Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive572

Jeff V. Merkey

Resolved

 – Jvmphoto blocked for making legal threat. Guy looking into any relevant article/BLP issues. Best to handle this through email etc. Abecedare (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some more eyes on Jeff V. Merkey? There seems to be some tag-teaming going on to remove maintenance tags and insert self-promotional info. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP has been warned for 3RR violation and has refused to AGF as indicted by the comment above. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a sockpuppet account of the SCOX trolls. Leave the photos in the article is better with them. People need to know all sides of me, not just the opinions of the Merkey-hating trolls from Yahoo SCOX. The whole point of biographies of living persons is to enhance the content of an article. PLEASE. Thaknk. Jvmphoto (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Where are your sources, Mr. COI? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not what should be asked. Why did you delete the sources and content? QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What sources? I didn't see a single source in your edits. Never mind, I didn't see the primary sources at the bottom; that section is decet. Still, is there a reason why you're editing your own article again? And adding an unsourced DOB, unsourced spouse, unsourced unsourced unsourced? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You did delete several sources including sourced text. For example, you did delete this reliable secondary reference. "United States Attorney Press Release Mooney indictments".

Why are you saying I am editing my own article. Please strike you comment or run a checkuser. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidently Jvmphoto (talk · contribs) is Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is indefinitely blocked. Unless something has changed that I'm not aware of, Jvmphoto should be blocked on that basis. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I did some cleanup of the article, unaware of this discussion and JVM being indef blocked. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat, protected

Subsequent to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's block and FisherQueen's decline, Jvmphoto posted "everytime you block me or post more of these lies, you are violating a Court Order.", which seems to me to be unambiguously a legal threat. So I've protected his talk page (but not blanked it; another admin may choose to do so) to prevent further threats. Evidently he's au fait with the arbcom, Jimbo, and the Foundation, so he knows where to go to ask for an unblock, and he should be doing that on his main account anyway. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh FFS. Jeff always talks that way. He's also pretty much incapable of working with the Wikipedia community, so I will send him email asking him if there is any error of fact that needs correcting. He's not evil, actually he's a great guy with many good and steadfast friends in the tech industries who really respect him, but he is very passionate about some things and he has been royally trolled because he rises so readily to the bait. Oh, and that photo is the same as the one on his FaceBook profile, so is probably OK even if it was a joe-job (which it probably wasn't). Guy (Help!) 22:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No guy, he's not well respected in the tech community. With the attempt to buy linux for $50K, his continuous ranting on the lkml, his theft of Novell's property and the subsequent attempt to sell it to Microsoft(which got him a a beatdown in court) and his uncontrollable hunger to file really strange lawsuits http://scofacts.org/merkey.html, he's a laughing stock. For the record, I was User:Vigilant. I have not editing wikipedia in a long, long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.4.129 (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've received a few unpleasant emails from JVM, but I'm keen to agree that he means well and just reacts badly to not being in control of a situation. I'd appreciate it if you let him know that personally, I have no hard feelings against him, but obviously on-wiki there are rules, etc. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this guy the one who said "I will sue you in a COURT OF LAW in Trenton, New Jersey"? Regardless of whether he means well deep down inside, we shouldn't give him further opportunities to go make legal threats on Wikipedia, not even if they're unintentionally hilarious. rspεεr (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That was someone else, the threats to sue and legal liability made by this guy aren't specific to location. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing and propaganda by User:Ketabtoon

Resolved

 – article fully protected for 1 week - editors to attempt to reach consensus, I will remain on standby to assist.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ketabtoon (talk · contribs) is once again propagating WP:POV and WP:OR, this time in Afghan Mellat. He is deleting sourced and relevant material, proving that the "Afghan Mellat" party is considered ethnocentrist, nationalist, and racist. He removes a relevant source (from the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung) which explains that the founder of the party was fascinated by Nazi ideology. He also removes a relevant link to the homepage of the Socialist International, proving that although the "Afghan Mellat" party calls itself "social democratic", it is neither a member of nor accepted as such by the Socialist International. Tajik (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the article's discussion page. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

I already have. And I am not interested in any "discussion", when there is a clear act of propaganda for a fascist and ethno-nationalist party and ideology. It's already a shame that you knowledge the party's (and its founder's) liks to the NSDAP regime of Adolf Hitler's Germany, yet you say: "the source does not mention by which aspects of Nazi policy he was fascinated." So I am asking you here: is there any aspect of Nazi policy that YOU support? Tajik (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked the admins (or other parties involved) to refer to the talk page. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

User:Tajik is very disruptive, a racist and he should be banned. [1], [2] He has been blocked so many times but is still edit-warring, POV pushing, vandalizing pages and meatpuppeting. [3], [4] Since he's restricted from making over 1 RV, he instructed another Tajik to come to Wikipedia to revert pages for him. He may also be borrowing his account/passwords and using it. Tajik is engaged in ethnic war, he's obessesed with hating Pashtuns and he should be banned so Wikipedia can improve. Everything he edits is about ethnicity, he should be at least be restricted from editing Pashtun related articles.--119.73.4.170 (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

119.73.4.170 is the IP of banned User:NisarKand. This has been confirmed by admin User:Alison here: [5]. However, it's not really a surprise that this banned user is coming to support User:Ketabtoon. He did the same in Ghurids and Muhammad of Ghor (and of course vice versa). Tajik (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have fully protected Afghan Mellat for one week whilst you are both edit-warring over the content of the article. I have also reverted the obvious new vandal edits by IP 166.205.131.88 at that page. I have ignored the comments of the suddenly arrived 119.73.4.170 who does appear to be here only to disrupt. I will be watching the talk page for any supported consensual requests for addition/deletion of material to the article. I ask that you either reach agreement of NPOV content which does not provide UNDUE coverage of any particular area - or you walk away from each other to edit at articles with a different theme.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me for being disruptive. You're helping a racist editor to spread his racism. All I did was comment on Tajik and his actions here, this was not directed only to you but to all editors. Racism is just going to eat you live, it'll make your life very short.--119.73.6.149 (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As a passer-by without any knowledge of the article itself: Firstly, "Social democrat" is not necessarily the same as "socialist", nor is there any guarantee that a legitimate social democratic party is a member of the socialist international. Secondly, a mere fascination with a certain ideology does not equal support for that ideology. The claims made by Tajik may or may not be correct, but the reasoning used in his comment is definitely faulty.88.77.186.196 (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors PhilthyBear and ScottRios being disruptive at Toronto

After a lengthy (2+ month) discussion involving pretty much every editor that showed on the talk page, a new skyline photo was chosen by an almost unanimous consensus (Though few editors participated, there was plenty of time to do so for those who chose not to). Upon attempting to change it, two editors (User:PhilthyBear and User:ScottRios have repeatedly undone the edit claiming it against consensus (which they did not participate in). I have reverted twice, and am temporarily withholding a third at this point until I get a go-ahead (Though I feel strongly that this should count as vandalism and not 3RR). The editors have failed to even comment on the talk page, and only revert the edits despite both my edit summaries mentioning the talk page discussion.

Diffs

• [6] My addition of consensus per talk page discussion
• [7] first revert by PhilthyBear with summary of "No one agreed to this picture. It's terrible"
• [8] first revert by myself with summary of "Actually all but one person in the talk page did. Please take comments there."
• [9] second revert by PhilthyBear with summary of "Actually it was only 3 people discussing the change. Hardly a consensus." (and continued to not participate in the discussion)
• [10] second revert by myself with summary of "Stop reverting against CURRENT consensus and take this to the talk page please. You don't discuss, you don't get your say." (which is true, if they will not discuss on the talk page then their say should be ignored as undemocratic)
• [11] revert by ScottRios with summary of "This is not a dictatorship User:Floydian. You have been reported for 3R's" (a rather snappy summary, without any comments on the talk page (the user did not report me for my 2 reverts)

• User:PhilthyBear has not participated at Talk:Toronto, and very few other talk pages, which shows a lack of cooperation with other editors
• User:ScottRios has only participated in discussion at Gangs in Canada, and never at Talk:Toronto

I am notifying these users now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • User:Floydian has committed 3R's and is disrespectful to other users. The Toronto page main image has been used for some time and is perfectly good. User:Floydian removed the picture after a lengthy incoherent discussion with 3 other editors most of which was personal chat. The image which he replaced the good quality image looks of poor quality and resembles a 1982 family photo quality. A coherent conversation on the talk page should take place and not personal chat with dozens of images posted. PhilthyBear (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

After having a quick look through the talk page I'd like to say that it appears that User:Floydian is in the right here. There is clear consensus (it's not his fault only a few users took part in the discussion) and despite anything else, that trumps all. There's no point in coming on to this noticeboard and saying he engaged in 'personal chat' when one can go to the discussion and see that is simply not true, I think there was a good quality, in-depth discussion about the subject in hand between editors that seem to take a keen interest in it, I think if anything it is one of the better talk exchanges I have seen. Also, if User:Floydian did revert the 3rr rule (I would argue he didn't, he was combatting vandalism, i.e. editors going against consensus) or was disrespectful then don't simply make that your response to this post because it simply looks like you're grabbing at straws, if he has played unfairly then start a new thread about his conduct. In summary, there is concensus to change the picture and what it should be changed to and therefore PhilthyBear and ScottRios should accept that and take any concerns to the talk page. RaseaC (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The point was also to draw more conversation in to the talk page, a point which PhilthyBear clearly missed (and given the quick removal of my post from his talk page (which is technically against policy I believe), has no interest in persuing). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is (although this is a source of controversy) acceptable to users to do anything they like with their talk pages, there's not much that can be done about it. However, it is gernally the sign of a poor editor. The user in question seems to have a history of clearing his talkpage due mostly, it would appear, to other users raising concerns about his questionable behaviour, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. RaseaC (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Also possibly not entirely relevant to this discussion, but are users ScottRios and PhilthyBear the same user using sock accounts to get around the three revert rule? Yes they are both Canadian editors so do share some article editing history, but their manners and turns of phrase sound identical, especially when it comes to mistakes. For instance ScottRios's edit summary here [12] is more than a little similar to Philthy's edit [13] here where they both accuse him of 3R's (erroneously I must add.) I think this bears looking into, though I'm willing to admit I could be wrong and go with AGF. Canterbury Tail talk 01:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Try to keep your points clear, the issue is disruption through multiple reverts and apparent refusal to discuss. Consensus can and does change and the fact that a perceived consensus existed is only important for supporting the need to discuss; in other words "we've had a discussion, so BRD isn't an appropriate method for editing here". A discussion between a small number of people does not "trump all". Also removal of comments on the user's talk page merely means that the user has read them.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally feel that if you don't speak, you don't get your say. Reverting is not a method of communication, and trying to have your say through reversion summaries is totally inappropriate behavior. I also feel I was pretty clear as I make the claim of vandalism and lack of communication in the first paragraph, before the diffs. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me just clarify two of my points you raised. Firstly WP works on consensus, and therefore if a group of people reach a consensus, then we work with what that group decides (in most cases). Simple. Secondly, an established, respected editor blanking their talk page of valid comments (lets forget vandalism here) is one thing (I personally would still consider that person a poor editor and not give them the time of day, but I would bare in mind their experience) an editor who devotes most of his time on WP to be disruptive and incivil who then goes on to blank their talk page is obviosuly a different matter alltogether. RaseaC (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

While it would have been perfectly legitimate for PhilthyBear and ScottRios to question the consensus that had been reached, they instead took the bully approach with unilateral reverts and unfortunate came-out-of-left-field name calling (both of them throwing around the word "dictator"). They both clearly had things to say, but acted on them in a really inappropriate manner. Until they choose to become involved in the manner in which they did, the discussion on the talk page had been lengthy, with some differences of opinion, but had remained civil the entire time - sadly, now we've ended up in this forum, which is really disappointing. Ironically, had they both bothered to chime in on the talk page (assuming for a moment that one of them isn't a sock puppet), I don't think there would have been consensus for the change that so infuriated them. But while consensus is not immutable, it doesn't get changed through actions like those of PhilthyBear and ScottRios in this particular case. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember this sockmaster

Yousaf.john (talk · contribs) is a sock, but I don't remember the name of the sockmaster. He has recreated wikiprojects that were deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Small_Pakistan_wikiprojects as POINTy creations of a sock. A clear WP:DUCK case. Please look at the deleted versions and post here the name of the account. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe I know which case you're talking about, but I can't remember the name either, let me search through my watchlist and archives and such.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Investigations concerning the above conducted by myself and mainly Redvers(mostly Redvers) have turned up five accounts, all blocked by Future Perfect. I however need some sleep, but I'll be contacting him, and filing an SPI, tomorrow.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the account you both have in mind is Teckgeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No comment as to the question of whether Yousaf is a sock puppet. AGK 11:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the account I had on my mind was a similar sounding username.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI filed, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Entlínkt ist doof! 22.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Found the name of the sockmaster, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Strider11.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on English Defense League

Resolved

 – Discussion returned to talk pages Leaky Caldron 22:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am reporting this here based on my understanding of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and in particular Dealing with disruptive editors.

In the English Defense League article a consensus was reached yesterday on the lead sentence in which the previously disputed use of the word “political” was agreed to be dropped. Consensus and reasoning are here: [14]. There were clear issues concerning WP:NOR, WP:Weight, WP:Synth & WP:Verifiability relating the insistence that this group is, in its present form and structure, a political group.

Verbal has strenuously argued against this in the past but did not participate in the most recent consensus discussion. Nevertheless, a previously strong supporter of the word (Snowded) did agree to drop his opposition in the discussion referenced above. Only following that agreement with a previous antagonist was the disputed phrase modified (by Snowded himself) clearly reflecting the revised consensus [15]. The previous consensus had been weak and was confused by the use of the expression "far right" which is no longer at issue. The latest consesus is strong - especially as it is backed by a previous opponent.

Today Verbal maintains that the use of political is “factual and well supported content” in this dif. [16] and maybe had not read the amended consensus before reverting what he judged to be an unapproved change. I therefore changed it back per consensus here [17] pointing out the new consensus. However, he has since changed the lead back at this dif: [18] claiming consensus, RS and bizarrely, “dictionary definition and the fact this is an encyclopaedia,”

He has strenuously argued about this previously. Without providing a source he has relied upon the interpretation that political is inferred in the use of “right wing”. That in itself is a taut rendering the use of the word “political” redundant. However, the main argument against using “political” remains most importantly the lack of any source. Given what is reliably sourced about EDL it would currently be unduly prominent in the lead for an organisation characterised as a street-based, football hooligan-based mob.

If there is a more suitable venue for this please advise.

Leaky Caldron 12:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, so this is the wrong venue. Also, it is not my editing that is disruptive and there was no attempt at following WP:DR before bringing this to ANI. A "new consensus" has not yet been established. For these two reasons at least it is premature to bring this here, especially as there has been no edit warring. However, I would welcome the input of more editors at the article and would hope more people get involved and add it to their watch lists. Verbal chat 12:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Verbal, this is edit warring [19] but I'll not revert it until guided. However, the consensus (even without you) is very clear. I've played everything by the book here. The content dispute was resolved by consensus and your edits were therefore out of line. Dealing with disruptive editors point to here and I cannot find a more suitable forum unless the NPOV noticeboard is preferable. This would have degenerated into 3RR in a matter of minutes. Making false claims of a personal attack does nothing to help either. Leaky Caldron 12:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Two reliable sources (Reuters and tv press gazette) have been added, many many more could be added - but that would be pointless, and this discussion should return to the article talk - where people are still trying to get "far right" removed despite nearly every report describing them as such! See also recent attempts to get the BNP labelled "left wing". This area needs a lot more eyes. PS that isn't edit warring for technical (not more than 3 in 24hrs) and practical reasons - I added the requested RS in a two edit block. Please report me to WP:AN3 if you disagree, but I'd ask you bring it up on my talk page to see if we can reach a compromise first. Thanks, Verbal chat 13:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the sources verify that EDL is a political group. I have brought it here because you are insisting that your consensus of last week cannot be replaced by a fresh consensus in which you did not participate and you will not allow the revised consensus to stand. If you accept the new consensus and are willing to discuss on the talk page then that is clearly the right place, but you cannot keep restoring "your" particular consensus - especially in view of the strength of the new one. Leaky Caldron 13:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Please take your concerns to the article talk page. Verbal chat 13:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem in doing so if the article is returned to the consensus. The new material which was requested last week and not provided, still fails to advance your opinion that EDL is political and needs wider discussion before being accepted. As will the obvious taut. The status quo is the concensus version. You insisted on reversion to consensus last week regarding "far right" and I agreed. I am asking you to show those of us who disagree with you (about "political" in the lead) the same courtesy. Leaky Caldron 13:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Following your suggestion to discuss on your talk page you have advised that if I revert the article to consensus you would “think if you reverted again without discussion, you may well be blocked. Consider this your edit warring notification. Wikipedia doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour”.

Anyone reading this, together with the article talk page and yours, will see that what you accuse me of is completely without substance. Your allegation (that I am promising future disruptive behaviour) is reprehensible. I think you are stepping close to breaching policy on conduct and would urge you to stop and ideally retract that statement. Leaky Caldron 15:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect and misleading. The other editor has stated he wont debate the issue until I remove sourced information. There is also not a consensus for his version, even before the new sources were added. I reverted him once and then added sources and started a discussion on the talk page. I don't see why you have to reply to a post made on my talk page here. Reverting without discussion now sources have been added and a discussion added would be disruptive. I just counted up the opinions on the talk page, and didn't get a majority for removing political. I saw a few "don't care", some "remove right wing" and only two "remove political" - before the sources were added. Now sources have been added that changes the debate again, and discussion should continue. You boldly removed the phrase you are objecting to, for reasons I still don't understand, and I reverted and added new sources. I also started a discussion. Following the WP:BRD process, that discussion should continue. I has been my experiance that Wikipedia doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour (I stated this as the other editor stated they would only return to the debate if I restored his preferred version, and he asked what I would do if he did that himself). Please engage on the article talk page and show a clear consensus there to remove well sourced factual information. Verbal chat 15:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the benefit of doubt I have refactored the section concerned. It is here [20]. In that section 5 editors concluded that “political” should be dropped. They are: Gabagool, Ghmyrtle, BritishWatcher,Snowded and me. Each one made the comment “support” or “agree”. No editors joined to say they did not agree. You obviously would have and have now done so. 5 editors supported the change which Snowed then implemented, not me.

The new material is not supportive and I’m not obliged to discuss it at anytime, much less when there is a dispute bordering on incivility. Last week you forced a reversion to consensus during the “far right” dispute. I agreed and eventually supported the consensus. Why am I in error following your good example and insisting that the new consensus should be adopted while discussion takes place? Snowded has just made a commendable suggestion and you should consider it. Leaky Caldron 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

⬅Its a content dispute and should not be at ANI. The EDL page is controversial and for some time Leaky C attempted to argue against both the right-wing and the political labels. The claim has not been reduced a bit to accept right-wing but avoid political. Some of us think that the political label is not the most important - it self evidently is political but its not vital to state it. If a direct citation can be found then its use is uncontroversial, for the moment organisation should be good enough. However the history of this article is not good, and Leaky C has been edit warring and using drive by tagging at times. Best to cancel this thing from ANI all together, issue an RFC and let everyone calm down a bit. Its meaningless and unnecessary escalation to bring it here. Oh and Verbal is not edit warring against consensus. I made the change based on a talk page discussion before he had a chance to get involved. He is thus fully entitled to revert it - I was being bold. Leaky C is just wrong there and the blocking threats are silly and provaocative--Snowded ^TALK 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant "now" not "not" (4th sentence). I haven't made block threats - the other user has against me - let's just be clear here. As for consensus - how is 5 editors agreeing something not a consensus? I have not edit warred. I have made 13 edits including tags and have reverted the other user 3 times over 2 separate aspects. Lets not throw stuff around not supported by the facts. I'm no bandit. The other editor has done many more reverts than I have. Leaky Caldron 16:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually its two editors (of that 5) being prepared to accept a compromise but not agreeing with you, now with some new editors its changing. Whatever, you should not bring basic content disputes to ANI against another editor who acted properly. I was bold (in support of a compromise) they reverted. That is fine, they are allowed to do that. I meant "not", he is not edit warring against consensus he has restored it, as he was not happy with my compromise edit. --Snowded ^TALK 17:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:TJ Spyke using wikicleaner to bypass redirects contrary to WP:R2D

TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've brought this up with the user directly and was seemingly unable to successfully explain to them why it is generally unhelpful to "fix" redirects that are not broken (especially en masse and without regard as to whether the redirect might one day become an article - this is explained at the WP:R2D guideline). However, they continue, and often use a misleading edit summary of "Repairing link to disambiguation page". I invite additional scrutiny and comments as to how best to proceed. –xeno^talk 14:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Using misleading edit summaries is disruptive. Can you provides diffs where the user has done so?--Crossmr (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[21] as an example, but pretty much every edit they make with this edit summary: WikiCleaner 0.96 - Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help! - as they are bypassing redirects, not doing WP:DPWL work. They are also bypassing redirects on talk pages and in archives (e.g.) which should really never be done. –xeno^talk 14:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Example: [22]

There is at least one actual disambiguation fix (South Park Elementary), though it's questionable whether it should have been fixed like this, in addition to the redirect bypasses (some just useless like Earshot (Buffy episode) to Earshot (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), some actively harmful like Lunchlady Doris to Springfield Elementary School). If he continues, block him. If this "WikiCleaner" is unable to be set up to not bypass redirects, it needs to be fixed or banned. Popups is a nice replacement that will disambiguate links, and bypass individual redirects when desired, such as on navboxes.

If the triviality of this pop culture example disinterests you, imagine one like Brattleboro and Whitehall Railroad to Central Vermont Railway, where the former is definitely a valid topic for a separate article ([23][24]). --NE2 14:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your bypassing in this very thread. --NE2 16:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't use misleading edit summaries on purpose, I just sometimes forget to change the default edit summary (the majority of times my summaries are correct). I don't get Xeno's problem, I am not doing anything wrong. Instead of wasting time attacking me and going around reverting my edits for no reason (which is NOT acceptable, reverting valid edits that improve an article), maybe he could be constructive for once. TJ Spyke 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no vengeance here. You are making edits contrary to the WP:R2D guideline. If these edits have consensus, then the guideline should be changed. –xeno^talk 15:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not like it's a policy, just a guideline. I see plenty of other people fixing redirects as well, so why you seem to focus on me makes no sense. Even if you disagree with my edits, you have no rights to revert them (and if you do, I have the same right to revert right back, although I have not done this for articles). The only reason you seem to be going after me is because once in awhile I will fix a bunch of articles in a row. As for your earlier comment, the majority of the links won't get separate articles (for example, changing [[Duff Beer (The Simpsons)]] to [[Duff Beer]] or [[Mr. Burns]] to [[Montgomery Burns|Mr. Burns]]. Even though it's just a guideline, I do agree it should be changed so that you would stop complaining. TJ Spyke 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines should still be followed absent a good reason not to. To do otherwise is disruptive.

FYI it's never a good idea to continue with edits under dispute while they're being discussed at ANI.

The Duff beer change is ok (actually beneficial) but these Superintendent Chalmers changes are not. These are exactly the kind of redirects you should not be fixing. Why do you feel redirects need to be fixed in the first place? –xeno^talk 15:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Those 2 examples are moot as the guideline you love some much specifically says that templates are exempt from it (and userboxes are considered templates). As for redirect fixing, it depends on the specific link being fixes. It could be something like making sure it's spelled correctly (fixing Super Mario RPG so that the link goes to Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) or episode names (like $pringfield to it's full name). The vast majority of those Simpsons minor characters have consensus to be merged into one article (do you see Scott Christian ever having a article? He's had speaking parts in 2 episodes and both combined are about 6 lines, he hasn't even appeared on-screen in over 10 years). TJ Spyke 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The guideline speaks to navigational templates. Userboxes are not, and users may have linked to the redirect for a reason, you should not change it. –xeno^talk 16:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is not with the edit summaries; it is with the bypassing of redirects. Stop. --NE2 15:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Do NOT delete my comments like you just did, that is vandalism. TJ Spyke 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is deliberate. You're 0 for 2. --NE2 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the fact that you may have read WP:R2D but you don't seem to understand it. "That GUIDELINE says templates ARE allowed to have redirects fix (and userboxes are considered templates)" gives this away; please read it again and understand why bypassing redirects on some templates can be beneficial. --NE2 15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not doing anything wrong. At least while this is still a issue, I will not edit a article just to fix redirects. If I need to edit the article anyways (like to revert vandalism or add to the article), I don't see the harm in doing some other fixes at the same time. As for your last comment, fixing links on templates is allowed, so I will continue on that (especially fixing "D'oh" to "D'oh!". TJ Spyke 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The title of the section at WP:R2D, "Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken" makes it plain by using quotes around fix that what you consider beneficial fixing is not actually beneficial, so as long as you claim you aren't doing anything wrong by "fixing" things, there is a problem. Sswonk (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not enough. Unless you understand why redirect bypassing is normally bad, do not do any. --NE2 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You are doing something wrong and you've got several users here telling you that. You haven't given any legitimate reason to ignore the guideline other than you want to. In addition you're using misleading edit summaries and editing other people's talk comments and archives which you have no business editing ever, except in a few rare circumstances for things like vandalism, personal attacks, or perhaps someone putting a fair use image on a talk page. The fact that you're continuing with disputed work while a discussion is on-going is rather disconcerting.--Crossmr (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Boovaloo

Please ban this user indefinitely. It is a vandal. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Boovaloo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made 3 edits. After the third edit he recieved a level 2 warning. I don't see any edits after that. With a few exceptions we usually give users a chance to respond to warnings. If he continues he should get a at least a final warning, if not a level 3 warning first. Then if he continues WP:AIV would be the best spot to report.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And as I post that he earns himself a final warning...---Cube lurker (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked by accident, thinking there had been another edit past the final warning, but unblocked when I saw that wasn't the case. The autoblock is still active -- I figured if they wanted to get in that badly, they could follow the instructions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ali Rana, User:Yousaf.john, and User:Skepticfall

• Ali Rana (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Yousaf.john (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Skepticfall (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

All three of these users are the same person, with Ali being the possible sockmaster. This information was confirmed on IRC through the CU Brandon, who will comment here in a moment to confirm this. Yousaf has been engaging in disruptive page creation, in that they are recreating several wikiproject pages for non-existant wikiprojects that were previously created by the sockpuppet of a banned user, and subsequently deleted per a deletion discussion. I don't know exactly what to make of the other two users' edits, so I would like more eyes upon the situation to better understand what is going on. Thank you for your time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The three accounts were found during a different SPI and are  Confirmed . Brandon (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)This comment was mistakenly removed. I have replaced it. It was originally placed by Brandon as seen here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Yeah, sorry that was an accident. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Skepticfall is the banned Strider11 (talk · contribs). Nishkid and I got rid of him in March but he comes back everyday because the range is so big. Creates categories everywhere, etc etc, pretty easy. Always fiddles with other Pakistani people's userpages. Also because there isn't a "delete all" button, who wants to delete hundreds of stuff everyday. Paknur (talk · contribs) also comes back everyday, with endless cats and stubs. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, one of his socks created the Pakistani Task Force of WP:MILHIST. The coords have agreed to keep it in any case. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

YM, could you hand out some blocks then, and I can start issuing CSD tags.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI filed, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Strider11.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad-faith AfD nomination by User:FunnyDuckIsFunny

Resolved

 – Speedy kept. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2012_(film)_(2nd_nomination) is a bad-faith repost of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2012_(film), possibly by a long-term abuser. At any rate, this confirms the editor's intent to use the account for abuse only. --Rrburke^(talk) 23:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Up from the dead...

