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for now, but if he comes back with the same crap I suggest indefinite next time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked him after further reflection. His edits are problematic, but a block is a bit premature at this point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So edit warring and violating 3RR doesn't rate a block? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does, but new users also deserve proper warning about why their actions are inappropriate before jumping to a block. People aren't born knowing the rules. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the substantial issues at stake here, but the editing pattern is that of a disruptive, ideologically motivated single purpose account. If it were up to me, I'd just indef-block it, but won't do so without further discussion, so as not to wheel-war with ThaddeusB.  Sandstein  07:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

+1 for that. We need agenda-driven WP:SPAs on WP:BLPs just slightly less than we need page move vandals. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sandstein and Guy. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree fully that the pattern was one of disruption, however after reflection I decided it wasn't obviously disruptive enough to warrant a block without attempting to resolve the issue. Elstong was "correcting" what he/she viewed as a biased statement, and genuinely doesn't seem to understand the issues with the edit. He has not (yet) returned to disruption after the warnings.

I do not think it is particularly likely that Elstong will edit productively, but I think he/she deserves a chance to prove otherwise before being re-blocked. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy/guidelines on user page deletion?

Today I am forgetful. After speedy deleting a non-notable autobio (David A Provost) created by Drewprovost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (and earning myself a delightful riposte [21]), User:Drewprovost put the deleted text on two subpages of his user page, here and here. While trying to AGF, I seriously doubt this completely unreferenced autobio will be shaped into an acceptable basic article in the future. Somehow I can't remember what guidelines cover the preferred course of action in this kind of case. Could someone point me to them? I'm just a little thick tonight. Thanks, Pigman☿/talk 01:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an awful lot of information to be putting out there. I'm not sure why the user wants to write such a tell-all biography for all the world to see. Do we have the subjects permission (assuming the writer is "Drew" and David is the brother? I would lean towards deletion for privacy reasons here. –xeno^talk 01:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Way too much personal info, even though he's an adult. And one of the longer single-paragraphs I've seen here. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Middle name of David A. Provost is "Andrew" = Drew and so probably User:Drewprovost. That info is somewhere in that humongous para I think. Deletion of those user pages reproducing the content of the article for privacy might be a good enough reason. User seems to be a SPA for only this article. I just wasn't sure whether that was the right way to go. I'm always leery of deleting user pages in what I consider a borderline case. I'll delete them now but I'm getting offline right afterward so if there's an issue or complaint, someone else may have to deal with it for the next 10 hours. Thanks for the input. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 04:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I note the pages were deleted, but no communication was made with the editor. Might explaining the issue to him have been a good idea? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Urgh. Thanks for the pointer, Elen of the Roads. Doing admin tasks while tired is a bad idea for me; I forget to attend to details like that. Correcting now. Thanks again. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 16:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I see [22] and note that it may not have been worth the effort. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I had made the same evaluation. Still, politeness and explanation to new editors isn't a wasted effort in my opinion. Not, at least, until they become persistently trollish and abusive. Even then, civility and politeness are my watchwords. I was nonplussed by the argument that deleting the article was "unpatriotic," one of the more unencyclopedic claims I've ever heard on WP. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 16:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Drive By Editing - Willful Ignoring of Lengthy Discussion - 3RR Gaming

After lengthy and thorough discussion a category tag for the Roman Polanski article achieved a semblance of consensus as one of its more articulate opponents begrudgingly reported that a great deal of community discussion had gone into the appropriateness and general application of the child molester tag (several nation specific exist in addition to the generic tag). Now editors in opposition to the tag have taken to simple reverts, editors that have never chosen to engage in the talk page discussion and refuse to defend their reverts via discussion. The goal is clear - tag team 3RR.

Can anyone enforce the requirement to discuss, especially as a great deal of thorough debate has been devoted to this tag in the Polanski article[23] as well as in a number of other articles and areas of Wikipedia. Basic argument for cat was:

CAT is entirely consistent as to members of the class being convicted of sex crimes with minors of all types, true for country specific cat and general cat. There are reams of prior consensus on this as seen through the cats and their members.

Yes, the cat is real and yes he clearly fits in with it. None of our cats are legally defined, we have 50 states each one having literally dozens of various sex crimes on the books. As with our one member Debra Lafave, "pled guilty to statutory rape charges stemming from her having sex with a 14-year-old" another member of the cat for example, "...he was convicted of unlawful fornication ...".

The defining thread seems to be sex crimes with minors ~ what we colloquially refer to every day as "child molestation" no matter the specific act with which convicted. And what of Mel Hall, "aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child" Clearly a sex crime with a minor ... but not child molestation? Polanski was convicted of molesting a child, the specific type of molestation being the rape charge he pled guilty to. He fits with the members of the category to a T - LeFave and him are interchangeable.

The cat is proper, use this thought experiment to see why: What if a person had been above the age of consent in their country of citizenship, but below in their country of arrest? What if a person, and there are literally millions like this, was convicted in one country but was a citizen of another country - in which they had never lived? Look also at those members of the location neutral cat as child molesters. It's members also include one convicted [24] and , "sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for having sexual relationships with teenagers."

Thank you.99.142.8.221 (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding additional Info: User:Cenarium, an editor that quite literally engaged me for a week here[25] by seeking to ban me for edits that recorded Polanski in the encyclopedia as "convicted" and a "fugitive" as well as seeking to ban me for disruptive edit warring at Anjelica Huston for this text[26] has begun a new "case" against me here[27] related to this very subject.

Is this all just a WikiGame where Talk is for the suckers and rational discussion means nothing when trumped by a ban?99.142.8.221 (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from my contribs, I wasn't concerned with that article nor you for several days (and hoped it would remain that way). As it happens, I still have the page on my watchlist and noted the recent activity. It would be difficult to follow edits of someone changing of IP every now and then. Consensus was quite clearly against the inclusion of this category, as can be seen at Talk:Roman_Polanski#Categories, yet you continued to edit-war to restore it, with more than 4 reverts in 24 hours. Cenarium (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC):::::Contrary to your protest above about not being concerned - you hit me up within moments of a technical reading of 3RR when I reverted arguably vandalistic removal of a well discussed consensus edit.

You also choose to remove the edit without even so much as a peep on the discussion page in the section that reached consensus on the subject.99.142.8.221 (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Upon becoming aware of the edit-war due to the unusual activity on that page, several minutes before my revert, I looked at the relevant discussions and found that consensus was against inclusion, which I stated in the edit summary for my revert. A quick analysis of the history showed you had broken 3RR, and had been warned of this coming, thus I reported to AN3. Cenarium (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC-OD) I looked at that section on the Talk page, and there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus for adding that category, especially to a BLP. Generally speaking, when you're reverted by multiple editors, that means consensus is against you. Dayewalker (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not one of those editors reverting offered so much as a word on the subject.99.142.8.221 (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would they need to? Consensus is against your edit, and it's a controversial edit on a BLP. If you disagree, please continue to make your case on the talk page, that's where the discussion should take place. Dayewalker (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I did and the leading voice in opposition begrudgingly conceded that consensus on the cat existed but suggested a second look at the cat name itself. I pointed out the consensus, "Second look or not, we do have ample precedent and community consensus for the use of the cat here - as admittedly disagreeable as it may be to some - our intellectual honesty can no longer deny its current applicability." There was no voice in opposition to the declaration of consensus on the Talk page then - or now. _ 99.142.8.221 (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you made that statement, however, not much is accomplished by just saying there is consensus in the middle of a discussion where most editors disagree with you. Dayewalker (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy of relevant supplementary data and comments (also posted as comment at AN3)

