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. 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

Continued tendentious editing by User:Communicat despite warnings and blocks

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

• Communicat has been seeking for some time to include a claim in the World War II article that the United States was in charge of the civil administration of North Korea in the years after World War II, despite the country being occupied by the Soviet Union. This began with a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page on 9 September (see Talk:World War II#Arbitrary break onwards) in which there was no support for including such a claim in the article. Despite this on 17 September they added material to the article which strongly implied that the US was administering all of Korea and added some further questionable claims about how the division of the country took place (diff) which I reverted. This lead to further discussion of the topic on the article talk page in which the sources Communicat was providing to support their view were eventually demonstrated to say exactly the opposite (Eg, they stated that the USSR did in fact administer North Korea after the war) - see the posts from 1 October onwards (particularly the posts by Hohum and myself on 3 October) and other sources which demonstrate that the USSR was administering North Korea were provided. On 10 October Communicat edited the article again but did not include this claim about Korea (diff) - I reverted this again as there was no consensus to include the changes and it contained several other dubious claims (this reversion was supported by the other editors active on the article's talk page).
• Despite this, on 24 October Communicat added what was pretty much the text on Korea which had been rejected in the World War II article to the Aftermath of World War II article (diffs), again implying that the US was administering all of Korea (along with lots of other changes). This was reverted by User:Edward321 (diffs), leading to an edit war between him and Communicat. The end result is that Communicat is still trying to include statement about the post-war administration of Korea which had no support from other editors and was proven to not be supported by the sources he or she was providing. I note that Communicat has a history of turning existing articles into POV forks (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II.
• As the other example, Communicat has a long history of wanting to add dubious material sourced to someone named Stan Winer. Despite discussions at Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Industrial capacity and production, Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#WW2 origins of Cold War, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45#User: Communicat and Talk:History of South Africa#new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities (and in passing in several other locations) which concluded that this author is not a reliable source, Communicate is still adding material referenced to self published works by this author to the History of South Africa article (diff: [1] on 17 October) and edit warring to restore it after it was removed by Edward321 (diffs: [2] (20 October) and [3] (21 October). Once again, he or she is ignoring a consensus which has arisen from extensive discussions and repeatedly adding dubious material.

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

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

Responses to some points presented above:

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

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

Communicat has a record of making edits that are not supported or even contradicted by the sources he cites.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Communicat's most recent attempt to argue against this was to dismiss the sources that contradicted him as the product of McCarthy Era censorship.[18] This is in spite of Communicat previously arguing that some of these sources were reliable [19][20] and ignores the actual publication dates of most of the sources.[21]

Communicat's most recent edits to Aftermath of World War II involved him deleting a large section of sourced material as well as adding material that is not supported by the source he lists.[22] The source does not mention Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew [23] and does not say Churchill "virtually declared war" on the USSR in 1946.[24] Commincat's edits were also vague, so I clarified that Operation Dropshot was a contingency plan developed to counter of future attacks by the USSR if they occurred.[25] As the differences show, I clearly explained this in the edit summaries. Communicat blind reverted this and the rest of my edits.[26]

Communicat has also been trying against consensus to introduce a self-published fringe source, Stan Winer, into several articles for an extended period of time [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] as well as repeatedly advocating Winer on several talk pages.[ [51] Communiucat is the only editor to think this source is reliable. That's not why I listed Communicat on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I listed Communicat because he posted a (now deleted) file claiming to be to be the copyright holder, Stan Winer. The picture has since been reposted without Communicat making that claim. (Information provided by Petri Krohn leaves me with strong doubts that Winer is the actual copyright holder for the picture.)[52]) Even after all of this, Communicat continues to try to use Winer as a source.[53][54]

Communicat is often less than civil.[55] He has been blocked twice for lack of civility [56] and the statement that earned him his first block was left on his user page for 59 days[57], finally removing it 56 days after getting off the block he received for making the statement.[58] and three days after I reported it here.[59] Communicat has never apologized for his personal attacks.Edward321 (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

As to the copyright issue, I have expressed no doubt that Winer is the copyright owner of the picture of prime minister B. J. Vorster. The only place where it appears uncut, apart from Wikipedia, is this article by Winer.

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

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

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

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

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

Contrary to what you assert, Petri Kohn, Communicat has quoted from sources that contradict him. He often cherry-picks quotes from various authors when the full context or other parts of the works contradict him explicitly. Two such instances are discussed at [60] and [61]. --Habap (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have suggested some specific next steps that come from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution [62] as one or all of them may aid in resolving the current problems. --Habap (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Communicat is correct that he did not add the incorrect info to World War II. On the other hand, has repeatedly proposed changes on the World War II talk page that are not supported or even contradicted by his sources (noted by Users Hohum,[63][64][65][66][67] Nick-D, [68][69][70] Edward321, [71] and Habap.[72][73][74]

Communicat has added posted information that is not supported or even contradicted by his sources to the article History of South Africa (Noted by Edward321)[75] Western Betrayal (noted by User 67.122.211.178)[76] and Aftermath of World War II (noted by Edward321)[77] Edward321 (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man

Unresolved

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mostly Outside Observation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She likes lotsa hare. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems like all those things are addressed by the Davinci picture further down in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This is just a suggestion, but I think some of the recommended remedies at WP:PUSH should be employed with regard to SAT85 (talk · contribs) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In an article about "Man", it is an appropriate place. Yours seems to be a "silly and unencyclopaedic" quest. WP:NOTCENSORED, get over it. Heiro 04:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, isn't there always Wikipedia:Options to not see an image? Saebvn (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Do have a look at the talk page, where we have discussed the fact that the lead image in Hermit Crab portrays a shelled crab. In my view the issue is quite straightforward, and the real tedium consists in having to go through the minutiae of what explict means in the OED, when an image looks dirty and when one does not, why private anatomy should not be considered exactly the same as other anatomy (just as, ceteris paribus, pictures of decomposing corpses would be uploaded less freely than pictures of live humans, non-censorship notwithstanding)--and so on. You obviously have a very different notion of propriety to me, so let's both of us defer to the standards of Britannica. Best Regards, SAT85 (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggest reducing protection level