Resolved

 – Users blocked in both cases. — Jake Wartenberg 01:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be brief: could someone block this guy's new sock? Apparently his first account was named "Prvi zdrug" [25], and when he got banned he immediately created a new account called "Prvi zdrug uskrsnuće" [26] ("Prvi zdrug: Resurrection" :). Creative, no? Perhaps an IP range block as well? I think its very likely he'll just create a new sock. ("Night of the Living Prvi zdrug"? ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, one more thing: the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia article infobox is being constantly "vandalized" by User:Barlo7 for days and days. I don't know what to do with the guy... at one point I even lost my temper trying to explain how the infobox works. He keeps removing Italy and Germany as predecessor states because he thinks its "insulting to the dead". He also apparently thinks I'm a fascist... :). Anywayz, I tried my best to explain everything [27], didn't work... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinarily Disruptive Editing, removal of all references and multiple edits without a single Talk attempt

Resolved

 – This is an ArbCom enforcement matter, and administrator attention is already on the articles. This thread was started as apparent forum-shopping. --Elonka 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I seem to be on the receiving end of some exceptionally bold reverts by a group of editors working in collusion. Here's the stub that keeps being reverted to[28] - and here is the product of accumulated research and reliable source references[29]. A number of editors are happy to use alternative forums to ban me[30] and are more than happy to discuss doing me in for g-d knows what perceived sleight[31] -- but none have yet to express any specific objection on the talk page. Have we really gotten to the stage where such well supported good faith and verifiable reliable source edits are dismissed wholesale in favor of a stub without references? An apparently related article had this section [32] added to by me to this stage[33] with a similar experience. I'm genuinely not aware of how my seriously concise and well supported edits could have caused offense - nor has anyone yet to specify a thing. - 99.135.170.179 (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your efforts would be better directed to answering issues raised at the Talk Pages concerned, instead of this Forum shopping. RashersTierney (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This does appear to be forum-shopping, and I am closing this thread as resolved. Administrator attention is already on the related articles. --Elonka 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin etiquette

Resolved

 – IP blocked 31h.

This morning I blocked 69.171.160.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for vandalism and personal attacks. My talk page has just been (IMHO) vandalised by 69.171.160.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The edit summary was "wow took 5 seconds to circumvent that block". This IP has already had a final warning for vandalism today. Am I now too "involved" to block 69.171.160.55, or should I leave that for another admin to act on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs)

No, you're not too involved. Block evasion is pretty clear cut. Block away. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gogo Dodo. IP already blocked 31hrs by another admin. (remembering to sign this time lol) Mjroots (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Blogs used as references

For the last 2½ weeks or so, editors have been trying to remove links to a blog used as a reference in an article. The blog in question is http://mentalblog.com/ , an apparently defunct, anonymous blog, and the article is Menachem Mendel Schneerson. I brought the issue to WP:RS/N (see Wikipedia:RS/N#mentalblog.com), where it seemed the consensus was pretty overwhelming in favor of removal, but two or three movement members are insisting on the article Talk: page that the blog is nonetheless reliable as a source for Schneerson's will, based on their personal knowledge of Schneerson's signature etc. They refuse to allow links to the blog in references to be removed, and revert any such removal within minutes. Since article Talk: page discussion and WP:RS/N discussion appears to have made no impact, I've brought the issue here for wider review. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The assertion made by this editor is incorrect. The main argument is that there is no consensus to remove a source which contains what I and other editors know to be genuine copies of the original. I have explained so in a reply to this editor on my talkpage, please see there as to whether his removal reflected consensus. The blog source removed by Jayjg and restored by me and others is just a PDF copy of two pages from a book. I and others have seen that book, and it is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability. Several editors have reversed his removals and protested against them on the talkpage of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, but Jayjg insists he is right and keeps seeking other venues inside Wikipedia (first Wikipedia:RS/N and now WP:ANI) that would justify him, and is overly zealous on this subject (see the length and time frame of the discussions), which is also no appreciated by other editors. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If you've seen the book, why not source the book instead of the blog? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Debresser's post above is a perfect example of the issue; the blog is a reliable source because "I and other editors know [them] to be genuine copies of the original." In the same dispute, Debresser has refused to give page numbers for "the book" in question, though he has inserted it as a reference, explaining that he read it years ago, but is sure it contains the material somewhere. His co-members of the movement have insisted—based on their personal assessment of "the book"— that "the book", published by little-known rabbi on an unknown press, is more reliable than books published by a university professor-subject matter expert, on reliable presses. Debresser and a couple of others have refused to accept that Wikipedia is guided by WP:V and WP:RS, not their personal assessments of source reliability. See the RS/N or Talk page discussions for more details. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me lift the relevant part out of the previous paragraph for easy reading: it (the book) is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability Debresser (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your lifting words out of context is not appreciated. And nobody has refused to accept any Wikipedia guideline as you assert without any proof. It is just that editors disagree with you as to the reliabilty of certain sources. You seem to have a problem with that. That is not good on Wikipedia, which is based on consensus. And that is the real issue here with you. You just don't have consensus for your removal, as I explained to you on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS says that blogs are not reliable. Please explain why the defunct, anonymous blog mentalblog.com is exempt from this rule. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I refuse to enagage in this content-related dispute for the third time. You have had your answers on the talkpage and on that noticeboard. Now please calm down and accept the fact that people disagree with you. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"Calm down"? Please don't speculate about other editors' emotional state. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Stick to the issue please. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about reliable verifiable sources, not what you know to be the truth. Find a suitable source for the information, otherwise it should come out. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We have heard that before. You completely ignore the subject. Which, BTW, reminds me that I do not think this is a post for WP:ANI, since this is subject related. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a behavior issue, since you have ignored the consensus at WP:RS/N, and continue to edit-war the blog link as a reference into the article.[34][35] Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

People should have the decency not to revert in the middle of a wp:ani discussion. Not after being informed of that, at least. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. So stop reverting. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As I told you before on my talkpage, your so-called consensus is disputable. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, three members of the movement say it's reliable, 7 uninvolved editors say it's not. Not much that's "disputable" there. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a factual untruth, and ill becomes you. It is sad you have decided to resort to such methods. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see. I said it wasn't reliable, as did Fiflefoo, Itsmejudith, Squidfrychef, Dlabtot, Slp1 and Nathan. That's 7 editors who say it's unreliable, none, as far as I know, involved with the Chabad movement. Against that we had you and Zsero saying that the blog was reliable, and Bongomatic wouldn't opine on the issue, saying it was the wrong question/board. So, I don't think my math was that far off, was it? Which part was the "factual untruth"? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The part omitting Count Iblis here, Bongomatic, who is clearly enough in favor of keeping the blog, and Yehoishophot Oliver on the talkpage. Squidfryerchef and Itsmejudith are not clearly against on the noticeboard, as far as I understand. All of this are things you conveniently do not mention or alter. Debresser (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this whatsoever, as I've never even heard of the article prior to this discussion. But I am absolutely flabbergasted that a well-respected editor such as Debresser would even consider trying to claim that personal knowledge is an acceptable source. Blogs are not reliable sources for such material, period, find a reliable source. How difficult is that? Edit warring isn't the way to deal with a sourcing dispute. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the thread. I said "you have ignored the consensus at WP:RS/N". Count Iblis didn't comment there, nor did Chabad member Yehoishophot Oliver. As for Bongomatic, fortunately we are able to read his exact words on: "A primary source (such as a will) is appropriate in various cases—I am not opining on whether this is such an instance." I have no opinion in this particular case. As for the rest, the words of the individuals are plainly evident from the links I provided. So, yeah, 7 uninvolved editors said it was unreliable, 2 movement members said it was reliable, and 1 editor wouldn't give an opinion. All done here. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And rightfully so. That is why am I so happy I have not made such a claim. Please read my words carefully. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman, what you're missing is that while personal knowledge is not a valid source for facts, it is certainly a valid source for the reliability of sources. What "reliable source" do we cite for the proposition that the NYT is a reliable source? We don't, and we don't have to. The only personal knowledge Debresser and I (and others) are claiming is that the scanned page does indeed appear in the book. -- Zsero (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, since Jayjg has forgotten to do so, I posted at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson that this discussion is taking place. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors, please read everything carefully, and understand what the issues are. Has any of you had a look at the disputed footnote already? Debresser (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayig is ignoring one crucial fact: the blog is not cited as a source for anything. The will itself is the source; it is a primary source, cited for nothing more than what it says, and for that purpose it is the best possible source. (Secondary sources are only needed for interpretation, not for direct quotes or description.) The blog is simply a URL where a scan of the will can be found, for the reader's convenience. If the will were not to be found anywhere on the web, it would still be just as valid a source, but the reader would not be able to personally verify that it says what the article describes it as saying; linking to the copy at the blog solves this.

The scan itself is obviously genuine, which can be determined by anyone familiar with the subject's signature, which thousands of people are. It is also known to be genuine because it appears in the book which is cited as a source; that's where the blog scanned it from in the first place! Removing the link to the blog cannot possibly make the article better or more useful, and therefore is against the prime WP rule: to make a better encyclopaedia. -- Zsero (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I've got this right: 1-"anyone familiar with the subject's signature" has now become a reliable source. 2-"it appears in the book which is cited as a source", except the cite is to a blog, not to the book, which for some reason the proponents are reluctant to source to. Is this correct? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For the third time: it (the book) is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability Debresser (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you had that look at the footnote as recommended? Debresser (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Coming late to the discussion here, but we don't use "convenience" links. We site the reliable source. We don't provide unreliable sources to hold the information as "convenience" because we can't trust that the unreliable source is holding the correct information. You might assert it is, but no other editor can trust that. They are after all, an unreliable source. That means that we sometimes have citations without weblinks and that is fine.--Crossmr (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This is the point - the book exists, and will not be changed. The scan may be accurate now, but it may change later. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How can any .pdf file, which can be created by anybody with minimal forgery, be used as a reliable source? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We must have 100-250-500 thousand PDF sources on Wikipdia, as you well know. So your point of view is untenable. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

PDFs found on reliable sources are considered reliable. PDFs found on blogs are not. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the book and can supply the page numbers required for the source. To be sure the blog is not being used as a source, the source is the book. The question now is if we may link to this blog (which itself is undoubtedly not a reliable source) just for convenience sake. Is that a problem? there are actually many references in articles which link to blogs and private websites, should these also be removed? can we finalize what wikipedia's policy should be for these links (or has it been done already)?

About the book Heshbono shel Olam: It is written by Binyamin Lipkin and published by "Mechon Hasefer". Avraham Alashvili is the head of this Mechon (organization). Lipkin has written another book I know about callad "Al Hakavenet" about the Brooklyn Bridge terrorist shooting and the aftermath. This second book is published by " Hostzaot Toras Chayim" which I believe is well know publisher in Israel. Shlomke (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

All that is in the article already, apart from the precise pagenumbers. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In general, blogs are not acceptable sources. You'd have to give specific links as to whether or not the blog is a reliable source. If you have the book, if you sourced the claim to that, it would solve this entire mess. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. we have heard that ad nauseandum already. Debresser (talk)

And yet, for some reason, you are refusing to do the bare minimum needed to end this contretemps. Is it just a matter of bullheadedness, and that it has to be your way or no way? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Talking about "bullheadiness". For the fourth time: the book is already there as a source. Please leave this discussion... Debresser (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Without a dispute about statements made in the source, it is not ok. to remove the source, even if it is a type of source that you would prefer not to use in general. Count Iblis (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand which side of this discussion you're endorsing here. But I'm out of this discussion, I don't like beating my head against a wall and it's clear that nobody here is interested in trying to resolve this, they're just interested in getting their way. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me help you. He says: "keep the blog". As have many before him. Which is my point, that there is no consensus for its removal. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You have it exactly backwards. Zsero added the blog link on October 1. There was no consensus for its addition. There still is none. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the beginning there was chaos, then... How far do you want to go back? Debresser (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's go back to when the link to the blog was first added. I believe that was on October 1, 2009, by Zsero, was it not? And it was reverted in the very next edit, was it not? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the clear question here is as follows: Why does the blog need to be cited if the content exists in an identical fashion in a book already cited within the article? 100 words or less please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason why I included preprints links in this article and in many other articles: accessibility Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And how do we know that the material on this defunct, anonymous blog is an accurate representation? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The blog is not anonymous, he has stated his name many times: Tzemach Atlas living in the Boston area. Shlomke (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And what is the problem with it being defunct? Asimov is also "defunct": he is dead. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now inserted the page numbers of Lipkin's book. Those are the same copy's. You and anyone else can check them. I hope this this solves the problem as Who then was a gentleman? suggested.Shlomke (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

One would hope, but I have no doubt the blog link will soon be back. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if the issue has been resolved, why shouldn't it? Shlomke (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it has been resolved by providing a (somewhat) better source, so there's no need for the irredeemably unreliable one. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The link to the blog is a copy to what both sources are discussing, it's not being used as a source, it's there for accessibility. Shlomke (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review the discussion at WP:RS/N. Aside from the fact that WP:V and WP:RS specifically exclude these kinds of sites as reliable, the concern raised by seven editors there (and several other editors here) is that we had no reliable source indicating that blog pdf was an accurate representation of anything. Wikipedia editors, btw, don't count as reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, I've been in similar disputes before and my experience is that what you are doing here is unnecessarily causing a conflict. I think this is as far as you could take it. You could temporarily add the "dubious" tag and then try to get hold of the book or try to contact people who have the book to verify if the PDF file is bona fide. As I understand it, Shlomke has already done that. The problem with remove the link to the blog is that no one has raised questions about about the contents. This will then cause anger. It is a bit similar to how not sticking to AGF causes anger. You are a priori treating a valuable source of information as unreliable, even though it may well be 100% accurate. Count Iblis (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you review the consensus at Wikipedia:RS/N#mentalblog.com, which was exactly the opposite of your position? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You've won me over. Although I do not doubt these particular scans since I'm able to compare them to the book and I see them to be the same, as a rule if this practice were allowed, there would be many fakes on WP as anyone can make any image they want, put it up on a website or blog and claim it is a primary source. I will wait for this discussion to finish before editing. Shlomke (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, from a pure Wiki Law perspective you are right. But then Wikipedia is not based on rules. In this particular case, your objections to the blog link based on only Wiki Law has raised tensions. You can imagine that allowing the blog link for pragmatic reasons here and perhaps in other articles on similar grounds may lead to new rules for potentially unreliable sources. This case is exceptional because we have an editor who has verified that the blog link gives accurate information. Count Iblis (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, what you may not know is that even the source this material is allegedly copied from is not reliable. It's a book published by a nearly unknown publisher, written by a rabbi whose only other claim to notability is that he apparently at one time edited a small weekly haredi newspaper. And neither source is even necessary; the article already has links to a reliable book that contains all the necessary information, so there's no need for either the blog pdf or the book it allegedly comes from! So, tell me, what's the point in including them? We already have a reliable source for all the information, so why put in the unreliable ones too? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

About reliability of of Heshbono shel Olam: As pointed out above, it is published by "מכון הספר" ("Mechon Hashefer") a publishing organization run by Rabbi Avraham Alashvili. When doing a google search for "מכון הספר" 289 results come up. There seems to be another org. with this same name that is not connected, but there are still plenty of results for this books publisher. I have a book published by them called "Hefsek B'Tefila" written by Rabbi Yoav Lemberg. The Agudas Chasidei Chabad Library lists them as a publisher in a listing of publishers. About Binyamin Lipkin, I see another book by him called "Al Hakavenet" as mentioned above, printed by Hotzaot Toras Chayim 52,800 results. 40,600 for בנימין ליפקין. No question about reliability. The question is if this source is necessary, especially since we have an English source. But the English source does not have copy's of the will's, which the Hebrew one does. So if an editor is insisting on inserting it, then why not? Shlomke (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, "No question about reliability"? Is "Mechon Hashefer" a vanity press? Is it the personal enterprise of Rabbi Avraham Alashvili? Does it have a website? Is there any third-party information about it? Just publishing a few books doesn't immediately make this a reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bali ultimate

Bali ultimate is reverting on Menachem Mendel Schneerson, even after he was informed that this is the subject of a wp:ani discussion. In fact he removed my comment rudily from his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose warning this editor that this is unacceptetable. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And you keep reverting him in turn. Do you propose warning yourself too? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to add here every ill thought through comment that pops to mind. Really. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In particular, I was reverting to the version from right before this thread, and only his uncvivil edits. Uncivil in that they mix into a discussion. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's the subject of AN/I discussion or not, there is no reason to suspend editing of the article.   pablo_hablo. 23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I consider it a lack of decency not to await the outcome of the discussion. Perhaps you mean other edits, that are non related? That I agree with. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And it seems everybody else considers leaving it against our policy. Grsz¹¹ 23:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not considering your personal standards of decency, nor would I, just normal editing practice.   pablo_hablo. 23:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked for 24 hours for reverting while knowing full well an attempt to resolve the situation was being made here. In my opinion, that is clearly edit warring. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. the same will happen to anyone else who reverts, while knowing the situation here (after this message). I will happily unblock Bali is he agrees to join the discussion and stop reverting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

More tendentious editing

Here's an example of the kind of tendentious editing that I've been faced with, right in this very thread: I made a comment at 21:22 GMT, referring to "Debresser's post above..." A couple of minutes later, Debresser moves that post below another post of his. Well, of course, at this point my comment "Debresser's post above" no longer makes sense, since it's below a different Debresser post. Despite my moving it back, he moves it under his again, and even changes the indenting, so that it now definitely looks like I'm responding to the second comment, not the first! I try to put it back where it make sense, even explaining in an edit summary that the "Debresser's post above" I refer to is *not* the comment you inserted *after* mine. Nonetheless, he moves my post again, while claiming that I have "no right" to remove his post from its relevant place. This is the kind of topsy-turvy tendentiousness I have to deal with. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, let's not start a second edit war. Debresser just leave Jayjg's comment where he placed it or I'll have to block you for edit warring. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. But he is mistaking. There was an edit conflict here, and my reply ended up below his, and out of context. I tried to fix that. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You are both correct in that both of your posts refer to the post "above" and thus don't make sense out of order. Unfortunately one has to be out of order and yours technically came second because of the edit conflict. I have added {{ec}} to indicate this, which I suggest is a much better may to "fix" things like this in the future. :) That said, it is not something either of you should have been edit warring over as any intelligent person could figure out which post you guys were referring to form the context. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What is a blog?

A blog is a (generally non-notable) person's personal opinion, posted on a self-published site where the author is the the sole "editorial control". Thus, they are primary sources. When the blog author is an expert, blogs may be used as primary sources, within limits articulated in other policies. Likewise, when a blog belongs to a newspaper or other traditional media who exercises editorial control over the blog, then the blog is acceptable.

In this case, it appears that a PDF copy of a published source, hosted on a blog site, is being criticized solely because it's on a blog site. That's just silly.

• Would the reference be acceptable without the PDF? Sure seems like it.
• Does linking to the PDF help understanding? That seems to be the argument.
• Is there any editorial control exercised by the poster of the PDF? It seems not.

Thus, the real issues seem to be

1. Is this PDF hosted in violation of copyright laws? If so, it should not be linked... but the fact that it is hosted on a blog site has nothing to do with that.
2. Is the PDF a copy of a vanity press book, rather than an RS book selected and edited with appropriate editorial control? If so, then it should be limited to use as an unreliable source.

And yes, ANI is a silly place for this. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, what would make the blog author an expert? Shlomke (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone who has been cited and published as such. If an individual is constantly cited or interviewed on a subject, they can be considered an expert on it. We let reliable sources determine who are experts and who are not. Their self-published sources are usable only in the context of what they are an expert on. So someone who is constantly interviewed about military policy might be an expert on military policy but if he wrote a post about how his Toyota is a piece of crap we couldn't cite him on that.--Crossmr (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If they are a recognized academic expert in a field, who has published in third-party reliable sources on the subject. Deborah Lipstadt, for example, who is an expert on Holocaust denial, has a blog, which one could cite (with caution) on the topic of Holocaust denial. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do they have to be an academic to be an expert? I think not. Shlomke (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they have to be published and recognized as such. Their personal qualifications are immaterial if reliable sources are referring to them and using them as experts.--Crossmr (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have no evidence that the person hosting that PDF hasn't altered it or won't alter it in the future. That is why we don't link to it. An unreliable source holding "reliable" information isn't usable. Cite the reliable source. We don't use convenience links because we can't trust them. They can cite it without the blog link and its perfectly fine.--Crossmr (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Then should every Google Books link to content be removed? After all, Google isn't a reliable source. Your argument assumes bad faith on the part of the non-RS, that it would falsify material. If the blog site claims to reproduce a verbatim copy of a copyrighted RS document, the primary issue is copyright. If it's fair use, it would then fall to the person who challenges its veracity to demonstrate that the offline RS doesn't say what a (potentially) unreliable RS says. Your interpretation would provide the torturous outcome that I can claim an offline RS says XYZ and not be subject to challenge except through someone going to get a copy of the offline source, but that someone else can claim an offline RS says XYZ, cite a PDF of an allegedly verbatim copy on an unreliable website, and the document link can be challenged, but not the content of the assertion. That's just silly. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I also don't think falsification is the suspicion standing behind the policies. And this has been mentioned on the talkpage before. That a suspection of falsification is not acceptable as an argument, unless there exist specific reasons to suspect so. Debresser (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the blog isn't reliable is enough to make the copy suspect. A source which isn't reliable is unreliable by wikipedia's standards and we simply cannot link to it in a citation, because it isn't the source. The book/original document is the source.--Crossmr (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this can be an interpretation fo wp:rs. I find it hard to agree with this interpretation though. And with me other editors involved in this discussion. Debresser (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you really want to compare Joe blogger to google a public organization? The problem with the document link isn't whether or not you or I believe the document has been falsified, its that the average reader of wikipedia has no way of knowing who this blogger is and where these pages came from. It becomes a crutch and it misleads the reader into thinking the reliable source is the linked documents and not what is actually being sourced. Google is a public company and depending on what goes on behind google books, there could be a case made to consider what they scan and publish on to be reliable sources.--Crossmr (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Jclemens, it's silly this ended up here. It started on the article Talk: page, then moved to the RS/N board, where 7 people said it was an unreliable source (against the two editors who kept inserting it). When those two editors insisted that there still wasn't really a consensus against inserting it, it moved here, because that's pretty much the next logical step. While one could argue that it was initially—in part—a content dispute, once the RS/N consensus was clear, it became an issue of inappropriate behavior; see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Signs of disruptive editing, which describes this behavior pretty exactly (particularly "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability" and "Rejects community input"). Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he's looking for a wider audience (sometimes denigrated as "forum shopping"). I've seen far too many "we can't cite blogs" rote arguments, without understanding the basis for such an argument in the actual policies like V, N, and RS. I am not speaking to conduct issues, but failing to take an unreasonable answer and walk away is not disruptive editing. Frankly, I'm unimpressed with the responses in this section. You may all be ticked off at the guy for bringing it here, but calm down, have a nice cup of WP:TEA, and think through the policy bases for the exclusion of such a link. It's not as strong as the level of consternation would imply. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The one forum shopping is Jayjg, who started out on the talkpage, met unanymous disagreement, continued on the noticeboard to get support, and now came to WP:ANI to get it enforced. Isn't the talkpage where it should be decided what should and should not be in the article in this specific case? I find it interesting, that on the talkpage all editors apart from Jayjg want to keep the blog, while on the noticeboard almost all are against keeping the blog (counting again Jayjg with those against and the people who came from the article talkpage as in favor). It does suggest to me that those who know what they are talking about have a better understanding of the issue than outside noticeboards (that are notorious for being frequented by their respective hardliners). Debresser (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any forum shopping. It is perfectly reasonable to go to the reliable sources noticeboard for the review of a source. And no, the talk page of the article is not where it should be decided if a source is reliable or not, as not many editors would see the discussion, and it is prudent in such a discussion that uninvolved editors are present for the obtaining of consensus. Lastly, seeing as how you are so steadfast in refusing to abide by WP policy regarding reliable sources, he brought the discussion here for enforcement. Perfectly reasonable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Going there is reasonable in general, but in this case, where there was unanymous disagreement on the talkpage, that was forumshopping. Then trying to enfore his opinion by coming to WP:ANI, even though there was no clear consensus (although I agree a certain majority shares his opinion) was incorrect. I'm unwatching this discussion. If there will be any things that concern me personally, please contact me on my talkpage. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

By "unanymous disagreement on the talkpage", you must mean the three Chabad members who seemed to be unaware of or uninterested in WP:V and WP:RS. Taking an RS issue to the WP:RS/N board is not "forum shopping", it's recommended procedure. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The agreement of three editors does not give you rights to do whatever you want with a page. It was not, nor will it ever be forum shopping for Jay to have gone to RSN and here.

Agreement on an obscure article by most of the only editors that edit it does not give them the right to walk over policy. If that was the case, then several thousand articles that have been previously deleted wouldn't have been. I shouldn't have to explain why.