Adding of category (without consensus) since the unlocking of Roman Polanski (Most recent first) NOTE: (dynamic ip?) All adds by same ip user (lower pair of numbers shift - user gave notice of shifting ip - took a few edits to complete) DEL 02:45, 11 October 2009 -User:Cenarium (admin) ADD 02:44, 11 October 2009 - 99.142.8.221 DEL] 02:39, 11 October 2009 - User:JBsupreme ADD R02:38, 11 October 2009 - 99.142.8.221 DEL 02:31, 11 October 2009 - User:Will Beback (admin) ADD 02:27, 11 October 2009 - 99.142.8.221 DEL 23:39, 10 October 2009 - User:Rd232 (admin) ADD 17:02, 10 October 2009- 99.142.8.221 DEL 16:57, 10 October 2009 - User:Off2riorob ADD 16:00, 10 October 2009 - 99.142.8.221 User_talk:99.142.8.221 DEL 14:09, 9 October 2009 - User:Physchim62 ADD 14:06, 9 October 2009 - 99.142.5.86 DEL 13:50, 9 October 2009 - User:Wilhelm meis ADD 13:20, 9 October 2009 - 99.142.5.86 User_talk:99.142.5.86 NOTE ALSO: 99.142.1.147 User_talk:99.142.1.147 48 hour block 17:42, 4 October 2009

COMMENTS: (I have observed)

• 99.142.x.x participates on talk page, but argumentatively asserts sufficient consensus to add category, but does not have consensus.
• 99.142.x.x's assertions are often misleading/misdirecting etc.
• Disclosure I have been in contention with 99.142.x.x over the past few days (most lengthily and absurdly over talk page management, to wit: whether a topic can be removed or collapsed on the talk page). I have directly asserted that some of 99.142.x.x's messages are Misleading bs (and have, for the first time on Wikipedia, I think, used the whole word "bullshit") It is not my habit to do so, but such is the nature of the communication patterns described. Other contentions around undoing of a few things I've reverted (with full edit summaries and talk page discussion.) BOTTOM LINE: Lots of BS. Lots of wasted time. 3RR fully broken and crushed. etc etc.

-- (data & comments) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No one denies the subject wasn't contentious and difficult. But many ignore the fact that the subject was discussed intelligently, at length and with reason. - 99.142.8.221 (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• The people posting ridiculous warnings on IP 99's talk page seem to have a problem with the fact that Roman Polanski is a convicted rapist(the dictionary definition of rape includes someone below the age of consent) and a admitted pedophile(he admits to having sex with a 13 year old). You seem to have a lot of people keep trying to keep information about his crimes off the page anyway they can. The news brings a lot of traffic to the page, and his fans keep erasing information, others reverting them. Dream Focus 10:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• • It looks to me like Polanski was never actually convicted of rape or child molestation (and isn't actually a pedophile by any definition I'm aware of). He pled to "unlawful sexual intercourse" and the other charges were dropped. Equazcion (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

From the article, that's the same thing as statutory rape under CA law. Ravensfire (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I saw that in the Wikipedia article, but I don't see it in any news articles that talk about the situation. If someone could provide a reliable source on that point, if one exists, it might help to clear things up. Equazcion (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There are two references for that statement already in the article. From one of them "Polanski pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse" with a minor. What's the difference between that and statutory rape? They're synonymous." Ravensfire (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah there's some discrepancy there. I notice you placed "with a minor" outside the end quote. Indeed I've noticed many news sources state the charge as simply "unlawful sexual intercourse". Some add "with a minor", and some instead add (perhaps more telling) "with a 13 year-old girl" -- and the latter certainly is too specific to be an actual charge. The discrepancy alone indicates to me that the former portion is the actual charge. Though I could certainly be wrong.

More importantly, we're not arguing about a rape category but a child molestation category. According our own article on child molestation, that label only applies in cases where the party was below the age of puberty.

This may all take a backseat, though, to general public opinion. Taking a random article from Category:Convicted child molesters, John Wayne Gacy's victims were all above the age of puberty. But he was a sicko, so I'm sure everyone wants the label applied. Polanski in contrast is more of a controversy. He had sex with an underage girl; But there was no pattern of such behavior evident, she reminded him of his brutally murdered wife whose murderer had just died, it wasn't a violent rape, most of the charges were dropped, etc. I'm not condoning it but this is probably the problem. By not using categories strictly, we open up the possibility for such debates. Equazcion (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article in the reference, "unlawful sexual intercourse" is defined as sexxual contact with anyone below the age of 18. The quote is directly from that article (including the "with a minor phrase"), otherwise I wouldn't have included it because it's redundant. From looking through other references, the charge is most commonly called unlawful sexual intercourse, with some sources then adding more to it, probably for clarity.

No disagreement about the category stuff. Toss in the technical charge name isn't the name we're most familiar with (statutory rape), and it's a bit of a mess. Ravensfire (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Macgyver-bd 896

The user Macgyver-bd 896 has been disruptively editing firearms articles for several months, even after repeated warnings[28][29][30]. He continues to add unsourced, dubious range data to articles (examples: [31][32][33]), and he admits he only "thinks" this is the correct data[34]. He has not made any particularly constructive edits, and almost all of them were reverted within hours. He has also been editing under numerous IPs registered to Turk-Telecom (Macgyver's edit: [35], IP: [36][37]). I have also been informed that he is doing this internationally as well. — DanMP5 03:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not supporting his edits, most firearms articles seem to have unsourced range data (Walther P38, Kz 8 cm GrW 42, FG 42 as three quick examples without his involvement), so if he really that out there (other than this which is serious)? I think the Wikiproject needs to work on finding and establishing sources to this kind of information and cleaning things up. I'll warn on the Lee-Enfield editing but otherwise, I don't why his edits are so "dubious" (short of your personal knowledge to the contrary). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, most of his edits aren't really dubious by themselves, its the fact that he keeps on changing the range on multiple articles by a few meters up or down, after being warned and reverted by multiple users, that makes the edits bad faith. He is also very inconsistent[38][39], further adding to the proof he is just making this up as he goes (still not convinced? look at these diffs[40][41][42]). I consider this to be, at the very least, a sneaky form of vandalism. Also, I do consider a 164 yard effective range for a handgun[43], and a very low fixed range of 25 meters for a shotgun that can fire multiple types of ammunition[44] pretty dubious. — DanMP5 15:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, there aren't sources for any of that, him or otherwise. I'd rather remove every unsourced range suggestion across the board to be honest, but I don't feel like going through another round of "you're a horrible, nasty, evil deletionist and don't support the encyclopedia" with people. Yes, he's making it up clearly, but so was everybody else from what I can tell. Message me if he again continues but honestly the only difference between him and most of the other editors seems to be that he seems to be doing it for quite a while. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Child Of Midnight inappropriate block

Resolved

 – User unblocked. Ruslik_Zero 17:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