All of the registered accounts that have been edit warring the image out of the article [78] are blocked for abusive sockpuppetry or vandalism. For all of his argumentation, SAT85 has been well-behaved in mainspace -- he hasn't removed the photograph [79]. Since there's no reason to let multi-sock disruption lock everyone except admins out of editing, I suggest lowering the protection level to semi, and adding level two pending changes protection. Any almost-new accounts that suddenly appear to remove the image should be blocked per WP:DUCK; the accept=reviewer pending changes protection will ensure that even if the sockpuppet accounts manage to bypass the semi-protection, they will be unable to alter the article that most readers see. If we let them keep Man locked indefinitely, disrupting the normal editorial process, then the sockpuppets win. Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I agree to lowering the protection and using the pending changes as suggested above. I also think that SAT85 is behaving in a serious way of tendentious editing that needs to stop already. For this editor to claim that editors are saying to remove the image is just plain wrong. Yes, we have said the collage needs to be reworked and some other ideas but removing the image isn't one of them unless things changed lately. This editor has be relentlessly commenting and keeping the discussion going in circles which is not at all helpful in my opinion. I don't know who agrees with me but if you look at the talk page I think you can see what I am talking about. I am not a regular editor to this article. I went there because of the AN/i report asking for more eyes from Boing! said Zebedee. There has been a good turn out too to respond to that request which also can be seen at the talk page. It's time to stop the circular arguements and allow the regular editors to get on with improving this article. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Yes. We can not forget Help:Options to not see an image. Wikipedia is not censored, so if the image is used in accordance with Wikipedia policy, then its use in the article is justified, and thus, just becuase some people do not want to see it, does not mean that it should be removed from the article. Just choose the options necessary so that only you can not see the image, other people can still see it if they want to. I do agree with the proposed protection level changes. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Topic Ban?

SAT85 (talk · contribs) has been engaged in tedious editing at Talk:Man with a month of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CPUSH. Frankly after multiple editors in ANI and there have communicated with him. Its a rather large farce to engage in any more Dialogue. I honestly almost could mistake this for deliberate trolling at the rate its going.

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

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

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

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

Ony if by "edit-warred back in without consensus" you mean that respected editors have repeatedly reversed the disruptive actions of We233ws (who was actually banned, for amongst other things, abusive sockpuppetry), his army of IP socks, and a one edit single purpose account (the situation since September 28 of this year [80].) This deplorable behaviour certainly detracts from any claim that there's a legitimate editorial dispute here. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Does it at all concern you that a number of respected editors not only disagree with your claim that "the consensus over time has been to remove the photo", but are actually supporting topic banning you for endlessly and falsely asserting it? The human body has been considered an expression of beauty and the subject of art for millennia, such as this classical sculpture, and File:Bouguereau venus detail.jpg. Is a photograph really more "indecent" than a statue or full color painting? If you disagree with WP:NOT#CENSORED, then the Citizendium and Conservapedia, both of which have "family friendly" policies prohibiting photographic nudity, may prove to be more hospitable editing environments. Peter Karlsen (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Support, as someone who keeps trying to get User:SAT85 to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Heiro 03:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Oops yes that would be bad. Scope SAT85 (talk · contribs) is restricted from all articles involving media with nudity or from adding such media to ones where there is none. there that covers pointy additions as well The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I hope I've cleared up this misunderstanding on the other page, Hilo. I was not connecting the two, just trying to offer an example of something we all consider to be inappropriate on Wikipedia; the point was that WP:NOTCENSORED is not absolute. If you browse back through the Talk page, you'll see that others discussed child pornography before I did. Best regards, SAT85 (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

You seem to be a reasonable person, CrohnieGal, so I think it is worth clarifying here that in my view nothing has been advanced to counter the charge that WP:NPOV, WP:PROFANE and wikipolicy on what professional encyclopaedias include are triggered by the insistence on the nude photograph in its current position when three other nude illustrations are already included. Moreover, if you have another look at Ben Dawid's citation of the Bible, I think you'll agree that he was candidly elaborating on his own convictions (something we could do with a bit more of here)--not in that instance trying to get the picture removed. As I said earlier, though, with policy and rationale a fading force, and no fair attempt to find a consensus among the readership of Man, I have little more to offer here--banning or no banning. But thanks for the more neutral tone. Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

(i) The majority has not been silent. All of this was dismissed with the red herring that consensus cannot trump WP:NOTCENSORED. Now that we have an editorial clique from AN/i stampeding over the policy-based, rationally-defensible concerns of the rest of us, "consensus" is back in the ball-park. (ii) If you are genuinely convinced that the readership of Man now supports your view of the matter, conduct the experiment: put a neutrally-worded template on the page itself, indicating that the dispute is over photographs, not images, remove the partisan disclaimer (since "standards of decency", not "censorship" is the key phrase here), and see what unfolds. This would not be bulletproof, since quite a lot of people who unsuspectingly bump into the photo at (e.g.) work or school are likely to click back without further ado, but if there was a very clear majority in favour I would consider the reasons for removal not worth persuing. No doubt this suggestion is unnecessary, superfluous, unfair or even perhaps "deplorable", but a guy who stands back and observes a no will, I think, suspiciously scratch his head. SAT85 (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

whack a puppet?

