Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive650

User:Smooth0707

This user nominated an article for speedy deletion. When I contested it, he deleted the "hang on" notice.[1] I'd like someone to tell him that this, and his general tone, are not appropriate.

He objected to a page move I made (I redirected 'bounty killer' to 'bounty hunter' and moved the original page to 'bounty killer (musician)). After several unapologetically blustering messages on the talk page and on my user talk[2], he nominated the new redirect for speedy deletion. BillMasen (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• You both have something to learn: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and the general basic English conventions that cover the capitalization of proper nouns. Smooth0707 thinks that the common noun bounty killer should not redirect to bounty hunter, having nominated it for deletion, and that's wrong. You think that the proper noun Bounty Killer should not be the person whose (stage) name that is, and that's wrong. Go and read our article title guidelines, both of you. They even say what to do in almost this specific sitation. Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Done. BillMasen (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I had already left a note about removing the hangon tag but I suppose a extra note from an admin won't do any harm (JamesBWatson has left one). As for Uncle G's comment I don't think they quite describe the situation properly. After quite a long discussion (RfC) a year or two ago the wording of that convention was specifically decided on so as it allowed, but not require, disambiguation in this way. At the end of the day it's what causes less surprise to the reader that's important and one can easily imagine that one topic (say Topic Alpha) will be so much more searched for than the other (say Topic alpha) that a reader using Topic alpha is still more likely to want Topic Alpha than Topic alpha and hence Topic alpha should be a "redirect" to Topic Alpha. Hence the reason that this guideline says the disambiguation by capitalisation should not always happen. In this case I think the right decision has probably been reached. Dpmuk (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Prince William's wedding

Resolved

 – Articles merged and kept at AfD

Anybody want to be bold and deletehistmerge one of the duplicate articles on the subject while the AfD decides the existence of the other? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, no. Redirect, yes. History merge, not yet. Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton is the copy. Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton is the original from which content was copied. It seems sensible to stick with the original during the AFD discussion, which can be history merged to the other article if there is a consensus for keeping, and if it actually needs to be moved to that title. Uncle G (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton is not actually a copy, it was an independently created article. A merge needs to be done at some point, but the deletion discussion should be closed first. Physchim62 (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Merger from the copy to the original has already been done.

      The the only other substantive edits made to the copy were already in the original. Uncle G (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

      • Please don't call it a copy when it wasn't copied. It is obvious that two articles on the same subject will contain some identical information. WP:PLAGIARISM is no excuse for your display of bad faith. Physchim62 (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Whatever happens people DO NOT move the article without talk page discussion. The article has already been moved six times in the first 24 hours and it was becoming somewhat disruptive. Indeed, I'd welcome move protection to force talk page discussion. (See the discussion already there).--Scott Mac 15:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Already protected, I note.--Scott Mac 15:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

We've a problem folks. The duplicate article's AfD has a majority of 'keep', my assumption is that alot of editors there, aren't aware of the original article. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• There's only the one AFD discussion page. There weren't two. Both articles pointed to the same page. MickMacNee knew what xe was doing. And it's fairly easy to work out from, say, this what editors' intentions are in the event of there being just one article. ☺ Feel free to use the user talk pages of any editors, requesting them to revisit the discussion, whose opinions in the eventuality of there being just the one page to discuss aren't blazingly obvious. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Very tempted to propose an uninvolved admin pick one, move all content there, and salt the other. But that would be ignoring community based processes. But it would sure work.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be cleaning things up so that the community-based processes could actually work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

BLPs that seem to be mostly vandalism

Resolved

 – Moved to WP:BLP/N

While looking through the contributions of a vandal I was reverting recently, I found vandalism to Ileana D'Cruz (a BLP; I reverted it and thought nothing more of it. However, I tend to look through changes to articles I've edited, to see how they've changed since, and found something worrying; not only was it frequently being vandalised, but in most cases, the version that was being vandalised was subtle vandalism itself. (For instance, upon seeing this suspicious-looking edit, my first thought was to revert; but I checked the references linked from the article and found that the actual date was something quite different (and additionally, one of the references given there didn't contain the date at all, and thus didn't reference the text). I'm still not entirely certain that my edit was correct, though; what if the source in question was lying?

More generally, the issue is that I'm no longer confident anything in the article is correct; the whole thing seems to be made out of layers on layers of vandalism, and references are only going so far in helping with this (I already had to blank a section as unsourced because I had no way to tell what the correct version was). By taking it here to AN/I presumably I have a chance of bringing more attention to the article (I suspect it's only me watching it, out of active/semi-active people, and I have no idea what to do with it...; if I had to handle it by myself, I'd reduce it to an over-sourced stub in the hope that at least then it would probably be accurate), but more worryingly, I think it's entirely possible there are other BLPs like this which nobody's looking at at all. (Note that, at first sight, the article appears entirely sensible; it's apparently sourced, etc.)

Does anyone here have suggestions for a) the article in question, b) the issue as a whole? --ais523 15:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• The same suggestion for both: There are people who hang out at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard who focus upon this very thing. See a problem with a BLP that's hard to pick apart, with potentially subtle and deep problems, that you want other people to look at; take it to the BLP Noticeboard. That's for both the specific and the general case. Uncle G (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll take this there. --ais523 16:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Catherine Smith (novelist)

Resolved

 – Thanks, folks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)

A determined anon has twice converted this little watched article into a page ridiculing a woman he dislikes. The initial vandalism lasted three yeas without notice, and was replaced shortly after I removed it. That the guy was still checking that his vandalism was intact after three years is disturbing as well. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't think revdel is needed there. If it was you should email one of CAT:RFRD rather than advertising it here. SmartSE (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing RevDel worthy in the edits to that article. The "drama queen" part is just common vandalism. Stickee (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there's a need to RevDel on behalf of someone who's been dead for over a century. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I dunno; those dead types can get pretty surly... HalfShadow 22:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Just don't turn your back on them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am seeking approval for a bot that will activate one day after my death and tell everyone on Wikipedia what I really think. I'm considering NoTravellerReturnsBot for the name, keep an eye on your watchlist (but hopefully you won't see it for a long time). Franamax (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The article has a banner saying it's an orphan. What would be an appropriate article to link it from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• While the subject of the legitimate article is indeed long-dead, the target of the vandalism is living, and potentially recognizable from the information added to the vandalized version. Since the living person is apparently private, I think we should err on the side of caution and remove what appears to be ridicule. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I see what you're getting at. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've indefinitely semi-protected, but because the name of the target of the vandalism (clearly not the article subject but a namesake) is fairly common and the nature of the claim pretty mild, I don't think RevDel is warranted. Rd232 ^talk 23:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just for kicks, I spent a brief while searching for a good biographical source to cite for that article. I couldn't find one. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

User Dead-or-Red edit warring and sockpuppetry

Dead-or-Red (talk · contribs) is engaging in a silly edit war at Taunton and now he isn't getting his own way is resorting to using a sock IP account (that has been used once before for edit warring) 94.173.226.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Several editors have been trying to engage in a civilised conversation about the inclusion of certain content within the article at Talk:Taunton#Notable_people_2. This editor persists in pushing his point of view by simply reverting other users, and in two cases completely blanking the article. The first time this was done I decided to AGF, especially as the user cited finger trouble on a smartphone, but then it happened again. Now the user has reverted to his sock account to once again revert the content instead of engaging in the discussion and reaching consensus. If you look at this editor's history you will see a pattern of disruptive editing. I'm not looking for a ban, just for someone to step in and stop the madness until a full and frank discussion can be had at the article's talk page.to reach consensus. --Simple Bob (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• The debate there is not quite as lame as the swimming pool debate from a few days ago, but it's definitely in the neighborhood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Neighborhood swimming pool? –MuZemike 23:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes. At the shallow end. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Is this one of those swimming pools with the special chemical that turns blue when something unpleasant is released in it? --Jayron32 01:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Royal blue, perhaps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sarcastic comments by a non admin on an admin page are not especially helpful. Lame or not, we are attempting to discuss content and reach consensus in the proper way, but are being hampered by this user. --Simple Bob (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • You could probably learn something about WP:LAME. It's a valid description of the overall argument going on over there. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • So, you approve of sarcastic comments by an admin? Well, that is an example of equality in action in the "encyclopedia anyone can edit"... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Does wikipedia have any standards as regards who qualifies as a "notable resident" of a given city? Obviously, the citizen has to already be notable, so the core issue is defining what a "resident" is. What is the minimum number of days/weeks/months/years that are needed in order to qualify? Or is it on a city-by-city basis? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Even though we have some notable people already, if Stephen Spielberg moved to Ottawa, he would become a notable resident of the city on the very day the moving van unloaded his first Oscar onto his new mantle. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm sure that we have, and it looks like people are trying to apply them. Someone who has never verifiably been a resident of the place at all is not a notable resident, for example. Uncle G (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Correct, although the guidelines are not as comprehensive as they could be Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Notable_people - which is one of the reasons we are trying to reach consensus on the article's talk page and the WikiProject's talk page. --Simple Bob (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Another sock perhaps? 62.239.159.5 (talk · contribs) Same "vandalism by simple bob" comment - (diff) --Simple Bob (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pergamon

Resolved

 – Says he'll stop.

Acroterion _(talk) 21:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Two of us are having persistent problems with an editor on Pergamon. He appears to be using IP sockpuppets which we are at loss to counter or report. See his actual name, possible sockpuppet, another possible sockpuppet

The problem, however, is editing waring. We agree on a untouched photo representing the monument. See our agreed photo. The other editor wishes to place a doctored photo which can be seen in the refs above. I have checked, and doctored photos (very artistic BTW) are contrary to policy.

We would agree to a total lock, but there is no point in locking in his changes which usually happens in these cases!  :) He will just move on and not return until the article becomes unlocked. It is his only interest. Student7 (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Doctored" is an understatement. "Posterized to death" would be more like it. I have no problem with protecting the page with the encyclopedic image agreed upon by consensus and dealing with the edit-warring editor - this is close to image vandalism. Acroterion _(talk) 13:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I've semi-protected the article for two weeks to keep the IPs under control and warned Omulazimoglu (talk · contribs); if he resumes, a block for edit-warring and disruption would be appropriate. He seems to be trying the same sort of thing in other articles, replacing encyclopedic images with his favored images, then reverting challenges to these changes. Acroterion _(talk) 13:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that it's more subtle than that. According to the information for commons:File:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg the original uploader was tr:Kullanıcı:Mulazimoglu. The modified image commons:File:Pergamon, Turkey.jpg was uploaded by commons:User:Ozgurmulazimoglu who claims to be mulazimoglu on Flickr and who has been identified here as a sockpuppet of User:Omulazimoglu. This seems to be one person expressing ownership as to which of two images that xe uploaded is the proper one. And my goodness it should have been taken to talk pages a fortnight ago!

      commons:Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alanyaancientshipyard.jpg makes for interesting reading, too, as it seems to demonstrate the conflict of value systems at work here. Uncle G (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

      • I've been looking at this over at Commons too. I get the general impression that Omulazimoglu/Mulazimoglu is campaigning for FP status for many of these images and is placing them in articles here since actual use in an article is a criterion for FP. I don't see that for the modified Pergamon image - from his participation at Commons he really ought to know better. Acroterion _(talk) 15:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Hello Guys. Do you really think that i am a bad guy on the criters of wikipedia family. If i am really doing more harm than good on wikipedia pls use other alternative. But i am feeling like i am being biten. I am contributing to wikipedia with lots of images and etc. Is that a bad thing? I have rights to make edits on the articles as every other user. Why i am the only one to be warned after an edit war? Is this fair? Or pls check out if you guys are fair? Thank you MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, that's right: he's being biten by criters. Only on Wikipedia, folks. HalfShadow 18:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • May you pls tell what you mean by this words? My english is pretty weak. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I was tempted to state that the correct phrase, as everyone knows, is "nibbled to death by cats", but I thought that that would only increase the confusion.

      I don't know why the Turkish Wikipedia banned you, but Commons is telling you that it wants free content images, and that its featured images actually have to be more than just easy on the eye, and the English Wikipedia is telling you that an encyclopaedia wants images that actually depict the things being discussed in the article, in their true colours. Uncle G (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added comments at Omulazimoglu's talkpage; as noted farther up by Uncle G, I don't think Omulazimoglu understands that this is an encyclopedia, not a gallery for interesting images. Acroterion _(talk) 20:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia? Just noticed. Thanks Acroterion. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Suppression of request for comment at WP:MOSNUM

User:Greg L has twice removed a request for comment tag at WP:MOSNUM#Example of non-standard abbreviation for SI unit before a reasonable time for a significant number of editors to even become aware of the issue, much less for consensus to be established that the discussion is over. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is just an edit dispute. Jc3s5h’s conduct is bordering on tendentious disruption. He didn’t agree with a statement about “cc”s being used in “automotive” articles so the wording in the proposal was changed to one of “Honda motorcycle engines.” As shown here on WT:MOSNUM, he isn’t being told he can’t have an RfC; he’s being told the wording and basis for the old RfC is moot and if he disputes the facts behind the new wording, he simply needs to start a new RfC that speaks to the current wording. Greg L (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey,

    Took a quick look at this. It strikes me that removing the RfC tag was not appropriate, and probably violates Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments. If you had a problem with it Greg L you could have explained it in response to the RfC. If the RfC was truly disruptive, take to ANI or the Etiquette pages. Bottom line is that you should be extremely cautious when changing anything another editor has put on a talk page. NickCT (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

    • Yeah, content dispute. Though I would suggest that any editor suggesting that "cc" isn't the standard unit when discussing automotive engine capacity needs to have a good long look at their editing. This is an encyclopedia, not ascientific paper. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • It's not about the unit, I observe, which is the cubic centimetre on either side of the dispute. It's about the abbreviation for the unit. But this dispute has sunk pretty low anyway, with one editor stating (in the section above on that very same discussion page) of England that xe "couldn't care less what moronic practice goes on over there; it doesn't have to blight Wikipedia". There's borderline conduct all around, it seems. Didn't Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Greg L get the point home about that sort of rhetoric in style manual discussions? Uncle G (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Taken alone, I'm not sure the "moronic practice" comment to so egregious, but I'd generally agree with Uncle G's comments. I think Greg may need to take it down a notch, though I'm not super familiar with this editor, so I'll reserve judgement. NickCT (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Closure of AfD for 2010 Shanghai Fire as it was on the Main page

Resolved

 – Closed as snow keep. Jehochman ^Talk 20:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Can this be speed-kept please? There is a large consensus in favour and it was on the main page when the AfD request was made, which seems rather inappropriate. I've discussed it with HJ Mitchell on his talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• I can't see why it should be closed early. There are a couple of valid deletes there, and having been on the main page isn't one of the criteria under speedy keep as far as I can see. AniMate 19:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems like it is at or is heading towards a SNOW keep though. NW (Talk) 19:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Wait, one delete (not counting the nominator, obviously) counts as a couple of valid deletes now? I sure wish I had gotten that memo. ----Divebomb is not British 19:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • If the nominator gives a valid reason for deletion then yes, the nom plus another valid delete does = a couple of valid deletes. This is moot, though, as it's clearly going to be kept and should probably be closed (I've already commented, so can't). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Animate, there is only one other delete vote besides the nomination and it just cites WP:NOTNEWS. The only strong vote is the nomination one and no one seems to agree with that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • If it is closed can it be put back on ITN please? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Catherine Smith (novelist)

Resolved

 – Thanks, folks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)

A determined anon has twice converted this little watched article into a page ridiculing a woman he dislikes. The initial vandalism lasted three yeas without notice, and was replaced shortly after I removed it. That the guy was still checking that his vandalism was intact after three years is disturbing as well. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't think revdel is needed there. If it was you should email one of CAT:RFRD rather than advertising it here. SmartSE (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing RevDel worthy in the edits to that article. The "drama queen" part is just common vandalism. Stickee (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there's a need to RevDel on behalf of someone who's been dead for over a century. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I dunno; those dead types can get pretty surly... HalfShadow 22:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Just don't turn your back on them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am seeking approval for a bot that will activate one day after my death and tell everyone on Wikipedia what I really think. I'm considering NoTravellerReturnsBot for the name, keep an eye on your watchlist (but hopefully you won't see it for a long time). Franamax (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The article has a banner saying it's an orphan. What would be an appropriate article to link it from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• While the subject of the legitimate article is indeed long-dead, the target of the vandalism is living, and potentially recognizable from the information added to the vandalized version. Since the living person is apparently private, I think we should err on the side of caution and remove what appears to be ridicule. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I see what you're getting at. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've indefinitely semi-protected, but because the name of the target of the vandalism (clearly not the article subject but a namesake) is fairly common and the nature of the claim pretty mild, I don't think RevDel is warranted. Rd232 ^talk 23:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just for kicks, I spent a brief while searching for a good biographical source to cite for that article. I couldn't find one. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

User Dead-or-Red edit warring and sockpuppetry

Dead-or-Red (talk · contribs) is engaging in a silly edit war at Taunton and now he isn't getting his own way is resorting to using a sock IP account (that has been used once before for edit warring) 94.173.226.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Several editors have been trying to engage in a civilised conversation about the inclusion of certain content within the article at Talk:Taunton#Notable_people_2. This editor persists in pushing his point of view by simply reverting other users, and in two cases completely blanking the article. The first time this was done I decided to AGF, especially as the user cited finger trouble on a smartphone, but then it happened again. Now the user has reverted to his sock account to once again revert the content instead of engaging in the discussion and reaching consensus. If you look at this editor's history you will see a pattern of disruptive editing. I'm not looking for a ban, just for someone to step in and stop the madness until a full and frank discussion can be had at the article's talk page.to reach consensus. --Simple Bob (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• The debate there is not quite as lame as the swimming pool debate from a few days ago, but it's definitely in the neighborhood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Neighborhood swimming pool? –MuZemike 23:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes. At the shallow end. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Is this one of those swimming pools with the special chemical that turns blue when something unpleasant is released in it? --Jayron32 01:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Royal blue, perhaps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sarcastic comments by a non admin on an admin page are not especially helpful. Lame or not, we are attempting to discuss content and reach consensus in the proper way, but are being hampered by this user. --Simple Bob (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • You could probably learn something about WP:LAME. It's a valid description of the overall argument going on over there. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • So, you approve of sarcastic comments by an admin? Well, that is an example of equality in action in the "encyclopedia anyone can edit"... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Does wikipedia have any standards as regards who qualifies as a "notable resident" of a given city? Obviously, the citizen has to already be notable, so the core issue is defining what a "resident" is. What is the minimum number of days/weeks/months/years that are needed in order to qualify? Or is it on a city-by-city basis? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Even though we have some notable people already, if Stephen Spielberg moved to Ottawa, he would become a notable resident of the city on the very day the moving van unloaded his first Oscar onto his new mantle. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm sure that we have, and it looks like people are trying to apply them. Someone who has never verifiably been a resident of the place at all is not a notable resident, for example. Uncle G (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Correct, although the guidelines are not as comprehensive as they could be Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Notable_people - which is one of the reasons we are trying to reach consensus on the article's talk page and the WikiProject's talk page. --Simple Bob (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Another sock perhaps? 62.239.159.5 (talk · contribs) Same "vandalism by simple bob" comment - (diff) --Simple Bob (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pergamon

Resolved

 – Says he'll stop.

Acroterion _(talk) 21:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Two of us are having persistent problems with an editor on Pergamon. He appears to be using IP sockpuppets which we are at loss to counter or report. See his actual name, possible sockpuppet, another possible sockpuppet

The problem, however, is editing waring. We agree on a untouched photo representing the monument. See our agreed photo. The other editor wishes to place a doctored photo which can be seen in the refs above. I have checked, and doctored photos (very artistic BTW) are contrary to policy.

We would agree to a total lock, but there is no point in locking in his changes which usually happens in these cases!  :) He will just move on and not return until the article becomes unlocked. It is his only interest. Student7 (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Doctored" is an understatement. "Posterized to death" would be more like it. I have no problem with protecting the page with the encyclopedic image agreed upon by consensus and dealing with the edit-warring editor - this is close to image vandalism. Acroterion _(talk) 13:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I've semi-protected the article for two weeks to keep the IPs under control and warned Omulazimoglu (talk · contribs); if he resumes, a block for edit-warring and disruption would be appropriate. He seems to be trying the same sort of thing in other articles, replacing encyclopedic images with his favored images, then reverting challenges to these changes. Acroterion _(talk) 13:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that it's more subtle than that. According to the information for commons:File:Bergama 20 06 07.jpg the original uploader was tr:Kullanıcı:Mulazimoglu. The modified image commons:File:Pergamon, Turkey.jpg was uploaded by commons:User:Ozgurmulazimoglu who claims to be {{flickr}} and who has been identified here as a sockpuppet of User:Omulazimoglu. This seems to be one person expressing ownership as to which of two images that xe uploaded is the proper one. And my goodness it should have been taken to talk pages a fortnight ago!

      commons:Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alanyaancientshipyard.jpg makes for interesting reading, too, as it seems to demonstrate the conflict of value systems at work here. Uncle G (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

      • I've been looking at this over at Commons too. I get the general impression that Omulazimoglu/Mulazimoglu is campaigning for FP status for many of these images and is placing them in articles here since actual use in an article is a criterion for FP. I don't see that for the modified Pergamon image - from his participation at Commons he really ought to know better. Acroterion _(talk) 15:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Hello Guys. Do you really think that i am a bad guy on the criters of wikipedia family. If i am really doing more harm than good on wikipedia pls use other alternative. But i am feeling like i am being biten. I am contributing to wikipedia with lots of images and etc. Is that a bad thing? I have rights to make edits on the articles as every other user. Why i am the only one to be warned after an edit war? Is this fair? Or pls check out if you guys are fair? Thank you MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, that's right: he's being biten by criters. Only on Wikipedia, folks. HalfShadow 18:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • May you pls tell what you mean by this words? My english is pretty weak. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I was tempted to state that the correct phrase, as everyone knows, is "nibbled to death by cats", but I thought that that would only increase the confusion.

      I don't know why the Turkish Wikipedia banned you, but Commons is telling you that it wants free content images, and that its featured images actually have to be more than just easy on the eye, and the English Wikipedia is telling you that an encyclopaedia wants images that actually depict the things being discussed in the article, in their true colours. Uncle G (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added comments at Omulazimoglu's talkpage; as noted farther up by Uncle G, I don't think Omulazimoglu understands that this is an encyclopedia, not a gallery for interesting images. Acroterion _(talk) 20:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia? Just noticed. Thanks Acroterion. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Suppression of request for comment at WP:MOSNUM

User:Greg L has twice removed a request for comment tag at WP:MOSNUM#Example of non-standard abbreviation for SI unit before a reasonable time for a significant number of editors to even become aware of the issue, much less for consensus to be established that the discussion is over. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is just an edit dispute. Jc3s5h’s conduct is bordering on tendentious disruption. He didn’t agree with a statement about “cc”s being used in “automotive” articles so the wording in the proposal was changed to one of “Honda motorcycle engines.” As shown here on WT:MOSNUM, he isn’t being told he can’t have an RfC; he’s being told the wording and basis for the old RfC is moot and if he disputes the facts behind the new wording, he simply needs to start a new RfC that speaks to the current wording. Greg L (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey,

    Took a quick look at this. It strikes me that removing the RfC tag was not appropriate, and probably violates Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments. If you had a problem with it Greg L you could have explained it in response to the RfC. If the RfC was truly disruptive, take to ANI or the Etiquette pages. Bottom line is that you should be extremely cautious when changing anything another editor has put on a talk page. NickCT (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

    • Yeah, content dispute. Though I would suggest that any editor suggesting that "cc" isn't the standard unit when discussing automotive engine capacity needs to have a good long look at their editing. This is an encyclopedia, not ascientific paper. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • It's not about the unit, I observe, which is the cubic centimetre on either side of the dispute. It's about the abbreviation for the unit. But this dispute has sunk pretty low anyway, with one editor stating (in the section above on that very same discussion page) of England that xe "couldn't care less what moronic practice goes on over there; it doesn't have to blight Wikipedia". There's borderline conduct all around, it seems. Didn't Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Greg L get the point home about that sort of rhetoric in style manual discussions? Uncle G (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Taken alone, I'm not sure the "moronic practice" comment to so egregious, but I'd generally agree with Uncle G's comments. I think Greg may need to take it down a notch, though I'm not super familiar with this editor, so I'll reserve judgement. NickCT (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Closure of AfD for 2010 Shanghai Fire as it was on the Main page

Resolved

 – Closed as snow keep. Jehochman ^Talk 20:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Can this be speed-kept please? There is a large consensus in favour and it was on the main page when the AfD request was made, which seems rather inappropriate. I've discussed it with HJ Mitchell on his talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• I can't see why it should be closed early. There are a couple of valid deletes there, and having been on the main page isn't one of the criteria under speedy keep as far as I can see. AniMate 19:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems like it is at or is heading towards a SNOW keep though. NW (Talk) 19:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Wait, one delete (not counting the nominator, obviously) counts as a couple of valid deletes now? I sure wish I had gotten that memo. ----Divebomb is not British 19:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • If the nominator gives a valid reason for deletion then yes, the nom plus another valid delete does = a couple of valid deletes. This is moot, though, as it's clearly going to be kept and should probably be closed (I've already commented, so can't). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Animate, there is only one other delete vote besides the nomination and it just cites WP:NOTNEWS. The only strong vote is the nomination one and no one seems to agree with that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • If it is closed can it be put back on ITN please? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

86.144.119.244 talk page abuse

Resolved

 – User re-blocked

What part of deny recognition is not understood here?

A recent edit on 86.144.119.244's talk page done by 86.144.119.244 which is visible here clearly shows they may need talk page editing removed for the duration of the block. While typing this the user restored the edit reverted here and 86.144.119.244 continues to remove the block message. Barts1a (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC) IP already blocked. TbhotchTalk C. 00:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dynamic IP at Leonora Piper

Over several months, a single purpose account using a dynamic IP to avoid 3RR has been tendentiously inserting POV content into Leonora Piper consisting of personal attacks against Martin Gardner or fringe material from unreliable sources and links to blog polemics that refute Gardner's criticism of Ms. Pipers alleged psychic powers. The IP has occasionally engaged in limited Talk page discussion, however appears to be unwilling or unable to understand NPOV and WP:FRINGE in particular, so the problem persists.

189.122.96.111 (talk · contribs) 189.122.96.172 (talk · contribs) 189.122.97.205 (talk · contribs) 189.122.117.38 (talk · contribs) 187.67.99.6 (talk · contribs) 189.122.115.134 (talk · contribs) 187.67.101.131 (talk · contribs) 187.67.98.124 (talk · contribs) 187.67.100.98 (talk · contribs) 187.67.108.247 (talk · contribs) 187.67.109.102 (talk · contribs) 187.67.97.96 (talk · contribs)

Not sure if this is the right forum for this, and I apologize in advance for any mistakes in procedure. LuckyLouie (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Page semi-protected for a period of 3 months by Courcelles (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Revdel question

Resolved. Access Denied – talk to me 03:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Would an edit summary of "You are Jewish" in a vandal edit to my userpage qualify under RD2? Access Denied – talk to me 20:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC) (non-admin) It could be considered WP:OUTING I suppose (though I assume it wasn't meant as such). DC T•C 20:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Another thing: could an admin remove this user from listusers? Access Denied – talk to me 20:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC) um. I thought moving the page would do that. It seems it didn't. Rd232 talk 20:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC) No, one couldn't. We don't have the capability. You need a bureaucrat or a steward. Uncle G (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Check user would probably advisable as well block the underlying IP that is nasty stuff The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I've salted the title. Mjroots (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I can still see the "message" left on <Link removed>. I'd say this is a case for oversight.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC) The "Nigger jew" one is just trolling; the edit summary on my userpage should probably be oversighted. Access Denied – talk to me 22:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC) A steward needs to globally lock the one account to remove its name (or a crat can rename it) and I don't know if the "You are Jewish" qualifies to be oversightable, unless someone is legit trying to out you. I have RevDel'd it for now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC) "You are Jewish" doesn't seem to be an WP:OUTING; it's not personally-identifiable information. The username certainly seems "grossly insulting, degrading or offensive" though. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC) It would be if the user in question was trying very hard not to let that fact be known, in the case that it made him/her vulnerable to threats in real life. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I have emailed the bureaucrat mailing list. Access Denied – talk to me 00:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Дунгане/Arilang1234

Hi folks:

Дунгане (talk · contribs) has raised, on my talk page, what I believe to be serious questions of whether Arilang1234 (talk · contribs) was improperly using derogatory racial epithets against Manchus — which, if true, I think, would violate the pillars on civility and neutral point of view, to say the least. Right now, I am in no shape either personally (my father just recently passed away) or professionally (my schedule had been left a complete mess due to this) to sort this situation out. Since I do think this is a serious issue, I would appreciate that someone else look into the issue and either clear Arilang1234 or warn him if warning is necessary; further, if no action is warranted against Arilang1234, then I think Дунгане should be firmly told the reason why. Right now, as I said, I am simply in no shape personally to step between them. Action on this would be appreciated. (I will notify them per {{ANI-notice}} that this thread is open..) --Nlu (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 is seriously suggesting that Manchus are barbarians, and that these words should be used to describe Manchu people. As far as I'm aware of wikipedia policy, this kind of consistent behavior, especially after User:Arilang1234 was severely berated and warned about his racial slurs against manchus, and personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians, warrants an immediate admin action to be taken. He just made his comment about manchus yesterday, the "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians" is over a year old, it seems he hasn't learned his lesson. He was warned about his racist edits another warning about Arilang's racism and personal attacksДунгане (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

the following edits are blatant racism- Arilang1234 accusing manchus of being barbarian and savage, encouraging the inserting of the material into wikipedia article. [3] [4] [5](note: these are old edits, which i post here to show that Arilang1234 has not changed his behavior)Дунгане (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Arilang1234 also is pulling original research out of thin air, arbitrarily claiming that Manchus are not chinese, and conducting a personal attack on me by saying that since i inserted the word "chinese" into the article to describe the army of Imperial Qing dynasty China, that i was "chatting on internet forum"

another personal attack on me, accusing me of speaking "pidgin english", yet i see nothing that indicates that i am am editing wiki articles with "pidgin english"

i present Arilang1234's earliest edits on the article again, to contrast on how he has not changed his racist POV against manchus, from 2008- "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme." he and some hired Mongols fought off a group of barbaric attacking Boxers with wooden sticks - Manchu tribal rulers chose to remain ignorant and barbaricДунгане (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of comments by arilang1234 containing racism and personal insults, but i will not bog this thread down with a list.Дунгане (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

the main issue here, was made in the topmost comment by me, that arilang1234 is currently suggesting that manchus are barbarians, apparently warning him hasn't worked in the past, given his previous racist edits, it comes as a shock his account was not blocked for his earlier comments, he received only one block for violating edits on a BLP article. Since he hadn't received any blocks for his racism, he hadn't learnt his lesson. He claimed to have "apologized" in 2009 regarding his language and racism, personal attacks, and calling manchus barbarians, yet he does not seem to have been sincere, and continues with his racism and personal attacks regarding my english speaking ability.Дунгане (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 has never been blocked for his earlier racist edits, he only received on block for a BLP violation.Дунгане (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• If John King Fairbank can call Manchus "Barbarians", why is it that Wikipedians cannot? Is user Дунгане trying to impose Self-censorship allegations on English Wikipedia ? Is user Дунгане suggesting Wikipedia should block John King Fairbank too?

• "China's response to the West: a documentary survey, 1839-1923"

http://books.google.com/books?id=0maVJuCh78oC&pg=PA268&dq=Manchu+Emperors+as+barbarian&hl=zh-CN&ei=7G_jTLXoC42muQPOyujGDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Manchu%20Emperors%20as%20barbarian&f=false

“ Page 268. The Manchus may be considered as the great conglomeration of the eastern barbarian tribes, and they can also be considered as the great conclusion of the eastern barbarian tribes. During the last fifty years the sinification of the Manchus has advanced full speed, until the 1911 revolution, after which every Manchu was capped with a Chinese name. ”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs)

As I said, I have insufficient ability to look into this right now, but I will observe this: Fairbank's book was written in 1954, back when a lot of speech that is now considered completely unacceptable was considered completely acceptable. (The N word comes to mind.) Further, Fairbank was not required by anyone to comply with Wikipedia's five pillars. We are. --Nlu (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

“ Combining republican, nationalist, and socialist objectives, the Tongmenghui's political platform was "To expel Tatar barbarians and to revive Zhonghua, to establish a republic, and to distribute land equally among the people." (Chinese: 驅除韃虜，恢復中華，創立民國，平均地權) Among the Allegiance's members was Li Zongren, prominent Guangxi warlord and Kuomintang military commander and Wang Jingwei, who would later serve as the collaborationist President of the Executive Yuan and Chairman of the National Government in Japanese occupied China during World War II. ”

The above quote is from Tongmenghui, the predecessor of Kuomintang. The then revolutionary slogan is well known among nearly all the Han Chinese:"To expel Tatar barbarians and to revive Zhonghua, to establish a republic, and to distribute land equally among the people." (Chinese: 驅除韃虜，恢復中華，創立民國，平均地權). User Nlu, are you saying it is OK for 1900 Han Chinese to call the Manchus "Barbarians", and it is not OK for 2010 Wikipedians to use "Barbarians" as an adjective for 1900 Manchus of the 1900 Boxer Rebellion times? If you read carefully User:Дунгане's comments, he is saying that: Quote:"User:Arilang1234 is seriously suggesting that Manchus are barbarians, and that these words should be used to describe Manchu people." Unquoted. Well, I have never ever made such a statement. This accusation is both false and malicious. All the time, when I use the "Barbarians" to describe the Manchus, is within the context of Boxer Rebellion, Tongmenghui, and Anti-Qing sentiment, and of course, Hua-Yi distinction. All these articles are about Chinese History, and none of them are so called "attack or hate articles". I have never been involved in any racial attacks when editing Wikipedia, and I personally do not hate Manchus. All my wiki edits are Chinese politic and Chinese History oriented, anyone can see it from my Wiki homepage. During my 26 months of Wiki editing, many editors with good faith help me along the way, and I admit I still need more help from more editors, so that I can become a better editor. I try to extend the same good faith to User:Дунгане to help him to improve his English(and myself is not a native English speaker), but unfortunately, User:Дунгане began to accuse me of being a "Racist" against all the Manchus people. He need to present some solid evidence for this false accusation to stick. Arilang ^talk 03:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

quote from arilangNo, I do not agree with you. If you read through Chinese history, it is very easy to come to the conclusion that Manchu was the most murderous barbarians of them all. Before I always thought that Mongols killed the most human beings in human history, but after doing research on internet, now I know that when it comes to Genocide, mass murders, ethnic cleansing, whatever you call it, Manchu beats everyone to it. Nazi Germans, Imperial Japan, Ghengis Khan, come nowhere near it. We all should be really really proud of them, because they still are one of the five main races of China.(sarcastic ?) User:Arilang1234| Arilang ^{User talk:Arilang1234|talk} 17:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

::@Benjwong, I may have overtagged, when it comes to the subject of history, we need to be more firm towards lies and cheats. Do you follow internet news Benj? There is this guy by the name of 阎#年, he is 72 yrs old yet was slapped in the face in public! Because he shamelessly advocate Manchus rule on CCTV. If I happen to be there, I personally will throw some rotten eggs on his face.User:Arilang1234|Arilang1234 User talk:Arilang1234|talk) 08:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 also created an article which was deleted, "Genocides and Atrocities committed by Manchu chiefdom", He move the article to "Massacres and Atrocities committed by barbarian Manchu rulers "

I'd advise you people to look at earlier threats at ANI in which Arilang1234 was warned for his vandalism on the Boxer Rebellion articleagain he was reported for his "bizarre" and "incoherent" editsДунгане (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

An additional point I will observe: again, WP:NPOV is paramount, and it dictates this: I may be able to write an advocacy paper or even a book arguing that ECFA is good for Taiwan and that the Democratic Progressive Party is pushing Taiwan toward financial suicide by opposing it. But in Wikipedia, if I were editing the ECFA article, I cannot write it as an advocacy paper or book; it has to be written in an NPOV manner and cannot be advocacy-based. --Nlu (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(this comment addressed to User:Arilang1234) it is obvious from the tone and manner of your comments, that you did not use the word "Barbarian" academically, like John King Fairbank is using to describe nomadic peoples, but you used it with the intention of implying that manchus were somehow uncivilized, and inferior. POV against ethnic groups is not allowed by wikipedia policy. and in addition, wikipedia doesn't work like "if they do it, why cant we?". Wikipedia follows its own set of policies designed to enforce neutral POV.Дунгане (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

To quote user Дунгане:"it is obvious from the tone and manner of your comments, that you did not use the word "Barbarian" academically, like John King Fairbank is using to describe nomadic peoples, but you used it with the intention of implying that manchus were somehow uncivilized, and inferior. " WOW, user Дунгане has became a sort of Psychic who is into "intention" and "implication". Well, would user Дунгане be able to guess what I might be doing next, is it (1) Go to have my lunch (2) Go to have a pee? Arilang ^talk 03:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

False and illogical comments of

Talk:Boxer Rebellion#Response to User:Arilang1234's slurs against Manchus

“ Germans called jews "untermensch" (meaning subhuman", so according to Arilang1234 we have to add this racial slur to every article on jews, since Arilang1234 thinks that the opinions of ancient writers should be inserted into the article, he also probably thinks that Nazi theories on race should also be inserted into articles on other races. I am being highly sarcastic here, i don't even think this comment of mine is nesesary since sane editors know that calling ethnic groups by slurs and insults is against wikipedia policy.Дунгане (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC) ”

Obviously, Дунгане's illogical and cheap accusations need to be stopped by someone :"so according to Arilang1234 we have to add this racial slur to every article on jews, since Arilang1234 thinks that the opinions of ancient writers should be inserted into the article, he also probably thinks that Nazi theories on race should also be inserted into articles on other races." Дунгане, spreading Innuendo remarks by implying that I am sympathetic towards Nazi does not work, you need to do better than that. Arilang ^talk 04:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Direct evidence of Arilang1234's edits spewing racist hatred toward manchu

quote from arilangNo, I do not agree with you. If you read through Chinese history, it is very easy to come to the conclusion that Manchu was the most murderous barbarians of them all. Before I always thought that Mongols killed the most human beings in human history, but after doing research on internet, now I know that when it comes to Genocide, mass murders, ethnic cleansing, whatever you call it, Manchu beats everyone to it. Nazi Germans, Imperial Japan, Ghengis Khan, come nowhere near it. We all should be really really proud of them, because they still are one of the five main races of China.(sarcastic ?) User:Arilang1234| Arilang ^{User talk:Arilang1234|talk} 17:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC) ::@Benjwong, I may have overtagged, when it comes to the subject of history, we need to be more firm towards lies and cheats. Do you follow internet news Benj? There is this guy by the name of 阎#年, he is 72 yrs old yet was slapped in the face in public! Because he shamelessly advocate Manchus rule on CCTV. If I happen to be there, I personally will throw some rotten eggs on his face.User:Arilang1234|Arilang1234 User talk:Arilang1234|talk) 08:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 also created an article which was deleted, "Genocides and Atrocities committed by Manchu chiefdom", He move the article to "Massacres and Atrocities committed by barbarian Manchu rulers "

I'd advise you people to look at earlier threats at ANI in which Arilang1234 was warned for his vandalism on the Boxer Rebellion articleagain he was reported for his "bizarre" and "incoherent" editsДунгане (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

2nd appeal

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive648 § Boxer_Rebellion

We've been here before. Both of you please stop throwing "barbarian," "savage," "Nazi," "racist", or anything else from similar vocabulary-lists around. Don't post another wall of text here. Don't defend yourself. Don't accuse the other. Just stop it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason this came up again, was noted in the first comment by me, was that User:Arilang1234 again accused Manchus of being barbarians, he still insists on pushing that term into article mainspace. He was warned over one year ago as i noted in my above comments for inserting "Barbarian", and insulting other ethnic groups, yet he still continues to do so. Action against him is required for this to stop. He wasn't blocked for his original slurs in his first edits, this may have been a factor in him thinking that he is above wikipedia policy.Дунгане (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, he refused to acknowledge he is doing wrong, and defends his edits where he calls them barbarian. Дунгане (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Dungane, are you going to stop? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Enough is enough. I suggest a 1 edit block on both parties if either address any of the terms Seb lists above, or anything essentially similar. Extend this restriction for 90 days. If further issues arise, address within this context. Shadowjams (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Posting of a 419 scam

Is it standard procedure to contact someone to report abuse for an IP that posts a 419 scam? It's an Ivorian IP, and inexplicably the user decided to post at RD/C (diff for admins). Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. You're unlikely to get a meaningful response. Where on earth did a six month hardblock come from though? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

These always make me laugh, except that some idiot ends up falling for them. I don't know that revdel was necessary, though I won't formally object. No problem with the hardblock, either. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Musicintime

Musicintime (talk · contribs) Single-purpose-account for promoting Matthias Manasi, who repeatedly uploaded copyvios to commons. He then includes this picture in the article of his protégé. He already received a warning in Commons but seems to be ignorant. Thus he was blocked. I consider this account to be expendable. -- Wo st 01 (talk | rate) 09:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: The account seems to be a re-incarnation of the blocked user Operamadrid (talk · contribs). See also global contributions. -- Wo st 01 (talk | rate) 09:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Musicintime indefblocked for the repeated copyvios. Operamadrid was soft-blocked for having a promotional username; I guess it could be argued that rather than requesting the change they just made a new account, but their lack of communication makes that difficult to ascertain. I've tagged both accounts with sock templates anyway, but if anyone feels this is OTT please go ahead and remove them :) EyeSerene^talk 14:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• This user also removes maintenance tags relating to notability and sourcing problems, e.g. [6] and any attempt to clean up promotional language both in Matthias Manasi and International Punta Classic Opera Festival (singularly non notable Festival which has produced exactly one opera) of which Manasi is the Music Director. I'm not sure whether this account is expendable, but he/she certainly needs a stiff warning or two.

  I suspect another incarnation is Espagna2020 (talk · contribs) who similarly removes tags, e.g. [7]. Voceditenore (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am admin on de.wp and we decided to indefblock the German SUL-account. However, he can still edit his disk. So if he is still interested in contributing to WP according to our rules, he may contact us and we might consider unblocking him. But my educated guess is, he will just get a new account and continue on his course. -- 15:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wo st 01 (talk • contribs)

Thanks Voceditenore. I've sent Espagna2020 the same way as Musicintime, though that looks like it was a throwaway account. It may be that because the original Operamadrid account block was soft (ie username only, no IP autoblock) it facilitated the creation of these alt accounts. Hopefully that's now been remedied with the hardblocks on the others... but I guess we'll see. If article protection would help, feel free to drop me a note (I notice that the articles are largely unsourced). Thanks also Wo st 01 for your report and your diligence in chasing this guy around :) EyeSerene^talk 15:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Request review of my comment at an RfC

Not sure if this is a better question for here or for a civility review ... but I am stressed in the real world at the moment, and would appreciate a reality-check to see if others feel my comment crossed the line. I don't think so, but would appreciate additional input.

Can someone review my comment here during an RfC at Talk:Prank call? My opinion is that my statement was accurate and if anything, could have reasonably been more direct about potential issues there - but after a good-night's sleep, I thought more on the anon's reply to my comment and my reply to the anon, and began thinking that I should ask if others feel I should strike part of the comment. --- Barek (talk) - 17:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd hazard a guess that 74.72.154.158 and ManofThoth are the same individual, but that aside I think the comment was unnecessarily acerbic. Refactoring would be the adult thing to do. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, if my judgement is out-of-whack on that, then it may be best that I take a wikibreak until the real-world stress passes (should be resolved in the next few weeks - I hope). --- Barek (talk) - 19:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat from User:Peace is contagious

Resolved

 – He can still simply retract it and promise no future threats in order to get unblocked.

Peace is contagious (talk · contribs) has made a legal threat to "sue for libel" here. Despite being asked to retract it by Doc9871 (talk · contribs) here, the user has not. Yworo (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm not (Kyle Baker) the subject in question over the line 'I lie all the time', I was informed that I cannot sue (anyone) for libel. So this issue is moot. And the line seems to now be in context within the article, instead of randomly placed near the end. Yworo seems to be an over-zealous comic book fan. (SIGH) Cheers! Peace is contagious (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Peace you have been asked to remove it, unless you do that and retract it, you will likely be blocked (again) wikipedia takes legal threats very seriously. Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Near of the end of User talk:Peace is contagious, at 16:53, 16 November 2010, 40 minutes after the above, User:Peace is contagious again makes legal accusations against me: "Mr Tenebrae seems to be a bit slack w/ his Wiki edits, if not even libelous. I suggest u take a few law school classes urself, sir."

As someone who has indeed taken classes in journalism and the law, I can tell you the first thing you learn is, "Truth is not libelous."

In any event, Peace is contagious himself expanded on the quote and moved it to a section of the article where it fits perfectly well. He did this at 15:16, 16 November 2010 — so even after doing so, when presumably the quote is no longer an issue with him, he specifically returned an hour and half later to made his accusation against me. That just seems gratuitous and a late shot, for no reason other than to maliciously attack another editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'd point out the irony of someone with the name "Peace is contagious" threatening anyone with anything, but I think you all get it. HalfShadow 17:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind the old satirical definition of peace: "Short period of preparation for the next war." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think with the excuse that the editor isn't somebody else doesn't matter. A threat to sue is there and not retracted so I think no legal threats needs to be applied to get the point across much stronger. This is not a game to play which is what it is starting to look like with doing it again an hour and half later. Make sure this time it get through, no legal threats are allowed, period. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats are not to be tolerated, and the editor refuses to retract. So why is the editor not yet blocked? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is indeed a very good question Bugs. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And now answered by an admin. He gawn (until or if he retracts). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Though currently banned, he's still threatening me

In [his latest post (scroll down), User:Peace is contagious again threatens me ("He SHOULD fear being sued").

In addition, he calls me and other editors names, and makes fun of an editor's person's appearance ("C'mon look at the picture of the dude who blocked me").

I have serious qualms about this person. He's been asked by several editors to be civil, he's been linked the policy / guideline, which he dismisses as "not set in stone," and shows contempt for Wikipedia and its editor, to wit: "obviously if these people were 'smarter' they wouldn't be wasting time on Wikipedia."