CoM was blocked for incivility. [[45]] I find this block to be totally inappropriate. No where in this was CoM ever incivil and ask for an admin to overturn as blatantly wrong. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Keegan, who keeps me close by cellphone contact knew that this was a bad idea. COI and and shitty block. the_undertow ^talk 09:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(copied from CoM's talkpage). I have an entirely different view on the recent sock puppet shambles to most of the acolytes who gather around whenever this contributor is involved in controversial issues. I support no one or everyone, but not any particular tribe, if you know what I mean. However, in this particular instance the highlighted reason for blocking CoM for half a day cannot be construed as incivility. I share his sarcastic outlook, so if I had responded with an equally sarcastic but opposite contribution would I have been blocked? Of course not. It does look slightly reactionary and you could have let it go or waited until it developed into something genuinely uncivil. (but I may have missed something). Leaky Caldron 09:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't consider that diff incivility. However, it was very nasty and a hair's breadth away. CoM should be unblocked, but warned in the strongest possible terms that making casual allegations of that sort against another editor is (as Keegan said) not conducive to a collaborative environment, and absolutely out of line. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 09:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The response to the block by the_undertow (recently disgraced Law (talk · contribs)) seems inappropriate, and possibly block worthy, but the incident that started this off doesn't. Of CoMs recent misbehaviour, this is very mild. Verbal chat 09:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I resent the fact that you consider me disgraced. I can deal with the 'Lex Luthor of WP', or 'mentally unstable' or just about anything else, but NPA still applies. I outed myself. There is nothing lacking grace with wanting to rid my own making. Just because I am blocked does not give you free reign to make such an assertion. Never. "Disgraced" is subjective. With that, you deserve your own admonishment. the_undertow ^talk 09:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are using two different meanings, or at least nuances, of the word "disgraced", undertow. Verbal seems to be referring to your recent loss of the tools, which can be categorized as "disgrace". As your post referenced the recent events which led to that, this is most likely. I do not know how you're interpreting it; but I see no implications beyond the meaning I have given. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 10:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I stand by the description of this twice banned and desysoped, by arbcom, editor as disgraced, and for the record I would find calling him mentally unstable to be a personal attack. However, disgraced is backed up by the facts. Verbal chat 10:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not overturning it because I was chatting with CoM in the hour or so before this happened. As such, I don't want the appearance of a conflict of interest on my part (A Wiki admin that is worried about showing bias, imagine that?). Still, the block was obviously a bad idea and should never have been made.Trusilver 09:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any incivility there either. Agree CoM should be unblocked. Keegan doesn't seem to be very active though. Mjroots (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hence why we are here. Someone should unblock with an admonshment that it was towards the dge. Let's defuse this while we still can. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: CoM has not requested unblock nor has he disputed the block. He's not a noob; he knows about {{unblock}}. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps CoM has gone elsewhere for 12 hrs. Mjroots (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If I'm correct he hasn't requested it yet because it's still the ass crack of dawn in his neck of the woods. How do you think he's going to react to something this blatantly stupid. It'll probably go over as well as a fart in church. Also if I have a problem with this block I can bring those concerns here, today it is CoM tomorow it could be you or me and I['d be pissed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously a bad block, not justified by any element of blocking policy or civility policy. Moreover, it was the last actin of Keegan before signing off for the day (see his contributions), giving no effective recourse. This is especially ironic in the context of [[User:Keegan/On administrators#Blocking|Keegan's own stated view on administrator blocking]. ^Bongo_matic 12:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is that it wasn't nearly long enough, as the last one was for an identical 12hrs, and he's apparently slept through most of it. Our dear CoM has been running his mouth for weeks in various forums here about the evils of admins, the cabals that are out to get him, the fantasized stalkers, harassers, disrupters who are "out to get him" etc... You can only go so long in slagging, insulting, and denigrating anyone and everyone who has ever disagreed with you before it comes back to bite you in the ass. Keegan's name will be tacked on to the list for the next round of insults that flows from CoM's direction. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Somebody with 3 bad overturned blocks, and a possible 4th dislikes admins?--Otterathome (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Many Admins are out of control when it comes to blocking. Sometimes they forget that being an editor is different than being an admin, and they put the two together without thinking it through.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I disagree with your comment Jojhutton that "many admins are out of control when it comes to blocking" most admins do a good job quietly. The policing aspect of the job is always going to be denegraded, no one much likes being told off or having your privileges taken away for a while, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether or not it could be considered incivility, why was he blocked for one comment, though? Don't we warn people and then see if they do it again? On the question of civility, I've seen much worse. WebHamster got away with stuff ten times as bad as this for years before he was finally blocked. The fact that CoM was talking to admins in this case probably had something to do with it, and it really shouldn't have. Equazcion (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If he was making those comments for weeks, I assume that he was warned multiple times. Joe Chill (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • That would be a nice assumption but I don't see any such warnings on his talk page. I just see a block notice. Equazcion (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey folks.

Well, I don't consider this a conflict of interest because if I did, I would be like Mr Wales and never be able to use my block function.

I don't take blocking lightly, and I don't block often. Maybe less than a couple hundred in three years.

I can understand the jaw dropping and calling it a shitty block, it seems random and inappropriate.

From my view, what was inappropriate and incivil was the comment on the undertow's talk page. Don't get me wrong, I am in incredibly sarcastic person that thinks and sometimes says things along the lines of what CoM says. What happens when I do say these things? I am appropriately admonished to prevent me from being such a dick again. Well, at least for the forseeable future. Eventually I slip up again, it's human nature.

It was a 12 hour block to prevent further "snarkiness" for the evening, well within my descresionary bounds. I think that is reasonable, but I can understand why others think it isn't. Bottom line is that I was working towards something amicable, this user is not. Plain and simple. The block expires shortly after what I assume was a good night's rest for CoM (please note:Do not read that as a cool down block, it wasn't) and we can all get on with our lives. I'll take whatever lumps ANI chooses to give me, I'm a big boy, but I do not regret what I did at all.

We are trying to work in a collaborative environment. Tempers flare, there is drama, I get that, I have plenty of experience on this website. This is an encyclopedia, not a shooting gallery. Happy editing to all, Keegan (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Any response as to the lack of a warning though? People aren't generally blocked for one comment, as I've mentioned above. Even assuming the statement was undoubtedly uncivil, a block still seems like an excessive immediate response. Equazcion (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's his seventh block this year. He's been previously blocked for incivility. Those could probably be considered "fair warning". Note that I am not condoning the block here; I'm merely stating that if the comment did indeed violate policy, a warning would have been superfluous. I remain neutral for the moment. Tan | 39 15:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What Tan said is the reason for my lack of warning. Keegan (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also find Keegan's response troubling as it sounds to me like he's saying the block is so short that we shouldn't be concerned about its appropriateness, and that he's not so concerned with what people have to say about it. Being willing to "take your lumps" at ANI is only an honorable stance if you're also willing to participate thoughtfully and re-examine your actions accordingly. Equazcion (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you have obviously made your stance clear. Thank you; no need to reiterate a dozen times - if you want other people to "participate thoughtfully" and examine their actions, you need to be able to do it yourself. Tan | 39 16:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where I've repeated myself, except once, regarding my concern with the lack of a warning. Keegan neglected to mention that in his statement, so I felt the need to bring it up again. "A dozen times"? Exaggerate much? Equazcion (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked with 2 hours of the 12 remaining, (a) because the single snarky comment does not appear to meet the standards required of a single comment to justify an incivility block (b) the block was unaccompanied by a reason, which is problematic for future interpretations of the block log. In addition, I would say that if CoM does have a pattern of making these kinds of comment, that pattern might be construed as uncivil (in the broad sense of creating an uncivil collaborative environment). That would (a) require more substantive evidence, perhaps via WP:RFC/U; (b) justify a longer block. Rd232 ^talk 16:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The block seemed proper to me. ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a history of disruption and a long block log. CoM is also under multiple ArbCom restrictions about getting into dust-ups with other editors, not to mention a topic ban. Granted, CoM's comment on Law's talkpage was not within the realm of any ArbCom restrictions, but it's obvious that CoM has shown a pattern of disruptive behavior. CoM's comment was highly inappropriate, and has already been deleted as such.[46] If CoM repeats this kind of "pot-stirring" behavior, I would support a longer block. --Elonka 17:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the sort of situation which lends credence to the view that civility blocks are ineffectual. I don't happen to subscribe to that view in a general manner, but this way of applying it definitely is ineffectual. An editor who picks up a block roughly once every six weeks for most of a year engages in habitual sniping, and one of many instances garners a 12 hour block. 12 hours of rest might correct a one-off problem, but not this situation. It is pretty much guaranteed that a variety of editors will line up on both sides and the block will become more trouble than it's worth. If something is the proverbial 'straw on the camel's back' then put a brace on the spine rather than removing or adding individual bits of straw. That is, after seven blocks in a year either propose a community sanction or let it go. Miniscule blocks for habitual problems make a mockery of process. Durova³²² 17:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well put. A short-term block should be applied if there is an appropriate short-term problem of sufficient severity. If there is a long-term problem which is sufficiently documented and agreed upon, it warrants appropriate sanction, and a short-term block isn't it. Rd232 ^talk 17:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Its the standard civility block paradox. Blocks can't literally be preventative without precognition, and ex post blocks can't modify behavior. Either we accept some nuance and block only where obviously necessary or we cut the gordian knot and indef editors who agitate and provoke in such a way that short term 'civility blocks' are the only solution. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Indef block or short-term block are not the only possible responses to short-term or long-term civility or civility/disruption issues. Rd232 ^talk 23:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 puts it well, and this is distinct from the garden variety civility problem. A civility block can have an effect when a normally collegial editor gets hot under the collar because a particular discussion hits a raw nerve. Most of us have a sensitive spot somewhere; that's just human. When an editor is getting increasingly worked up and rude and polite interaction fails to curb the problem, a day off for rest and food and fresh air can solve the problem (and demonstrate that limits do exist before the overall tone turns poisonous and other editors pick up on it also). When the outburst seems out of character and continues despite attempts at engagement, blocking can be preventative before the editor digs him/herself in any deeper. Durova³²² 00:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, hence "either we accept some nuance...". As Durova said, different folks, different strokes. Protonk (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. Durova³²² 05:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