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

Pumpie's talk page

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

As I'm sure many of you know, or at least, those of you who participated in the indef-block discussion, this user has a very large competence problem, which is in the area of their understanding of English and Grammar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seconded, I feel WP:AGF has run it's course. There is always email. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The date of the first block isn't really relevant in this case. Just look at this from way back in 2004 [81]. The same problem of mass translations from and to languages that aren't sufficiently understood, and the exact same reaction from Pumpie when challenged about it, even using the same grammatical constructs ("I will..."). Seems pretty clear it's not a compromised account. It's also beyond my imagination why someone would intentionally play stupid for seven years (but I guess it's possible.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I also agree that Pumpie's last post to his own talk page is interesting. He states "I am a first generation foreign born Greek" which is at least a partial answer to the question he's been asked repeatedly for months now. If his parents mainly speak Greek, he's mainly learned English from TV programs as he suggests, and (speculating slightly) in some parts of the country that his IP suggests he's in, he would also be forced to learn French in school - then he may be something approaching tri-lingual resulting in his not having a sufficient grasp of any of the three languages. That could also give him distorted ideas of his own linguistic abilities and how translation should be handled (and thus the problems with German, Portugese, etc). If true then we should still be AGF but when it comes down to it, we just aren't able to communicate effectively with him so what's been done is the correct course of action --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI: some concerns expressed on other projects:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huggle is dead

Resolved

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

Gurch, developer of Huggle, has disabled it at the meta level (and locally) for all wikis [82]. The reason is a non-urgent bug. There was no discussion. I attempted to turn it back on, but I was reverted. Since Huggle is one of the few things protecting us from rampant vandalism, I would appreciate it if we could agree to a temporary injunction to keep it on until we can discuss the problem. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Gurch is on IRC, so I have notified him there. He confirms that he has been duly notified. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict × (edit conflict × (edit conflict × (edit conflict × (edit conflict × ...)))))WP:IGLOO exists for a reason. And please respect WP:BEANS; if Hagger And Friends find out we're doomed. Access Denied – talk to me 06:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’d like to think that someone who was so dedicated to ridding Wikipedia of vandalism that s/he developed such a super tool as Huggle would not do that. Perhaps, s/he’s just tired of maintaining the beast and people, perhaps, blaming HG for their not reverting to the right version? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Gurch was "responding" to my bug report about Huggle partially undoing my reversions of vandalism. A constructive response to the report (assuming the problem is indeed operator error) would have been modifying the software to raise a warning dialog before reverting an edit by a whitelisted editor to a revision by a non-whitelisted user. Immediately disabling the software, then blaming his actions on my bug report [83], was grossly inappropriate, disruptive, and WP:POINTy. Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

As a temporary measure during any similar emergencies

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

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

Mozilla Firefox is available for Windows, Macintosh, and Linux, and will run Twinkle on any of them. The software is free of charge, and free as in freedom (much like Huggle itself, if it weren't tied to the Windows platform. AutoWikiBrowser is another example of Wikipedia's free software with a similar limitation.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You may be interested in this. It's a portable version of Firefox that you can install onto a flash drive, and run it anywhere. [84] The sock that should not be (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removed Twinkle access

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

---

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

I'm bringing this to ANI to get a review on the action... I've removed Twinkle access for this user, as he's consistently been mistagging pages with CSD. His talk history is full of requests to slow down: a look through the archives should prove as much - please also note the user has removed notifications as well ([85] [86] [87]). Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Endorse temporary removal and block if problem escalates. Get a clue. mⓞnⓞ 02:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Apparent legal threat on talk page of blocked user

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

---

Resolved

 – seems to be pretty wrapped up, user should not be unblocked without first discussing with Arbcom as per FloNight's comments. - Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This edit on the talk page of a blocked user appears to be a legal threat. Another editor cautioned the editor about no legal threats.[88] TFD (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That is not a legal threat, commenting that you will seek legal advice is not a legal threat. Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

It's quite rich for TFD to come here and complain about it, after it was his and Petri Krohn's actions - the smearing of Mark's name, and committing various egregious BLP violations - which initiated the whole affair. Mark is quite within his rights to demand that all the garbage Petri posted to the SPI (the SPI which, btw, cleared Mark), which then TFD tried to make excuses for, be removed and over sighted. Perhaps Mark's not going about it in an optimal way, but usually when you've had something like that done to you, you are understandably emotional and angry. Probably what makes matter worse is that nothing is being done about this kind of despicable "strategy" - the smearing worked where the specious SPI failed in that these two appear to have now successfully driven Mark off Wikipedia.radek (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with most of what you wrote. The situation at the SPI is complex and the material that TFD and in particular PK posted is valuable in digging out serious disruptions. However, it is very likely that Mark is not involved. This has, by now, been repeatedly stated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley. Thus, there is no "smearing of his name" or "egregious BLP violations", although the user seems to think so, and has indeed reacted less than optimally in more than one way. However, I see no credible legal threat, and since the user currently is blocked anyways, there is no need to escalate this. However, TDF, Radeksz and Mark (and others) are all involved in a hot content dispute at Holodomor and Communist terrorism, and I have the impression that this dispute has lead to an undesirable polarization that now shows in other venues. I'd strongly suggest that all involved editors step back for 24 hours, refrain from commenting on each other on any noticeboard or similar page, and reconsider the actions and comments of the others in good faith. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

First, I'm not involved in anything on Communist terrorism. On Holodomor I am participating in the discussion, but even there I believe my involvement came after the SPI was filed (and one edit aside, it's limited to the talk page). I also believe that Mark is only tangentially involved in that discussion and his problems with Petri and TFD arise from other venues. The crux of the matter is not any content dispute but the obvious harassment that Mark was subject to during the SPI - and it is a scary form of harassment (which is why I just got my username changed). In terms of AGF, the thing is that Petri at least has been blocked for precisely these kinds of attacks previously, once for a year for making implied death threats [89] and once for another year by the ArbCom [90]. So his behavior at Mark's SPI is really just a continuation of an established pattern. Under those circumstances, it's very very hard to assume good faith, as several other editors noted at the SPI ([91], [92]), including checkusers, bureaucrats and even editors that Mark has had conflicts with in the past.radek (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