He has caused nothing but disruption. His posts have done little but spew venom and weirdly rambling diatribes. I believe reasonable consideration can be given to a long-term ban (his indefinite ban can be lifted if he retracts his legal threats, which leaves his insults free and clear) or a block. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"I'll remove the comment, simply cuz I want to edit other pages, but I'll put it right back if anyone should choose to be irresponsibly libelous, as it should be" sounds pretty "unpromising". This was in this latest post, and the original threat still remains (despite extensively refactoring the comments of others yet again). Doc talk 21:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have advised him that if he repeats that kind of edit, I will remove access to his talkpage.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but moments after Elen of the Roads posted, Peace is contagious deleted that and the last several posts that civilly and quite politely requested him to remove his legal threats and his insults, name-calling, and making fun of people's appearance. But he deleted all that here and left only his own remarks, which, now out of context, makes it appear that because non-admin are commenting that he does not have need to listen to comments/requests for policy-adherence and civil behavior. I honestly don't see any reason for him to continue haranguing others as if by right.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

He also deleted a post from Elen (which she repeats above), who had failed to sign her post. It's fairly clear he has no intention of changing anything on his end. Might be starting to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have taken something of a flyer and unblocked him. I think he removed my post in error, I think he also misunderstood the non-hierarchical nature of the Wikipedia community. If my faith is misplaced, you have my permission to hit me with a wet fish Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks based on nationality

Resolved

Hi,

I was trying to avoid this but now this has gone off limits. So here is the deal:

There is some discussion about which pictures should be included in the History section of the article Arc de Triomphe. This started on September 26th when DIREKTOR added the image File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-126-0347-09A, Paris, Deutsche Truppen am Arc de Triomphe.jpg to this section. This image depicts German troops marching on the Champs-Élysées with the Arc de Triomphe in the background. Some heated discussions and reverts happened next, actions that I did not take part in.

The result of these discussions were that 3 images stayed in the history section, leaving this section over-imaged. Also these images were all depicting events from the 20th Century remotely connected with the Arc de Triomphe itself. (see the article at this state).

I then decided to be bold and try a new set of images for this section, depicting events more closely related to the Arc, namely a drawing of the project by the architect of the Arc himself (File:Arc de Triomphe de l'Etoile - Projet Chalgrin - 02.jpg), and a drawing of the return of the ashes of Napoleon (File:Retour des Cendres - 1.jpg), Napoleon being the one that ordered the construction of the Arc.

I knew these changes would be controversial but did justify them in the discussion page of the article ([8]) and did personally notify the 2 contributors involved in this edit war ([9] and [10]). I was also prepared to have these changes modified but was not prepared for what happened next.

DIREKTOR started to be arrogant and insulting me. This is how he commented my contribution : "Rv (badly disguised ;)) image censorship." ([11]) and this is how he commented is addition to the talk page : "Nice try" ([12]).

He has falsely accused me of removing discussions from Frania Wisniewska talk page. ([13]). He also accused me of considering other contributors as "stupid". ([14])

All this attacks against me made me decided me to set up a request for comments on that issue so that it could be finally settled with more than 2 contributors. I made sure to present the issue in the most objective way I could. ([15])

DIREKTOR once again misunderstood my request for comments by claiming that I have an "agenda" . ([16]) For this he cites a discussion between me and Frania_Wisniewska which happened prior to the RfC. I did not discuss this RfC with anyone so I am wondering what agenda DIREKTOR is mentioning. He also mentions my presumed "patriotic sentiment". ([17]) He goes on with calling me a patriot Frenchman as part of the "patriot Frenchmen" he mentions. He uses an arrogant tone by using the expression "you and your buddies". ([18])

In conclusion, in this issue I wanted to improve the article by correcting the layout and the chronology of the pictures. I knew there would be discussion over this change but justified my changes and notified people. When the discussion stopped because of attacks over my nationality, I opened a RfC only to have DIREKTOR come back to his rant against the French people. Badzil (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• LOL, you made my day. Thanks for the chuckles... buy don't we have a policy on edit warring. Although he is now into personal attacks. Well see what the admins do about it. --Hinata talk 01:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not complain on edit warring, I complain solely on the issue of personal attacks. The edit war should hopefully be settled by the RfC. Badzil (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Is 'patriotic Frenchman' really an insult? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Of course not, this is a content dispute ad hominem report. I did not insult anyone nor will I. The user needs to read WP:NPA more carefully before trying to get rid of me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • While not weighing in on the particular issue at hand, it's worth mentioning that in some languages and some cultures, calling somebody a patriot is offensive. In (most? all?) English-speaking cultures that is not the case, but "patriot" carries very different connotations in different languages, sometimes with a considerable "nationalist/extreme right-wing" tinge. I don't know what the situation is with French, however. --bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• For background, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#Content removal. Uncle G (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I certainly do believe it is obvious a group of French users is ganging-up to remove a (very famous) photograph image of German troops marching in Paris - from several articles. And I do believe this is the (dare I say it? :) agenda of those users. The image had already been removed from the lead of the Battle of France article contrary to previously established consensus, and now the same is being attempted at the Arc de Triomphe article. Likely there are more examples.

The user is trying to get me blocked for opposing his edits based on my statements of the above. Instead, I would like to invite you guys to have at this strange mess [19]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• One of the user(s) there claims there is a conspiracy against the French military. They have also complained in the past that that iconic image of the Nazi troops marching near the Arch of Triumph is somehow connected with support of the Nazis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

French Military? You mean the national running team? (I kid, I kid) HalfShadow 21:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Talk of various conspiracy theories doesn't seem very helpful here, nor grouping users together according to their presumed nationality. There are compelling reasons for the prominent use of this picture in articles like the Battle of France. There is an obvious irony, however, in using it with WP:UNDUE prominence in an article about a French triumphal arch, since it shows a moment in history which was decidely not about a French triumph. In an article about an architectural feature, is this not just trying to make a WP:POINT? For comparison I looked at Eiffel tower where there is a very balanced set of pictures and detailed content about the German occupation. As far as "iconic images" go, the victory parade of De Gaulle qualifies just as much. The images have been moved around a lot lately: my proposal would be to gather relevant images, including this one, in a gallery, with detailed captions. Mathsci (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC) [Multiple disclosures: I have contributed to an article about another triumphal arch in France, the Porte d'Aix. I am not a member of the French military or any other category that might come to mind. I have received money from the French state.]
    • One can take it personally or one can accept that that is certainly one of the most famous historical photographs of the arch - and also the only one which shows it being used in its actual function. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please prove that I am part of an agenda to remove that image. I stated on DIREKTOR's talk page that this is indeed not my goal. And how does the creation of a request for comments show my non-acceptance of the fact that the picture is "one of the most famous historical photographs of the arch"? How about letting users comment in terms of relevancy without again starting a nationality-based rant? Finally apologize for your false accusation of me deleting discussions and remove it from the talk page. Badzil (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

All sorts of interesting images could be put in a gallery without endlessly discussing their relative merits and demerits—that's always subjective. As far as French sensibilities are concerned, perhaps the issues with this image might be similar to those with equally "iconic" images of the collapse of the twin towers in Manhattan (see below and the image actually used in the article). Mathsci (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As one of the contributors being talked about & wrongly accused of conspiracy by DIREKTOR, I think that the best way for me to describe the situation in which I am involved is to "copy & paste" the last comment I left earlier in the day at the Arc de Triomphe discussion page[20]:

"RE the conversation between two fellow wikipedians, there for all the world to read even if written in French since most participants to France-related articles do speak & read French, it is a shame that the meaning of that conversation has to be twisted out of recognition.

1. 11NOV10, 0359hrs: Article Battle of France: I reverted Baseball Bugs who, the previous day, had put the marching naz photograph as leading picture, and had left the comment: It's already been discussed at length, and this was the consensus., leaving as my own reason for reversal: There was absolutely NO consensus for changing the photo, in fact, the change was done by force, ramming it thru the throat of those opposing it / placing marching naz in their chronological place /). Thus, I cannot be accused of removing the picture of the marching naz.
2. 11NOV10, 0420hrs: Article Arc de Triomphe contrary to what is being said by DireKtor, I did not remove any, but switched two photographs, putting the one with the French flag floating within the frame of the AdT closer to the top & the one of the marching naz at the bottom where the French flag had been - with the comment: On 11 November, the Arc de Triomphe with French flag is more appropriate than marching naz of June 1940.)
3. 11NOV10, 1345hrs, Badzil, with whom I am being accused of conspiring, reverted my edit - with comment: Please, an encyclopedia should not be modified for a particular day.
4. 11NOV10, 1442hrs: I reverted "my fellow conspirator" Badzil - with comment: Picture where it belongs, keep marching naz where they are if you wish : as said before, if this was the US flag, it wouldn't be relegated at bottom of article but would be flying on top.
5. 11NOV10, 1452hrs: my talk page[21], Badzil left a msg in French explaining his reversal, saying that although he did not like the marching naz anymore than I did, no change could be done without a debate, i.e. wiki rules had to be followed. He also wrote somewhere in his comment that he did not "support" my action although he understood it. I would hardly call this a conspiracy.
6. Then, before DireKtor entered the scene, I wrote (summarizing) that I know what historical documents are, and that I have nothing against their use, but that, not being an imbecile, I also can identify dirty tricks from the start, suspecting that D. did not add the photograph by respect for History, but out of spite toward the French, in other words, with harassment in mind - comparing the inclusion of the picture of the marching naz to France-related articles to the sending of a rope to the family of someone who had hung himself, or been hanged.
7. Finally, as my archiving bot archived the section because it laid dormant for over 48 hours, I not having answered his piece, DireKtor accused Badzil of removing the whole thing. I then reinstated the discussion yesterday, and the archiving bot archived it again today.

The above is the summary of the whole "conspiracy" between Badzil and myself.

Now I have other & better things to do than rehash over & over facts for the enjoyment of a young lad who wants to give himself importance with his one-sided knowledge of the History of France, the Battle of France, World War I & World War II, but cannot give a straight & true account of recent facts plain for everyone to read & see."

signed: --Frania W. (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

--Frania W. (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Consider this issue closed. Badzil (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to unarchive a thread just to say that the issue is closed.[22][23] -Atmoz (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Battleground attitude of DIREKTOR

In the thread above, I suggested resolving the problem using a gallery and suggested in Talk:Arc de Triomphe using an alternative image. Badzil created a gallery and used the image I linked from Gallica, unearthed after a long search. Badzil mentioned on the talk page that xe was not quite clear how to install a gallery and chose an option where the captions were poorly displayed. I changed this uncontroversially to the standard gallery option. DIREKTOR has twice reverted this use of gallery and has been unduly belligerent on the talk page. It is clear that his editing on this article is not particularly constructive, if he's making such a dog's breakfast of a minor technical point. In past edits I have added galleries to articles on two major French historic sites, now large connurbations, both of them in the South of France. Mathsci (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

He has now reverted this technical edit for a third time [24] [25] [26] and I suggest now that he be blocked for a day or two. This is an inexplicable continuation of completely disproportionate behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Badzil mentioned on the talk page that xe was not quite clear how to install a gallery..." Could you quote me on this? I do not recall saying that. Badzil (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I wholeheartedly agreed with your installation of the gallery. Bravo et félicitations !! The reformatting was a completely minor technical point about the way you encoded the gallery. My reading, perhaps faulty, was that you appeared to be a little unsure of yourself here. [27] But your instincts were perfectly correct. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I cannot believe these reports... For the record, we all finally agree on Badzil's proposal and User:Mathsci comes along with "you do not know how to use galleries, this one is better". The simple solution to this entire mess is to simply insert perrow="6" in the article, but my suggestion was apparently misunderstood - and now this??

I really don't know what to say. I did not attack anyone, I did not break 3RR, I do indeed know how to use galleries on articles. While the reporting user altered the consensus version, proceeded to revert it into place, and then reported me for - nothing at all. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The use of the template WP:GALLERY is not in any way controversial. In this case it was a helpful improvement, even if extremely minor. Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I should inform you, User:Mathsci - that to my knowledge that is not a "template" you are using. That's just html. But if you must use raw HTML, by inserting "<gallery perrow=6>" the gallery will extend to cover six images in a row. Did I not suggest this just before you (ubelievably) reported me for following WP:3RR? Further, you will also notice (if you actually follow the link I provided) that Template:Gallery (which is an actual "template") can easily be adjusted to leave more space for the captions of each image if you find that a problem.

Will you please withdraw the report? People over here are likely getting agitated with this and I get the feeling we could all just get blocked. Lets all just walk away slowly in hopes we've not angered the gods... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

D'accord. Une tempête dans un verre d'eau. :) Mathsci (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Multiple page move vandalism

Resolved

 – thanks everyone. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ageo020 (talk · contribs) is conducting mass move vandalism. Someone pls intervene. --Soman (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him 24hrs just to stop any more moves. Can you figure out what on earth he was trying to do, as he doesn't look like your usual random page move vandal. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

could be someone else. --CarTick (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wowsers, who's got the time to revert all those page moves? GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Pretty certain the account's been hacked - hadn't edited in over a year. Will indef as compromised account. And I have no idea how to revert all those moves other than one by one :( I need my techie brethren here, so have changed the title --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting from the top down. If someone wants to work from the bottom up... Beyond My Ken (talk)

All restored via brute force. Reverting title of thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

For future reference: User:Mr.Z-man/moverevert2.js. T. Canens (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And I also deleted the 60 resulting redirects. T. Canens (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew there was a tool that helped. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for Removal of Sanction

Resolved

 – Consensus is very clear; NH is no longer banned from using the vandalism button on Twinkle. The ban looked fairly informal, I assume this wasn't etched in stone on some page somewhere, but if so, point me to it and I'll amend it. NH, please take some of the caveats below to heart, so this doesn't come back again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thread regarding this.

Back in April, I was put on an effective ban from using "Vandalism" button on TWINKLE. Since then, I haven't, but a couple minor mistakes (four to be exact), have no issued any vandalism warnings (the ones issued by mistake were reverted in seconds) and have only issued warnings for "edit tests" just I have just written out vandalism warnings. I feel the ban has done its job and gotten me to examine what is and isn't vandalism more closely and I wish to have the sanction/ban removed with community approval. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support lifting of restriction. Contributions look good, using rollback properly. So long as Neutralhomer follows the standard vandalism warning progression (huggle does this automatically) I see no need to keep the editing restriction. Do however be sure to respect WP:CIVIL when dealing with the inevitable mistaken revert (as well as the angry vandals). N419BH 06:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• The terms of the probation that Neutralhomer agreed to said that he would stop using "vandalism" in edit summaries. I see four instances in which he did so in October,[28][29][30][31] and one in November.[32] That's disappointing but, on the plus side, in each of those cases there was actual vandalism. Neutralhomer is clearly acting in good faith and with abundant energy. I support lifting this probation, so long as he is fully aware that he is responsible for every edit, even when he's using a semi-automated tool. If he returns to over-eager use of the "vandalism" button on Twinkle then he has already used up his chances and that tool should be removed. I expect that won't be necessary and wish him well in his clean-up efforts.   Will Beback  talk  10:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - as per Will, user seems to have understood the correct use of the button. The occasional mistake or miss hit shouldn't be a removal issue going forward but if the user returns to a pattern of misuse then removal of the tool may be the only solution. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• comment - have the supporters seen this thread? [33] .. sorry NH it just seems like you are still very eager to accuse people of vandalism.. but i don't know the whole story so i'm not voting just commenting. BEARinAbasket (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Giving the editor another chance. If the pattern returns then the tool should be removed. I don't have a issue with the four miss clicks that have occurred. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Since s/he has been manually checking things out,I say give another chance. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support lifting the ban; user seems to have learned from the experience, and has since performed very well with only a couple of minor mistakes. Dreadstar ☥ 18:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• comment - this is very upsetting [34] .. NeutralHomer has just accused me of being a sock of the user he was trying to get blocked, above. Is this what happens when someone questions his attitude? Also - did anyone who "supported" read through the original thread? NeutralHomer (as much as I like his name) seems to have problems with wikistalking. I see this as evidence of that. I'm not sure what to do about this actually. BEARinAbasket (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: User:BEARinAbasket has been indefinitely blocked as a sock. Beware the WP:BOOMERANG. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I wish I had been aware that Neutralhomer was under sanction when I encountered him back in June[35]. He was full of false accusations and a level of pure arrogance I have never before encountered in over three years of editing. I'm not going to take the time right now to look into his behaviour over the past five months, but I must say, given what a jerk [not the word I want to use] he was to me, just a couple of weeks after he was given sanctions, does not make me very optimistic that he's turned over a new leaf. 98.82.190.226 (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - After last night's revisions of vandalism by a self-glorifying troll on this very page[36] while the wiki slept is proof enough to me that he can be trusted in good faith to do the right thing in the future. Doc talk 04:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Neutralhomer seems to have learned from his mistakes during his ban from Twinkle. He can be trusted again with the tools. As the editors above say, give him another chance. —mc10 (u|t|c) 05:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support While I am concerned with some of the examples given here, it is clear the NH wants the tool back - so maybe giving the tool will make him more careful in his commentary... and if not, what the community alloweth the community can unalloweth. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Please be careful what you leave behind in edit summaries, NH. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Always Support the good guys. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Trans-Dniestr

Resolved

 – sox blox, thank you Tnxman. Will I ever get ahead of you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't get this weird conversation. User refuses to offer an unambiguous answer. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well Socks tend to do that, and the first response looks like a Legal threat The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well let's say I'm kinda faking my confusion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

SPI filed with CU request. User:Tobias Conradi has been actively socking, and that talkpage looks very like a sock laughing up its sleeve (wait! do socks have sleeves?) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blocked, tagged, lather, rinse, repeat. TNXMan 23:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

AndresHerutJaim and repeated copyright violations

Warned[37][38][39] But today did it all over again.[40] I am not going to bother adding the diffs since his recent contribs show it plain as day. Repeated copyright violators are supposed to be blocked. I am sick of cleaning up his mess and he has already been to ANI once for it.Cptnono (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with this. AndresHerutJaim is a long-term abuser of non-free images, over and over he adds them to the same articles and ignores all requests to stop. O Fenian (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

And he has done it again.[41] That is not a sufficent FUR for multiple articles. And just to be open, a couple good edits got caught up in my cleaning house. Apologies.Cptnono (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

But wow, nothing? Still? Resolve templates below and plenty of time. I might as well upload kiddie porn sine admins still don't care about images for whatever reason.Cptnono (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive640#User:AndresHerutJaim and images, User talk:AndresHerutJaim#Images and User talk:AndresHerutJaim#Using fair use images as icons. This editor is little more than a single purpose account abusing fair use images, and still did so after being notified of this thread and did not even reply here. How much longer is this going to be allowed to go on for? O Fenian (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

24hrs and nothing on a clear cut case. Admins at ANI only want to see drama and the ones off ANI don't see the simple request. Cptnono (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Being as your warnings are starting to boil down to "...please fuck off...", I think a closer eye should be kept on you. HalfShadow 06:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

They are not "warnings". It is acceptable under NPA and precedent across wikipidea. That is an unrelated issue isn't it? So with this issue does an admin have any thoughts? Copyright is copyright regardless if I told some one to fuck off or not.Cptnono (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd point out the irony of you understanding copyright but not seeing a problem with telling someone to fuck off, but I have this terrible feeling it would go right over your head... HalfShadow 06:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd point out the irony in your passive aggressive comment... oh wait I just did. NPA is loose. Copyright is not. Is there any excuse or are you just arguing since your revert of someone else's comment was reverted? Knock it off. Copyright is nonnegotiable. End of story. He should have been blocked yesterday and any admin who read this yesterday should feel bad for not doing it.Cptnono (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing (wikipedia:votestacking) by User:DavidOaks at Folk etymology reported by User:Medeis

Resolved

 – we've already seen this go by once. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Medeis has insisted I strike this so he can respond to something. I have warned him that if he starts talking about the users DavidOaks has allegedly canvassed, he will have to notify them all individually. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have decollapsed as a courtesey per his statements on your talk Elen. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

---

{{Collapsetop|DeJa Vu be inside}} User:DavidOaks has, among other things, engaged in a violation of WP:votestacking at the article Folk etymology.

A previous complicated complaint [42] posted here regarding his canvassing and other behaviors was archived without comment. Since this matter regards an attempt to influence consensus in an ongoing debate on a frozen page, I am reposting it, pared down to the sole issue of canvassing.

Consensus at Folk etymology rejected the inclusion of urban legends cited from Snopes in an article on historical change in word forms as defined by the OED and documented in dozens of dictionaries, standard textbooks, and scholarly papers. Rejecting this consensus as not about reliable sources and the weight of scholarly opinion, but as about the oppression of folkloristics by academia, DavidOaks filed an RfC which failed to garner any support for his views. He filed a spurious 3RR complaint against myself and another editor. (The complaint resulted in no sanctions against us, but led to questioning of his sources, and the current freeze of the article.) And, most recently, in explicit violation of Wikipedia:Votestacking (selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view), he composed a note advising:

"I am looking for people with interests in folklore (editors I’ve encountered on folklore/mythology articles as well as elsewhere) to visit talk:Folk etymology, where there is an ongoing edit dispute." - DavidOaks

and privately sent it to tweleve editors of his own chosing:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12

Although he qualifies his request in scare quotes saying that he is asking for input ‘’’not in support of either view,’’’ (which shows he is aware of the impropriety) the selection of editors he views as having a viewpoint is in clear violation of Wikipedia:Votestacking:

Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.

This is one in a series of inappropriate behaviors. That what the editor characterizes as a folkloristic viewpoint should be inserted into an article on a well defined linguistic concept regardless of the weight of reliable sources is precisely the matter in question. Neither the canvasser nor a single one of the recruited editors has provided a single relevant new source. His actions may have provided new supporters but not new information. It improperly affects an ongoing debate. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Medeis, do you have evidence that these other users are likely to share his views. Malleus, Cynewolfe and Dbachman seem unlikely to support a non-linguistic interpretation of the term. It looks like he's contacted everyone who edits articles with any connection to folklore and languages. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My thanks that the complaint has been reopened. Frankly I am surprised that this is being treated as if I am implying some sort of grand conspiracy, or am blaming those editors whom DavidOaks canvassed as if they had any control over who left diffs on their talk pages.

The question at hand is whether an editor who couches debate not in terms of adhereing to sources (OED, and Cambridge and Routledge encyclopedias and dozens of standard texts) but in terms of an academic battle between linguistics and folklore [43] and 'anti-folkloristic bias' should be allowed to stack the votes to reverse consensus by recruiting 12 editors personally selected by him for their folklorist viewpoint.

Who were the targets of his canvassing? Look at his own specific wording: " I am looking for people with interests in folklore (editors I’ve encountered on folklore/mythology articles as well as elsewhere) to visit talk:Folk etymology, where there is an ongoing edit dispute." There is no mention of contacting editors interested in language or linguistics here.

That is not "Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate" which wikipedia:votestacking says "may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis."

This dispute may seem silly, but I am not asking for a judgement on the content, just a warning on well documented inappropriate behavior that affects an ongoing dispute. I do not want to be told that the solution to misbehaviour is more misbehavior. Silliness is not a criterion for canvassing, edit warring, personally challenging editors in the text of articles, or misrepresenting sources, all of which have been documented.

If this were a dispute about the Tom and Jerry article, I might have a hard time providing evidence of the views of particular mice. But I think if only mice and no cats were asked to comment the impropriety would be evident.

μηδείς (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Uhm question

Didn't we just have this thread archived and now you alerting admins again over something we already had an ANI thread over? Double Jeopardy anyone? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Arfur mo: this is your second try at running this very complaint. Cynewolf replied to the first one here Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, previous thread was here, community declined to take any notice. Rerunning the same argument until you get a different outcome is not the way to go. I see a variety of opinions among the editors who turned up, including quite a few sources supplied on one talk page or another. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

{{collapsebottom}}

Not that I expect you folks to change your minds, but how is a complainant to know what is going on when no response is made to a complaint?

Also, does this decision mean that all editors involved are invited to send private messages of recruitment to any editors they view as interested in their side of the debate? μηδείς (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Inaction typically means its not that big a deal. If there was a real issue, I assure you we would have done something. In Fact these folks will be happy to explain that we are well known for banning and blocking over nothing. So inaction is just as meaninful as action. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Incident report: "The Indonesian Chef"

This AN/I post is for information purposes only.

It has been noted that a large number of articles are being created by a multiple-account, multiple-IP user, whom I shall christen The Indonesian Chef. These short, unwikified articles are written entirely in Romanised Indonesian. All of these articles appear to all be copyright violations of some kind, and are all articles describing Indonesian cuisine; they sometimes include recipes. The Indonesian Chef creates new, copyvio articles reclassifying content from Indonesian-language websites under what appear to be either unknown transliterations or colloquial terms.

For example, the original content of an example article, Pangsit goreng sayur (before the redirect) was lifted from this Indonesian website -- the formatting text, which resulted in correct formatting on that source, was left in the Wikipedia incarnation. In other cases, it appears that specific words have been added to otherwise translatable text that is indeed a copyvio, such as the former Gempo article. To further complicate the issue, the source websites for the copyvio text have, in some cases, apparently been originally machine-translated from English into Indonesian, as the Google Translate output is eerily perfect. It is possible that the user is recreating deleted articles from the Indonesian Wikipedia.

Accounts include Adena dwi ratnasari (talk · contribs), Yunirpas (talk · contribs), Venatrivena (talk · contribs), and many other sockpuppets; a complete list of sockpuppets is currently being compiled with CheckUser evidence by MuZemike (talk · contribs). This incident was first noted by Roleplayer (talk · contribs) at the village pump.

The correct administrative action to take when encountering a page created by The Indonesian Chef is to speedy-delete the article and indefinitely block the creating account. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Simliar Behavior by Hahndyto (talk · contribs) with this G.A. Siwabessy article though not about food it is poorly translated see this Reversion here. Might be our Chef though not a food article. Also had numerous scans at commons deleted. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There are ample crap Indonesian editors, it's hard to tell which is which. I would say that simply bad Engrish is insufficient to suggest it's the same person - the subject of ths report writes in Indonesian. We've got plenty of half-assed articles, e.g., [44] but I doubt they are all the same.Sumbuddi (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am currently looking at this right now. Due to the sheer size and scope of the socking, I have asked for 2nd opinions from some other CUs on this; please be patient. –MuZemike 23:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Purely pedantic, but Indonesian is always romanized. (Javanese uses a type of sanskrit, but a very different language).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Javanese also uses Arabic script in some context. --01:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soman (talk • contribs)

Someone kindly translated this one: [45], the problem is that there is already sambal and I'm not sure this is notable enough to get an entry on that page, let alone its own separate page. Anyway as it's misspelled, and 'ketan' is simply glutinous rice, there doesn't seem any point in keeping it around. Sumbuddi (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This issue is much wider than the picking up by other editors the junk that has been created by one sock master (example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ketan_sambel&action=history) - the soccer mad indonesian ips and editors are intent on copying over soccer team articles like:-

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persija_Jakarta
• http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persija_jakarta

as well as a mass of one liner BLP's SatuSuro 07:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if this is related, but on 15 Nov 2010, I A#10 tagged this subsequently deleted article. Was an untranslated copy and paste from the Indonesian language Wikipedia Halloween article.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Catalyzingevent is back

 Done

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

Suggested Catalyzingevent's talk page for semi or full protection. HalfShadow 08:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest semi for the time being. Might a rangeblock also be in order? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Love the edit summaries: "Extreme abuse happened here, I’m not amused, do behave..." Doc talk 08:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I can keep this up all night, and, admittedly, all he's doing is inflating my edit count, but could someone stuff a cork in the proper hole, please? HalfShadow 09:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, but likely not resolved in the longer run (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack

<facepalm>
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm rarely edit on wikipedia and just when I went ahead and actually did some work. I get a great response on my talk page that is quite an inflmmatory personal attack. The editor in question is supposedbly seasoned and but did not even want to discuss anything and just kept pushing unilateral POV's before responding to my attempt to talk to him with blaring attack. I don't even want to care about wikipedia anymore. The POV pushers are too much and the people are simply too mean and assume whatever they want. I don't know what posting here does but here's hoping that someone notices what kind of an editor Dr. Blofeld is and taken some action against him. Personal attack happened on my talk page. User_talk:Pal2002 More nationally-aimed personal attacks and false assumptions on this page. User_talk:Lerdthenerd No response on the article's talk page where I tried to start a dialogue. Pal2002 (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC) The diff in question is here. TNXMan 18:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC) The comment I've already made to the three of you still applies. Blofeld, be politer to new users; Pal2002, don't act like you're the owner of an article and throw hissy-fits when someone else dares to change it. – iridescent 18:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC) <edit conflict>Blofeld makes a clear threat of violence in that edit. "I'd knock your teeth out if you in this room right now" is completely unacceptable. Regardless of the circumstances, is the appropriate response really "be politer"? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Tendentious civil POV pushing tends to bring the worst out of people. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case here, but there might be more to the picture than what meets the eye here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I'm certain that there is more than meets the eye (hence my caveat "regardless of the circumstances"), but a veteran editor threatening to knock another editor's teeth out is just...wow. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I don't really care what else Blodfeld adds as long as he doesn't clutter the article with way too muchd detail or push his POV again and again as in the removal of the census table. You should read the article before I forced Blofeld to condense it. 70% of it WAS on random buildings. All whatever problem he's got with my point, it does not warrant his blaring personal attack. Pal2002 (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC) No—neither you nor he gets to set conditions on what the article says. Since Blofeld has a long history in writing reasonable-quality articles on Asian cities, frankly I trust his judgement. – iridescent 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Look. I know you really like this guy, but go back and look at the state of the article. If you think 70% of the article on New York City should be on its skyline and buildings. More power to you. Pal2002 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Here's hoping that someone notices what kind of an editor Dr. Blofeld is and taken some action against him. Amen to that. Without me there would be no WP:Tibet or without myself and Nvvchar you would not have the gift of good articles on Tibet like Sera Monastery, expansions to Norbulingka, articles on Lhasa Gonggar Airport and so on... NOt to mention articles like Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, Kathmandu, Thimphu all of which are wee balanced and informative articles on Asian cities which I was gradually working on with Lhasa to get up to a similar status. I'm not sure what he is trying to achieve. Ban me so I can't improve Tibet articles? Not even going to waste me breath here. The article history of Lhasa and the original message on my ralk page explains my reaction. If not see my comments on the situation at User talk:SarekOfVulcan. I will say no more. Grill me if you like but the fact is this trouble maker removed the entirety of Architecture of Lhasa form the article without warranty and then had the cheek to talk to me as if I'm a lousy contributor see his original malicious message left on my talk page. Time waster. Most people who removed sourced content like that without even discussing it from Tibet articles are PRC pov pushers. CHeck the history of the Tibet article. I've alreayd apologised for being civil but I will only apologise to Pal2002 once he stops tring to make the situation worse and works in good faith to improve the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC) "I've alreayd apologised for being civil but I will only apologise to Pal2002 once he stops tring to make the situation worse". I'm sorry myself that I just cannot find any real apologies anywhere. I hear "it happens on wikipedia" and that you still think I'm a PRC POV pusher and a "time waster" and I think you probably want to punch my teeth out even more foor coming here if I read that statement right. Pal2002 (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC) You're not going to get an apology just because you or someone else demands one. What is clear is that Blofield has appreciated that he overreacted, and he's not going to continue saying he wants to punch your teeth out because it is so frustrating to work with you. Notice how Blofield isn't demanding an apology; he simply wants you to cut this drama and work in good faith to improve the article. That you've repeatedly acted in a manner that seems to want to inflame matters rather than resolve them is a problem. If you genuinely want to resolve them, please take the advice you've been given below; back away from the carcass and move on. You are not accomplishing anything useful at this venue; anything. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC) And of course Dr. Blofeld again completely avoids to discuss why he personally attacked me or his POV's I keep trying to point out. I would also like to point out this isn't the 1st time Dr. Blofeld has commited personal attacks. His block log indicates that he's already been blocked twice for personal attacks. And yet he's here again making more of them. Pal2002 (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Look dude. Maybe you are a very old man who has false teeth or none at all. Frankly my dear I don't give a damn. It was a figure of speech for "how dare you speak to me like that". No it is not civil or accpetable but neither is it for you to talk to me like that given what I've done for Tibet on wikipedia. If you genuinely want to improve the Lhasa and are not the usual People's Republic of China POV pusher we have on here trying to deny all existence of Tibetan heritage which I had initially (maybe wrongly) passed you off as given your peculiar edits which stripped the article of its heritage I would be happy to work with you. But coming here to get me blocked or banned?? makes it look as if you are intentionally causing trouble and are miffed because your edits were reverted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Its hard to piece together the timeline between snarky edit summaries and edits on various people's talkpages. Where in the timeline of edits did you tell him things looked 'terrible'? Is that before or after he got mad? Syrthiss (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Looks very much like a content dispute and the only thing I could think to add to Iridescent's reply would be consider taking in a third opinion or request for comment to resolve those disputes that can't be handled civilly on the talk page. Being a prolific contributor is not a reason to drop threats and insults on someone's talk page, and will just get you facing increasing blocks for incivility until you can't edit anymore. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC) His message was: "Your detailed additions to the Lhasa city article are NOT improving the article. In fact, it turned an okay article into a mess where 70% of the article is dedicated to buildings. It is an article on the city in general and does not need history on every building in it or even a carpet factory. It is far better to create new articles and LINK those to the city article than adding all the clutter to the city article. An example of what a city article should read like is New York City. Oh and also, please do not add empty headings if you have nothing to say under it. It just looks terrible." The expand tags and "empty" sections were due to be expanded by myself in the next week and add content related to relgion in Lhasa, the mosque it has, sports, healthcare etc, content any article on a major city should have. I had only got around to adding alandmarks section which itself needed condensing when I had written the article but had to do now just to keep it half decent. Maybe I overeacted but his tone and edit summaries in the lhasa article really got to me and if you compare his editing history compared to mine. I happened to read several negative messages at the same time this morning and I lost it. I'm sorry but it happens occasionally when I log into wikipedia and encounter it first thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Exactly what my timeline and contribution studies say, so IMO going off the rails isn't great...but when someone tells you your additions to the article were terrible, makes snarky edit summaries, and then on their talkpage essentially are taking credit for your work once they've moved it to a new article I'd say thats pretty justified. Syrthiss (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC) How did I take the credit? I even responded NOT to take credit for the new article. I'm sorry that I don't know what to put in edit sumamries but here you are saying that justifies him threatening to "knock my teeth out"? Pal2002 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC) You made a grand total of 9 edits in your entire history before you started throwing your weight around at Lhasa. I'd say Blofeld's reaction was mild. Give it a rest.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Here is more assuming. Personally I don't like to edit in my account because of situaions like this. I don't edit that much, but I have done enough IP edits to know my way around wikipedia. I would not have even found this place if I was THAT newb. Please, quote the entire thing and put it inside your talk page if you believe that was mild. (Personally I think judging editors on # of edits is very wrong but that's not the point here.) Pal2002 (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Essentially admitting to sockpuppetry is not your best course of action. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC) What are you talking about? Trace my IP for all you want. This is the ONLY account I have. I don't login all the time to edit. Show me the rule on wikipedia that you have to login to edit. Pal2002 (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC) You said that you made enough IP edits to know your way around Wikipedia - could you link to the edits you are referring to? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC) That's a fantastic idea! You first! (sarcasm) What would the point of that be? He's been warned, you've both been warned. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I don't even know why there's a debate over content here. Find me even a half-assed "sorry" and I would be more content. But all I got from Dr. Blofeld is even MORE insults and false assumptions on top of the original insult. Pal2002 (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC) On his talk page he was praised for his "tremendous efforts" at "writing" Architecture in Lhasa by a new page patroller, but the content was ironically what he removed from the article for being a horrible mess and for what he left do NOT messages at me for. And if you actually look at how much research and effort went into writing that information from book etc which John Hill and I have mostly writtwn in the article themselves it was a shock to have somebody with 9 edits editing the article and pseaking to me like that. I agree that the article need condensing in a manner I've now done but why couldn't you have discussed it civilly first? I'd have been happy to work with you on it and flesh out the terrible empty section which do need writing wither way. And I am fully aware that Lhasa is a prefecture level city, I've done years of work on this part of the world. But it covers over 30,000 square kilometres and for the very sake of articles being terribly bloated it is more feasiable to write about the urban centr eof lhasa and then about the wider prfecture. IN due course I will write a nice article for Lhasa Prefecture summarising the counties which I have mostly started and developed myself as well as landmark summarie slike Sera, Ganden Monastery etc which are not in the city itself. I hope eventually to have two GAs on it as Lhasa is probably one of the world cities I most adhere to. I would be extremely surpised if Pal2002 is not a sock puppet. No newbie throws their weight around life this surely...♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Again, I immediately declined the praise if you will actually notice. I actually already toned down my statement to you, it is nothing close to what you retuend to me. And now, instead even offering a half-assed apology you will now go on to accuse me for being a sockpuppet. If you seriously believe that, have admins trace my IP and do whatever you want. But try and at elast stay on topic. Pal2002 (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Genuinely I would be more overwhelmed if you weren't and were actually an editor who actually genuinely wanted to write a more much resourceful article on Lhasa with me. Such an occurence would be rare but I would welcome it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC) If you had your explanations that you did here on my talk page instead of threatening me on my talk page, this would not have happened. Instead, you come here to insult and accuse me even more. Truthfully, I don't care if you get blocked or not, I just want a real answer and some "justice", whatever that means on wikipedia. You're a prolific editor and probably a great contributor to wikipedia and yet you always seem to resort to personal attacks. (as evidenced by your blocks) If you cared about the trouble, maybe you should tone down your own POV's and stop personally attacking people. Pal2002 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Justice on wikipedia? Mmm maybe you really are a newbie... The admins here (yes there are many of them I actually like and think are crucial to the project, several of them have commented on this post today) mostly do a great job in blocking out vandalism and stopping the truly bad editors but if we truly had justice on here hundreds of our best editors would not have left the project and at this moment would be heartily writing articles for us and pretend policeman (they know who they are) would be getting on with writing an encyclopedia instead of playing the rosy policeman with shiny badge and fake plastic handcuffs and persisting to send warnings to me over seomthing that happened ten hours ago and which I've apolgised for but the reaosn why I reacted is obvious.. I am sorry for my initial message in anger. I really don't know what more I can say.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC) It might help if both of you looked into dispute resolution, cited as many reliable sources as possible, justified edits with referral to policies and guidelines, solicited input from the relevant wikiprojects and overall tried to find the positive aspects of each others' contributions rather than reverting and dropping insults. Dr. Blofeld, a high edit count doesn't mean you get to ignore policies and guidelines (including the ones like CIVIL, CONSENSUS and DR); your experience should make it easier to justify your edits and thus make your point. You could be educating a new editor rather than berating. Pal2002, Dr Blofeld has an impressive edit count, is in the top-10 of all contributors to wikipedia (see WP:WBE); he's someone worth listening to. You may want to scale back the WP:BOLD and present discuss your ideas and intentions on the talk page. I see only one edit to talk:Lhasa and zero references to any relevant policies or guidelines in your edit summaries. "Taste" is generally not considered actionable on wikipedia, you need to work within the existing framework of rules, suggestions and good faith. I'd be irritated too if someone with 1/4500th my edit count started reverting without referencing any of the organizing principles on the site (that would be the policies and guidelines again). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Actually WLU I have already taken the iniative to do so and have invited Pal2002 to help write an article on Lhasa civilly, the ball is in his court. Neither of us should have spoken to each other in that way but a half amicable query about the article on my talk page would have prompted a more than productive response. Not the best way to address a situation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC) The reason I'm here is for the personal attack, not a content dispute. (I agree that content disputes should ->article talk page) The major reason for my original conflict has been actually resolved since Blofeld made his sections more concise (although IMO just a bit more would be better). I stand by my initial criticism as harsh as it may have sounded. But Blofeld's attack was definitely unnecessary and provacative. ->WLU: I really don't buy the patronage system has any consequence on wikipedia. In fact, that kind of thinking goes against all that wikipedia stands for, a free encylopedia. Pal2002 (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Unnessecary? Yes, probably. Provocative? Er, I'd say that your message was the provocative one. Even the other editor told you to tone it down Pal2002. As for why we are still here and you are still trying to get me blocked when I've made a conscious effort to move this into the talk page for devleoping the article beats me. This is essentially a content dispute. Obliterate the entirety of my hard work from an article with snarky edit summaries in doing so and leave a DO NOT message on my talk page telling my how crap my work prompted a reaction. If you had approached the article and myself more amicably and in good faith we'd be discussing the Lhasa article way forward. Edit count means nothing to me when I reached 100 k is really became irrelevant to me. What matters to be is article content and developing wikipedia to fulfill its potential. I genrally do so with no reward and usually no thanks. Which I accept. But when people who have not created or written a single article on wikipedia,, not even a stub have the audacity which you did to say DO NOT write informative well sourced and researched content to articles like his it really becomes surreal.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Let's put it this way. I was and still am ready to drop it. I've made my case and that is all. But you again come and inflame it some more. The reason why we're still here is because you're not dropping it and you still think you had every right to say what you said. Pal2002 (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Blocked Someone's now blocked Blofeld for this. As is fairly well known I'm definitely no fan of Blofeld, but that seems a ridiculous overreaction to a one-off incident of minor snappiness. Since he's now not in a position to ask for it, is there any consensus at all for reversing this? I'll get the ball rolling with a support unblock. – iridescent 22:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Keep blocked - Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so assuming good faith on the part of the blocker, I would say there is a need to prevent disruption. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Seems strange to apply your assumptions of good faith to only one of the parties in this dispute. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC) (ec) So, what is this "preventing", Burpelson? And how come "assume good faith" only applies to the person who happens to agree with you? – iridescent 23:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Why don't "you" both "ask" the "blocking admin" these "questions" instead of issuing impotent challenges to someone offering a harmless opinion? I'm sure he or she will be quite willing to unblock your special friend who no doubt is as pure as the driven snow. God forbid anyone should ever speak against the great untouchable Wikipedia Diva cadre. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 00:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Funny how "civility" only goes one way, isn't it? I'd recommend doing your basic background research before you offer half-baked opinions on issues you don't understand, by the way—the mutual animosity between Blofeld and myself is notorious (example). Just because I think he can be a pompous prick doesn't mean I think he warrants being hounded off the project by the Civility Police and a couple of wannabees. – iridescent 00:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Can we all please try and calm down, take a wikibreak for a day or 2 and come back relaxed, refreshed and free of bias on ALL parties. Thanks! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 00:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Funny how I give not a fig what you "think", iridescent. Do you actually want him unblocked are are you more interested in grandstanding and posturing at AN/I? I'd recommend approaching those who are in a position to "do something" in this matter, such as the blocking admin, if the former is true. If the latter is true, I'd suggest getting a life. Clearly, anyone who disagrees with "certain people" here is either an "enemy of the people" or an ignorant half-wit. I really don't care if I get blocked for that, I'm sick of the arrogant posturing and condescending bullshit of the same 4 or 5 people, content or no content. Just block me already, for I've committed the grave sin of criticizing the Divas. I'm logging off until next Monday, enjoy your drama fest. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 00:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC) it does seem to be for mouthing off he did earlier in the day. At the same time, it was very loud mouthing off - and warning an admin [46] never goes down well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I'd say browbeating anyone like that should warrant the same response. Lacking a good explanation of why Dr. Blofield should be allowed to attack another editor like that, I'd say a 48 hour block is more than fair. Resolute 00:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC) This block was a ridiculous over-reaction and should be reversed pronto. Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Meh. He's apparently retired now. Hasn't he done this before? AD 23:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Blofield has too many edits. I support his retirement, until the rest of us catch up with him, in terms of edit count.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Support an early unblock. this had all but died down, with an apology for the original outburst already made hours before, and the "browbeating" of SoV long over. He lost his cool, he had already recognized that, and things were winding down. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC) As blocking admin, let me say that I had no clue this thread existed. The block was based on the threat of violence, and the abuse being levelled simply because he was validly warned. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC) The block was imposed for comments (which ["browbeat Sarek") that occurred between 2 and 4 hours earlier. It appears that since that time, he had moved on from there (and this incident above - which he apologised for) onto article content building. That same "browbeaten" Sarek edited the same article minutes before the block. Later, Sandstein declines the unblock, and cites a comment which was already discussed to death above (and apologised for). Given that admins should know that blocks are not to be punitive, I fail to see what is being prevented here; what I do see is three administrators favouring form over substance which has possibly resulted in the loss of an asset - and all because Blofield admitted he started off a day badly with overreactions - which seem to have been apologised for and which the rest of the project seemed willing to move on from. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Response: I had already apologised for my initial outburst and actually invited this 2002 user to write the lhasa amicably with me. I had moved on to sweeter pastures when Sarek turned up 8 hours after it happened to rub my nose on it and point his moral finger. I responded to him and said surely he has something better to do and then to add further fuel to the fire his friend sheriff turned up also to tick me off. If you check the history of my talk page I was the one harrassed by them 3 times in total and sheriff even provoked me into answering his question on Sarek's talk page when again I had moved on and was writing an article. I gave him an honest reply that I think he should quit playing policeman and write articles and did it in a light hearted fashion which was intended to be humorous. I certainly did not say anything uncivil to them except that I said Sarek tdoes zilch to contribute to wikipedia but runs about on his high horse preaching at people. Again I had moved on writing an article when this block came about which was ridiculous givne that I had not only apologised to 2002 hours ago, even if I had every right to be angry with him. I had genuinely offered Sarek of Vulcan to constructively edit an article with me and was actually writing an article, not harassing people when I was blocked. I was led to Sarek's talk page provoked three times. The block was completely unwarranted and poorly timed. I even pout up a wiki break banner this morning to acknolwedge that I needed to cool off. I cooled off lunch time but later Sarek caused unnecessary conflict when he should just mind his own business. There really has to come a time and a place when adminstrators actually investigate "uncivility" and to find that in cases like this they are entirely provoked by other people. That doesn't make it right to threaten to "knock somebody's teeth out but if they actually investigated what happened as at ANI I was justified in being angry. As for me swearing I rarely if ever use very strong profanity considerably milder than the words that often appear on the main page and which I objected to last Sunday. I tend to call people assholes a lot because that is the way they are acting. Look it up in wiktionary for a definition. If you part in hard work to wikipedia and you have it obliterated and then an editors rants on at you about DO NOT write it, somebody you used to consider a friend tells you NOT TO CREATE ARTICLES and DUMP them and somebody places a deletion warning on a vlaid article and you receive thes emessages all at once first thing in the morning when you log in feeling rotten anyway and you try being sweet about it. No it is not acceptable to be uncivil but SERIOUSLY the blocking admins in cases like really do need to why a person flared upand that they have human feelings. If people stopped messing with me and worked with me to write articles absolutely nothing like this would ever occur. This should never happen again. Blocking me is the most pointless thing possible. Is it meant to teach me a lesson? Because nothing can stop me flaring up from time to time if I feel I've been badly treated. Its a natural humane reaction. 99% of the time I am more that civil to people and happen to be one of the most encouraging editors on wikipedia to content contributors and have a great dela of respect for them which I hope is reciprocated. Unfortunately we are surrounded by many negative people who do little to generate content and pretend to govern the site. I've invited Sarek of Vulcan to write n article with positively but is he interested, no, because he will only be negative about everything. We are better off without having these sort of people around. Look what he cuased here last night. Nothing but aggravation and blew it all out of proportion by making snide remars when the situation had alreayd been appeased. For heaven's sake I'm much better than all this. Stay out of my affairs and I'll remain civil, but people have to treat me with some respect otherwise the bad feelings will be returned. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Dr. Blofeld blocked Dr. Blofeld is one of our major contributors and sadly he was blocked and has quit Wikipedia can anyone look into this as I am unaware of this.Please he/she is one of the major contributors to Wikipedia with nearly 1/30 of the total content.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Read up. AD 00:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I don't see Blofeld getting unblocked in under the 48 hours (or I guess coming back) with this almost holier-than-thou attitude. Blofeld needs to calm down, take a break, have a drink, a nap and then come back with fresh eyes on the whole thing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC) ^^ Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 00:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Hate to be a prude, but how long has this user been here and still does not know accounts cannot be "deleted"? –MuZemike 00:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC) They can't be deleted (well, they can, but we don't). They can, however, be 'vanished' if Arbcom decide they want some dirty laundry covered up, though. See anything in Rlevse's contribution history? – iridescent 00:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Ah, the semi-vanish: now at User:Vanished 6551232. Nifty. As for Blofeld, fairly typical. He got hot under his collar, snippy, and failed to kowtow. Users that damage content repeatedly but remain wpcivil carry on.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I will be as cool as a cucumber until somebody destroys content and acts out of line. When that happens you don't want to get on the side of me. If people did not destroy content and were constructive it would not be typical of me. Rather its typical of the beahviour of others who provoke me to act like that.. I'm a passionate person but that pasison also comes with a price that I can get particularly nasty if disturbed. Just saying.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC) If Blofeld wants to play the WP:DIVA card, so be it. But looking at the history of Lhasa, I think the summary-style cleanup work was actually warranted (i.e. Pal2002's movement of content to Architecture in Lhasa), and Blofeld's abusive outburst at Pal2002 for doing that was excessive and wholly inappropriate. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC) No it was not the history of the page that concerned me. It was the way this unexperienced editor left a nasy message on my talk page with a heated tone telling me NOT to write content. Of course Andrew you've never been angry in your lifetime and mouthed off at somebody.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Can we all please try and calm down, take a wikibreak for a day or 2 and come back relaxed, refreshed and free of bias on ALL parties. Thanks! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 00:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC) It would be best to take no action as regards deletes or whatever, at least until the 48 hours have passed. [No issue now] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC) A block seem highly appropriate for anyone, no matter how well established a contributor, who would say to another contributor here "I'd knock your teeth out if you in this room right now.". There is never any conceivable justification for this. If it's objected we're blocking a particularly skilled contributor, stopping this sort of language will help get us many more of them: one of the standard reasons experts give for not editing here is our propensity of this sort of thing. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC) That's not the case DGG. I was not even officially blocked for "I'd knock your teeth out". I was blocked for apparent "harassement" of Sarek of Vulcan evne though I'd moved on at the time of blocking. The original outburst happened at least 8 hours previously to the block, if I had been blocked immediately afterwards in the morning for that it would have been more justified. At the time of blocking I had not only apologised for the initial outburst and had invited the person who slated me to write the Lhasa article together but I had requested Sarek of Vunclan stop being negative towards me and to write an article, one he had started which I was working on devleoping at the time of the block. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Can't we just unblock him, he got a tiny bit hot under the collar, I know the encyclopedia is mostly written and we don't need content contributors as much as in the past but he is not a danger to the wikipedia is he? Off2riorob (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Please get a dose of reality swiftly. Ucucha 01:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Why can't we all just let this matter drop? Clearly wikibreaks are needed to clear the sometimes heavy bias on BOTH sides. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 01:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Ucucha, I don't need any reality, especially here. It would be better instead of your attacking comment towards me, if you actually said something about the actual issue. Off2riorob (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) This has nothing to do with bias, or sides. Threats of violence , even rhetorical ones, require a block to make sure it does not continue. I might be willing to pass over something like this with a warning if it were a unique occurrence , but the editor has previous blocks for NPA. It's time we took this seriously. People who expect to be excused from the ordinary rules of behavior because of their quality as editors are a threat to the growth of the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Not really; there are usually already far too many people who think they have something useful to say on "issues" like this. However, "the encyclopedia is mostly written" is false, and I wouldn't want to let it stand uncorrected. Ucucha 01:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Well its a lot more written than when Blofield got here. All the main articles are totally complete, updates and new creations of obscure subjects, is all there is left. Off2riorob (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I thought that you were writing tongue-in-cheek, and I was about to say the same to Ucucha. But now I'm not so sure. If you're not, then please note that Ucucha is quite right. There's a pernicious idea that we're mostly done, now, that is exemplified by complete baloney such as Wikipedia:Concept limit. But we're really not. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Concept limit for clues. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Ok it seems he was joking in fact Yes, these comments ("I know the encyclopedia is mostly written and we don't need content contributors as much as in the past" and "All the main articles are totally complete, updates and new creations of obscure subjects, is all there is left" are the silliest and most ill-informed things I seen said on WP for a long time, but sadly I don't think he is joking. We still have areas with little or no coverage, and thousands of "main articles" that are stubs or starts. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Considering what he said wasn't an actual threat anyway (Tuberville v Savage), it might have fallen under WP:CIVIL, but IMO a warning should have been enough. If it wasn't, the action was arguably proportionate. However, I know full well that this encyclopedia is barely started, let alone finished. Ask me in 100 years time. Rodhullandemu 01:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Parts of my comment were indeed tongue-in-cheek, and thanks for the links, I will try to get my head around concept limits, its a new concept to me and I am a bit dubious about it. Off2riorob (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC) What this shows is we have a number of administrators on this website who look upon their roles as police officers working for the prosecution trying to secure as many convictions (via blocks) as possible. Gone are the days where we have janitors who will not look for lame excuses to impose (and keep) punitive blocks. I've already noted above why the contribution history shows that there was no threat of any further attacks or violence given that the entire incident was resolved via an apology in the thread above and that content building was happening. Yet, the block is still in place. The policy governing how admins should use their tools is obviously not working, and it seems we should limit the situations in which these tools can be used if admins are not going to show good judgement (first and foremost by fully familiarising themselves with the circumstances). Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Thankyou for actually examining what happened. I had not only apologised to 2002 and asked for him to constrctively move and discuss the Lhasa article and write it together but had actually alos asked Sarek genuinely to expand one of his articles which I thought he might be interested in. His friend sheriff also left a pointy message which meant I went back to his tlak page again. This editor asked me why my comments were constructive and I told him in what was intended to be light hearted humor that he should hang up his badge and write articles instead. I did not say one uncivil thing to them, except I said Sarek does zilch to generate content and runs around on his high horse judging folk. If I had been blocked yesterday morning immediately after my uncivil comments then it would have at least been jsutified which is why I put up a wiki break tag to acknolwedge i lost my temper and was backing away. I actually did that and cooled off lunch time but I had work to be getting on with with Uruguay. I did just that and had moved on when I had harassed by Sarek. If you had minded his own business it would never have happened, and if I had not been left with a nasty message over Lhasa, Albania and an unwarramted article wanring over a nunnery all at once I'd not have reacted now would I?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC) There is no policy requiring that an admin check on ANI and AN to see if a threat of violence was under discussion already. Such threats are taken seriously from first instance, and should be removed or stricken by someone if they're retracted and a situation is resolved. Any unretracted legal threat or threat of violence should and usually does trigger an admin block on discovery. There's a credible argument that someone should unblock now, but the block wasn't bad. This - like legal threats - is not a subject people should be joking around about. Comments that are perceived as abusive or threatening actively disrupt the community. The user it was directed at took it seriously and came here. That it was intended jokingly is an explanation, but not a defense. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC) There is an expectation that an admin will check an editor's contribution history before they do something - precisely to avoid doing something stupid. If an admin does not see red flags when an obviously established contributor engages in this conduct, and that the contributor has made several recent contributions to an ANI discussion titled "Personal attack", then there is a serious problem amongst the so-called basic model of adminning which we needs to be changed. The comments were obviously avoidable, but so was this block; and unless admins are going to look into things properly, I see no reason why we should let this sort of thing continue on what is becoming more of a pattern on ANI rather than a yearly incident. That we have potentially lost a solid contributor as a result of this incident is not something anyone should be proud of, least of all the admin who declined the unblock. The reasons for the unblock have not emerged from something that happened after the block; it's based on things that already happened before the block (and should have been looked into already). Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC) It was a bad block. A blind block, oh is there a thread at ANI I didn't see that. Off2riorob (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Don't you realize that that threats of violence are taken as seriously as legal threats? Joking or not you WILL be blocked for them! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 02:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I will punch your lights out if you keep posting in capitals, is not really severe or serious is it. Off2riorob (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Its the same as "give him a slap". It is really not intended violentally, rather an expression of how angry I am with him. If I wanted to be violent I'd have said I'm going to cut off his head of with a machete or something, gouge out his eyes and play tennis with them and then run over it with a bulldozer. That would be violent. I'm not the only one overreacting here...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC) It is serious. Whenever you make a threat of violence towards anyone they will see it as a serious threat regardless of your joking or not joking. Wikipedia also takes these as seriously regardless of the level of jokingness. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 02:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC) What you're suggesting is out of whack. Everything has a context and a set of circumstances; if admins are not ready to take the time to fully familiarise themselves with it, then even those provisions are going to need to be amended (either to force admins to do so or to reflect the unfortunate reality we have encountered today). What happened here does not become black and white just because a couple of sentences were read as threats of any kind. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Per my unblock decline, I believe that this block is correct. Conduct policies apply equally to all no matter how much good content they have contributed. Threats of violence, even if it is clear that they are unlikely to be realized, severly degrade the collegial and courteous atmosphere we should strive to maintain.  Sandstein  07:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Consensus to unblock? I believe we have a rough consensus towards unblock, but have asked Bwilkins for input or comments, and would like to ask that any other yes/no opinions be focused and clarified here. As I stated above, I do not feel that the block was bad, but I do feel that the totality of circumstances argue for an early unblock (without delay other than procedural for consensus). I believe that there's no ongoing active threat to prevent. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Someone should probably mention that YellowMonkey unblocked Dr. Blofeld about a half hour ago... --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Support, fwiw. StrPby (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC) And I was just composing an elaborate reason to unblock. Sanity has prevailed. I just vandalized his talk page. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC) See here for a review of this case Count Iblis (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC) How is it that a dispute between 2 people over the skyline of a Tibetan city can turn so rapidly into a circular firing squad of 15 to 20 senior editors and administrators? --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC) That's what happens with bad blocks; they piss the content providers off big time to the detriment of all, something the clueless trigger-happy civility police can't seem to grasp. "oh, look, someone's used a naughty word - let's block them!!! Yah!" --Michael C. Price talk 04:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC) There's that intentional misrepresentation again. He threatened to knock someone's teeth out. Not a naughty word in there. Civility is not now, nor has ever been, about swear words. People who don't like it when their friends get blocked like to pretend that it is, even when the real reason for the block is something different. If people can threaten violence against others with impugnity, how long before the only people left are the threateners, as the good content editors who DON'T stoop to that level are driven away. Again, I want Blofeld to edit, but I also want Blofeld to not threaten to knock people's teeth out. It would be really nice if he could do both. --Jayron32 05:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC) No, not "intentional misrepresentation" since I was characterising a generic problem. And BTW civility is often about naughty words. It shouldn't be, of course. --Michael C. Price talk 11:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Well, I woke up early because I could feel the hot breath of ANI in my sleep. A few comments: before blocking I had no past experience that I can think of with DrB the inappropriate altercation appeared to be in-progress when I issued the block - I saw no de-escalation on the go I recognized that DrB is a large scale contributor - but nobody is above basic levels of behvaiour we cannot choose to "not block" someone simply because of what they might or might not do (ie withdraw their services). This created a hierarchy that does not exist In the end, although I "advertise" that I will do "tough blocks", this was not one of them. In fact, it was based on policy and behaviour, and was intended to prevent additional behaviour. The length was based on past history. Not blocking would have sent the wrong message to others in the project, as would an early unblocking. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Reply: Nobody said it did. But i had alreayd apologised for my initial outburst and actually invited this 2002 user to write the lhasa amicably with me. I had moved on to sweeter pastures when Sarek turned up 8 hours after it happened to rub my nose on it and point his moral finger. I responded to him and said surely he has something better to do and then to add further fuel to the fire his friend sheriff turned up also to tick me off. If you check the history of my talk page I was the one harrassed by them 3 times in total and sheriff even provoked me into answering his question on Sarek's talk page when again I had moved on and was writing an article. I gave him an honest reply that I think he should quit playing policeman and write articles and did it in a light hearted fashion which was intended to be humorous. I certainly did not say anything uncivil to them except that I said Sarek tdoes zilch to contribute to wikipedia but runs about on his high horse preaching at people. Again I had moved on writing an article when this block came about which was ridiculous givne that I had not only apologised to 2002 hours ago, even if I had every right to be angry with him. I had genuinely offered Sarek of Vulcan to constructively edit an article with me and was actually writing an article, not harassing people when I was blocked. I was led to Sarek's talk page provoked three times. The block was completely unwarranted and poorly timed. I even pout up a wiki break banner this morning to acknolwedge that I needed to cool off. I cooled off lunch time but later Sarek caused unnecessary conflict when he should just mind his own business. There really has to come a time and a place when adminstrators actually investigate "uncivility" and to find that in cases like this they are entirely provoked by other people. That doesn't make it right to threaten to "knock somebody's teeth out but if they actually investigated what happened as at ANI I was justified in being angry. As for me swearing I rarely if ever use very strong profanity considerably milder than the words that often appear on the main page and which I objected to last Sunday. I tend to call people assholes a lot because that is the way they are acting. Look it up in wiktionary for a definition. If you part in hard work to wikipedia and you have it obliterated and then an editors rants on at you about DO NOT write it, somebody you used to consider a friend tells you NOT TO CREATE ARTICLES and DUMP them and somebody places a deletion warning on a vlaid article and you receive thes emessages all at once first thing in the morning when you log in feeling rotten anyway and you try being sweet about it. No it is not acceptable to be uncivil but SERIOUSLY the blocking admins in cases like really do need to why a person flared upand that they have human feelings. If people stopped messing with me and worked with me to write articles absolutely nothing like this would ever occur. This should never happen again. Blocking me is the most pointless thing possible. Is it meant to teach me a lesson? Because nothing can stop me flaring up from time to time if I feel I've been badly treated. Its a natural humane reaction. 99% of the time I am more that civil to people and happen to be one of the most encouraging editors on wikipedia to content contributors and have a great dela of respect for them which I hope is reciprocated. Unfortunately we are surrounded by many negative people who do little to generate content and pretend to govern the site. I've invited Sarek of Vulcan to write n article with positively but is he interested, no, because he will only be negative about everything. We are better off without having these sort of people around. Look what he cuased here last night. Nothing but aggravation and blew it all out of proportion by making snide remars when the situation had alreayd been appeased. For heaven's sake I'm much better than all this. Stay out of my affairs and I'll remain civil, but people have to treat me with some respect otherwise the bad feelings will be returned. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC) support unblock, it is a sad day when an experienced user like Blofeld gets blocked, yeah his comment was harsh but the problem was solved when I told him to go on a wiki break, now some editors have dragged the topic back up and antagonised Blofeld to the point of blocking him, editors should have waited until blofeld had calmed down before coaxing him for an apology and a promise not to threaten users again. Now sadly one of our finest editors has retired--Lerdthenerd (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A legal warning