Resolved

 – Content dispute moved to relevant talkpage. Please remember to make use of the venue of first resort when discussing improvements to articles. Page protection is thataway if editwarring continues; try RS/N for independent comments on sourcing. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ale jrb suggested I should add this here rather than here, since its probably not vandalism, but User:William M. Connolley is definitely breaking some Wikipedia rules. He removed a sourced statement for no reason but his own (scientific?) opinion. After I re-added it and even found a second source, he again reverted it, saying "he does not believe me". I'll then added a direct quote from that source, yet he reverted it again. And now he accuses me of breaking WP:3RR. I'm really not sure how to respond from now on, so please is there any administrator to help me out? --bender235 (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, but it does not belong here either. It is a content dispute. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 10:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• both are may be breaking WP:3RR. They have all made valid edits to the concerned article. they have failed to agree on editing, I suggest you one of them should STOP editing articles the other is editing. Please read wp;3rr below.

The three-revert rule WP:3RR The "three-revert rule" ("3RR") is a bright-line rule concerning blatant overuse of reverting, a common kind of edit war behavior. It states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately, usually for a 24-hour period for a first incident. 3RR draws a line where edit warring via reverts is clearly beyond a reasonable level and action will be taken if it has not already been.. Ecoman24 (talk page) 10:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, which should follow WP:BRD (it is very bold to assume that 3 will follow 1 and 2, I don't even want to guess error margins on that, even when sourced!). When it got challenged, no-one of the two brought it to the talkpage. Bender235, you did 'revert' 4 times now, WMC is at three. May I strongly suggest that you do revert yourself, and do bring it to the talkpage? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the content dispute (which does belong to the talk page indeed), and found at least two obvious disagreements between Bender's formulation and his sources. WMC is an bona-fide expert on this topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I added it to the article's talk page now, and I'm curious to see what "obvious disagreements" there a between my formulation and the sources. --bender235 (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Now in appropriate venue, move to close. Verbal chat 12:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Block review request

• Rain City Blues (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• See previous ANI listing

On 13 September 2009, this contributor was blocked for two weeks for violating WP:NPA and WP:Harassment. He came back today and among some 18 or so decent contributions also did the following: [47] and [48]. I interpret this as a clear indication that he intends to continue disruption, since he has immediately resumed the activity that got him blocked, evidently without further provocation. Accordingly, I have blocked him again for the same term as his previous: two weeks. I'm inviting review of this block to determine if others agree this is the appropriate handling and duration. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - blocking ok. Ecoman24 (talk page) 13:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

May I ask where I am in conflict with him? So far as I know, my only interaction with him has been in commenting at the last ANI thread. (Perhaps you have mistaken me for the recipient of this message?) (evidently, a misunderstanding) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. From a review of the edits made previous to Rain City Blues' ban in September, one can conclude that the editor cares deeply about the material they edit. However, when attempts are made by other editors to correct, clarify, or attempt consensus, the editor takes the edits as a personal affront with an unhelpful combative attitude. In fact, the colorful language used by the editor against others does not have a place in Wikipedia. I would support this ban until the editor displays the ability to work with others. Additionally, I would like to suggest that someone volunteers to coach the editor after the ban expires so that we do not lose any good faith edits that Rain City Blues would further contribute. Inomyabcs (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block, although two weeks may be too short a time in which to grow up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not sure how I got to be the Evil Nemesis in this situation, and didn't want to block him myself, but I was disappointed to see that he came back from the block to immediately start hassling me on my talk page again. I'd noticed that he had some useful edits going, and had hoped that he would come back ready to focus on those rather than on his dislike for me. And all this because, months ago, I declined his request for unblock and explained about not edit-warring to him. I wasn't even mean. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The correct block here would have been an indefinite one. Tan | 39 14:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you (or others) feel that way, I have no objections whatsoever to you adjusting the length. The e-mail I received from him this morning would suggest he does not intend to alter his behavior unless I "get this admin off...[his] back", which is a bit difficult given that she hasn't made contact with him in a month. He tells me that "Else, we can go back and forth like this for eternity." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Rockwick spammer is back.

The Rockwick spammer [49] is back and trying again at Medium Term Note with another one of their randomly named accounts, Asdubiasudfa (talk · contribs). [50]. They're also now using the name "Cohen & Cohen", where they previously used "Cohen and Stein". Supposedly an edit filter was put in place to reject Rockwick, but it looks like it didn't work. Please check that. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave the filter thing for those who might understand it. I blocked the named account, but if the filter will not stop them then we will need to consider whether a sprotection will stop these accounts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

UserBox

Resolved

 – Nothing more to discuss; see Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's post. NW (Talk) 23:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived to prevent a heated discussion. Equazcion (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerbilling, improper deletion?

Resolved

 – No admin attention required (hopefully)

Due to the subject matter, I'm probably the only one with the guts to bring this matter to attention (if you must ask why I was looking this up I got there from a certain Hugh Grant urban legend I was reading about..) but I'm not sure why this article was deleted as the consensus was clearly to keep as per the afd discussion (see also the older Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerbiling), and also this article had a long history and is a notable enough topic for inclusion. Looking at the deleted revisions it appears that the rewritten version by User:WacoJacko may have been a good faith attempt to clean it up (even though the previous version seemed fine) but was incorrectly identified as vandalism and deleted. The latest deleting admin User:Gwernol is now retired so I didn't bother asking on their talk page but I informed User:Jimfbleak and User:WacoJacko of this thread. Is there something I'm missing? Would it be wrong to simply restore it or should this go to deletion review first? -- œ^™ 20:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that WP:DR would be the correct course of action. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope you meant WP:DRV, because I don't think there's much that can be done there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Yes, I meant DRV. Mjroots (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardly an incident, since the AfD was three years ago and the deletion last year. I would say it can go to DRV, but I'm just has happy with it staying deleted. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The article deleted was a very much truncated version of the one that has usually been discussed here. I think DRV is in order--this is not the place to judge

Both the truncated and longer version of the article discuss the practice in length before both admitting that it doesn't actually exist and is merely an urban legend. I'd be very very wary of restoring this, given the kerfuffle/edit-war/drama that recently broke out over the attempt to insert* said urban legend into the bio of a well-known person. * probably the wrong word to use, but hey. Black Kite 22:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hehe.. nevertheless a notable urban legend deserving of an article.. i'll take it to DRV.. see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 12. -- œ^™ 02:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

TRM Auto

Resolved

The user TRM Auto is a single purpose account which has created a CSD G11 type article. Recommend username block and article removal, as both are in violation of policies against advertising. Nezzadar (speak) 21:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

All G11 stuff deleted. Will block account asap, post-review. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

User:XpressBuy

Resolved

 – Indef blocked. JamieS93 00:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This user is promoting a business, please block this user indef.--Coldplay Expert 23:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA. :) –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, katerenka, your allways fixing my mistakes here.--Coldplay Expert 00:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for username violation/creating a spam page. JamieS93 00:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jamie and there is another one that I reported at the WP:UAA, indef. block is needed.--Coldplay Expert 00:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Celebrities Attending Concerts