• It is clearly a legal threat. However, I'm fed up with blocking people for these and not asking "are we doing something bad, which justifies people making these?". There's lots of eyes on the threat now, but how many on the issue he's referring to. Can someone point us to the pages with the underlying problem so we can investigate that, before bannhammering the user for legal threats. (links would be nice.)--Scott Mac 19:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This[93] would be one example. It has since been redacted. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 19:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • A summary of events so far. A number of IP editors have made editors of a similar POV to a blocked editor, resulting in an SPI. The investigation turned up an enormous number of proxies and unsavory sites associated with these proxies. The blocked user's "legal threat" relates to the understandable desire not to have the unsavory sites linked to the proxies associated with an SPI with his name on it, given that the SPI has not connected the proxies to his accounts. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 19:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Yes, this is really a mess. A real messy SPI that is still not resolved, a half hearted legal threat from a user that was feeling very attacked and linked to rape comments and rape your sister comments and sex sites and the like, and it being his real name, its no wonder he was upset. It would have been easy to remove his talkpage access and let the SPI outcome be resolved first. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Well it was a pretty low grade legal threat and as I can see he removed it prior to the block extension, so hes not been blocked for that has he? He has been indefd for telling a user to f off on his talkpage, a user that Mark has told not to post on his talkpage .. really its a bit much in punishment for his wiki crimes... can we wind it back in to the original block and work the actual issue out which is the SPI and the quite extraordinary claims there. Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The indef was for telling Four Duces to "Go fuck yourself you sick twisted sack of shite" but as we've seen here, WP:Civil is obsolete, so hey, why not unblock the charming chap. We need more of that, right Scott? Toddst1 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Re point 5: Network discovery has nothing to do with it, all a joe job need assume is that someone purchased, as you say in point 2, a $30 subscription to a "Hide-my-ass" software and then pretend to be someone else to provide the "behavioral evidence" per point 4. Care to explain what this bullshit is about? --Martin (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This case has been marked as "resolved". Any new discussion should be brought to a new discussion thread and I am therefore archiving. TFD (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Threats of harm

Resolved

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

contributions, blocked for block evasion, has responded by making threats of harm unless unblocked. As a result, I've removed their ability to edit their talk page, but thought I'd report it here for further discussion. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Probably a good idea if possible. WP:RBI sounds good here. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

At WP:Sensitive_IP_addresses#Addresses_of_organizations_with_a_responsive_IRT it's suggested that BT "has demonstrated willingness and ability to be responsive to reports of abuse at the source (the user)". Elsewhere and more recently, it's been suggested that they tend to be non-responsive. Given that we presumably have a selection of IP/timestamp pairs for one of their customers, the customer in question is making (admittedly non-credible) threats of harm and legal threats and causing other disruption, and given that we believe a block at our end will negatively impact some of their other customers, is it worth asking them to take action on this one? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I've added a note mentioning that possibility at the talk page here [94] --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

It's baaaack

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

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

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

Darkness2005

Resolved

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

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

Many of his gnome like updates are valuable but on other occasions they are very idiosyncratic and systematically so, demanding time-consuming reverts. I understand that he cannot be forced to respond to other editors, but if a way could be found to persuade him to use edit summaries it would make understanding his intention less frustrating. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(I'm probably involved) So we have continued edit-warring by Melbourne-based IPs after two uninvolved editors (one an administrator the other a former admin) considered the content inserted by the IP to be inappropriate. Protection didn't work, so guess what comes next.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is unlikely to be Roman888. When his SPI was done the IP traced to KL, Malaysia (User:115.134.213.4). These new IPs all trace to Australia. There have been Melbourne-based IPs making anti-government edits for some time, even before Roman888's exclusion from the project. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serial copyvio uploader needs to be blocked

Resolved

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

User Legwarmers1980 (talk · contribs) has a long history of problematic uploads, which he/she has not really responded to adequately. This is evident from their talk page, which is filled with upload notices. A check of this user's upload log shows several uploads that have not been deleted and are currently in use in articles [96]. Most of them have to do with a kickboxer and a World War 2 veteran who has the same last name as the kickboxer. The user has categorically denied being the kickboxer [97], and since the other Bergman person is deceased, it's unlikely the editor is him, either. However, all of these uploads have been done under PD-Self. This also seems unlikely, as the elder Bergman photos are dated from 1944, with the kickboxer photos seemingly more recent. Given this user's refusal to stop uploading images that obviously do not belong to him/her, in spite of upload notices and even specific attempts by Shell Kinney to help, the account should be blocked and their uploads deleted. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've reviewed his image contributions:

• File:Bergman-Benamou.jpg I've tagged as db-f9, copyvio of [98]
• File:Plate-hbergman.jpg I've tagged as db-f9, copyvio of [99]
• File:Blue Devil-Hyman Bergman.jpg I've tagged as db-f9, copyvio crop of [100]
• File:Sgt,Hank Bergman.jpg I've tagged as db-f9, copyvio of [101]
• File:RussiaUSA2009.jpg I've tagged as db-f9, copyvio of [102]
• File:HymanBergman.jpg I've not found the source for yet, but I think it's very safe to assume it's a copyvio too. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I did indef block.

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

BLP vandalism by longtime editor

Resolved

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

I've run into a single instance of BLP vandalism from a long time, but sporadic editor. Ribonucleic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made this edit [103] to the Rand Paul article. I asked for an explanation on his talk page, however he appears to have gone back offline and seems to be fairly inactive. Due to the nature of the edit I'm uncomfortable just ignoring it. This is the sort of juvinile vandalism to high profile BLP articles that brings this project into disrepute. And further because of his longevity, it slipped right therough the pending changes. So I bring this for further consideration.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is a silly edit, leave him a note linking to this thread should be enough for him to realize he shouldn't have done it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

improper move needs repair

Resolved

This version of Our Lady of Assumption College, Santa Rosa Branch was copied and pasted to Our Lady of Assumption College, Santa Rosa without a proper, attribution-retaining, move. Can somebody delete the latter and move the former? My apologies if this is the wrong venue; I placed a move request, but I fear that'll take too long and further edits will be lost when the improper move is finally rectified. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done The merged article now sits at Our Lady of Assumption College, Santa Rosa. Feel free to move it back if this is not the correct title. For future reference, we have a special venue for just this sort of case at WP:REPAIR. —DoRD (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for both the help with the article, and the correct venue for next time. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

SP that doesn't require SPI

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

Image upload problem

Resolved

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

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

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

Where did Keith Olbermann attend college?