Resolved

 – the Vulcan got 'um --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this [47] "legal warning" on the Talk:Villains and Vigilantes page from AlabasterKnight. His talk page [48] pretty much establishes his conflict of interest, and his edits to the page [49] deal with the legal matter, and actually suggests anyone who disagrees start another Wikipedia page. I'm headed out for the afternoon, but would an admin mind taking a look at this? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NLT they should be ordered to retract the threat or be indef blocked--Lerdthenerd (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

User warned of threat and notified of this thread --Lerdthenerd (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and cleaned up. That was pretty un-ignorable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Misleading claim of 'vandalism' by IANVS at 'White Argentine' article

USER:IANVS has reverted a large number of edits to the White Argentine article (diff here), describing them as 'multiple issues of vandalism'. The are clearly nothing of the kind. There is a long-running content dispute over this article, and the edits are evidently part of this.

Given that (amongst other issues), much of the text restored by IANVS is in clear breach of WP:BLP as it includes an unsourced categorisation of living individuals to a supposed 'ethnic group' that the article itself provides no valid evidence for the existence of (the term 'White Argentine', or a close equivalent in Spanish is not a term widely used in Argentina, as one of the leading contributors to the article (User:Pablozeta here) himself acknowledges), I ask that IANVS be required to work within Wikipedia policy, and deal with issues on a case by case basis, rather than engaging in mass reverts with misleading edit summaries, and furthermore, to ensure that any text restored confirms to WP:BLP.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The "mass reversal" I did was because the IP user effectively did not made a case by case edit of the article, making it impossible to separate the viable edits from the vandalic ones. In fact, after the mass reversal I began to re-introduce valuable edits by the IP user. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Any edit to improve the Wiki - even if it is incorrect or misguided - is not vandalism and should never be called such. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I've should said "rv mass edits including some vandalism in it". Salut, --IANVS (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I said "estore last good version -. multiple issues of vandalism." Salut, --IANVS (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please make clear what it is you consider 'vandalism': I can see no evidence of any. And can you furthermore assure us that any restoration you make conforms with WP:BLP, and does not make assertions about the supposed ethnicity of living persons? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

IP editor deleted links to other WP article, deleted references and sourced content, and segments or entire sections without a rational explanation ("c'mon be serious" kind of explanations). Much of these was vandalic behavior, that I could not undo without this mass reversal. I restored his valuable edits however, and I recently hid the extensive lists of names possibly subject to BLP policy, while tagging the most problematic section (Influence in culture) with a BLP concern tag. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is very clearly a proper reversion by IANVS, as a significant amount of things by those two IPs were vandalism. There were one or two good edits in there that might want to be reinstated, but it was for the large part just section blanking, reference removal, and the addition of non-neutral sentences. IANVS was right in reverting it to what it was before. What BLP problems are you speaking of, Andy? Silverseren^C 16:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• - Article is the subject of mediation Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/White Argentine and the edits look to be related to some of the issues related to that, hopefully it will all come out in the wash there. Of course any clear policy violation can and should be removed. Under the circumstances of mediation existing Its a good idea to clearly discuss any alterations to the article at present. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Response to Silverseren - A content dispute is never vandalism.

With regard to BLP issues, I'd draw everyones attention to the following (from Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality):

General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted, with the following considerations:

...

Inclusion must be justifiable by external references. (For example: regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a LGBT-related category after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion.)

...

Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest. Moreover, inclusion is not transitive to any other activity. (For example: a notable LGBT activist is not automatically included in a corresponding LGBT musician category, unless also notable for one or more LGBT-related music compositions or performances.)

Note that even if the supposed 'ethnicity' is sourced, it arguably fails to meet the requirement to be "specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities". In any case, the article provides no valid justification for using the term 'White Argentinian' as an ethnic group: ethnicity is something one ascribes to oneself. Instead, it is using an external 'ethnic category' as a basis for inclusion or exclusion. This is entirely contrary to Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your concern on BLP policy is tangencial to this partial reversion (I restored everything that was not vandalic, hid the most problematic lists from the BLP perspective, and even added a BLP tag). We should be discusseing this in the article's talk page, Andy. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It should not be on the talk page, because the issue is not entirely the content but has progressed to your inability to recognize what 'vandalism' is. The edit was clearly a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Not one part of it was vandalism, from looking at the diff at the beginning of the thread. Most of it was probably worth a reversion, but the labeling as vandalism to clearly out of line. Not a major major issue, but probably worth a note of apology on the ip's talkpage. -- ۩ Mask 08:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A point of information here: Once more, edits (not mine) as part of a contend dispute are being falsely labelled as 'vandalism' in edit summaries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to be quite the edit war here today, I've protected this article for three days. Hopefully, this will encourage some further discussion. Frankly, I'm seeing some bad edits, but nothing I would overtly call vandalism. If you see something you think fits taht criteria specifically, it would be helpful to call it. Kuru (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I insist, removal of sourced statements and references, relevant wikilinks, as well as entire sections without a proper WP:ES is vandalism, not legitimate edit warring. --IANVS (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's unimportant how do we name the things going on. Whenever it was vandalism or a content dispute, the important thing is that it was not correct to remove whole pages in a single edit, or to remove them and expect to discuss over a done deed. The restore of the deleted content was correct, at least until consensus or mediation say otherwise. MBelgrano (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's actually quite important to label them correctly. Good faith edits that simply come out wrong are not vandalism; you are in a content dispute and labeling your opponent as a vandal does not help bring them into line with our editorial process, nor does it grant you an exemption from 3RR. The IP editor engaged on the talk page; I would strongly encourage you to resolve your dispute there instead of edit warring when the protection expires. Kuru (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Resolved

Ip blocked for one month

Is it possible to address the actions of this IP Address please. There edits are just purely disruptive as can be seen from their edits just for today here, here, here, here, here. Apart from the going against WP:IMOS these articles are all subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a previous Arbitration Enforcement case. It just appears to me that ClueBots notices are having no effect. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 19:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Students with too much time on their hands. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've blocked the IP account. PhilKnight (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. One less to worry about. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm loth to say "censorship" but...

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

---

So I contributed my little bit of satire to WT:ACN. It was removed as "incorrect" – which led me to add a disclaimer which rendered it not only satire, but harmless satire.

Now Iridescent (talk · contribs) has decided to twice delete it, the first time with a vaguely POINTy edit-summary.

I can't find any clause of WP:TPO which permits the removal of jokes and/or banter, and while it may not be the most erudite of comments, it's not remotely disruptive, and I'd be interested to be told of any policy basis for its removal? ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 19:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't have a God-given right to post irrelevant nonsense on ArbCom pages, and the fact that three independent editors removed it should be a hint enough for you to desist. Wikipedia is not, or at least does not aspire to be a bureaucracy; not every right action must be justified by written policy. To accuse any other party in this teacup storm of pointyness is showing either breathtaking lack of self-awareness or deliberate obtuseness. I suggest you take the advice in your signature and stop wasting everybody's time. Skomorokh 19:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Your opening sentence appears to imply that others do have a God-given right to delete any material they want, whether or not it is actually disruptive. But I'm sure that can't be what you mean? ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 19:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It ain't worth fighting over. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It comes across as disrupting a serious request. That said, we tend to allow a little levity on talk pages, even of serious subjects, while trying to keep the article pages a little more straight-laced. If the announcement had been on the Noticeboard (why doesn't it belong there), I'd say the edit was quite misplaced. Tougher call on the talk page.--SPhilbrickT 19:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would absolutely agree with you if it were on the Noticeboard itself, but on "general participation" pages, the odd sarcastic remark is generally permissible, and practically never deleted. Even on ANI ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 19:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know how Giaco's post[50] is any more worthy of staying on the talk page, especially as someone responded to it as if it were for real. TT's comment was obviously a joke. [Black Kite has informed me that some kind of ID, though not necessarily a passport, is indeed required. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)]

They also left one out: Regardless of skills, you have to run through a popularity gauntlet to be accepted.

Meanwhile, if any users are unhappy with ArbCom in general, they could always volunteer to be part of that gauntlet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I completely stand by what I did and reserve the right to do the same sort of thing in the future. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 19:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• OK, new discussion at WT:ACN#Recent deletion of comments from this page. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 20:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Misuse of Nazi images in an essay

Resolved

 – Discussion closed with no consensus for 1) the block being lifted; 2) the block being extended to indefinite; or 3) a topic ban being enacted to prevent Christopher Connor (talk · contribs) from creating other essays or editing articles relating to race et cetera. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Community discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Christopher Connor (talk · contribs) has just created the essay Wikipedia:On being Jewish. He has also linked to it from the main BLP policy page and given it the shortcut name WP:JEWISH. The topic of how we decide which individuals should be considered Jewish for purposes of writing and categorizing Wikipedia articles may be the legitimate subject of an essay. However, Christopher Connor has chosen to illustrate his essay with two images. The first of these is an image of Adolf Hitler leading a Nazi military rally or parade, and has been given the caption "a Nazi informs his personal army of the definition of a Jew." The second image is the file "Kiev Jew Killings in Ivangorod 1942" and has been captioned "categorizing an aryan as a mischling is a BLP violation." The use of these images, with these (or any) captions, to illustrate a Wikipedia space essay on categorization, is offensive and reflects a deplorable indifference to the sensitivity of these images and the events they represent. Moreover, this is not the first time Christopher Connor has conducted himself in this manner. Last month, Christopher Connor used the same image of Hitler addressing a rally to illustrate his essay "Wikipedia:BLP Nazi" (subsequently moved in toned-down form to Wikipedia:BLP zealot). Discussion on Christopher Connor's talkpage and in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP Nazi should certainly have made it clear to this editor, as if it could ever have been in question, that depictions of Nazi and Holocaust related events are not suited for decorating essays on editing policies. That Christopher Connor has repeated this behavior suggests to me that this editor is deeply insensitive to the feelings of his colleagues here, and I recommend that he be blocked from editing or, at a minimum, that he be appropriately restricted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Wow, yeah, that's pretty disgusting. I'd support any restrictions or sanctions anyone placed on him. We don't need that kind of stuff here at Wikipedia. Not at all. Writing an essay about Jewishness and then filling it with images of Nazis, including one of Nazis shooting Jewish people is pretty egregious. --Jayron32 05:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC) It's been speedy deleted. Basket of Puppies 05:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Trout me if it was the wrong decision. I noticed NYB applied __noindex__ to it, so I restored it, then deleted it again, because I'm fickle like that. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I don't mind its being deleted. My only concern was that deletion would make it harder for non-admins to follow this ANI discussion regarding the editor who created it, but I put in a brief description of the content above in case of just that eventuality. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Blocked for 1 week, as well. He'd been warned. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Good call. Courcelles 06:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Why exactly is this user not instead indef blocked?— Dædαlus Contribs 07:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Eh...I thought about it, but his contribs go back a ways and he doesn't have a history. Hopefully he'll get the hint. Otherwise, yes, indef. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Indef block until he gets it. There is absolutely no place for that kind of...(I don't even know what he was trying to do there, extraordinarily dark "humor" possibly)...anywhere on this encyclopedia. Indef block and wait for a full apology. This is a second occurrence. N419BH 08:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC) An apology? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Support one-week block. Not the first time this has happened and given prior warnings it's reasonable. Opposed to indef-blocking a perfectly okay content contributor based on just this, but CC must treat this as his very last warning, or an indef would be very deserved and appropriate. StrPby (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Both the one-week block or an indef block until the user demonstrates that he understands the problem are (or would have been) an appropriate reaction.  Sandstein  11:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I can't see the deleted page, but based on NYB's description and the earlier "BLP Nazi" page (which I did see), one week seems to be appropriate to drive the message home. Hans Adler 11:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC) A week sounds ok to me. Having peeked at the essay, didn't bother to read it through, given I found it so... ugly, guess it looked to me kind of like where failed sarcasm falls splat across the pale into trolling. en.WP's not censored but nor is it "ED II, the Unleashed." Gwen Gale (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Actually, without the at best entirely thoughtlessly and provocatively chosen images and captions, there might have been a point to be made here, albeit that it's not, in reality, specific to Jewishness by any stretch of the imagination. For those non-administrators who cannot read the now-deleted revisions: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Ed Miliband, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive645#Allegation of antisemitism, and Ed Miliband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) were the primary drivers of this particular case. You don't really need the deleted page to see the issue and the argument, which was re-hashed here from the BLP Noticeboard and article talk page in an almost canonically ill-thought Godwin's Law manner. Uncle G (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Just want to add here that there was some other strangeness recently, when he wrote an article about, and was half pretending to be, this Christopher Connor. Submitted it for DYK, said he was particularly keen to have it used, then refused to answer questions, there and on the COI board, from people wanting to make sure he was a different Christopher Connor. Discussions here and here. It was a minor thing, but it was odd. He declined even to acknowledge that people were asking him a question. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I thought at the time that that might have been being deliberately silent to make the point that according to Project:Outing an editor is not obliged to answer questions as to xyr identity, and that it's a little foolish to assume that there's just one "Christopher Connor" in the world. Or that someone's "conflict of interest" may extend only as far as having an interest in writing the articles about encyclopaedic people that happen to share xyr name. It seems that I was right. Uncle G (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Unblock request Christopher has now apologised and agreed not to repeat his actions in an unblock request on his talk page. I think with his previously clean record, we should give him this chance. StrPby (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC) :I concur. The article text and the images are at odds with each other as the text was not racist nor baiting but seemed to be an attempt tp clarify and help some BLP issues. The images were clearly beyond the line and the block seems to have gotten his attention. JodyB talk 12:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose Unblocking. After the reading the diffs below I must conclude that this is a pattern of insensitivity. Although his block log was previously clean there is ample evidence that he has been and remains clueless. JodyB<subBold text> talk 14:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I do agree there, the images are what hurled it over the line. If he'd further say he'll be more careful with any images he uses in hoped for irony, I'd see no need to keep the block. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I've come to oppose an unblock, given CC's later answers on his talk page left me neutral but mostly because I wasn't aware of the DYK diffs shown by iridescent. Taken altogether, I've meaningful worries he may not have made these edits for encyclopedic reasons. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I think I oppose an unblock. "Categorising an Aryan as a Mischling is a BLP violation" under an image of Jews being executed by the Einsatzgruppen. Hard to know how to describe that if not as baiting. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I recall that caption. I took it as sarcasm which was so startlingly botched, it indeed looked like trolling, but likely was not. I think almost all sarcasm is baiting in some way. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose unblock without question after seeing Iridescent's diffs, especially [51] [52] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose unblock—so let's recap: this guy writes an essay at WP:JEWISH, which he illustrates with images of Hitler and the Nazis. He is blocked for a week. He says sorry. We unblock him after seven hours. Seriously... no. I cannot imagine any good faith explanation for his actions, other than possibly the most serious case of gross insensitivity I've come across in a long while. In fact, the case, bears a striking similarity to Berlusconi saying that he shouldn't be blamed for telling a Holocaust joke in a speech; rather, "the bad taste was in those who published it." This guy seriously needs a block for more than a few hours to demonstrate to him that the project doesn't consider this sort of thing acceptable, thus preventing further future disruption. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 13:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC) But blocks aren't punitive, and he knows that if he messes up again he'll likely end up indef-blocked. So what's the harm? StrPby (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC) The harm comes from us sending out a message that blocks for the most outragoeous behaviour will be overturned within a couple of hours if the perpetrator says, "Oh, I'm tho thorry I made a mithtake." We need to make it plain to this editor that we will not tolerate actions such as the ones they took; if we do not make this plain, it is plausible or even likely that they will repeat them. And by unblocking this soon, it looks suspiciously like toleration to me. The let's-unblock-and-then-if-they-do-it-again-reblock argument should really only apply to behaviours which the person involved didn't know were problematic at the time. But this guy must have known that his Nazi snaps were inappropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 13:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose unblock. Lord help me, but I'm actually going to agree with TreasuryTag on something; an unblock for something which no reasonable person could have considered legitimate sends out the wrong message about Wikipedia's values and aims. This isn't a one off incident ([53], [54], [55], [56]); this looks to be someone with an agenda. – iridescent 13:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose unblock Frankly, I one of the first to say Wikipedia can be over sensitive to Jewish sensibilities and throw round anti-Semitism charges far too quickly, which tends to have a chilling effect. However, this editor is clearly over the line. This is trolling. An apology might be good enough, if it had been a case of "he's learnt his lesson", but he was heavily criticised for his Wikipedia:BLP Nazi recently, and had evidently not taken the hind. A week block is very lenient, and should be served. Next time, I'd propose an outright ban.--Scott Mac 13:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC) On the boosterism problem: Can either of the two of you remember where the criticism was that Wikipedia biographies tended to start in their first sentences with a whole string of religious, ethnic, sexual, and geographic associations, each with reams of citation cross-links, before even getting to the important stuff about a person for which they are actually known? I think that we already have a non-Godwinized essay on the general subject, which is far from specific to Jewishness, but I cannot remember where I saw it. Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose unblock. I fully endorse every word of iridescent's rationale. Hans Adler 13:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose unblock This Editor is not a a noob, Mr. Connor knows our norms here. Especially on the heels of the BLP nazi incident. Commons sense should have WP:CLUED him in. Its not rocket science to figure out that having an essay filled with images nazi would cause an adverse reaction with out the essay being called Wikipedia:On being Jewish. We are extremely lucky one of us found it and not the Media or a one of the many Jewish advocacy groups. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose unblock - User should be on a short leach also when it expires. Off2riorob (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose unblock. What Iridescent said, and the diffs Iridescent provided. Saebvn (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose unblock I agree with Iridescent. There is something not quite right here. In addition to the diffs Irridesent gave, there are many other questionable edits, for example just recently a DYK with unnecessary details of a lynching. [57] In the diff where he created Jewish lawyer stereotype, he claimed to be one.[58] That article has problems going back to its creation: Shylock evidently was not a lawyer in the Merchant of Venice (the "lawyer" in the play was of the fairer sex). Thank goodness he forgot Peter Taylor, Baron Taylor of Gosforth in that first irksome diff. Was it some kind of bad taste joke? Mathsci (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC) When Christopher Connor created that article, it was actually entitled Jewish lawyer. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC) That doesn't help very much, does it? Mathsci (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC) There was relevant discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 65#Jewish lawyer, which was more about the article in general and an edit that Jimbo had made to it, and his belief that it needed to be made clear that the article was about a stereotype, which was part of the impetus for this proposal (by me): Talk:Jewish lawyer stereotype#Name change? (though of course "stereotype" was not in the title at the time.) The whole article was (and remains) at least a little disturbing, but at least the title is better. The discussion also had the collateral benefit of getting Jewish mother renamed to Jewish mother stereotype, though that is a much older article and Christopher Connor does not seem to have been involved in that one. Neutron (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Renamed back to Jewish mother stereotype note. Uncle G (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose unblock. I edit conflicted with Gwen Gale on declining the request. Editors have expressed concern over his edits in the past, in relation to DYK hooks and elsewhere, and those concerns should have given him pause - but did not. I appreciate that this editor works on articles where few editors are wont to tread, but that doesn't give him license for these edits. It may be helpful if he were able to show that he understands why everyone is so upset over this incident, and the previous ones, before requesting unblock again. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose unblock at the moment. I'm not convinced the content was intended to be as bad as it was, but intent only gets you so far. Also, it's not necessarily racist to point out that "x% of people arrested for jaywalking are Lower Slobovian", if the police have a predilection to bust Lower Slobovians and let Upper Ombrians slide. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose unblock It's pretty clear from his talk page that he doesn't get it and is blaming everyone else for the mess he finds himself in. N419BH 19:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose unblock per Iridescent's diffs. There is also something ineluctably weird about the apology itself. Not buying that. Bishonen | talk 03:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC). Oppose unblock per Iridescent's diffs, and the fact that the essay was entirely inappropriate and a simple apology is not enough. —mc10 (u|t|c) 05:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose unblock An apology is not enough. Inka888 18:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Up to indef My reading of the discussion above, especially the comment by Mathsci, is that we cannot trust this editor not to engage in subtle vandalism to insert anti-Jewish rhetoric into Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 14:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC) support the diffs by Iridescent show crystal clear agenda that is harmful to wikipedia. The Article created log makes the pattern even more disturbing The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC) What harmful agenda is being revealed by 2004 European Open (snooker), Smolarek, Personality of the year, Protection of Children Act, draw sheet, and Climbié? Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I said the diffs provided by Iridescent, show an agenda.[59][60][61][62] Creating articles like Indigenous Australians and crime, Talk:Black people and crime in the United Kingdom, Lynching of Ell Persons, Jewish lawyer, The Color of Crime, Racial hoax, Criminal black man stereotype combined with Today's Nazi page show a troubling pattern which i think can be reasonably identfied as an agenda. I could also support the Topic Ban as well which would probably solve my concerns as well. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC) You also said that that agenda was part of a pattern shown by the likes of List of Israeli ambassadors to France, 2004 Grand Prix (snooker), Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding, and 2007 A.S. Roma–Manchester United F.C. conflict. These are your examples, that you pointed to, remember. Moreover, what's "troubling" about racial hoax? You seem to be conflating an interest in race relations topics with some sort of unspecified "troubling" racialist agenda. Have you not thought that you're proving Christopher Connor right? Write about race relations topics, and people will not look further than the titles and accuse one of racism. What's "troubling" about education.gov.uk? What's "disturbing" about Stationary office? What harmful pattern is Office of the Children's Commissioner revealing? ‎ Uncle G (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I am not saying Stationary office is a bad article thats a straw man. Singularly Nothing here is "bad." But combine with the creation of the the articles I specified combined with the diffs Iridescent's. I dont think its unreasonable to have concerns of pattern. I would love to assume no clue but all this together looks suspicious. Take this DYK suggestion I am looking at a dozen less provocative facts that could have been used in the Article same with Black people and crime in the United Kingdom. The conversation that followed indicates he doesnt get it why people might have an adverse reaction. I am NOT saying he is a single purpose account to promote racists views on Wikipedia. But I have to question what he is thinking when he does pulls stunts like what I discussed above becuase I have a hard time believing and Editor can be that Clueless. I said I would be willing to accept a topic ban as alternative but some of his editing patters do raise flags in my book The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Weak opposeHaving read others comments a critique of my arguements and some thought off Wiki. i have stricken by support of topic ban. I still have serrious reservations about this editor but a topic ban seem to more appropriate for now. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose I support the block for the present essay creation (and the BLP nazi one earlier). However, I'm not seeing a pattern of vandalism. I'm seeing a number of politically incorrect editing interests, and nominations, but nothing more. Has been inserting stuff unsupported by sources? Perhaps he's being deliberately provocative — but I've seen worse. The essays are over the line, and he needs to get it, and not repeat it. But I don't want to ban for being offending liberal sensitivities.--Scott Mac 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Support, broadly per my comments above. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 15:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose at this time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Support His unblock request clearly demonstrates his lack of sincere apology, including a non-apology apology. It is clear he does not appreciate the horror of his actions have caused. No small number of my family were murdered in the Holocaust. I strongly support an indefinite block and severe future sanctions. Basket of Puppies 16:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose - No block history, quite a few contribs. User had not been sufficiently warned for an indef. Remember that he's blocked for provocation, not for being anti-semitic (or generally white-supremacist), and it's just too easy to conflate things when reading his apologies or unblock requests. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Support I doubt this will gain consensus, but it appears this user is doing quite a bit of race baiting here. If this isn't enacted, a topic ban is definitely in order. AniMate 18:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose indef for now. Block log was clean, I don't think it's fair to indef without warning an editor who in over 3 1/2 years has made over 3000 edits with few if any kerfuffles. At the very least, he has tried to sensationalize some racial articles and two essays and this is worrisome, but edits to racial topics have been a small slice of his editing history. His answers to questions about his edits tend to be a bit coy for me, it may be how he is though, I don't know, but it's why I don't support an unblock. The week long block may be needed, giving him time to think things over. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose indef block. Although I agree that some of this user's edits, and his lack of comprehensive explanations for them, are disturbing, the level of disruption is not very high. This is his first block and a repetition of this behaviour would quickly lead to a much longer block. I do not believe this editor engages in, or is likely to engage in, subtle vandalism to push any particular viewpoint; in fact he engages in somewhat odd borderline trolling and introduction of controversial material for unknown reasons. If he were trying to push a viewpoint, he would not be deliberately courting controversy as he appears to have done on occasion --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC) (clarifying my comment - I should have said "the level of disruption is not very high when compared with the constructive contributions" - I was not suggesting that the offensive behaviour itself was insignificant, even if not intended to be offensive) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose let's not get ahead of ourselves. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose Not yet. Inka888 22:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Response to this thread by Christopher Connor On his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Here's the whole thread on his talk page: User_talk:Christopher_Connor#Block_note Regarding "But simply proposing those hooks is, according to ANI, racist. That seems to me to be twisted", you've had it explained to you (repeatedly) what the issue is, but each time go into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode; see the discussion here for instance. You're cherry-picking facts (e.g. "15.7% of those convicted for homicide in Australia are indigenous", "indigenous Australians make up 2% of the population"), disregarding other information (differential conviction rates, relative probabilities of success of police investigations in close-knit communities vs large urban areas) to come up with the synthesis of "Indigenous Australians committed 15.7 percent of homicides in Australia". If this was a one-off incident then yes, these things happen, but as you yourself recognize you have a long history of being warned for inappropriate comments and suggestions (from most people I'd take this as a ham-fisted joke, but in this case I'm not sure), but your response seems always to be that the problem is with everyone else, not yourself. – iridescent 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Suggestion - topic ban I suggest letting the week long block stand, and then imposing (preferably with his agreement) a topic restriction on all race-related content, commentary and comment. He also should not initiate any new essays without consulting others as to their appropriateness.--Scott Mac 15:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC) "Without consulting others" is a woolly and meaningless phrase which is essentially courting disaster. Needs tightening. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 15:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I agree; just make it clear that he's prohibited from initiating new essays at all if he cannot be trusted, or throw the last line out altogether. As for essays relating to race, that's covered by the first part of the topic restriction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Supportin lieu of full of indef block this seems to be a good alternative The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC) This seems to be the most reasonable action for now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Support the topic ban. The nature of the restriction on creating essays needs to be made clearer, if there is to be a restriction at all.--KorruskiTalk 16:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Support the topic ban, can't see the point of the essay thing (assuming the topic ban wld preclude essays dealing with race/ethnicity issues)appears to be more a problem of pushing peoples buttons occassionaly, hopefully the block will get the message thru--Misarxist 17:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Support The block should stand, and if an indef block isn't applied he should at the very least be restricted from all race related topics. AniMate 18:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Support, strongly. Basket of Puppies 18:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Support ban on racial topics/edits, broadly construed, throughout the en.WP space, which he can ask to be lifted after 3-6 months. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Support Good solution. As others have said, it should be broadly interpreted so as to include all the problematic articles mentioned so far. Mathsci (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Support, but... when I read this whole thread, User:Wassermann, indefblocked since June 2009, kept popping into my head. You remember Wassermann's incessant bad-faith category lawyering? Connor's ban must, apart from articles and essays, include categories, very broadly construed; i.e. he doesn't get to add categories touching on nationality or ethnicity in any way. We need to set something up that doesn't take up too much of the time and energy of other editors to check on and argue about. Do we also need to make a sock check? I'm asking, not accusing; not being much good with socks. Bishonen | talk 04:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC). Comment A broad topic ban across the en.WP space would mean categories were out of bounds, too. So long as the ban was broadly racial/ethnicity, I think that would cover any contentious nationality cats. A topic ban needs to be simple and straightforward, easy to understand and follow, otherwise breaches and a long block are more or less foregone, I think. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Support - The essay alone shows he can't be trusted in this area, let alone the other dubious edits he's made. Skinny87 (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Support The diffs provided above show the editor is using Wikipedia to push an inappropriate agenda: if there is no indef block and no one is volunteering to closely monitor the editor, a strong topic ban is required to avoid further wasted time. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose - have you looked at the article he created on the Lynching of Ell Persons?--Toddy1 (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Comment Yes, that was a worthwhile contribution to the project. I could support a time limited topic ban to allow him to edit constructively in areas unrelated to race and to gain some trust and more understanding of policy, perhaps three months? Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Comment The article does not bear close scrutiny. Much of it is written using primary sources (contemporary newspaper reports from 1917) rather than paraphrasing summaries of the material from secondary sources. There is a problem with the whole of the first three paragraphs of the main text: they fail WP:V and WP:RS; they are WP:SYNTH and WP:OR pieced together from local newspaper reports at the time. I tried to check the statements about the theories of Alphonse Bertillon (seeing the image of the murder in the dead girl's pupils): I found nothing in the 2001 Law Review. One published article relates [63]: "The most convincing evidence against Persons was an alleged photograph of Antoinette Rappel’s decapitated head in which Officer Paul Waggner claimed to see Person’s forehead in the victim’s retina." I did find a report that Waggner was trained in "Bertillon technique" in an uncited 1928 Ph.D. (J.R. Steelman), [64] But that is not what can be read in the article. Similar questionable edits on lynchings precipitated the indefinite block of MoritzB (talk · contribs) in 2007, also discussed here on ANI. Elsewhere this editor uses "google translate" to access French documents and has not so far noticed that "Par" is not a first name in French. There is something not quite right in all of this. Mathsci (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Mainstream newspaper reports are accepted by Wikipedia as reliable sources WP:NEWSORG.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Local newspapers in Memphis in 1917 in the days of segregation? You must be joking. Mathsci (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose per Toddy1. Just let the block expire as planned.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Support - A single article does not automatically make him a constructive editor. I'm going to need more than that to prove he's able to keep his opinions to himself. Given the essay, I don't think that's going to happen.. not to mention his past behavior. It's a problem that he can't figure out, and thus cannot be trusted with. Support topic ban per Toddy1.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose In a nutshell, this situation is too complex at this moment for a simple solution like this. What puzzles me about this issue is that, prima facie, except for the images used I found nothing objectionable to this user's now-deleted essay: it was a a banal restatement of a number of such truisms as a proposed definition for labelling someone a Jew, that being identified as a Jew can be controversial, etc. This does not mean I endorse the essay: I just don't see why anyone would bother to write it, thus leading me to suspect that there is something in it only someone familiar with anti-Semitic hate speech would catch. (And while the apology on his Talk page isn't exactly what I'd label a "non-apology apology", it isn't what I'd expect to see in a sincere apology either.) In other words, this guy seems to be playing games with the rules, & while I can't say what his intent could be I don't entirely trust him. Subjecting him to anything but the simplest & clearest restrictions will only make the rest of us work harder to sanction him if it becomes clear that he is harming Wikipedia. I believe letting him come back after a week with no new restrictions -- but keeping an eye on him -- will be the simplest & best solution. If this guy pulls another stunt like that essay, we can then ban him for good without needing to take any further steps; if he is editting in good faith, & this was simply a case where he was putting his foot in his mouth, then all of us can step away from this with no unintended bitterness or dramaz & move on to better things. -- llywrch (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Support The hastily-applied air-freshener spray doesn't cover up the stink. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Supportish - Editor should be allowed to submit work via proxy editor if that work is acceptable within an article (I'd volunteer). It walks and quacks like a duck, but is it a duck? If that's the impression that's been created, perhaps some sort of absolvency (<-- new word) should be permitted. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose: seems overkill per those opposing above. -Atmoz (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose: Text of deleted item is innocuous in the extreme - sans the images this is storm in teacup. Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC). Oppose llywrch sums it up nicely. He's wikilawyering, no need to give him more rules to lawyer about. If he steps over the line again he can be tossed. -- ۩ Mask 03:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Oppose Putting those images in the essay was tasteless, but I don’t think it’s been demonstrated that he’s actually unable to contribute to race-related articles in a neutral manner. Having created several articles related to racial stereotypes (such as those linked to by ResidentAnthropologist) doesn’t demonstrate an agenda if the articles are about notable topics and don’t give undue prominence to minority views. And if they do, that hasn’t been demonstrated in this thread. Since Christopher Conner has no prior blocks, he may have learned the lesson that he needed to from this block. We should wait and see whether he has after the block expires. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP obsessed by birds...?