Secondly, there was clear consensus at RSN. Three dissidents who were trying to control the article don't count. Only uninvolved editors count in the matter, and consensus among those uninvolved editors was that the sources were not reliable. Consensus doesn't require that the original dissidents agree with everyone else.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

When you say clear consensus, do you mean about the blog or the book? Shlomke (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Blog.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Book

• We have two issues. #1 is the book reliable? Bring it to the reliable sources noticeboard. I suspect it is not. #2 is a link the to blog of a copy of the page unacceptable? Assuming that the book is found to be a reliable source, we have often linked to scanned copies of a page. Often. I'd say cite the book and provide the link. If the book isn't a reliable source, it might be reasonable to mention the book if a RS has discussed or at least mentioned the book. Otherwise, out it goes. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just put it in external links. Per WP:ELMAYBE, external links can include, "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Really, you're not trying to use it as a reference, because you already have a reference (the book). So put it in an external links section. Assuming that the copyright issues mentioned are found to not be a problem. -- Atama頭 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That makes sense, although if the goal is to let people find the will that might make it a bit harder. Ah well, it seems reasonable and within our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I already brought the book to the RS/N noticeboard. Unsurprisingly, the consensus of uninvolved editors there was that it was not reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any sanctions the community can take against editors why say blatant lies in WP:ANI discussions? Because if so, this is the time, and this is the man. Debresser (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • The consensus at Wikipedia:RS/N#mentalblog.com was mainly about using the blog as a reference (vs linking for accessibility which we are discussing here), not about the book. I've added additional information above about the reliability of the book which I think would make the book pass. Do you suggest I put that information there too (even though that was not the intention of that notice, as the name suggests), or perhaps start a new discussion? Shlomke (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I'd suggest starting a new discussion. Hobit (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I will leave it to those who want to use the book as a second reference. I'm fine either with or without it. Shlomke (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Jclemens touched on a good point above that no one seems to be discussing. Ignoring the fact whether this blog should be used a "convenience" for a WP:RS (which I personally think is ridiculous), if copies of pages of the book are copyrighted, we shouldn't be linking to them. Period. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• We link to material that is under copyright all the time. Sometimes to nyt.com. Sometimes to archive.org or googlebooks. As long as the selection we are linking to is legal (under the fair use doctrine) I think we are fine. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the question is whether the blog is a violation of copyright. In that case, we wouldn't link to it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Aye. For example, we might link to an official site with a film trailer on it; we wouldn't link to a site with a pirated copy on it. Black Kite 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but we might (and do) link to other sites that (for example) make fair use quotes of copyrighted material. And we often link to archive.org for copyrighted material that is no longer available on the original site. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the blog would not be in violation of copyright, because the will's in the book are not the original work of the author, they are copy's of the Rabbi's will's (perhaps public info?) Shlomke (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Above when giving some detailed facts, you wrote "why not?". It seems to me that Jayjg and everyone else should ask this question. It's time to write up a new wiki policy WP:Why not?, an extention of WP:IAR. Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not? becuase linking to this blog does several things, it gives the impression that the blog or the author of the blog are some kind of reliable source, it also drives traffic to a random blog. Allowing these kinds of links would not only imply credibility to unreliable sources they would end up being used to host content just to get traffic from wikipedia as holding convenience links. We currently don't have anyway to differentiate between a reliable source and a convenience link and I'm completely against putting any kind of unreliable source in a position to masquerade as a reliable one.--Crossmr (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. There's a reason we have WP:V and WP:RS. Heck, we're not even supposed to link to blogs as external links; see WP:ELNO, number 11. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

But it's not a link to a blog, is it? It's a link to a document being hosted at a web site that also hosts a blog. Now, I agree that the blog itself isn't a reliable source, but a link to the document should be allowable per WP:ELMAYBE if it's not being used as a reference. -- Atama頭 00:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can host anything on a website. Is that website a reliable source? Its not a citation unless its being hosted by a reliable source. Otherwise we're giving credibility to random websites, blogs, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr, my comment "why not" above was not about linking to the blog, it was about using the book "Cheshbono Shel Olam" as an additional reference. See above. I'm basically in agreement at this point with what you and Jayjg are saying. I would like to see what the final consensus is on this issue and apply it to similar situations in the future.Shlomke (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. If the talk from RS/N is properly quoted, then it would seem like the majority support not linking it, which has in the past been the agreement I've always worked under.--Crossmr (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Block review of User:Nipple37

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Admin has been admonished for placing a controversial block, using the wrong block settings, and failing to notify the blockee. Next time discuss controversial blocks in advance. Jehochman ^Talk 12:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:Beeblebrox#User:Nipple37 for details. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Would also appreciate feedback over whether this constitutes wheel warring or not as that is also a disputed point. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not. Even if a declined block counts as an administrative action, someone has the right to revert it. (Now if somebody reverted over that, it might be a wheel war, depending on the first premise.) See WP:WHEEL. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not wheel warring. There is only one administrative action done afaict with respect to this account. Syrthiss (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. (still it would've been nice if they'd discussed it with me before blocking, but I see how it does not constitute wheel warring) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not technically wheel warring, but also a fairly bad block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not Wheel warring, however I disagree with the block At least wait till (s)he edits and then discuss the name on their talk page?--SKATER ^Speak. 19:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something technical here... but is this really hardblocking? They are blocked with autoblock active, and with account creation blocked. IIRC that means that if they try to access the wiki with the account it will also autoblock the ip for 24 hours, and that they cannot create another user account while logged in with this account. If they come back after 24 hours autoblock as their bare IP shouldn't they be able to create an account if they wanted to? Syrthiss (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sort of a moot point in this case; the block was 10-11 hours ago. After being blocked for this long, much less with no explanation, I doubt they'll ever return. HalfShadow (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not wheel-warring, though I think the rule needs work and have brought this up in the past. It is so, but a bad block in my view, unless little cloth coverings for piano legs are on their way back. This is 2009. Nipple is not an offensive word. It just is not. I don't even think nipple was, back in the day, but certainly it is not such a word today. Even John Ashcroft probably wouldn't have a problem with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Anthony Comstock? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Between here and my talk page, it is apparent that there is a strong consensus that this was an overly harsh block. Although the damage is likely already done, I think it would be a good idea for some uninvolved admin to undo or at least reduce the block. That is, unless Rschen would care to acknowledge this consensus and undo it themselves... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That was an over-reaction, especially the hardblocking. Changed to a softblock; see User talk:Nipple37 for my message. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I see a softblock in this situation is "That's not how I'd do it, but I wouldn't override it" sort of thing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad block all around. Toning it down to a softblock and leaving an explanatory message on the user's talk page is a step in the right direction but blocking these sorts of things on sight is a hypersensitive reaction to what might be offensive. This is precisely the sort of scenario in which engaging the editor personally is the proper way to go about things. At this point there isn't much to be done about it, however; the damage is done. Shereth 20:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious what ought to be done about, but equally obvious that nobody's got the balls to do it. The block should be reversed, the blocking admin given a serious talking to, and if (s)he persists with these kinds of blocks then (s)he should be summarily desysoped. Easy. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with "The block should be reversed".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Too soft. Administrators who make blocks like these chase editors away, when they ought to be chased away themselves. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Malleus, I left my Draco (lawgiver) hat someplace.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Too bad. I found my uniform though. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I unblocked, left welcome message fwiw. Hope all parties are okay with this course of action, and hopefully all is settled. Let me know if not. -- Samir 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, I'm rather disappointed in rschen for blocking User:Ádmins masturbate to linux recompiles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMFAO! Simonm223 (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Samir. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Uh, he should at least be told to change his name? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Why? Everyone else says that it is fine. Keegan (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nipple 37 might be a half inch galvanized pipe fitting in bin 37. Even if it refers to an anatomical nipple, there is still nothing wrong with it. It will be disturbing to some who have body-taboos, but the wp:NOT-censored is pretty important. *shrug*- Sinneed 21:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what you need to understand about this. Nobody but you sees this name as even marginally offensive. If it was User:I bite nipples or User:Showmeyournipple you'd have something, but there is no context here that makes it offensive. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there were people on your user talk who could see asking him to change the name. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

By that reasoning, User:Penis is acceptable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And by a "no body parts" reasoning, User:BigToe43 is unacceptable? There's a difference between a penis and a nipple. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And a difference between a nipple and a big toe. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really -- you see both of them exposed on every single beach in the world. Granted, you only see about half as many nipples as big toes...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(triple edit conflict)If somebody is such a dim-wit that they want to be called Penis (talk · contribs) all the (idiotic) power to them. It's just a piece of anatomy. Simonm223 (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• This admin needs to be whacked with a trout. Right on the nipples. HalfShadow (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What I'm finding ironic here is that if they hadn't come to my talk page and made an issue of it, I probably wouldn't have noticed the block at all since I had declined to block it already. And if they hadn't rejected the arguments of everyone on my talk page and said I should report it here, I probably wouldn't have done that either. What's next my friend? Would you like to go to RFC or ArbCom with this? How far do we have to go before you will acknowledge that you made an error? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't acknowledge that I made an error because I honestly don't believe that I made one. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, ok, how about "acted against consensus?" I think it should be abundantly clear that you did by now, given that there is unanimous agreement that the block was an overreaction. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus at that point when I made the block. I still believe that the username is grossly inappropriate. Do I believe it's worth bringing it any higher? I don't have the time for that (picking my fights carefully). But I refuse to admit that I made a mistake when honestly, I don't believe I made one. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't serious about ArbCom, but it's important that you understand why so very many users object to this block, whether you agree with them or not, and that you not be so hasty to instantly hardblock such cases in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You hardblocked for a username offence. Really, unless the name is "Killallniggers" (which does warrant an instant permanent block) you discuss first, and block as a last resort. (Of course, if the person goes on to edit and is a vandal you're in luck, because it's easy to block them then. ) And when you block you give a soft block, with a link to username policy, and ask them to come back with a different name. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said. At around the same time this was reported last night there was a user with "kkk" in their name. At first there was nothing solid tying them to the Klu Klux Klan, so I held off and watched for a few minutes, and bam, they made several racist edits inserting the initials "KKK" into Black Panther Party among others, and I could justify blocking them as a vandal and an inappropriate name. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is this so hard for Rschen7754 to understand? Is he a new or inexperienced administrator? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been an admin since 2005. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you have no excuse for your poor judgement and response here. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Lets face it, if something has 37 nipples, chances are it's a steam locomotive Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And still Rschen doesn't give up [36]. I'm sorry, but this is seriously in need of a trouting. As a woman, I'm actually getting quite offended that someone could find nipples so offensive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We all have nipples Elen, even us blokes. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thinks...actually, I do know this. Duh! That makes it even dafter. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the rules ought to be changed so as not to allow any body part to be used in a username. After all, there are (apparently) many who find even feet to be erotic, although I just find them to be smelly. Perhaps best to make everyone have randomly generated usernames, like User:Ahgfditr76. That way the only other editors likely to be offended are those who speak gibberish, like ... well, fill in your own name here. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be honest...as a user, after reading this thread (and seeing the notice at the top of User Talk:Rschen7754 I will have a hard time accepting that this admin considers any position other than their own, and doesn't have the ability to admit they made a mistake. This makes me very nervous as nobody is perfect and even the most experienced admin will make mistakes from time to time. An admin should be held to a higher standard, and have the maturity and judgment to accept when they have made a mistake, and attempt to rectify that mistake instead of just digging the hole deeper and deeper. Frmatt (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with much of what you say, I believe that we should all be held to the same standard, whether we're admins or not. The problem wikipedia has to face is that at present regular editors are held to a higher standard than administrators. But I digress. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus on that one.--SKATER ^Speak. 23:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Malleus. This is a pretty disappointing situation as both a user and a person with nipples.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to go ahead and say what I lot of people are implying or at least thinking: Someone who as hardheaded as Rschen shouldn't be an admin. How many valuable contributors has he chased away with his overzealous blocks? How many people have left the project in part due to his rude comments and I'm always right attitude? This kind of behavior is not acceptable from an average user, let alone an admin. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Reviewing Rschen's admin log, I see he always hardblocks everyone & never templates any of them. Some of these people shouldn't have been blocked at all, and barely any all hard block worthy. Every single one deserved messages explaining the problem. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have to say they are the most stubborn admin I have ever come across, and I'm staggered by their continuing denial that there's any problem on their side. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• There's an identical situation in the blocking of Nipples63. No contribs whatever, indef hardblocked, no message informing them of the block. It seems this is not an isolated incident, and we have an admin who is out of touch with current policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardheadedness is not an admin criteria, and isn't everyone in different ways? Sure I don't agree with the "I'm always right" attitude, but lately there are a lot of so-called "noobs" or disruptive editors driving down Rschen's skull. Remind me to bring this up when it happens again.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 00:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

... and in the meantime let's push it under the carpet. Quite typical. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The user could select another user ID and try again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just like many, if not most, blocked users already do. The problem isn't with this user, it's with this administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The user knew that name would be trouble. There was nothing wrong with the block, although it might have been better to wait and see what (if anything) he intended to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If the user chose that name in order to stir up controversy, then he succeeded. I, for one, was looking forward to seeing what he would upload to his user page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's sad that we've let that user win. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's even more sad that you still don't 'get' what you've done wrong here. You actually physically embarrass me. HalfShadow (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice there isn't anything on User talk:Rschen7754 about this. It seems that some pretty serious problems have been brought up regarding this administrator; not only of this block, but of their general blocking practice. It seems he always uses hardblocks, and fails to notify the blocked users? I'm not sure what would be a good example of a problem of similar degree that an ordinary editor might have, but it seems like that editor would at least get a "formal" warning for it. Blocking is serious stuff. It's a sensitive issue and can drive people away. We need to watch this person, and when it happens, it must be determined whether or not he's aware that he screwed up. If he's in disagreement on that, further actions may need to be taken. Equazcion (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a policy to review administrators if a concern is brought up like this. This username is obviously one example, but ThaddeusB brings up a potentially troubling series of actions by this admin. I would rather have this dealt with immediately than wait until another violation happens. I see and respect Mitch32's point, but an inability to remain civil, follow policy and procedure, and to always AGF until proven that there is bad faith involved indicates to me a serious question of impartiality by the admin. I will admit that I have edited in frustration, and freely admit that I am not always civil, but I do admit when I'm wrong (this being a perfect example!) I'm starting to feel that this is not necessarily the place for this conversation as it is no longer simply about the block, but has become more about this admin's record on the name policy. But...I could be wrong on this one too!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Frmatt (talk • contribs)

Response from the person

Wow, I go to class and come back and find this mess. Rather than mess with indenting, I'll try to write a summary here:

• I find the username User:Nipple37 offensive and believe it inappropriate to be used as a username on Wikipedia. I cannot back down on that opinion.
• That being said, it is not my intent to wheel war over it.
• Some concerns have been presented regarding my UAA blocks. Honestly, after this debacle, I'm staying away from UAA for a while.
• As far as my comment on the was-blocked user's talk page, I was fully within my rights as an editor to make those comments. Does an editor have to follow comments like that? No. Just as I can make comments on anybody's talk page. I believe Malleus Fatuorum should not have made the revert. That being said, I won't readd the comments; it prevents further fighting, and I think the user may have a clue that their username has been called into question.
• The colored box on my user talk page relates to users complaining about their pages being deleted. Occasionally there is a legitimate complaint, and I will be happy to address those. However, whenever I make a journey into CAT:CSD I get messages saying "WHY DID YOU DELETE MY PAGE!@@#$#$~??" for the next few days, complete with excuses as to why their page should exist. This is an attempt to cut down on that. This is a reason why I don't go into CSD anymore.
• If anyone has other complaints regarding my adminship of nearly 4 years, please bring them to me and I will be happy to address them. I do have a midterm tomorrow and a homework assignment that I have done very little of due tomorrow, so there could be delays. I am on IRC on #wikipedia-en-roads, and I have a user talk page and have email enabled. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask you a very simple question. What is it about the username Nipple37 that you find offensive, as you seem to be in a minority of one on this issue? What's offensive about the number 37? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• It refers to body parts that sometimes are not appropriate to be displayed. These parts also have a sexual connotation. The question about the number 37 is not constructive. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I see. So you're a puritanical prude not yet out of school who intends to hardblock anyone who doesn't share your tight-assed view on life. Got it now. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The above comment is inappropriate and personalizes a policy discussion. I recommend its retraction or redaction. It appears to be highly unhelpful and counterproductive. —Finn Casey * * * 06:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Be nice to the user, as he's apparently a bit calory-challenged: His user ID, roughly translated from the vulgar Latin, means "Badly Overweight". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I randomly checked some of the hardblocked users. Of those that had a couple edits before being blocked, about half appeared to be in good faith. This clearly demonstrates that people with questionable usernames can be good faith. It is not really surprising that people unfamiliar with Wikipedia might create bad names in good faith - after all on many websites one's username is rarely or never displayed anywhere. (Even ignoring that several of the names weren't clearly offensive to begin with.) By hardblocking these people you prevent them from creating a legitimate name as autoblock will prevent them from re-registering. By not informing them of the problem, they will remain ignorant of what happened, and may well assume Wikipedia is a place filled with tyrants and never return. If you are not willing to take 15 seconds to template a blocked username, let someone else do the blocking. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What good is templating User:I HATE WIKIPEDIA AND WANT TO VANDALIZE EVERY SINGLE PAGE3432424156246246!!!!!!!!? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we deal with an actual username you hardblocked w/o explanation rather than some theortical name. User:BATSHITDOOLAYODAJA's only edit was this: [37] - not the best edit in the history of the world, but clearly a good faith attempt to improve the article. I do not question that their username was inappropriate, but since you didn't bother to explain why they were blocked they will likely never edit again. Even if they figure out the block was b/c of their username, they won't be able to create a new account because of autoblock. Because you couldn't spare 15 secs to drop a template, we've likely lost this editor for good. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Regarding the comment on their talk page, you may have been within your rights as an editor, but when you make a comment like that as the blocking admin, it can seem unduly authoritative to the user.
• Part of using the tools is dealing with individual complaints, many of them repetitive. Your red box remark amounts to "my decisions are final", which they shouldn't be, and you shouldn't be saying it. Besides which, if you don't handle CSD anymore, there should be no more need for that box.
• I find lots of things offensive on Wikipedia, and can do nothing about them. Just because you have the tools to do something doesn't mean you're allowed to. Offense is not a reason to act. Policy is. Equazcion (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have rephrased the part of the box you refer to. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To rschen7754: I have three questions, all of which are sincere:

• You seem to be saying that your personal definition of "offensive" should be more important than consensus. Why, specifically, do you think that your definition is superior?
• Why, specifically, did you not communicate with the user before hard-blocking him? (And the answer is not "it was offensive". That's why you blocked the user. my question is why you didn't communicate with him or her first.
• Which outcome would be worse for the encyclopedia: you receiving a number of unfortunate comments on your talk page, or a new user abandoning the project because his article was inappropriately speedily deleted and there was no obvious way to get help?

Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

At the point I hardblocked, there was no consensus that I could see on the matter. Consensus is a large factor in my not reblocking.

But why did you jump to the conclusion that the word "nipple" was offensive? That is what I cannot, cannot understand in this. I'm sorry, I suspect it's obvious to you, but "nipple" is not that offensive. Really, no: it's not. And the idea that it is so offensive that a user who has that username has to be a vandal? Is so far in left field I can't even understand it.

Typically users who use "Nipples" in a username are disruptive and just going to vandalize.

Can you provide diffs showing that people with that word in their username are particularly prone to vandalism? If not, it's just your assumption, based on your personal (and I'm sorry to say, idiosyncratic) idea that the word "nipple" is inherently horrible and could only be used in order to shock or disgust. It's simply a body part.

Well, what answer do you want? Is there any way to say otherwise? My question is, is the scenario that you describe likely to happen?

--Rschen7754 (T C) 02:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely it can happen, and I've seen it happen a dozen times. Imagine a new user who doesn't know about the sandbox or user pages. Now imagine them building an article, saving it as he goes, but he hasn't got to the point where he's added the references. Suddenly in between his saves the article is speedily deleted. Then he goes to the closing admin's user page and finds a comment like yours. He'd probably think he had been run out of Dodge by an admin who won't lift a finger to help if he asks for it. Put yourself in a new user's position and remember that your words may seem harsher and more arrogant on the page than you mean them to be. --NellieBly (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a nipple, folks. BFD.

• Well good grief! I really do think you should stay well clear of WP:UAA if you find the word "nipple" offensive. For a little perspective, check out our very own article on the subject. There's actually nothing that could be construed as salacious or 'offensive' there. It talks about lactation, breastfeeding, areolae - even 'male nipples'. I seriously think you massively overreacted here but what really concerns me now is your obstinacy to recognize that you may be somewhat ... unique ... in this perspective and against the clear opinion of so many others, can see no issue with using admin tools in enforcing your opinion on newb editors. Not good in an admin> I need to know that you're not going to drop the almighty banhammer again for something as trivial as this. As someone else points out, watchlist the marginal cases and wait for them to step out of line - then act - Alison ^❤ 02:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, there's obviously some limit to how offensive I find the word nipple if I'm typing it in right now. I don't believe it appropriate in a username however. But you miss the point - when I blocked, there was no consensus against my position. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes there was, it just wasn't demonstrated. We can't convene a committee prior to every administrative action. That's why we have to carefully choose people to trust with tools who can make adequate judgments on their own. Your capacity to make those calls is being called into question. Equazcion (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) You've not commented on the suggestions that you massively overreacted, nor have you answered my concern regarding your not doing it again. Yes, there was nothing voiced against your position at the time as nobody but you and the blockee were aware of it. This is separate to the matter of consensus, which clearly existed before you acted. IMO, you're not addressing the concerns here now in any meaningful way - Alison ^❤ 02:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, the admin made a decision. Consensus disagreed and the admin has agreed to abide by the consensus. While I personally agree with the consensus viewpoint, I would greatly prefer that the public flogging be done via a webcam, as I just can't see the blood fly on wiki. Manning (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What I'd prefer is a little bit of honesty, not administrators closing ranks over issues like this one. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any "closing of ranks". The arb made a decision he believed (and still believes) was correct. Nearly everyone else (including me) disagreed and the arb has fully cooperated with the consensus viewpoint. We are not (and cannot be) required to all agree with each other. We ARE required to not be disruptive and abide by consensus. As this admin has done just that, then there is nothing more to discuss. Manning (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that this administrator even recognises that his block was wrong, much less agreed not to do something similar in the future. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please (re?)read the thread. There is far more going on here than a mistake on one username. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus in this particular incident. But as someone pointed out this has occurred in more than on incident which often points to a larger problem. The sarcasm doesn't aid in discussing that issue. Instead it looks like someone trying to brush the discussion under the carpet. If there is a defense for his behaviour in these cases or you agree with him hard blocking without any templating, then you should make that point without the sarcastic attempts to shut the discussion down. There seem to be concerns raised about this incident, further incidents and the tone on the talk page.--Crossmr (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The admin is under NO requirement to admit he was wrong. He believes he was correct and he is perfectly entitled to do so. He IS however required to acknowledge that his viewpoint is not the consensus viewpoint and to thus abide by the established consensus from here onwards. This has been done to my satisfaction at least. Manning (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Where has that been done? I haven't seen that. Though I may have missed it. Equazcion (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you're rather too easily satisfied. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

what now?

Honestly... what more do you want? I am not going to copy and paste a statement saying that I admit my guilt, because I do not believe my decision was wrong. But I have said repeatedly that I will not make UAA blocks for a while, and I am leaving this user in question alone. If you want to see my judgment, how about looking at all the stuff I did right, for a change? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Overuse of hardblock: wrong. Hypersensitivity to usernames: wrong. Not templating: wrong. I don't want a signed confession in blood here but I'd at least like to see some sort of acknowledgement of these three basic issues here. All of them are really bad practice for an admin. Staying away from UAA is a good thing, IMO, but can you see how the rest is problematic here? In particular, I have a major issue with the redlinked talkpage. It's not okay to simply stick the template in the block message and it's not okay to block ACB for anything other than the most blatant cases. ACB is too harsh for most username probs - Alison ^❤ 02:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Alison, but this adds to what she said) I'm not all that comforted, personally. If you don't understand why this was a bad block, what happens when you start making UAA blocks again? I don't even see this as a problem that's necessarily confined to UAA blocks. You could take undue offense to other things and find them just as blockable, and I'm also concerned that the not informing users of important things (like their having been blocked) would also carry into other areas. But that's just me, I don't want to speak for everyone else. Equazcion (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we really having this conversation? If you don't trust my judgment, your only option is to go to ArbCom right away. You can't just give good judgment to someone. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah we're really having it. I'd (we'd?) prefer to engage you in an open discussion, to determine the likelihood of this or something similar happening in the future. You don't seem too thrilled with the prospect of taking criticism to heart or subsequently easing our minds though. Equazcion (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

... and if it turned out that I had bad judgment, ArbCom would need to deal with it anyway. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some doubt in your mind that many believe your judgement to have been poor. Repeatedly. Why is that? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) I personally think societal sensitivity to the topic is peculiar and backward, but I would happen to agree that selecting it as a username is probably not the best judgment. I would agree that a block (let alone a hardblock) is probably not the best response. But I also agree with User:Manning Bartlett that the ongoing flogging is not productive. Are there additional hardblocks that need to be softened, or blocks that need to be removed altogether? If not, then I don't see anything further that can be addressed at this noticeboard. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say at least 90% of Rschen's blocks should have been soft blocks and 99% templated, but the damage has already been done. These people aren't going to randomly log back on weeks later and see the message. What I want to see is 1) an agreement not to hardblock for username except in extreme circumstances and 2) an agreement to template blocked usernames. Neither of these things have been done. The current promise to "stay away for awhile" moves the problem into the future instead of solving it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

^What Thaddeus said. Though I wouldn't mind seeing template notices for all future blocks. Equazcion (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now it sounds like you are asking us to take this issue to ArbCom instead of coming to a reasonable compromise here in open conversation. Do you really think that you are so right that ArbCom would uphold what you've done, and are you ready to run the risk that you would end up desysoped? I've looked at your contributions and for the most part you make good edits, so why are you being so stubborn on this issue? Why not take the compromise that ThaddeusB just offered, admit that you were wrong in your actions regarding usernames, and lets just move on? Frmatt (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer Arbcom over vigilante justice. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Call it what you like, but the community is trying to compromise with you. You're pretty much saying you want to retain your right to hardblock people, and to block without adding template notices, and if we don't like that we'll have to take it to ArbCom. If that's the case, I'm not seeing any other choice. Equazcion (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I only don't template my hardblocks and block evasion blocks. I template everything else. And I've practically given up my hardblock right, since I said I wasn't doing UAA for a while, and I dunno where else you can hardblock. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"for a while" doesn't solve anything, see Thaddeusb's comment above. No one wants to go to ArbCom, it's a lot of typing. We'll do it if need be, but how about this compromise? Would really make it easier on everyone. Equazcion (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think ArbCom would take the case? (Background: I have been involved in 2 cases before. I know what it is like. ) --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy for you, two for me also. It sounds like you're trying to use the fear that arbcom won't take the case as leverage to continue doing what you like despite the community's opinion. Equazcion (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

... I said I was staying away from UAA. What more do you need? You want me to resign, don't you? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you perhaps stay away from newbies altogether? You don't seem to understand what it means to not bite them, despite that you're okay at other areas of adminship. rspεεr (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have had concerns brought to me before in the roads area, and I am working on being more friendly to them. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, he said about 9 paragraphs back exactly what he wanted to see, and "resign" was not in the list. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to know as well as everyone else here that ArbCom doesn't take cases this obvious, so don't hide behind them. Just admit you made a bad block, upon the realization that you are the only person here who is offended by the word "nipple", and back down. rspεεr (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

... in summary, no, no, and no. I'm willing to let this go and end the discussion, but *some people* won't let it end... --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If your intent is to end the discussion with the firm conviction that the way you handle newbies is appropriate... no, it's not actually acceptable for it to end that way. We have policies about this that are more important than your reaction to the word "nipple". rspεεr (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Newbies" with disruptive names and who vandalize. Yes, it's appropriate. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So every single person you blocked was an incorrigible vandal? It seems others have already refuted that idea. rspεεr (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2...because you refuse to recognize that consensus is against you here, and just staying away from UAA for a while and then going back to exactly the same pattern of behavior is not going to work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Just in case this discussion doesn't end up getting anywhere, Rspeer (and anyone else who knows), please enlighten me, if ArbCom doesn't take "obvious" cases, then what exactly happens to those "obvious" cases? When it's so "obvious", can we simply ask a crat to de-op based on a community discussion? Equazcion (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I've never seen an admin hold out as an "army of one" for this long before. rspεεr (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The block was maybe not handled as well as it could have been, but it was appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're of course welcome to your opinion, but nearly everyone who weighed in here seems to feel otherwise, save for the blocking admin. Equazcion (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And I'm not sure why, because supposedly we have rules against provocative user ID's. Now, if he didn't have a proper signature, then you'd want to block him for "disruption". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the hardblock riled people up more than anything. It's banning the user based on his or her choice of username. Evil saltine (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it could have been handled better. Typically a user with a provocative name is intent on provoking. It would have been interesting to see what sort of "contributions" that editor would have made and/or given them a chance to defend themselves. Or still could do, now that it's unblocked (pardon the ironic dairy-related metaphor). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly concur with Baseball Bugs. The user name in question was clearly provocative. While many users evidently find the name unoffensive, current policy deprecates the use of borderline names where even a minority might be offended, as they unnecesarily distract from the encyclopedia-buidling project. Regarding the "everyone disagrees with the blocking administrator" comments above, it is important to remember that a local majority at this noticeboard (of perhaps five or so editors) does not override consensus policy, which the blocking admin appears to have appropriately understood (albeit with imperfect execution). Thanks to all for the good editing, —Finn Casey * * * 05:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Finn and Bugs miss the point: A bad username combined with poor edits (even just a few) is uncontroversially blockable. And you've blocked a vandal, for vandalizing (with a bad username as part of the evidence), rather than blocking a newbie who might have been wanting to help the project but who picked a dumb username. Saying "they can pick a new name and try again" misses the hardblocked, account creation blocked part of the block. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the intensity of this discussion, why was the blocking of User:Nipples57 uncontroversial?