Yeah, that again.

BuboTitan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to have but a single interest in Wikipedia, ranting endlessly at Talk:Keith Olbermann about how wrong it is that the article doesn't mention which of the many colleges at Cornell University Olbermann attended. He also seems to think that MiszaBot (talk · contribs) is an Olbermann fan who's in on a conspiracy to hide this vitally important discussion because it archives old threads. This is getting rather tiresome and I was wondering if there's anything that can be done on an Administrative level to help BuboTitan understand that it may not be in his best interest to continue on his present course. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh man ROFLCOPT award. Why not just cite which one and be done? This is obviously Good faith question (Though WP:STICK might apply). The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue seems to be that the college he attended is a state, not private one - but according to the Cornell article, the University consists of 9 private and 4 state colleges. So what? Why does it matter whether it's mentioned or not? is this some big class distinction thing in the US that the rest of us are not aware of? Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be political point-making thing. Conservative Ann Coulter said Olbermann didn't "really" go to the Ivy League Cornell,[105] leading to Olbermann showing his Cornell diploma on TV. [106]. --Slp1 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone asked the editor in question, "Why does it matter?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for anyone who doesn't know, this all started when some pundit mentioned the Ag School in an effort to denigrate Olbermann's education. Since then there have been periodic flurries of talk page disruption advocating to put this in, in spite of the fact that no other bio on Wikipedia contains similar information. Is there anything an admin can do to help Bubo get it? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There's pages of this stuff. See archive 5 as well. BuboTitan is involved from here onwards, (January '10).Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. The fact that someone would be taking an implicit shot at the Ag School is fairly offensive in itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any reliable source indicating that there is some significance in having attended this college rather than any other college in Cornell (not as yet produced) this insistence looks pointy and disruptive. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree. The vast preponderance of reliable sources refer to him as a Cornell graduate. The Ag school RS mentions, and they are few, occur only in relation to Coulter's comments. I'd suggest making a FAQ section on the talkpage, with links to the key discussions in the archives, so that editors can be pointed to that. If it continues to be a problem, then having a new RFC is probably a good idea to show that consensus has not changed. It's been a while since the last one. --Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yes, we established at the talk page long ago, that this doesn't belong in the article. I wasn't asking to relitigate that here. I was just hoping for some kind of admin help in getting this through to Bubo. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Fainites. What Ann Coulter says has little bearing on how we choose to write our article on Mr. Olbermann. If these users are unwilling to follow the intent of WP:SOAPBOX/WP:BATTLEGROUND, they need to be asked to cease and desist, and should be blocked if they are unwilling to listen. NW (Talk) 01:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a member of WikiProject Cornell, I can assure you that Mr. Obermann received a Cornell degree. See the article statutory college for further details. Each college at Cornell has a separate admission process and separate graduation requirements, but a single set of intercollegiate sports teams draw their players from all of the colleges, including the NYS College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Hence, all of Cornell is a part of the Ivy League. Racepacket (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly those kveching about Olbermann are not using "Ivy League" in the technical sense of the members of the sports conference, but more in the colloquial extended meaning of "old, elite East-coast private university". (You know, "Ivy-covered professors, in ivy-covered halls," as Tom Lehrer sang.) Why they think it matters is beyond me -- it's not like MSNBC is going to pull his show because his degree is from a state college within an old, elite East-coast university. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll jump in here for a moment since my position has been grossly misrepresented. I'm guessing that Steven J. Anderson came here first because he figured I was going to request admin help after he lost his temper on the page and resorted to ad hominems (look at his remarks there 02:08, 5 November 2010). Enough said! Now let me point out a few things:

1. The official name of the school is actually the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University and in spite of what "Baseball Bugs" thought above, I NEVER said that it was academically any different than the rest of Cornell.
2. I also never insisted that the full name of the school be included in the article. In fact, I've never even edited the article!! EVER. I wanted to discuss it on the talk page before doing any editing. I did argue that the issue should be discussed in some manner in the article, since it is a controversy in and of itself and Mr. Olbermann himself has addressed this controversy on the air. I was looking for some kind of compromise. In spite of what Steven said, there is no consensus on this issue; the robust amount of discussion on it is proof of that. The issue for the previous RFC was only whether or not to send the Cornell link to Cornell page directly or the the Ag School instead. It had nothing to do with mentioning the issue in the body of the article.
3. Is this even important? Actually, my bigger objection here is the problem of Ownership of Articles. It's telling that I've been away from this article for 6 months and when I come back, the same three people are there within minutes if any comment is left on the talk page. You can also look at the old discussions, such as here, or here. The same users (usually Blaxthos) put "hats" on discussions in the archives and label them as "irrelevant" or "trolling" or whatever in order to hide discussion of this particular subject as much as possible. So it's obviously very important to someone. The point is that this small group will not allow any edits at all other than their own, and get outright hostile over any contrary opinions even on the talk page. That's not what Wikipedia is about.
4. Bottom line is, the article could really use a new pair of eyes away from the usual editors. Not necessarily mine, but someone new. As of right now, the article could almost be described as a fan page, even considering the subject is a living person. Certain editors on the talk page there, such as Blaxthos or Steven Anderson could also be strongly reminded of Wikipedia policy regarding civility. Thanks. BuboTitan (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

See what I mean? It never ends. I made some intemperate comments, which I have no intention of redacting because they're substantially accurate, and in all fairness, I came here looking for help before it got to that point. Somethings gotta be done to stop this shit. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Do other articles about Cornell graduates make a point of specifying whether they went to the Ag school or whatever? (I don't know the answer, which is why I'm asking.) Also, everything Ann Coulter says is designed to cause controversy, so what's special about this? And why does her dissing of the agriculture industry have anything to do with Olberman's career? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Bugs your first question that's been answered dozens of times and the answer is no. Check Category:Cornell University alumni and check the talk page archives. There are over 1700 articles there and not one of them contains that kind of information. Including it in the text would violate WP:UNDUE because we never mention that sort of thing and virtually no one except Coulter has considered it worth mentioning in any citable source. Bubo knows this. Now what he wants to do is create a surprise link so that when the user clinks on Cornell University he goes to the article on the ag school, thereby getting the information to the reader through subterfuge.Oops, I misunderstood what he meant by "compromise". I guess he has no real ideas for improving the article and is disrupting for it's own sake. A Can anyone here honestly say that they believe he's acting in good faith when he does this?