Resolved

 – IP blocked. –MuZemike 00:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing some vandalism patrolling and come across an IP editor making edits to a large number of Birds in (A Country) articles. No edit summary, and I have no idea if this is vandalism or not, but thought I should raise it. See Special:Contributions/96.4.125.2. I asked on the talk page but no response although edits have continued. The IP is from a US school and came off a year block about 3 days ago. Please could someone have a look? Mechanical digger (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears they do not understand the term extirpation and are removing it and replacing it with extinct. Should probably use twinkle rollback AGF and leave a note explaining the terminology. N419BH 19:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

98.65.217.30 (talk · contribs) was making similar edits a couple of days ago too. The edits are similar to what the IP was blocked for last year too. I'll start rollbacking as the edits are clearly incorrect but any help would be nice. SmartSE (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

All rolled back 68 pages in total. I can't explain biodiversity well some one wanna leave the note? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. I left another note, perhaps lacking in zoological technicalities but sufficient if they ever read the talk page and decide to engage with others. Mechanical digger (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

He just did the same thing to two more today... Can We get a Block laid down before he starts another spree?The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

...and a few more. They've been AGF reverted. N419BH 23:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Now blocked I think. Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Page ban request

Resolved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Somebody uninvolved (=not me) close this or mark it "resolved" or something, please? Dr.K., the user who placed the request, asked for that to be done ages ago, see bottom of thread. I suggest collapsing it, too. Keep ANI tidy! Bishonen | talk 22:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC). I would like to request a page ban for Nazar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) due to long term edit-warring against literally everybody else at the articles of Prahlad Jani and Inedia. Nazar despite long conversations about OR and SYNTH just seems to not get the point thus wasting a lot of other editors' time which could be spent much better elsewhere. This massive effort has included multiple reports at RSN, ORN multiple RFCs and ANI reports including a recent WQA alert against me. At that WQA alert I was advised to bring the matter forward to this board. After some initial hesitation I did finally decide to bring it here. Thank you for your consideration. Here is a sample of Nazar's long-term edit-warring at Prahlad Jani. 17:52, 14 June 2010 Escape Orbit (talk | contribs)(→Reaction of Critics and Supporters: Removed paragraph of original research that analyses the cite provided rather than conveying what it says) 05:15, 15 June 2010Nazar (talk | contribs)(→Reaction of Critics and Supporters: - restore strict info about video materials, remove POV, no personal analysis) Revision as of 14:12, 15 June 2010 (edit)Escape Orbit (talk | contribs) (→Reaction of Critics and Supporters: This analysis is not IN the cite provided, but instead is OF the cite provided. That makes it original research which is not permitted in Wikipedia) 15:21, 15 June 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (16,818 bytes) (restore as per WP:FILMPLOT, please discuss on talk page before blanking...) (undo) Here s/he accuses user Escape Orbit of blanking. 00:41, 16 June 2010 Dr.K. (talk | contribs) m (15,744 bytes) (→Reactions: I agree with Esxape Orbit that this is WP:OR. Also FILMPLOT applies to movies. This is not a movie, at least not yet) (undo) 09:54, 4 August 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (13,907 bytes) (→Reactions: - restore the info per consensus) (undo) The claimed "consensus" was by a single IP which was probably trolling, while all other editors disapproved of this edit. The relevant diff is: Revision as of 09:29, 4 August 2010 (edit) (undo)Nazar (talk | contribs) (→Request for comment: - agree, restoring...). It is also worth noting that Nazar waited three weeks for this reversion. McGeddon (talk | contribs) (12,052 bytes) Revision as of 10:15, 4 August 2010 (Reverted 1 edit by Nazar; Rv unambiguous WP:OR - no consensus for including an editor's personal "closer examination of the video montage". (TW)) (undo) 12:58, 5 August 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (14,365 bytes) (→Reactions: - reconstruct, no OR now, I hope.) 13:11, 5 August 2010 Dr.K. (talk | contribs) m (14,264 bytes) (Removed synthetic observation.) (undo) 16:45, 5 August 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (14,960 bytes) (Undid revision 377330681 by Dr.K. (talk) + improve) (Reverted good faith edits by Nazar; We have an RFC going and a report on WP:ORN Surely edit-warring to add this synthesis can wait? . (TW)) (undo) Revision as of 12:33, 25 August 2010 (edit) (undo) Dr.K. (talk | contribs) m (Too much synthesis. Restoring version by MiRroar (talk | contribs) at 12:02, 25 August 2010) 12:52, 25 August 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (16,081 bytes) (Undid revision 380941035 by Dr.K. (talk) - please stop vandalizing the article.) Here s/he accuses me of vandalism. 21:53, 1 October 2010 Johnuniq (talk | contribs) (10,431 bytes) (rv edits by Jumbo108: no useful information available yet; see Talk:Prahlad Jani#Austrian documentary) (undo) This edit is provided as reference. Article stands at 10,431 bytes due to a massive cleanup effort by user:MiRroar. In the next edit Nazar restores massively all the material removed by editor MirRoar during a cleanup. 08:00, 13 October 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (19,214 bytes) (→Investigations: - update refs to exclude non reliable sources. restore official press release info.) (undo) Nazar restores massively all the material removed by editor MirRoar during a cleanup. Article now almost doubled in size (19,214 bytes) due to reintroduction of edited-out material. 09:22, 13 October 2010 Nuujinn (talk | contribs) (10,431 bytes) (Reverted to revision 388203785 by Johnuniq; restored cleaner version, we need to talk about these edits. (TW)) (undo) 09:28, 13 October 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (19,936 bytes) (Undid revision 390493189 by Nuujinn (talk) - remove questionable youtube ref, restore rest, as based on acceptable refs) (undo) 10:46, 13 October 2010 McGeddon (talk | contribs) (10,431 bytes) (rv per talk - Nazar's edits appear to be the blanket reintroduction of inadequately-sourced material that was cleaned out last month) (undo) 12:05, 13 October 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (19,936 bytes) (Undid revision 390506280 by McGeddon (talk) - please don't remove official referenced information. see talk. thanks.) (undo) 11:51, 15 November 2010 Nazar (talk | contribs) (12,747 bytes) (→Investigations: - clarified who made the announcement) (undo) In this one s/he uses a misleading edit summary and removes maintence tags for OR and SYNTH. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Some background (I am involved in this dispute): The issue concerns Prahlad Jani, who has lived without food and water since 1940. Jani's powers have been investigated by an institute, and there is an enthusiastic supporting doctor (see this page on the doctor's website for text like "Can you imagine a human being staying alive & doing all routine activities even at age of 70, just by Sungazing – i.e – Surviving on cosmic – Solar energy"). Media reports repeat the findings, and Nazar can use all this to add tidbits to the article to suggest there is some scientific basis for Jani's claims. I have tried to argue that WP:PARITY means that sources like this should be permitted to refute obvious nonsense, but WP:IRS rules that out (see this RSN discussion). The most recent incident was when Nazar claimed a wikiquette breach (see WP:Wikiquette alerts#Dr.K.), where two uninvolved editors suggested a topic/page ban would be appropriate. I'm hoping for suggestions on how to maintain balance at Prahlad Jani and Inedia because policies that I've seen are currently allowing nonsense in these articles, nonsense that has to be cleaned out every couple of weeks with no long term resolution. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC) The current version of the page looks pretty neutral to me. It speaks of facts, findings, and criticisms of said findings. Furthermore, it is decently sourced. I'm gonna say you need to hash out on the talk page what should go in the article and what shouldn't. Work on a mutually agreeable solution. Include some of the claims and some of the criticisms of said claims. Be sure to provide reliable sources for this in accordance with WP:SOURCE. Edit warring, however, will lead to blocks for all parties involved. Alternatively, the article could be fully-protected in order to force everyone to the talk page, but I don't think any of you want that. N419BH 07:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC) A closer look at the history indicates to me that Dr. K. may want to read WP:BOOMERANG. N419BH 07:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I really don't think that have to read BOOMERANG before I report this months-long, SYNTH-fuelled, long-term edit-warring by one person against six other editors, except if BOOMERANG applies to a centipede. Because in addition to my two feet we have another 10 for the other five editors who tried to stem this OR avalanche. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 12:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I had never heard of this article or this editor before seeing the Wikiquette alert in question. Then I read the article talkpage, and found I can muster no understanding of N419BH's strange hints. Everybody is already on the talkpage; that talkpage is a monster, a monument to the way one editor can waste everybody's time. Please see Nazar's Wikiquette alert against Dr.K. where he claims everybody ought to apologise to him, including the neutral editors (me and the polite Looie496) who respond to the alert. The whole thread at WQA is telling. But it's on the long side, so I offer here a potted version of my own comment there: I can fully understand the irritation sometimes expressed by the other editors towards Nazar, who indefatigably argues his points, big and little, word by word, against consensus, with great stubbornness and much repetition. Such editing wastes other people's time woefully and stops the creation of an encyclopedia in its tracks; you never get anywhere. I believe a page ban of Nazar on this article and similar subjects, broadly construed and including talk pages, is becoming necessary. Either that or a block for long edit-warring. I've considered an RFC/U, but those are only useful with editors who are somewhat prepared to take community criticism on board. Nazars resentment and conviction that he's right and everybody else out to get him seems to militate against the hopes for a helpful RFC/U — and everybody is already tired. It's time the other editors at Prahlad Jani got a chance to work on something more constructive than fighting a rearguard action against the story of the man who has eaten nothing for seventy years. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The timewasting aspect of all this struck me forcibly when I saw Nazar declare on the talkpage that he saw editing Prahlad Jani as a bit of a joke: I also don't really care much about the changes. It's more a game for me. It's fun to play with you skeptic guys and see how you react to ideas which are out of your conventional understanding. In the process of this game I also hope and try to improve Wikipedia, but that is a secondary priority for me personally, so, even if all my edits are deleted, that's really not a very big problem ;) -- Nazar 11:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC).[65]<br That post (from a month ago) is discouraging to see. For is Nazar's game fun for anybody else? I doubt that. Is it helpful for Wikipedia? Oh, dear, no. Bishonen | talk 08:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC). (Nazar, could you please not post in the middle of my post (again)? It really is confusing for other people. I'm moving it down again. It's right below. Bishonen | talk 12:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC).) I think it's more confusing if you move my posts without proper indentation (like you did in WQA) from the place, where I put them to be relevant to my cited words. But whatever, please have it the way you like. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC) It's not 'have it the way you like', it is an accepted norm of this site not to post in the middle of someone else's post. As you have been informed. pablo 13:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Ok. Thanks. But I was posting relevant to my own post, which was cited, therefore I posted below my own words (which were cited). Sorry if this was wrong, but this was my logic. -- Nazar (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Here's my reply from WQA to the above passage, thanks. -- "I'd like to comment on that, to avoid misunderstanding. It's just my personal attitude, which, I suppose, is useful in cases when lots of my work invested into an article is removed because of some reasons (valid, or invalid). I believe it's more constructive to see it as a game, rather than make a tragedy out of the difficulties experienced. This 'playing' attitude also proves more productive in many cases, like children find it easier to learn new things and overcome emotional stress when they 'play' with the subject, rather than take it deadly seriously. This attitude is not intended to be a sign of disrespect towards other editors, or their work. Thanks." -- Nazar (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC) A page ban seems like a good start. Obvious troll is ... what's the word again? pablo 10:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for this ANI. I think it'll be a good test and an opportunity to review their past actions for all of the involved parties. I don't claim that all of my previous edits were perfect, but I did my best to bring in new referenced information and ensure the neutrality of its rendering in the article. I respect the efforts of the opposing party to cut off the pieces which are not in accordance with the current Wiki Policies, as well as to represent a skeptic and critical view of the case, which is necessary too, of course. I'd like to mention that I have no major problems with the current version of the article, and don't really see what more could be added based on the currently available references. However, it may be seen from the editing pattern of my opponents, that none of them originally cared to introduce new references or expose the case in a more accurate and versatile way. It was mostly me who provided the references and attempted to build the article, as well as it was me who started it and filled it with information. My opponents usually were the ones to cut off and remove, as well as critically edit the pieces they found not appropriate, for which I am thankful to them in many cases (although, I also think they might have overdone it in some instances). Since the case is an ongoing study, I'm concerned that if the page ban they request succeeds, then only one of the parties, namely the skeptic one, remains entitled to edit the article, or rather not to edit it and not to add the new information, which may become available as the research progresses. Regarding the possible offenses other editor might have taken during our disputes, I'd like to apologize for these, as we've had many emotional points, and I'm sorry to say I wasn't always able to maintain a perfectly neutral and balanced attitude. Thanks everyone. -- Nazar (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I have not been involved here beyond a couple edits to Inedia two years ago, but I should be considered WP:INVOLVED. Dr. K (talk · contribs) provides a fair summary of the relevant edit and talk histories. I believe that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions would be applicable here. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I'm also sorry my current time limits (it's currently office hours in my time zone) do not allow me to examine in detail the diffs provided by Dr.K., and since they are mostly pretty outdated and represent issues which had already been solved and discussed in much detail before, I don't see much sense in going into these old arguments again. But, as far as I remember the case, the edits of my opponents have not always been accurate and based on neutral rendering of available referenced information. Also, my opponents were reluctant to revert their own edits themselves and usually used the tactics of ignoring the points I raised, even if proved wrong in discussion. But again, I don't see any points which need more attention and further arguments at this moment. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I've managed to briefly review the first 10 diffs provided by Dr.K.. They are all related to the subject of inclusion of a neutral description of Sanal Edamaruku's criticism of the case, including my attempts to provide information about the video plot and subtitles, which were used as an argument in that criticism. That issue has been discussed in much detail on RSN, NOR and article discussion page. It's been closed since over 3 months now and all my subsequent edits were fully in compliance with achieved consensus on that issue. I don't think my opponents would be able to provide any diff to prove the opposite. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Ok. I've reviewed all the 20 diffs provided by Dr.K.. I don't see anything bannable in them. 11 or 12 of them are about the video issue I mentioned above, which had been closed very long ago. There's one major update I made after MiRroar's edits. I'm sorry if this update was too massive, but MiRroar's changes were very inaccurate and did not correspond to the referenced sources. I think we've sorted out the issues raised in that update long ago too. At least over a month ago, I guess. I have no problems with the points raised there at this moment. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I'd also like to add that I'm not very happy about Dr.K.'s attitude towards me and my edits. I wouldn't like to repeat offenses I suffered from him and enumerate again the points where he was inappropriately aggressive towards me. I don't have a problem with that at this moment either and would not like to request any sanctions against Dr.K., though I would be pleased if he reconsidered his attitude and his position towards me. I only think it's relevant to say in the context of this dispute that the edit-warring which I'm being accused of can be attributed to Dr.K.'s actions in the same, if not greater degree. No offense though. I believe it's a part of the game ("game" here not meant as 'just for fun', but the serious editing process) we play here, and we have to be ready to spend our time for sorting out such issues. -- Nazar (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC) If this ANI is Dr.K.'s revenge for my WQA request regarding his use of the word "hectoring" No.2 to describe my polite notifications, then I'd like to remind that I addressed WQA for mild non imperative mediation and as a first test of how that noticeboard works. I explicitly stated there that no administrative actions against Dr.K. are requested. I'm sorry if that was taken as an offense, but the repetitive use of "hectoring" No.1 to describe my messages does not make me very happy. -- Nazar (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC) You raised the same points at WQA and you were thoroughly rebuffed. Now you repeat them here as if they have a better chance to stick. They do not. Until you own up to your actions noone is responsible for your edit-warring except you and you are liable to repeat the same pattern of behaviour that brought you here. The list of reversions I added above shows you edit war against multiple editors and not only me. Stop blaming the victim. You are talking about revenge for me bringing you here. I don't think that you read my initial post carefully where I mentioned I was reluctant to do it. But three respected admins Jehochman, Elen of the Roads and Bishonen gave me a strong hint to do it. I agreed. Please WP:AGF at last. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, but regardless of my own faults I don't think that "hectoring" is an appropriate word in civilized discourse. While I do admit my actions were not always perfect, I consider Dr.K.'s accusations excessive and overly aggressive, trying to negatively interpret my attempts to improve the article in question over a very long periof of time. They are also outdated, as the issues to which the diffs were related had been solved long ago, and I've taken into account the remarks about my own failures at that time. Bringing them up again now after I just briefly mentioned that I'm not happy about the use of the word "hectoring" seems more like an attempted revenge, than a constructive work on the article content. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I repeat my reply to you from WQA: In the link you provided you mentioned: == Skeptic SYNTH == Please kindly avoid pushing skeptic SYNTH into Prahlad Jani article. Your last edits removed reliably referenced factual information. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)] Your tone in telling me to avoid pushing skeptic SYNTH is reprehensible. Using the verb "push" against other editors is demeaning and incivil. I proved you wrong on the article talkpage and McGeddon agreed with me. It was a clear case of SYNTH on your part, yet you chose to come to my talkpage and accuse me of "pushing skeptic SYNTH", but you did not come to the article talk page to reply to my arguments and McGeddon's. I call this harassment. What is "Skeptic SYNTH" anyway? The only SYNTH added in the article is by you and it keeps getting removed by many other editors. If I need any mediation is by someone to save me from your personal attacks and innuendo.Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Well, you may follow the hint of the mentioned users, if more baseless edit warring is experienced in future, but it's probably not very wise to follow it, when all the issues have been settled and there was no edit warring for extended period of time. I'm also not seeing the diffs in your request which were not within the limits of acceptable dispute, although a bit lengthy and stubborn at times. -- Nazar (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Regarding your logic that my message to your page was related to the points you discussed on the article talk page saying : I proved you wrong on the article talkpage and McGeddon agreed with me, I'm sorry but you're likely intentionally misleading the readers here. Your message on the talk page came almost 2 hours later after my notification to your talk page, and it was related to totally different edits. -- Nazar (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC) My message on your talk page was related to this edit you made. Thanks. Please also see the timing of the messages. -- Nazar (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)x2I'm sorry but you're likely intentionally misleading the readers here. shows your clearly bad faith. Your message on my talk did not specify which edit you were referring to. As far as I remember that was the only edit I reverted. I don't have time now. I have to go offline. But anyway your SYNTH is so massive who really cares if it was one SYNTH edit or the other. But I will come back to your accusation later. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC) "But anyway your SYNTH is so massive who really cares if it was one SYNTH edit or the other." -- can you please provide the diffs showing this "massive SYNTH"? I'm sorry, I did not mean to be of bad faith, therefore I used the word "likely". If it was not your attempt to mislead the readers, then please accept my apologies. My message on your talk page page came very clearly after your removals of reliably referenced information, which removals were promoting a one-sided exposure of the case. Later on other editors agreed to include the information I referred to to uphold the neutrality of the rendering. Nevertheless, you keep messing up the issue now in this massive attempt to accuse me of the things I did not do, confusing the readers with misleading cross-linking to passages which were related to completely different points and were handled differently. That is one of the things in Dr.K.'s behavior which causes a lot of stress for me, and which is also a clear cause of massive edit-war required to clarify the issues he occasionally messes up. I'm very sorry to say this, but this behaviour, whether made in good faith or in bad faith, is seen as rather aggressive from my point of view, and I'd be happy to receive at least a mild apology for that. I have to spend a lot of time and go through A LOT of stress and humiliation to prove simple, clear, and valid points, and then at the end all I get is "who really cares" from my opponent. This is not Civil, at least in my understanding. -- Nazar (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC) It's probably noteworthy to say that also the previous time Dr.K. used the word "hectoring" No.1 to describe my messages, he tried to mislead the administrator who was involved into the dispute by manipulating the timings of the messages and trying to show the sequence of events in a twisted way, thus distorting the facts and demanding an administrative action towards me for things I did not do. Maybe this had been done in good faith too, but here it happens for the 2nd time in the circumstances very similar to attempted revenge on a particular user. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just presenting the facts... And I'm just wondering, because I had to spend a few hours of my office time to untangle this confusion at least a bit, who's wasting who's time here? And what would have happened if I just wasn't there to dig up those discrepancies in timings and show how Dr.K. manipulates the situation? Would it just go unnoticed, or maybe I'd get a straight ban for his baseless (but skillfully mustered and presented) accusations? Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I mean, again, facing no unsolved article related issues at the present moment (and it cost me really lots of time and nerve to deal with confusion and incompetence of skeptics in that article, but that is OK), do I really have to spend hours of my office time for rebuttal of these highly aggressive, revengeful twisted accusations by Dr.K. presented in this ANI? Don't you think that a page ban for him would be more appropriate (though I'm really not requesting it)? -- Nazar (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Request that both Nazar and Dr.K. leave this alone for a while until some admins have a chance to evaluate and comment. pablo 14:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC) <Sigh of relief>. Happy to oblige Pablo. Let the facts speak for themselves. Take care and thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I know that reading through all of the above is painful, but it would be helpful to get some additional feedback on this issue. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Painful is right..if this section is anything akin to the what's going on at the article...I say a 2 week page ban is in order for Nazar...at a minimum.--MONGO 23:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Well, there have been moments: Another discussion on RS/N A discussion at OR/N A discussion on RS/N This section is pretty typical for the talk page itself. I'm not sure what an appropriate solution would be, and at this point, would just welcome any suggestions or comments. I will say that in my opinion Nazar has some interesting views on how what sources are reliable and how to apply the no original research policy. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry, Dr. K., for the WP:BOOMERANG comment. Your list of links was WP:TLDR for me and as such I simply looked at the page history for the article to get an idea of what was going on. I also hardly ever look at diffs posted to ANI because they often show the worst of an editor and usually do not provide a neutral overall picture of what is going on. Nazar has made it pretty clear with his posts on this page what's going on; the comment about him seeing it as a game is most revealing. I don't know however if a topic ban is going to solve the problem. Nazar's apparrent refusal to respect consensus may be grounds for a simpler solution if it is determined to be disruptive. An admin however will have to make that determination. N419BH 03:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Don't mention it N419BH, no need to apologise at all. As I hope you may have guessed from the tone of my previous reply to you, your BOOMERANG comment did not bother me at all. I took it as a good faith attempt at highlighting the pitfalls of any ANI report for those brave enough to attempt it. I agree with you about the diffs. I too don't get to open too many of these when I see them. I find the task tedious and time consuming, especially when the internet connection doesn't cooperate. I tried to make my links a bit more descriptive than mere "diffs" but your TLDR comment covered that, so I guess I failed. I also tried to highlight the most salient examples as best I could through those diffs. Anyway, concerning the rest of your comments this has been a long and difficult haul. It shouldn't have been that way if more admin attention were paid at some critical points and a few blocks for disruption and WP:TEND were effected but these are the mysteries of admining for you. Hopefully we'll get some fresh perspective and solutions out of this latest foray at ANI but judging from the activity of the other threads this one sure looks quite slow by comparison. But who can tell. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, it does appear this thread is fairly quiet. I've been involved in a content dispute myself over at 2010 Polish Air Force TU-154 crash, see the talk page for the way I solved that problem. Might be a method to try. Chances are if no admins have responded to this thread yet they don't see anything actionable. At heart this is a content dispute and must be hashed out as such. I don't see any violation of WP:3RR or other issues. There doesn't appear to be consensus for a topic ban. My advice would be continue to work toward a compromise on the talk page. If a full-on edit war breaks out, bring it here or request page protection. I've got the article on my watchlist and will be keeping an eye on it. Take care and good luck! N419BH 05:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC) In my opinion, blatant WP:OR and SYNTH, especially if it is against consensus and fuelled by incessant, long-term edit-warring, does not qualify as a content dispute. Because there can be no dispute as to what constitutes blatant OR and SYNTH. This is a case of SYNTH 101 and OR 101. But I will not belabour the point. Thank you for the TU-154 suggestion. I'll have a look. As far as RFPP, I have tried it at Prahlad Jani without too much success. But recently, over the past few weeks, user Looie496, an admin, has been instrumental in preventing old-style edit wars and this has helped in keeping some semblance of peace at these two articles. The involvement of Bishonen and her astute observations have clarified the issues and increased the visibility of the problems faced at the articles. I think that today we are in a much better place than we ever were during this conflict. Thanks again and all the best. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I'd like to thank N419BH for a fairly neutral and balanced approach to this issue. I'm sorry again for some of the more emotional points above, I was rather stressed yesterday, as I invested a lot of work into the mentioned article (actually it was at larger part me who built it), and now facing a page ban would be just utterly unfair. I'd like to repeat that at the present moment I do not have any major problems with that article and really don't have any ideas as to what could be added or further disputed about it. I was always doing my best to fight for neutral exposure of relevant points. I might not be happy about some of these points being not exposed fully enough because of limitations of video descriptions in Wikipedia, or some other Policies, but well, I do accept the policies currently in force and I don't think I can be accused of ignoring the achieved consensus on any of the major disputed points we had in the past. That is true as well about the use of sources in the mentioned article, though personally I might disagree with the way policies were applied, but I respected the consensus reached and never tried to edit against it. I hope I'll be able to come back to this article after some time (maybe months, maybe years) when more reliable sources and stronger evidence is available. On the other hand (this is for my opponents to consider), I also do recognize an option that further evidence may reveal the fraudulent nature of Jani's claims, and I'll be happy to include the respective reliably sourced material into the article as well. Thanks so far. -- Nazar (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Even though I do not agree with Nazar's characterisation of the editors disagreeing with him/her as "opponents" instead of say "fellow-editors", his/her latest statement holds enough promise for the future that I do not, in good faith, believe any longer that there is danger of continued edit-warring at the articles. Therefore I ask that an admin marks this as resolved and close the thread. In closing I wish to thank all the parties involved in this thread for their valuable input. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

fantasticfiction.co.uk

Resolved

 – No admin action needed at this time. –MuZemike 00:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This may be the wrong spot, so feel free to redirect me if appropriate (with a note on my talk page!)

The website "fantasticfiction.co.uk" is apparently linked over 1600 times. Based on it's about us page it appears to be some sort of private website that lists information about books and authors, with links to sales sites. There's a spam report, and there may be more. It doesn't look like it's a reliable source, it doesn't fit as an EL 'cause it's not reliable and links to sales sites. Normally I'd just remove them as I found them, but there is a lot, which makes me suspect someone has been very diligent about adding them throughout the project. On project pages it comes up as well in AFD discussions, but doesn't seem to be a convincing source/website (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Lord, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rehak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Parker Hits The Small Time).

So I guess my question is - should they be removed? If so, is there an easier way than 1600 manual edits? Is the site reliable? Is a blacklist appropriate? Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

2925 links according to LinkSearch. Rehevkor ✉ 18:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

yes its not a site that has any functional use on Wikipedia. Can we blacklist it and maybe get a bot to remove all the links? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone who reads and owns a lot of SF and reads a lot of reviews, I agree that this site is basically a sales site and needs blacklisting. It needs to be proposed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there evidence of abuse or a concerted effort to spam this site? Or is it likely the result of good-faith additions? If good-faith, we usually default to using XLinkBot instead of blacklisting. --- Barek (talk) - 19:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into perhaps 10 articles and found the contributor different in each case - sometimes editors with very low edit counts, sometimes experienced editors. Either there's a lot of sockpuppeting happening, or people simply use it as a generic source. I've only seen it used as a source for extremely basic plot, different versions of books, different books by one author or as an external link (i.e. little more than sales spam). When it is used for a source, it's usually for information that can be directly attributed to the book itself (ISBN, version, author, plot) and therefore not much use. Haven't seen it used as a review or impact reference, but given the site I don't know if they do reviews.

In other words, it does look like good faith additions that are either unnecessary or inappropriate - and often both. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've submitted a request at User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#fantasticfiction.co.uk. --- Barek (talk) - 20:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Of the links and accounts I looked into, all seemed to be in good faith, but there's a lot of links to search through. Rehevkor ✉ 21:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Good faith or not, if it is not a reliable source then it is not of use to us. If it is making money off the links while not acting as a reliable source then it is harmful to our project. I say clense with fire. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll chime in with Dougweiler as another heavy sf (and fantasy) reader; I'm convinced that these are good-faith adds, because fantasticfiction.co.uk tends to appear high up in Google results pages for less well-known sf/fantasy authors and books, so people looking for refs for a book or author are likely to stumble on it. I believe the site is run by sf/fantasy enthusiasts who make a living out of their main interest and hobby (the lucky so-and-sos) but all the same it is not a reliable source and shouldn't be used as such. I can imagine occasional cases where a link could be appropriate, and would not advocate blacklisting, but hold no strong opinions about that. --bonadea contributions talk 09:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I want to assume good faith too, but its worth mentioning that spamming wikipedia with external links is a good way to manipulate page rankings on Google. Though I am inclined to beleive a fair number are good faith. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

User FactStraight: edits to multiple talkpages

Hello. This morning i noticed that user:FactStraight added a critique of the article Éléonore de Bourbon at Talk:Éléonore_de_Bourbon. I wondered why he would write such a rather general critique on that page, regardless of wether he was correct. One look at his talk page and then his contributions page showed that he has copy/pasted this critique on atleast 50 pages. Now, i have only checked a couple of these pages, but i noticed they all share one thing aside from being articles about nobles - they were all edited by the user user:LouisPhilippeCharles. Now, from user:FactStraight's talk page i could gather that he has had problems with user:LouisPhilippeCharles. Infact, theyve both been banned in a RR3 incident before, and theyve been arguing on multiple talk-pages. But the thing is, multiple times user:LouisPhilippeCharles merely copy-edited the articles in question; he added references, corrected links and added categories. And in my oppinion, the articles which he did substantially add too, he wrote good, interesting information, and he didnt add any trivial information. FactStraight claims these articles consist of "Speculation, Trivia, Redundancies and Extranae". It seems to me that FactStraight is actively stalking LouisPhilippeCharles. Any article touched by LouisPhilippeCharles seems to become automatically become "Speculation, Trivia, Redundancies and Extranae" in FactStraight's eyes. Omegastar (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that spamming the same message across that many articles constitutes a personal attack against the other editor, and have issued a final warning. If he has problems with another editor, this is not the way to go about resolving it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone with the relevant tools organise the appropriate mass-revert, please? David Biddulph (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they are all gone now. If he feels that strongly, he can start an RfCElen of the Roads (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your concerns. I carefully avoided identifying any person who inserts trivia & redundancy. What the articles have in common is that they are bios of historical royalty, all of whom are on my watchlist because that is my primary area of editing interest (please check my contributions to verify): that interest is shared by several Wiki editors and you will find that many of them have edited the articles on whose talk page I posted. I did not state that each article currently contains trivia or redundancy (or I might have edited as much of it as I could). The reason I posted those warnings (if you check, I've been posting similar warnings on specific pages for 3 years back) is that the pattern is so consistent and so massively implemented that I wanted to give fair notice on articles on my watchlist that such content will be edited or reverted, and I wanted to give very clear, specific indicators as to what the objectionable content looks like and why it is objectionable. As for the allegation that the complainant here did not find any "trivial" content to which I had reason to object and that I am "stalking" despite having made repeated, protracted efforts to obtain reduction of trivia in royalty bios, please note the Third Opinion given following the discussion here in a case where I requested review (and my extensive efforts to resolve the matter on the talk page were rebuffed). In the past I've been told that before reverting, the editor should be informed exactly what it is that is objectionable so that they have an opportunity to avoid such edits or to work toward consensus language on the talk page before reverting becomes necessary. It is still my intent to provide that notice and clarity. I will gladly edit the notice to remove content that is "identifying", but I see nothing inappropriate about explaining the basis on which I edit articles on my watchlist. I trust this clarifies? FactStraight (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said on your talkpage, start a request for comment on the user. If he's as bad as you say, it'll gather evidence for requesting a topic ban. Do not do anything like this again, it is not appropriate and will get you in trouble instead, which is not the outcome you are looking for. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am bewildered by this harsh response. I do not and never have wanted a particular user blocked from editing royalty bios, as clearly indicated in the discussion on this issue here. My intent was and is to discourage inclusion of trivia and redundancy in such articles along with informative edits, which I value and do not think should be diminished or excluded. I hoped to do that by expressing as clearly and explicitly as I could on the articles on my watchlist what I consider to be trivia/redundancy and am therefore prone to edit or revert. When that information is available on a talk page, might it not help editors reach consensus rather than engaging in years of revert wars over countless articles? I don't understand what rule is violated by pro-actively, non-accusatively posting that kind of info on a talk page -- given that I have offered to edit it to your satisfaction? FactStraight (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Look - you may not spam the same message onto the talkpage of fifty articles because you don't like the way another editor is editing. What part of this is so hard to understand. If you think an article has problems, you tag the article. you edit the article to correct it. If you have issues with another editor, you follow dispute resolution as repeatedly advised. You do not spam an edict about what you think is acceptable editing onto 50 talkpages.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Nuisance...

Just a quick note, will someone please block this guy already :P. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, they seem to have paused for now (perhaps). I've asked them to stop the back-and-forth on Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; their edits there are obviously unhelpful. If they continue, I'll block if I'm here, or obviously anyone else can. I'm not too familiar with that subject area though, so I'm not sure if there is something else which applies (arbcom sanctions, maybe?) --Kateshortforbob _talk 15:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone else blocked them. --Kateshortforbob _talk 15:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, perils of logging on at work - I blocked the user then someone came in or the phone rang and I forgot to get back here. I blocked him 48hrs for edit warring - I don't know if any other sanctions apply, although I suspect they might. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't work out whether his edits were nationalist (seems to have a thing about croats) or just vandalistic. He could be in line for a Digwuren warning if the former --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Its not really "either-or" :). They're both. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing a quote from a user page

This is going nowhere and is rapidly descending into bickering and off-topic discussion. Any future complaints about Nableezy or other editors should go in a separate thread; potential ARBPIA violations should be dealt with at AE, not ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved  – Cptnono (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC) In this edit I removed a quote by Brewcrewer from Nableezy's user page. Nableezy has queried my action, but not reverted. Nableezy has been notified of WP:ARBPIA, but doesn't have any special restriction relating to civility etc. Was my action ok? PhilKnight (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC) If that's what Brewcrewer said and he's OK with Nableezy putting the quote on his userpage, I don;t see a problem with it. If not, then it could be seen as provocative. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC) I'm struggling to see the generalizable principle that leads to the conclusion that it's appropriate to remove it. PhilKnight, could you please articulate it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC) In my edit summary, I described it as uncollegial. Also, I suspect that Brewcrewer would find it as provocative. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC) If Brewercrewer finds it provocative to have his words quoted in that way, perhaps that suggests that he might do well to rethink his post on that talk page. The fact that Nableezy is quoting it can't be the only thing amiss here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC) :::@PhilKnight, I am afraid you removing the quote from Nab's user page shows yet another time that you are not uninvolved administrator concerning I/A conflict area.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry it was a wrong post.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Hi Mbz1, could you explain? PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC) No problem. PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Support Phil's action. WP:civility as the basis. Which, inter alia, says: "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely". And that "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict". This appears to be less than civil. What is needed in the I/P area is greater civility by editors, not efforts by editors to inflame, insult, or bait each other.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC) (ec w Ep) The edit, especially considering the edit summary, adds more ammunition to an already active battlefield. The rule is that we should always comment on content, not the contributor. The rule is there for a reason, and if editors cannot abide by it they should think about removing themselves from the contentious topic to somewhere they can focus on content. If an editor has problems with another editor, there are ways of dealing with that such as RFC/U. Posting such as this to their user page is not part of the dispute resolution process. -Atmoz (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC) "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles section 4.1.2 - Decorum. The first line is clear. And the trolling line might also apply. There are two problems, though. Previous consensus has allowed Nableezy to do whatever he wants on his user page and another admin has mentioned that this sort of thing should be at AE instead of ANI. Cptnono (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC) While it is nice that so many familiar faces have made an appearance, I would like to ask a few simple questions. How is quoting a user and providing a diff for the quote uncivil or an attack or "ammunition to an already active battlefield"? The reason the quote was there was because it is representative of some of the nonsense that users deal with in the topic area. I dont think there is anything wrong with including such a quote, I make no disparaging remark about the quote, I simply show what a user thinks, that the sources are "irrelevant". If somebody wants to make the absurd claim that accurately quoting a user and providing a diff for that quote is either "trolling" or "brings the project into disrepute" that user should be required to back up that claim with more than his imagination. Either that or strike the absurd line. I would like somebody to explain to me why what a user said on a talk page cannot be quoted on my userpage. With a reason with more substance than unsupported assertions that "civility" demands it. nableezy - 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Again, see the first line of the decision. It should be crystal clear. In regards to trolling, if you did it to make a point about the editor and to get under his skin then it might be considered trolling. Is it fostering courteous interaction with the user? Is it highlighting your constructive and collaborative outlook? No. It was a poor comment (assuming there is no other context) and it looks like you are attempting to showcase that and bring ridicule upon the other editor. But like I said, admins have allowed you to continue your behavior. I don't know why but that is the way it is.Cptnono (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Per WP:UP#POLEMIC, "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" may not be part of user pages. As such, the removal of the content was correct. This userspace issue does not seem to be within the scope of WP:ARBPIA, though.  Sandstein  18:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC) How is accurately quoting a user either an attack or the recording of a perceived flaw? The flaw is with Wikipedia in that it allows editors who say that in a conflict on where a place is that what sources say that place is located is an "irrelevant straw man". How is accurately quoting a user and providing a diff of that quote a violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC? And if it were, shouldnt MFD be used? nableezy - 19:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC) MfD is only for deleting entire pages. Under the circumstances, notably your repeated disagreements with Brewcrewer about I/P issues, the quote cannot be understood other than as an attempt by you to mock or disparage Brewcrewer. That is not allowed.  Sandstein  19:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC) But Im not mocking brewcrewer, Im mocking Wikipedia. If you look at the talkpage I thank brewcrewer for his honesty on this subject. I dont have a problem with brewcrewer feeling this way or voicing this opinion. I do however have a problem with the administrators here who think it is a bigger problem that I quote a user saying the sources are irrelevant than the problem that there is a user who actually says the sources are irrelevant. nableezy - 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Hadn't noticed the comment until I was notified of the discussion. In general I would not have a problem with being mocked over something silly that I said. But this "quote" of mine is being taken out of context. Anyone who reads the discussion in its entirety will see that I did not mean that in general "sourcing is irrelevant." I meant that for that particular discussion sourcing is irrelevant because the issue was which sourced content should be primary and which sourced content should be secondary. This much was explained to Nableezy at the talk page,[66] but s/he chose to ignore me and post the taken-out-of-context quote on his user page. These type of strawman arguments and incivility are par for the course in my interaction with Nableezy as seen at Talk:Rachel's Tomb#Location and Talk:Psagot#legality.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC) The context is provided by the diff. You cannot in good faith claim that the quote is taken out of context when the entire context is provided. These type of bad faith arguments are par for the course in my interaction with editors who disregard sources in favor of their own personal wishes. nableezy - 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC) But you can in good faith argue that "The reason the quote was there was because it is representative of some of the nonsense that users deal with in the topic area" while the edit summary says "return brews finest hour" and it was posted 12 minutes after brewcrewer commented on an AE report concerning you, but almost two weeks after he actually made the comment you quoted? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, because what you write isnt entirely true, but that is to be expected from you. Brew made the edit on 21:39, 21 October 2010. I initially added it to my userpage 6 minutes later. I took it down and then put it back up in the edit you reference. nableezy - 20:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Why did you put it back up? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Because it's absurd. brewcrewer basically admits that nableezy is right, that's it's in the West Bank, but that the location should still be decided on who controls the area and his idea of what readers are interested in. The sources against Rachel's Tomb as being in the West Bank include an Israeli High Court decision; even Israel disagrees with brewcrewer's proposed location. The quote sums up the only reasoning justifying the edit. It's in the context of the exact same argument used in every disputed bit of Israeli occupied territory, that we should say it's in Israel because Israel controls it. This cycle is repeated over and over and over in different articles by the same editors, wasting massive amounts of time. Maybe nableezy should have just reported brewcrewer for tendentious editing but it's a perfect crystallization of what goes on here (and looks even worse in context).Sol (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC) It's obvious brew was saying "the sources are not the issue" not "the sources are not important". Why did he put it back up when he did, right after brew did something he didn't like? Coincidence? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC) I dont know, whys the sky the blue? nableezy - 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Scattering of sunlight by particles in the atmosphere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC) It's a shame you can't be honest about why you did it. Do I really need to dig up the previous times you put stuff on your user page just to annoy other editors? You didn't used to be shy about it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC) The placement is intentionally provocative. Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been handled with kid gloves despite a multitude of violations on WP:ARBPIA such as calling fellow editors "certain ultra right-wing nationalists" and assuming bad faith, ignoring factual data as it is presented to him : "certain ultra right-wing nationalists" (2 November 2010) "I dont exactly believe most (all) of what you claim" (1 November 2010), "I will be reinserting this material once protection is lifted." (2 November 2010) His style is to allege others are bad editors and his efforts are meant to counter them, which is a horrible starting point -- and leads to a horrible editor to work with. One that uses red herrings and ignores content and attempts at reasoning. With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 22:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC) + 22:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC) + 01:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC) You really want me to respond to this nonsense? You might not look so good if I do. nableezy - 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC) "With respect", after all that?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC) The usual phraseology would be, "With all undue respect..." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Comment. Even starting with an assumption of good faith, and ignoring that Nableezy has just been blocked elsewhere for incivility, I find it difficult to believe, after hearing about the history between the two, that Nableezy was doing anything other than engaging in uncivil mocking. And therefore find it unduly stretching credulity to believe his statements here that that was not his intent. But we need not go there, unless someone is seeking to have Nableezy sanctioned for incivility. All we need to do is let Nableezy understand how his edit is seen by the community. Understanding (now) the consensus view on the subject, of course he, as a non-disruptive editor who is most assuredly not seeking to mock another editor against core wp guidelines, will be quite happy that the offending language that he had posted has been removed. End of story.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Uhh no, there were a few uninvolved views here, and Ill pay attention to them, but for the most part this section has been dominated by users who havent done much in the past few days except for request that I be blocked. Ill just have to find a creative way to include this quote, a way that would not be "uncollegial". nableezy - 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Nableezy, I would suggest that you respect consensus. You were blocked this week. You now indicate a lack of interest in respecting the views of those who supported you being blocked -- as though their opinions about your editing or disruption are not legitimate. You have it wrong. As you were blocked on the advice of those editors, it is precisely those editors who you should be heeding. WP:consensus does not suggest that Nableezy should only heed the views of those who agree with him, and not the views of those who the blocking admins agree with. If you are indeed intending to be non-disruptive, as you maintained, you will heed the view expressed above.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC) In 3 years I have been blocked for 3 hours for civility. I understand why you are repeating this line, Ive seen you play this game before, you like to pretend that a somebody is a "problem user" with a "history of disruption". I dont see a consensus for anything here, and even if there were a drama board is not the place to determine the consensus on what may be placed on a userpage, MFD is. You can continue to comment here, but it wont affect anything I do. If uninvolved users have something to say I will certainly pay attention. Bye. nableezy - 14:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC) I agree with Nableezy. If we start using labels like "problem user" with a "history of disruption" for every editor who's only been blocked 6 times this year [67], we're setting unreasonably high standards. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC) ahh, but all my blocks are in my one block log. How many of your friends can say the same? nableezy - 17:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Unless you have evidence of socking, you should retract that statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC) The vast majority. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Nab -- as you know, you have an impressive number of blocks, and separately an impressive number of bans. Some of the editors who you don't want to listen to here are the ones who contributed to complaints about your behavior that led to your blocks and bans. Again, I would suggest that those are precisely the editors you should heed, rather than ignore, if your goal is to be a non-disruptive contributor to the Project, which of course I'm sure it is.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC) It actually appears that adding up all of your blocks results in a number greater than mine. Does that mean that as you have so many blocks your view is irrelevant? Color me confused, I thought you kept raising others history because you had a clean one. Back to the point, Ill pay attention to whatever uninvolved editors have to say. That doesnt include the editors who made a complaint about my supposedly incivility which resulted in a 3 hour block for me and a 48 hour block for the user who wrote the line that prompted my response. Funny how not one of you had any problem at all with what that user wrote. TBS funny. nableezy - 22:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC) couldn't be maybe that the other user's block for PA was disputed by all but three out of about a dozen or so editors, whereas your comment was an undisputable PA; could it? WookieInHeat (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC) No opinion - If we want to talk about quotes, I think his "All that will happen is that uninvolved users will be drowned out by familiar faces making predictable positions", said in regards to this AN/I filing, was spot on. If we strip out the noise from the above discussion, we're left with one legitimate opinion against the quotation usage (Sandstein). So how about this; all those involved in the topic area zip it, and let people with no horse in the race get a word in edgewise if they wish. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Tarc -- I encourage you not to zip it. Let's AGF, and assume that even editors who have observed and supplied information relative to Nab's prior blocks are entitled to contribute to this discussion. It makes little sense to censor out of the discussion those editors who have made legitimate complaints regarding Nab, that have been supported by admin action. If fairness is our goal.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Comment it would seem the most logical conclusion would be that if brew doesn't mind the comment on nableezy's page, it's fine. that said, if brew feels the comment is being taken out of context in order to portray him in a negative light (which does appear to be the intention), it shouldn't be there. on another note, as per usual nableezy appears to be treading the civility line very carefully, being as condescending as possible without stepping over it (i.e. calling other users comments "nonsense" in this thread). WookieInHeat (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Comment I would like to propose we start a page somewhere called "I/P Bickering", thus allowing the rest of the wiki-verse to return to more productive things. This has already become the predicted forum for attacking favorite targets. Sol (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Unarchived Nableezy has again brought attention to Brew's quote (out of context and consensus seems to be against him doing it like that) while also adding two quotes from me on his user page. They are also out of context.[68] Yes I said I was anti-Arab but then I clarified it when requested. Yes I said there should be white supremacists editing but made it clear that it is because articles related to them are skewed. He cut out those bits. If he is purposely pushing people's buttons he needs to be banned from the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC) The old thread, which you've unarchived, was focused around whether my removal of a diff from Nableezy's user page was ok. My understanding is there wasn't a consensus that I had made a mistake. Also, from my perspective Nableezy's user page was problematic as it named the editor quoted, and that is no longer the case. PhilKnight (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I misread consensus then. S is it OK then? If so, I will edit my user page accordingly.Cptnono (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Last time I went ahead and removed the problematic material, and the discussion amongst uninvolved editors was finely balanced as to whether my actions were acceptable. In this context, and given this time around the content is less problematic, I don't intend to go ahead and remove the diffs. PhilKnight (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC) So if I put on my user page "This user is an asshole." is it acceptable? I know how dumb that sounds but it is essentially what he did and I am not using his name.Cptnono (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC) TLDR, but to me, the quote seems fine. It is not an attack against the editor who made it: they said it, why would they post an attack against themself? That is a ridiculous argument. So as per WP:USER, it comes within the boundary of what one can generally post one one's page. For instance, I have a diff of someone PROD-ing my talkpage because I am "extremely shameful" – it's just a bit of humour. Cope. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 18:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Cool. This can be marked as resolved. It looks like I can add "This user is an asshole." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptnono (talk • contribs) If you're replying to me, then I never said anything of the sort. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 19:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Yes I was. You said that his user page was acceptable. Read the comment right above it. To be honest, it is not something I am not comfortable adding but it makes sense that it would be acceptable under the reasoning provided.Cptnono (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC) What I said is that the quote referred to at the top of this thread is, in my view, acceptable. What I did not say is that rampant personal attacks are permissible. Perhaps you should read it over again. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 19:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC) But he is saying essentially the same thing. He is making me look like an asshole by taking the quotes out of context. I wouldn't mind looking like a different kind of asshole (a jerk instead of a racist) if the full conversation was there, of course. I just don't see the difference.Cptnono (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) He is quoting you. If you'd said that he was publicising the fact that you made yourself look like "an asshole" (your words, not mine) then I might have agreed with you. But if you wanted to avoid the appearance of "an asshole" then you shouldn't have made that quote. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 19:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC) But he didn't use the full quote which changes the meaning of the quote.Cptnono (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC) But he did link to the full quote which clarifies the situation (if you say so). ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 19:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC) That is a cop out. He is skewing the meaning of my quote and adding a small link that makes it say something different.Cptnono (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC) What size do you think the link should be in order to make it fair, then? ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 19:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I think he should provide the full context clearly without the need to use a link. I stand behind what I said but I don;t stand behind he impression he is trying make.Cptnono (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC) So why did you complain, just above, about the "small" dimensions of the link, if they are actually irrelevant? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 19:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Because it is a small link. But even if I described it as a big link it doesn't change the scenario.Cptnono (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry. I assumed that your phrase, "...adding a small link that makes it say something different," was an objection to the size of the link. I think that's how a normal person would interpret it. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 19:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I didn't say you weren't normal. But is the size of the link the only thing you wish to comment on or will you comment on the stated (and even clarified) concern? You ignored my primary reason and instead started playing a game with single word out of numerous comments.Cptnono (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Yeah. But I did it brilliantly. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 22:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User:Nableezy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. HalfShadow 19:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Nableezy's whole user page appears to be a soapbox and his wikilawyering in this thread is tedious. The quote removed from the user page was an out-of-context dig at another editor. We're usually pretty loose about userpage contents simply because most users aren't so tendentious. But at the end of the day, user pages are supposed to have encyclopedic purpose or they should not remain on the site. If Nableezy wants a soapbox for his political views, that's great, he can start a blog. WP is an encyclopedia and we're not here for that. Also, not that I'm any fan of huckster "street artists", the Banksy painting image on Nableezy's userpage is probably a copyvio. Nableezy's conduct (battleground editing, wikilawyering) seriously fails to adhere is in tension with the purpose of Wikipedia, possibly to the point of serious failure to adhere. As such, remedies under ARBPIA discretionary sanctions would seem to come into play. I haven't followed the soap opera enough to call for stiff sanctions right away, but a formal "thin ice" warning seems to be in order. In short, cut the crap. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that calling yourself Anti-Arab probably isn't going to get a very good reaction from Arabs or most people in general. Qualifying it with "Arab governments and the predominant religion over there have historically been problematic" isn't helping matters. There's precious little good will in the I/P edit battles as is and branding yourself as against a group of people tarnishes a hardworking editor. Sol (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I think that was addressed to Cptnono not to me. I haven't looked into Cptnono's edits, which may also be problematic. In my view these long term edit battles shouldn't be allowed. If WP isn't capable of putting together a neutral article (as agreed by consensus) on a topic after a reasonable amount of time, it should boot the article to incubation and leave a protected redlink in article space until a neutral version is developed. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Yeah, it was, my bad :P My functional IQ plummets from its already modest heights by the end of the week. Sol (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Have to agree with TreasuryTag. Seems innocuous, and he links to the full diff. Aren't there more important things to care about? -- ۩ Mask 23:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC) This is all very fascinating, but I have a question. Would an editor who publicly states that they are an antisemite, or "anti-Jew" to make the comparison clear, be allowed to edit in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? What if they said that Judaism has "historically been the problem" in the Middle East? nableezy - 01:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Here? There's half a chance someone would give them a barnstar. IronDuke 01:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC) You think? Personally, I would hope a ban would fall on that editors head swiftly and without warning. nableezy - 01:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC) I think it's pretty disgusting that I haven't been quoted on Nableezy's userpage yet. Apparently I haven't said anything provocative enough. For the record, I hold exceedingly biased pro-Israeli and pro-Arab viewpoints. You can quote me on that, and put that in whatever context you want, provided you wikilink pro-Israeli to Bar Refaeli and wikilink pro-Arab to Rima Fakih. Scandalous! On a more topical note, if editors were to retract the quoted statements in question (by striking them out, for instance), would Nableezy then be required to remove them from their user page? ← George talk 01:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous harassing NYyankees51

The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk · contribs) was was warned by two separate administrators (first warning and second warning) to stop harassing User talk:NYyankees51. Despite two warnings, as of today, the user is again harassing NYyankees51; such as, but not limited to, referring to NYyankees51's actions as sloppy and adding disparaging comments about the user on other talk pages. NYyankees51 is currently blocked, and an unblock request is currently being handled by arbitration. Would be nice if The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous left NYyankees51 alone, and let arbitration handle this. Can an administrator take a look, and see if any action is needed? Will notify user of this AN/I immediately after saving page. Akerans (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

NY51 has a record of extreme mendacity, has vandalized his own talk page to hide an admins damning statement. I discovered the deception, affected its restoration, and documented that NY51's latest reason/lie for his redaction for the benefit of ArbCom and other editors who inexplicably believe NY51 has reformed, or was never in error and deserving of a block. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. What a mess that is. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the block; I was far too subtle there earlier. Kuru (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I'd leave these two difs [69] [70] for ANI's perusal. The latter is a removal of the block notice from the talk page, which is not permitted. The former, while not a breach of conduct regulations in and of itself, is a good demonstration of The Artist's attitude. Seth Kellerman (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully they're indicative of an intention to turn over a new leaf, but, regardless, he can remove what he likes from his own talk page. The only exception is declined unblock requests and that's only while the relevant block is in effect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

User that does not seem to want to edit by Wikipedia rules.