[38] As an outsider coming upon this lengthy discussion, I'm baffled when I see that the blocking of an almost identical username went, so far as I can tell, completely unremarked on. I'm clearly missing something significant, and would appreciate some guidance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandahl, on that earlier block, provided an explanatory template. Besides that, we just didn't happen to catch it. If we had, some discussion might still have ensued, but probably not the flamefest we're seeing here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That and, there's no reason to think anyone noticed the block at the time. We can't catch everything. Had people noticed it, and voiced concerns to Sandahl, hopefully s/he would have reacted very differently. Making occasional mistakes isn't a problem; how you handle them afterward is what matters more. Equazcion (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(...which I now see post-edit-conflict that Sarek already mentioned, sorry). Equazcion (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification -- was this a hardblock, as I originally stated? I know that's what it says in the block summary, but I can't tell for sure if that's what was done. All the log says is "Account creation blocked". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If the user was able to add the rename request to their talk page, it probably wasn't hard, I think. Equazcion (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm asking about Rschen's block here, not Sandahl's. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Account creation blocked" is a hardblock, "autoblock disabled" is a softblock. Evil saltine (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Night, all. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

← To get back on track here - no, I personally don't want to see User:Rschen7754 dragged before ArbCom and certainly not de-sysopped. Absolutely not - and this isn't anything about that. He's a good admin in the main and I've seen his work before on dispute resolution (and on Troubles issues :) ) and have no problems there. I just want to ensure he handles usernames a little more carefully, uses templates and lays off the ACB blocks except in extreme cases. If he says, Yeah, I'll do that. I see where the problem may be now", then we're done and it's over. We admins have a ton of stuff to deal with and none of us get it right all of the time. Hardblocking plus not templating is the ultimate repudiation to an editor (banhammer, then turn your back on them) and we really shouldn't be doing it. It makes us all look bad in the long run. That's all - Alison ^❤ 05:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to err more on the side of softblock rather than hardblock. However, I will hardblock if I see a name that is disruptive (i.e. personal attacks, isgay, *on wheels, etc.) In these instances, I don't see the point of templating, as the user knows what they are doing wrong, and the page will get trashed within a month. That all being said, I still consider the original username that started this mess to be inappropriate. It is very provocative, and most of the time I see users like that just vandalizing away if left unblocked. I still stand by my hardblock of the user (and I believe that that is what they deserve) but in the interests of resolving this discussion, were I to come across a similar username again I would probably softblock. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

In summary, I still don't agree, but I'll do more softblocks to pacify people. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* - this is really the wrong answer. You just don't seem to find anything wrong with the generality here ('nipple' aside for a second). WP:AGF and WP:BITE pretty much mandate the use of templates, at least for those borderline cases where we're left with a confused editor who doesn't know what just happened. When in doubt, just pop a template down. How long does it take? It's a basic courtesy. The word 'nipple' is not "very provocative" - honestly - and I believe you should rethink where your threshold lies re. usernames. And when in doubt, don't hardblock. Keep that for the Grawp accounts and the WoW ones, but very little else - Alison ^❤ 06:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I always leave templates for softblocks, and if it's not obvious why, I usually provide some sort of hint why the username is inappropriate. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, some people don't template: [39] [40] You going to go after the admins who blocked those users, subject them to the same sort of cabal? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"going after", "cabal"?? Puh-leeze. Lookit - I'm throwing my hands up at this stage. I need to sleep - Alison ^❤ 06:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No-one is saying that you cannot take action against names like FagmanButNotAsGayAsBurke. I think it's weird that you think names like "IHateWikiediaAndWillVandalizeEveryPage" or "FagmanButNotAsGayAsBurke" are the same as "Nipple37". NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You missed the point - these users' talk pages are redlinked. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No. You missed the point. There are some names that are so offensive they deserve an instant, hard, block, with account creation disabled. There are some names that demonstrate enough bad faith that you don't need to wait for any edits before you block them. No one is asking you not to take action against usernames like those. But then there are names that are borderline. When you see a name that you think is bad faith, and you think belongs to a vandal you have a few options. i) Wait for edits. As soon as there's vandalistic edits the account is blockable, and uncontroversially so. ii) Wait for edits. If they are good faith edits welcome the user, then talk to them about their username. iii) Talk to the user, and if they don't change the name take it to RfCU. You've treated someone with a daft name (Nipple) the same as someone with a grossly offensive name (HitlerWasRight). Can't you see that's sub-optimal? You, and Bugs, say that "people with names like Nipple37 are usually vandals" - but people with names like nipple37 get locked before they make edits, so we don't know that they're vandals. I'm disappointed that you have a wide range of approaches to take to usernames but that you appear to default to "instant block, with out discussion, with no opportunity to change name, with no opportunity to return with a different name". This is incredibly bitey. And about other admins doing it: Please mention them, here or on talk page of UAA. We don't want a witchhunt, but we do want to stop biting newbies. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

90% of what you said was stated above in some form. I don't need a lecture. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have understood the point of the lecture then you have not been particularly good at getting the fact across. When you are stopped by a policeman for jaywalking but you believe it was perfectly OK to do so, you may get away with "I don't think I did anything wrong, but now I realise how important it is to you I will be more careful to observe pedestrian lights in the future." You are not going to get away with: "I did nothing wrong, but I can use my car instead, so I don't really care. I agree not to cross any roads at all in the next twelve months." Hans Adler 10:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for lecturing you. Do you think a name like "Nipple72" is as disruptive as, for example, "fagmanbutnotasgayasbburke", and do you think they need the same type of blocking? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editors have pride

Read it then move along, please. Icewedge (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The conditions we've outlined above fall under the "Suggestions for what to do instead" in that essay. Personally I also tend to hold admins to a slightly higher standard than other editors, in terms of the acceptance of responsibility and swallowing pride. That's part of what makes a good admin. Either way I'm not asking for an admission, just a promise for the future. Equazcion (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that EHP fully applies here, because I believe that I am in the right. I cannot make an admission under a clear conscience because I do not believe that I am wrong. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I just said, and I can only speak for myself here, I'm not asking you to say you were wrong. I don't care about that. ThaddeusB laid out a specific compromise for the future. You could end all of this by just agreeing to it. I thought it was rather reasonable. Equazcion (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This all amounts to a difference in Wikipedia philosophy. You're forcing me to conform to your philosophy and methodology. (As if I *could* be forced... right now, we're just administrators talking and it's not like you have special authority or anything.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Translation: "I'll do whatever I damn well please and you can't stop me". It's more than just a difference of philosophy at work here - Alison ^❤ 07:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

... I looked through the UAA history and saw some things you might not approve of. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(after multiple EC's) It may be a difference of opinion, but not between you and me -- it's between you and the community. The offensiveness of the username is being debated, but the opinion on your general blocking practice has been fairly consistent. No one likes it too much. And I'm not an admin, FYI. Equazcion (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I said I would do more softblocks. What else do you want? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"More" isn't terribly assuring. From ThaddeusB above: 1) an agreement not to hardblock for username except in extreme circumstances, and 2) an agreement to template blocked users. Equazcion (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Templates, please (a bare minimum of interaction), plus a little less sensitivity re. what's "very provocative", that's all. No need for apologies, no mea culpas required. Just a little undertaking to ease off (esp. of hardblocks) - Alison ^❤ 07:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so now you're adding *that* too? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding what? I've said here from the get-go that the redlinked talk page was a problem - Alison ^❤ 07:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"less sensitivity." --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, less sensitivity. You're hardblocking usernames that shouldn't be, then turning your back on them. Don't do that stuff. Whether you think it's the worst word in the English language is neither here nor there at this juncture, it's clear that many disagree. Rather than assuming everyone else must be wrong, maybe just maybe you mightn't be, here. No? - Alison ^❤ 07:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"Nipple" in a username is inappropriate. I'm not backing down on the last sentence. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) Rschen, as someone who shares with you the (apparently) minority viewpoint that the username could potentially be disruptive, it's clear that the consensus here is that users with usernames of this variety should not be blocked, and certainly not hard blocked. I agreed earlier that this thread was taking the shape of a flogging, but I also find it baffling that you have within your grasp the ability to resolve the matter and have chosen not to do so. It appears clear that the consensus disagrees with your opinion on the matter. Multiple administrators and editors are asking you to acknowledge that you recognize that in the hope that it will prevent future misunderstandings of this nature. I don't consider that to be unreasonable, do you? user:J aka justen (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What bothers me is that a) adding templates for hardblocked users is pointless, b) other users are doing the same and they haven't been contacted about it, c) in essence certain editors are attempting to force me to conform to their interpretation of policy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty much everyone, Rschen. When everyone forces you to conform to their interpretation of policy, it's called consensus. Equazcion (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And also, I always template softblocks. The fact that I will be doing more softblocks means more users will be templated. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It spiraled out of control because you dug your heels in in a rather big way and refused to accept anyone (and everyone) else's opinion. This started on Beeblebrox' talk page when you suggested he take it to ANI. That's why we're here. Beeblebrox had previously requested input from the UAA talk page, which is where I came in. Intransigence in the extreme - Alison ^❤ 07:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I said I would softblock more users, that means templating more users. What else do you want? Do I need to copy and paste text? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to copy and paste text to agree to all the conditions that have been laid out. We've spelled them out nice and clear, yet you just keep saying "I'll do more softblocks". Please. Equazcion (talk) 07:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You and I disagree on what is disruptive. That is a serious problem. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant to the compromise. Keep dragging this out buddy. Either way I'll rest somewhat in the comfort that this 65KB-and-growing incident was visible enough to invite much-needed scrutiny to your future actions. Equazcion (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can quote policy to support your philosophy, then I will consider it. You have yet to do that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Others have. Remember, this isn't about you and me. Besides which, consensus pretty much trumps everything else. And yeah consensus is a policy. What we have demonstrated here is a consensus. 66KB. Equazcion (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I said I would do more softblocks - let me clarify - if it's not disruptive it will be a softblock (as per the UAA instructions), and that means templating more users. Just an FYI, badgering someone on ANI doesn't exactly look good either. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you agree to template all users that you block in the future? And please don't respond with reasons why you shouldn't need to. You should do it because we're asking you to. I think that's all we're down to. Equazcion (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For username blocks... only because the WP:UAA instructions say to when I checked today, I will agree to that. Nobody bothered to point me to this. My position stands regarding "if it's not disruptive it will be a softblock" and regarding "nipple" being offensive. I still believe that I was in the right to block today's user. This is my final position, which policy fully supports. If you want to get any more out of me, it won't happen, and you will need to go to ArbCom. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you've agreed to template all username blocks, even if it's "only because UAA tells you to". We'll all have to remember to just edit a policy next time we need you to do something. You could probably save yourself a lot of heartache in the future by accepting the fact that large masses of people should be listened to over policy. Just a suggestion. I'm too tired to remember if I should be satisfied with this outcome or not, so I'll let others decide. Toodles. Equazcion (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The block in this case was appropriate, but the admin should have explained to the user why he was blocking, and should have given the user (at least for awhile) the chance to respond and/or make a new, acceptable ID. The blocker should always explain why he's blocking. If it's something horribly gross (which this isn't), a hardblock might be in order. But in this case, it would have been better to give them enough rope to hang themselves, and then there wouldn't be this lengthy discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you're saying that hardblocking wasnt appropriate? and that it's fine to block a vandal, but it's better to hold off on a block for a username, And that asking a new user to change their name is better than blocking them? So really your first sentence ("The block was appropriate") doesn't make much sense. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How about just moving on?

This has gone further than it needs to, and to save any more issues and make good drama, let's just resolve this and move on? I mean, we have other things to do (such as expanding articles and Wikipedia maintenance) and its bad for our health. Decisions aren't right all the time, but we can't just drown on the problem, and this has gone further than it needs.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 10:11, 22 October 2009 (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.

Grundle2600: continued problems

Resolved

 – Sanction enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Between 20 March and 21 June, ArbCom took on a case examining the Obama articles in detail, and ended up finding (among other things) that Grundle2600 (talk · contribs)'s edit-warring was problematic, and as a remedy, imposed a revert limitation (1RR) for 6 months on him here. On 25 June, the community were still finding problems with Grundle2600's disruptive conduct, which resulted in the community imposing a 3 month topic ban on him from all articles relating to US politics and politicians (although explicitly allowed to comment on talk pages). [41] Unfortunately, his conduct has continued to be a problem, particularly after the topic ban has expired.

He was making test edits on his talk page to measure to the minute when his topic ban would expire ([42] [43] [44] [45]) which was deeply concerning. The moment it expired, he returned to editing those articles. Since then, he's reignited old battles, and continued to disruptively edit war, making pointy edits along the way too:

• 25 September 2009: [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]
• 26 Sept 2009: [51] [52]
• 26 & 27 Sept 2009: [53] [54] [55] [56]
• 5 October 2009: [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
• 12 October 2009: [62] [63] [64] [65]
• 13 October 2009: [66] [67]
• 19 October 2009 (even after the request for ArbCom amendment/clarification was filed, reinserting contentious material previously removed and discussed): [68]

He has also continued tendentious editing in its other forms, like refusing to get the point. [69] [70] [71] [72]

Clearly, further sanctions beyond 1RR is necessary, and those sanctions would need to be greater than 3 months (somewhere between 6 months and indefinite). ArbCom have suggested that the community use its tools to sort it out. A single uninvolved admin can end this disruption by invoking Obama probation. However, I can also draft something that goes beyond the scope of that probation, if the community needs to impose a broader remedy on him that covers all articles/pages relating to US politics and politicians. Based on the above (and any further evidence that comes to light), any thoughts on which way to go? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no point putting up with such crap when there are plenty of other good editors actively working on the same subject. Impose a permanent topic ban as broad as you see necessary. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. If the editor has shown that they cannot work under the restrictions imposed, then it is better that the are not allowed to edit in that area. An indefinite topic ban is in order, unless the editor would prefer to be blocked indefinitely as an alternative. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, the first alternative would be "Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing pages related to US politics and politicians." The second alternative would be the same as what's written here, except it would read as "indefinite topic ban - he is" and would omit the "for a period of three months" part. Can you (and others) explicitly clarify whether you prefer to include or exclude talk pages in the ban? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I should allow this to be entered here but for the record, here goes... I'd rather lose one capable gung-ho staff (but he is always late) than to lose a bunch of average performing staff (but they take their work seriously and are always on time). It's bad for morale if that one gung-ho staff is allowed to carry on misbehaving and I risked that fact affecting the others due to my oversight or turning of a blind eye to. Having said that, Wikipedia is a community and as such is a collaborative effort by many individuals, its time to stop such nonsense once and for all. Out. --Dave1185 (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban including article and talk pages on all articles reasonably seen as related to current United States politics. John Carter (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite politics topic ban (including article talk pages), if only so we don't see him counting down in a year to see when he can start making problematic edits again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all US politics topics-related issues as I did previously. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban, ban to extend to talk pages. PhGustaf (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban on politics related articles, and temporary ban from related talk pages.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all politics related articles, and I think including talk pages is a must (the problems—particularly in terms of extreme tendentiousness—continued under the previous three-month topic ban when Grundle2600 was allowed to comment on talk pages). If agreed to this should be implemented as a community imposed topic ban, not something done under the terms of Obama article probation, since the latter does not allow an admin to ban an editor from all political articles, but rather only from those relating to Obama. I have no idea whether Grundle2600 is actively trying to be disruptive at this point or whether he is simply incapable of "getting it" when it comes to the problematic nature of many of his edits, but by now is doesn't really matter since this is a very longstanding pattern which is disruptive either way, and since there have been at least a dozen or so editors who have spent many, many hours trying to work with him and explain the problems with his editing, but to no avail whatsoever. Finally, while at the moment there appears to be a developing consensus for a topic ban, I think this thread needs to stay open for another day or so to allow further comment, and we certainly need to give Grundle2600 a chance to reply here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• For the love of god, support, and please make sure it is for article talk pages as well. We had to put up with this behavior during the only-banned-from-article-page topic ban, and it wasn't pleasant. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all politics-related articles and their talk pages. The never-ending disruption wasting countless hours of other editors' time must stop once and for all. Newross (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Suppore indefinite topic ban on all politics-related articles and their talk pages. About a year ago, I used to edit some of the articles in question. Don't imagine I ever will again. Failure of the community to deal with this kind of ongoing nonesense was one reason why. He may think the well-meaning naif persona suits him, but no one should be asked to deal with this stuff (of course, people have to here every day). But this is fairly far beyond the pale.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all politics-related articles and their talk pages. I checked some of the above diffs which show that Grundle2600 will never voluntarily pass on an opportunity to inject POV into articles and talk pages related to U.S. politics. As an example, see this talk where Abrazame gives several long and interesting explanations why some Grundle2600 edits were not helpful, only to receive a change of subject. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I had not seen that, but any outsider looking into this situation should read the talk page thread linked to by Johnuniq—it's a textbook example of Grundle's editing pattern. Abrazame slipped too readily into minor incivility, but that editor laid out in exhausting detail the problem with Grundle's proposed changes. And how did Grundle reply? He didn't, he completely ignored Abrazame's lengthy post, and simply wrote "You have not answered my questions" (which Abrazame absolutely had done). I can say from experience that this is a common practice for Grundle, who often blatantly refuses to hear the point being made and will persist in the face of objections or temporarily change the subject and then come back to the original issue at a later time. Collaborative editing with an editor who approaches editing in that way is simply not possible. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• The political articles are a maelstrom that is too easy to get sucked into. The user should "boycott" those articles and focus on something that he would find more satisfying to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Repeat problems, repeat warnings, repeat offenses. There's a group of editors involved in these topics that really need to be reined in, and this is definitely one of them. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support, as noted , and confirmed by the editor's recent WP:POINTy and non-WP:AGF response he posted here. I've tried to help, but the editor isnot listening. At least one other editor has noted he feels that the editor in question has contributed positively to other parts of WP. It is time to end the WP:DIS from this editor - he has amply demonstrated his inability to change. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Exact wording

Since we have a rough consensus here, I'd like to nail down the exact wording for when consensus is clear. Following on NCM's comments above, I propose the following. Please only comment here if you support the community ban and have a problem with the below -- if you oppose the ban, comment in the thread above, please. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an indefinite community ban from editing articles related to US politics and politicians. He may not participate in discussion on talk pages, unless this sanction is modified later. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks. (See terser version below)

Please change a indefinite community ban to an indefinite community ban. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks.

I made a strikeout above; the struck words don't help clarify anything. PhGustaf (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It was meant to be a strong hint that if he can prove on other subjects that he can participate constructively on talk pages, this ban could be modified, rather than being a never-darken-our-door-again thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. But any sanction can be modified later; no need to spell it out. PhGustaf (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Shorter wording:

Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under an indefinite community ban from editing articles or talk pages related to US politics and politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks.

69.228.171.150 (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's actually incorrect technically, as it's a (community) topic ban, rather than an outright (community) ban; that it went by unnoticed the first time doesn't mean we should repeat the mistake. I prefer the standard wording I proposed earlier, namely:

Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks.

Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Grundle2600

1) Most of the people in this discussion who are saying they want be banned are the same people who keep erasing the information that is critical of Obama that I add to articles. I think they just want to censor me from adding information that is critical of Obama to those articles.

2) The reason I made those test edits on my talk page was to make absolutely 100% certain that I did not violate my topic ban. There is no rule against me editing my own talk page. The fact that people want me punished for this says more about them than it does about me.

3) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government.

4) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

5) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

6) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use, and avoided reporting the statutory rape of a 15 year old student?

7) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

8) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable?

9) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars?

In every one of these cases, people want me banned so they can stop me from adding information that is critical of Obama to the article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The less nefarious explanation is not that people are "censoring" you, it's that the content you try to add often does not conform to our policies about NPOV, undue weight, reliable sources, original research, etc, and that your editing really is problematic (hence sanctions from both the community and ArbCom in the past). You have provided no evidence whatsoever that you are being "censored", while there is clear evidence (see some of the diffs above) that at least some of the people reverting you are giving policy-based reasons for doing so. If you assume good faith you'd have to assume they are not out to get you, but rather that they genuinely believe your edits are not appropriate. As you are well aware, there have been numerous times in the past where you proposed some addition and then, upon objection from other editors, even you came to admit that adding the content was a bad idea, so there's a precedent for this "good faith" reading of objections to your edits.

Also while I've had no involvement with your editing since you've returned from your topic ban, I know you are framing some of the issues/questions above in a rather biased manner. Finally, I know part of the problem in the past is that you often simply do not get your facts straight. That is evident again in number 6 above in a rather egregious fashion. The incident in question was not statutory rape since the minor in question was at the age of consent (16 not 15, see this), and furthermore said minor has come forward and said there actually was no sexual contact at all (see again the linked article). So not only are you wrong, you are actually defaming a living person (without naming them explicitly here). Editors who attempt to put in only negative or positive information about a given subject tend to run into those kind of problems. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, when I added that info about the (since likely debunked) statutory rape, it was backed up by reliable sources. When people deleted it, no one mentioned your article as a reason to delete it. I agree that this new information may justify not including the info - now it depends on different reliable sources that contradict each other. Since this is about a living person, it's better to err on the side of caution and not include the info at this point in time. As more info becomes available, it may or may not justify putting the info back into the article. That being said, the info about his past frequent illegal drug use is true - he even admitted to it in his own autobiography. How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Continued discussion of ban

• Strong oppose block. Grundle's explanation and the discussion above makes clear that this editor is acting in good faith and seeking to have the encyclopedia abide by the core NPOV policy. Editors should be encouraged to work with him to make sure notable content is included appropriately in the appropriate articles so as to abide by our policies. The content he's discussing is certainly notable, so it's really a question of how and where to include it with the proper wording. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Having your personal history in mind you should (and probably do) know that you're not helping Grundle but again trying to start another drama-thread that is about you and not the editor in question. Could you please restrain yourself from doing so for the good of Grundle? Thanks.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose for the reasons cited by CoM. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We sure pay attention to anonymous socks that don't have their own reasoning.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you obviously know so much about me: who's the sockmaster, Clean-keeper? 64.208.230.145 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Blablabla. You're repeating yourself already (and in the wrong place).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the people who want me blocked or banned have answered my questions, with the above exception regarding one of my two questions in point number 6. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of why your editing pattern is problematic is that you have a tendency to start multiple threads (and/or ask 9 questions at once) and then chastize other editors for not responding to you, which often then leads to you making certain article changes simply because no one directly told you "no." I think many editors are sick of interacting with you because you bring up the same issues over and over again and have admitted in the past that you are editing with an agenda (i.e. that you want to add "negative" material), and thus unsurprisingly they don't respond to your every point. I also know that at least some (if not all) of the issues you bring up above (twice!) have been discussed to greater or lesser degrees as you are undoubtedly aware, and thus it's unsurprising that people would be reluctant to revisit them here on ANI in a thread that is not about content but rather about your editing behavior on political articles. I think it's telling that you throw out all these content questions while saying nothing about the fact that you are (again) making ridiculously pointy and disruptive edits, engaging in slow-burning edit wars [73] [74] when you have already been specifically warned against that, and generally treating editing on political articles as though it were a battleground. You have been doing these things for at least six months by my count, and in the process you have wasted an extraordinary amount of other editors' time. Your last community topic ban was basically unanimously imposed, and with one predictable exception that seems to be happening here, which is, again, rather telling. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace - I have responded to your comment about me having an "agenda" in the "updated" section of my comments. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated statement by Grundle2600

This is addressed to everyone who wants me blocked or banned:

1) Most of the people in this discussion who are saying they want me banned are the same people who keep erasing the information that is critical of Obama that I add to articles. I think they just want to censor me from adding information that is critical of Obama to those articles.

2) The reason I made those test edits on my talk page was to make absolutely 100% certain that I did not violate my topic ban. There is no rule against me editing my own talk page. The fact that people want me punished for this says more about them than it does about me.

3) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government.

4) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

5) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

6) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use?

7) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

8) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable?

9) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars?

In every one of these cases, people want me banned so they can stop me from adding information that is critical of Obama to the article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace - I didn't say that I had an "agenda." What I did say is that all editors are biased. I am biased, and so are the people who remove the info that I add to the articles. I said that I wrote in Ron Paul for President last year, and I asked if there were any editors who removed the info that I added that was critical of Obama, who were not themselves liberals, Democrats, political leftists, supporters of Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader, etc., and no one answered. I think that every person who has been erasing the negative info that I add about Obama is on the political left, but none of them are willing to admit it. So yes, I am biased, but so are all editors. The only difference is that I am willing to admit that I am biased, and they are not. Also, wikipedia's official policy actually agrees with me on this. NPOV states, "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired." Before I possibly get banned, I think that all editors who support my ban should be required to state which political candidate they most favored in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. Even editors who live outside the U.S., or who are too young to vote, can still tell us which candidate they most supported, even if they were not actually able to vote in the election. This information about the political views of the editors who want me banned would expose the huge systemic bias that exists at wikipedia. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for bluntness, but it is none of your goddamn business what the political leanings are of any user is here, unless it is something they willingly choose to discuss with you. Pulling a McCarthyish witch hunt on people who hold a different opinion than your own is not a wise direction to take this. And you still have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. Compare its "Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias" with your reach-out-to-Jimbo message of "I know that NPOV requires all points of view to be included in articles." There is a world of difference between "significant" and "all", and your inability/unwillingness to get this is what is leading to this topic ban. You do have an agenda; trying to jam in fringe criticism and minority points of view into political articles. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree to your characterization of what you said Grundle, but it makes no difference. Not only have you admitted that you have a bias, you admit that you intend to edit with one, and that the way articles should be built is for everyone to give free reign to their own personal biases (which, you are correct, everyone has). You've previously articulated this point here and here. Many have tried to explain to you that all editors need to edit in as NPOV of a fashion as possible, but you obviously seem to reject that, rather envisioning an article development process whereby editors put in all manner of biased material and somehow we end up with a good article in the end. That approach would be a disaster, and the fact that you still subscribe to that view is central to the entire problem here. Note that this was a point I first made to you five months ago today (see here for the complete thread which makes for instructive reading, including the 15:46, 26 May 2009 comment by Grundle which says among other things "I will never, ever, erase anything if it's well sourced, no matter how unbalanced it may be. I wish that other people here would show the same respect to me"—an attitude still in evidence here). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, I said what I said, because when I see that something is unbalanced, I fix it by adding another point of view, instead of erasing the info that is already in the article. I wish other editors would do the same. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish you could "balance yourself", at least a little bit. That could you keep you (potentially) out of "trouble" in the long run!The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions

1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Why should I be punished for adding that info to the article?

2) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

3) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

4) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use?

5) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

6) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama's economic policy?

7) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party, not relevant to the section on those czars?

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the forum for that discussion. These point should be, and have been, addressed on the relevant talk pages. Grsz¹¹ 18:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Those questions have never been properly answered on the talk pages. This is the proper forum now, because if people are going to ban me over adding this info to the article, they should at least have the decency to explain why I am being banned for adding this info to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Another update - this one will prove my point

I just added brand new info to Presidency of Barack Obama about how the Justice Department will no longer prosecute people who use medical marijuana in the 13 states where it's legal. This is my #1 favorite campaign promise that Obama made, and I am very happy that he did this. Before I added the info to the article, I did not wait for any consensus, and I did not discuss it on the talk page. I just went ahead and added it to the article. Since this brand new info shows Obama in a positive light, I imagine that there will be no substantial objection to including it in the article, and that there will be consensus to remove it. This proves that you people don't have any problem with my edits when they portray Obama in a positive way, and that your attempt to ban me is just an attempt to prevent me from adding info that shows Obama in a negative way. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Making an edit just to prove your point (and admitting that's what you were doing) was a pretty terrible idea. Also the idea that mentioning the fact that refusing to prosecute folks in states that have medical marijuana laws "portrays Obama in a positive way" is rather subjective. Anyway your point was apparently not proven, since someone came along and reverted you. Maybe they were "making a point" too, but that hardly matters. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I reverted the POINTy edit but left word on the talk page saying that other editors could restore the information if they found it suitable. Note that the info is already present at Medical cannabis#United_States, so it is not new to Wikipedia. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, assuming good faith Grundle is just getting tripped up using words. WP:POINT is about disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point, and WP:POV is about edits that introduce non-neutral points of view, not what the editor was thinking at the time. But I do agree with the broader point that we should be editing in the spirit of improving the article for the reader, and not worry about how this plays into different people's issues. That's a little hard with this proposal and such a long thread here, everyone's edits are under the microscope. As I said on the article talk page the edit wasn't perfect but the subject of the administration's policy on marijuana is arguably worth inclusion. So, carry on... I really hope we can find a way to work together on this, not sit around waiting for Grundle2600 to pass a point of no return regarding consensus for a topic ban. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the surrounding context of this thread, it's about a proposal to ban Grundle2600 from US politics articles completely. That affects how POINT and AGF should be interpreted when evaluating that edit. I don't have an opinion about whether the info improves the article for the reader. If in your judgement it does, then by all means put it in. I'm not willing to make such a presumption myself. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have always added info on legalizing medical marijuana. I added info about Obama making the campaign promise. I added info about the DEA raids still going on after he had been in office for eight months. And now I added the newest info about him stopping the raids. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The long term consensus will be to include the information in the article, because it makes Obama look good. Thus, my point has been proven. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It was one of the few times you've ever added anything that was relevant, sourced, and not in violation of NPOV, undue weight, and others. That it why it stayed, not because you perceive it as "good news". Tarc (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Outside view

I've noticed that the discussion is for a topic ban, not a complete ban. I find it telling that Grundle2600 considers those equivalent. Unless your only goal here is for a single purpose, you should be able to find something to edit in the other, let's say, 2.7 million articles not on US politics. If you cannot, that's your problem in my opinion, not everybody else's. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not single purpose. Check out my userpage list of articles that I started, as well as my editing history. I guess my phrasing wasn't entirely accurate, but the people who know me know what I meant. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban enacted

The consensus is clear - the community has imposed a restriction along these lines:

Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks.

If an uninvolved admin can formally notify Grundle2600, this can be wrapped up. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Noting that when I said uninvolved for the purposes of this, it means that the admin did not engage in a direct current conflict with the user receiving sanctions (Grundle2600) on the topic (US politics or politicians). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Notified. Master of Puppets 08:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just to clarify in case anyone is confused, should Master of Puppet's mentorship offer be accepted by Grundle2600, this topic ban would still remain in force, at least during the beginning phases (if not in other phases also). This will allow the project to function smoothly while Master of Puppets helps develop Grundle2600's understanding to a level that, at least, further sanctions in other areas will not become necessary, and will also allow any unanswered questions to be answered. At a much later time, Master of Puppets may decide to request this sanction to be amended to give Grundle2600 limited (even temporary) access to some portion of the topic he's banned from so as to further enhance Grundle2600's understanding in practice, so that sanctions in the topic may no longer be necessary. Later, if everything works out, there may not be any issues or sanctions - but any relapses would be greeted accordingly. In any case, this is all hypothetical, and depends on how mentorship works out (if accepted). It seems we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I am making this comment to acknowledge that I have read, and will obey, the topic ban, which includes articles, talk pages, deletion discussions, and all other subpages of articles related to U.S. politics or politicians. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

For the official record, I would like to point out that even though my topic ban has been enacted, these seven questions that I asked have not been answered:

1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Why should I be punished for adding that info to the article?

2) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

3) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

4) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use?

5) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

6) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama's economic policy?

7) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party, not relevant to the section on those czars?

Grundle2600 (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You were not topic banned for one single incident - the number of links and diffs at the top of this discussion makes that much clear, as would the comments made at the arbitration amendment request. Beyond that, my previous comment indicates where you might receive answers (that is, I do use the word "unanswered" for a reason). That you reproduced those questions again, despite what I noted, and despite your assertion that you've read and will comply with the topic ban, is not a good start. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

836-character sig

Resolved

 – MFD closed as delete, user advised not to use signatures over 255 characters as this is considered disruptive and carries with it the risk of being blocked. –xeno^talk 14:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Launchballer (talk · contribs) has a signature which is based on an unsubstituted template. After numerous warnings and threats on his talkpage, from myself and a couple of admins – Rd232 / Stifle – (stretching back well over a month!), he was finally induced to change it. Whereupon it became 836 characters long, taking up 9 lines of my widescreen computer. He also insisted on using the (bright yellow) tag as the subject heading of every thread he started.

I informed him of this on his talkpage, where he responded with: My signature is [...] a measly twelve characters, and Don't tell me a five-line string of characters is nine lines long [...] HOW DARE YOU try to fool me. This message was signed with (you guessed it!) the unsubstituted template.

Given that he has ignored and quibbled with repeated requests to shorten his signature length so that it is fewer than 255 characters, and fits in the box at Special:Preferences as per WP:SIG, and that he has not edited Wikipedia at all (save for arguing about his sig) for over a week, may I request that he is blocked until he explicitly agrees to start obeying our policy? I'll inform him of this thread. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 19:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I used language like "HOW DARE YOU" because I can't believe for one minute your computer is widescreen when it takes up nine lines (Mine's also widescreen, and it takes up five lines) which means either yours is not a very good widescreen or you are lying through your teeth. Also, the reason for the truncation is to prevent too long an end result (which is what I've done). Given that, I'm not sure what I'm here for, especially that I cannot get that any more condensed.--Launchballer 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this is his trick... keeping the template and manually substituting it afterwards. And, for your information, it is taking up nine lines of my 1280x800 screen. If you want a screengrab, I'll take one. I am not "lying through my teeth". Block still requested. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 19:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

They're screendumps, not screengrabs. Here's mine:

File:Signature (Launchballer).jpg

Only 4+ lines

--Launchballer 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing five-and-a-half lines of code, and that's at 1650x1050 widescreen - clearly too much. Please reduce your signature to something that fits within the 255-character limit, or else someone may have to do it for you. Thank you in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you can find a way of shortening it WITHOUT touching the implemeted effects or removing the links, I'm happy to change it. But I don't know of any way.--Launchballer 19:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood what I've said. The code is far too long and has to be trimmed. You need to create a signature that fits within the limit; that may well involve giving up some of the features and links you've implemented. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm counting 8 on this standard-res monitor. I was pushing four when I started my RFA and was criticized there for sig length. Do yourself a favor and trim down the code. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Click for an enlargement.

(edit conflict) Well, here's my screengrab (don't be so petty about the term, Launchballer, and read this webpage). Count the lines yourself... I took the liberty of numbering them in the diagram to help you. And every other Wikipedia user manages to have their signature at a reasonable length, you are not a special case, you can too. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 20:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's seven and a bit here. Launchballer, your signature has too many links. Too many effects. There is no need to "condense" your sig - cut it down, because it's disruptive. A block is coming from someone if you don't respond constructively.  GARDEN  20:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts, not helped by the fact that adding a template and then substituting it afterwards doubles the number of edits you make to a page, which is itself ridiculous). Launchballer, you don't need all of the following (a) a fancy font (b) colours (c) class=explain (d) links to your contribution page (e) links to your email. Simple links to your user and talk page will do to start with; then add anything else you want until you reach 255 characters; then stop. It's simple, really. Otherwise, you will be blocked until you agree so to do. Bencherlite^Talk 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC) whose signature is the least fancy of all of those on display...

(stop edit conflicting already!)I have a 1360x768 resolution, and it takes up 7 lines of text for me... that's extremely excessive... I subst my sig, specifically from here, but I actually make an effort to keep it 255 characters or under... Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 20:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your current sig is more prominent than the text itself; Wikipedia is primarily about content not contributors, and your apparent ego is interfering in our writing of an encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about mine, or Lauchballer's? Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 20:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Was talking about Launchballer's, sorry for unclear antecedent. DMacks (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There's definitely a consensus here that the signature needs to be shortened; Launchballer, shorten your signature immediately or you will be blocked until it is changed. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, I would be the first to admit that my signature is long; I use a substituted template to manage and preview the code, it stands out, and probably takes at least four lines on a standard resolution such as Jeske's. However, my signature is still under 255 characters, nor do I sign with a transcluded template, which is expressly forbidden by the signature guideline. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yours takes up more like 3 in toto. Mine's 208 characters, and takes up 2½ lines.-Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec x3)Lauchballer, when you have to call out the end of your sig so others know where to start editing, it's too big. Besides the fact that it's not very useful. I'd make an attempt to contact you on your talk page but it's pretty hit-or-miss to click on your sig to find it. So, not only is it over the char limit, it fails to be a useful addition to the talkpage. Padillah (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And sorry if I've just triple edit conflicted anyone, but I've left a notice on Launchballer's talk page telling him to change his sig or be blocked. With unanimous consent here, it seems there's more than enough support for such a block if he continues to refuse to change his signature. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Block, change the template he's using to standard sig, then protected it until it can be bot-subst'ed. Wikipedia is not designed for WP:PEACOCKs. Physchim62 (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's possible he stopped editing; his last edit was over an hour ago. I would hold off on a block until we see him edit without chainging the sig. Other than that, I agree with my esteemed colleagues above - when you need a warning within the sig, it's too much. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Recently I have also had to change my signature, here is some advice. You do not need to declare the same colors four times, only once. Same with bold. Also, use the words red and cyan instead of the hexidecimal codes. See my sig if this confuses you.   Nezzadar ☎   20:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Try something like this:

Launchballer

• Or, even better, something like this: Launchballer (talk). The more outlandish the signature, the less likely it is that people are going to take you seriously. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Disagree I know of plenty of admins and trusted users with funky signatures. Atama, Tinuchurian, raeky, Durova, NuclearWarfare, etc. He is entitled to his quirkyness as long as it follows the rules.   Nezzadar ☎   23:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Actually a few years back with this basic sig the idea was to have something just a little bit different--slightly different shade of blue from the usual signature, different font that still displays well on most browsers. Eye-catching rather than flashy. And fwiw, a bad sig is more worthy of a trout than of a block. Let's get back to work. Durova³³² 02:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've taken this to MfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Launchballer, it might be a good idea to get one's name noticed for the quality of one's contributions and insights, rather than the length of one's signature. ;) Durova³³² 02:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the user's signature code page down to 270 characters (the software limit is 255). The appearance is maintained but the mouseover effects, email link, and html comments are gone. I think the MfD can be ended if the user can live with this change, and agrees not to make the code any larger. Perhaps protecting the signature page could enforce that somewhat. Equazcion (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The MfD seems to be heading for an outright delete anyway, which is probably for the best considering that it's crept back up by about 50% since you pared it down. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh and this is why I keep this page on my watchlist. I love the smell of chaos in the morning. Good luck solving this without a few MfDs, I tried. Equazcion tried. Durova suggested a trout instead of a delete, and... drumroll please... nothing.   Nezzadar ☎   13:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have since taken it down. Not to 255, but please bear in mind how high it was to start off with.--Launchballer 15:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just remember ... it must fit within the box on your My Preferences page. To paraphrase a famous trial: "if the sig don't fit, you must MfD-it" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The sig he signed with above is 247, so it's acceptable (we don't include the timestamp in char limit). –xeno^talk 15:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

TreasuryTag's signature | isn't so short either.

_{Naluboutes, Naluboutes}Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 17:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, you have one of the most distracting signatures I've ever seen, and I would ask that you check the length of my signature (which is varies, but is generally around 172 characters – and always within the limit) before tossing around nasty accusations. And bringing up bad blood in this way isn't very nice either. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 07:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

KoshVorlon's signature

Resolved

 – Signature pared down, warning re: disruptive signature use issued. –xeno^talk 13:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to use complicated markup as long as the final product is under 255 characters. Also, I don't think you're really one who should be talking about distracting sigs! –xeno^talk 18:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Treasury, point is, you have gone after both myself and Lunchballer for having a signature that (in raw code) is 9 lines long, the printed version, or as xeno put it, the final product, is one line, in lunchballer's case, it's all of 10 letters long, mine's addmittedly longer, at 49 characters. Both are under the limit given. The funny thing is, your signature is also (in raw code, 9 lines long). Yet you insist that his sig and mine are wrong, but it's okay for you to have just as long of a signature.

It simply looks wrong, that's all. Regarding AGF, belive me I do, I made no accusation against you, just pointed to your signature and stated a fact. I already know I absolutely need to AGF for a long period of time here before I can ask anyone on the 'pedia to AGF in my case. See you around _{Naluboutes, Naluboutes}Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 12:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "It simply looks wrong,"? What looks wrong? It's either within the 255-limit or it isn't, and mine is. And I agree with Xeno, I don't know why you've changed your signature so that it obscures surrounding text, but it needs to be reduced again. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 12:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The 255-chars limit includes markup. Xeno's ref to "final product" is the product, in wikicode, produced by ~~~~. TreasureyTag's signature template may be complicated, but once subst'd, is within the limit. Launchballer's original signature is not. Tim Song (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And a signature could still be under 255 characters of wikimarkup yet be distracting. KoshVorlon, you should really retire that garish sig. I notice that it has seemingly grown so that it's obscuring the tails on letters once again. In this ANI thread you agreed to keep the padding at 2px, but you've increased it back to 5px. That is unacceptable. –xeno^talk 12:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adjusting the widths back to the way Xeno put them originally, and incidentally stumbled across this copy of my signature in Kosh's userspace... strange. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 13:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines about including at least part of or at least some some connection one's actual username in a signature? Kosh's sig is both awkwardly long and has nothing to do with the actual username. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So long as there's a hyperlink to the user page I don't see a problem in that specific regard (it's handy for those of use who sign pages using our real names). It would, of course, be nice if people didn't fill their sigs with ASCII junk and bad poetry, but that's an Internet-wide problem really. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents." I must say, I am entirely unimpressed that KoshVorlon chose to go back on the ANI thread. I can only assume he forgot that it was agreed that a 5px padding was disruptive. In any case, I've pared his signature down to meet the length requirements and issued a formal warning as to his signature use. –xeno^talk 13:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:TrueColour

Could somebody please block or firmly admonish this user? For the past several days, he has made hundreds of unilateral page moves without any consensus or discussion and likely against MoS. It's gonna take ages to clean. Several users including myself have already explained to TrueColour why what he did is wrong and needs to be reverted straight away. TrueColour disagrees with the concerns, which is fair enough, but when I start reverting the mess he reverted me back and is now accusing me of unconsensual page moves and edit warring. Could somebody put an end to this? I prefer not to block the user myself as I am Portuguese and his disruption has mainly affected articles on Portuguese municipalities and districts. All such articles, to be precise. A lot to clean. Thanks. Húsönd 19:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is in progress. I've asked TrueColour to stop his moves pending the outcome of the discussion. Can you hold off on moving any back yourself, Husond?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you offering to move hundreds of articles back after the discussion ends, plus redoing the changes made to those articles by other users while the discussion was taking place? It was an undiscussed non-consensual mass move, everybody discussing with this user agrees that it shouldn't have happened. If the user persists, it's disruption. The longer it takes to fix it, the harder the task will be. Húsönd 20:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving after edits doesn't remove those edits, so that argument doesn't apply.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately in this case it does. The editor didn't just move the articles, but also edited the first paragraph to have them conform with his moves and the subsequent duplication of the subject. Cleaning will involve moving+reverting. Húsönd 20:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph doesn't necessarily need to match the article title, though it's generally desirable. As long as he discusses and doesn't move anything else, I don't see that further action is needed. I've hinted that editing articles to match his desired naming scheme might be a Bad Thing as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not just that, but also insertion of sentences directing to new articles that the user effectively split and which shouldn't exist as separate. Hundreds of them. Again, the longer the changes stay in place, the harder it will be to fix. You can't protect hundreds of articles while a discussion is in place. If you really want to help, check the magnitude of his edits, investigate what he did and what needs to be undone, calculate the work that will take for that, and then maybe you'll realize that leaving everything as it is while a non-discussion takes place (because nobody else agrees with what the user did) is probably not a good idea. Húsönd 21:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be surprised if bots, redirects, and WP:AWB can't clean things up effectively enough. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Feel free to bring them on later. Húsönd 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The user doesn't need to be blocked and I'm not sure what you mean by admonish (sounds like some sort of official warning or reprimand, I'm not aware of anyone on here with that sort of authority short of going to RFAR). The move issue is a name (read "content") dispute. True Color's responses were a bit defensive and difficult but the comments that led to them were a bit bitey. Both sides should back off, cool off, and discuss the naming convention. A third party, maybe Sarek, may be able to help the two sides see each other's points of view as both sides have merit and deserve to be understood before anyone goes further or reverts all. The fixes are relatively simple in the event everything eventually needs to go back the way it was. Recommend close this thread and consider WP:MEDCAB if Sarek can't break the deadlock.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDCAB? Sorry, fixing this problem is already too much work, I don't think I would need a week of unproductive and insanely boring discussion on top of it. No, let's reach this compromise instead: I will not bother with this "content dispute" anymore, and Wikipedia has just gotten a few hundred disruptive-useless-split articles that damaged the original ones. All happy. Húsönd 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I must concur with Husond's opinion (I assume he asked me as somebody who does not cooperate with him, most of the time). This seems a remarkably useless series of splits, which move the articles on the actual towns to such unEnglish forms as Resende Municipality, Portugal, to make some point about there being an administrative division of the same name on a different level. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Doug, you found this to be "bitey"? Really? Maybe if you are going to go to the trouble of commenting here, you could be a little more specific about exactly what you are talking about. --John (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not find that comment bitey. I did find bitey: ignoring that editors are charged to Be Bold, listing a half-dozen or more places that the editor should have gone for consensus, most of which are rarely used for such discussions (I've never heard of posting an idea for a rename at the Village Pump), etc. But most importantly, my point was that ANI is not the place for this discussion. This is not the place to debate whether page moves were necessary and proper, even if they were were against consensus, past practice, etc. This is a WP:Dispute resolution matter and should be closed and taken elsewhere.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a dispute resolution. All users are welcome to be bold, but when the boldness is damaging and reported as such, persisting in this boldness counts for no less than plain disruption. Disruption that needs to be halted and fixed, not to be hindered by bureaucracy and complacence. Húsönd 06:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been halted, without blocking or admonishment. TrueColour has created Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Portuguese-related articles)#District names to discuss the subject, but I haven't seen you there yet.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

a) I got a life outside Wikipedia; b) I'm not joining any discussions unless his mess gets reverted. You can keep hundreds of damaged articles for as long as I care. Húsönd 18:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And I suggest that next time you look with a bit more attention because I'm actually there - Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Portuguese-related articles)#District names, on the thread right above the one you linked. Two seconds it would take to notice, but I admit that I should know by now that the time conceded by ANI peers is strictly reserved for deliberations. Húsönd 18:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I read that first, and in enough detail to see that you had not yet addressed the issue you're urging that TrueColor be admonished for.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Another evidence that you treated this case like a dead raccoon. Next time I won't bother to come here and I'll just get the job done. The WP:MEDCAB part was funny though. Húsönd 18:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:PORTUGAL#To-do_items states be bold. That I was. And I think that the established article style is not the best for future growth. I am now harassed by Pmanderson. It follows a more detailed statement:
• The Portuguese class identifier "distrito" is usually translated as "district". The districts are referred to normally as "distrito de Something" which in English yields either ""district of Something" or "Something District". In enWP the format "Something Classname" is widely used. Apart from usage in article titles that format is mentioned in WP:NCGN#Administrative_subdivisions: "so if one district in a country is moved from X to X District, it is worth discussing whether all districts should be moved.". The existence of that example in WP:NCGN indicates that the use of "Something District" is accepted.
• The reasoning for the article titles of the municipalities of Portugal is similiar: concelho is translated as "municipality", the entities are called "concelho de Something", translating to "Municipality of Something" or "Something Municipality". A recently performed research shows that this format is used for several other sets of municipalities within WP and that this format is the one that is overwhelming used by those sets that use the class identifier in the article title.
• Wikipedia:MOS#Geographical_items states: "Places should generally be referred to consistently using the same name as in the title of their article". "Something District" as article title allows one to write [[Something District]] while "Something (district)" cannot be directly linked. Articles titled that way are instead often referred to as "district of [[Something (district)|Something]]", which in fact is misleading since the link under "Something" goes to "Something (district)".
• When User:Husond wrote on my talk page the first time he asked for reversion of "page moves and content removal" insinuating that I removed content while I only split some pages. He further wrote "Your district moves are also against the manual of style, please move back." In his next message he wrote " Please put everything back and then improvements can be discussed. I further bring to your attention that titles such as "Braga Municipality" or "Braga District" are against the Manual of Style. The subject type for geographical entries goes in parenthesis - "Braga (municipality)" or "Braga (district)". " When I asked where this is written he didn't bring a link. He also was very pushy to revert the moves, I told him that the districts moves can be reverted without problem at any time. Nevertheless he started reverting the page moves, knowing that "Something (district)" is disputed. This is kind of Wikipedia:Edit_warring#What_edit_warring_is. I told him to stop this. He also had contacted Pmanderson stating " this might be up your street. Mass moves made by a new user. MoS-related.". Moving the articles of the 18 districts of Portugal are certainly no mass moves. And I think what matters are the actions, not the age of the account. Old and new accounts have all to respect the same rules and shall adhere to MoS.
• In the case here it seems that I knew the MoS better then them.
• Following the invitation by Husond, Pmanderson writes for the first time in my talk page. I didn't see why s/he came and I thought s/he might be interested in solving the content dispute. But since s/he brought up the notion of silliness and wrote in a very commanding tone I pointed to WP:NPA and deleted the comment. Pmanderson is trying to play a power game, and wrote: " our guidelines are guidance, not rules; they record what is customarily done, and are not intended to be comprehensive "rules" forbidding all silly notions which anybody might come up with until the heat-death of the universe." Followed by "As it happens, we have already considered this question, not at any page of the Manual of Style, but at WP:NCGN, a naming convention. Our first rule, and our last, is call things what reliable sources call them, unless there is some good reason, like disambiguation, to do otherwise.". See again the usage of "we", same way as User:Husond did.
• After Pmanderson invoked the rule of "what reliable sources call them", I asked back what the name in Portuguese is, so that Pmanderson could find out her/himself that the classname is part of the object and translated into English this would lead to "Something Municipality".
• Now after having posted "Our first rule, and our last" Pmanderson in a very patronizing way invokes another rule: "read WP:NCGN and find that, this being the English Wikipedia, what matters to us is what these towns are called in English".
• I asked where I did not use English, s/he is starting to talk about my dialect of English. That the question "Where not?" is not correct English and correcting it. To further state: "Resende Municipality, Portugal is one way to distinguish the municipal government from the old town; but it is not the natural and idiomatic way.". This shows that the topic is missed by Pmanderson, since the articles "Something Municipality" are not about municipal governments but about geographical entities. It further shows lack of knowledge what article titles are for and that for articles on toponyms they are often not "natural and idiomatic": Deposit (village), New York is one example and you find many more at Category:Villages in New York.
• I then asked how s/he in his/her dialect of English would call the articles. The reply started with the notion that "First, we don't need two articles (and it's not helpful to have them); we need one article on Resende, Portugal, which distinguishes between the town and the municipality". Which is a shift from her/his only slightly older comment "Probably the best would be to have one article for both, and differentiate."[75]. It more and more seems to me that Pmanderson is only into the dispute for a power game and not much interested in the articles on the geography of Portugal as I am. The reply goes on " If we had to have two [articles], the natural name for both would Resende; since that's ambiguous, the simplest course is not to make something up, or to translate as English does not, but to add a parenthetical disambiguator to the less read one: Resende, Portugal (municipality)". Pmanderson now made up a method of disambiguation I couldn't find anywhere else, violating her/his own statement "the simplest course is not to make something up".
• I think it is harmful to the development of Wikipedia that people like Pmanderson play power games with users and make up rules out of nothing.
• Pmanderson should be de-admined for her/his harassment and her/his power game playing. At 17:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Pmanderson unveils her/his attitude how to solve content disputes. "Speaking of which, this may be the solution for the disruptive True Colour. Let me know if you do - it would probably be unwise to block him yourself, but he should be blocked.]. " This shows that Pmanderson wants a solution /for a user/ and not a solution /of a content dispute/. I strongly recommend that what Pmanderson wants to be performed on others should best be applied to him/herself.
• User:Husond and Pmanderson should learn how to respect MoS better and also to respect WP:OWN, WP:AGF. Only that Husond comes from Portugal does not make him to own the pages related to Portugal.
• Husond writes : "For the past several days, he [TrueColour] has made hundreds of unilateral page moves without any consensus or discussion and likely against MoS. It's gonna take ages to clean." Nice to see the notion of "likely against MoS". Seems Husond is not so convinced anymore that it is against MoS. But then I wonder, why he is so sure that all needs to be reverted. Also interesting that stuff that /one/ user can do in several days will take several users to take ages. It seems Husond is exaggerating to get his agenda through.
• Husond: " TrueColour disagrees with the concerns, which is fair enough, but when I start reverting the mess he reverted me back and is now accusing me of unconsensual page moves and edit warring. Could somebody put an end to this? " - To call the edits of other people a mess is against WP:NPA. And I guess the best way to stop the accusations of "unconsensual page moves and edit warring" is to stop the underlying actions.
• I want to send a big thank you to User:John, User:SarekOfVulcan, User:Doug for their strict but friendly involvement. If anyone of these people is not an admin I recommend to make him/her an admin. Keep up your work! You are, as far as I can see, good examples for how to apply WP:AGF.
• To end my statement with something positive I would like to say that related to articles on the geography of Portugal, I:
  • imported the river list from pt WP, see List of rivers of Portugal.
  • created an overview about the subdivisions of Portugal.
  • turned the lists of municipalities that were split by district into one big sortable list of municipalities of Portugal
  • improved Aveiro District: turning a simple the list of the municipalities into a sortable table, incl population and area data, numbers of parishes, cities and towns for each municipality.
  • for the municipalities in that district I started to import population history from pt:WP
  • disambiguated several false links
  • when I came across badly formated DAB pages I converted them to adhere to MOS:DAB, esp. unhiding link targets
• TrueColour (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Kudos to Sarek and Doug. Now we have disruption AND unsubstantiated wikilawyering. Good job. Húsönd 06:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I thank Sarek of Vulcan for his advice, both here and on TrueColour's talk page, that TrueColour hold off on his moves until discussing them and receiving consent; as he said there "let discussion conclude before you move any more. Continuing might be classed as disruptive and blockable."