Resolved

 – page protected, DR on-going on page

Ok, so on the I Am… Tour page, there was a list of celebrities who attended the concert and on what dates. Now early this year I remember that other tour pages had that same exact info, and it was removed because it is not important, and was considered clutter on this website. Because of that, I removed it. However, even though I have clearly stated the above facts in my explanations, people keep adding them back, and I keep removing it. Can I please have some admins help with stopping this information from being added back? ---Shadow (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

adminstrators don't intervene in content disputes except to issue blocks for edit warring or lock pages that are experiencing heavy edit warring from multiple parties.--Crossmr (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr - administrators can intervene in edit wars in a variety of ways, and blocking/locking are but some of our options. I've had a quick glance here and the situation may benefit from admin attention. Regrettably I don't have time to act further at this moment. Manning (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly I've only been here for 3 years, but I can't count the amount of times I've heard an admin say they don't use their tools in content disputes other than to prevent disruption. Admins can intervene as regular users and give opinions, but I can't say that I've seen many admins say they're going to force a specific version of a page for an individual user.--Crossmr (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not strictly correct. Admins can, and should, intervene in content disputes if the dispute contains elements that are against policy or against prior consensus. (Though, admittedly, in very limited situations and in very limited ways.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a very short period, started a note on the talk page, and removed all the WP:BLP issues. The sources used aren't enough for WP:RS but I'm going to first post a note to everyone's talk page about edit warring. I've offered an opinion but I think I've done enough to be at least neutral on the issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking

User:Jagged 85 has a long history of overlinkng. On Muslim Agricultural Revolution I have in the past removed hundreds (sic!) of superfluous links. I have warned him on his talkpage, but he continues to add repeated or trivial internal links to this article. I am unlinking them after his edits. I admit that I have unlinked a few examples that are arguable (but not more than arguable) as well, as I have admitted on my talkpage. But that doesn't remove the problem: that this editor is overliking and unwilling to listen to reason. Debresser (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it is okay to link possibly unfamiliar terms again in a new section of an article if it is relevant to that section. Despite this, I have attempted to avoid duplicate links, although you seem to be removing some links that don't even have a single link in the article to begin with? I think that might possibly qualify as underlinking? However, I admit that in my recent several edits a few other terms were linked again because I was copying some text over from another article, although I was already in the process of editing it before you de-linked them yourself. I can assure you that I am making efforts to avoid overlinking, but that does not mean we should underlink either. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to see that you are now more aware of this issue. According to wp:linking a link might indeed be repeated "where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first". But all that pertains to relevant "links that aid navigation and understanding". No need to link the name of an author or a publishing house in a reference (and certainly not more than once). And why link words that are familiar to the reader, and therefore do not contribute anything, like "lemon", "rice" or "paper"? Debresser (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Context is important when linking. For example, it is appropriate to link to paper in a article such as History of the book, since paper was integral to the development of the book, and a user reading about books might well want to read about the development of paper next. On the other hand, the link to paper in Business continuity planning is inappropriate since users will most likely not be needing to research paper in the course of reading that article. Abductive (reasoning) 07:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• User:Jagged 85, it is good that you have admitted your errors. Q will you be happy for me to advise you when you go wrong? I will not write essays for sure. one advise at a time. Ecoman24 (talk page) 11:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Systematic bias, conflict of interest & racism on the Somalia Affair article

Yesterday, as I was going about my usual rounds of editing, I was attracted to the Somalia Affair article by an anonymous IP who, for some strange reason, felt the need to replace the word "teenager" with the word "monkey" in reference to Shidane Arone, a Somali teenager who was beaten to death by a group of rogue soldiers in the Canadian army. I then noticed the continued gratuitous use of the offensive word "nigger" in the article's text, an epithet whose presence in the article the principal wiki-editor, one User:Sherurcij, has justified (and not for the first time either) by claiming that replacing that word with a simple allusion to so and so using "racist language" is tantamount to "water[ing] down the accuracy" of the passage at hand & is a "personal summar[y]". If that weren't enough, this editor also de-linked the word scandal from the article's lede, ostensibly to hide the fact that what was described in the same sentence as "Canada's national shame" is anything but that. He also removed sourced material (taken from this New York Times article) indicating that one of the soldiers implicated in the beating was "deemed to be "willfully blind" to the beating" and "was also demoted to private", that another "tried to hang himself after being arrested and suffered serious brain damage" (he also de-linked the word suicide in reference to this attempt), and that still another was "dismissed from the army". In addition, he later re-arranged that same portion of the text (a table), apparently in an attempt to conceal the quite noticeable removal of that material I just alluded to, & he even put the individual convictions meted out to the rogue soldiers in question in between so-called "small" tags, thereby making them less noticeable to the casual reader. Please note that this is the same user whom another editor and I as well as an uninvolved administrator have had problems with in the recent past (e.g. 1, 2, 3) over his unjustified & still unresolved use of copyrighted images of torture on this same article (images which are still prominently displayed there, btw), including one this editor himself again, with no external prodding whatsoever, voluntarily titled "Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers". Just to give you some additional perspective, this is also the same editor who added an image of David Irving to the Wikipedia article on that infamous white supremacist & anti-Semite, and did the same for Ian Verner Macdonald (an article he himself created), a man also often accused of anti-Semitism & of having ties to neo-Nazi groups. He even added a quote from Macdonald on the Ku Klux Klan article basically expressing sympathy with their "cause". Taken together, it's pretty obvious what is going on. I therefore think it's time an uninvolved administrator stepped in and had a look at the issue, as there is clearly bias and quite likely a conflict of interest at work with regard to the aforementioned editor. This editor has already indicated to another editor that he would like to nominate this dreadful article for Featured Article status, but I don't see that being possible if he keeps reverting any and everyone that does not share in his desire to selectively exonerate convicted criminals & engage in pointless race-baiting. Middayexpress (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Update: As predicted, the editor has yet again just reverted all of my changes under the same absurd and disingenuous pretext as before. Middayexpress (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Three points. One - you didn't notify Sherurcij about this post - I've done this for you. Two - you've not posted on his talkpage about this. Three - you haven't posted on the article talkpage either. To be fair, he hasn't done either of the latter two actions either. Without digging into this it looks like a content dispute/edit war with zero discussion. Suggest protecting the page to force the editors to discuss this. Exxolon (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

quick note of context, Middayexpress has some strange vendetta and has been warned before not to "accuse respected long time users of being racists"...that from the same sort of "uninvolved admin" he just demanded should "step in" and sort things out for him. And the only user I have reverted on the article is Middayexpress, so it's definitely not true to claim I don't allow other opinions or editors to contribute to the evolution of the article.

For context (since it "appears" to be without discussion), User:Middayexpress earlier tried to have all the image/videos removed from Wikimedia Commons for being "offensive" and thus a large amount of conversation took place there - not on WP - as community consensus was that he was wrong in suggesting the images didn't belong and should be removed. He strangely summarises his own nearly-identical-to-this complaint there to be proof that I have a history of this...yet you'll notice in the conversation he links...all the images were kept and it was determined I was right and he was wrong...an administrator just promised to look into the images for him.

I find it strange when people run immediately to ANI to resolve issues - but since Middayexpress is so fond of diff links, I notice that users on their talk page warn that "she will attack you personally, gleefully, viciously, relentlessly - and with no regard for actual facts. It's her way." So I guess that explains the ANI.

I have to say I find claims like suggesting I'm engaged in "pointless race-baiting" to be grossly in violation of multiple WP policies. The word "nigger" only ever appears in quotation marks, and only ever while reporting the (offensive) actions of the Canadian Airborne which were subsequently played all over Canadian television news programmes for nearly four years. Should we rename Niggas With Attitude to "Social perjorative terms with Attitude" to meet his "cleansing" standards? The quotes are only used in their proper context, and if anything, paint the Canadian Airborne in a negative light...how the article could possibly be construed as offensive to Somalians is beyond me.