Resolved

 – Both indef'd by GWH. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Langston Bonasera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rizzoli Isles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rizzoli Isles (talk · contribs), formerly Langston Bonasera (talk · contribs) (both accounts still active) is once again putting up non-free images, and immediately replacing them if removed (latest example Katee Sackhoff), changing cast table formats after being asked to discuss first in talk pages, making uncited edits or citing from blogs, refusing to use edit summaries, creating character pages for actors not confirmed to be added to show casts other than from blogs, gossip or fan sites then edit warring when they are reverted and just too many other Wikipedia rule violations to list. This editor has repeatedly been counseled by more experienced editors, admins and even threatened with being blocked - but these actions only result in a short term improvement. I have requested help and advice before from more experienced editors and admins, who have recommended I bring it here. I have tried to write this off to the editors age (self admittedly mid-teens) and that he lives outside the US, but he has no trouble with the language - the problem seems to be attitude and refusal to accept there are rules that must be followed. Can ANI please investigate this and take some kind of action? Thank you very much for your time. Trista (user Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed - Per the history over the span of the two accounts, and the prior ANI discussion here I have indefinitely blocked the user.

They may be able to come around to editing productively at some future point. If they agree to abide by Wikipedia policies and can convince any administrator that they understand those policies, any admin may unblock at their discretion without prior consultation with me, though I would appreciate a notification afterwards. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Attempts to use Wikipedia as a collaboration on Yu-Gi-Oh!

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

This user created the "article" Yugioh Deck as an attempt to establish a collaboration site for fans of Yu-Gi-Oh! ([71]). I prodded it ([72]), which he removed ([73]), then I tagged it for A3 ([74]), which he also removed once ([75]) before adding a {{hangon}} tag ([76]). He then asked me a question on my talk page ([77]); I responded that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place for collaboration on any subject not related to building the encyclopedia, and I even pointed him to Comparison of wiki farms and WP:OUTLET ([78]). He still has not gotten the message, and created the similarly-named Yugioh Decks (since deleted) in an attempt to evade the deletion tag. I request that this user be blocked for disruption/abuse of editing privileges, and Yugioh Deck and any other article he created related to this subject be deleted immediately. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am the one who CSDed the Yugioh Decks article, and first saw KardGame on the Yugioh talk page advertising the article.--intelati^talk 21:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please also see his (or her) plea for help --intelati^talk 21:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems like probably a very, very young user who really does just want to chat about his favourite card game and likely wouldn't have the patience to set up a new wiki all on their own (nor should they, as there's already a Wikia for it). Their contributions are in good faith, just misplaced. They should instead be incouraged to find a Yu-Gi-Oh forum where they can talk about their deck all they want. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

They had a section on their Talk page encouraging others to discuss the cards, and I removed it, explaining that that was not the purpose of Wikipedia. They removed my comments and restored the section. So they know that they're not supposed to be doing that. I do agree that they same like a very young person. Corvus cornix_talk 07:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

User: Spartan

Hi I realize people probably don't know about this case since it was kind of a quick decision, but I was told to come here. My account (User:Spartan) had some trolls on it earlier in the year and by the next time I logged in it was "indefinitely" blocked. The admin in this case was Ryan_Postlewaite, who I am told is trusted, which is good. I sent an e-mail and multiple inquiries to him and several other admins but they seem to have stopped editing during the summer. I talked to another and she sent me here. I'm going to edit regardless it's just a matter of having my editing privleges back on my old account, which is not compromised. Is there anything that can be done? 96.50.86.207 (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just as an add-on, I'd just like to say that all I want to do is resurrect the dead account. I created several new pages on the account in the past and I want to get back to doing that. Thanks...96.50.86.207 (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried emailing WP:ARBCOM? They usually handle requests of this nature, specifically the ban appeals subcommittee. --Jayron32 06:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll try that, thanks. 96.50.86.207 (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I denied Spartan's unblock request based on a previous ANI thread. Hopefully his ArbCom request is more successful for him. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz and Destinero

Resolved. Editing restriction enacted for Destinero (talk · contribs). --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I ask to check behaviour of Ckatzchatspy who repeatedly disrupts Wikipedia article American College of Pediatricians by removing facts documented by highly reliable expert source simply since he don't like those facts and threats me on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Destinero#November_2010 --Destinero (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I've never had problems with Ckatz before that I recall, but this does seem odd and inappropriate on Ckatz' part. I don't understand the reasoning behind this removal at all. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC) At first sight, Destinero and Ckatz appear to be edit warring at American College of Pediatricians. Ckatz may consider that his actions are justified by his admin role, since he is taking out a passage that deplores the ACP in Wikipedia's voice, and which uses a reference linked to a primary source, a brief that was filed in a court case, though some of the participating organizations might have published their views elsewhere. Some of the language Ckatz was removing was "This small faction's views are out of step with the overwhelming body of scholarly research-based positions.." This is being stated in Wikipedia's voice as a matter of fact about the American College of Pediatricians. At a minimum, the language needs fixing for neutrality, and a legal brief should probably not be cited. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC) WP:UNDUE policy specifically requires: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." WP:GEVAL policy specifically requires: "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." Please, explain and clarify what exactly should be fixed for neutrality in current version of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_College_of_Pediatricians&diff=397345997&oldid=397268492 I consider it fully in compliance with Wikipedia standards. --Destinero (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Agree. Destinero needs to stop the edit warring and justify the changes they want to make. They appear to be inserting analysis not supported by the supplied source. Franamax (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Are you serious? Amici curiae (National Association of Social Workers, National Association of Social Workers - West Virginia Chapter, Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, North American Council on Adoptable Children, and West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence) are national and West Virginian organization dedicated to the welfare of children. "Amici sumbit this brief to (a) inform the Court of the extensive body of social science research demonstrating that children raised by same-sex couples develop just as well, and are as healthy and well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual couples; (b) show the Court that this research has been embranced by every authoritative professional organization devoted to the health and welfare of children." (page 1) "Every authoritative child welfare and child health organization of which amici are aware recognizes, and an overhelming body of scholarly research demonstrates, that children fare just as well in families with same-sex parents as in families with heterosexual parents." (page 10) "Every leading professinal child health and child welfare organization recognizes that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and raise healthy and well-adjusted childre. The policy statements issued by these organizations reflect their professional experiences and their expert reviews of the research related to the effects of parenting by gay men and lesbians on childhood development. The statements are striking in their unanimous rejection of the assumption that optimal development requires heterosexual parents. Indeed, amici are unaware of any authoritative child welfare or medical organization that gas taken a contrary view of the research and policy implications." (page 12) "A group of approximately 60 of AAP´s more than 60,00 members opposed APP´s adoption of this policy and in dissent, formed the "American College of Pediatricians" ("ACP") in 2002. This small and marginal group has filed an amicus brief in support of Respondents in keeping with the ACP´s position that "it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation." Dr. Joseph Zanga, one of ACP´s charter members, has described the ACP as a group "with Judeo-Christian, traditional values that is open to pediatric medical professionals of all religions who hold true to the group´s core beliefs: that life begins at conception; and that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of childre." "This small faction´s views are out of step with the research-based positions of the AAP and other medical and child welfare authorities." (page 15) http://www.state.wv.us/wvsca/briefs/march09/34618SocialWorkers.pdf Thus, to put it simply, there can not be absolutely any doubts I contributed solely the facts supported by the most credible expert sources in the field describe the views of ACP "in their proper context with respect to established scholarship" as fundamental Wikipedia policies reqires. --Destinero (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Neither one has posted anything to the talk page. Destinero, there's no question in my mind that the lead should include something along the lines of what you are adding -- but you're going to have to work it out on the talk page, and what you have been adding can't be framed in the voice of Wikipedia itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Comment While it is certainly premature to do so, I'm not surprised to see that Destinero has brought this matter here. Frankly, I think it is probably best that there is a chance for more eyes to look at the situation. I'll state categorically that this is not a "POV" or disruptive move on my part; a simple check of the article's edit history will show that I've no real interest in the topic. My concerns here - and with several other articles that touch on the same subject matter - lies in Destinero's approach to editing on Wikipedia. I have had to intercede on numerous occasions with regard to his habits, which often as not involve adding POV, non-neutral material to articles that reflect his personal pers\pective on the matter. The worst instances of this have involved incidents where he has dropped boiler-plate text into a series of articles, and where he has misused sources as references for a message he wants to get across. Please note this excerpt from the text [he has repeatedly posted to the article], which demonstrates the nature of the problem: "This small faction's views are out of step with the overwhelming body of scholarly research-based positions of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical and child welfare authorities recognizing that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and raise healthy and well-adjusted children." Destinero likes to insert loaded terminology into articles; in this case, "out of step" and "small faction" are used to dismiss the organization in question. My apologies if my edit summaries were lacking in this case, but after a long period of dealing with the same problems one can sometimes get frustrated. Please feel free to ask any questions you might have; again, I would really appreciate it if more people could review Destinero's edit history with regard to these types of edits. --Ckatzchatspy 19:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Please stop acusing me of liking loaded terminology when I showed here that I contributed solely the facts presented by the national and West Virginian organization dedicated to the welfare of children including the largest social work association in the world to the Court, all of which can be everytime checked by everybody. I am expecting your apology since you not able to support by reliable sources how views of ACP are not out of step with the overwhelming body of scholarly research-based positions of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical and child welfare authorities recognizing that sexual orientation has no correlation with the ability to be a good parent and raise healthy and well-adjusted children (see LGBT parenting article for details on decades of conclusive and widely-accepted research on the issue) and you are not able to explain how ACP founded in 2002 by 60 charter members are not small faction in comparison with American Academy of Pediatrics with 60,000 members and all other mainstream expert bodies in the field including National Association of Social Workers (150,000 members), American Psychological Association (150,000 members), American Psychiatric Association (40,000 members) etc. --Destinero (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Destinero, since this entire discussion ought to be taking place at the article talk page and you still haven't started any discussion there, I doubt you'll get the apology you are seeking. Again, you can probably add something along the lines of what you are after, but go away and do it the right way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Why is this discussed here and not on the article talk page? There's zero discussion about this issue there. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Probably because this is indeed a user conduct issue: In my experience, (a) edit-warring to insert a patently inappropriate POV (sourced to a brief in a lawsuit!) into an article, and (b) wall-of-text-ranting about it on noticeboards are the classical symptoms of a soon-to-be-indef-blocked user. Destinero, if you keep this up, that will be you.  Sandstein  21:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I've had my own disagreements with Destinero over cherry-picking (other) affidavits for strong language (which wasn't put in quotes). I find this troublesome, for both NPOV and COPYVIO reasons. Some parts of LGBT parenting, contributed by Destinero, were deleted by an uninvolved admin on copyvio grounds. I don't know if in the dispute at hand here Destinero picked the strong language from the source, or if it was his own. A clarification would help. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC) In the current dispute, Destinero cited an amicus brief by the National Association of Social Workers to state the postion of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The 50-page linked pdf is non-searchable, so a page number would help. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I improved that by referencing the actual AAP position statement. Destinero and I had a discussion about this before: I think that citing one page position statements is preferable to dozen-of-pages briefs/affidavits. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC) The language was from the brief, bottom of p. 15. Something like that usually needs to be attributed. Again we had the issue of copy-pasted statements without quotes... Tijfo098 (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I concur with Sandstein's analysis here. Destinero's behavior does not look like civil discourse aimed at arriving at a consensus version of an article. It looks like trying, by any means necessary, to force through a particular viewpoint into an article, including stretching the use of sources of marginal appropriateness, coming to ANI rather than the article talk page to contest the edits of others, and most importantly, insisting that others (and not himself) have the burden to justify the removal of his additions. WP:BURDEN makes it clear that the conservative approach must be taken with contentious material. Challenged material is to be left out, and it is the burden of the person wishing to add it to prove, via reliable sources and reasoned discussion with others, that it belongs it. When someone behaves in the opposite manner, it is a red flag that they aren't interested in playing by the rules. The issue of copyright violations and plagiarism is also MUCHO serious, and needs to be addressed as well. --Jayron32 04:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I'd like to ask that there is an examination of Destinero's recent edits, which - despite concerns raised here and on his talk page - are a direct continuation of his regular behaviour. Not only has he apparently ignored concerns raised over the American College article, he has also made significant undiscussed changes to LGBT parenting and Same-sex marriage that have raised concerns over copyright violations and the use of weasel words. --Ckatzchatspy 11:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC) See my comment on new developments in the ACP article here. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Removed that from the ACP article, clearly very pointed. I think Destinero has a particular and deep POV on these topics; there is no reason to stop them from editing, but they need to understand why their edits are problematic and often pointed. I think we made movement on this on ther LGBT parenting article. I also have concerns with the consistent use of "not needed" as an edit summary for quite substantive edits. This should be discouraged and instead Destinero should try to use much more explanatory edit summaries to clear up their reasoning --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 11:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I am satisfied with the current versions of LGBT parenting and ACP article. What a difference to the Ckatz POV version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_College_of_Pediatricians&diff=397489091&oldid=397268492, isn't it? Yes, I care much about these topics, but please, that does not mean I want to push some POV agenda. I understand copyvio and other concerns mentioned and take them seriously and I really appreciate the movement and feedback. The reason why I wrote not needed in edit summary were motivated to reduce duplicate material and focus on the essence of documented facts and adress copyvio and weasel word concerns. For example, I see no reason why include rather esseistic and defendable writing than document clearly current scientific research-based knowledge and expert consensus to let readers to make up their own opinions on the topic. Is it clearer, now? --Destinero (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Some context around that diff. Destenero compared to final - this is the difference between the same end version of the article and Destinero's changes Ckatz was reverting. Destinero compared to Ckatz - the two versions directly compared Revision right before this started compared to final Destinero's final revision compared to final Ravensfire (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Ravensfire (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I just want to make it very clear for the record that, Destinero's errant claims of my "POV" version to the contrary, I have no personal involvement in the page as an editor. My involvement in this matter is solely and completely based on responding as an admin to what appears to me to be yet another case of Destinero's problematic editing style, as I have had to do elsewhere in the past. --Ckatzchatspy 01:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-28/LGBT parenting, a case that I mediated. (I am no longer mediating any case involving Destinero). I thought that I had successfully explained to Destinero that his interpretation of WP:UNDUE was an extremely odd one (to say the least), and one not shared by the rest of the Wikipedia community. He seems to believe that if a claim is attributed to a source written by a respected expert on the topic, it can then be written in Wikipedia's voice. I assumed good faith with Destinero by suggesting this was a linguistic issue. However, I believe, since this issue has recurred, Destinero is attempting to game Wikipedia policy to his advantage, and has created disputes where none exist with some very experienced Wikipedians who are trying to write articles in an NPOV manner. He replies with walls of "lawyering" text when editors attempt to explain to him his strange, self-exculpatory view of WP:UNDUE. Therefore, I suggest that he be subject to a "softban" from inserting text in "Wikipedia's voice" on subjects relating to LGBT parenting and parenting in general, of which this is another example. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Corrected --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC) I hereby propose the following softban. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Destinero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned by community consensus from inserting or removing contentious claims under colour of WP:UNDUE in Wikipedia articles relating to parenting and LGBT parenting. He also may not write article prose in these topics in "Wikipedia's voice"; that is, he may not insert claims in articles on these topics as unqualified factual statements. Destinero may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator in the event of violating this limited topic ban. In the event of repeat violations, he may be banned entirely from editing articles within these topics. See also Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-28/LGBT parenting. Ban enacted. Editors are free to dispute this limited-behaviour topic ban if they desire. I would have liked comment on this; however, Destinero's record of disruptive editing in these topic areas should not be entertained any longer, since it is wasting editors' and administrators' time. A cost-benefit decision must, therefore, be made. The ban will be noted in the appropriate venues. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

How long it will take? It is possible to ask for the end of the softban in a month or year or so? --Destinero (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. What I recommend is that, say, in a month or so, you post a message here on AN/I asking for the ban to be reviewed (or leave a message on my talk page to ask me to post it, if you prefer). If you have managed to edit the articles in question without violating the ban, this means you will have had good practice in editing the articles in a collaborative and neutral way. It will also, therefore, have given you a cooling off period to better understand how WP:UNDUE and WP:RS is meant to work. I do understand that you have a very specific interpretation of the policy, Destinero, but your unusual interpretation of it is generally considered on Wikipedia to be a form of gaming the system as a way of countermanding the WP:NPOV policy -- indeed, there is an example on the WP:GAME page, example 6, that fits your behaviours very accurately. I think I've been as lenient as possible in enacting this and tried to keep it to what appeared to have de facto consensus from those editors who have dealt with you: this isn't a ban from you editing these articles; it is, in fact, not much of a ban at all, merely requiring that you adhere to the usual interpretation of Wikipedia policy. However, other editors/administrators and I have worked very hard to explain to you why your interpretation of the policy is at odds with the rest of the community, and it is wasting our time to keep dealing with what is in essence a synthetic dispute through pedantic use of a Wikipedia policy for a particular end. So, in summary: keep editing the articles within the terms of the ban, and this can be reviewed in a month to see how you've been doing. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Corrected. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Bosnian War Introduction

There is a discussion on the Talk:Bosnian War on how to improve the introduction on the Bosnian War article. Myself and other users are experiencing frustration with a certain user by the name of Alan.Ford.Jn which I think has a clear POV and a irrational behavior and even though lengthy discussions and tries to rationalize with him, he continues to revert and disrupt even though he clearly has no consensus nor support. It would be useful if an admin could perhaps help to clear things up. --Nirvana77 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure your response to Alan.Ford.Jn's first post is particularly AGF-y but then again I'm sure you have a lot more experience with these editors (this editor?) than I do. If you still think this is a sock the place to report that is WP:SPI. Otherwise, this is a content dispute and you're gonna have to hash it out on the talk page. You might include a general overview of the race relations perspective since as I recall ethnicity was one of the triggers of that conflict. N419BH 23:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Nuisance #2

Checkuser finds accounts to be unrelated. behavioral discussion should continue above. N419BH 04:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Could someone just block this guy as well. He's User:Historičar's Unbelievably Obvious Sock No.324. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Moved this here since it's a duplicate. No comment on the editor in question. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC) This was checkusered and found  Unrelated to Historicar ( [79] ). If there's strong behavioral evidence it can be presented, but the CU opinion carries a lot of weight... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC) The reasoning seems a bit tenuous; the primary account (and the socks) is interested in the language, the other account seems interested in the war. Other than them both being Bosnian based, there seems to be no real overlap. HalfShadow 04:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC) I feel like I have to respond to Georgewilliamherbert and HalfShadow. I have actually submitted a SPI (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alan.Ford.Jn) on behavioral grounds. I got the sense of CU not being totally reliable with most of the accounts going "stale", although I'm not to familiar with the CU system. And HalfShadow did you actually look at Historicars sock puppet accounts? Like for example Kruško Mortale, SanjakMan and Rochass? Dealing a lot if not the majority of the time with the war and the articles surrounding and related to the war. It just sounds like a very peculiar thing to say. --Nirvana77 (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous IP

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

This user keeps deleting part of the Fallout (video game) article. The user seems to have a rotating IP, so this is just their latest IP. The user initially cited WP:GAMEGUIDE as a reason, but since then, the user has not tried justifying their edits; not on the talk page, not in further edit summaries. Eik Corell (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Not much point blocking as it's clearly a rotating IP. This is a content dispute, but as all the other parties to the disagreement seem to be using the talk page while this rotating-IP editor carries on edit warring, I've semi-protected the article for a week. ~ mazca ^talk 11:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback

Resolved

 – rollback removed

Candyo32 (talk · contribs) misused rollback and I left a message (examples on his/her talkpage). When I explained why rollback doesn't apply and how to manually revert I was told it was made because his/her TWINKLE was broken and to bring this here if I "think it's such a big deal" and that he/she would "leave stupid edits on pages" from now on. Rollback is for disruption, not a convenient way to undo edits if we don't know how else to do it nor a replacement for another tool. Hekerui (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Rollback removed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Vasser24 - pointy editing

Vasser24 (talk · contribs) is an inexperienced editor who created the article Oikophobia. When I and other editors began to edit the article (and made substantial changes, including removing a lot of original research and use of blogs), he became very upset -- see his talk page and the article's talk page. This involved not a few personal attacks, which although unpleasant I can certainly shrug off, questions about what articles the editors involved have written, denials that any of his edits contained original research (although they clearly did and he seems to understand that now), etc. The article's been protected by another Administrator due to edit warring. But what's happened in the last hour or so is that he has decided because his edits were removed, he's going to " use this for deletion of many, many articles at Wikipedia." [80]. He's removed virtually all the text from Participatory democracy [81] and much of the text from Xenophobia.[82]. I'll notify him now. Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm merely applying the same standards you apply to Oikophobia. I quote you Doug Weller: "Using [Russell Means as an example without relying on a source linking him with oikophobia is original research, it is your interpretation, and as editors that's not our role."

You also informed me: "If you want to use Means in this article, you must have a reliable source (see WP:RS) that uses the term [oikophobia] in discussing Means." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasser24 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

He's continuing to remove the lead from Participatory democracy, despite being warned and reverted twice (he's blanked most of the article 3 times now. On the talk page he's copied my text from Talk:Oikophobia (not quoting me, just using it as though he wrote it but clearly pointy). Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've given him a gentle warning and undone some pointy deletions. Vasser24, there is a difference between using a source that is talking about involvement in democracy in an article on Participatory Democracy, and claiming that someone in their biography is describing the phenomenon of Oikophobia when they are talking about feelings or experiences. Find a source that says "in X, Means describes the manifestation of Oikophobia" or some similar form of wording. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 12hrs to prevent further disruptive editing, and advised that he return to discussing his original beef.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ad Base Systems, Inc. IP range blocked

Resolved

 – IP rangeblocked, relevant material added to the spam blacklist. –MuZemike 00:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP range belonging to the internal network of Ad-Base Systems Inc., a call centre service and communications provider, for a period of 1 week. The CIDR range is 72.251.44.0/24. Roving anonymous editors in this range have persistently reinserted a telephone number in the External links section of Reverse 911 tendentiously, ten times since November 17th; see the article history. This appears to be either 1) an attempt to divert interested readers from a competitor's emergency telephone communications product to their own; or 2) self-promotion, if Ad-Base Systems is a contractor for EADS North America, the provider of the product. This range has also inserted similar telephone numbers in the Call 911 article, in a similarly-repeated way. IPs in the range have been blocked previously for varying durations by other administrators. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Good call. We don't need that level of disruption at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 05:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not just perm it? You know the IPs range is from an ad company. HalfShadow 05:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Because IP ranges change from time to time, and someone may start editing properly from that range someday. --Jayron32 05:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the insertion of the phone number something that can be handled via the spam blacklist? Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The spam blacklist only handles external link additions. I've seen phone numbers occasionally pop up in #wikipedia-en-spam, so I've asked Beetstra whether XLinkBot can revert such additions. MER-C 13:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What's that bot that automatically reverts additions of certain strings of text? I always forget the name of it but that would probably work well in this case. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added a rule to the linkwatcher so they now 'see' telephone numbers formatted like this, and have added this telephone number as a rule to XLinkBot. I am careful with this automated catching of telephone numbers, there are too many numbers which look like telephone numbers. Those with access to the revertlists can use the functionality also for telephone numbers, but please take care. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: I saw LiWa3 report a number in the same format as the telephone number added here (######-####; the reported number was actually not a telephone number, showing that this number-catching does make mistakes!). Adding the telephone number added by the IPs reported in this thread by anons/new users should trigger the revert of XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Mass Vandalism by ip 208.64.63.176 on Boxer Rebellion article

208.64.63.176 edited the article, claiming to correct the user, "chin1976"'s bad english, in this edit- "Corrected chin1976's bad English and corrected prose to focus on facts given in cited references" yet anyone can see that User:chin1976 doesn't exist. Also I see no evidence of inocorrect english being used in the edits 208.64.63.176 reverted, would he mind pointing them out?Дунгане (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

in this edit, 208.64.63.176 removes cited information stating that all the forces except the Japanese commited rape and pillage, which was supported by the reference here, which pointed out specifically that all the forces except japan engaged in rape and pillage.

In this edit, 208.64.63.176 removed "but there is no evidence of rape", yet the refence used in the aritcle, says that for all the boxer atrocities there had been no incidents of chinese rape

Our friend 208.64.63.176 also struck again, he changed a section signifigantly, changing a previous paragraph, which was referenced, to The Imperial Army Muslim Kansu braves additionally slaughtered Christians near the legations while looting indiscriminately. The reference used, "The Atlantic monthly, Volume 113", pointed out that the kansu braves had tea with their hosts and apologized for intruding, and only took away several thousand dollars of valuables without killing any of their hosts, as long as they were not christian The reference clearly points at the the Kansu Braves spared non christians, and did not engage in "looting indiscriminately"

208.64.63.176 changed "General Dong committed his Muslim troops to join the Boxers to attack the Eight-Nation Alliance. They were put into the rear division, and attacked the legations relentlessly" to ". General Dong committed his Muslim troops to join the Boxers to attack the Allies. However they where put into the rear division and mostly engaged in pillage and looting." 208.64.63.176 claimed that "Corrected to match information given in citation. Corrected capitalization" yet none of the refences supplied, [83] [84] [85] say that the Kansu braves engaged in pillaging and looting, only that they had attacked the legations.Дунгане (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted all of his edits, I request an admin deliver a warning to this ip address for his vandalism.Дунгане (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have given them a 4im warning, since deliberately misrepresenting sources to back a preferred viewpoint is disruption in the extreme, imo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation again

Impersonator blocked.

Resolved  – No action needed. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 19:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC) I am tired of his bad comments to others. Why are admin protecting him. Soon someone will wake up, and Giacomo will get the long block that should have been long age. Take heed. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 19:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavellB5 (talk • contribs) Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 19:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Generally speaking, the comments of angry-sounding users are easier to take if you can see the potential for humor. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Ugh. An impostor. Did I oversleep? Is it April 1 already? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

IP anon going around changing "Burma" to "Myanmar" despite being told not to

Resolved

 – Sock? block rinse repeat. Policy on naming within Wikipedia clarified. Nothing further to do here. N419BH 03:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

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

See also: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Issue: Myanmar v. Burma

We have this anon, 112.205.7.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), going around changing all mentions of "Burma" to "Myanmar", claiming "Wikipedia is not a sockpuppet for human rights activists". This is a perennial issue, for which there is no consensus to use "Myanmar" over "Burma", i.e. the status quo should be used.

A quick check of the contributions history shows some POV pushing and interesting vandalism, including changing the image of UN HQ in New York to one of the Nazi Parliament in 1939.

He's been told, both in edit summaries and at User talk:Jimbo Wales (which he's clearly reading often), that he has no consensus for the changes, but he's still doing them. He's also at three reverts on Burma, so I'm about to warn him against 3RR, but we could do with some admin eyes on this. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Er, that was fast, blocked by Elockid (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) before I even posted this here. Either way, just an FYI. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I was actually considering a longer block as the IP reminded me of banned user 23prootie (talk · contribs). The IP geolocates to the Philippines specifically the Manila area which is one of 23prootie's location. The IP was edit warring and 23prootie is an edit warrior. I have further suspicions because 23prootie has the same stance on the naming convention for Burma/Myanmar. For those who may not be aware, there is a discussion at Commons. The reason I didn't block this IP longer was that it geolocated to Manila (23prootie uses many open proxies to try and conceal their location), the IP didn't seem like an open proxy and is in a different location (Greater San Francisco) from the IP that I have concluded they were editing extensively after several sockpuppets. It is common for Filipinos though to obtain tourist visas to the U.S. and it could be he/she returned to the Philippines. If anybody sees this as an IP sock, please feel free to block longer. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

For my own and other interested editor's information, why does Wikipedia continue to use Burma when the country's official name is Myanmar? Can someone link to the appropriate discussion? N419BH 03:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The change was done by the current de-facto military government. A wide range of groups and individuals (and not a few countries) didn't accept the change as valid or legitimate (and many don't consider the current military government legitimate).

Which is correct depends on quite a number of geopolitical factors which have no single right answer.

Wikipedia isn't here to declare one side right. There's widespread disagreement; asserting one is correct is not our place. We have to have some name for articles, but forcing a single uniform standard for them would be taking sides in the dispute. Our default under these sorts of circumstances is to cross-link and assert that the first name used in a given context is appropriate for that context, and not change them.

This is somewhat frustrating and confusing; but it's equally frustrating and confusing to everyone, and it's not judgemental as to who's right in the real world. It maintains Wikipedia's neutrality.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Assumed it had something to do with the Junta, hence Suu Ki still referring to the nation as Burma. Thank you for the clarification. Marking thread resolved. N419BH 03:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally we try to match the usage of major news organizations such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and BBC; but this is a case where these organizations don't agree with each other. The New York Times uses Myanmar, but the Washington Post and BBC, to the best of my knowledge, use Burma. Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen in the Burma articles, Myanmar is more like the "real" name of the country, and Burma was what the Brits called it. And the locals call the Ganges River the Ganga, and the city of Bombay is really Mumbai. But the English names of many geographic entities are different from what they call themselves. For example, there's no reason we couldn't call Germany by its real name, Deutschland, but we don't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What I've seen is that both names are inexact representations of the underlying Burmese; the British were careless (as often, see Hobson-Jobson), and the military authorities respelled to suggest a glorious meaning unsupported by etymology. But the assertion that Burma is more recognizable in English, is, for once, supported by sources - BBC articles, of which this is one - which say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Myanmar-Shave just doesn't have the same ring, somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys...

Resolved

 – This is a WP:VP/T issue. Rich Farmbrough, 01:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

Really appreciate the recurring topbar ad that's impossible to turn off.

Classy.

What's next; pop-ups? HalfShadow 20:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Great idea! More money!

But seriously: My Preferences > Gadgets > check "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner". — Edokter • Talk • 20:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I x'ed it away once and it hasn't reappeared. Do you auto-clean your cookies and cache and whatnot when you exit your browser perhaps? Tarc (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The x didn't work for me either. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It did work for me. I should point out that I'm using the "classic" view instead of the "vectorized" view or whatever it's called. The other day I was going to several different language versions of wikipedia, and it was funny to see Jimbo's mug at the top of each one, in the respective language. I hadn't known how multi-lingual he is! And I X'd out of each of those, and it didn't come back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The other banners did go away when x'ed. It is just this latest black one which HalfShadow has screened that it didn't work on. The preferences advice worked though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Should now be fixed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of inviting trouble... that black banner hasn't even appeared for me that I can recall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It only appears in some locations, AFAIK. The IRC channel #wikimedia-fundraising has quick answers :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

St Jimbo, Founder of the Wikipedia 80.135.16.249 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh yow, I never saw those banners. I've been blackholing the spy beacons that Wikipedia started sending a few months ago and I guess that knocked out the banners as well. Sheesh. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Jim Gary

Resolved

 – Will be dealt with via legal channels. Any further problems, speak to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry.

An IP 24.187.152.112 has made a legal threat at this talk page. I don't know much more about it but someone needs to look into this as there appears to be legal actions taking place against someone and there is now a threat to drag Wikipedia into it. freshacconci talktalk 22:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

'splode with prejudice; he';s been hammering away at athe article since early October. Seems to be here for his own purposes. HalfShadow 22:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Indefblocked until he withdraws the threat or it's completed. He should contact Wikipedia through OTRS for a helpful reply, or our legal agent listed at WP:CONTACT for an official legal response. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that User:83d40m, who is apparently the "other team" in this matter, has made a comment that at least skirts the edge of the same policy; see [86]. Probably both sides need to be firmly encouraged not to bring their outside dispute here. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Weird. Leave it to us at OTRS, most of the claims seem without merit. If there are any other problems anyone spots, please let me know :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you -- already decided that leaving it to admins now was the best course of action and have been hanging around waiting for the cavalry to show up! - - - - 83d40m (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:FAIL

Resolved

 – User directed to WP:VPM N419BH 03:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I honestly am not sure where to go with this. It's probably not here, but hopefuly someone can quickly point me in the right direction. Recently, I was commenting on an AFD that was so blatantly unencyclodepic that I chose, in humor, to write WP:FAIL as my reason for deletion. I was surprised that WP:FAIL was actually an active link that directed me to two essays that seemed to be at odds were with each other. One seemed to indicate that failure, in general, was an inherint part of Wikipedia, and it was OK to learn from your mistakes. The other essay was about how Wikipedia, as a concept, has failed. This doesn't seem right. I don't want to delete, or even disagree with either essay...I just think that to very unrelated views shouldn't link to the same "short cut." Thanks, The Eskimo (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This is more appropriate to WP:VPM. The admins have nothing they can do about this issue, so it should probably be moved to the Village Pump. --Jayron32 03:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have taken your suggestion thanks. Hopefully resolved, at least for this thread :) The Eskimo (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been a disambig page for a year now - fail does have multiple meanings. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There is also WP:EPICFAIL, with yet a different meaning ;-) 69.111.192.233 (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There is also Epic Records who have failed once or twice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

RevDel needed

Resolved

 – I think that's all the evidence we need. Thanks. It's... MR BERTY! ^talk/_stalk 07:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There has been a serious personal attack here, that needs to be RevDeled. Thanks. It's... MR BERTY! ^talk/_stalk 09:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Revdel'd. Semi'd. IP blocked. T. Canens (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

While you're in the mood, you might want to take care of this one also, from another sock of that same user, most likely: [87] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And this one:[88] All of these IP's show as emanating from Spain, in the city of Cordoba. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I did notice it was in the same range. I wonder what the fuss is about? It's was protected 5 days ago as well.It's... MR BERTY! ^talk/_stalk 10:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and could somebody tell him to come and discuss this here (I can't, since you semi'd the page; I am not autoconfirmed yet)? It's... MR BERTY! ^talk/_stalk 10:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the editor himself who should have brought this here if he was concerned about it. I wouldn't be. I'd post junk like that on my talk page under "Memorable quotes from the Great Unwashed". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not know anonymous user from Spain who vandalize my talk page. I think it all started because of this article - [89].Sentinel R (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ironically enough, the "Ongoing military conflicts" article seems to be having an ongoing conflict. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not my fault. I have long time reverted vandalism in various articles, and will continue to do so.Sentinel R (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

“ Mwhahahaha! Yes, my friend, look at them teeny weeny IP's having a strop 'cus they can't vandalise the page! ”

-It's... MR BERTY! ^talk/_stalk 13:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Heitor C. Jorge (again)

A while ago, I reported offenses by the user said Heitor C. Jorge on my talk page. He returned to do so. And this time, intended to offend other user too. He said "it's impossible to talk to people like you.". And he also called me and another user of trolls. The offenses can be seen here and here. It is not the first time he does that, and he was warned not to return the insult other users. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really something that needs administrator attention... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to notify him - I have done so. I see his previous comment (in Portuguese?) was revision deleted for identifying personal information, so I can understand why you are wary of this editor. I have left him a final warning - he should now be very clear that this behaviour is unacceptable. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Jameswhatson

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jameswhatson&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jameswhatson

Could someone mash this little peckerhead, please? HalfShadow 00:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

they are all blocked I think. What other mashing do you want? Rich Farmbrough, 01:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

Because the little yonk keeps returning. Right after my talk page SP drops, there he is again. I don't suppose there's a rangeblock you can use that might help? HalfShadow 01:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You'd need a checkuser to do that, try Wikipedia:SPI#Quick_CheckUser_requests. --Jayron32 04:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

With only one IP listed under suspected socks, we can't determine a rangeblock unless you ask a CU. We need at least two IPs to determine a rangeblock. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had one done about a week ago. I don't suppose this might help? Also with this IP you now have the two IPs you need. HalfShadow 17:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

fan view

User:Tomatofarm (a new user) is repeatedly inserting fan/party faithful content (unsourced) in the Kongunadu Munnetra Peravai article. I have reverted him three times and tried to explain in his talk page and in the article's talk page. But he doesn't listen to me. Can someone semi protect the article and/or warn the user.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sir Douglas Weller has warned the user and there have been no further edits since. A protection would seem unnecessary seeing as the problem is one user. They can be blocked rapidly should they continue past the warning. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Doug and SGGH. --Sodabottle (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparent threat of violence: request assistance reporting, and community ban

Thanks, the Foundation has it and is investigating. Christine Moellenberndt, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Here an editor makes apparent threats of violence to another editor and close family. While this may be a stunt given the nature of the editor's contributions, I would be grateful if one state-side person could make the necessary report and drop a note to the Foundation. (done) I have indef blocked the editor in question, and would suggest a community ban is in order. Rich Farmbrough, 11:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC). I think a visit from the police/FBI for making threats will be more than appropriate. If the are a student, mom and dad won't be pleased. As such, a community ban is not likely required. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC) I've informed the Foundation of this thread via their emergency e-mail address. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks Pete, I should have thought of that. Rich Farmbrough, 11:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC). It looks more like a "I'm suing you and I'll soon see you (in court)" than a threat of violence to me. That's of course still a NLT issue, but the contributor who made the threat appears to have a very legitimate grievance against the IP user (who apparently was engaged in a rather nasty BLP smear campaign). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC) It's likely a mock threat, but one can't be too careful. GoodDay (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC) "I found out where you live" and "say hi to your daughter" are extremely scary statements with a threat of violence thrown in for good measure. Block, block and more block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC) 66.108.252.249 (talk · contribs), Rossjacksonjr (talk · contribs), and Jeff charles ragsdale (talk · contribs) are probably worth watching, too. Uncle G (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC) The article in question, Jeff Ragsdale is a fascinating case study in how one can have sixty-ish sources and still be only marginally notable. I've had the article watchlisted from the start. Prior to today, the editor who is the subject of this post has exhibited a COI, ownership issues, refactoring of talk page comments critical of Ragsdale, and a penchant for personal attacks. All the symptoms of a SPA, but nothing on a serious level. However, today's legal and personal threats (aside, should wikipedia have a policy on that?) .... wow. There's really nothing more to say. Drop the banhammer. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 15:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks everyone, the Foundation has it and is investigating. Christine Moellenberndt, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat at Lloyd Pye - probably a hoax

Resolved

 – IP blocked Rich Farmbrough, 20:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

See [90] - since the 25th is Thanksgiving Day, and the IP is in New York, this isn't going to happen on the 25th. I don't know if I should bother blocking the IP or not, and they haven't reverted my deletion. My inclination is to ignore, but others may disagree, hence my mentioning it here. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the link above as it had a "session token" in it and couldn't be used. To the threat, I don't think it is legimate, but the anon is trying to add unsourced information still (I rolled them back), so I recommend blocking the user just for that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Legal threateners should be blocked whether the threat is plausible or not (the vast majority aren't). Any legal threat has the potential to inhibit freedom of editing and create lack of trust, unless it really is so absurd that not even the most naive reader could conceivably take it seriously. Preventing that is the rationale for the policy. Comparing great things with small - even people making hoax bomb threats usually get in serious trouble. -Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

" In 2010 Pye finally recieved the DNA confirmation he expected, but to his surprise the DNA tested 100% non-terrestrial."[91] I say Keep him as a potentially prolific content contributor based on his expert and unreferenced knowledge of "non-terrestrial" DNA. "I before E except after C"... be damned! Doc talk 08:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, it's an IP, so how long? Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The usual block for legal threats is indef. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 09:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't indef an "unnamed" IP though. The two weeks for this IP is not excessive IMHO considering the contributions: not a huge loss. What is the standard, though? Little help? Bueller? Doc talk 09:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest "either 31 hours, or until the close of the first business day in New York and Florida following the 25th of November (which is not a business day there)", since WP:IPBLENGTH says "Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours" and the 25th was supposedly the planned date of the delivery of the lawsuit. But two weeks is fine I think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder just how he figures on serving a subpoena to "wikipedia". A short block is probably sufficient, since it's obviously a looney and not to be taken seriously. And if it does come back, respond with a Pye in the face. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a static IP. Anyway, I left the two week block but also a note saying that if there are similar edits from this IP, whether or not they include legal threats they should be reverted and the block extended unless the threat is withdrawn. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I had Starchild skull in my head, but the article was Lloyd Pye. The IP at Starchild skull seems to be someone else hopping IPs and back.Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The IP seems to be in Concord, NC, not New York, but it's the same thing with Thanksgiving, anyway. Corvus cornix_talk 20:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Wilson

Resolved

 – Socked votes struck. Rich Farmbrough, 20:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

I already submitted a sockpuppetry case on this issue, but I wondered if an admin could have a quick look at the AfD in question to see if certain SPA votes should be struck because of obvious sockpuppetry. All the keep votes on this AfD except for myself appear to be generated from a single person using multiple SPAs. Cheers and thanks for your time. Redfarmer (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The socks have been blocked, and another admin has warned Razorback2011 for socking. I don't think there is anything else that can be done here right now. –MuZemike 17:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I asked for here was for an admin to take a look at the AFD and see if the votes should be struck, which someone has done. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre legal threat by anonymous IP pushing to add fringe paternity theories to articles on royal relatives.