What bothers me about the question, however, is that it's a question about a content dispute that was resolved a year and a half ago, which Bubo knows. What he calls ownership is what everyone else calls consensus. There's no ownership. A wide variety of editors have no trouble editing that page without any problem. There are a few disputes but they are generally handled in the normal course of things. But, every time one of the trolls and POV pushers gets started on the talk page it turns into a complete, fucking shambles with hundreds of thousands of bytes on this subject alone. We don't need any more discussion on whether that bit of trivia belongs in the article. That was handled long ago by consensus. What we do need is some kind of consensus on how to deal with the disruption on the talk page, which becomes unusable every time the trolls start in on it. Blaxthos has tried hatting these discussions from time to time, but then, guess what? the trolls start to piss and moan about that.

Is there anything an administrator can do about this or do we need an Arbcom ruling that allows this shit to be deleted from the talk page on sight the way it is with similar idiocy is at the Obama-related talkpages? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So Steven Anderson, I guess the strategy here is to sling enough ad hominems at me and make stuff up until something will stick? Are you going to make a comment about my mother while you are at it? I probably shouldn't even bother to address you directly, but I would really like to know where did I ever try to put a surprise link to redirect the link to Cornell??? Where did I even suggest that?? Put up or shut up. If I'm going to try to assume good faith, then the most generous I can be is to assume that you have argued this issue with so many others that you are confusing me with other people. But that still doesn't excuse making false statements about me. If you are so confused, and there is still so much arguing over this, then that alone strongly suggests that: 1) Maybe it's time for some of the page "owners" to take a break and recuse themselves for awhile, and 2) The issue does not have a consensus (see my comment below). BuboTitan (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

POV Pushers who play WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and keep rehashing old discussions by claiming they are not resolved are violating WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT and should be instructed to stop or they will be blocked. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. However, the RFC that is constantly being referring to here, was only over the issue of redirecting the Cornell link to the AG College. It didn't address including the controversy between Ann Coulter and Mr. Olbermann elsewhere in the article. There is no consensus on that anywhere. That might also solve a lot of the bellyaching over this issue - if anyone tries to change the Cornell link, just revert and point out that the issue is already addressed in the body of the article. Or another idea, as someone suggested above. Simply start a new RFC. BuboTitan (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a pointy disruption that has been explained to BuboTitan multiple times. This is most certainly not a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia. Since he's a low-contribution editor who brings this up every few months, and refuses to acknowledge the points from the megabytes of discussion on the matter, can we please start moving towards a stern warning, potential topic ban, or some other form of injunctive relief? Good faith editors shouldn't have to repeat discussions ad infinitum because of a few determined POV trolls... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There plainly is consensus in wiki terms. No sensible argument or or suitable source has been put forward to justify including this pointy point in the article despite the many inches of discussion. BuboTitan, please desist this campaign and consider yourself warned, otherwise a topic ban or block will be seriously contemplated. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Faintes, we can settle this right now. If you or anyone else can do this, then I will stop making any comments at all on the article. Simply give me one single link or a reference that shows consensus on the issue of including the controversy in the article. Can you do that? (*sound of crickets chirping*). And consider this a "warning" as well, from now on, anyone who insists on making untrue statements about me, assigning quotes to me which were not made by me, disrupting the talk pages to hide disagreement, or making personal attacks will be reported. Fair enough? I can't assume good faith if this still goes on after repeated requests to stop. BuboTitan (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Teach the controversy" is not a good argument here. There is no controversy. The original arguments made by editors and Coulter that Ag isn't part of Cornell proper are plainly wrong. Coulters view is not a controversy - just media posturing. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The most recent one is Talk:Keith Olbermann#Edit request from 98.201.172.146, 13 August 2010, preceded by Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive_6#Keith's real college..., Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive 5#Cornell redux. Seems that there's been quite a bit of trolling over this topic over time, much the same way the Obama page gets attacked with birther/Muslim junk every so often. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there ought to be a sockpuppet investigation to find out if this is one person pushing the same POV and trying to make it appear as multiple people. Additionally, BuboTitan's particular brand of WP:TE bears more than a passing resemblance to Grundle2600 (talk · contribs). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