The claim that I am a White Supremacist based on the fact I have added images to random articles is amusing, of course, since a quick look at my userpage will show that I believe Middayexpress just chose about the only two white people about whom I've written biographies and 95% of my work is dealing with controversial Canadians of all stripes. I mean...I wrote a (fairly damning) article that portrays Canadian racists in a terrible light and shows them at their worst moments...and I get accused of "supporting" them? If I wrote the Paul Bernardo article, would Middayexpress similarly accuse me of supporting the rape of young schoolgirls? He also claims that routine aesthetic work (such as using HTML break tags or font tags) is somehow a conspiracy against him to mitigate the seriousness of criminal charges...rather than to make an in-line template fit onto users' screens. Similarly, the only information I removed was from a table that offered "guilty" or "Not guilty" for each soldier, and he went and edited in personal biographical information on them thus screwing up the table's size and scope. There's hardly any malice on my part - I even agreed with him that one use of the quoted word "nigger" in a video title was extraneous and removed it myself, changing it to "racist language". But it's hard for me to understand hi attempts to justify the belief that exact quotes should be boiled down to something less vulgar than their historical truth to avoid offending sensisibilities. The soldiers charged in the affair used the word "nigger", the newspapers and government inquiries re-printed the word in its exact context within quotation marks...but WP shouldn't do the same? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: Just a quick note to explain/correct the erroneous statement above saying I haven't used the article's talk page to help shape its progress - I'm actually the majority-editor on the talk page (Talk:Somalia Affair) and have been since June 2009; it's Middayexpress who's never wandered over to it. I created a To-Do list there, I requested help with footnotes there, I asked opinions about article-merges there, and SimonP and I both spoke with each other about Middayexpress's continued "revert to my version because your version has swearing in it and you're a racist" disruption to the article. SimonP even suggested to Middayexpress what possible routes he could take if he had a legitimate grievance to help us "understand" his problem and he never did. Anyways, just didn't want anybody thinking I'd avoided the talk page. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Exxolon - This is not just a random "content dispute", and this issue has already been discussed ad nauseam (follow the links above). This is a case of an editor with a proven history of editing & even creating articles on racist and anti-Semitic figures deciding to upload images -- ones that he has yet to prove are copyright free -- of race-motivated torture, voluntarily naming one of those images "Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers" although he is already well aware of Wikipedia's policies against inappropriate names (an image which, incidentally, he has had months now to try and get renamed, but hasn't even so much as lifted a finger in that direction), knee-jerk reverting sourced statements which outline the legal punishments meted out to the offending soldiers involved in the race-motivated torture in question, refusing link throughs that suggest anything even remotely close to the well-established fact that this was a major scandal, and gratuitously including the word nigger when less inflammatory language works just as well (for example, he insists that the following phrase in reference to the offending soliders which goes "one using racist language and loudly complaining about the presence of black soldiers in the Airborne" doesn't capture his preferred "one stating loudly "We're not racist - we just don't want niggers in the Airborne" -- other than the all-important presence of the word nigger, which Sherurcij insists on using throughout the article, just as he insisted on including it in that torture image's title, anyone can see that the two phrases are virtually identical) , a word which he has already demonstrated in my previous discussions with him that he is not at all shy about using. That's what's going on here. Middayexpress (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sherurcij - Niggas With Attitude are a rap group consisting of several black men who voluntarily elected to call themselves that. That is the name of their actual group. It is not something someone else called them in order to disparage them & a Wiki editor then felt it just imperative to parrot. Moreover, the niggas in their name is a term of endearment where they come from. It is not the same as nigger; hence, the two separate Wikipedia articles devoted to what are two separate topics. What you've just described bears no relation to the race-baiting you are gratuitously pushing on the Somalia Affair article wherein certain Canadian soldiers are racially taunting people(s) of another race, at least one of whom they would go on to kill. Really lamentable analogy, but oddly appropriate and predictable considering the circumstances and your own previous remarks on this issue. Middayexpress (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually voted in favour of renaming the video clip back in July 2009, as you may have noticed at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers.ogv - do you have another argument? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't a "request". That was a statement of fact. And that link above doesn't work, FYI. Middayexpress (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Request clarification

[51]. An admin who had reviewed my block came to a page that I was editing, and in the course of my saying that a group was non notable and shouldn´t be included in the article, he created an article about the non notable group. I nominated it for deletion, apparently in the wrong place, and he speedy closed it. Is it appropriate, if in the wrong place, for an admin to speed close something in which they are involved, or should they allow someone else to do it?--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Eh. It's a perfectly valid close. You sent a mainspace page to MfD. That's not the right venue. Any registered editor is free to make that close. I mean, hell, should we look at your nomination of his article as improper? Where does the cycle stop? Protonk (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would it be improper? It is a non-notable group. I just wanted clarification, as I thought any deletion nomination, regardless of where, should not be closed by the person who created the article. I suppose we should look at is it improper to create a specious article to try and make a non notable group look notable during a content discussion? I am certian you can´t be implying that it is improper for me to have nominated it under those circumstances? Or, hell,should following me there after USER:ChildofMidnight defended me be pondered on? I assumed that your question was not rhetorical, so I have attempted to answer it. I really wasn´t wanting to know anything else, but if you want to open that door.....--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AFDHOWTO? Or is this thread just a coatrack for some other dispute? In any case, I do not see any admin-type actions needed here, so this should probably be closed. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I was unaware of it. Go ahead and close it. I cerainly didn´t want any action, just clarification. Now I know where to go.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny that you say you're unaware of WP:AFDHOWTO, when I linked to WP:Articles for deletion immediately after I closed the MFD, telling you that you could renominate the article after reviewing it. I'll WP:AGF and say this isn't a coatrack, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the MfD was incomplete - it was never added to the daily log. If it had been, someone probably would have beat me to closing it. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't implying it, but the fact that you skipped from the close to the creation and missed the nomination when listing improper actions leads me to believe that it wouldn't have been a fruitful discussion. Protonk (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Repost of Deleted page

Resolved

 – G4ed by Protonk. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please help with a speedy deletion of a previously deleted page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Raymond_Cunningham —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osprey9713 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

2012 Summer Olympics

Resolved

Section on Partners has been vandalized with "NAOOOOO =DDD Much luuurve xx" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Summer_Olympics Nick (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Nick

Ryulong (talk · contribs) got it. Thanks.  GARDEN  09:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Renaming of lists to outlines, and outlines