Please see: [92] and any subsequent revisions, if there are any. The anonymous IP (66.127.61.83) has offered a legal threat. Seven Letters 20:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP two weeks for making legal threats. For convenience, this is the diff where the threat was issued. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Seven Letters 21:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the usual response to a legal threat an indef block until the threat is withdrawn? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Normally, but it's an IP and I thought that were not supposed to be blocking those indefinitely. I can or somebody else can otherwise. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Elockid is correct, IPs do not get blocked forever. There was a similar case very recently, two weeks was also used in that instance. If the IP re-iterates or follows up, they can be re-blocked or a rangeblock can be considered, depending on circumstances. --Demiurge1000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

User:Tedickey

Resolved

 – user has read the outing policy and will abide. Jack Merridew 01:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Tedickey has posted outing claims about me. (WP:OUTING: [1]) He has voluntarily identified himself and is apparently quite widely known on WP as Thomas E. Dickey a software maintainer. I am anonymous, I have never posted identifying information and I do not wish to be identified. My problems with Tedickey started with a disagreement over an AfD. I have tried consistently to walk away only to find him wikihounding me. (WP:HOUND: [2], [3]) I need help from an admin, please. Msnicki (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

hmm (I wasn't notified). However, the information connecting this "anonymous" editor with the given website shows up easily in a google search. Have a nice day. TEDickey (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who follows the links will see the rudeness, taunting and repeated questions of my good faith in your posts, how you've chased me from one page to another and how you've begun trying to out me. They will also see that I've done nothing to provoke this and that I've consistently tried to ignore your behavior and walk away. No one who actually looks will have any doubt that you know exactly what you're doing and that if you keep it up, your behavior should get you blocked. Please stop now. Msnicki (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Tedickey indefinitely per WP:OUTING - "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." That such information may be found easily on the 'net is of no consequence. Should Tedickey make assurances that such actions will not continue (outside of legitimate COI issues, perhaps...) then any admin may unblock without further reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I would think that's the kind of info that should at least initially be discussed off-wiki with a trusted admin, not plastered on a talk page somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

With only a few hundred edits, I'm pretty new here and always looking for pointers and other suggestions on how to improve. My understanding (please suggest corrections) of the policy re: WP:OUTING is that when you see an instance, you should neither confirm nor deny the truth of it but you should delete it and you should report it. If you click the link for the edit I reported, you'll notice that the details have been deleted so they were only visible for a few hours. This was stressful for me. Thank you to the admins (you know who you are.) Msnicki (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:Tedickey has a fresh {{unblock}} posted and it's appropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Eastside Sun

Could I have a few more eyes over at Eastside Sun? I've been watching it for a time while various IPs have added uncited information about it. I've been trying to keep the uncited info out, including lengthy semi-protections, but it's possible I've been too aggressive about it. I also recently deleted a bunch of talkpage comments to the effect of WHY IS WIKIPEDIA TRYING TO KEEP OUT THE TRUTH???? Due to the lack of sourcing, I opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastside Sun, which has attracted many of the IPs whose edits I've deleted in the past. I could really use some outside input on this whole thing. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I added {{not a vote}} to the AfD discussion. Goodvac (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Goodvac (and others who have looked at it). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Agh, I just spent some time adding the tags also, but another editor beat me to it so I got an edit conflict. Anyway, I tried. :-) Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. :-) In any case, it's not just the AfD I'm asking for eyes on -- I'd like an opinion on whether I've been too aggressive trying to keep the SPAs out, and if there's reliable sourcing that should be added to the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly aggressive; unsourced content has got to go no matter what. The only remotely reliable source is this, which is already used as a source in the article. It also looks like there is more than one Eastside Sun. This one existed back in the 1950s. Overall, I'd say that there is no significant coverage to establish notability. Goodvac (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to cry out about the admin abuse here. *sigh* Drmies (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

600 vandalism edits

Resolved

 – blocked indef --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thepulse2007 (talk · contribs)

I just found an editor who has 613 edits on over 240 pages, and so far all of them appear to be vandalism. This editor would change minor information in articles which has already been sourced.

Example of vandalism

first:

• Business week: "Born during a baby bulge that demographers locate between 1979 and 1994, they are as young as five and as old as 20, with the largest slice still a decade away from adolescence."[93]
• user:Thepulse2007's edit:[94]

second:

• Talk:Myspace#incorrect_quote

This editor was already warned and blocked repeatedly for this.

I need help clean this up.

I suggest blocking this editor's IP and user name indefinitely, as he maybe doing the same thing with a sock.

A checkuser is needed to.

240+ pages which vandal edited

11th millennium and beyond ‎ 14 (number) ‎ 16 (number) 1976 ‎ 1979 ‎ 1990s in fashion ‎ 2000–2009 in fashion ‎ 2000–2009 in fashion 2000s (decade) ‎ 2000s in music ‎ 2005 ‎ 2007 ‎ 2007 in music ‎ 2008 ‎ 2008 in American television ‎ 2008 in music ‎ 2009 in music ‎ 2010s ‎ 2011 ‎ 2012 and beyond in film ‎ 2012 phenomenon ‎ 2017 ‎ 21st century ‎ 78violet ‎ '90s on 9 ‎ 98 Degrees ‎ ABC Family ‎ Academic term ‎ Adolescence ‎ Adult contemporary music ‎ Aitkin High School ‎ Aitkin, Minnesota ‎ Andreas Carlsson ‎ Anime ‎ April 29 ‎ Asexuality ‎ Ashley Tisdale ‎ Asperger syndrome ‎ Backstreet Boys ‎ Birthday ‎ Black & Blue ‎ Blogger (service) ‎ Blond ‎ Boho-chic ‎ Boom Boom Pow ‎ Boomerang (TV channel) ‎ Boy band ‎ Bubblegum pop ‎ Bubblegum pop rock ‎ Cartoon Network ‎ Casablanca Records ‎ Child ‎ Christian bubblegum pop ‎ Clique ‎ Content-control software ‎ Crank That (Soulja Boy) ‎ Criticism of Facebook ‎ Crunk ‎ December 21 ‎ December 4th (song) ‎ Detention (academia) ‎ Digg ‎ Dignity (album) ‎ Disney Channel ‎ Disney-ABC Television Group ‎ Eighth grade ‎ Electro music ‎ Electrohop ‎ Electropop (song) ‎ Eleventh grade ‎ Emo ‎ (the death of emo) Entertainment Software Rating Board ‎ Expulsion (academia) ‎ Facebook ‎ Facebook features ‎ Fad ‎ February 2007 ‎ Fergalicious ‎ Fifth grade ‎ Flight 26 ‎ Free period ‎ Geek ‎ Generation X ‎ Generation Y ‎ Generation Z ‎ Girlfriend (Avril Lavigne song) ‎ Hallmark Movie Channel ‎ Hawthorne Heights ‎ High School Musical (soundtrack) ‎ High School Musical 3: Senior Year ‎ Hilary Duff ‎ Hip hop music ‎ Homecoming ‎ Homeroom ‎ I Just Wanna Live ‎ Internet censorship ‎ Internet generation ‎ It's My Life (Bon Jovi song) ‎ Jay Orpin ‎ Jay-Z Jew's harp ‎ Kara DioGuardi ‎ KCLD-FM ‎ KKIN (AM) ‎ abor Day ‎ Laptop ‎ Lindsay Lohan ‎ List of DirecTV channels (United States) ‎ List of generations ‎ List of months by year: 2000–2050 ‎ List of pop punk bands ‎ List of social networking websites ‎ List of teen films ‎ List of Universal Records artists ‎ List of years in television ‎ List of youth subcultures ‎ Livin' on a Prayer ‎ Logo (TV channel) ‎ Love song ‎ Low (Flo Rida song) ‎ m Goodbye to Yesterday ‎ Max Martin Max Martin production discography Maxis ‎ May 2 ‎ Metamorphosis (Hilary Duff album) ‎ Metrosexual ‎ Millennium (Backstreet Boys album) ‎ Mobile phone ‎ Molly (film) ‎ Motion Picture Association of America film rating system ‎ MSN ‎ MTV ‎ Music history of the United States (1980s to the present) ‎ MyNetworkTV ‎ Myspace ‎ Myspace MySpace Records ‎ MyYearbook ‎ N Snap & B ‎ Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide ‎ Needles, California ‎ Nerd ‎ Never Gone ‎ New Silent Generation ‎ News Corporation ‎ Nickelodeon (TV channel) ‎ NLT (band) ‎ Nobody's Perfect (song) ‎ Ohio Is for Lovers ‎ Over It (Katharine McPhee song) ‎ Paraprofessional educator ‎ Party Like a Rockstar ‎ Playhouse Disney ‎ Pop music ‎ Pop punk Pop punk ‎ Pop rock ‎ Pop rock Pop2K ‎ Pragmatic language impairment ‎ Preadolescence ‎ Preppy ‎ Profanity ‎ Quizilla ‎ Radio Disney ‎ Rapture ‎ Record producer ‎ Religion in The Simpsons ‎ Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth ‎ Robert John "Mutt" Lange ‎ Rolie Polie Olie ‎ Rooftops (A Liberation Broadcast) ‎ Sagittarius (astrology) ‎ School punishment ‎ Scream Aim Fire ‎ Shortie Like Mine ‎ Sibelius (software) ‎ Sibelius Software ‎ SibeliusMusic ‎ Simoleon ‎ Simulation video game ‎ Sirius XM Hits 1 ‎ Sixth grade ‎ Snap & B ‎ Snap music ‎ So Yesterday ‎ Social IQ ‎ SonicWALL ‎ Sophomore slump ‎ Soulja Boy ‎ Speed (TV channel) ‎ Step Up (film) ‎ Step Up (song) ‎ Stephan Jenkins ‎ Strut (The Cheetah Girls song) ‎ Suspension (school punishment) ‎ Sweet sixteen (birthday) ‎ Talk:Aitkin High School ‎ Taurus (astrology) ‎ Teen drama ‎ Teen film ‎ Teen pop ‎ TEENick (block) ‎ Teletubbies ‎ Television content rating systems ‎ Template:Disney ‎ Template:Rhythm and blues ‎ Tenth grade ‎ Text messaging ‎ The All-American Rejects ‎ The Chronicles of Life and Death ‎ The City (XM) ‎ The E.N.D. ‎ The N ‎ The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh ‎ The Sims ‎ The Sims 2 ‎ The Sims 2: University ‎ Third grade ‎ Tom Anderson (entrepreneur) ‎ Tomboy ‎ Trip hop ‎ Twin Cities hip hop ‎ Type A and Type B personality theory ‎ Universal Records ‎ U-Pop ‎ Urban Dictionary ‎ Urban top 40 ‎ We Will Rock You ‎ Web 2.0 ‎ Website ‎ When You're Gone (Avril Lavigne song) ‎ Windows Aero ‎ With Love (Hilary Duff song) ‎ WJJY-FM ‎ WJJY-FM Yeah! (Usher song)‎ Young-adult fiction‎ Youth subculture‎ Zoey 101‎

Adamtheclown (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I see little more to do than WP:RBI, its unsual he was under the radar so long but nothing sinister to my eyes here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't edited in almost a year. What's the point of bringing it up now? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Kind of a stale problem, isn't it? I don't see any edits since December 2009. Certainly, if any vandalistic edits are still live they should be corrected, but I don't think any administrative attention is necessary here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Blocks are intended as a preventive measure to stop ongoing and persistent vandalism, not as punishment. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

A block should not necessarily be seen as punitive. Is there any real doubt that an editor with that many vandalism edits would, if he or she came back, most probably vandalize again? Why should be provide the person with the open opportunity to do so via this ID? Wny not block it not a punishment, but to prevent the probable future vandalism?

Our policies sometimes have the disconcerting effect of making the project more vulnerable than it really needs to be.Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, blocks are not, and should never be applied precociously. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"preemptively", perhaps? And yes, blocks of vandalism-only accounts are applied preemptively all the time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Preemptively if the user is actively vandalizing perhaps, but not when the account has been clean for the last year. By your logic, we need to block Thepulse2007 right here right now. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts get blocked whenever they're discovered, they do not need to be active at the time. If I thought it would be worth my time to see if all of their edits were vandalism, and they were, I would indeed block them now. Calling the account "clean" for the last year is a puzzling way to think about it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, now that I see that they have a history of returning after 6 months or 1 year to resume their previous bad behavior, and did so after their previous block expired, I've blocked the account indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

<--On the off-chance that the editor returns as we're mulling over this non-incident, I've notified them on their talk page of this discussion. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Netscott and his templated signature

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

---

This has probably only just been brought up, and it'll probably cause a bit of drama, so you all - and especially Netscott - have my apologies in advance. Netscott (talk · contribs) uses a templated signature, stored at User:Netscott/s1.js and User:Netscott/s2.js. Doing so is specifically forbidden at WP:SIG#NoTemplates for several reasons. However, Netscott counters these reasons at User talk:Netscott/s1.js and explains rather well why he does it. Is this an issue? Should Netscott's sig be changed? If not, should we update existing procedure and policy to allow the use of this method? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The signature should be changed. One of these two cases holds: (1) the signature is under 255 characters, and could just be included directly (2) the signature is over 255 characters, and the transclusion is used to violate the rule against excessively long signatures. Either way, the signature should be changed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

He needs to subst the signature, other than that if it meets length requirements, it should be good. It seems to be allowed, anyway. I keep mine at User:Ks0stm/sig.css and subst it (and no, after it gets substed it doesn't violate length requirements), for an example of how that can work. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Reducing the clutter in edit boxes is a good thing, but this does violate SIG and does impose server-load for page-generation. Existing sigs should be substituted and user should either add the 'subst:' to their prefs or paste the code directly in there. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Chase me, it's usually better to point the violation out to somebody before coming to ANI. This is a situation I encounter surprisingly frequently and, in my experience, a polite note on their talk page explaining the problem and how to fix it usually does the trick. Since we're here, though, yes, it is against The Rules and Jack, substing a template is also against SIG, mainly because the page being subst'd is still a vandal target and because it's frequently used to bypass the character limit the preferences enforces. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I would, but I'm not pointing out a problem: I'm pointing out a possible new idea, as Netscott's method seems to bypass many of the concerns raised in the sig policy. AFAIK, substing is not disallowed, but is discouraged. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea though. I grant you that the makes a good case for doing things the way he does, but a little bit of HTML code (like a great many editors, including myself) have in their sigs isn't really going to be much of an inconvenience and the risk is that other editors might attempt to follow suit but do so less carefully. Basically, I don't think the minimal benefit is worth the risk. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

@HJM; your sig use the font-element, which is deprecated html (Ks0stm's sig uses font, too). At some point, MediaWiki will likely take to auto-replacing such code with either modern-css or a stripped-down, std-sig. WP:SIG does allow this, but sigs are a common source of bad code in talkie-pages. Most custom sigs are about seeking undue attention, and for this reason are to be discouraged. Jack Merridew 03:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Umm, Jack, you are using wild sigs yourself??? Access Denied – talk to me 03:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have several text files full of them; my sig in prefs is [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] Ya want one of the really big ones? Jack Merridew 04:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Show me your biggets one. :-) Access Denied – talk to me 04:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

ok. —Sincerely, Street-Legal Sockpuppet Jack Merridew 05:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Relax, it was intended to be humorous FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia:SIG#NoTemplates does say subst is highly discouraged and I've pretty often said that I'm against all over-blown sigs. These two are not over the 255 limit, though. I'd be fine with the user skipping the whole subpage aspect and pasting whatever into prefs. The purpose of the subpages here does seem to be only about de-cluttering edit boxes, which is courteous. Most who use the subpage route are either seeking a way around the 255 or simply prefer a place they can preview their sig (Netscott is far more adept than most re templates). I expect Chase me came straight here because the user is not very active, of late. As I recall, it was TS and I who had a lot to do with imposing the 255 limit ;)

Going all meta, I think we should shift away from customizable sigs completely and just have all go by a bulletproof/tamperproof mechanism that gives everyone the same format sig. Add it to mw:Extension:LiquidThreads and roll it out ;) Jack Merridew^{20 years and 16 days} 03:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

But I like my teal sig! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUEWEIGHT ;0 Colour, size, and other formatting in signatures give undue prominence to a given user's contribution. (ok, I cheated and nicked that out of the part about images;). This is the core issue with all custom sigs. Cheers, Jack Merridew aka david 03:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knows that you need a stylish username to stand out ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It took me a bunch of socks to arrive at this hyper-stylish username ;) Jack Merridew 04:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

WHY WERE YOU USING USERNAMES TO GIVE OUT iPHONE UDIDS??? Access Denied – talk to me 04:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Those had nothing to do with iPhones. See: globally unique identifier; they were throw-aways; I believe the passwords were of the same form. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I disagree, only because the general negative correlation between signature tackiness and general editor clue can be useful information when making a first impression. It saves lots of time when I know not to bother reading a comment left by someone with a two-line sig with neon orange background and <big></big> red script with "see all the damage I've caused" linking to their contribs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of problematic users self-identify by their choice of sigs, and this certainly can be useful. It amount to signing 'kick-me', and if further analysis correlates, we do. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• The discussion on whether subst'ing is OK is a distraction; he wasn't subst'ing, on purpose; subst'ing would have defeat his whole purpose. I would have so say that ANI is particularly unsuited to a discussion of whether or not Netscott's arguments (on User talk:Netscott/s1.js) for doing what he did addresses all the reasons for having this rule; regardless of CMLITC's intentions, and regardless of the fact that he's edited 8 times in the last year, it's going to degenerate into a discussion of whether he's Violating The Rules As Written or not, and if so how he can be forced to do what he's Supposed To Do. If you really want to bring this up somewhere, I suggest WP:VPT instead, which is populated by people who are more likely to know whether his explanation makes sense or not. If he's right, if it really imposes no server load as long as he never changes the sig, then a discussion somewhere on whether to change the policy or not would be appropriate. If he's wrong, the knowledgeable people on VPT will quickly explain why, and I suppose his old sigs can be subst'ed by a bot if really necessary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure a server-load is incurred every time a talkie-page needs to be generated for serving; i.e. any time the conversion from the wiki-text (including any trancluded pages such as sigs) to xhtml occurs. Caching helps, but the servers are doing this repeatedly. As there's no urgency, I'd have no problem with shifting the to VPT. Cheers, Jack Merridew^(techie;) 04:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

  Can I butt in here to say that (a) I don't understand half of what you are saying (not being conversant in Wiki-Geek-Speak), and (b) personally, I'd be happy if everyone just picked a name, in good old-fashioned 26-letter Roman, and stuck with it. Or even used nothing but Thai and hieroglyphics, as long as it was recognisable, didn't cause epileptic fits, and didn't suggest that the user was Lord High Banhammer of the Wikiverse (sorry, AccessDenied...). I'm inclined to think that the ostentatiousness of the signature is inversely proportional to the usefulness of the contributor. But then, with a name like mine, I would... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

  I mostly agree with you, although we allow non-Roman characters, of course. Jack Merridew 05:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

  They are fun and a good way to have a little personal flair though. I do agree that the coding gets a little long. (and thanks jack for fixing the code on mine...more than once...) N419BH 05:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

---

This is not an incident, nor is the target readership here (for attention to this idea and supporting argument) just administrators. The Technical Village Pump exist for just this sort of thing. (And it won't be the first time that technical limitations on signatures have been discussed there.) Uncle G (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and will hat it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing-ownership-edit warring issues at Vinny Faherty

Hello. I wonder if someone might have a look at the editing of Vinny Faherty. Ever since this footballer signed for a new club in January 2010, editors both anon and registered have removed his previous club (Galway) playing stats, inserted false playing stats, and replaced any prose with a verbatim copy of the player's profile at his new club's website (first such edit). The page was briefly semi-protected in April, and then subject to pending changes review. A more recent addition to the disruptive editing was the insertion of an unsourced and dubious family relationship with a Danish footballer on my watchlist, which is how I noticed the page. I rewrote the copyvio and the addition of false stats had stopped, but User:Thesaint03 was determined that there was no need for any mention of Galway stats in the prose, suggesting at their talk page that having stats in the infobox is enough, and that reporting how many goals the player scored to become Galway's top scorer in 2009 in some way devalued or belittled both the player and Wikipedia. I started a thread at Talk:Vinny Faherty#Galway stats, invited that editor to comment, and asked for comments at WikiProject Football. Since then, the registered editor and anon Special:Contributions/86.40.127.27 continue to remove any content not added by themselves, whether relating to stats or not.

I've notified User:Thesaint03, IP 86.40.127.27, and User:Exorcist Z, who has been reverting this stuff since April, and left a note at the article's talk page. Struway2 (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a Fan Club. The user Thesaint03 and IP 86.40.127.27 must stop removing content and references from the article that was written by Struway2. The user Thesaints03 was notified several times but he hasn't stopped his disruptive edits (removing content and references; reverting a version agreed by various users) so he should be blocked, in my opinion. --Exorcist Z (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's as clear a case of edit-warring and disruption against consensus as I've seen. I originally blocked Thesaint03 for one week, but interestingly when I went to block the IP it was already autoblocked as a result of the block on Thesaint0's account. He's clearly been edit-warring logged out as well to avoid scrutiny, so I've upped the block on Thesaint03's account to one month. Review welcome as always. EyeSerene^talk 12:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Neboshorissa

User:Neboshorissa is the latest incarnation of a persistent spammer who sets up a new user account every day to promote fireandsafetyforum.com. Can the IP address be blocked or the site be added to a spam blacklist? . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Neboshorissa has been indefblocked by Syrthiss. I've added fireandsafetyforum to the spam blacklist. EyeSerene^talk 12:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

and I killed the link above, so that when it gets enacted this page doesn't get borked. :) Syrthiss (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, should have thought of that. Thanks :) EyeSerene^talk 12:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

IP 68.114.128.23

This IP user has been disruptively editing the Spades article. There's something very suspicious about this user.

• His very first edit was a revert; so clearly not a newbie.
• He always uses edit summaries; so clearly not a newbie.
• He reverted my MOS edit, labelling it as vandalism.
• It looks like he might have broken WP:3RR.

The user has been blocked for 31 hours for his disruptive editing. In the meantime I would appreciate someone taking a look. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The above accusations are libelous and untrue.

There is something very suspicious about the above user. I made corrections to an article that has been wrong since October of 2008. He did not like the corrections. In the end I leave it word for word the way it was until an agreement can be made to the wording. Before I come back and make those suggestions after researching where the incorrect version was made,this user is calling my changes disruptive. I also see he has reported me here. This is biting the newbie. I don't believe it is constructive to not like someones else's version and offer none of their own. It seems to me accuracy should have priority over style. I pointed out it was wrong and used no sources but got no input on those points. I was going to suggest that changes be made similar to what they were before there was probable vandalism . The correct version is the first one. Since I was willing to leave it the way it was for the time being there was no reason to make a complaint here. A ban is in order for the above user or it only proves wikipedia does not value a newbies input.

Revision as of 17:07, 25 September 2008 (edit) Liko81 (talk | contribs) (→Bidding variations) ← Previous edit

Trump variants

- Deuces High: All 2s count as the highest spades. The order becomes 2 of Hearts (highest card), 2 of Clubs, 2 of Diamonds, 2 of Spades, then all the rest of the spades, Ace through 3. There is another variation, when playing with the Jokers, that the 2 of diamonds and the 2 of spades are high trumps, then Ace, King, and so on. There is a variation where the Aces can be called high (14) or low (1).

Revision as of 03:14, 2 October 2008 (edit) (undo) 71.243.228.111 (talk) (→Trump variants) Next edit → Line 214: Line 214:

Deuces High: All 2s count as the highest spades. The order becomes 2 of Spades (highest card), 2 of Diamonds, 2 of Clubs, 2 of Hearts, then all the rest of the spades, Ace through 3. There is another variation, when playing with the Jokers, that the 2 of diamonds and the 2 of spades are high trumps, then Ace, King, and so on. There is a variation where the Aces can be called high (14) or low (1). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.128.23 (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ban request for — Fly by Night

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

He is misusing the admin board to turn people against me.

For the benefit of observers, this post is from User:68.114.128.23, who was recently blocked for 12 hours for making wonderful edits like this. I would advise the anon user to keep their head down, avoid making drama, and contribute in a constructive way if they're truly interested in helping out here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC).

I've only just seen this post. Thanks for adding the remarks; I appreciate it! — Fly by Night (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

New start

I saw user 72.82.33.250 (talk · contribs) editing Shawn Johnson‎ and invited him to join the Wikipedia community. Unknowing to me, he was a banned user. He explained to me his situation here He has agreed to be adopted and be mentored by myself. I am asking that user's TCO (talk · contribs) ban be removed by the community. My propositions for the rules for the mentoring will follow shortly.--intelati^talk 21:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've undeleted his talkpage, as it was only deleted for membership in the Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I would vote to give that user another chance. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 22:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• User appears to have been indef'd and no-one would unblock, rather than there ever having been a ban discussion, and it was indeed for harassment and personal attacks, but without links to any discussions here, although there probably were discussions. I'll look further. Meanwhile, perhaps the righteous could stop harassing Intelati about this. Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. One report that ANI that I can't currently find, a series of increasing blocks, then this comment which resulted in an indefinite block that no-one at the time would undo. Intelati, could you suggest that he post a further unblock request on his own talkpage, rather than socking, so someone can give a formal response. I disapprove of the socking, but would consider an unblock in some circumstances, eg if this is a young person, as a year can make a lot of difference. Alternately, this may be a case for a WP:STANDARD OFFER. They must stop evading the block via IP editing though. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

TCO can't edit his/her own talk page currently due to block settings. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you change the block settings to allow a unblock request and this is the only thread I can find on him.--intelati^talk 00:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• No opinion on unblocking the user, but I've restored TCO's access to his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--intelati^talk 00:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• FYI: TCO (talk · contribs) has posted an "unbanning [sic] request" that points to this thread. No comment on unblocking, but I don't think TCO is banned. Goodvac (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• No objections to TCO being Support unblocked. Unfortunately due to previous on- and off-wiki interactions, I think it'll end up back that way shortly anyway. Also noting user has posted to my talk page. -Atmoz (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing on IRC by Padrecamara

Padrecamara has recently attempted to obtain "keep" votes in an AfD for an article they have written via IRC as shown here.

Looks to me like the editor was promptly rebuked and backtracked on IRC. I'm sure that the attempt will be brought up at the AfD, if it hasn't been already. I don't see anything to be done here, suggest we close.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Participation at IRC & Wikipedia, should never mix. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of irc is canvassing, subverting processes, organizing campaigns etc... All of the people there are guilty of whatever this person is guilty of.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm no fan of IRC. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we not tar everyone with the same brush? There's legitimate fundraising, social media, and OTRS channels there.Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Reading that log it appears to be someone with poor familiarity with Wikipedia policies. He mostly asked questions about sourcing, notability, etc., rather than request votes. Having said that, the advice given was way worse than what he could have gotten on wiki. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The log has been deleted, since it is highly inappropriate to post logs without the permission of all parties involved. Please bear this in mind in future. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)

Resolved

 – Per WP:IAR. Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC).
User:Sarek of Vulcan has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violations. - Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
And unblocked by User:Rich Farmbrough with summary "Time reduced since it's a first offence". Rd232 ^talk 23:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I went to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) Friday morning at 3:15, thanks to teenaged daughters and ill-considered promises. Since then, I've been patrolling the article, but in my zeal, I'm pretty sure I've broken WP:3RR, which I always consider a bright-line rule. Even though I'm not planning on editing it for a while, that doesn't mean I'm not in violation. If someone wants to identify 4 reverts in 24 hours and report me at WP:EWN or block me outright, I won't appeal it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Making a mistake is one thing, admitting to it is another. I obviously can't speak for everybody, but I would be willing to forgive and forget. The Thing ^T/_C 19:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually spent some time going through that article's history so I could come back and tell you that you're being paranoid! User:TTTSNB echoes my sentiments exactly :) - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 19:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Rather than breaking 3RR in the future you should prolly bring it to a relevant talk page or here if there's serious issues that need oversight and extra eyes. I assume it's edit-warring over plot details? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, it wasn't edit warring, although there was a bit of that as well. However, since WP:3RR defines a revert as "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether it involves the same or different material each time", I'm clearly over the line, even if you ignore straight vandal reverts. 3RR has a specific exemption for featured articles on the mainpage, but this is just a current event movie release. Also, I turned down a semi-protection request on that page, so I took a more-active role.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

By your edit summaries it seems that you were reverting vandalism. If you read WP:3RR carefully it says that reverting vandalism is ok. Agree with TTTSNB if it did seem to be an issue for someone. @David Fuchs: He didn't break 3RR. Mr. R00t ^Talk 19:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unintentionally incorrect information is explicitly not vandalism. See here for an example of that type of edit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also be willing to forgive and forget, if you were doing something good and maintaining wikipedia I would be using rule Ignore All Rules. I think you did nothing wrong. :)  JoeGazz  ▲  19:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I support your reverting on the article, Sarek, but you have brought this on yourself to a certain extent by turning down the "semi-protect" request. The reverts were necessary to keep crap out of the article, but as you say it wasn't intentional vandalism so isn't exempt from 3RR. All the regular editors have been put in a difficult position now because we can't do much about the unconstructive edits once we've used up our revert quota. Some editors will just ignore 3RR, but others are probably concerned about being on the receiving end of an ANI. We either need to semi the article or have explicit permission to suspend 3RR on it temporarily for non edit-warring cases. Betty Logan (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I counted 7 reverts in about 21 hours, but the vast majority of them were maintaining the quality of the article rather than the usual edit warring. I think we should consider adding an exemption to 3RR for high-profile articles since this film is easily at least as high profile (and just as prone to crap, albeit good faith crap) as any TFA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Support an amendment for exemption - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 19:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Support "reverting crap from high profile articles" amendment, perhaps in more politically correct terms or maybe not, that is funny right there. We kinda already have an exception for "unsourced BLP crap". Just extend that to "unsourced crap". I've had 10 reverts in 10 minutes before, though that was obvious vandalism by one editor and no one was awake at AIV. N419BH 20:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

After I pointed out the reverts to Sarek, he insisted I enforce the rule, so I've blocked him for 24 hours. I still think we should create an exemption (and apply it retrospectively). I'll start a threatd lol, thank you, Malleus! at WT:EW. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"I'll start a threat at WT:EW". A Freudian slip? Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

A little too quixotic, imho. And LOL at the threat! - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 20:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Harry Potter can be serious shit to the right people. I, fortunately, am not one. HalfShadow 20:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• FYI: WT:EW#Reverting_crap_from_high_profile_articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblock please

• This is silly. Someone unblock him please. Edit warring/3RR can be excused for reasonable reasons, per IAR. Almost all the reverts he made resulted in him improving the article by any measure. If he wants to be blocked, let him block himself. NW (Talk) 20:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • If he wants to be unblocked then let him unblock himself. Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Which is normally inadvisable and can lead to bad things. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Isn't the normal response that being right isn't one of the exceptions to 3RR? Making an exception here seems to be one where others will point to the gap between treatment of admins and ordinary users. That said as blocks are preventative assuming they understand the reasons for the block and are unlikely to continue/repeat the behaviour an unblock would normally be granted. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked. "Users may be blocked to protect the encyclopedia." - this does not do so, rather the reverse. I would do the same for any editor who self-reported 3RR and was not causing problems. Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

Precisely there doesn't appear to be a preventative reason for the block at this point. That is however different from making an exception to allow admins to determine who is in the right in an edit war... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the irresponsible block. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 20:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hardly irresponsible, considering I insisted he apply the same standards to me that I would have applied to any other editor in the same situation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't he be blocked for unnecessarily trying to get himself blocked and told to stay away from himself? :) Jack forbes (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I would think that if you're going to get yourself blocked, you would have to warn yourself first, as per the instructions at WP:3RRN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

How come the block only stuck for 43 minutes then, without Wehwalt's usual cries of "admin cowboy"? How come you haven't re-blocked yourself, for what you see as a "bright-line" offence? Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Because getting blocked for wheel warring to reblock myself would just be too weird. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the wierdness is that you don't realise that wheel-warring is when the blocking admin re-blocks you. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

And because Wehwalt was busy gasp writing and wasn't reading AN/I. I just finished the rough of another (I hope) future FA, Buffalo nickel. But since Malleus wants me here, I will refer him to the thread about YellowMonkey's questioned block and request Malleus's input.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that your position is not an entirely consistent one Wehwalt, not requesting your presence anywhere. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

How can my not noticing the thread while building the project be inconsistent with anything except laziness?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I will simply say that you have signally failed to accuse the unblocking admin of being a cowboy and leave it that. I'm sure you can work out the rest for yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Judgment should be used. The reverts were correct, and I haven't seen anyone dispute that. Even further reverts for the same reason would be correct. Reverting the replacement of content with nonsense or fixing clearly incorrect statements is a good thing, and we don't want people to stop because of an arbitrary line. If that were the case, we would just use a bot to block all the 3RR violators and have them place unblock requests when they are ready to say "Sorry I violated 3RR. I won't do it again." NW (Talk) 21:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Your position is unsupportable for at least two reasons. First SarekOfVulcan himself regards 3RR as a "bright-line offence", hence the block request. Second, it seems plausible that at least some of the reverts were substituting SOV's point of view for that of a less well-connected editor. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is elevating admins above the janitor role to arbiters of content issues. Something which has long been the case they very much are not. Reverting nonsense would come under the current exceptions to 3RR. If "you" are the only person who believes a statement is incorrect such that "you" are the only one reverting, then perhaps the issue isn't quite as clear cut as "you" believe. We specifically state and decline many unblock requests on the basis that being right isn't an exception to the rule. If there is a large scale problem which can't easily be dealt with and discussion isn't immedidately gaining traction, short term protection (or semi-protection) is the way to settle things down. Any shift in this letting admins pick which side is right is just going to reinforce the regular cries of cabal. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The block was ridiculous. Even you want to be ultra-bureaucratic about strict 3RR enforcement, in a situation where 3RR took place but edit warring isn't actively going on, it's sufficient to say "hey cut that out", and possibly require the person to self-unrevert any reverts past the 3rr limit, undoing the 3RR (clearly not necessary in this case). Remember that blocking is supposed to be preventive. In this case there was nothing to prevent, unless you count his self-report to this thread as POINTy. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh. I suppose I was trying to make a point, but I definitely wasn't trying to disrupt the encyclopedia to make a WP:POINT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you of all people should ask yourself. Is it logical for a Vulcan to get himself blocked for an honest mistake? ;) The Thing ^T/_C 23:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing the point

I just need to point out the shamefulness of certain admins "resolving" this thread without facing the most important point, or making Sarek answer the basic question: Is the film any good? C'mon now, surely this is the central issue to the thread. Well, to those like me, at any rate, who live hours from the nearest cinema that'll screen the film this side of Christmas. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 11:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is sarcasm ... and pretty good too :-) Good or not, the film is going to outsell the GDP of some small countries. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

How can the film outsell something that isn't for sale? Malleus Fatuorum 12:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

MacDonalds, the CIA and Coca Cola appear to operate on the basis that national GDP and all other assets of small to medium nations are purchasable - are they wrong? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it was decent. :-) Not sure it was worth getting up at 2:00 to go see, but it was worth it for the "coolest parents in Greater Bangor" points. Judging from a quick scan of the audience, I was the oldest person there, and my 11-year-old the youngest.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I found the tent scenes dragged a little - and spent most of the film annoying my wife with "I killed Sirrius Black I killed Sirrius Black" but it was fairly good. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarek & SGGH for the responses; and a special thank you, SGGH, for getting rid ^(banhammer?) of the overly obnoxious Sirius ~ if you hadn't i probably would have done for him; my daughters love him, but.... Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 17:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ban request for Cloudkade11

Resolved

 – OP blocked indef for being a PMBL sock.

I want this guy CloudKade11 banned from Wikipedia, he claims that the One Life to Live Comings and Goings section has been changed to fit the characters not the actors, and says that it was wrong the whole time, but the truth is I never seen any evidence of this change, he also claimed that he reported me but I didn't do anything worth to be reported for, he was also rude to other editors on here claiming that they were being rude to him, he thinks he is Mr. Bigshot and wants to control people how they do stuff on here. YoungAndWise (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm about 95% certain this is a sock of User:Onelifefreak2007. The run on sentences are kind of a dead giveaway, plus the need to control all pages related to One Life to Live. AniMate 23:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This I will have you blocked permanently, notice the cast is first and characters are last, and Wikipedia also has a character page, so I don't know who the hell you think you are but I'm here now and things go my way on here, do you understand me? so change it or you're editing days on here are over for good. Trust me dude, don't fuck with me cuz you don't want the outcome, I always come out on top always, so my suggestion to you is, either change it or suffer the consequence, is a bit of a give away. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This account is really being shared by PBML and Onelifefreak2007. Have fun. YoungAndWise (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's now blocked. AniMate 23:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Destinero's disregard for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

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

Let me start off by saying that this is not a content dispute. Yes, a content dispute is how this was started but no, this thread is on the behavior of another editor.

Just last week, this user was topic banned from 'inserting or removing contentious claims under colour of WP:UNDUE in Wikipedia articles relating to parenting and LGBT parenting', with the threat of escalating blocks if they broke the terms of their topic ban.

However, instead of violating the ban, they chose to edit tendentiously by edit warring before discussing, and then, violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA during the discussion, first starting off by directly insulting me in the section title, wrongly stating that I 'had an inability to accept statement by multiple reliable sources', and in the section body,calling me irrational. I of course asked them to refactor that original post, in a polite way. Instead of assuming good faith, and attempting to discuss the matter in a civil tone, Dest decided to exclaim that I was 'obviously ignoring policies, and that I obviously do not understand them enough'. The crux in this last diff is that Dest is not me, and thus cannot claim 'I am obviously ignoring policies, etc. In response, I told him he doesn't know shit about what I understand, or what I am ignoring, and in response, he quotes me out of context, exclaiming wrongly that I have been the one who has been uncivil, despite the undeniable evidence to the contrary.. Not to mention the entire paragraph could be construed as yelling, as it is entirely bold.

I have not once insulted or been uncivil to this user, yet they persist in insulting me, my knowledge, and acting like they know things about me they wouldn't know if they weren't me, such as if I was 'ignoring' policies or not.

To this end, I believe it is obvious that this user cannot be trusted to discuss content in a civil manner. As they are already slightly-topic banned from LGBT parenting and parenting articles, I request that this ban be extended with a complete ban from LGBT parenting articles and article talk pages for a period of no less than 3 months, or until such time they have shown they are able to discuss content in a civil manner without attacking the opposite, or same side in a dispute. Oh, and they've been notified of this discussion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this spat for days, somewhat confused about why two people are edit-warring over two words. Both of these editors are way out of line. Destinero is a hot-head, but Daedalus969 is successfully baiting him. The whole thing is an ugly mess with no "good guys". Dylan Flaherty 22:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

How on earth am I baiting him? I'm not the one that chose to insult the other as the title for a discussion thread, I'm not the one that claimed to know things about the other I didn't, such as whether I know policy or for that matter, am ignoring specific policies. I've done nothing but ask them politely to retract their insults, only to see it thrown back in my face.. But given I was recently in dispute with you, I don't know why I should be surprised. You don't even notate this in your opinion here. It's expected of people to be transparent when commenting on a matter in which they are involved. It's expected in regards to any bias which may occur, and there is definitely bias here, as I have done no baiting. Dest began this by choosing to insult me, and instead of retracting those insults, he chose to continue with the incivilities and personal attacks. I have done no such baiting.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, when dealing with someone who tends to overreact, the right thing to do is to be especially calm, avoiding any possible insult. You did quite the opposite.

As for being involved, I don't even see the difference between "consensus" and "conclusion". I want nothing to do with this battle of egos wills that this has become.

Yes, we had some sort of dispute recently, but I don't even remember the details so I don't know what to say about it, except maybe you should try to assume good faith instead of blaming the messenger. Dylan Flaherty 23:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've indented your reply to my post, directed at you, because that is obviously what it is in reply to. That aside, care to back up your accusations with diffs? As I quite clearly illustrated above, your accusations are unfounded.. and this doesn't come as a surprise due to your bias in this matter(and no, this bias comes from your previous interaction with me; it has nothing to do with the content).

Back on topic, I don't lend good faith to people who like to accuse me of stuff I haven't done, such as not responding in a calm manner; something I clearly did when I asked them politely to retract their insult. I don't lend good faith to people who only come to a dispute to only argue against someone they were previously in dispute with, instead of actually addressing the main issue at hand, which is Dest's unwarranted and unceasing incivility.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to offer original research about your behavior. Destinero complained about it after you baited him by saying "You don't really know shit...". I said from the start that he was out of line, but you're not one bit better. If anything, knowingly baiting someone who can be counted on to (over-)react is a cynical manipulation. Combined with your call for silencing him with a broad topic ban and blocks, I have great difficulty assuming good faith. This seems to be less about his behavior than yours, and more about winning a content war than trying to work amicably with other editors. Dylan Flaherty 23:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you do, because that is not what I said. I said you don't know shit about me. Big difference there; there is no baiting. Do all of us a favor and actually read all relevant material before you comment.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your bias is really clear from your posting here: You quote me out of context(actual quote:You don't really know shit about what I 'do not understand', so you are not allowed to say 'I obviously don't understand the relevant policies' or that I am 'obviously ignoring them'.), you refuse to backup your unsubstantiated accusations or even read all the relevant material, which was outlined in an easily readable fashion above. Dest started attacking me first, and then when I asked him to redact his attacks, he proceeded to do so again. The fact that you refuse to substantiate your own accusations, the fact that you refuse to read the relevant material, and the fact that right here say that 'Destinero complained about it after you baited him', despite the clear evidence that he attacked me way before that, just shows how much bias you have here, and thus, you should redact your posts here, and recuse yourself from this discussion, as it is clear you are unable to address this situation in a neutral manner.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I used the exact quote Destinero brought up, so it was not my original research or synthesis. I was pointing out that he accused you of baiting him with incivility and he was right to do so. Whether you said "you don't know shit (full stop)" or "you don't know shit (about whatever)", you were being plainly rude. You wanted to anger him, and you succeeded. Then you come here and pretend to have clean hands as you throw him under the bus.

Sorry, but you can't blame your behavior on my alleged bias. Don't shoot the messenger; deal with the truth of the message. Dylan Flaherty 00:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, wrong again. Do you want me to outline the exact timeline with dates? First of all, I didn't 'want him to get mad'. You aren't telepathic, so you cannot act as if you know my reasons for doing anything. And again, for the third time, Dest was incivil far before I even said that. So given that you have failed yet again to address the actual facts of the issue, and in fact you have accused me of something else again: blaming your bias for 'my behavior'. I did nothing of the kind; what I did do is tell you to redact your posts here, and recuse yourself from this discussion, as your clear bias is clouding your judgement, and as such, you are unable to comment here in a neutral manner.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you want me to essentially shut up and go away. I understand that, but I can't agree to do it. He was right to accuse you of baiting him, as you were complaining about his behavior while being rude. When you accuse someone of an offense, it's vital not to commit it yourself in the process, and that's where you failed. To be very clear, I am not defending his behavior, just pointing out that you played a significant role in creating it through your own incivility. You can't complain that he was rude when you spurred him on. Dylan Flaherty 01:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Except, that is where you are wrong. I created nothing. Again, do I need to outline you the specific timeline with timestamps and a bulleted list? I may have influenced his latest reply, but only his latest. I did nothing to deserve the incivility and personal attacks he sent at me before that. I was not rude at all before I said that post you quote so often; that was my second to last reply, after he had insulted me several times, after I had politely asked him to redact his insults, only to be insulted further in reply.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning. You were in the middle of an ongoing, petty dispute, when you decided that he was being rude. So you naturally demanded a retraction rudely. See the problem? It doesn't matter who started the incivility; you continued it. And when it had escalated enough, you came here to report him as if you had no role in the whole thing. This bothers me. Dylan Flaherty 01:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What bothers me is that you didn't even read the linked diff, because I was clearly not even rude. Oh, and there is no 'I decided he was rude'; he was rude from the start, as he clearly insulted me several times. Do you or do you not want me to outline the timeline for you? You clearly are not reading the diffs or checking the timestamps. All you are doing is supporting his behavior, by trying to say that it is my fault, when he had clearly started off with the incivility and personal attacks before I even posted to the talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, I just pointed out how you were baiting an editor the other day[95], gloating about a 3RR report. You've been talked to about your incivility very recently by several editors. Please don't go there, as your hands are not clean right now at all. You should move onto something else, I think. Doc talk 01:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And no, I don't want you to 'shut up', don't put words in my mouth. What I want is for you to substantiate your so far unsubstantiated accusations, which as they remain so, qualify as personal attacks. If you are not going to substantiate them, then redact them. That is what I want you to do.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I gave a very simple example. As far as I understand it, your response is something along the lines of "yes, but he started it". Do you think that's a sufficient answer or do you have a better one? Dylan Flaherty 02:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My response is nothing of the kind; you imply that I was the cause of all of his incivility. If you read the diffs, you would know this is not the case.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See, you did it again. The issue isn't whether you did it first, but whether you egged him on before you came here. Dylan Flaherty 03:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again. There was no 'egging on'. I told him that he didn't know shit about me when he claimed to know things about me. That is by no means 'egging him on'. That's telling him he shouldn't act like he knows things about others when he clearly doesn't.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I also have noticed the dispute, and agree with the report by Dædαlus. While arguing about "consensus" vs. "conclusion" is not edifying, Destinero is being far too belligerent (example). It is good to ensure that NPOV applies to LGBT issues, but Destinero is too strident in the discussion at Talk:Same-sex marriage: yes, statements from the reliable sources will be used, but sociological studies conducted in the last decade are not anywhere near as conclusive as "the fact that evolution occurs" noted by Destinero, and while both are topics that can be studied scientifically, it is not reasonable to suggest that opponents are somehow similar to those that oppose evolution, particularly when the dispute seems to be about whether "consensus" or "conclusion" should be used. Fixating on the "shit" comment by Dædαlus seems to be a complete misunderstanding (see WP:COMPETENCE). What happened was that Destinero posted a level 2 heading claiming Dædαlus had a certain inability, with further claims of irrationality in the comment (see previous diff), and Dædαlus responded "You don't really know shit about what I 'do not understand', so you are not allowed to say 'I obviously don't understand the relevant policies' or that I am 'obviously ignoring them'." (diff). Under the circumstances, that is a very reasonable response and Destinero should have withdrawn their attack. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've been quite clear about the fact that Destinero was out of line. But it wan't as if Destinero conducted an edit war over "consensus"/"conclusion" all by himself for days, or as if Daedalus' comments were lacking in hostility. Taking someone to WP:ANI without having the cleanest of hands is a recipe for suicide, and I'm trying to stop Daedalus from cutting his own throat. Dylan Flaherty 05:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your first comment above was "Destinero is a hot-head, but Daedalus969 is successfully baiting him". The reference to baiting is not correct, and may I suggest that a clean way to talk to Dædαlus would be at User talk:Daedalus969. Comments here should involve evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say that if Dylan Flaherty was attempting to help, he did absolutely the opposite: he clearly misunderstands some key policies, and has himself successfully baited/goaded Daedelus into further discussion. Kudos to Daedelus for not chomping on the bait. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There didn't seem to be a personal attack to me; "obviously don't understand..." is hardly a PA and I would encourage anyone who feels it is grows a thicker skin and avoid raising DRAMA here. What admin action is requested? The reply from Daedalus969 was just as uncivil. So, both of you are chastised for being uncivil and non-constructive in your discussion. Please try to keep it polite and focus on issues without resorting to minor jibes at each other. You are arguing over a single word of relatively minor consequence in one article, find a way to work it out civilly without policy baiting at AN/I. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• I generally concur with the assessment and recommendation of User:tmorton166 (signing Errant) Tijfo098 (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• As a editor previously involved with Destinero on a previous trip through the subject matter I recognize all the same hallmarks of their particular PoV and agenda. I would would endorse the topic wide ban to be followed by a civility parole as it took multiple editors trying different techniques and dispute resolution to get a agreement on how to move forward with the issue at hand. Hasteur (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please identify the alleged PoV and agenda. I am curious what this should mean. If it is effort to follow the Wikipedia NPOV and Undue weight policy as I clarify further, I don't see any reason to stop it just because PoV and agenda some editors are to lessen the facts supported by highly reliable sources just since they are at the odds with their unfounded beliefs. --Destinero (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As evidenced in the MFD discussion(and the FAQ), you are very adamantly Pro-LGBT Parenting and are vitriolically against any sociology study that does not suport your view.Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me briefly address this and how I feel about it. Firstly, I admit I am either fully or greatly responsible for the atmosphere of the discussion. At the beginning was reverts of the other editor, since I assumed WP:BURDEN mandate "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." My change was fully supported by the sources as I shown later in discussions. The other editor object he can change the text supported by sources simply just because he want and know better than two leading dictionaries based on large linguistic corpus research programmes what the word conclusion mean, but he was unable to provide any evidence for his point of view. Moreover, he object there is dispute in the issue because of religion. From this it is completely clear he is wrong since he either intentionally ignore or don't understand the sentence "This conclusion is beyond dispute in the (scientific) field (= developmental psychology). There is no other explanation imaginable. His approach implies Wikipedia should inform everywhere there are people objecting to the fact the Earth is round http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth and that this illustrate the dispute about the issue. I consider such approach inherently flawed. If some religious bodies or people thinks the children need mother and father to flourish (= the children of same-sex couples fare worse) they should be able to substantiate such serious claims. "Those who claim that children need a biologically related mother and father to flourish are either ignorant of the scientific literature or are misrepresenting it or both. With all respects people are entitled to their beliefs and even their biases but it is plainly wrong to call those beliefs and biases science." (According to the Maine Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics http://www.youtube.com/user/EqualityMaine#p/u/38/mwz4mlsBgU8) This is pretty strong answer, isn't it?. There even could not be any other conclusion since none research suggest otherwise as the leading expert bodies from the US and Canada state. (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/advocacy/brief.pdf http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349). There could be no dispute that the "the quality and breadth of research available, as well as the results of the studies performed about gay parenting and children of gay parents, is robust and has provided the basis for a consensus in the field. As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption." (http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D08-3044.pdf). "The body of research that has examined children’s and adolescents’ adjustment in the specific context of same-sex parenting represents approximately 30 years of scholarship and includes more than 50 peer-reviewed empirical reports. The earliest reports from studies of same-sex parenting were published in the late 1970's, and research has continued to the present. More than 100 articles about same-sex parents and/or their offspring have been published in respected academic journals or as chapters in books for use by other professionals. These present both qualitative research (relying primarily on interviews and discussions with either the youths or with the parents) and quantitative research. Most of the studies appeared in rigorously peer-reviewed and highly selective journals, whose standards represent expert consensus on generally accepted social scientific standards for research on child and adolescent development. Prior to publication in these journals, these studies were required to go through a rigorous peer-review process, and as a result, they constitute the type of research that members of the respective professions consider reliable. The body of research on same-sex families is consistent with standards in the relevant fields and produces reliable conclusions." (http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/gill-v-office-of-personnel-management/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf) "If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents." (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/AP_06_pre.PDF) This leads me to ask Johnuniq why he thinks "sociological studies conducted in the last decade are not anywhere near as conclusive as "the fact that evolution occurs" noted by Destinero" and who he is and what is his educational and professional background to counteract the Florida Appeal Court evaluation of the evidence and the esteemed developmental psychologist Michal Lamb testimony to the court. I strongly emphasize what the reliable expert sources state and back by the evidence are relevant here rather than what the Wikipedia editors think.