On the content issue itself, I find this all a bit mystifying. For UK universities that have a college system, it's totally standard to state which college at that university a person attended, if it's known; I don't see why the same thing doesn't apply. Apart from anything else, it is interesting that a sportscaster attended an agricultural college (Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences). By contrast, controversy about the college's source of funding seems pointless and manufactured, and eminently ignorable. Rd232 ^talk 15:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Because there's not the same kind of relationship between colleges and universities here, with some rare exceptions in some of the oldest American universities, such as Harvard and Columbia. Rather than the university being a (for lack of a better word) confederation of semi-independent existing institutions, as I believe is the case for Oxford and Cambridge, colleges in American universities are, by and large, completely subsidiary to the university. It's most often the case that the college has, in fact, been created by the university as a sub-unit, rather than having had a pre-existing identity. (And, yes, it does indeed happen that a university and an existing institution will merge, in which case the new "college" or school will carry on having a somewhat separate reputation, but this is not the norm in American universities.) Bear in mind that even our oldest institutions are very much younger than the Oxbridge ones -- and I wonder, does the model of OXford and Cambridge carry over to newer UK universities, or are they more on the American line? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and rest assured that when Coulter and her ilk bring this up, it's not because they find it "interesting" that a newscaster (he hasn't been a sportscaster for a while) went to an agricultural college. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The only other university that is very much college based is London which is a conglomeration of different institutions of different ages, far more so than Oxbridge. To people who haven't been to Oxbridge they would just say someone went to Oxbridge. It's mainly only people who went there who would care whether it was Kings or Balliol or whatever. However, at London, if you go to UCL or Imperial College, that is where you go and probably have nothing to do with any other aspect of London University at all.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be as specific as possible. The other extreme would be that "Mr. Olbermann attended a university in the USA, but Wikipedia refuses to mention which one". பின்லாந்துF (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's a degree of specificity which is appropriate, and "Cornell" is the answer to that question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Take another of the America's most prestigious universities for example, Washington University in St. Louis. It's a relatively new university, just over 150 years old. It includes a number of substituent schools: College of Arts & Sciences, the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences, University College in Arts & Sciences, Olin Business School, Sam Fox School of Design & Visual Arts, School of Engineering, School of Law, School of Medicine, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, and a former School of Dental Medicine. However, any graduate of Wash U would refer to themselves as a graduate of Wash U, not of Wash U Arts & Sciences or of Wash U's Medical School. I understand that in Oxford, for sample, one would say say that they attended St Edmund Hall at Oxford rather than just Oxford University. Is that correct?

I must confess, I don't see the big deal with adding something like this to the article, but that isn't a discussion for here. What is up for discussion is a persistent IDIDNTHEARTHAT. NW (Talk) 17:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

With respect to Oxford (which may or may not be a good analogy for the Olberman issue), I describe myself as an Oxford graduate, but I am a member/alumnus of Wadham College, Oxford - the reason being that at Oxford and Cambridge students most closely associate themselves with their college, colleges are separate legal entities and all teaching is centred around the college, but degrees are awarded by the University. – ukexpat (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The opposite is the case here (again, with rare exceptions) - identification would be with the university and not the college or school. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well here, if someone said where did you go to Uni and you said "Balliol" that would be fine if you were talking to an Oxford man but probably considered pretentious by anyone else. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Resolved

 – Taken to AFD

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

The subject, Carl Leone, is in prison for 18 years and his crimes have been widely reported. I find it hard to believe we are the locus of death threats made against him. There's nothing in WP:BLP which offers him any more comfort than that the assertions made in the article should be verifiable by reliable sources and relevant to that which he is notable for. I see no hint of wishing to protect criminals from the consequences of their own actions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well He might not quite meet the guideline of notability Guideline for WP:PERP. There might be a case for deletion The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I might, but I wanna here what other people opinions are on this as WP:PERP is not my area of expertise The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:Ss3991 trolling?

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

Wikistalking

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

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

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

Looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR (WP:NPA) to me. Let's see what others think. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I asked him why he thought my self-closure of the withdrawn AFD was disruptive, he remained silent on the matter (even though WP:NAC clearly states that self-closure of a withdrawn AFD is acceptable). Back in September, he kept reverting my redirection of Big Time Rush discography even though 100% of that article's content was already at Big Time Rush (band). I asked him repeatedly why he thought I should discuss what seemed like an entirely non-controversial redirect, and he also remained silent. (The article was then taken to AFD, where the consensus was to redirect.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • It is well after 2AM my time, and I'm certainly don't gave the time now to respond. If TPH hadn't deliberately violated the notification requirement, I could have responded promptly. Much of what TPH states is false, and is deliberately false. For example, in the November 2009 dispute over the Jerome Vered AFD, where he falsely claims I "remained silent," it's undeniable that I responded at length in the AFD itself, as TPH acknowledged at the time. Please note that TPH has been bringing variations of this complaint in various places for weeks; I think it's useful to review my lengthy response here [107] for example, which should leave little doubt that my complaints about TPH's inappropriate, policy-violating editing practices are well-founded and have been brought in good faith. I am hardly the only editor who finds fault with TPH's editing on such grounds, as a review of several of the AFDs he pulls my comments out of will make clea. Please also note that barely three days ago TPH was warned about inappropriate edits to my talk page [108]. Finally, for tonight, anyone who thinks that my statements might have crossed a line should not note edit summaries like these [109] [110] and comments like this [111]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 06:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • These diffs all appear to show Ten Pound Hammer expressing his frustrations (in a manner which isn't too constructive, might I add) and seem to focus on the same incident. At the same time, had Hullaballoo Wolfowitz responded to Ten Pound Hammer in a manner other than reverting his comment as "unwelcome ranting" [112] I doubt Ten Pound Hammer would have then felt the need to vent his frustrations in this manner: [113] [114] [115] This certainly isn't helping either: "remove paranoid ranting" [116] "unwelcome,, just read the original edit summaries" [117] Given these reverts, your comment of "If TPH hadn't deliberately violated the notification requirement, I could have responded promptly." really isn't holding water, since you likely would have just reverted his notification, and you were notified by two other editors anyway. [118] [119] While I can understand Ten Pound Hammer's venting, it seems you two really need to either engage in some form of dispute resolution or avoid each other completely (which includes not following Ten Pound Hammer's contribution history). --Tothwolf (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't really understand what the relevence of HW reverting other posts is to notification. As people have already said, and as we always say, reverting something to your talk page is taken as a sign you've read it. In this particular case, as you yourself said he/she reverts with comments like 'ranting' which would suggest he/she's read what being reverting. The fact that HW reverts TPH's attempts to discuss matters without significant comment is obviously problematic (although as I've said before some of those attempts have IMHO not helped either) but those reversions don't in any way justify not notfying him/her nor do they suggest they may not have responded sooner to ANI had they not been notified sooner. It is of course true that HW was notified by others, about 2 hours after this thread was started and 4 hours before he/she replied. Ultimately of course, not notifying someone when the rules clearly say you should and not trying to engage in discussion even if you are sure they will just ignore you is always going to be a bad idea as it's far more troublesome to explain (and may lead to whatifs) then it will be to simply write a quick message, wait a resonable timeframe when relevant and then show the diffs. In this particular case, I would say it's all the more disappointing that other then all the many places here which tell you to notify the people, the OP has been to ANI before so they should know by now they are expected to notify. (Which supports my view that while HW has likely made mistakes, the OP likely has as well.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