Resolved

 – admins are not magic fairy pixie dust to resolve content disputes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe this was closed improperly. This thread is not discussing content disputes but is discussing Verbal's actions. (although it did become slightly derailed) -- penubag  (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The thread was closed in your interest and The Transhumanist's. Are you sure you want it reopened and the behaviour of all parties examined? We have clear guidelines about what to do before a contentious move, they were not followed, and their purpose is to avoid exactly the kind of situation that we are now in. Hans Adler 15:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User:Verbal decided on his own that outline articles needed to be "renamed to be more conventional". He has started moving numerous "Outline of" articles without any discussion even when pleaded to stop (he violated 3RR). Edit wars have occurred on pages as a consequence of this, but he still insists on moving the outlines because he says "there is no consensus for outlines". Outlines have been around since Wikipedia was set up so there isn't any consensus for outlines, as there is no consensus for other entities such as Lists. Regardless of who is right on the fate of outlines, the actions he is preforming are unacceptable; other opposers haven't even agreed that this is what should become of outlines. I suggest that User:Verbal not be allowed to preform any more controversial page moves without consensus. Here is where this issue was discussed with him: Talk:Outline of chocolate (also in edit summaries), Talk:Outline of water (also edit summaries), and User talk:Verbal (his entire page). He continues to make these controversial page moves and after a brief edit war on Outline of water he went to WP:RfPP and got it move protected although consensus on is strongly opposed to his actions. Thank you for handling this matter. -- penubag  (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) User:Verbal has been notified. Crafty (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I've mostly reverted renamings done without consensus, and against the lack of consensus at WP:OUTLINE, the mathematics wikiproject, and against WP:CLT guidelines. I've also removed the lead of several of these lists which were copied and pasted from other articles, which is a GFDL violation (I believe). I do not believe I have violated 3RR, but WP:AN3 would be the place to discuss that. If some community consensus for these renamings could be provided that would satisfy my concerns, but nearly all discussion is against them (including the discussion at the failed essay WP:OUTLINES). If these people stop moving pages without consensus then these moves will not be undone. Note one member of this project has also accused me of "libel". The controversial moves are the ones I am reverting. I'm simply following WP:BRD. I don't see any need for admin intervention, what I do see a need for is community discussion in a neutral venue (ie not here and not under this heading). A more accurate, and more civil, name for this section would be "Renaming list articles to outlines without community or local consensus". Verbal chat 09:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC) May I point out that Outline of water was created with the title "Outline of water" and you moved it to be otherwise. What you also claim above is not true. Regardless of who or what is opposed to outlines, you need to at least have a discussion before you rename the outlines (there are thousands). Also do not derail the topic of this matter; this is not requesting for comment on what to do with outlines or a review of the civility of a member's comments; it is discussing your controversial page moves. -- penubag  (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Also, there are policies and guidelines for lists, but not for outlines. That demonstrates consensus for "lists". Please simply demonstrate consensus for "outlines of". There are many objections and many objectors. I see no benefit to this discussion, it is the wrong discussion and the wrong forum. Consensus for the individual article could be established at the water portal or locally, but a community wide consensus would address the issue much quicker. Note though that the WP:OUTLINE essay recently had the proposed policy tag removed by consensus. Thanks, Verbal chat 09:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Need I repeat myself? There is no consensus, they have existed from the beginning and has only experienced a recent influx. There is also definitely no consensus for removing or renaming them at the moment. This is the right place to discuss your page moves; we are not discussing the fate of outlines at the moment. -- penubag  (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC) By the way, I think I've undone (with the uncoordinated and spontaneous help of other users) all the recent burst of non consensual list renames, so I see no likelihood of doing any more moves. It looks as if the outline project wanted to present this as a fait accompli, however they will now have to establish WP:CONSENSUS. If they were more open about their page moves then it wouldn't be so hard to track them down. I don't think there is anything left to say here under this heading. Verbal chat 09:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Now that penubag has admitted above that there is no consensus I see no further point to this discussion. I'll not be commenting here again unless requested by a neutral or trusted editor. Thanks, Verbal chat 09:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Again, don't derail the subject of this discussion. I'm not commenting on the integrity of outlines, but your actions. -- penubag  (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I'm a neutral editor, and I should remind you that the burden of evidence is on the one arguing for a change to the status quo. Whether or not there is consensus to "keep" the outline articles is irrelevant: if you want to make a change it's you who needs to get consensus for that change. Jafeluv (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I fully agree. I have undone the renamings, and the status quo is lists - per practice and guideline and policy consensus. I believe the recent renamings by the outline project have all been reverted, but it is hard to find out and the transhumanist has so far refused to document recent project renamings. Again, as it has been admitted above that there is no consensus for these renamings, I think this matter here is closed. Verbal chat 10:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Actually I've just found a few more renames without consensus, such as Outline of radio. I'll not revert this move, and the others, for now so tempers can cool. Verbal chat 10:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Neutral - DEFINITIONS A list details subject which are not related to one another. You can read one and ignore others, and you will be satisfied. Articles such as List of parapsychology topics do not qualify to be a list. This article even states that "The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to parapsychology:". That article should be an Outline of parapsychology. A good example of a list is List of U.S. biological weapons topics, which should not be an outline An outline details subjects which all needed to be studied to gain a good understanding. a good example of an outline article is Outline of geography. all topics needs to be studied to gain a good understanding. Ecoman24 (talk page) 10:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I would counter that Outline of geography is a list, whereas Geography provides an "outline of Geography". Your List examples rely on the lead text, which in the parapsychology case was a direct copy of teh parapsychology article, with "outline" tagged on. I've removed it as a GFDL problem. Verbal chat 10:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I changed the section header to be more neutral and accurate. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC) brother, you are renaming articles which have been written by thousands of people. are you telling me that you are more knowledgeable than those thousands of editors who created those articles? the amazing thing is, you are changing outlines to list and list to outlines. wiki is free, but if we find ourselves in possible edit warring, best thing to do is, to stop doing that which is perceived to be wrong by others. you will loose nothing, but gain peace of mind. you have already spent so much time defending your renaming actions. No good please. lets move on as friends with a common purpose to share knowledge more freely on wiki. good day my friend. Ecoman24 (talk page) 11:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Hi, I'm sorry but you're a bit mistaken. I have restored the original names, the status quo, and have been reacting against what you describe - the unilateral renaming to outline without consensu. If you look at the article history and talk for the two you mention in the list section, you will see I have restored the original name and there was no consensus established for the change. Most of the edits to these articles happened under the name I have restored. Basically, I agree with you! I'm against changing any list to "outline", and haven't done this. Cheers, Verbal chat 11:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you brother for your understanding. Ecoman24 (talk page) 11:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Will you please explain why Outline of Water needed to be renamed to List of water topics? It was created as an outline. The same goes for outline of chocolate which you are trying to get renamed. Your claim that you are "undoing" the renames are false. -- penubag  (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC) case concluded for now Case concluded. however, most people still have interest on the subject of which articles should be a list and outlines. may i suggest that you start a new thread. for now, original case, which i have renamed to its original tittle of User:Verbal's renaming of outlines is concluded. Ecoman24 (talk page) 11:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC) The case isn't concluded. Until Verbal gains consensus he cannot rename the outlines and shouldn't do so until he has. I would like to proceed undoing his renames. -- penubag  (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC) According to this, there is no recent history of page move as at now. please, read his responses above. all should be done to avoid edit warring. lets make peace and move one. verbal seem to have moved on, understood every one's concerns about edit warring regarding page move. Will you agree with me to close this case please, unless new evidence of page renaming concerning ONLY List and Outline come to surface?. Thank you for your understanding and voluntarily contributing remarkable knowledge to Wikipedia. Ecoman24 (talk page) 14:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Ecoman24 please review these links create, move move protect and tell me if you think that the original names have been restored and status quo have been achived. --Stefan talk 14:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC) the case was closed in good faith. user:verbal has stopped renaming pages. there is no need to continue to continue antagonizing each others. lets move one gentlemen, there is loads of work that need editing. lets do it. well done all. Ecoman24 (talk page) 16:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elektra Records

Anyone who knows me knows how much I hate these boards, but I'm ill and I really don't have the time or energy to deal with this. A gallery of non-free logos is continually being forced into the above article, obviously contrary to our non-free content criteria and our non-free content guidelines. Despite being removed several times by myself and others, it keeps getting added back. As I write this, it's in the article. Any intervention/help reverting appreciated. (I've made a note about this post on the article talk page.) J Milburn (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a perfectly proper venue for settling this. It's FFD. Please use it, rather than edit-warring. Jheald (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, as I indicated at WP:NFCR, there is a strong case for thinking these logos do usefully help user understanding, and therefore do satisfy NFCC#8. To quote what I wrote there, "Branding for record marketing is highly visible and notable, hence the interest we take in it on WP. Furthermore, showing the logos allows people to approximately date releases, which in itself may be useful to readers given the collectability of the product. It is not unusual for an article to show a number of logos, to trace the evolution in the branding history -- it's validly encyclopedic. Also, the changes from logo to logo are substantial, not just minor detailing. So in my view, yes these logos do add valuably to the understanding the article conveys about Elektra, and therefore should indeed be retained."