After all my effort and conviction of reasonable use of the word "conclusion" I understand the dispute and suggested what I hope is widely acceptable compromise version here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage&diff=398119114&oldid=398116699 The attacked sentence with words conclusion/consensus is replaced by the fact "There is no evidence to the contrary." referenced by the two highly reliable sources.

I understand the emotion here and even my head finally calmed down. Thus, I want to apologize to the Daedalus969 for offensive words from me. I could not understand why he still revert my version at the time. I let him to instigate me. I admit I did several faults. I believe we can move beyond that. After all, we all are the people. And we all want to contribute usefully and improve the Wikipedia, don't we? --Destinero (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Do me a favor, and do not illustrate what you think my point is, because not only is such an act uncivil, it is flat out wrong. The flat earth analogy is way off, as what I have been saying is nowhere near that. You act as if you are apologizing, but then go right ahead and throw more insults. Let me give you a tip, Dest; don't make analogies about people's posts and post on what you think they mean.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

His approach implies Wikipedia should inform everywhere there are people objecting to the fact the Earth is round http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth and that this illustrate the dispute about the issue.. This is a flat-out insult; so again with my earlier suggestion of not making analogies about people's posts, or for that matter.. From this it is completely clear he is wrong since he either intentionally ignore or don't understand the sentence; the only thing completely clear here, is that you do not understand why WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are core policies, and do not understand how to conduct yourself in a way which follows them and that to this end, your topic ban should be broadened until such time you do understand.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly not able to understand it is not sufficient to write "The flat earth analogy is way off, as what I have been saying is nowhere near that." Either you are able to show evidence to your beliefs or stop write such nonsense. Moreover, I don't see your attemt to appology for your "shit" nowhere. Thus do me a favor and stop trolling, since it is completely clear now you don't care about content and compromise, but for broad topic ban due to silly issue. Thanks. --Destinero (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

So, instead of choosing to take Tm's warning to heart, you decided to throw it back in his face, insulting me by calling me a troll, my posts nonsense, and still clinging to me telling you you don't know shit about me. I stand by what I said, because you do not know shit about me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, let me be ultra clear on something; this thread, as stated quite clearly at the top, was never about content, but your behavior, and the way you are continuing to behave. I asked for an extension of your topic ban, as you are clearly unable to work alongside those that disagree with you, opting instead to be uncivil and to insult. And as evidenced above, this behavior isn't showing any signs of stopping, so obviously, something needs to be done about it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Again with the giant blob of text that few people are going to read because your argument is so convoluted there is no way (short of a even bigger blob of text) of going through and refuting each of your points. Brevity is a virtue here. Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Quit it both of you. Destinero, try and be a little less... wordy with your arguments and try to focus more on the content, avoid skirting civility. Daedalus969, I doubt you will get a topic ban for mild incivility; the best way to avoid that sort of conversation is simply to ignore it. I re-iterate; you are arguing about one single word. Grab some perspective, find a compromise and get on with it. Things are so much more collegial when that happens and it avoids threads such as this. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Break

I've undid N419BH's closing of this discussion because A. It is not a content dispute and B. It is a behavioral problem that is definitely actionable, per the continued and unrelenting violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It may have arisen because of a content dispute, but this thread is not about the content. It is about the behavior.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

nb: here's the undo.

This is more of the perseveration,^ref isn't it? Jack Merridew 21:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC) stricken per discussion on my talk

Is there a reason you refer to a diff in the past, instead of the current version? And I'm not going to drop an issue that isn't fixed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ya, because it seems pertinent, as does the current version, which states: Please also note that I have a problem with dropping things, but I am working on it, and have made progress. Have you? Really? Seems to me this, and a lot else, amounts to a serious pattern of not dropping the stick. All about quibbling over two words. Sheeesh. Jack Merridew 21:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is not about the content, is about the behavior.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that. ANI is known for addressing the behaviour of all parties to whatever issue, and I'll refer you to WP:BOOMERANG, too. You know that you have 1264 posts to ANI? Out of 19261 edits? That's one-in-fifteen posts. See also: WP:ANISUCKS. Jack Merridew 22:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone uninvolved please close this thread with reference to WP:WQA rather than referring to WP:LAME. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on the lame. I chastised both of these two for civility and an inability to work constructively. While Destinero is verging on uncivil there has certainly been no personal attacks, and xhe should now be aware they need to focus more on content and to try and be briefer. Daedalus969 should be less quick to play the NPA and other behavioural cards as well as avoid DRAMA such as this thread. One word has lead to an insane amount of text, that is lame. Both of you figure out a quick compromise and quit worrying about it. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

So, you are saying that calling someone irrational, guessing at their motives, acting like you know their understanding of policy, claiming that they are ignoring specific policies, calling their edits nonsense is not uncivil? How on earth do you figure that? It is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. He isn't 'verging' on anything. He clearly violated it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit uncivil (as I said), but it's hardly worth kicking up a fuss about. Not to the length of this thread. Seriously. If I started a thread here every time someone told me I didn't understand policy and was being irrational, well :) we'd be here all night! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that it is an ongoing problem that is not ceasing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

All this "close discussion and carry on" talk is sending a very bad message to Destinero, and is doing them no long-term favors. At the very least an unambiguous warning about incivility is required so Destinero understands that a talk page header with "Due to Daedalus969's inability to accept statement by multiple reliable sources I had to revert"(diff) is not acceptable. I can understand people's reluctance to engage with the issue, but some relief is needed from the TLDR and contemptuous style illustrated by Destinero above which attempts to conflate Daedalus969's use of "consensus" to describe some sociological studies as equivalent to promoting a flat-Earth view. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting song articles

Resolved

 – Edits are well within policy, editor has explained rationale and supporting policy on OE's talk. N419BH 07:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

[96] Looks like we've got an editor taking it upon himself to redirect dozens of song articles and blanking their talk pages. Not sure if there was a discussion about this somewhere to establish that there is consensus for this but I'm of the opinion that many of these article's content could still be salvaged, and even those that should be redirected that's still no reason to blank the talk pages, especially if they have discussions on them, and any WikiProject tags should have their class= parameter set to say "redirect" or "NA" class, which would at least categorize them as being former articles which were redirected. Anyways, I was about to just revert all the talk page blankings but thought I'd bring that matter up to the community for a some other opinions. Will notify user of thread. -- œ^™ 01:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• BRD. The claim is that those songs are not notable, and many I think should be redirect (but have their talk pages redirected too, of course), but for those that had a lot of good content, maybe revert the redirection/blanking and work on them? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  I totally disagree that talk pages of redirected articles should be blanked OR redirected. They should remain as is, their wikiproject templates changed to redirect-class, and if content was merged, a {{mergedto}} template should be placed. I don't know why editors think that redirects don't deserve talk pages anyway. But what irks me the most is this one editor unilaterally making the decision that some 50 or so stubs, other editor's work, is not notable enough, and not even worth merging. Once again, if there was indeed discussion beforehand about this I apologize. In fact I'm just going to drop this. I'm used to others wondering why I rant and frustrate over minor details. -- œ^™ 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  Well, no, I don't think it was the best idea for anyone to mass redirect articles without discussion, nor do I know of any discussion about this. I'm reasonably sure that had many of the stubby ones been at AfD, they would have been redirected, too, but some can be saved, although I would still ask the redirecting user about this, first. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:NSONGS (which I linked to and quoted in my edit summaries), specifically the following part:

Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

The reason I did not start a discussion before reverting these, was that these articles rarely ever had more than a line or two, information which was redundant to the album articles anyway (see: [97], [98], [99]). I thought the redirects would be uncontroversial. If any article had as much as a paragraph or two of reasonably well-cited information, I did not redirect. In any case, I do not see this as a case for AN/I, shall we continue this discussion on our talk pages?—indopug (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, yes we shall continue on my talk page. -- œ^™ 04:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Koreas

There's some saber-rattling currently going on between the two Koreas. Extra eyes needed on Korea-related articles; in particular keep an eye out for unsourced POV edits. N419BH 09:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms of the present age eligibility rules in women's figure skating, tennis, and gymnastics

I am the original creator of this article. A user called Rjanag keeps on moving on it. Please would it be possible to suspend this persons account and prevent them from undermining the article. Indeed, I've decided to transfer the article to my own website and requested that Wikipedia delete it Thanks sportmania7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportmania7 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sportmania7, I have undone your change for now. Please do not take this as a comment on the eventual title, but as intended - a necessary step to preserve the article's contribution history. When you copy-and-paste the contents, as you did when moving it back, the page you paste your text into does not keep the record of who added what and when. It is essential that such details are maintained for the purposes of Wikipedia's licence. Please do not repeat the action; whatever the final title is, the page can be properly moved by an administrator while keeping the history intact. Please ask if you have questions about this. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This user doesn't get WP:OWN and keeps leaving me complaints about how any changes to the article will make it different than what he intended it to be (he intended it to be a personal essay). Given that it's clearly a single-purpose account that doesn't intend on contributing to the project in any other way anyway, is it really worth the trouble to deal with him? rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Editor who does not sign posts correctly

Resolved

 – User seems to have figured it out now. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Editor Richrakh (talk · contribs) does not sign his/her talk page posts correctly. They seem to be typing their name and then adding 4 apostrophes afterwards and there is no link back to their talk page as required by Wikipedia:SIGLINK. For some reason, SineBot isn't adding the "unsigned" template afterwards. It's also screwing up MiszaBot's auto archiving. I mentioned this on his/her talk page [100], however he/she has not responded to that, and instead signed incorrectly again at Talk:Political scandals of the United States. The editor seems otherwise ok, but the signature thing is quite disruptive. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you notified Richrakh of this thread? In the 15 minutes since you posted this I haven't seen a notification on his talk page. Just curious. Basket of Puppies 15:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be this, no? Mr Stephen (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! Glad to see it. Basket of Puppies 15:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the signature issue, this was extensively discussed with DocU. The consensus was overwhelming and very clear- a signature must contain wikilinks to the userpage. Basket of Puppies 15:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhhhhh! You have to SHIFT before hitting that little button! My apologies. Seriously. I didn't know. Is this better? richrakhRichrakh (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

WOW!!! Is that ever better!!!! I wondered why it never worked right before. But I didn't know anyone else really cared either. richrakhRichrakh (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have it now. I guess this is resolved. FYI, you don't have to physically type your username, just Shift+4 tildes, the software will insert your username automatically. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Rsload2010

Resolved

User:Rsload2010 is continuing to add spam to his talk page after being blocked. Can the block be extended to the talk page? . . Mean as custard (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reblocked with talk page access disabled, and removed the spam. Looie496 (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thirteen Vandalisms in one day

Thirteen vandalisms in one day to SS Edmund Fitzgerald article, probably by the same person from this block:

199.104.209.196

199.104.208.119

199.104.210.158

199.104.213.42

We posted notes on all of those talk pages, and it continues.

Presumably dynamically assigned IP's of a service provider, presumably all by same person. Is there anything that can be done? (a 1-2 day range block?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Simply requesting page protection would probably be the best option. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

199.104.208.0/21 blocked 55 hours for vandalism. –MuZemike 20:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Request Block/Action

User Mr.grantevans2 has made multiple defamatory edits to the page of Micheal Welner. Having brought this to his attention, on his talk page and the discussion page for Micheal Welner, he continues to make edits under the false pretense of inserting neutrality. Mr.grantevans2 defamatory edits include:

"Welner earns what has been described as a "magnificent living testifying at celebrity murder trials".[2]

This addition by Mr.grantevan2 was frivolous and spiteful article that has no insider awareness of what Dr. Welner earns relative to any other physician, be they any other forensic psychiatrist or any dermatologist, head and neck surgeon, or any other physician. The editors reversion to introducing financial issues is a means of insinuating something untoward, when nothing has emerged or been demonstrated. It is merely an attempt to inflame the reader that a person actually gets paid to do his work exceptionally well.

The designation of "celebrity cases" is a misstatement of Dr. Welner's case history and what he has contributed to different cases. The writer has no awareness of Dr. Welner's career and has done no research to demonstrate said familiarity. There is nothing reliable in this source or in its data.

"While Welner has encountered some criticism regarding his fees over the years, as with the $400,000 he was paid in the Brian David Mitchell case, the critics are usually opposing counsel. [3]"

Usually" opposing counsel is not something originating from this article. As for the Smart case, defense never cross examined Dr. Welner to attack fees, so out of court editorials from resentful journalists or bloggers are not biographical at all. Again, there are far more figures in the justice system who are compensated far more than Dr. Welner, and this is not highlighted to the degree we see here in this malicious attempt to vandalize this biographical page.

"However, W. Christopher Conrad, a former homicide prosecutor, who has not retained Dr. Welner, said: "I don't think it's appropriate, I don't think it's needed. I don't think it's a good use of taxpayers' money."[4]"

Christopher Conrad was a former prosecutor who resigned for his own political ambition, running for district attorneys against the sitting district attorney who had retained Dr. Welner on successful major cases. The statement political opponents make to gain votes are irrelevant to a biographical page for Dr. Welner

During the high-profile competency hearing of Brian David Mitchell, defense counsel described Welner's contributions as "advocacy,not an objective evaluation of fact" [5]. However, U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman, part of the prosecution team that retained Welner on the Mitchell case, referred to his testimony as "worth every penny"[6]. Deciding in favor of the prosecution, Judge Kimball, in his opinion on competency, noted that Dr. Welner's preparation, testimony and report reflected, "best practices in forensic psychiatry and psychology (pg 14)" [7].

Again, when the presiding federal judge offers an opinion such as he did, what biographical relevance is any attorney's argument. This, without foundation, attempts to recast Dr. Welner's efforts as financially inspired rather than compensated hourly work, no different from the compensated hourly work of any other professional. The administrators of Wikipedia would be hard pressed to demonstrate any other biography in this encyclopedia in which a subject was put on the defensive for being compensated hourly for hard work and work which the attorneys and court likewise held in highest regard. The editor slyly attempts to convert this biography into a platform for malicious defamation, even as he praises Dr. Welner's work in his own comments as "stunningly important."Stewaj7 (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Welner characterized Khadr as an unredeemable jihadist who had spent his time at Guantanamo reading the Koran but wasn't interested in western literature"

This is a misquote, especially so because Dr. Welner went to great length to describe what type of deradicalization would be needed for Khadr.

"who had spent his time at Guantanamo reading the Koran but wasn't interested in western literature"

Also a misquote. Dr. Welner specifically testified that Khadr was interested in reading primarily for escapism

Per another editor: Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) continued need to ensure that Welner's BLP focuses only on Omar Khadr and the fee he collected in that case displays an increasing platform for defamation and NOT neutrality. This editor incorporated a plethora of reliably sourced citations, at the request of editors to bring Welner's BLP to a cohesive place and also added a paragraph on the Khadr case, to try to create consensus.

Each edit Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) reverts fruther proves his/her advocacy position for an admitted terrorist and not for neutrality and Welner's BLP is deserving of an editor whose focus is not on his/her own agenda.

It is necessary to discuss on the talk page before continuously reverting changes and adding subsections on only one case in Welner's career to reach a consensus. Also Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) is not mindful of the 3RR rule, which is continuously violated by him as he maligns the BLP in claims of neutrality. Empirical9 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Stewaj7 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for an indefinite block of User:Pfagerburg

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive639 § Impersonation and harassment by socks of a banned user

Further information: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Further information: User_talk:AniMate § Pfagerburg

I indefblocked Pfagerburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in September, because his account has been used almost entirely since its creation in 2006 in pursuit of Jeff Merkey, a banned user who edits occasionally as IPs. Pfagerburg has made 738 edits, incl. 272 to articles, probably 90 percent of which have been Merkey-related. I warned him in July that if he continued to post about Merkey I would consider an indefinite block, and when I noticed in September that it was continuing, I applied it.

Animate unblocked him five hours later, on condition that he confine his posts about Merkey to the various boards, and that he start to edit as a regular Wikipedian. He has violated the second of these conditions—after his unblock he made about 18 edits then started on the Merkey issue again. And in my view the first condition was unreasonable. Pfagerburg needs to stay away from Merkey completely, not confine his comments to particular boards.

He was indefblocked by El C in May 2007 for focusing on Merkey, but Hemblock Martinis unblocked him. Then he was banned for one year by ArbCom in July 2007 for harassment of Merkey. In June 2008 Merkey complained to Pfagerburg's employer that Pfagerburg was continuing the pursuit using his employer's computers or telephones. In 2009 there was legal action of some kind between them in relation to the stalking allegations; Pfagerburg posted on his talk page that he had filed a lawsuit against Merkey for harassment, but it was dismissed. And yet Pfagerburg is still using his account almost entirely to report Merkey socks, or have Merkey-related articles deleted.

Pfagerburg says he has no other account. If that's true, then his sole purpose at Wikipedia is to continue this unhealthy interaction with Merkey, and I don't think we should be facilitating it. I'm therefore seeking consensus to re-apply the indefinite block, which I hope if agreed will stick this time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block, as proposer. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support It doesn't seem like this user benefits wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I unblocked Pfagerburg on September 21, with the understanding that he would no longer pursue Jeff Merkey's edits. Since then, he has done some editing but has also removed a series of tags left by Jeff Merkey accusing 24.37.221.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Long Time Lurker (talk · contribs) of being Pfagerburg's socks. He then reported the IPs to WP:SPI. This doesn't seem unreasonable at all. Previously, Pfagerburg had been going through every single article Merkey had ever edited as an IP and undoing extremely old edits. He hasn't resumed that behavior and I don't think removing tags left by a banned user accusing you of being a sock master is particularly troublesome behavior. AniMate 00:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. per SlimVirgin. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Point of order: Slim, are you seeking a regular indefinite block or a community ban? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what difference it would make in this case, HJ. I'm seeking a block of this account and with it an understanding that any other account doing the same that appears to belong to Pfagerburg would be blocked too. But he were to create an account to edit about butterflies no one would know it was him, so there wouldn't be any problem. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, could you provide diffs showing he has resumed his previous behavior? AniMate 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See his contribs since you unblocked him. It's the same story: most of his edits are about Merkey, including the deleted ones. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

All I can see is that since the unblock he made a single report to WP:SPI and another WP:AE reporting 6 socks that had repeatedly tagged two accounts as his sockpuppets. Under the terms of his unblock, he is allowed to make reports to the appropriate venue. The only other edits about Merkey I can see were alerting the six IPs he had reported them, which is required by both forums. AniMate 00:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There are also deleted edits, and the point is that he's made almost no edits that are not about Merkey. Please take that point. Look, if someone is harassing someone (if), then all interaction should be avoided. Merkey says Pfagerburg is harassing him. Pfagerburg says Merkey is harassing him. We don't need to know who is right. All we have to do is require that they stay away from each other on Wikipedia. Pfagerburg has refused to do that for almost four years. This idea of allowing him to use the account to make SPI reports about Merkey is just feeding what looks like an unhealthy obsession. That's why I'm requesting the indefblock be reinstated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Of the four deleted edits, one was an attempt to notify an IP about the SPI and the edit after that was to remove the message because he got the IP address wrong. I can only see two others which were o an SPI case he initiated in an attempt to clear himself from the sockpuppet allegations Merkey had leveled against him. However, he blanked that as well. I still see no reason for him not to defend himself against spurious sockpuppet allegations. AniMate 02:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per AniMate. I cannot see that Pfagerburg has done anything problematic or in violation of his editing restrictions since he was unblocked, and has actually done quite a few low-key but benficial edits. I'm not seeing how banning this user will improve Wikipedia. If someone can point out diffs that show how Pfagerburg has acted poorly I will reconsider my opinion. Reyk _YO! 00:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment There are WP-skillful wiki-hounders that know how to play the WP game. Usually hounding via "just enforcing the rules". It's apparent that Pfagerburg is still focusing on Merkey. There are plenty of other people in WP besides Pfagerburg who can watch / report on Merkey... As a minimum, this needs an order to avoid all initiatives to be involved with Merkey. North8000 (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with this some what. Pfagerburg was blocked last time for this kind of hounding, but he was going through every IP Merkey had ever used and undoing their edits. That is harassment, and I unblocked when he gave his word that he would not continue that behavior. However, responding to someone who is labeling other accounts as your socks isn't hounding. AniMate 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Point of order SlimVirgin left out the latest discussion, wherein it becomes very clear that she is failing to AGF. I pointed out an AN/I, and the only thing she appeared to have read is that I started an AN/I three months after a harassing phone call, completely neglecting the section where I noted why it took three months to bring the matter to an AN/I. There's also the minor issue of 14 edits != 23 edits. And the insinuation that I can't possibly be a "regular Wikipedian" and I must be a sockpuppet instead. And I'm still waiting on that Checkuser. Pfagerburg (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but "have Merkey-related articles deleted" constitutes a subtle - and insidious - distortion of the truth, and I think this comment should immediately follow the distortion in order to clear it up immediately. This is important, because together with the discussion on AniMate's talk page (9 != 23 [101]), it shows SV's pattern of repeatedly distorting what the record clearly says in order to make me look worse than I am.

I can't see my own deleted edits, so I am not 100% certain, but I believe that I CSD'ed one article (not articles, plural), and I did so only because it was Merkey-created. That it happened to be Merkey-related is what made it so easy to detect the sock master behind the article. Check the deletion log for MDB (Linux). I didn't even start the first deletion discussion. I'm not sure where to find the creation log, but the various accounts that repeatedly created it were confirmed as Merkey sockpuppets. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef block, per Slim Virgin and Crossmer. North8000 has a good point, but I think an interaction ban is unlikely to work in this case, and would just end up in a block anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Clarify: Are you recommending an editor be blocked for tirelessly reverting a block-evading editor's edits? GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Nope. All he did this time was report the socks and notify them about the reports. AniMate 04:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, his "policy-mandated notifications". [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] His creation of an SPI page. [107] His tagging a Merkey-related article for deletion. [108] And is User:24.37.221.6 Pfagerburg too? [109] You said yourself just days ago that he had perhaps violated the spirit of the unblock, and that you wouldn't oppose a total interaction ban. [110] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• What does the article he tagged for deletion have to do with anything? The tagging occurred 13 days before your original block. AniMate 06:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies; one was in September. But the rest are from this month. Can you say why you said you'd support a total interaction ban if you feel the edits are harmless? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In that same edit, I said I wasn't sure what if anything needed to be done about it. After thinking about it, I solidified my position. I changed my mind. It's not unheard of. AniMate 06:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. This user has caused more than enough trouble for us users and admins at Wikipedia. Enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Indefinite block. Reporting socks of a banned editor is just not all that heinous. Granted, Plagerburg should leave years - old edits alone unless he can point to somethng specifically wrong with their content, and it would be a good idea to work on reducing his percentage of Merkey-related edits. Cardamon (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pfagerburg's actions do not seem to be aimed at perpetuating the dispute, intended to bait the banned user, or at all harmful to the encyclopedia. Disclosure: I had a series of unfortunate interactions with the banned user in question a number of years ago on-wiki. Despite this, I agreed with the original ban of Pfagerburg too, but at the present time cannot see evidence that Pfagerburg is trying to drive the dispute further -- merely trying to defend himself with minimal drama. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I don't think Pfagerburg's recent activity has been willfully disruptive, if it's even to be considered disruptive. But Pfagerburg, your pattern of edits must change. That Merkey is banned does not make the outward appearance of your behavior any better. I would strongly suggest that you take up an activity such as recent changes patrol or new pages patrol if you are genuinely interested in combating nonconstructive edits as opposed to Merkey edits. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Mendaliv, could you make clear what you think ought to happen if the pattern of edits doesn't change? I'm asking because it almost certainly won't. There's a long-term issue here that I don't think anyone on Wikipedia can change, so it would be good to know what the consensus about it is, should it continue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say that if Pfagerburg's behavior does not start to show a significant pattern of progressive improvement, a community ban would be in order. Exactly what has to change and how much time has to pass is out of my experience. I would like to see Pfagerburg participate in other community activities, and suggested the above (RCP and NPP) because I think the transition would be easiest; he does seem to have the inclination for these sorts of tasks. Moreover, this would help substantiate the claim that Pfagerburg's interest is in enforcing the community's policies generally rather than in perpetuating an off-wiki vendetta.

I am reluctant to support an interaction ban at this point because it may raise more questions than it answers. For instance, should we consider instigated incidents of interaction violations? There is evidence that some prior incidents were the result of intolerable instigation. Moreover, if Pfagerburg chooses to engage in recent changes patrol under such an interaction ban, he would need to avoid reverting any of Merkey's edits, just to avoid the risk of an investigation. This may have the effect of hamstringing any such efforts. Reverting the edits of a banned user is not something we should be punishing. Finally, this sort of arbitrary solution does not give room for progressive improvement; rather, it requires immediate improvement. Rome was not built in a day. I'm not saying we should tolerate an ongoing focus on Merkey's edits, but I think we should be prepared for the occasional questioned edit.

In summary, let him edit. If there's ongoing evidence of an unchanged editing fixation on Merkey, we should ban and block indef. If there's evidence of progressive improvement, existing restrictions should be gradually eased, and we can celebrate the cultivation of another committed Wikipedia editor. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what was suggested the last time he was on AN/I in September. The problem is that no matter what he's asked to do, and no matter what he says he will do, he continues to pursue Merkey and does no other editing to speak of. Normally, legal action between people results in them being asked to stay away from each other on Wikipedia, and not to edit articles related to each other. I'm very concerned that an exception is being made for Pfagerburg. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about the thread in ANI archive 639, the one linked above? The result of that was an agreement to an interaction ban, with the evident understanding that violation of it would result in a long block. However, reading the thread itself, I'm not sure there was community consensus to impose such an outcome, or even that the reverts that lead to that outcome were necessarily bad. Given a lot of the same opinions are being expressed now, I feel even less sure that the resolution was based on the community's consensus, rather than just an agreement making further discussion seem moot.

I'll agree with the assessment that an adverse history such as litigation usually results in the parties being told to avoid one another on Wikipedia. However, the extent of the background in this case and the ongoing activity by the other party indicates that we should not expect rapid or incident-free improvement in Pfagerburg's behavior. And honestly, looking at the handful of Pfagerburg's contribs since the September incident, I don't think there's a large enough sample of contribs to really evaluate his behavior. I don't think we can fairly interpret the recent SPI/AE activity as a refusal to change.

But if there's no real response to the recommendations stemming from this current thread, including the suggested areas of interest mentioned here and on his user talk page, then I'd be willing to consider this a ban situation, reversible by meeting the conditions of WP:SO. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest a total interaction ban on Pfagerburg. He noted in his last WP:AE report Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive72#Jeffrey Vernon Merkey that he is already banned for any other form of interaction, but for sock reporting. He should let other people deal with suspected sockpuppets of the fabled banned user, including sleuthing them for a report. I think that ArbCom has been clear in a similar case (involving Scibaby) that a small set of editors pursuing suspected socks of a banned user can sometimes become an problematic issue in itself, despite the "shoot on sight" allowance in policy. Also, I suggest Pfagerburg start using a new account, whose name should be communicated only to ArbCom, but not posted on wiki, in order to avoid being himself continuously harassed by IP editors assumed to have a beef with him. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Tijfo098, creating a new account is an interesting idea, and one that I will give serious consideration.

However, I doubt such an action will stop the harassment. Witness the Canada IP, which has been falsely tagged as a sock of me, despite the fact that I haven't been in Canada since I was in grade school. I doubt there is anything that could be done to my account - an interaction ban (with edit history to prove adherence), a block, or even a complete vanishing (damnatio memoriae-style, which I know is not really possible) - that would prevent the banned user from claiming that I'm behind any account or IP that reports his socking.

Let's discuss further. I create a new account, inform Arbcom of the account name (presumably so they can monitor for naughtiness), and some time later, somebody (who is not me) tags a new Merkey sock. Merkey bounces his DSL modem to grab a new IP, and posts a sockpuppet|Pfagerburg on that person's user page. It's false, and without evidence. Please describe what steps you would see happening next. Pfagerburg (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone other than you will hopefully revert, block, ignore. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, since Pfagerburg appears named after a real life person name, the Pfagerburg account should also be renamed, so that further vandalism against it will be less of a WP:BLP concern. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my account name is based on my legal name. Renaming the account won't change a thing; every time a sock is spotted, tagged, and blocked, he will claim (as he did for the Canada IP) that it's me behind the reporting account or IP. I'm still waiting on the checkuser since SlimVirgin keeps insinuating that I'm behind the Canada IP. I can't speak for the person who uses that IP, but if you look at that IP's edits, there were plenty of reverts of non-Merkey vandalism. Then Merkey (we presume) tagged that IP as being a sockpuppet, and the result was that the presumed Merkey IP was blocked for 24 hours and the Canada IP was blocked for 48 hours. What would you do if you got blocked for being falsely accused? Pfagerburg (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose, I've had a look at the user's recent edits, and while I agree that a large portion of them concern Merkey in some way or another, there's nothing particularly heinous there that I think justifies a community ban or indef block. I would strongly advise Pfagerburg to drop the whole matter and focus on something else, but I can't in good conscience agree to banning someone for following the rules. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
• Support I do not see the evidence under which Pfagerburg was unblocked, which was to disengage with regard to Merkey; therefore the block needs to be re-instated. Yes, discovered edits by socks of banned editors should be reverted (or adopted) but there is no necessity it need be done by Pfagerburg - and it is this type of wikilawyering, and the effort expended in investigating and discussing it, that is disruptive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• I've asked a question at User talk:Pfagerburg#So ..., Pfagerburg's answer to which might inform people's decisions in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Reverting edits made by banned editors while that editor was banned is inherently a good thing, and should not be discouraged. If people can demonstrate that the reverts are being made for edits performed while the editor wasn't banned, I could be persuaded to switch sides.—Kww(talk) 14:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, only the ones made in violation of a block or ban. [111] Pfagerburg (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kww. -Atmoz (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Grump - I appreciate Pfagerburg's notifications, but it would help if it was not him doing them, given the history. At the very least, any on-wiki notifications. Merkey is banned and P has the best eye for Merkey contributions, but there is a real problem here. Perhaps an on-wiki complete interaction ban, with Pfagerburg encouraged to email functionaries or checkusers if he detects a sock, to keep it all off-wiki? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this may have the best chance of working, and will flesh out a proposal below. Pfagerburg (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I believe ive had occasion to occasionally work with this persons acquaintance and he has seemed like a dedicated and hardowrking Wikipedian editor. While I do find his focus on Jeffrey Merkey to be unhealthy for the purposes of editing, there are better remedies than a permanent ban over such a relatively easier remedied mistake that he had made in the past. Has anyone actually spoken to him and talked to him to see if hes alright? he doesn't have to be treated as bad as he can be contemplated!! User:Smith Jones 00:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's nothing wrong was reverting edits made by a banned editor. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Would support Pfagerburg's "Proposed Solution," below. Obviously, behavior needs to change, but having reviewed everything, including the old ARBCOM stuff and the links and diffs provided, an community ban or indef block of Pfagerburg is not the answer. Saebvn (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

Mostly what Georgewilliamherbet said - when I spot a sock, I will not write about it on-wiki, but will e-mail an admin (TBD) to point out socks. Details forthcoming after I respond to some individual comments above. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

New account

If I accept Tijfo098's proposal of creating a new account, the new account name will be communicated to Arbcom, who will presumably monitor for any violations of what I'm proposing.

Handling of sockpuppets

When I spot suspected Merkey sockpuppets:

• If the sock posts something on my user or talk page (or any sub-pages), I will remove the edit.
• In all other cases, I will not revert edits made by those socks, whether that's on articles, user pages, or WP pages.
• I will communicate information about the sock to an administrator (to be named) via e-mail, and not on-wiki.

Participation in RCP or NPP does not override the "only report it by e-mail and take no other action" condition just elaborated.

Don't expect many edits in the next few weeks

Please understand that I'm busy, per the notice on my talk page.

I finished the final project for a class this last weekend, and so I had a little time to pop onto WP. Unfortunately, that time got wasted because yet another IP from New Mexico was harassing me, and SV was again threatening to ban me, even though I had followed the conditions of my unblock by only reporting sockpuppets, not even reverting the socks' bad-faith accusations.

I've got a presentation to finish for class next Monday, and at work I have a customer demo on 15 Dec which will include the system firing the weapon. Those of you who are expecting me to make any substantial contribution in the very near future are going to be bitterly disappointed. Once the semester is over and the demo is done, I will have a little time to donate to improving the 'pedia, as opposed to defending myself against harassment and false sockpuppet accusations.

Setting SlimVirgin's record straight

There were subtle distortions that made the situation look worse than I think it is:

1. I CSD'ed one article, not multiple articles, and I CSD'ed it because it was created by a banned user, not because it was about his work. I didn't even start the first CSD.
2. I made 23 edits about something other than Merkey socks between unblock and SV's complaint on AniMate's talk page, not 9 edits as SV stated.
3. SV still won't get the count right, and says 18 edits above. Count them: 23, even if some of them are minor edits, and properly marked as such.
4. When it takes several edits to open an SPI about 6 IP socks (including notifications that are required by WP policy), it is grossly unfair to treat all of those highly-related edits as if they were separate and distinct. Next, she'll count the edits I made in the discussion on AniMate's talk page and here in this AN/I and say that I've made too many Merkey-related edits. So I guess I only get one edit per accusation. Clarifying anything is verboten, because it will increase my non-"genuine" edit count.

Points to ponder

Damn I wish I had thought of these earlier. Oh well. I'll present them now for any fence-sitters to evaluate.

When Merkey's BLP came up for deletion, I voted to delete it [112]. Would someone with an "unhealthy fascination" with Merkey want such a juicy target to be taken away?

When "Gaylynn Mitchell" (believed to be a Merkey sock) use several IP's in Utah to have Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jeff V. Merkey/1 and Wikipedia:Account_suspensions/Jeff_Merkey blanked, I participated in the discussion. I opposed the edits due their sockpuppet-of-a-banned-user nature, but I listened to SV's reasoning, and then agreed with her [113]. I later suggested page protection to prevent a courtesy-blank being undone [114] and [115]. Does that sound like someone who is on a vendetta against Merkey?

Careful evaluation of an informal sockpuppet report [116], with plenty of WP:AGF.

Pfagerburg (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This mostly seems sensible to me. I could even see a case for Pfagerberg being able to report Merkey sightings at some specific place on-wiki (i.e. an SPI report) for other users to deal with. I understand how editors overfocused on one issue can be a problem, but Merkey was a different level of problem. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback, but according to SV's complaint, my most recent "offense" was to report the socks on-wiki in an SPI report and an AE action, and do nothing else - not even revert the sockpuppet allegations made against me wholly without evidence and in bad faith. So what you're suggesting won't work, because it's what I already did. If I am to report a sock sighting, it must be off-wiki, to reduce the drama.

I'm interested in what part does not seem "mostly ... sensible" to you. Pfagerburg (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden blocked

I have blocked User:Colonel Warden indefinitely (see below) for disruptive editing.

• This offense: Moving tags from the top of an article to the bottom, in defiance of convention codified at WP:TC, here. I asked him to explain himself four and a half hours ago, and have received no reply.
  • His prior warning, for a similar incident less than two weeks ago (Nov 10th), as discussed previously at ANI, is here.
• Other recent and relevant incidents that contribute to this outcome:
  • Moving articles during AfD in a manner that disrupted the AfD outcome. The discussion was held less than a week ago, on November 16th. A topic ban proposal I authored but opposed received less than 50% support.
  • Omitting the un-redirecting of an article in an edit summary, as raised by User:Kww on my talk page on November 15th, at which point I again warned him. Note that Colonel Warden has been reprimanded for such edit summary omissions as early as December, 2008 here at ANI.
  • Improperly non-administratively closing an AfD discussion to which no speedy keep criterion applied, on October 14th, less than six weeks ago.

Sadly, Colonel Warden's involvement at ANI goes back years. While there is no doubt he contributes meaningfully to the encyclopedia. His conduct has been deficient in so many ways, despite multiple warnings and ANI threads, that the disruption is unconscionable; as a long-time contributor, his competence has not been questioned, so attributing ever-shifting deviations from editing expectations to simple mistakes strains credulity.

Unblocking terms

I do not believe in punitive or hand-slapping blocks, so I've blocked Colonel Warden indefinitely. Not infinitely, but until such time as the community and Colonel Warden are able to come to a mutual agreement about the conditions under which he may positively and productively participate in Wikipedia. While the community may feel free to support additional outcomes, I recommend one of the following:

• Unblock immediately the block itself will serve as a warning against Colonel Warden taking disruptive actions in the future, and waiting for him to apologize and/or promise not to do it again might be construed as punitive and/or coercing crocodile tears from him.
• Craft a community restriction as a condition of unblocking, akin to the one I proposed last week which failed to achieve consensus. I leave the specifics to someone else.

It's my hope that Colonel Warden will choose to edit with appropriate caution and respect for the deletion process, and I encourage the community's input on how we can best accomplish this. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just to make sure I understand the timeline:
  • he makes that edit at 12:46 yesterday
  • he stops editing at 16:something today
  • you warn him about the edit at 18:58 today
  • he does not log in
  • you block him at 23:something today

Is that about right? I guess my suggestion then would be to unblock immediately and wait for him to answer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Colonel Warden was warned on November 15 about his behavior. He continued anyway. I say let the block stand until conditions for his unblock can be agreed upon. AniMate 23:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As the question was put to me: is there anything Colonel Warden would have said in explanation that would have altered the situation, given the spate of recent warnings he's received? I'm not opposed to unblocking him and admitting my error if he managed to convince me he was wrong, but that seems sufficiently unlikely to make delaying the response unnecessary. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See: User talk:Jclemens#Colonel Warden, yet again, where much of this was initially discussed.

Someone craft some sort of restriction, such as last week's, plus a general restriction re disruption. The block should stand, in the meantime.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Support open-ended block until he agrees to conditions such as...

1. No editing of article maintenance and/or cleanup tags (ie. adding them is fine, but moving and/or deleting is not);
2. No moving of articles currently at any stage in the deletion process;
3. No actions regarding the deletion process other than nomination and participation in discussions (ie. no removing PROD-tags, no closing XfDs etc.);
4. All edits to be accompanied by a comprehensive summary to the extent that a reasonable person would expect;

I tend to think that this would make all our lives a bit easier. Thoughts? ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 23:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Be more specific on the edit summaries: "not undo or modify any redirects without explicitly stating in his edit summary that he is undoing a redirect and explaining the policy or guideline which justifies his change."—Kww(talk) 23:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really object to that, though it would absolutely have been covered by a requirement for comprehensive edit-summaries as construed by the man on the Clapham omnibus... ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 23:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd question whether forbidding the removal of PROD tags is necessarily appropriate. My understanding is that any deprod is considered valid, even if done in bad faith. I would not question, however, requiring strict compliance with WP:CONTESTED, especially requiring the use of {{deprod}} if it's felt there's substantial disruption of the PROD process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden has the habit of adding extremely dodgy sources to articles in order to removed PROD tags. It's apparent to me that the tag shouldn't be removed until a second editor has had a chance to review.—Kww(talk) 13:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I think TT has hit on all the relevant points of CW's disruptive behavior. Thanks to JClemens for accurately reading the situation taking the necessary action. SnottyWong ^gab 23:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support TreasuryTag's restrictions. AniMate 00:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment — This is good stuff, but it's missing:

  "Colonel Warden is topic banned from Articles for Deletion, broadly construed, for three months." (from Jclemens' thread in the prior ANI)

  This is the crux of his disruption. And, ya, I see that this could break the proposal.

  Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  Let's go with restricting the behavior first. If he acts up, we can always remove him from AfDs at a later time. AniMate 00:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  Sigh. I do support this, but maintain that more is necessary and hope others will nudge things further. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  I'm being a pragmatist. There's no way the Keep Squad will let him be blocked from AfDs. I do hope that consensus is reached for these restrictions, but I also think this block should stand for a couple of days. I can see no good faith reason for him to move those tags. AniMate 00:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  I see that; and that, too. Does teh {{rescue}} template work on ANI threads? ;) The 'necessary' can be layered-on per subsequent discussion. I have significant experience with the "You're blocked" message, mostly when I tried, I was actually focused on 'viewing source', here, for efforts related to other projects. It's damned-effective at conveying the community's ire, so I agree that it should stand for days. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  I am often offended, but never surprised at the things you two say. Thank you for your kind comments, Deletionist Cabal. (/sarcasm, but not) Silverseren^C 00:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block and Support proposed restrictions/conditions for unblock. Not sure about the ban from AfD, OK either way. ++Lar: t/c 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block, Support TT's unblock requirements proposal, Oppose AfD topic ban. CW's behavior is clearly disruptive, but topic ban is probably too much at this point, and as AniMate says, it can always be done later if needed. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Confused - Warning on 15th was for removing a citation needed tag; not moving one (for which no warning seems to have been issued). There seems to be one and only one article this was done to (I didn't find a second in the edit history, and only one diff on his talk page). Is this a disruption block or a community patience exhausted block? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's both. Colonel Warden has been behaving in a disruptive manner and people are tired of it. AniMate 01:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• And This ANI gives more background to the maintenance tags disruption issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• My comments at User talk:Colonel Warden#Explain yourself. in response to his comments there may be illuminating. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's evident to ANI participants that CW has not been making friends and influencing people, yet I don't see a pattern of serious disruption. Pops up, is resolved, something else pops up a month later, seems resolved, something else a month after that...

I don't know what that pattern makes; I would think "User conduct RFC" on first impression, not an indef for disruption.

Usually, I notice if people here are actually reaching the edge of truly exhausted community patience. I never got the sense of that here, with CW. I have no pretention that I couldn't just be missing the pattern - there's godawful much more stuff going on around here than any one human can coherently drink from the firehose. But I'm surprised.

Surprise is making me want evidence. There's A (singular) diff for the current block. There has been a tendency for there to be large ANI threads in the past with one or two diffs, and not a good pattern shown there either. I haven't seen a fully developed history of ANI incidents, etc.