• TrueColour has not stopped; this is the burden of his complaint. He should read WP:BRD; boldness is fine, until you are reverted - at which point you should stop and discuss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

1. 17:52, 19 October 2009 Husond writes on my talk page for the first time: "True Colour, please revert your municipality page moves and content removals, this was done without any discussion or consensus."
2. The moves were done under WP:BOLD, and in agreement with MOS and WP:NCGN. Any removal of content is only claimed for but not evidenced. To my knowledge it did not occur. If yes, I am sorry for that and ask that it be restored. Under WP:AGF what he meant probably was /splitting/ of content, i.e. splitting town/city content from municipality. There can be several towns and cities in one municipality. The table of municipalities that I created at Aveiro District shows that e.g. Santa Maria da Feira Municipality contains 3 cities and 13 towns. On the other hand, some municipalities don't contain any city.
3. 22:49, 19 October 2009 I moved Resende, Portugal to Resende Municipality, Portugal: with the comment "parish is only little part of it". Background: The town of Resende, Portugal has 2 900 inhabitants, the municipality 12 000. The article clearly was about the municipality. That was the last move of a municipality article as far as I can see.
4. It was the ONLY move of a new municipality article after someone asked for reversion of the moves of the municipality articles.
5. 22:40, 19 October 2009 Husond contacts Pmanderson, who then starts a discussion at my talk page.
6. Since at 18:50, 19 October 2009 Husond suggested I seek consensus at WP:MOS-PT, I, at 20:53, 19 October 2009, wrote at the MOS-PT page about my plan to address some issues of the articles about the geography of Portugal. False links, small content.... I also included research about how other projects do the naming and that "Something Municipality" is often used. I referenced the MOS.
7. 17:12, 20 October 2009 Pmanderson shows shows at Husonds talk page what he is aiming for, namely a solution for a user not for the content dispute: "... this may be the solution for the disruptive True Colour. Let me know if you do - it would probably be unwise to block him yourself, but he should be blocked. "
8. 19:24, 20 October 2009 Husond turns to district articles and starts moving them: "moved Aveiro District to Aveiro (district) over redirect: rev unilateral move". He did that despite the fact that he knew that there would be disagreement of his moves, and on my talk page we were discussing it. While he only stated that X District is against MOS, and failed to provide anything from the MOS that would back that claim, I was citing not MOS but WP:NCGN. Which he then told me would only be informative.
9. I moved back Aveiro District, Beja District, Lisbon District and then told him that "distrito is part of the name" and pointed to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Portuguese-related_articles)#District_names so we can solve this there and avoid edit warring. Until now he did not contribute at MOS-PT nor at Talk:Districts of Portugal.
10. I did not move back the others since I thought any move of these district articles is bad until the dispute is settled.
11. 20:13, 20 October 2009 SarekOfVulcan writes "TrueColour, your moves look reasonable at first glance, but please let discussion conclude before you move any more. Continuing might be classed as disruptive and blockable".
12. 22:38, 22 October 2009 I reply - "I already stopped moving with exception of two or three. I am now working on the article on Aveiro District to show the people how things can be. I would then work on the municipalities of that district. Yes, let's discuss. I guess at WP:MOS-PT? See also the improved List of rivers of Portugal and the new article Districts of Portugal. We need good naming for all the objects. During my work I found lot of ambiguous or false links. With good names we can reduce that. "
    1. in fact the "two or three" referred to municipalities and as far as I can see now it was only Resende Municipality, Portugal. I did not have in mind the page moves of the districts. But even that I had already stopped.
13. 22:36, 21 October 2009 Pmanderson changed to stalking. reverting edits not related to the municipalities or districts of Portugal and calling me a vandal in the edit comments. The history of the article Penafiel City does not show the "N" for "new" next to the oldest edit, but the first edit in the list was done by me, and if I recall correctly I created that page. It was just meant as intermediate name, so later I moved the page to Penafiel, Portugal to comply with WP:MoS and WP:NCGN. Pmanderson reverts with the edit comment "moved Penafiel, Portugal to Penafiel City over redirect: revert move vandalism". This violates WP:AGF and is an indicator for WP:STALK. Several locations in Peru are called "Anta". To make the naming more precise I moved the village Anta, Peru to Anta, Ancash. Pmanderson reverts, his edit comment is "moved Anta, Ancash to Anta, Peru over redirect: revert move vandalism". This violates WP:AGF and is an indicator for WP:STALK.
14. 00:18, 22 October 2009 I told him to stop.
15. 16:43, 22 October 2009 Pmanderson writes on my talk page: " Your edits are not in accord with our guidelines; they are not English; and they are widely disputed, not by me alone. This is the English, not the Portuguese, Wikipedia; please confine your attentions to languages in which you possess fluency."
    1. Is this true or does he say something untrue? I could not find any policy on that. I see there is Category:User_en-1, Category:User_en-2, Category:User_en-3, Category:User_en-4.
16. As of now, there is no contribution by Pmanderson nor Husond at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Portuguese-related_articles)#District_names. They seem not to be interested to discuss the matter. Also there is no comment by Pmanderson nor by Husond about the naming of articles about the municipalities of Portugal at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Portuguese-related_articles)#Geography_-_Municipalities. They repeatedly say I shall stop moving and the matter shall be discussed. When I start the discussion to seek consensus after I found out that my bold edits are contested, they do not engage in discussion about /naming/ at WP:MOS-PT nor Talk:Municipalities_of_Portugal#Article_naming. Husond made a comment but that only addressed whether there need to be separate articles for the separate geographical entities, namely cities/towns on the one hand and municipalities on the other hand.
17. 16:49, 22 October 2009 Pmanderson wrote on ANI: "I thank Sarek of Vulcan for his advice, both here [ANI] and on TrueColour's talk page, that TrueColour hold off on his moves until discussing them and receiving consent; .... TrueColour has not stopped;". This is misleading. SarekOfVulcan on ANI explicitly wrote that the moves were already halted and he did not advice for that here. It even halted with exception to Resende, before that. And the statement by Pmanderson is also hypocritical: The ones that stay away from discussing the naming dispute at WP:MOS-PT are Pmanderson and Hudson. Last but not least the only one involved in moving several articles /after/ knowing this is in discussion was Hudson when he moved the district articles. TrueColour (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of {{discussion top}}

I believe a note needs to be made in the edit notice for this page, along with other noticeboards. I just finished cleaning up a mess created by improper use of this template. It is placed below the section title, not above it, as if it is placed above it, then when the archival bot archives the thread above where the template was placed in, it takes the template with it, basically disrupting how the archives for the page look. Because the discussion top template was removed by the bot, we now have several unrelated threads hatted together as if they were related. This cannot be stressed enough.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Making a note here so that this doesn't get archived. It needs to be addressed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This has been a rather persistent problem. JPG-GR (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This probably won't help much, but I figure it can't hurt. Is there someway to have the templates be smart about, perhaps, disabling themselves if a pair of primary section headers ("==") fall within their boundaries? user:J aka justen (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

Various IPs are blanking user talk pages and replaceing them with "YOU ACTUALLY THINK I SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR RETALIATING AGAINST WIKIPEDIA'S LIBEL AND HARASSMENT? YOU TRULY ARE A BRAINWASHED IGNORAMUS.".

• 141.209.57.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 69.156.98.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 206.116.6.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 198.189.57.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 141.151.201.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.229.2.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Similar vandalism also by 98.168.193.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

One talk page has been semi-protected by another admin, I've asked Fred Bauer if he wishes to have his semi-protected. Mjroots (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I posted the above, further IP vandalism has occurred to DarkFalls talk page. Not sure what is going on, but it seems to fail WP:NPA at the least. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just grawp having his daily fun. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis —Dark 09:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Jarl tends to target not articles, but users. Just say the three magic words, though, and he'll scram. (You may only need one, but make sure I'm not on the page as well.) -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 09:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged all the IPs as suspected socks. Also semi-protected DarkFalls talk page as I feel that the vandalism is now excessive. Mjroots (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Now DarkFalls unprotected the talk page, but it's his decision to do that as "the idiot might decide to vandalize the mainspace instead". He "would prefer to keep the theatrics in one page, and on a page where it does not cause much damage". Quotes from my talk page.  Merlion  444  10:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, how best to deal with this then? An immediate 1 week block for all IPs who perform such vandalism? Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page Mjroots (talk) Commenting here because ANI is protected: you should know that you are apparently dealing with a bunch of 4chan idiots [76], i.e. there is more than one vandal. I don't know what to suggest doing about it other than letting the recent change patrol know what's up, so they can make sure to revert it all. I don't know who "Dark" is. Maybe it's worth finding out, maybe not. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

69.228, "Dark" is User:Darkfalls. Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 15:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Channers? Semi all associated articles; don't bother tracing the IPs because they're all one-offs. Wait until they get bored, and then unprot. One thing /b/ is not known for is a long attention span. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Another thing /b/ers are not known for is intelligence. I advocate harsher sanctions, such as directly contacting the IP address owner, and telling them that their client is getting out of hand. /b/ers enjoy vandalism, and won't go away with anything short of being forced to.   Nezzadar ☎   05:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Childish kids with nothing better to do than vandalise. I do believe Grawp is behind all this, but yeah, I couldn't really care less what some kids from 4chan has to say about me. I get my share of death threats, and laugh about them. —Dark 06:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I can, if you want, make a phone call to a friend of mine in the Secret Service and have the IP investigated. The Special Task Force on Computer Crimes takes death threats very seriously, (considering that they are feds, they take everything seriously.) You want?   Nezzadar ☎   17:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please make this stop.

PennySeven (talk · contribs · count) has just has just left this long series of messages on my talk page. They are, in my opinion, personal attacks, eg. 'Have you lost your head or what?', 'Whats wrong with you', 'You deserve to be banned from Wikipedia'. I would like someone to talk to him and ask him to stop.

What started this all was this message that I left on his talk page, where I informed him that I was planning on reverting his changes to Inflation, and why I was going to do so. I left this message as Pennyseven has a history of pushing those exact same edits on the Inflation article, but I had hoped that he had stopped. He transferred my message and his reply to the Inflation talk page and then left a long complaint there about me.

I left this reply on the Inflation talk page, and then removed his recent additions to the Inflation article.

PennySeven then left this series of messages on my talk page. I left him a short reply on my talk page, thanking him for his message.

He then went on the article talk page, and left another long series of complaints, with my name featured prominently in the section headings (against guidelines I believe), accusing me of various wrong doings.

I did not reply to his talk page posts, as I did not want to further provoke him in any way, and hoped that he would stop by himself. But I did leave a Wikiquette alert , asking for someone to please talk to him and ask him to stop putting such posts on the talk page.

Since then, even though I have not replied to him at all, he left again this series and then this series of posts on the talk page of Inflation. This is what the talk page looks like now.

Which brings us to the present series of posts on my talk page. (I may have left out some other posts made by Pennyseven, he's so prolific, I can't be sure.) As far as I can tell, I have not in any way provoked this last few series of posts. I'm not sure if this is just his personality, or if he's losing it, or if this is calculated to scare me away, or calculated to scare anyone from contradicting him in the future – at this point, I don't care. I would just like him to stop.

I hope someone will take appropriate action. Thank you, --LK (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Does seem a bit over the top.Abce2|This isnot a test 16:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

deleted content discussion pasted from Talk:Inflation

And this has to do with the current discussion how...?Abce2|This isnot a test 16:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I proposed on the Inflation talk page to change the word erode to destroy in the article. No-one disagreed. I changed it. PennySeven (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)~

Yes, but this is about your behavoir.Abce2|This isnot a test 16:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I also added new content to the article. No-one disagreed.

Now, weeks later LK disagree with changing erode to destroy. He told me right from the start that he bans me from changing it. He stated he will take any disagreement from me as edit warring - right from the first disagreement. That will be edit warring - that is what he stated. PennySeven (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of your content disputes with LK, spamming him with dozens of one-line posts on his talk and on the inflation talk page is _not_ acceptable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting my example instead of telling me how to put the link.

Yes this is about behaviour: LK´s behaviour in telling me from the first moment that he will not take any disagreement or discussion from me. He will regard it as edit warring. That is his behaviour. He also threatened me that he will take this to higher authorities if I disagree. Then he deleted all my current contributions - even examples I added to his examples.

Do you agree that I should start this discussion with you stating that if you disagree with me I will regard it as edit warring immediately and take it to higher authorities? Is that what I suppose to do? Follow LK´s example? PennySeven (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, that was wrong. I admit. Do you agree that it was wrong for LK to state that I am not allowed to disagree with him? More exactly, do you agree that he can state from the beginning that ANY disagreement, right the first disagreement - one sentence - will be regarded as edit warrring and will lead to further disciplinary actions? One sentence is edit warrring? Are we allowed to tell other editors what LK told me? Do you agree with his opening statement to me?PennySeven (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

PennySeven found LK's message rude. That's understandable. But the spamming of LK's talk page and the Inflation talk page was a completely disproportionate response. Under normal circumstances, of course PennySeven would be able to discuss disagreement on substance on the talk page, but this hasn't been helpful. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, yes, I do agree with his opening statement. His exact words were:

I've just noticed what you have been doing on the Inflation page this last few weeks. I'm here to inform you first, but it's my intention to change back many of the things you have changed. You should know that many of the revisions you've made :

1. Are against consensus. Many editors have reverted similar edits by you before.
2. Violates neutral wording, which is a basic policy for Wikipedia.
3. Is not consistent with proper weight - it overemphasizes issues not mentioned in a standard textbook presentation on inflation.

I'm going to ask that you do not edit war with me on this. The outcome eventually will not be much different, but it will cause much wikidrama if I have to call in the members of Wikiproject Economics to review the article.

So, since you're claiming he said things he didn't actually say, I'm going to have to ask you to stop this discussion right now and focus on content, not editors. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree the response was disproportional. I did that in response to the disproportional removal of all my subsequent contributions to the Inflation article after he changed destroy back to erode. His actions in deleting additions that were previously discussed, changed and correcte and then finally added to the article, just because I was that one who added them, was disproportional and had nothing to do with the discussion about erode or destroy.PennySeven (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should re-read what Sarek said.Abce2|This isnot a test 16:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"I'm going to ask that you do not edit war with me on this." So, it is abundantly evident, fact, clear and logical that I was going to edit war with LK? Please explain that deduction to me especially with reference to the fact that I have not changed one of his reverts in the article. PennySeven (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so he must be wrong because he said that. What does this have to do with it? Abce2|This isnot a test 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

*reads Special:Contributions/PennySeven* Um, yes, actually, given your past contributions, it wasn't an unreasonable assumption.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

His wanton vandalizing the rest of my contributions to the article which had nothing to do with erode and destroy was the main reason for my disproportional response on his talk page and on the inflation talk page. You all ignore this very important fact. If he had simple changed destroy back to erode I would not have responded as I did. When he deleted an extra example to the item cars to which I added inventory I realized he was not editing in good faith. He removed quotes that were corrected and edited by Arthur Ruben, etc. You ignore that. I responded as I did because he deleted everything I contributed - not just destroy in place of erode.PennySeven (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, re-read what Serak said. Your contributions were not nuetral, against consensus, and others. Abce2|This isnot a test 17:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

...and PennySeven, there is never, ever any valid reason to react the way you did towards any editor whatsoever. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What is not neutral about inventory being the same type of economic item as cars? Who disagrees that inventory is a non-monetary item like a car? Do you disagree that both cars and inventories are non-monetary items?PennySeven (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss the content itself. Even though you may not agree, please realize that other editors view things differently (see this), and, though it may be admittedly hard to accept their views sometimes, you must respect them all the same. There's no reason to slander LK and call him a vandal, in any case. I'm sure LK doesn't have anything personal against you; you're welcome to take this up with him, but please be sure to maintain a civil manner. Master of Puppets 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. So, what do you do when LK not just reverts the word destroy 3 or 4 times back to the word erode, but in the same token deletes other statements agreed by other editors besides me as well as deletes two full paragraphs in the article with about 10 lines of script - especially when he has already taken it for granted that I am going to edit war with him : I'm going to ask that you do not edit war with me on this."?

Beside changing the word destroy back to erode LK at the same time deleted all this:

deleted content pasted from Inflation

"Accountants choose to implement the stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation when they value constant items in fixed nominal monetary units. Accountants´ choice of implementing the stable measuring unit assumption instead of measuring constant items´ real values in units of constant purchasing power results in the real values of these fixed constant real value non-monetary items being destroyed at a rate equal to the rate of inflation when they are never maintained during low inflation because inflation destroys the real value of money which is the monetary measuring unit of account. Constant items are treated like monetary items when their real values are never maintained as a result of the implementation of the stable measuring unit assumption as part of the traditional Historical cost accounting model. “The Measuring Unit principle: The unit of measure in accounting shall be the base money unit of the most relevant currency. This principle also assumes the unit of measure is stable; that is, changes in its general purchasing power are not considered sufficiently important to require adjustments to the basic financial statements.” The extremely rapid destruction of the real value of the monetary unit of account is compensated for during hyperinflation by the rejection of the stable measuring unit assumption in International Accounting Standard IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies. IAS 29, which has to be implemented during hyperinflation, requires all non-monetary items (variable items and constant items) to be measured in units of constant purchasing power."

You say I must just quietly accept that and accept that I cannot disagree with him since it will be called edit warring?PennySeven (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Don´t you think removing all the above is vandalism?PennySeven (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not the forum to discuss the content being disputed. However, you could have disagreed by discussing it with him. Edit warring is different from discussion. Master of Puppets 17:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, we don't. Pasting it here, on the other hand, is disruptive, and since I warned you previously about continuing to disrupt the encyclopedia, you have been blocked. Since your block log shows a previous 2-day block, and immediately afterward, you continued edit warring and accusing editors of off-wiki collaboration, this block is for one week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And PennySeven, would you learn how to use quotation marks? When you wrote above "I proposed on the Inflation talk page to change the word erode to destroy in the article", I was baffled for a few minutes (how the heck can one "change a word erode"? & what is a "word erode"?) until I realized you meant to write "I proposed on the Inflation talk page to change the word 'erode' to 'destroy' in the article." -- llywrch (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

llywrch, its not really necessary to belittle him on his grammatical skills. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, it wasn't my intent to belittle anyone; my comments were offered in good faith. I actually suffered a comprehension breakdown when I read that sentence, which could have been avoided with a bit of punctuation. I can't fathom why anyone wouldn't use quotation marks in that context -- especially when their absence makes the writer look like a kook. (Maybe this was another instance where I should not have clicked on the "Save page" button...) -- llywrch (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Llywrch seemed to be belittling PennySeven on the basis of his punctuation skills, not his grammatical skills ... though both could use a bit of work. :-) 64.208.230.145 (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved observer checking in. Was a block warranted in this case, as it seems to be an editor simply trying to plead his/her case? Perhaps redirecting the discussion was needed, but there did not seem to be anything other than WP:PUSH and a bit of tendentious editing at play. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Several editors, me included, tried to redirect it. Not only did they continue to argue content in a behavior discussion, they posted several paragraphs of removed content here after I had already removed an earlier posting of several paragraphs of content discussion. The combination of missing the point and flooding ANI with irrelevant content was what caused me to do a preventative block, and the history of similar behavior was what determined the length. I'm open to further discussion if you still think there's a problem here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Might be missing something here? the "they", especially? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC).

That's the singular "they" -- I try not to use "he" unless I'm sure it's correct. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My "take" is that this was a content issue and should probably have been left on the discussion page of the affected article or at most on the associated editors' talk pages. Bringing it here to ANI appeared excessive as the remedies could have been applied at an earlier stage. I know that a tedious, and drawn out defence was involved but was the editor in question skirting into the areas of civility? disruption (of the original article)? vandalism? If these issues were not the deciding factors, then a good dose of "ignore" may have been appropriate, rather than playing "wap a mole". (FWiW, last statement entirely facetious, LOL.) Bzuk (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a content issue, but much of this is about a problem that has arisen with this editor before - a tendency to misinterpret and arguably overreact to comments. Lawrencekhoo wasn't assuming the best of faith, but the two editors have butted heads on that article before, so perhaps this is understandable. However, PennySeven then misinterpreted what was said by Lawrencekhoo, and entered into what was verging on harassment of the other editor. Indeed, I was about to warn PennySeven of the potential for harassment when it was brought here, having noticed similar responses to criticism from other editors. Given that there were constant posts by PennySeven attacking LK for over 24 hours, outside intervention may have been necessary. - Bilby (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good enough, I probably didn't sense the frustrations that were involved as it matured into a full flap. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC).

Reversions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)

Resolved

 – I have received the advice requested. Dpmuk (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm posting this here rather than the edit warring noticeboard as it's a wider issue also concerning an RfC. Following this RfC I made this change. As the RfC had been stale for a week I closed it and made the change proposed despite it only being agreed by one other editor as both of us agreed it was a fair representation of the wider consensus (where there had been several comments). User:Francis Schonken has now reverted my edit, originally it would appear because it contradicted Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) despite both being guidelines and neither having primacy. I pointed them at the RfC and they have now said they don't think it's a fair reading of consensus. I both opened and closed the RfC (as no one else was coming along to do so) and so am afraid of a conflict of interest despite closing against my preferred option. Both of us are now close to the three revert rule so would appreciate someone else to take a look at the whole situation. Dpmuk (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please take a look at this - it could really do with an admin looking it over. I'm trying to avoid an edit war here. I sometimes wonder if the only way to get admin attention is to actually do something wrong. Help in trying to avoid problems seems rarely to be forthcoming. This isn't a go at any individual admin as I realise they're all volunteers who have other things to be doing but more a comment that the system seems to be failing in this regard. Dpmuk (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a content dispute; you don't need an administrator action here, you need both parties to back off and outside opinions on what the consensus of the RfC was. WP:30 is well-staffed, so I suggest that a posting there would be a good way forward. See also dispute resolution. Sincerely,  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree it's a "content" dispute what I think is at issue here is the process not the dispute itself - and this is what I'd like some admin comment on. An RfC was held, comments received and a consensus reached. Yes the consensus for the exact wording was small but it was left open for a week without any further comment before the RfC was closed - discussion have to be closed at some point, we can't wait for ever for more comments. At this point, in my opinion, the version with the change agreed at the RfC becomes the 'stable' version. If an editor then disagrees with this new 'stable' version it's perfectly in their right to start another discussion about changing it but the 'stable' version should remain until consensus is reached to change it. As an analogy we don't allow editors to recreate an article deleted at an AfD just because they disagree with the consensus (such article would be G4'ed), we have DRV for discussing the issue. Without respecting previous decisions reached until consensus is reached to change them wikipedia would fall apart. I have no issue with discussing the issue further but I think it's a dangerous precedent to let the version from before the RfC stand just because someone disagrees with how it was closed - what happens if they hadn't come along to a month or a year later? Additionally attempts to find out to have a discussion about why they disagree on what the consensus was have so far not met with success with them just saying they disagree with no reason. Given User:Francis Schonken's irregular editing habits discussion could take some time and until such time as we agree on a way forward what version should remain? This is a clear process issue and not a "content" dispute. I don't want to get blocked for reverting to what I think is the "stable" version so want admin opinion on this issue. I am then quite willing to discuss the issue. Dpmuk (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And yes I am aware that this probably isn't quite the right forum but there isn't an admin assistance forum. At the moment there is currently no place to ask for an admin opinion so it ended it up here. Yes there's places like WP:EA but, IMO, editors there may not be best placed to answer questions like "would this got me blocked" as they probably don't have experience of blocking. I think there should definitely be a location to raise issues that look like they're heading towards needing admin action (e.g. blocking) before they actually do and this forums obviously mainly needs admin replies as they'd be the ones that actually would use the tools if it reached that stage - this would hopefully avoid the need for some admin actions. Dpmuk (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the page needs to be protected, and perhaps one or more of those involved in the editing dispute ought to be blocked, but I do not think so, and I don't see what other administrator actions are needed at this point. I'm not going to criticise your choice of venue under the circumstances, but one does not need to be an admin to close an RfC, to give good advice or to judge consensus – such a situation would be a deplorable move to a hierarchical system. I think you are more likely to get input from knoweldgeable experienced editors by asking the members of the Manual of Style WikiProject that the battlegrounders who frequent this board. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  15:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I realise that - I closed the RfC having, I thought at the time, gauged consensus correctly (the only other editor who commented agreed with me). My question is that if I revert back to the version agreed upon at RfC, the version I think is the "stable version" and I reported to the edit warring board am I likely to get in trouble for my actions (either by being admonished or blocked) and as such action would be done by an admin it seems reasonable to seek an admin view before it happened. If I am in the wrong and it would be considered edit warring then I'd like to know this so I don't make the change (although as I say if this is the case I have serious concerns about how wikipedia operates - so much so that I'd probably start an RfC on the RfC process).

I also realise that my edits, in particular this one, may not look the best. In hindsight I am possibly shouldn't have made it but the other users reverted my revert so quickly I hadn't even had time to explain my actions on their talk page so I redid it as they obviously couldn't have understood my reasoning. Also with hindsight I should have said in my first edit summary that I was going to leave them a message. Once it became clear that they disagreed with me even after being aware of the RfC I didn't revert again and brought it here to see if it would be considered edit warring if I continued to revert back to what, in my opinion, is the stable version. Dpmuk (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that admin's aren't superusers and are button pushers, but they have to decide when to push the button and so they seem the most logical people to ask when it comes to finding out exactly when that button will be pressed in cases which aren't clear cut. Dpmuk (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I would not be inclined to block anyone at this point, or to protect the page, as you seem to realise that reverting is not going to move the matter forward. One of the ideas behind WP:3RR is it removes the warriors from the article – one way or another – so that decisions are left to uninvolved editors. To be crystal clear: If you revert back, I think you would be justly blocked; that is my advice as an administrator. I re-iterate, it would be best if you refrained from editing the page and instead find outsiders who know enough and are impartial enough to make the call. A neutrally worded request at WP:VPP/WP:VPR might do the trick. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  16:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making that clear. Personally I disagree due the points I raise above and the fact that leaving it as it is, in my opinion, effectively makes the RfC pointless (and by extension, in my opinion, nearly all RfCs) - I can see how others will disagree with that view however. That said I'll have to accept that's how admin's may interpret another revert and will raise this issue at the forum you mentioned. As for the wider point about RfC and indeed all such discussion (for example requested moves) I think we need a wider policy on what people should do if they disagree with a closure, something similar to WP:DRV maybe Wikipedia:Disputed closures and a clear guideline that the closure should stand until the new discussion is finished. However I accept that's a separate issue and will think about raising it separately - possibly as another RfC. Dpmuk (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet of Jeff V. Merkey - coi, harassment

Resolved

 – 48 hour block for conduct on an Arbcom page

Current ip

• 166.70.238.46 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Previous accounts

• Jvmphoto (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

See Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#Jeff_V._Merkey and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jvmphoto.