How about a sanction for the personal attacks in edit summaries instead.[120].--Cube lurker (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re the call for a WQA... don't bother, it was a complete waste of time and effort when I tried in September. Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive91#User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz_refusing_to_discuss_in_relation_to_the_use_of_BLP_cleanup_template They just send you back here or to RFC/U.The-Pope (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Sidebar:Named user using IP to edit

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

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

Disruptive IP editor

99.63.26.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is quite single minded over the addition of Catholic articles to living people, despite the fact that none of them meet the strict critera at WP:BLPCAT over the addition of religous categories. Numerous warnings have been ignored, probably not suitable for AIV so bringing it here for attention. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Image question

This has been uploaded by User:Chronos2010, an obvious Liberal Democrat activist, whose edits mostly consist of attacking Phil Woolas, a Labour Party politician. He claimed when uploading the poor-quality image that 'This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Joseph Fitzpatrick on behalf of Philip Woolas.'. I seriously doubt that this is true. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I think it is PD: see the gallery in the guardian, they won't just make that up, but will have checked. A similar case is this pic I uploaded previously. If you want to dispute it, nominate it for deletion via Wikipedia:Files for deletion. SmartSE (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

RPP Backlog

WP:RPP is quite backlogged, if an admin could take a look, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Spamming at Ebru TV

Resolved

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

This TV channel is attempting to own their article by filling it with unneutral and promotional material. Ebrutv was blocked at UAA weeks ago, Istemi2225 appeared a few days ago and after warning them today, they stopped, but 38.101.171.121 (which geolocates to ebru.tv) started reverting me. I'm at three reverts already, can someone please take a look and take the necessary action. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Racially motivated changes of nationality

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

Warned, happy to block if this continues. For future reference WP:BLP is a valid defense against WP:3RR. --John (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Giano's POINTed comments on Rlevse's talk page

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

---

Resolved

After numerous times being asked to drop the STICK and allow Rlevse to vanish in peace, Giano continues to make POINTed comments like this and this. Giano also reverts or removes attempts to collapse his comments or the entire thread like this and this. He even went so far as to edit someone's (mine) post (see here). When warned for editing another user's post (again mine), the snarky and POINTed comments continued to flow with this being the latest. Giano is obviously using the misfortune of Rlevse to do a little "grave-stomping" and with his impressive block log for harrassment, disruptive editing, among other things, he has been given more than enough warnings that he should know better. Requesting admin intervention and possibly a block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would you want to shut down reasoned discussion and debate? Rlevse apparently asked a proxy to post his self-justification/apology, and people are responding to that, since it brings up some important issues. If Rlevse would like to "vanish" that's something else again. If he has problems with what's written on his talk page, he can log back in and deal with them. I'd hold off on an Rlevse RFC/U until he decides to return. Some restrictions and/or mentoring would probably be a good idea if he comes back.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@NH - He can request a new password by email. I did that once. Worked a treat. If I'm asked to believe he scramble his personal email irretreviably as well, well, i'll just say i highly misdoubt that.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Either way, he is communicating, and people should be allowed to respond. Chances are he is reading the talk page. Communication isn't always pleasant, but I see no attempts to disrupt WP in order to illustrate a point. Just critical and perhaps pointed comments, but that's not what WP:POINT is about. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Intervention needed in spreading LGBT rights POV dispute

There is an ongoing dispute between what I will characterize here for convenience sake as stridently pro-LGBT rights and stridently anti-LGBT rights factions of Wikipedia editors, although the situation is likely far more nuanced than that. There is a slow but continuous edit war at such articles as American Family Association, Arthur A. Goldberg‎, National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, and several others. Recent edits to Equality Mississippi caught my attention due to the involvement of User:Allstarecho who "retired" in August 2009 with the words "This user is sick of the bullshit and is now officially retired. Don't believe it? Watch" but seems to have returned in earnest. Allstarecho has an acknowledged conflict of interest as the founder of that organisation which has prompted previous discussions at ANI ([121], [122], & [123] for example). I would prefer not to see the disputes over that particular article start up again, but it is actually just part of the larger pattern. The involvement of more editors who are not polarized on LGBT rights issues would be appreciated. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Donkey

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

I feel a little sheepish bringing this to your attention, but I seem to have gotten into a minor edit war with this user who repeatedly ([124] [125] [126]) deletes another editor's talk page comment. This comment quotes Atatürk using the word "donkey" about a vaguely specified group of people, and apparently that's a Bad Thing. Now, I don't think that word is particularly offensive, and certainly not if it's a quote from a source, but as can be seen from User talk:Favonian#Eşek = Donkey!, my opponent thinks otherwise. I am not entirely sure whether the escape clause 3RR applies here, so rather than revert again I've chosen to bother you all with the problem. Favonian (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

No comment on anything else. But it's highly offensive to call someone a donkey in Turkish, and in Arabic as well. I suspect a few other languages.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This kind of reminds me of a topic a couiple of months ago, where an editor had a statement in kanji in his sig which was offensive to the native speakers, but not to anybody else. IIRC the consensus then was to remove the offensive statement. a_man_alone (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Charles Whitman article

I am not sure even how I got involved, but I have tried to intercede in what is turning out to be a WP:COI issue, and I am now appealing for help.

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

The editor, 98.94.163.97 is apparently a John Moore, one-time Houston McCoy's "power-of-attorney" and a puppet master controlling sock puppets: Subwayjack and [127], also see more sockpuppets. By his own admission, he has been blocked (he calls it "banned") twice already for his actions on this article topic. This is starting to become more sticky that I had thought.

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

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

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

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

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

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