In the name of fairness and reasonable information - I would like to request that someone pull together a reasonable evidence section for this request, so that people not closely following the CW saga can get a better picture of the events which are being argued warrant relatively significant enforcement.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quick recap: Colonel Warden was first discussed at ANI for a clear pattern of inappropriately removing cleanup tags, and continuing this behavior after ignoring a warning on his talk page. See the original thread here and the following diffs: [117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125]. He was given a clear warning in that ANI thread that he should not continue this behavior. Four days later he continued his behavior, as can be seen here. He was again given another warning on his talk page (by Jclemens), and was discussed at length at User talk:Black Kite/Archive 35#Colonel Warden is at it again. Despite the knowledge that he is skating on thin ice with regard to cleanup tags, he made yet another disruptive edit only a week after his second warning, where instead of deleting cleanup tags, he moved them to the bottom of the page. Technically, moving them to the bottom of the page isn't the same as deleting them, but it accomplishes the same thing and shouldn't be viewed any differently (lest we play into CW's thinly veiled attempt to game the system and avoid a block on a technicality). Hopefully this recap puts the pattern in perspective. SnottyWong ^communicate 02:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block, Support unblock requirement, but no topic-ban from AfD yet unless CW repeats anything like the moving of articles or closing AfDs wrongly (per above). Black Kite (t) (c) 01:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• #2 is unnecessary, as explained at length before. AFD is designed to accommodate this. You're going with the pile-on-everything-and-anything approach to this sort of thing, which is never good, as experience should have taught at least some of the people in this discussion. Stick to just the things that are actually problems. Read the prior discussion about page moves, don't just blindly hyperlink to it, to see what Colonel Warden said on the subject, including what xe said xe would do in the future. Uncle G (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I can agree with that assessment. #2 does seem to be somewhat tangential to the immediate issue at hand. The pattern of disruptively moving articles during AfD is not as clear as the cleanup tag problem, and so it is plausible to AGF in that case and assume it was an isolated mistake. In addition, CW seems to have actually made an effort to correct that behavior. SnottyWong ^chat 02:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Support a topic ban preventing him from editing AfDs and articles that are the subjects of AfDs for a reasonable period or until he agrees not to act disruptively by moving articles, citing "sources" that he presumably knows are not relevant to establishing the notability of topics, and all the other tricks he's developed. (Ventriloquizing A Nobody seems a particularly poor choice of tactic, given that editor's ultimate fate.) Deor (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse two week block with topic ban I think changing the block to two weeks and after the block is up an indefinite topic ban to prevent further disruption. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 04:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• endorse To some extent I feel this is building a mountain out of a molehill, but I agree his actions seem designed to disrupt and/or annoy other users. I'd really like to have a just "don't be disruptive" clause and move along, but I don't know that will work. So: Endorse 4 for certain, 3 assuming that doesn't mean he can't work to improve an article (though I think removing prods should be fine) and 1 assuming it doesn't mean he can't ask others to check an article and remove the tags if they think they should go (otherwise we end up with tags where they need to be removed and we are worse off). Weakly oppose 2 per Uncle G. I'd like to see a time limit on all this (say 6 months) at least #1. Oh, oppose other bans/blocks/etc. Hobit (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• endorse block and support some form of restrictions: I felt that the AFD mess was a genuine mistake, and the article was dramatically improved. But I talked to Colonel several weeks ago about moving maintenance templates and deleting them without addressing the issues - the excuse being that they were cosmetically not very nice. This is a recurring issue and CW is definitely aware of community views on the matter --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that the community is aware of the views of the editorship at large and in practice on the matter, though. There's a reason that Wikipedia:Perennial proposals includes this. I can name several prominent editors — SimonP, David Gerard, Tony Sidaway, and Philip Baird Shearer spring immediately to mind — who have over the years expressed their dislike of the festivals of coloured boxes that some articles become, or who have objected to the notion that all tags should go at the top of an article in a big banner blindness lump. Even at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Maintenance tags it has already been mentioned that not all maintenance tags create boxes, let alone go at the top of the article, even now. The community is not nearly as unanimous on this subject in practice as Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup would lead one to think. Uncle G (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block and support topic ban. Colonel Warden should be banned from dicking around with maintenance tags, editing in any way articles under discussion at AfD and using deceptive edit summaries. These are the three major ways his behaviour has been disruptive. I would have recommended an unblock as well, but since he's now wringing his hands and moaning about how hard done by he is (as though he doesn't know full well that his behaviour has been dodgier than the Average Joes buying a second-hand Dodge Charger in Dodge City), I support about a week-long block. I do not support banning him from commenting in AfD discussions. Reyk _YO! 09:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Whatever. Seems unlikely that giving deletionists carte blank to add thousands of unsightly tags is going to improve the encyclopaedia if next to no one with real talent wants to editor here anymore. Unless the Colonel is set free, there certainly wont be anymore of my hauntingly beautiful literary articles or very expert work on the interplay between international finance, politics and economic affairs. But maybe you guys know what youre doing... FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  giving deletionists carte blank to add thousands of unsightly tags is a deliberate misreading of the situation, as you well know. Why would you even bother? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 10:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Favor Unblock: No doubt CW is ruffling some feathers intentionally here, but I say let the block expire in a typical amount of time (24/48 hours?) like a normal block punishment. Going directly to an indefinite block does not seem to fit this "crime" if it indeed was a crime. Now, I know its quite horrible that CW gets upset in AfD when notable topic articles are nominated for deletion when the articles are in bad shape, but could be improved. Perhaps if CW was an admin and, say, deleted a slew of unreferenced BLPs along with eyebrow raising declarations and caused mayhem by it he would be rewarded for it, but instead he chooses to try to improve articles. Punish behavior that violates rules when we must, but don't punish his good goals.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• But no block is meant to be a punishment ever. Blocks are preventative not punitive. In other words there is no such thing as a punishment that fits the crime. There are preventative measures that fit the disruption and indefinite blocks followed by discussions of long term solutions prior to unblock certainly fit this current disruption.Griswaldo (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse block until this user demonstrates that he gets it, and ceases the annoyingly disruptive behavior that leads us to An/I week after week after week. I'm also concerned about DGG's willingness to unblock a fellow ARS comrade, as this is similarly protective/enabling behavior shown for menaces like "A Nobody". This is not a healthy mentality, and certainly not what one would expect from an admin. Tarc (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the cat's out of the bag now. Hopefully the RFC/U will bring desired results, if it can avoid being hijacked by the fan club. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviews from uninvolved users

Can we get more uninvolved administrator comments here? Please use this section for admin comments, community members use the general section above. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I can repeat or move what I said above, if you like: I have no prior involvement with CW and I endorse the block and support the restrictions/conditions for an unblock. I suspect I am not the only uninvolved admin who posted above. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not 100% sure I like the admin/nonadmin dichotomy (although the involved/uninvolved distinction might be useful), but I won't fight it right now. I'm a little uncomfortable with how this played out, and for a long term editor editing in good faith and no emergency, I would have preferred an RFCU before a block. It's quite possible that CW will need to modify his behavior some, but I don't think the long term pattern of disruption is nearly as clear cut as has been implied. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well you should; the Community consists of uninvolved users - not simply uninvolved administrators, so the unsubtle/subtle attempts to change this set up is not acceptable. ANI is not an AE board. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Non-admin response: I find this entire thing to be utterly ridiculous. The recent AfD thing was, as I raised my opinion there, not an important issue and a mistake on CW's part, which left an improved article all in all. Furthermore, why the heck does someone get indefinitely banned when they move some tags on an article to the bottom of an article? I've seen this done a number of times by various users and i've never heard of WP:TC before this discussion. The edit summary thing from the 16th not really an issue at all. If it was being used to cover up vandalism or perpetuate a edit war, that would be one thing. And then, bringing up something from six weeks ago that is on a subject that has nothing to do with this is strange. Again, this seems like an over-reaction. Silverseren^C 05:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• How many mistakes does Colonel Warden get in his participation in AfD's and article rescue? Is he incompetent or gaming the system? You tell me; either way, his actual conduct has been consistently below that we expect of editors. Warnings haven't worked--I've given him two recently. You tell me what it will take to get Colonel Warden to participate in a forthright manner, and I'll back it 100%. If there's consensus on the circumstances under which he can be unblocked and contribute, I'll be happy to either do it myself or have any handy administrator do it. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm sure you're not really that dumb, Seren. If you're told in no uncertain terms by multiple editors that persistently removing maintenance tags is disruptive, do you think "OK I will stop doing that", or as CW has, do you think "well, I'm going to ignore all those people, but if I delete the tags I'll get blocked - so how can I get rid of them without actually deleting them ... oh I know, I'll move them to the bottom of the page where no-one can see them!". The former is what most editors would do, the latter is deliberate disruption. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving the tags down, following all that, was blockworthy disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I am not making any assumptions on CW's motives. I'm pointing out that numerous people put or move tags related to references or categories to the associated sections near the bottom. If you wish to assume bad faith about CW, feel free to do so, but i'm not that type of person. Silverseren^C 07:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Really? How prevalent are {{Article issues}} tags at the bottom of articles? How many other editors move tags there during AfD discussions? How many editors do so when they've been warned multiple times in the past couple of weeks for odd and unusual editing patterns that have disrupted AfDs? Go read his latest response and tell me what you see: a user acknowledging that his editing style has consistently been held to be not up to expectations? A user who admits he should have known better? What do you see? Jclemens (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I must say, I've read thousands upon thousands of articles on en.WP and cannot recall ever once seeing those colour-banded worry tags at the bottom of an article, until I saw the CW diff. I guess they get put down there now and then but I think it's fair to say, it almost never happens. Ss says, "numerous people put or move tags [...] near the bottom." I'd truly like to see some diffs showing this, because putting them at the bottom utterly thwarts what they're meant to do, which is to make a reader aware of any editorial worries before they begin reading. I also think this is why CW put them at the bottom, he was hiding them. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The only cleanup tags that routinely goes at the bottom of the page are ones that pertain to categories. Also, if a user is not familiar with (or has "never heard of") WP:TC, then they really shouldn't be touching cleanup tags at all. That's like an admin who is unaware of WP:BLOCK going around blocking people for no reason. SnottyWong ^babble 15:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• You are correct that the Article issues tag is not likely to be moved down, but i'm willing to believe that that was an accident or mistake on CW's part, as he did also move down the reference list and categories tags. I really don't see the harm in doing so, however, which is why I still believe that this is making a mountain out of a molehill. The tags have little to do with an AfD discussion, since its supposed to be about the notability of the article subject, not the number of tags slapped on the article. And I did read his latest response and I thought it well-thought out and it addressed the various points that you have raised, especially on pointing out that WP:TC is neither a policy or a guideline. And he has a good point in the fact that you have been rather negative toward him in the past few weeks. Silverseren^C 16:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to each of CW's points on his talk page. You're right that WP:TC is neither a policy nor a guideline. However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (article message boxes) clearly is a relevant, long-standing guideline which states that such templates "go at the top of articles/sections, and identify problems or issues with the article." The argument that there is no consensus for the proper location of cleanup tags is pretty tenuous. SnottyWong ^comment 16:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

And you expect him to know about every aspect of the manual of style? I know very little about it myself and certainly nothing about individual pages of it. Silverseren^C 17:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't possibly be serious. Yes, I expect a user with 20,000+ edits to be familiar with the MOS. Is that too much to ask? Even if he's not familiar with that particular page of the MOS, I would expect any editor who has looked at tens of thousands of articles to be capable of recognizing the pattern that everyone puts cleanup tags at the top of the article. Everyone. I would bet the farm that if we programmed a bot to look at every article on Wikipedia that has a cleanup tag (with the exception of category-related tags, or tags that only refer to a section and not the whole article), at least 99.99% of the articles would have the cleanup tags at the top of the article. I only have made less than a third of the edits that CW does, and I am familiar with the convention and have no problem understanding it. This is wikilawyering at its best. As many have said already: if he doesn't understand the conventions and guidelines for cleanup tags by this point, then he is completely incompetent. If he does understand them, then he is purposely disrupting. Either way, we don't need completely incompetent people nor do we need intentionally disruptive people on WP. SnottyWong ^verbalize 18:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think almost experienced editor is bound to understand that the tags are wholly thwarted if they're not at the top, where a reader will see them before they begin reading the text. Why else would CW have put them at the bottom? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse current block, and support an unblock once an RFC/U is opened, as per above by Floquenbeam. Nakon 05:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Unless he gives an indication of what he'll stop doing, or understands what he should avoid doing, I think in this case (right at this point in time), formal restrictions would prolong the agony of it all. Endorse RfC/U by involved parties. But note, in an RfC/U, the only place he would be able to respond is in his response section, and on the RfC/U talk page. No comment on the block or potential unblock. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose block as strongly as I possibly can. As I see there is not unanimous support for JC, I am willing to unblock, though I like to avoid conflict and would prefer if someone else did it, and to oppose any topic ban. This is a ridiculous attack on an excellent editor and one of the most helpful contributors to AfD-- based on what are trivial misdemeanors. (I am not being uncritical: there was a short burst of what looked like WP:POINt in the past, which did need attention, and received it. Had he continued on large scale detagging U would not be supporting him, but these are individual articles.) The additional events are as minor as can reasonably be imagined. Removing a single citation needed tag is cause for a talk page discussion not a block. I have removed many unnnecessary and disruptive such citation needed tags, (along, of course, with adding others when they are needed). If someone removes a tag I've placed, And if the matter is moving a tag, that's about as trivial an offense as can be imagined. Seizing on this as a attack for a block must have am motive, and I cannot think of a good one. I do not try to block them. What else is there, Jclemens? You've never to my knowledge been this unreasonable before, and there must be some reason--do you think perhaps he is personally out to spite you in particular--if so, you should not be blocking. If an RfC is needed, open one, but remember that such action tend to lead to the comments about everyone concerned. The idea of blocking until an RfC is opened is total nonsense--what purpose is supposed to be served by that? Punish first, and discuss afterwards? DGG ( talk ) 10:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Since the consensus here is very clearly that some sort of block is appropriate, I would suggest unblocking before the community has decided on a plan going forward would be extremely unwise. Incidentally, how would an RFC on Colonel Warden involve the actions of anyone else? Who else has been disrupting AfD, screwing around with maintenance tags until they got blocked, and using deceptive edit summaries here? Black Kite (t) (c) 11:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• How disruptive does an editor that is trying to "save articles" have to get before you would act, DGG? You defended Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles well past any sane point, and Colonel Warden has always been a similar problem editor. It is apparent that Colonel Warden has determined that the most effective way to "save articles" is to disrupt the deletion process. We can't afford to have editors around that intentionally disrupt processes.—Kww(talk) 13:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• DGG, this is exactly the type of sentiment that enables CW to continue his disruptive behavior. There has never been an acknowledgement of, apology for, or promise to cease CW's cleanup tag jihad. Unblocking him now (before we have seen that acknowledgement, or decided on a topic ban) would send him the message that what he did wasn't really disruptive, and he can continue to find ways to push his POV about how cleanup tags should be used. Also, if I might add, a wheel war unblock coming from someone who is a good friend of CW could be interpreted as a violation of WP:INVOLVED. To this point, no one other than friends of CW have opposed these actions. SnottyWong ^chat 15:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

SW, reverting another admins block is not wheel warring. Reimposing it would be. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, my mistake. Struck through. SnottyWong ^converse 18:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock, but only pending the filing of an RfC/U. Despite the problems I've had with this user in the past, the blocking does seem a little harsh given the rather quick turnaround time after the final warning. With that said, the community definitely does not approve of the good Colonel's behaviour, and examining the issues rationally in a less heated environment than ANI might be helpful. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC).
• Neutral comment I understand Jclemens' thinking behind the block. I would have thought a short block for disruption followed by discussion, maybe or maybe not leading to an RfCU, would have been more fitting. Now that this has happened, an unblock (as in "shortened to time already blocked") followed by talking with CW about these worries is most likely the way to go from here. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at CW's talk page, I no longer think an unblock will help much. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• endorse block Several threads have been started to talk with Colonel Warden and yet he carries on from one disruptive activity to the next, barely escaping blocks each time. It finally caught up with him and this really shouldn't come as a shock to anyone.--Crossmr (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Block Colonel Warden has been a pain in the side to the AFD crew, Some type of further action needs to be discussed. I think an RFC/U is best course right now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• I strongly oppose the block because no disruptive editing has been cited. It's only convention that places tags at the top--the bottom may well work better for all I know. It is quite in order to move articles during AfD, especially if in doing so one resolves issues that would otherwise lead to deletion of the article. So let's see some actual evidence of disruption, please. He should be unblocked if none is forthcoming. --TS 14:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC) 14:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, CW is a long-term disruptive editor: as noted in Jclemens's summary above, he's been using false edit summaries for years despite complaints. Snottywong provided a good recap of the most recent troubles here.—Kww(talk) 14:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Looks to me like a content dispute. There is absolutely no requirement to place cleanup tags according to some preset formula. If JClemens has been harassing this editor because he's doing it differently, he's doing it wrong. That isn't how Wikipedia works, and JClemens and all others should know it. --TS 14:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The MoS guideline about it says they go at the top. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the entire thread and/or the previous ones linked above. When an editor is told by multiple uninvolved editors at their umpteenth visit to ANI that they are being disruptive by removing clearly valid maintenance tags from articles at AfD with deceptive edit summaries (and this after previous disruptions of the AfD process), then would you not suggest to them that deliberately yanking the communities' chain by instead moving the maintenance tags at an article at AfD to the bottom of the article (where they won't be seen) isn't a good idea?. Wouldn't you? Black Kite (t) (c) 15:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse good grief. Been using misleading edit summaries for years, stating stuff exists in sources that, when examined, is not found there, refuses to be straigthforward about his behavior, uses manifestly bad sources and refuses to correct that behavior and, yes, continues to seek to remove tags after repeated warnings to stop doing so. Only unblock if you get a promise to change the behavior (which would require an acknowledgement that he's been refusing to heed advice from multiple editors for a long period of time). If he continue to insist that he doesn't understand what's going on, then leave him indeffed. Taking him at his word (that he really hasn't understood all this communication) that's a competence problem.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse block, and unblock length reduction with suitable conditions. By convention tags are placed the top (with very few exceptions, and {{article issues}} is not one of them). As an experienced user, CW knows or should have known that, especially given that they left the {{rescue}} tag, which they added in the same edit, at the top. With them having been previously warned for disruptive removal of tags, I do not see how it is possible to interpret this edit as anything other than intentional disruption. The incident itself may be minor, but the disruptive intent is evident, and it is the latter that matters. T. Canens (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• After reading their bizarre interpretation of WP:DE on their talk page (as far as I can follow it, the argument goes that, because it is disruption to "disrupt[] progress toward improving an article", and because their edit, in part, "improved the article" by adding references, questioning that edit - even if unrelated to the references - is disruption). Either they are intentionally wikilawyering, or they are totally clueless. I think a reduction is appropriate once the conditions/restrictions are worked out, but I am no longer convinced that time served is a good option here. T. Canens (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not really involved in the current dispute, but I've had run-ins with Colonel Warden in the past (in particular, on bus route AFDs). I'm seeing an editor who perhaps had good intentions at one point, but now seems to have gone past disruption point. There's a reason we're called editors, and Colonel doesn't seem to understand that. Editing involves removing as well as adding material. I endorse the block and the restrictions mentioned. A ban on AFDs is a good idea, perhaps for the future, as this is where most of his disruption originates. AD 16:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm amazed by this. Or perhaps I should not be . This is a classic example of piling on when someone whose has a position one does not like has made some trivial errors. It's the sort of bullying which remains present at Wikipedia. The way of resolving disputes, especially content disputes, here has tended to be to wait until the opposing party has done something wrong, and then seize on it to get rid of them, without the need to address the real issue. It'a a manner of proceeding which does us the highest degree of discredit. This is one of the most absurdly exaggerated examples I have seen here. In this case, it's based not about a specific content issue, but an general one about the way of improving Wikipedia. The people opposing the Col are, for the most part, people who have dedicated themselves to improving Wikipedia by removing articles, some in a less reasonable manner than others. The Col takes the other approach entirely--of rescuing whatever can possibly be rescued, and he does it by rewriting and sourcing articles. This method of preventing deletion is indeed impossible to answer,for if one fixes an article enough, neutral people almost always !vote to keep it. It therefore should not surprise me that those who are frustrated by his success might seek to stop him.

with regards to some comments above: I supported A Nobody because I basically agreed with what he was trying to do. Unfortunately, he adopted for some reason I have never understood a very peculiar way of discussing things at inordinate length, with excessive repetition, and an affected style. This style not unreasonable annoyed a great many people of all persuasions and eventually made it impossible to defend him,and, beyond a certain point, I did not do so. The col, however, works for the most part in an entirely beneficial manner, and will be much easier to defend. There is no reason why anyone except the zealots should oppose him. He is not perfect, and the one charge against him that is correct is misleading edit summaries. I do not know why he does it, for I doubt they actually mislead anybody. It is not reason for a block, and if sentiment is otherwise, it's reason for a very short one, in order to give the earliest possible opportunity to show improvement. I therefore suggest shortening the block to time served. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, this is nothing to do with disagreeing with a user's opinion. It's how the opinion is presented and forced into articles in a disruptive manner. It's nothing about bullying - victims of bullying do nothing to attract the bully, and yet Colonel Warden frequents AFDs and votes to keep pretty much everything, and has on several occasion made several disruptive actions which cannot be seen as good faith. That is not a sign of innocence. It's easy to play the bully card, but your understanding of what bullying is, is flawed. I'ts nothing at all to do with stopping his "success" - it's stopping his disruptive editing. It does not surprise me to see inclusionists supporting his disruptive behaviour. As I don't believe in having agendas on Wikipedia, I look at every article objectively so I cannot be considered a deletionist - or as you might believe, an "enemy" of Colonel - so it's not like it's people getting their revenge. Really he has had numerous opportunities to show improvement and has completely failed to, so what makes him so special that he is above the rules? AD 18:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to press one or two admins of my acquaintance to consider whether they would unblock this editor on the condition that he await the outcome of an RFC on his conduct before resuming his contributions at AfD, his work on redirects, and his use of tags on articles. To my mind none of this conduct is actually disruptive, but I recognize that it is widely considered (at least in this discussion) to be "the wrong way to act." If this fellow is really so disruptive, perhaps it should be made more apparent to those of us who would otherwise actually think the chap might be making legitimate and even beneficial edits. --TS 21:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

He's already unblocked, but regardless it's safe to say that you don't seem to be understanding the concerns here. AD 21:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much why I didn't want to see this editor hided off to hell for allegedly engaging in the kind of editing I assume is quite in order on Wikipedia. I don't understand what the problem is, and I want to see it explained. --TS 01:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked, RFC/U to start

In light of multiple, reasoned opinions that an RFC/U is the proper place to establish patterns of editing and appropriate expectations and restrictions, I have unblocked Colonel Warden. While the consensus is clear here that blocking was not incorrect, I do not believe that leaving Colonel Warden blocked for the duration of a drawn-out discussion is warranted. An RFC/U, incorporating the discussion from this ANI thread so far, seems to be the proper venue going forward.
At the same time, I'm interested in stepping out of this particular case. I would rather that someone else could start the RFC/U and proceed from here. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jclemens. You've done a good job here to get the ball rolling. AD 18:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a shame. It's pretty clear from CW's talk page that he does not understand how wrong his behaviour is. If that's willful, that's one problem, if it's due to real lack of comprehension, it's another. I don't see anything that happened between the block being made and the block being lifted that signals that any meaningful change will occur.—Kww(talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand why you unblocked, but at the same time I'm disappointed to see that CW's regular tactic of just waiting it out and letting the pressure build has worked. Throughout all of the warnings and ANI threads, we still have not seen an acknowledgement from CW that there is a problem, or that he is aware that he's doing something wrong. I would have hoped for that to be a minimum prerequisite for an unblock. If anything, the comments on his talk page have shown that he believes there is no problem at all. While I tire of the drama related to this, I am not ready to let this go. I will start a draft RFC/U on a user subpage. Anyone is free to edit it before I post it. SnottyWong ^verbalize 19:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

When you've got supposedly reliable admins like DGG verging on personal attacks with "There is no reason why anyone except the zealots should oppose him", what else do you expect? I hope this - which is effectively enabling disruption - will certainly be brought up in the RFCU. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I weighed that, Snottywong. If Colonel Warden edits in a manner inconsistent with best practices at this point, someone else can block him. I'm pretty thick skinned, and I'm OK with the abuse I've taken to date, but it's really time for someone else to take over. Jclemens (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This is expected; I outlined this on your talk page, yesterday. I do thank you for your overall approach. I expect to certify or endorse whatever emerges; TBD, of course, and I'll certainly opine. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, another disruptive user pointlessly moved to RfC/U. ANI is the exact spot to discuss a disruptive user. From a rough look there was a significant majority supporting the block. You've done nothing to curb his behaviour by doing this and only further enabled him to continue it. He now knows that even with a majority of people supporting him being blocked the blocking admin will just turn around and unblock him. Bravo. RfC/U is non-binding and does nothing to serve the community in this instance.--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the RFC? I've been shown a draft linked from somebody's talk page, but it looked like a joke. Where is the RFC? Presumably the evidence is easy to come by. Put it on a page and let's look at it. --TS 01:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How dare the RfC not be filed immediately! Clearly not having this filed less than 12 hours after the unblock occurred means none of the complaints are valid. True many people in the US are gearing up for a major holiday, but that just proves even further how baseless all of these complaints are. Thanks goodness we have Tony Sidaway here making such helpful comments. AniMate 01:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• It's pretty sickening to see a bunch of minor issues blown up by the mob like this. Can't you just accept that some inclusionists are going to edit Wikipedia alongside you deletionists? Fences&Windows 02:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I know eh? I refuse to go anywhere near deletion debates unless absolutely necessary after I see the way those things degenerate so quickly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No, the Evil Scary Kitten-Eating Deletionist Legion of Doom can't accept that at all. We think all disagreement with our mission to destroy the universe and kick puppies is disruptive and so we constantly drag all outspoken inclusionists to ANI on trumped up charges. Why, just look at all the ANI threads concerning, say, DGG or Milowent or Silver Seren. Mwaaaahahahahaha. Hahahahaha. Oh, wait... Seriously, though, I don't accept that people who lie in edit summaries, fake sources, and obstruct cleanup efforts by removing maintenance tags without fixing the problems, are going to edit Wikipedia alongside other users who act in good faith. Attempting to excuse this kind of thing by trying to paint it as an ideological dispute is missing the point and not very helpful. If it was just this one thing, I would agree with you that it's making a mountain out of a molehill. But this is just the last incident in a history of dodgy behaviour going back at least two years. Reyk _YO! 03:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

it's very easy to find low quality work in those who oppose us, and I suppose it's inevitable that everyone is more concerned with that, and tends to pass over similar in those who support us. I do not want to start a comparative list of who does things worst, that's not a way forward. I personally decided some time ago that I would be very reluctant to initiate an action against anyone for this sort of thing, no matter what I think of them & I never have done so; the odds of overall benefit are much too low. What is a way forward in our inclusionism discussions, is for more people to actually participate in AfDs. If it is left to the people who are passionate about the subject of the article, as usually happens, or who are trying to express a general view or make a point, we're not likely to get as good decisions as from a non-committed jury-like attitude. If additional uncommitted people don't step in, we're going round in circles.

I've seen a pattern to our discussions here: first, someone brings up a long standing problem; then, a number of people join in and suggest overly drastic punishment and then supporters then suggest awarding a medal and punishing the other side for daring to complain. finally, usually, we either decide on something moderate, or people actually change their behavior. Perhaps we could skip the middle two steps. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a better solution. How about this: whenever someone makes a complaint on your user page about your behavior or editing patterns, and multiple editors and admins voice their agreement with that complaint, then you should immediately acknowledge that you've made a mistake, and genuinely resolve to discontinue the offending behavior. Had that happened a week or two ago, none of this would have been necessary. Everyone is so quick to judge and blame the people who brought this to ANI for the drama that you've forgotten all about the root cause of the problem, Colonel Warden. Unless, of course, you think it would be better for editors to stand by and watch a disruptive editor damage article after article, turning a blind eye and not lifting a finger to do anything about it. I request that this discussion be closed, as the RFC/U will likely be posted within the next 24 hours. SnottyWong ^speak 06:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for an indefinite block of User:Pfagerburg

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive639 § Impersonation and harassment by socks of a banned user

Further information: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

Further information: User_talk:AniMate § Pfagerburg

I indefblocked Pfagerburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in September, because his account has been used almost entirely since its creation in 2006 in pursuit of Jeff Merkey, a banned user who edits occasionally as IPs. Pfagerburg has made 738 edits, incl. 272 to articles, probably 90 percent of which have been Merkey-related. I warned him in July that if he continued to post about Merkey I would consider an indefinite block, and when I noticed in September that it was continuing, I applied it.

Animate unblocked him five hours later, on condition that he confine his posts about Merkey to the various boards, and that he start to edit as a regular Wikipedian. He has violated the second of these conditions—after his unblock he made about 18 edits then started on the Merkey issue again. And in my view the first condition was unreasonable. Pfagerburg needs to stay away from Merkey completely, not confine his comments to particular boards.

He was indefblocked by El C in May 2007 for focusing on Merkey, but Hemblock Martinis unblocked him. Then he was banned for one year by ArbCom in July 2007 for harassment of Merkey. In June 2008 Merkey complained to Pfagerburg's employer that Pfagerburg was continuing the pursuit using his employer's computers or telephones. In 2009 there was legal action of some kind between them in relation to the stalking allegations; Pfagerburg posted on his talk page that he had filed a lawsuit against Merkey for harassment, but it was dismissed. And yet Pfagerburg is still using his account almost entirely to report Merkey socks, or have Merkey-related articles deleted.

Pfagerburg says he has no other account. If that's true, then his sole purpose at Wikipedia is to continue this unhealthy interaction with Merkey, and I don't think we should be facilitating it. I'm therefore seeking consensus to re-apply the indefinite block, which I hope if agreed will stick this time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block, as proposer. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support It doesn't seem like this user benefits wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I unblocked Pfagerburg on September 21, with the understanding that he would no longer pursue Jeff Merkey's edits. Since then, he has done some editing but has also removed a series of tags left by Jeff Merkey accusing 24.37.221.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Long Time Lurker (talk · contribs) of being Pfagerburg's socks. He then reported the IPs to WP:SPI. This doesn't seem unreasonable at all. Previously, Pfagerburg had been going through every single article Merkey had ever edited as an IP and undoing extremely old edits. He hasn't resumed that behavior and I don't think removing tags left by a banned user accusing you of being a sock master is particularly troublesome behavior. AniMate 00:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. per SlimVirgin. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Point of order: Slim, are you seeking a regular indefinite block or a community ban? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what difference it would make in this case, HJ. I'm seeking a block of this account and with it an understanding that any other account doing the same that appears to belong to Pfagerburg would be blocked too. But he were to create an account to edit about butterflies no one would know it was him, so there wouldn't be any problem. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, could you provide diffs showing he has resumed his previous behavior? AniMate 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

See his contribs since you unblocked him. It's the same story: most of his edits are about Merkey, including the deleted ones. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

All I can see is that since the unblock he made a single report to WP:SPI and another WP:AE reporting 6 socks that had repeatedly tagged two accounts as his sockpuppets. Under the terms of his unblock, he is allowed to make reports to the appropriate venue. The only other edits about Merkey I can see were alerting the six IPs he had reported them, which is required by both forums. AniMate 00:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There are also deleted edits, and the point is that he's made almost no edits that are not about Merkey. Please take that point. Look, if someone is harassing someone (if), then all interaction should be avoided. Merkey says Pfagerburg is harassing him. Pfagerburg says Merkey is harassing him. We don't need to know who is right. All we have to do is require that they stay away from each other on Wikipedia. Pfagerburg has refused to do that for almost four years. This idea of allowing him to use the account to make SPI reports about Merkey is just feeding what looks like an unhealthy obsession. That's why I'm requesting the indefblock be reinstated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Of the four deleted edits, one was an attempt to notify an IP about the SPI and the edit after that was to remove the message because he got the IP address wrong. I can only see two others which were o an SPI case he initiated in an attempt to clear himself from the sockpuppet allegations Merkey had leveled against him. However, he blanked that as well. I still see no reason for him not to defend himself against spurious sockpuppet allegations. AniMate 02:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per AniMate. I cannot see that Pfagerburg has done anything problematic or in violation of his editing restrictions since he was unblocked, and has actually done quite a few low-key but benficial edits. I'm not seeing how banning this user will improve Wikipedia. If someone can point out diffs that show how Pfagerburg has acted poorly I will reconsider my opinion. Reyk _YO! 00:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment There are WP-skillful wiki-hounders that know how to play the WP game. Usually hounding via "just enforcing the rules". It's apparent that Pfagerburg is still focusing on Merkey. There are plenty of other people in WP besides Pfagerburg who can watch / report on Merkey... As a minimum, this needs an order to avoid all initiatives to be involved with Merkey. North8000 (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with this some what. Pfagerburg was blocked last time for this kind of hounding, but he was going through every IP Merkey had ever used and undoing their edits. That is harassment, and I unblocked when he gave his word that he would not continue that behavior. However, responding to someone who is labeling other accounts as your socks isn't hounding. AniMate 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Point of order SlimVirgin left out the latest discussion, wherein it becomes very clear that she is failing to AGF. I pointed out an AN/I, and the only thing she appeared to have read is that I started an AN/I three months after a harassing phone call, completely neglecting the section where I noted why it took three months to bring the matter to an AN/I. There's also the minor issue of 14 edits != 23 edits. And the insinuation that I can't possibly be a "regular Wikipedian" and I must be a sockpuppet instead. And I'm still waiting on that Checkuser. Pfagerburg (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but "have Merkey-related articles deleted" constitutes a subtle - and insidious - distortion of the truth, and I think this comment should immediately follow the distortion in order to clear it up immediately. This is important, because together with the discussion on AniMate's talk page (9 != 23 [126]), it shows SV's pattern of repeatedly distorting what the record clearly says in order to make me look worse than I am.

I can't see my own deleted edits, so I am not 100% certain, but I believe that I CSD'ed one article (not articles, plural), and I did so only because it was Merkey-created. That it happened to be Merkey-related is what made it so easy to detect the sock master behind the article. Check the deletion log for MDB (Linux). I didn't even start the first deletion discussion. I'm not sure where to find the creation log, but the various accounts that repeatedly created it were confirmed as Merkey sockpuppets. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef block, per Slim Virgin and Crossmer. North8000 has a good point, but I think an interaction ban is unlikely to work in this case, and would just end up in a block anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Clarify: Are you recommending an editor be blocked for tirelessly reverting a block-evading editor's edits? GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Nope. All he did this time was report the socks and notify them about the reports. AniMate 04:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, his "policy-mandated notifications". [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] His creation of an SPI page. [132] His tagging a Merkey-related article for deletion. [133] And is User:24.37.221.6 Pfagerburg too? [134] You said yourself just days ago that he had perhaps violated the spirit of the unblock, and that you wouldn't oppose a total interaction ban. [135] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• What does the article he tagged for deletion have to do with anything? The tagging occurred 13 days before your original block. AniMate 06:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies; one was in September. But the rest are from this month. Can you say why you said you'd support a total interaction ban if you feel the edits are harmless? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In that same edit, I said I wasn't sure what if anything needed to be done about it. After thinking about it, I solidified my position. I changed my mind. It's not unheard of. AniMate 06:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. This user has caused more than enough trouble for us users and admins at Wikipedia. Enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Indefinite block. Reporting socks of a banned editor is just not all that heinous. Granted, Plagerburg should leave years - old edits alone unless he can point to somethng specifically wrong with their content, and it would be a good idea to work on reducing his percentage of Merkey-related edits. Cardamon (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pfagerburg's actions do not seem to be aimed at perpetuating the dispute, intended to bait the banned user, or at all harmful to the encyclopedia. Disclosure: I had a series of unfortunate interactions with the banned user in question a number of years ago on-wiki. Despite this, I agreed with the original ban of Pfagerburg too, but at the present time cannot see evidence that Pfagerburg is trying to drive the dispute further -- merely trying to defend himself with minimal drama. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I don't think Pfagerburg's recent activity has been willfully disruptive, if it's even to be considered disruptive. But Pfagerburg, your pattern of edits must change. That Merkey is banned does not make the outward appearance of your behavior any better. I would strongly suggest that you take up an activity such as recent changes patrol or new pages patrol if you are genuinely interested in combating nonconstructive edits as opposed to Merkey edits. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Mendaliv, could you make clear what you think ought to happen if the pattern of edits doesn't change? I'm asking because it almost certainly won't. There's a long-term issue here that I don't think anyone on Wikipedia can change, so it would be good to know what the consensus about it is, should it continue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say that if Pfagerburg's behavior does not start to show a significant pattern of progressive improvement, a community ban would be in order. Exactly what has to change and how much time has to pass is out of my experience. I would like to see Pfagerburg participate in other community activities, and suggested the above (RCP and NPP) because I think the transition would be easiest; he does seem to have the inclination for these sorts of tasks. Moreover, this would help substantiate the claim that Pfagerburg's interest is in enforcing the community's policies generally rather than in perpetuating an off-wiki vendetta.

I am reluctant to support an interaction ban at this point because it may raise more questions than it answers. For instance, should we consider instigated incidents of interaction violations? There is evidence that some prior incidents were the result of intolerable instigation. Moreover, if Pfagerburg chooses to engage in recent changes patrol under such an interaction ban, he would need to avoid reverting any of Merkey's edits, just to avoid the risk of an investigation. This may have the effect of hamstringing any such efforts. Reverting the edits of a banned user is not something we should be punishing. Finally, this sort of arbitrary solution does not give room for progressive improvement; rather, it requires immediate improvement. Rome was not built in a day. I'm not saying we should tolerate an ongoing focus on Merkey's edits, but I think we should be prepared for the occasional questioned edit.

In summary, let him edit. If there's ongoing evidence of an unchanged editing fixation on Merkey, we should ban and block indef. If there's evidence of progressive improvement, existing restrictions should be gradually eased, and we can celebrate the cultivation of another committed Wikipedia editor. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what was suggested the last time he was on AN/I in September. The problem is that no matter what he's asked to do, and no matter what he says he will do, he continues to pursue Merkey and does no other editing to speak of. Normally, legal action between people results in them being asked to stay away from each other on Wikipedia, and not to edit articles related to each other. I'm very concerned that an exception is being made for Pfagerburg. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about the thread in ANI archive 639, the one linked above? The result of that was an agreement to an interaction ban, with the evident understanding that violation of it would result in a long block. However, reading the thread itself, I'm not sure there was community consensus to impose such an outcome, or even that the reverts that lead to that outcome were necessarily bad. Given a lot of the same opinions are being expressed now, I feel even less sure that the resolution was based on the community's consensus, rather than just an agreement making further discussion seem moot.

I'll agree with the assessment that an adverse history such as litigation usually results in the parties being told to avoid one another on Wikipedia. However, the extent of the background in this case and the ongoing activity by the other party indicates that we should not expect rapid or incident-free improvement in Pfagerburg's behavior. And honestly, looking at the handful of Pfagerburg's contribs since the September incident, I don't think there's a large enough sample of contribs to really evaluate his behavior. I don't think we can fairly interpret the recent SPI/AE activity as a refusal to change.

But if there's no real response to the recommendations stemming from this current thread, including the suggested areas of interest mentioned here and on his user talk page, then I'd be willing to consider this a ban situation, reversible by meeting the conditions of WP:SO. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest a total interaction ban on Pfagerburg. He noted in his last WP:AE report Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive72#Jeffrey Vernon Merkey that he is already banned for any other form of interaction, but for sock reporting. He should let other people deal with suspected sockpuppets of the fabled banned user, including sleuthing them for a report. I think that ArbCom has been clear in a similar case (involving Scibaby) that a small set of editors pursuing suspected socks of a banned user can sometimes become an problematic issue in itself, despite the "shoot on sight" allowance in policy. Also, I suggest Pfagerburg start using a new account, whose name should be communicated only to ArbCom, but not posted on wiki, in order to avoid being himself continuously harassed by IP editors assumed to have a beef with him. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Tijfo098, creating a new account is an interesting idea, and one that I will give serious consideration.

However, I doubt such an action will stop the harassment. Witness the Canada IP, which has been falsely tagged as a sock of me, despite the fact that I haven't been in Canada since I was in grade school. I doubt there is anything that could be done to my account - an interaction ban (with edit history to prove adherence), a block, or even a complete vanishing (damnatio memoriae-style, which I know is not really possible) - that would prevent the banned user from claiming that I'm behind any account or IP that reports his socking.

Let's discuss further. I create a new account, inform Arbcom of the account name (presumably so they can monitor for naughtiness), and some time later, somebody (who is not me) tags a new Merkey sock. Merkey bounces his DSL modem to grab a new IP, and posts a sockpuppet|Pfagerburg on that person's user page. It's false, and without evidence. Please describe what steps you would see happening next. Pfagerburg (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone other than you will hopefully revert, block, ignore. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, since Pfagerburg appears named after a real life person name, the Pfagerburg account should also be renamed, so that further vandalism against it will be less of a WP:BLP concern. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my account name is based on my legal name. Renaming the account won't change a thing; every time a sock is spotted, tagged, and blocked, he will claim (as he did for the Canada IP) that it's me behind the reporting account or IP. I'm still waiting on the checkuser since SlimVirgin keeps insinuating that I'm behind the Canada IP. I can't speak for the person who uses that IP, but if you look at that IP's edits, there were plenty of reverts of non-Merkey vandalism. Then Merkey (we presume) tagged that IP as being a sockpuppet, and the result was that the presumed Merkey IP was blocked for 24 hours and the Canada IP was blocked for 48 hours. What would you do if you got blocked for being falsely accused? Pfagerburg (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose, I've had a look at the user's recent edits, and while I agree that a large portion of them concern Merkey in some way or another, there's nothing particularly heinous there that I think justifies a community ban or indef block. I would strongly advise Pfagerburg to drop the whole matter and focus on something else, but I can't in good conscience agree to banning someone for following the rules. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC).
• Support I do not see the evidence under which Pfagerburg was unblocked, which was to disengage with regard to Merkey; therefore the block needs to be re-instated. Yes, discovered edits by socks of banned editors should be reverted (or adopted) but there is no necessity it need be done by Pfagerburg - and it is this type of wikilawyering, and the effort expended in investigating and discussing it, that is disruptive. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• I've asked a question at User talk:Pfagerburg#So ..., Pfagerburg's answer to which might inform people's decisions in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Reverting edits made by banned editors while that editor was banned is inherently a good thing, and should not be discouraged. If people can demonstrate that the reverts are being made for edits performed while the editor wasn't banned, I could be persuaded to switch sides.—Kww(talk) 14:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, only the ones made in violation of a block or ban. [136] Pfagerburg (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kww. -Atmoz (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Grump - I appreciate Pfagerburg's notifications, but it would help if it was not him doing them, given the history. At the very least, any on-wiki notifications. Merkey is banned and P has the best eye for Merkey contributions, but there is a real problem here. Perhaps an on-wiki complete interaction ban, with Pfagerburg encouraged to email functionaries or checkusers if he detects a sock, to keep it all off-wiki? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this may have the best chance of working, and will flesh out a proposal below. Pfagerburg (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I believe ive had occasion to occasionally work with this persons acquaintance and he has seemed like a dedicated and hardowrking Wikipedian editor. While I do find his focus on Jeffrey Merkey to be unhealthy for the purposes of editing, there are better remedies than a permanent ban over such a relatively easier remedied mistake that he had made in the past. Has anyone actually spoken to him and talked to him to see if hes alright? he doesn't have to be treated as bad as he can be contemplated!! User:Smith Jones 00:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's nothing wrong was reverting edits made by a banned editor. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Would support Pfagerburg's "Proposed Solution," below. Obviously, behavior needs to change, but having reviewed everything, including the old ARBCOM stuff and the links and diffs provided, an community ban or indef block of Pfagerburg is not the answer. Saebvn (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

Mostly what Georgewilliamherbet said - when I spot a sock, I will not write about it on-wiki, but will e-mail an admin (TBD) to point out socks. Details forthcoming after I respond to some individual comments above. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

New account

If I accept Tijfo098's proposal of creating a new account, the new account name will be communicated to Arbcom, who will presumably monitor for any violations of what I'm proposing.

Handling of sockpuppets

When I spot suspected Merkey sockpuppets:

• If the sock posts something on my user or talk page (or any sub-pages), I will remove the edit.
• In all other cases, I will not revert edits made by those socks, whether that's on articles, user pages, or WP pages.
• I will communicate information about the sock to an administrator (to be named) via e-mail, and not on-wiki.

Participation in RCP or NPP does not override the "only report it by e-mail and take no other action" condition just elaborated.

Don't expect many edits in the next few weeks

Please understand that I'm busy, per the notice on my talk page.

I finished the final project for a class this last weekend, and so I had a little time to pop onto WP. Unfortunately, that time got wasted because yet another IP from New Mexico was harassing me, and SV was again threatening to ban me, even though I had followed the conditions of my unblock by only reporting sockpuppets, not even reverting the socks' bad-faith accusations.

I've got a presentation to finish for class next Monday, and at work I have a customer demo on 15 Dec which will include the system firing the weapon. Those of you who are expecting me to make any substantial contribution in the very near future are going to be bitterly disappointed. Once the semester is over and the demo is done, I will have a little time to donate to improving the 'pedia, as opposed to defending myself against harassment and false sockpuppet accusations.

Setting SlimVirgin's record straight

There were subtle distortions that made the situation look worse than I think it is:

1. I CSD'ed one article, not multiple articles, and I CSD'ed it because it was created by a banned user, not because it was about his work. I didn't even start the first CSD.
2. I made 23 edits about something other than Merkey socks between unblock and SV's complaint on AniMate's talk page, not 9 edits as SV stated.
3. SV still won't get the count right, and says 18 edits above. Count them: 23, even if some of them are minor edits, and properly marked as such.
4. When it takes several edits to open an SPI about 6 IP socks (including notifications that are required by WP policy), it is grossly unfair to treat all of those highly-related edits as if they were separate and distinct. Next, she'll count the edits I made in the discussion on AniMate's talk page and here in this AN/I and say that I've made too many Merkey-related edits. So I guess I only get one edit per accusation. Clarifying anything is verboten, because it will increase my non-"genuine" edit count.

Points to ponder

Damn I wish I had thought of these earlier. Oh well. I'll present them now for any fence-sitters to evaluate.

When Merkey's BLP came up for deletion, I voted to delete it [137]. Would someone with an "unhealthy fascination" with Merkey want such a juicy target to be taken away?

When "Gaylynn Mitchell" (believed to be a Merkey sock) use several IP's in Utah to have Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jeff V. Merkey/1 and Wikipedia:Account_suspensions/Jeff_Merkey blanked, I participated in the discussion. I opposed the edits due their sockpuppet-of-a-banned-user nature, but I listened to SV's reasoning, and then agreed with her [138]. I later suggested page protection to prevent a courtesy-blank being undone [139] and [140]. Does that sound like someone who is on a vendetta against Merkey?

Careful evaluation of an informal sockpuppet report [141], with plenty of WP:AGF.

Pfagerburg (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This mostly seems sensible to me. I could even see a case for Pfagerberg being able to report Merkey sightings at some specific place on-wiki (i.e. an SPI report) for other users to deal with. I understand how editors overfocused on one issue can be a problem, but Merkey was a different level of problem. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback, but according to SV's complaint, my most recent "offense" was to report the socks on-wiki in an SPI report and an AE action, and do nothing else - not even revert the sockpuppet allegations made against me wholly without evidence and in bad faith. So what you're suggesting won't work, because it's what I already did. If I am to report a sock sighting, it must be off-wiki, to reduce the drama.

I'm interested in what part does not seem "mostly ... sensible" to you. Pfagerburg (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)