To re-iterate: we have a mechanism for disagreements about which side images fall of NFCC#8. Please use it, and take the question to the community to decide, rather than trying to bulldoze your personal view. Jheald (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Concluded I like the way you guys have resolved this issue on article talk page. well done Jheald for taking a break from editing the article in question. Thank you user:Redvers for protecting the page. Ecoman24 (talk page) 11:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Concluded? What? What we basically have is someone claiming this is a "content dispute", which legitimises the idea of galleries of non-free content, and two weeks before the next reversion. Great. I'm reminded of why I hate the noticeboards... J Milburn (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ecoman, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please gain more experience on Wikipedia before declaring matters 'concluded' on the various noticeboards. –xeno^talk 14:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I support JMilburn's views. Logos can, as Jheald says, be illustrative of a company's history. A discussion of this with references to reliable sources would be great. In the case of Elektra, surely there are books or magazine articles discussing the evolution of this famous name, with some references to the logo(s)? However, non-free images without such accompanying critical commentary are a breach of our policy. One of our five pillars is that Wikipedia is free content. They must certainly not be in galleries, or dotted around the article next to random paragraphs. We need to actively remove content that violates our goal of being a free encyclopedia. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Concur with J Milburn. The question we need to ask isn't "could the images provide/illustrate critical commentary" it's "could the images provide/illustrate critical commentary and is there no free way to do this?". In this case, as JPS says, there must be reliable sources discussing the company history and the name with reference to logos. A claim that this there is no free way to deal with such things is one that is going to raise a lot of eyebrows. Ironholds (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Linda Ronstadt discography issue

About a few hours ago, I reformatted Linda Ronstadt's singles charts up to standards, so they could meet the Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style, however my edits are being continually reverted by user User:Don1962. He or she continually adds the old singles chart that does not include the rest of the Canadian chart positions, as well as the other separate singles charts. The user claims I have failed to add who originally recorded the song (as Ronstadt has recorded many cover versions of songs by other artists), but this is not required on a singles chart and it keeps getting reverted. It was not discussed and if they need to see who originally recorded it, they can look on the song page, right? It is Ronstadt's version that matters after all because it's her discography. Please help me. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

All opinions aside, you have both violated WP:3RR on that page. --Smashville^talk 16:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I seriously had no idea there was a rule for that, but now I know, thank you. I think the matter has been solved, but for next time, I will not revert more than three times. =) Dottiewest1fan (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:27 Juni

tranferred from WT:AN --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
27 Juni (talk · contribs)

Posting this here because the noticeboard has been protected: I'm starting to get the feeling that 27 Juni (talk · contribs) is a troll or a sockpuppet. All of his/her edits have been undoings to articles that have seemingly randomly been picked from Recent changes. The user refuses to discuss any edit and refuses to use talk pages. When I left a note on his/her talk page, the user replied in fluent English: "Im so sorry but i speak german! NOT english! Please translate your english words in german words and write only german on my talk page!" I'm doubting good faith here, this is verging on trolling and WP:POINT. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems likely that User:27 Juni is the user of the same name who was indef-blocked on German Wikipedia in March 2009, for vandalism [52]. User:27 Juni was created on 11 October, focussing on recent changes patrols. The contribs look fine (without checking each one...), but 27 Juni's revert of the above anon's removal of unsourced material at FK Velež Mostar led to this disagreement, which seems grounded in a lack of English as much as anything. Not sure what to suggest, but I can translate if necessary. PS The blocking admin on German Wikipedia is still active, so we could ask him for clarification, if necessary. Rd232 ^talk 15:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If the user is able to write "Im so sorry but i speak german! NOT english! Please translate your english words in german words and write only german on my talk page!", I don't believe that he is unable to read English. And what is someone who can't read English doing on the English language wikipedia? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a requirement to use English on en.Wikipedia talk pages. The editor cannot insist that you speak to them in German (this user is Elen of the Roads, making an edit on the move) Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

To be absolutely fair, there was a recent case of users communicating in Tagalog and it was decided here that they should be allowed to continue. That said, the user clearly speaks perfect English and is just invoking German to be disruptive. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 16:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

TreasuryTag has left the appropriate warning on this user's page. And if he can only communicate in German, then he has no business editting on the English Wikipedia -- & would be subject to an immediate ban. (That said, can someone who knows German history & culture explain the significance of 27 June? I looked at the appropriate Wikipedia article, & I found no clear reason for the date. I can't shake a bad feeling about it.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

PS -- The interested should have a look at this earlier version of his talk page, before he blanked it. -- llywrch (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

WoWWiki

I'm fairly sure this isn't the right place to post this - but not sure which is the right place ... hoping someone can point me in the right direction.

The WoWWiki article was converted to a redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (third nomination) in November 2006. Now, HooperBandP (talk · contribs) has recreated the article, and reverted the change pack to a redirect with the edit summary "this site has grown considerably since the previous RfD, and this page is done better since".

Compared to the original version (archived here), the new version appears to be sourced even more poorly; but due to the age of the original AfD, I'm not sure if it's appropriate to request the user send this through WP:DRV, or if I should create a new WP:AfD to determine current consensus? Can someone with more experience with old AfD'd content please provide some advice? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to apply CSD G4 after three years would be unwise. However CSD A7 may apply. I would just do a new AfD if I were you. Mike R (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - I've gone ahead and created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (4th nomination) based on your suggestion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection decline reconsideration

I requested that Tedder reconsider his declination of semi-protecting WP:VPP. After a little discussion, he suggested I bring it here "stating that [I] have requested protection, and that [we] wanted to make sure other admins felt it was appropriate."

The problem I'm trying to solve is blatant sockpuppetry by someone (SPI request already filed). By semi-protecting, it will prevent the sockpuppeting user (whoever it may be) from using multiple IP addresses to avoid WP:3rr and/or bait me into violating it and getting mself blocked.

In the interests of transparency, there are other issues being addressed in other forums, but this is all I am asking from WP:ANI: is such page protection warranted or not? — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• (copying and pasting from WP:RFP) Recommend denying the request. The "high level" of IP vandalism has to do with two edits to WP:VPP [53][54] that BQZip doesn't like. BQZ's been attempting to force merging of a discussion he started into an RfC that I started, even though I separated the discussion (which BQZ undid twice), CamelBinky separated (which BQZ undid), the IPs separated (which BQZ undid), and Mr.Z-man separated (and BQZ has yet to undo). Instead of protecting the page, BQZ should be given a warning regarding edit warring, especially against multiple editors trying to keep the discussions separate, and perhaps even a caution to stop going to WP:SPI when he doesn't like the edits being done against his preferred version (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TomPhan). This isn't about vandalism. It's about a preferred version that BQZ wants and a content dispute. Protection is unnecessary. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• There are two issues here.
  • Sockpuppetry. It's entirely possible BQZip01 is correct; he has been subject to harrassment by an IP-hopping sockpuppeteer, and this could very well be him again. I think accusations of "trying to win an argument by claims of vandalism" might be a misunderstanding of what he has been dealing with.
  • Semi-protection. That said, what effect would semi-protecting the page have? Surely, BQZip01, you aren't planning to revert the page again, when multiple non-sockpuppeting editors have reverted you? This is not an issue that has to be resolved in the next five minutes; discuss meta-issues like this on WT:VPP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Floquenbeam, thank you for the prompt reply. No, I have no desire to re-re-revert at this time as someone other than hammersoft as weighed in on the matter (not counting IPs and a user who doesn't want to talk about it). The person who is sockpuppeting has accused me of murder and threatened harm to me along with other things that have been oversighted (hence the extended protections on my user & talk pages). Again, all I am asking for here is semi-protection. That will not prevent discussions with the primary users, but will prevent banned user sockpuppet intervetions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• I declined it and recommended that BQZ bring it here, so a consensus on protecting it (short term) could be made. In other words, protecting VPP isn't something I wanted to do without more opinion on the matter. tedder (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)