Obvious sockpuppet of these two indefinitely blocked accounts. Harassing others and using Wikipedia as a battleground [77] [78] [79] . Jumping into the article on himself in violation of WP:COI [80]. Since this ip has not been used by anyone else, I see no reason not to block it. --Ronz (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no arbcom ban anymore. BLP allows the subject of a bio to provide input and correct erroneous information. Nor has there been harassment of anyone. A complaint filed at the BLP noticeboard cannot be construed as such or such a venue would not exist. Any "battleground" was created by a variety of single purpose accounts, of which User:Ronz may in fact be one of them given his sudden interest in the subject of this bio for all this person knows. 166.70.238.46 (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You are community-banned for attempting to harass another user in the real world. Community bans have as much force behind them as Arbitration Committee bans, and are equally as enforceable, especially in this instance. To suggest otherwise is laughable. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 06:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked by an Arbcom clerk for misconduct on an Arbcom page. Block was unrelated to this thread. Manning (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:67.160.100.233: Disruptive WP:SPA

Resolved

 – 67.160.100.233 blocked for 1 week for causing disruption and harassing David Shankbone. AdjustShift (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This anonymous editor was previously given a final warning for personal attacks, and seems to have some sort of sole purpose fascination with the David Shankbone article. Along those lines, in what I can only determine is an effort to disrupt the related deletion discussion, he began making sockpuppet allegations this evening at that discussion. He originally raised other sockpuppet allegations at Talk:David Shankbone and was advised that was not the proper forum. Even after being told the same with regard to the deletion discussion, he has continued making the allegations there, without any apparent relevance to the actual discussion. His argument appears to be that wp:spi is too slow. user:J aka justen (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The user in question has been notified. user:J aka justen (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice, but I'm telling the truth. "After some investigation, it's my opinion that User:Huckandraz (contributions,) who created this article,[81] has also edited under (at least) the following usernames:

User:Babyrockcontributions

User:Lyltrycontributions

User:Profgregorycontributions

User:Vanguard121contributions

See also User:Easyreeder(contributions) on Wikinews.

This biography of Shankbone is straightforwardly a quid pro quo for Shankbone's help in promoting John Reed (novelist)(history) across en.wp. Reed ("Lyltry"): "Shankbone is a gawd").[82]67.160.100.233 (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Owch! Is that a reference to n:John Reed on Orwell, God, self-destruction and the future of writing that David Shankbone penned? - Alison ^❤ 10:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that way. Allegations of sockpuppetry do not belong in AfDs. They contribute nothing to the debate. Tim Song (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please present your case at SPI, and not anywhere else, and make sure it includes more than just "it's obvious"... some specific diffs showing a pattern of similar behaviour and interests for starters. Most of those IDs are old enough that CU won't tell you anything. For the record I checked anyway and I'm not seeing any connection between Huckandraz and Babyrock (the only two checkable ones). I invite review by other CUs of course, as I may have erred or misinterpreted the data. ++Lar: t/c 12:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• After analyzing the edits of 67.160.100.233, all I see is disruption, disruption, and disruption. This sort of edits are unacceptable, IMO. The IP not only accused David Shankbone of "sockpuppetry", but also accused Benjiboi of trying to "cover up" sockpuppetry. The IP is being disruptive, and harassing David Shankbone. I will block the IP for 1 week. AdjustShift (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• After my block, this was the response of the IP. AdjustShift (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyvios by User:Aziz090‎

Resolved

 – Blocked by Fisher Queen

Aziz090‎ (talk · contribs) seems destined to only add copyvio material to Wikipedia (usually in the course of creating articles on Malaysian films). A quick glance of his talk page should suffice, but the contribution list speaks for itself. It's usually copies from other sites regarding the movie's plot and reviews, as well as uploading non-free images related to the movie. He has been warned repeatedly, and eventually blocked for 24 hours. Upon his block expiring, he just continued introducing the same content. I'm afraid this is an editor who just doesn't get it (as is clear from his earlier unsuccessful unblock request). I think at some point we have to say enough is enough, and move to an indef block. Also, earlier some editors spent some time going through his contributions to get rid of the copyright violations, but since he's been at it again, I could use some help going through his more recent contributions. Singularity42 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Though situations in which they blank a page they recently created should be construed as them saying 'Okay, I quit' and marking the page with db-g7 instead of giving them a vandalism warning. HalfShadow (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. When we have very questionable new articles, and the author blanks, we should generally consider a G7 speedy delete (although in rare cases the new article might have enough redeemable qualities that it could be turned into something that could be kept in Wikipedia, and the blanking should be undone to some extent). It looks like this happened a few times wtih Aziz090 (and has happened sometimes with other new editors), but ultimately it doesn't excuse the constant copyvios (despite repeated warnings and being blocked for such behaviour). Anyway, not much more to be said or done while he's on his new block. We'll just need to monitor the situation when the block expires. Singularity42 (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

IP address trolling FEMA articles

An IP address in the range of 203.171.192.0/20 (203.171.199.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 203.171.196.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 203.171.199.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) keeps skipping his block to push the infamous FEMA death panels birth certificate controlled demolition magic bullet hollywood backlot killed and raped a girl in 1990 camp theories. I've taken the liberty of reverting of any of his contributions about it as the application of the block implies they are unwanted, but there is still the problem of IP hopping. The IP range is a mobile network, so the collateral will be low; it's generally inadvisable to edit from mobile or using a mobile connection. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I first noticed editors from this range making strange posts at Talk:Federal Emergency Management Agency but they have clearly progressed. Here they blow away ANI while making a legal threat in the edit summary. After looking at IP contributions from this range to check for collateral I've issued a rangeblock of 203.171.192.0/20, anon-only, for two weeks. Other admins may modify this as they think best. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Violation of 1RR - request for Block

Resolved

 – No action currently needed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

user hxseek reverted article, on a 1RR restricted article: Kosovo

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&action=history

(cur) (prev) 20:24, 21 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (105,508 bytes) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 13:39, 21 October 2009 Dbachmann (talk | contribs) (105,200 bytes) (restoring stable lead paragraph. do not expand this. go to history of Kosovo to discuss details.) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 11:27, 21 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (105,508 bytes) (after Roman times, Dardania ceased to be an distinct regional entity) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 10:10, 21 October 2009 Hajenso (talk | contribs) (105,494 bytes) (edit refs from "Kosova" to "Kosovo" when referring to the present state) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 07:18, 21 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (105,493 bytes) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 07:08, 21 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (105,576 bytes) (Undid revision 321148871 by Lontech (talk)) (undo)

He was warned a couple of times. thanks-- LONTECH  Talk  16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that I should have, but I reverted his edit when I saw this. If enough editors are pushing one specific paragraph, he shouldn't do this.   Nezzadar ☎   16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

...And Athenean reverted your revert, calling your revert "POV-pushing". -- Atama頭 19:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Admins do you SEE THE TIME OF REVERTS HERE OR NOT and THE 1RR restricted article-- LONTECH  Talk  20:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Lontech, Hxseek is currently blocked. If you call for a block one more time before he edits again, I will consider that disruptive editing and block you accordingly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

RfPP Backlog

In the spirit of reporting backlogs here, could someone check out the backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What, if anything, should be done?

I received this message from an editor on Spanish Wikipedia:

Hello.

In Spain there has been a scandal about a wiki with content pro-Nazi.

The user is responsible called "Auslli" which seems, is the same as here called Auslli.

My English is not very good. I leave what I have written to an administrator (PeterSymonds).

It's a shame that people like that are asministradores a wiki (however small like "Llionpedia").

Links:

• [83]
• [84]
• Sockpuppet investigations/Auslli/Archive

Saludos.--FCPB (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Should any action be taken in response to this message? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that as per WP:AGF action should only be taken if there are specific documented cases of nazi POV by that user here on en-Wiki. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

An IP who I believe is the Spanish editor above posted this in the Auslli sock investigation archive by mistake, so I'm reposting it here. The last couple of sentences indicate something possibly worth checking out, given that Auslli was found to be operating a sockfarm on Leon articles in that investigation, and only escaped an indef block because of his apparent 'useful contributions' Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry to be late... but I think it must considering again to block the account to user "Auslli". His spanish account in es.wikipedia was unmasked and blocked--->
• The comments made by this user in spanish llionpedia are being investigated by Spanish Prosecutorshttp://www.diariodeleon.es/noticias/noticia.asp?pkid=482489 and http://www.la-cronica.net/2009/10/12/leon/holocausto-de-genocidio-a-solo-unos-pocos-miles-de-muertos-53109.htm for comments pro-nazis. Nowadays, the City Hall is investigating if "Auslli" and "Abel Pardo" are the same person (In the picture of the news, you can see Abel Pardo". Abel Pardo is a council member of a political nationalist organisation, and the responsible of LLionpedia.) Maybe "Auslli" and "Abel Pardo" are not the same person. (I don't know, i'm not a police man and it's no my problem) But it seems very probably that "Auslli" in Llionpedia, and "Auslli" in Spanish Wiki, and "Auslli" in Englis Wiki are the same user. The 3 users, contributing in same articles (Leonese Language, Kingdom of León, PuntuLLI, Salzburg, Berchtesgaden. As Karkeixa said, this "user" monopolizes and hinders all coments against the Leonese separatist ideology, in en.wiki and es.wiki. Articles like Leonese language, are full of arguments with bad intentions. In Llionpedia, it seems that this user made contributions favorable to the Holocaust (user "Auslli" is the first registered member in Llionpedia, and administrator. He registered on Llionpedia even before the announcement launch). In Asturian Wikipedia, the article "Abel Pardo" was blocked by majority vote. They had problems with several leonese articles, made by users that have intentional purposes. I think you must reconsidering the problem with this user. No change can be made in english wikipedia about Leonese, without his supervision. Regards. As you can see, this issue is important --85.49.64.200 (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA backlog

Resolved

 – Minutes after posting this, it got cleared out. -- Atama頭 20:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I might as well pile on here, WP:UAA looks to be backlogged, with quite a few reports waiting for resolution. -- Atama頭 19:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible reincarnation of banned user

The account Bobaboba2009 (talk · contribs) appeared today on my talk page claiming "I'm back". The account has been blocked, but before 24 hours are up and the IP autoblock is removed, a checkuser needs to be performed and the underlying IP blocked for a year for belonging to a banned user. The last known IP address of this banned user was 72.177.68.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). If it is similar, then it is a positive match.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Eco-Friendly Dentistry and claims of copyright

On the article Dentistry and the environment, the user Oradental (talk · contribs) has been adding promotional text [85], [86]. Today, the user confirmed a COI on his talk page [87]; but also claimed to be representing the copyright holder of the term "Eco-friendly dentistry" in the United States.

I've reverted the user's edits as they are promotional concerning the claim to copyright by ORA Dental Studio. My reasoning is partly related to the promotional claim - but also because the use cited in the article pre-dates the copyright claim. The uspto.gov shows a filing date of the term on February 9, 2009; while the existing cite in the article references this canadian publication from 2007.

However, I would appreciate having others review this article and the added content. I was considering using an RfC, but decided to move it here due to the potential copyright concerns. If I should use a different venue, please advise, and I'll move this immediately. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the contributor for the username/promotional combination. ORA Dental is a company name, and the contributor is using the account to promote the company. That said, it isn't a question of the term "Eco-friendly dentistry" being copyrighted, but trademarked, which is a different matter. I don't actually know if the US and Canada have any international agreements to honor trademarks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right ... the trademark was what I found on the uspto website. I just used the term copyright because there was also an issue with the user posting copyrighted text involving that trademark (copied from their own website), and should have corrected my terminology - sorry about any confusion that may have caused. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It didn't cause confusion for long. :) But I thought to point it out for others viewing this listing. I've clarified the text a bit to identify the source of the term, and I've left them instructions for contacting our legal department if they feel this represents trademark infringement. I don't know of a clear policy on this one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to 'trademark' two common words in such a way that it is illegal for anyone other than the trademark holder to write them in sequence? If it is, I'd like to trademark the phrase 'blocked vandal.' You all have my permission to use the term, as long as you deposit ten US cents in my PayPal account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL! :D Honestly, I don't see how it could be trademark infringement myself, since there doesn't seem to be any likelihood for confusion, but I've had very little involvement with trademark matters. I know if they're going to try to protect the trademark, they're likely to have their work cut out for them! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Annoying new vandalism

Twice in a row, a user on SingNet (dynamic IP assignment; IP ranges I have found belong to the ISP are 116.14.0.0/15, 121.6.0.0/15, 220.255.0.0/16, 219.74.0.0 - 219.75.127.255, 119.74.0.0/16; and there are probably mroe) has added a string of text essentially attacking me onto Kamen Rider Ryuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ([88] and [89]). I cannot tell who this person is. All I know is that it's showing up in Google (I've put in a request to remove the text). I don't know which would be a more useful (in the long run) method of preventing this vandalism from continuing. Whether to disallow the text from being added via an abuse filter or to semiprotect the page. The subject of the article (a Japanese television show), has been off the air for seven years. However, if the text is going to be the same each time, then the string of text can be blocked via the edit filter if the vandalism moves onto other pages (that I don't have watchlisted). I can't predict the actions, but I'd rather be safe and block the text rather than access to the articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Also it might be helpful to selectively delete the two diffs that I have pointed out so the text is not available to non-admin users and thereby disallow an undo of my latest revert.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock of User:John254

Resolved

 – Blizzocked. MuZemike 00:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

みのもんたホイホイ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Compare with Erik9bot (talk · contribs), Erik9 (talk · contribs), John254 (talk · contribs), etc. Cirt (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

FunnyDuckIsFunny

FunnyDuckIsFunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did this and this and his userpage is full of negativity despite under 50 edits to his credit. Suggest a block (even though he supported my AfD.) --Elvey (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Obvious Troll is Obvious--SKATER ^Speak. 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And is also blocked. TNXMan 01:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Troll is Blocked.--SKATER ^Speak. 01:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The user is question wasn't exactly being super helpful, but most of his edits were plausibly in good faith. The AfD in question was probably supposed to be a joke. Considering the article was identity fraud, he was using "identity fraud" to !vote. That said he does show a familiarity with Wikipedia unlike a 50 edit user so is most likely a recreation of a blocked user. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has requested an unblock. If anyone would like to review it, I have no problem with a block reduction/lifting if it's deemed appropriate. TNXMan 01:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe WP:SPI?--SKATER ^Speak. 01:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to have some idea of who they are a recreation of - CheckUser isn't for fishing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm kinda blown away people didn't block him earlier. AGF==/== a license to ignore clue. Protonk (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Bullying, personal opinion influencing editing of page

I would appreciate a review of the discussion page, Transformers reference, of the F-15 Eagle page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:F-15_Eagle). One or two users are engaging in insulting and bullying behavior by blocking legitimate, valid, and relevant information from being added to this page. They are applying some kind of standard that does not apply to similar or identical information that exists for other aircraft of similar type (F-14 and F-22, for example). Then, they are threatening me with blocking.

As an example of the attitude of one of the "editors" in question, I point to his own page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dave1185), where he says those who have the audacity to use this as a means to have an issue addressed are, in his opinion, "real jerks." Quite a display of childish behavior. Well, I'm not going to back down from this bullying from a bully without a leg to stand on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Kablamo boom

Not sure how to properly bring this up, but at least half of the above user's few edits have been vandalism, some fixing errors he created. As the user seems to be just trying to drive his post count up, should someone nip this in the bud? -Tainted Conformity ^Chat 02:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's just low-level idiot-vandalism, I have given a "serious warning", nothing more is required right now. Looie496 (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that I and Looie496 had the same idea, and just barely avoided an edit conflict (and did edit conflict here). Assuming that he actually listens, I'll try to keep an eye on him, and give him a push in the right direction if needed. Sodam Yat (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Threat of violence?

I just reverted this edit. The edit's a bit incoherent, seems like it might be a threat of violence or suicide. Hard to say. Should someone follow this up? -- Why Not A Duck 03:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ref desk user seeking justice of some kind

Resolved

 – Edits oversighted and user indefblocked (any admin may unblock if user promises not to repeat that). Wknight94 ^talk 04:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a little out of the ordinary, and I wonder what the correct response should be: [90] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone else deleted it, so perhaps it's moot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared. NW (Talk) 19:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You know the drill. Help is appreciated :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

...and as quick as that, the backlog is gone. A question for the admins, could there be a bot that alerts the AN or ANI boards when there is a backlog, kinda like DYK does? It would allow the bot to put these edits here and not a user and clear out backlogs ALOT faster. Just an idea. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is an ongoing discussion on this at one of the pumps. –xeno^talk 19:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is such a bot on IRC, in the #wikipedia-en-alerts channel. IIRC, it reports several backlogs including CSD, Unblocks, UAA, AIV, and a few others. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It reports AIV, UAA, Unblock request, edit protected request, and csd levels. (I run it and have been running it for several years now) if any more need added let me know. β^_command 23:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Or people could watchlist AIV. Problem solved! Master of Puppets 04:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing talkpage comments

What am I supposed to do with this guy? I propose a move on Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta [91], User:Imbris disagrees. Naturally his next step is to try and sabotage the whole thing by altering the move proposal [92]. imho this last deliberate and malicious disruption should certainly be taken with the context of User:Imbris' past behavior in mind. Especially the fact that he has decided to vandalize other people's posts while on probation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all there is no probation, even if I am currently under 1RR. I did not revert. The request that Mr. DIREKTOR made is significantly different from his 2008 attempt. The introduction and the closing argument are off-topic, written to slant the evidences and in full disregard toward WP:NPOV. Direktor turned the discussion on my person, and not on the evidence, accusing me of ultra-nationalism and other POV. Placing those tags were the only way to gain Mr. DIREKTORs attention to his not neutral reques, both in the introduction of the request and in the "conclusions" made by Mr. DIREKTOR. -- Imbris (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, can you point to the vandalising posts incident please. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Scrub that, I can't see for looking. Imbris, that is just childish - and yes it does count as refactoring another user's talk page comments, which is out of bounds. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not revert Mr. DIREKTORs deletion of those tags. The request for move provocked me, but I have addressed the matter at the right place. I sincerely appologize if I did not follow the rules. I did not know that it counts as refactoring, on several occassions on Talk:Gulf_of_Piran#No my talk page contributions were marked by those tags, and I did not know it is not allowed. Is there any chances for this to be a first-aid and not CPR. -- Imbris (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for not edit-warring against me writing my own post. Heh, he most certainly knows full well that what he's doing is against Wiki policy - he's no newbie. User:Imbris has been reported maybe a dozen times - he knows how to "work the system". The move was simply getting "too many" Support votes so he did his best to alter the text of the move rationale. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that in such cases when the requestor of the move in his "rationale" writes NPOV, that you cannot mark that sentence with the tag. I know that now. This should not warrant a block. I hope :) I did not say that I am a newbie, but tryed to appologize to the community for the mishap.

Anyone can see that your rationale is completely against policy and guidelines of the RM.

Imbris (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I support (yet another) block of Imbris. He simply is not taking the hint. Maybe a months-long block this time? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is simply sad, to see. Crotchety Old Man WP:STALKed me. He had never before edited on Tomislav II of Croatia nor monarchism for that matter. Crotchety Old Man insisted I should appologize to him and GoodDay because of refactoring, which I complied. Even if GoodDay went ahed with the discussion (a sign of support) and even if GoodDay expanded the discussion in a completely different direction. Strange to see that Crotchety Old Man had not warned Notpietru when he changed the title of a section for several times. -- Imbris (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Crotchety Old Man did not WP:STALK Imbris. He was involved at the talkpage in question and noticed User:Imbris' edit first. Anyway, lets not squabble over irrelevant nonsense. The link is here, what else is there to talk about. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Crotchety Old Man did WP:STALK, the editor in question had not ever previously edited on the Tomislav II of Croatia, nor any other monarch for that matter, and now we see his edit and a support vote in the biased rationale move request by Mr. DIREKTOR. -- Imbris (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A page movement discussion is in progress. Why is it being treated like a terrible event? Why I am being requested to stay away from an editor's talkpage? A lot of un-necessary dramatics IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of peace, I have requested that GoodDay do not contact me ever, on any and all matters. He and Mr. DIREKTOR discussed like GoodDay supports the Tomislav II of Croatia title, while it is evident from the talk page of that article that GoodDay never supported such title (never before), to miracleously turn his position. -- Imbris (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Due to Peter II's reign, I support changing the article title to the Duke's real name. Again, why am I being 'barred' from your userpage? GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Well, this report is going nowhere fast... why is it that once there is any arguing on a report, it too often gets ignored? The original cause of the report still stands. Don't mind all the clutter. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Both of you go to the topic below please. Some minnows are waiting.   Nezzadar ☎   23:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR

How can the following accusations of Mr. DIREKTOR be characterized?

• [93] has this accusation: "The statement Imbris makes is the worst kind of Ustaše ultranationalist propaganda"

This is not just contrary to WP:AGF but is plain defamation and harrasment.

Constitution of Croatia article clearly indicate that it is common knowledge and not some ultra-nationalist propaganda. DIREKTOR should read the paragraph "the fact that the Croatian Parliament had never sanctioned the decision of the National Council of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs to unite with Serbia and Montenegro in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (1 December 1918), subsequently (3 October 1929) proclaimed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia;".

DIREKTOR feels that every person claiming what is written above is a ultra-nationalist Ustaše supporter and revisionist.

Please make him stop the crusade against fellow users, who did their best not to interffer with the articles of Mr. DIREKTOR's choice.

Imbris (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in seeing anybody blocked over this topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

More of the same dramatics from you. You must be Wikipedia's foremost martyr. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not true. I have idle standed the harrasment by Mr. DIREKTOR and this is the first time I have reported him. -- Imbris (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It can be characterized as "commenting on content, not the contributor". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No it cannot be characterized like that. -- Imbris (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to intervine with the following piece of logic. Direktor, your comment was out of line. Please don't assume that a person is pushing a specific agenda. Imbris, your soapboxing is out of line. I don't see a pattern of abuse, just one comment. Obviously this is a touchy subject, but still. As punishment, I smack both of you with wet fish. Now go be productive.   Nezzadar ☎   23:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Plip!

Plip!

I was not referring to him, I honestly don't think I was out of line. The "statement" I'm referring to in that (obviously out-of-context) quote is a claim first voiced by the Croatian fascist/ultranationalist separatists (the Ustaše) in the 1930s. Therefore I said "The statement Imbris makes is the worst kind of Ustaše ultranationalist propaganda". Other users have previously noted User:Imbris' English is less than perfect.

Imbris, if you somehow drew from that that I am (in your words) "accusing" you of being an Ustaše supporter, you are obviously mistaken in your interpretation. (Either that, or you're trying to take that statement out of context so it looks like I'm talking about you :). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nezzadar, while I sympathise to an extent, can we get back to the original complaint. DIREKTOR put up a proposal for a page move. People started commenting on whether they supported it. Imbris then vandalised the proposal. Given that Imbris is on probation with a IRR, this was pure gaming the system. Simples (where's that meerkat when you need him) Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

actually DIREKTOR seems to be a regular guest on this board complaining against other editors. i'm sure most of the time he's right however it seems that his self-righteous tone brings the worst out of other editors. also his attempt above to trivialise his ugly accusation, instead of an apology, is a bit unpleasant. perhaps he too needs a little slap on the wrist to calm down a little bit. Loosmark (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Loosmark: I would certainly apologize, as I often do when I believe I am at fault. However I do not think so this time. Here's the slightly wider context so that people can see the whole thing:

The statement Imbris makes, while also irrelevant to this whole issue, is the worst kind of Ustaše ultranationalist propaganda - "a non-existent assembly did not confirm the union of a non-existent entity into Yugoslavia"? That's the exact excuse the Ustaše used.

Is this a violation of WP:NPA? If so, I shall apologize. I personally believe that it is obvious I was referring to the idea or "theory" that Imbris presented ("a non-existent assembly did not confirm the union of a non-existent entity into Yugoslavia") - not to Imbris himself. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not true, Mr. DIREKTOR list is wrong. For the entire history of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, all the major political parties, like the Peasent party quoted the same quotation as the current Constitution of Croatia. It is common knowledge and his insinuation of Ustaše is particularly gruesom because he links that ultra-nationalist and fascist movement with me for quoting the Constitution of Croatia. Croatian parliament existed in 1918 and did not confirm creating of Yugoslavia. -- Imbris (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR: Not true the statement is common knowledge to every 9-grader. DIREKTOR was definitely out of line and this is his method of making offences and defamation until the other editor cannot stand it any more and reciprocate. I will not follow that pattern.

DIREKTOR is accusing every law-abiding citizen of Croatia and the World, who respect each and every constitution of each and every country, Croatian included, that has something with supporting the POV that Mr. DIREKTOR trows constantly at each and every user who disagree with him.

Imbris (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

@Nezzadar: There is a pattern, and en.Wiki is full of victims to Mr. DIREKTORs temper. In the second paragraph of his edit Mr. DIREKTOR said: "If I brought you a dead Serbian zomby with no ears saying "the Ustaše cut-off my ears", you'd say he's lying and that I can't include it in the article." (direct quote, the sentence is not touched).

The previous is also a: harassment, and made me sick, to be forced to listen his expressive and gruesome attack. -- Imbris (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not revert nobody. I have explained everything, appologized twice, and in turn have been subjected to the worst kind of slandering which affect the request for the move. -- Imbris (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge of these two topics. -- Imbris (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey folks, atleast we all agree that the current article title is 'confusing'. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I got involved to defuse a stupid argument. As a response to that DIREKTOR apologized and Imbris attacked DIREKTOR. Now lets see here. What does this say about the argument. Imbris, I strongly advise you to cool off. If I were an admin I would probably be considering a block on you right now for attacking a person that has shown interest in reconciliation. Stop. Now. Before an admin stops you for you.   Nezzadar ☎   00:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Seconding the above - Imbris: Stop. Don't comment on DIREKTOR again in this thread until you can do so within the policy stated by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Further abusive behavior will lead to your being blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat by ANI vandal

This vandal edit [94] by user:174.1.10.116 which Alansohn has just reverted, features a distinct legal threat. Anyone up for blocking ? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Block if ya want, but the legal threat is irreleveant. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I know it's irrelevant. Blocking is probably also irrelevant (unless someone knows who the hell Krimpet is, and why Wikipedia should be sued this time). But I did think I'd mention it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The IPs have been blocked, phew. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think "Krimpet" might be User:Fran Rogers who has a redirect from User:Krimpet; some discussion on User talk:Fran Rogers in the past few days seems like it might be related. Something involving legal threats / violent threats / threats of harrassment or something. -- Why Not A Duck 04:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's just User:JarlaxleArtemis, AKA Grawp, having his daily grudge against an administrator. Revert, block, ignore. Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 12:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Paid Legal Services

Could we get some eyes on this? There seem to be two camps waging a slow war here. On one side, there are the promoters of the company itself, with various accounts, some of which are already tagged as abusive multiple accounts. I've already blocked some of these. But I actually paid some attention to the history of the article (rather than just winnowing out the obvious socks), and noticed a lot of edits, not lasting very long, making strong accusations that the company is a pyramid scheme. Anyway, wtf? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be a pyramid scheme. Unfortunately, none of the sources which say that are reliable. We can't even say that the material they send to prospective "members" contradicts the 10-K form filed with the SEC, as no BLP-certified reliable source has commented on that. (And it is a BLP problem, because the logical inference is that the then-president of the company was lying.)

Perhaps the article should just be deleted… — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In today's world, there is a pyramid scheme run by a major company and the starving Pirhana among the press haven't burst into a feeding frenzy?- Sinneed 05:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Amway. Mary Kay.

Although we do have some statements about noted accusations of being a pyramid scheme, for each. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There are detailed state laws with harsh penalties that require attorneys to segregate and not spend funds advanced for legal services. If they apply to this firm, which is likely, then I don't see how it could possibly be a pyramid scheme. Perhaps the firm angers JDs by having a deflationary effect on legal fees.--Elvey (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

block request

Resolved

Can somebody please block Satbir Singh (talk · contribs)? He has created a bunch of POV, synthesized rambling messes relating to the Kambojas, and is slow revert-warring on his own in an attempt to impede the consensual cleanup operation. I left a final warning on his talk page yesterday but he hasn't replied and did a couple more reverts this morning. Anything between a couple days off to a week would be much appreciated. Moreschi (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, FPAS...Moreschi (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone for just a brief 24hrs "warning" block for a start; this can be escalated if disruption continues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyvios by User:Taopman

Many articles created by User:Taopman are copyright violations of promotional content. Furthermore, the user has uploaded images claimed to be his own and another editor has complained that it is in fact his photo. This user has an extensive history of ignoring the rules set out in Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Given the complaint by user:Derangotaco on Taopman's user page, I have reason to believe that many of Taopman's uploaded files probably do not belong to him. I recommend that the files be removed if suspicious. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 10:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Macgyver-bd 896 again

Prior discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Macgyver-bd_896

Following up, User:Macgyver-bd 896 has been editing to add unsourced material to firearms articles. A few users found it disruptive but in my view, since nobody is putting a source out there (and I'm not going to be able to say if it's totally ridiculous as they claim), it's bad but I wasn't going to do much beyond this particularly harsh warning for his edit removing a source. Well, I feel like User:Koalorka has been harassing him on his talk page (with reinserting stuff on his talk page, reinserting a typo and removing a source). I told Koalorka it's his talk page but if someone else can reduce the drama, I'd appreciate it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What?! Why am I the focus of an ANI again!?! This is absolutely frivolous. I made exactly ONE interaction with Macgyver. This is harassment. Koalorka (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What was the logic of your edits at Uzi? He added a source. You removed it without explanation and starting warring at his talk page a few days later. Same thing at Luger P08 pistol. Seems like you're following him around for some reason. You've been blocked for personal attacks and harassment before and you don't seem to have improved. I've ignored your comments[95][96] but I will not allow you to continue attacking others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the Uzi, I was in the process of mass-reverting a bunch of vandalism on several other pages. I didn't even realize it was him at the time. This "warring" that you describe was simply re-tagging the user as a disruptive editor after eyeballing DanMP5's talk page. Please avoid using inflammatory wording such as "warring" when in fact I only made ONE SINGLE edit to his page without knowledge of the previous revert on the Uzi page. My past history has NOTHING to do with this manufactured drama. You can't hold me hostage to my block history. Another threat based on my block history and I will consider filing an AN/I on the grounds of prejudice. "Attacking others"? Again, sensationalist drama. This is the internet. Take a deep breath and consider the insignificance of this all for a moment. Better? Welcome back to reality. Now, let me resume my work, and you can continue doing whatever it is that you do here. Have a nice day. Koalorka (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You edit history is clear. You reverted on his talk page and then went to Luger P08 pistol and went through 5 separate undids of his edits, including his errors.[97][98][99][100][101]. That is not "reverting vandalism", since it looks like you were going by the editor, not the content. Reverting vandalism tends to imply you were looking at the end result of the page, not just going diffs by diffs (unless you're going to argue that editor is only vandalizing). Look, I'll drop it, since it really seems nobody else has any problems here. I'll just note that your block history is there and yes, people will look at that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the edit history is entirely coincidental. Like I said, I had no systemic approach to this user and wasn't aware of him until you popped out with your bogus claim. This is a non-issue. If you wish to harass me, there are much more tenable reasons for you to do so, my perceived incivility for instance. This is not one of them. I think we're done here. Koalorka (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(noted on ANI and on Koalorka's talk page)

Koalorka - Numerous people have warned you before, and blocked you before, for poking back too hard at editors who are disruptive or who come into conflict with you.

I agree that this is a relatively minor case and not worthy of any official sanction at this time.

But Ricky was not hallucinating. You keep pushing this button. Please consider this topic a poorly fuzed land mine. If you keep banging on the button on top, eventually it explodes, and then you are very very sorry.

Stop banging on the button. Learn to edit in a manner which does not abuse those around you. Even if they are behaving badly.

You have been baited in the past and subjected to harrassment campaigns. Those are not entitlements for you to push back. Despite you being one of the more productive military topic and firearms editors - and someone who appreciates your content efforts in depth - eventually you will exceed everyone's tolerance. Eventually you will exceed my tolerance.

Wikipedia does not have space in its community for people who continually abuse those around them. You have gotten better on this point. But you are not doing well enough yet that you're out of danger of indefinite blocking based on ongoing behavior. Take the hint, please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I echo that - more drastic improvement is needed to avoid being banned in the near future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:EMCEEHOOD

Resolved

 – Thanks to Tan Accounting4Taste:talk 15:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I wanted at least one more admin to be following the activities of this editor, who appears to be determined to be offensive to Jews and may well be a white supremacist. I warned him on my talk page when he called me a "nazi" and I think the pattern of his edits and activities indicates that in the future he will be extremely offensive to all with whom he comes in contact, with little chance of any useful contribution. I think I'm a little too personally involved now to be able to act with the appearance of impartiality, and I understand the relevant policy suggests I can't pre-emptively block him, so I would appreciate it if someone kept an eye on this editor; my experience suggests that he will need further admonishment, if not blocking, in short order. Thanks in advance. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Cut-and-dry racism, there. Tan | 39 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I appreciate your taking a hand. (I frequently think I am too Pollyanna-ish about the possibility that editors will reform.) Accounting4Taste:talk 14:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Should we worry?

Resolved

 – Yes, I've seen enough. Pretty clear where that was heading. Indefblocked. Wknight94 ^talk 15:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this something we should worry about? A vandal impersonating Wikipedia personnel... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Also short history of vandalism. Final warning given; anything more can result in a VOA block. Tan | 39 15:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Why wait? Chillum 15:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. If someone feels like moving ahead with an indefblock, go ahead. Tan | 39 15:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Mcjakeqcool Third time's a charm

Resolved

 – seems to be a consensus for this being the users last chance

See previous discussions at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#User:Mcjakeqcool
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#McJakeqcool_-_back_again

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

tl;dr version, he was blocked in July for disruptive editing for ignoring other editors and carrying on with "'his'" project. In september it was the same issue again, but this time he promised that "I am prepared to take both advice and guidance from fellow wikipedians and I will both take notice of & execute directions given to me from fellow wikipedians".

Yet, we now have him fighting tooth and nail to mark every single edit that is not in article space as minor, even with multiple users telling him this is inappropriate. He has notes on his talk page back over 1 year old telling him not to mark non-minor edits as minor.[102] He was reminded again in April [103] and I warned him again most recently because I didn't see the previous 2 warnings on his long talk page.[104] In addition to those 3 warnings, Elen of Roads has stepped in and tried to explain it to him. So in the face of 4 editors telling him not to do that, he has a serious case yet again of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Even after having this explained and linked multiple times, he incorrectly states on my talk page that all edits to talk pages are minor edits [105] which he also states at another talk page [106]. He then claims that "other truly minor edits" means any edit to a talk page [107]. It was then spelled out to him in bold with an arrow by Elen of Roads [108], yet Mcjakeqcool continues to make these edits (you can see his contrib history). I told him to stop editing disruptively or we'd come back here for a third go, and he persisted. He told Trey geek that he wasn't a threat to wikipedia[109] yet refuses to listen to other editors and does whatever he wants. On my talk page he proclaimed: I will take WHAT EVER MEANS POSSIBLE to abolish talk page comments as non-minor edits [110] and then opened this discussion [111] at Help talk:Minor edit. To me this is an extension of his previous behaviour. He will occasionally make compromises but the rest of the time Mcjakeqcool is going to do whatever he wants and disregard the policies, guidelines and community and even expect the community to change those policies and guidelines to fit him. He has created vast amounts of work for other editors with his unwillingness to listen to other editors and follow those policies and guidelines. The user is disruptive, and I'd consider the edits made after the multiple warnings from several users to be a little WP:POINTY, and he doesn't seem to give any indication that he intends to start actually working with the community anytime soon.--Crossmr (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm. After reading the last ANI thread and skimming the first, it seems that this editor is intent on being disruptive. It's one thing to propose policy/norm change, it's another to cram it down our throats for months on end. Past history - and his stated intention - shows another warning has little chance of preventing further disruption. I settled on a one week block; I'm open to arguments against (either longer or shorter, or no block at all). Tan | 39 01:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure a one week block will be effective. Mcjakeqcool was blocked for 31 hours during the first ANI discussion with no change in their actions. The second discussion ended with Mcjakeqcool claiming to be willing to work with other editors and make appropriate contributions to Wikipedia; that has not happened. I'd also like to point out the recent discussion at Talk:PlayStation_3#New_PS3_logo_means_new_PS3_casing where Mcjakeqcool is argumentative on what constitutes WP:OR. At the moment, in my opinion, it appears Mcjakeqcool has no intentions to constructively add to Wikipedia. Based on their history, I have doubts Mcjakeqcool will ever do so. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree wtih Trey. It has been one battle after another to get him to even do something that resembles good work, and even then he insists on pushing it on just about every single issue. I didn't see the PS3 discussion before.. that is just further evidence that I don't think a week or even a month would change his behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Indef-block isn't a permaban, it just means we're tired of dealing with what looks hopeless from our perspective and that the ball is now firmly in bannee's court to make the move towards regaining edit privileges and convince us he deserves it. Bring on da hammer. DMacks (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm frustrated by his cluelessness, to be honest. Let's stick with Tan's one-week block for now. If, after that block, there's no signs of improvement still, then indef may well be warranted. Tim Song (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't here to take part- I was getting that old fashioned thing called "a good night's sleep". I think McJ made a mistake at one point by marking a talk page comment as a minor edit, but finds it impossibly hard to admit mistakes, so he's turned it into a campaign. If you notice, he never actually takes any advice. He uses English in a really idiosyncratic way (eg describing his edits as "a commercial success" and then coming up with a really strange definition of the term User_talk:Mcjakeqcool#Use_of_English) and he often responds to comments in the running commentary at the top of his user page, rather than reply directly. I don't want to speculate on the reason for this, but to me it suggests that our remarks to him may not be being processed in the way we expect. In which case, while the 1 week block is appreciated, it is not likely to make much difference, as he may come up with some explanation for it that is not what we intended. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does this sound so familiar? Oh yeah. I admit this sounds elitist, but some people just don't have what it takes to productively contribute to Wikipedia. Despite demonstrated good faith & the best of intentions, while their edits technically aren't vandalism, they are nonsensical & require other editors (who could be doing more important things) to spend their limited time dealing with their edits. Either Mcjakeqcool agrees & cooperates with mentoring so he can more effectively edit/contribute to Wikipedia -- or we ban him. -- llywrch (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the former happening. He's already rejected such an offer before he got blocked the first time. MuZemike 23:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to bring this up on Wikipedia, but I emailed Tan, and Elen is already aware of this, if you google McJakeqcool's name you'll find similar behaviour, language and results all over the internet. This guy's behaviour isn't limited to just wikipedia. As far as I can tell he was banned/got in trouble over at gamespot for awhile for ignoring the rules over there. While it is off-wiki, I'd say his behaviour here is consistent with the behaviour elsewhere which has been going on for a long time. I can't see anything we do changing that at all.--Crossmr (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr, can you email me the material? I'm an Admin too. -- llywrch (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sent.. plus a time stamp so this doesn't get archived if we're still discussing it.--Crossmr (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at the links Crossmr sent me, & if it's the same guy posting posting in those forums he clearly is not a good fit for Wikipedia. (In a frank, one sentence description, we're talking about the British equivalent of Levi Johnston here.) But based on the principles of WP:AGF, & least amount of work, I'm willing to let the one-week block stand; but if he demonstrates the same, er, "odd" behavior upon returning, I'll then move for or endorse a Community Ban. -- llywrch (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Persistant POV pushing and vandalism by user:Slick112

Slick112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is a SPA has been persistently engaged in vandalism, and pushing POV edits in the Raj Rajaratnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page[112], [113], [114], and the Insider trading [115][116] [117]pages.

Warnings for him to desist [118], [119], [120], [121] have all had no effect. He has also engaged in vandalism of my talk page too [122]. Therefore please consider blocking this disruptive SPA account. Kerr avon (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't this have been taken to WP:AIV? Or has this been resolved already, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I misread it. Well, I'd say give him a firm last warning for edit warring, then block if he violates again, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

He still is persisting in edit warring and pov pushing [123], [124] despite several warnings to stop [125] [126]. Please consider banning this SPA and disruptive editor. Thanks.Kerr avon (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Smallbones has reported him to WP:AN3 for the edit war. -- Atama頭 17:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Threat to President in Wiki Edit

I did the revision deletion, it is still available to all administrators, nothing was oversighted. Deletion logs are public and available upon request and/or database dumps. Lotta smoke, no fire as far as accountability goes. Keegan (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. If I go to the IP editor's contributions page, I can't see the edit that was made, but if I look at the link provided by WCityMike, I CAN see it. Why oversight the edit, if it can be linked to? Secondly, why was there not a single comment made to the editor's Talk page, let alone no block? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the link, so unless you have some kind of powers I don't I assume that was taken care of. -- Atama頭 17:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's been taken care of. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Malia Obama

Resolved

 – Content dispute to be worked out through discussion, this was not vandalism. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved from AN:

RepublicanJacobite just blanked out the Malia Obama page. That person's personal page cannot have comments added (locked up?) so that person can't be warned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is laughable. I restored a legitimate redirect. I also pointed out my reasoning on the article talk page, and provided a link to a relevant discussion on this editor's talk page. My edits were hardly vandalism. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Keeps on vandalizing by user Republican —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion page has a yellow box with instructions for those who want delete to "Please review the prior discussion if you are considering re-nomination" So they should do that rather than vandalize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Above discussion moved from AN. Tim Song (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't edit the page without first discussing here, October. Thank you, Master of Puppets 04:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The yellow box on the Malia discussion page is very clear. It says that those who don't want the article should follow the page for re-deletion. It did not say that recreation required going through special hoops. Basically, the decision for delete was well over a year ago when President Obama was "2nd place candidate Barack with the Funny Name". Now Malia is First Daughter with quite a few articles exclusively about her, not her father. Many others who are truly obscure have a Wikipedia article so we have waited a lot longer. Malia should not be punished with a different standard than other people are at Wikipedia. Thank you. The solution may be to recreate and someone ask for deletion and that debate form created.October 22 2009 (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded on this on October's talk page.

October (thanks for signing your posts, by the way), an easy way to support that claim would be to go on Google News and search for articles specifically on Malia. That would help establish her individual notability. Master of Puppets 05:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A reminder: this is covered under the Obama article probation. The redirect to the Family of Barack Obama article has been discussed before and consensus has been to leave the redirect in place. Notability is not inherited, and independent notability for Malia and Sasha Obama has not been established - they are amply covered in the Family article. I agree with Republican Jacobite's revert - no arguments have been raised here, and the comments made regarding "punishing" Malia by not having a separate article are familiar, raising the question of whether this is actually a new editor who brought an action to AN on his/her 7th edit. Tvoz/talk 07:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

SuggestBot spamming new User talk pages

SuggestBot (talk · contribs) is spamming new user's Talk pages. It used to only send messages to people who opted in, now it seems to have changed to an opt out service. It seems to be sending non-requested Talk messages to new users who have just begun editing. Was there a discussion about this change of service? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the notice it left on one of the contributions: "You received these suggestions because we're trying a little test to see if SuggestBot is helpful for newer Wikipedia editors -- but normally it only makes suggestions for people who ask for them explicitly on the SuggestBot request page". It's just a test, no problem. If you find it disruptive let it's creator know. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 18:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the plan is for it to remain opt-in. Someone else at the research group I used to be with essentially wants to write SuggestBot2 (which was approved as a followup bot several years ago but I never got around to writing it because life took my work in a different direction) and had thought about using it as a kind of mentoring tool for newer users in conjunction with human-generated welcomes. There was discussion, unresolved, about whether this was a good thing do to, and so we decided to run a small-ish (200 new accounts with several edits got suggestions, and we're observing 300 that we didn't generate suggestions for) test to see what, if anything happened -- did people complain? Notice? Take the suggestions? On the first, no (except for this note); on the second and third, we're going to evaluate after a month. He'll probably do one more set of 50 and 50, but choosing the new accounts much more carefully (avoiding accounts that just do damage or create vanity pages and who edit several different pages so we can make better suggestions), and as far as I know that's it. I agree, I don't want SuggestBot to become a spam generator or turn off new contributors. -- ForteTuba (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag

Resolved

 – No action advisable here. Possibly try another forum, as discussed. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that Rjanag (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) be disciplined for grossly uncivil behavior towards User:Epeefleche. I have no connection to either editor personally, but I simply must protest Rjanag's shocking behavior at the The Shells (folk band) AfD.

By way of orientation, Rjanag initiated the first AfD for The Shells, appealed the keep decision at this DRV and then relisted it 15 days later. This was quick but within his rights; the unacceptable part was his ensuing conduct towards Epeefleche, the article's main defender. Rjanag's words constantly dripped sarcasm [127] [128] as he labeled Epeefleche "Mr. Truth" [129], questioned his adulthood [130] and insulted his intelligence [131] [132]. These attacks occured not on talk pages (though Epeefleeche nobly tried to direct them there to save the AfD drama [133] [134]), but in the middle of AfD debates, and even when Rjanag followed Epeefleche to the talk pages of third parties[135].

Epefleeche pointed out Rjanag's behavior [136] [137] [138] and asked him to refrain multiple times [139] [140] [141] to no avail. I noticed the incivility, as did User:Kiac [142], User:HWV258 [143] User:Tony1 [144] and User:Greg_L on several occasions [145] [146]. When User:HWV258 observed things might have become personal for Rjanag [147][148] [149], Rjanag spit bile his way as well [150] [151].

Doubtless Rjanag has done much good in his prolific career. But this behavior goes beyond a little wikettiquette breach. It is unacceptable in any editor, no less an administrator. Gross incivility like this is poison to the Wikipedia project and demoralizes [152] valuable, content-heavy editors like Epeefleche (edit profile). Rjanag did not abuse his admin powers per se, so I do not believe they should be revoked. But he should be sternly reprimanded at the least, and perhaps blocked for some time to cool his head. - Draeco (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The blocking policy states that cool-down blocks should not be used, as they tend to have the opposite effect. And I would say that Rjanag's behaviour — while definitely not very polite — is nowhere near disruptive enough to justify any sort of block, at least not in my view. I've seen many other editors get away with being far less civil than that. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

After Epeefleche asked Rjanag to stop conduct which he did not want, Rjanag should have respected that request and stayed away from Epeefleche's talk page. If there were issues with Epeefleche's conduct (not saying that there were in this case such as sockpuppetry) there are alternative venues (like this one) to raise them. Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Comment amended upon further investigation Mjroots (talk)

Frankly, there are a lot of editors that don't come out of that AfD looking particularly good. However, as Mjroots Master&Expert says, we don't use cooldown blocks - there's nothing that we need to prevent by blocking anyone at the moment. Black Kite 07:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• No admin participating in that AfD exhibited anything approaching Rjanang's misconduct—which went far beyond incivility, as detailed below. As WP:ADMIN states, where as here a dispute reflects seriously on an admin's administrative capacity because of gross and persistent misjudgment or conduct issues, the matter may be serious enough to lead to summary removal, or a restriction or formal warning related to adminship.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Our rules can be interpreted in many ways, however there's no denying that Rjanag's attitude to dealing with other Wikipedians is too one-eyed, abrupt, and condescending. Attitudes such as his will lead to editors giving up in disgust. I've dealt with many editors, and many situations and know that there is no reason for the behaviour (as described above) that I witnessed. It does WP a great disservice to proffer someone with such behavioural issues as an administrator. Looking at the number of articles he's deleted, and the number of users he's blocked reminds me of the old saying: "the only people who should have power, are those that don't want it". The fact that behavioural problems are combined with power is more than doubly worrying in this case.  HWV258  09:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, given your spectacularly unhelpful contributions to both AFDs, I'd suggest that it would be better for someone uninvolved to be pushing that agenda. Black Kite 11:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what his number of blockings or deletions have to do with this case. For example, an admin who is active at WP:AIV may have a massive block count, but that does not mean he's going about the place blocking every newbie he sees. Let's keep the discussion focused on this instead of dragging up other unrelated things shall we? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• IMHO the quality (in Black Kite's view; sharply worded) of the substantive worth of HWV258's AfD contributions is an irrelevant diversion. I would suggest that we, and especially admins, should encourage HWV258 to express himself, rather than suggest that he not contribute to this discussion. And HWV258's comments here as to the role of an admin, and the importance of admin misconduct and its impact on other editors, is very much on-point and is reflected in WP:ADMIN.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, Rjanag was properly notified, but doesn't usually come online until another few hours from now. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see an effort to discuss the concerns with Rjanag on his talk page. A collegial note from a third party can go a long way in resolving disputes without the need for public flogging/ humiliation or brute force (admin tool use). :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

His talk page? Multiple editors told Rjanag multiple times at the two AfDs that his behavior in that matter was absolutely abhorrent and amounted to nothing more than a personal vendetta against Epeefleeche so Rjanag could get his “win” in that matter. The message wasn’t going to suddenly sink in because it was conveyed to him on his talk page rather than the AfDs. What was exceedingly clear is that anyone who opposed Rjanag on that matter was the instant recipient of his special style of personal love. He should simply be striped of his admin privileges (yes, it’s a privilege afforded by the community with the consent of the community) and if he wants to be an admin again, he can throw his hat in the ring and look for supporting votes. We all know what the outcome of that would be given this several-week-long display out of the guy. There were plenty of reasonable-minded editors dealing with Rjanag on the AfDs and they all can discern the difference between a fair-minded admin properly carrying out his admin duties in order to make Wikipedia a better product, and that of a rogue admin who has no business in the world having those powers because he inflames things everywhere he goes. Greg L (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about an incivility issue here, and I don't see any accusation of abusing the admin tools. An admin is "just an editor who has some extra tools" and the same policies and guidelines that apply to every other editor applies to them as well. No special standards are applied to admins whether they do something well or they mess up. Unless we are now regarding admins as some higher level of editors, I see the suggestion to remove Rjanag's admin tools only as a punitive measure (which is not something we do here) that is totally unrelated to this matter. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• As detailed below, this is far more than an incivility issue (though persistent incivility in the face of requests to stop is part of it). As WP:ADMIN indicates, persistent conduct issues may reflect seriously on an admin's administrative capacity, and the matter can lead to summary removal, or a restriction or formal warning related to adminship.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I’ve edited at Wikipedia over 3 years, have 22,000 edits, and created 180 pages. I’ve never seen an admin engage in such consistently abhorrent behavior in the face of repeated entreaties to stop. It disgraces the position of admin, and poisons Wikipedia.

As detailed above and below, Rjanag—an admin—has been seriously and repeatedly disrespectful and uncivil, and engaged in persistent misstatements and mischaracterizations (always one-way), edit warring, and wikihounding in an apparent effort to game the system and/or make editing by me and others unpleasant. Despite repeated requests by me and others that he stop. I find this especially troubling, as his statements are presumably given greater weight by many due to his admin status. His pattern of behavior has been disruptive. His close relationship with the closing admin, as detailed below in the section entitled "Highly disconcerting: relationship between Rjanag and closing admin", raises highly disturbing questions. I personally find it demoralizing. I've tried addressing it with him directly many times. To no avail.

WP:ADMIN/Request for Arbitration. As his actions reflect quite poorly on Wikipedia and its admins, I concur that he should be sanctioned or have his access removed. As this reflects seriously on Rjanag's capacity as an admin and may be serious enough to lead to summary removal, a restriction, or a formal warning related to his adminship, I suggest to Draeco that as WP:ADMIN permits this discussion be moved to "A Request for Arbitration".

The applicable portion of WP:ADMIN states:

"Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.... sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators ... should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors...[1][2][3][4] ...Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: ...Repeated/consistent poor judgment ...Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring ...) ..."Bad faith" adminship (... gross breach of trust) ...Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship.... If the dispute reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (... gross or persistent misjudgement or conduct issues), then two other steps are also available: ...A Request for Arbitration if the matter may be serious enough to lead to summary removal, or a restriction or formal warning related to adminship."

Untruths. Rjanag’s comments are replete with untruths. Always one-sided. Such as:

1. “all I see is three sentences in Seventeen”.[153] (emphasis added). False.
2. “I never misrepresented the length of the 17 article”.[154] False. See above.
3. “The "Best Breakout New York Band" thing was not a competition they were involved in”.[155] False.
4. ”the "Best Breakout NYC Artist Award” … was never broadcast on national TV”.[156] False.
5. ”the "Best Breakout NYC Artist Award" … an AfD determined it was not notable”.[157] False. See here and here.
6. ” We're not really "arguing over whether the award is major"; it was already decided at AfD that it wasn't.”[158] False. See above.
7. ” The first AfD for this page was disrupted by repeated ranting”.[159] False—no evidence supports that.
8. ”the last AfD was closed as 'no consensus' (due mainly to the disruption)” .[160] False-–see here and here
9. ” After the last AfD was closed … I waited about a month”.[161] False—Actually, only 15 days.
10. ” The Examiner article you link … says nothing more than "they played at this thing" (and they're in the middle of a long list of other non-notable bands).”[162] False—it says more than that, and there were only 3 other bands. See here and here.
11. With the edit summary “not MTV”—“They were nominated for a little award that is only tangentially connected to MTV”.[163] False. See this and this and related discussion.
12. “Epeefleche's [comment] below) says nothing useful about this article and only focuses on trying to tear down people you consider 'deletionists'.”[164] False.
13. ” "First Place Prize Winner" is just made-up fancy language”.[165] False—it is the official MTV language in MTV's Official Rules Section 14(a).
14. “no one has expressed an [sic] opposition here" to the proposal that the Written Roads album page be merged.[166] False.
15. “MTV rubber-stamped it with their name but was not necessarily very interested in it.”[167] False

Incivility. As to his uncivil speech/personal attacks, the following are ones I found most innappropriate:

1. calling me an “idiot”;
2. saying (in the alternative) that I “lack the faculties” to understand his messages;
3. to me: “Apparently you can't read.”
4. to me: “learn how to read”.
5. to me: “Apparently you may not be great in thinking”
6. edit summary re me: "pathetic"
7. calling an editor’s comments “inane”.
8. writing: “this is … a crappy article”.

As I don’t have access to the deleted articles at this point, I can’t check their edit summaries for further examples.

Wikihounding & Bullying. In wikihounding me, he even followed me to other editors’ talk pages. As in this instance, in which in his edit summary attacking me he wrote “pathetic”. He then sought to chill my effort to reflect notability of the article. That prompted the editor whose talk page he had followed me to (Kiac; who in fact voted for deletion, along with Rjanag) to chastise Rjanag for doing so ("It's a tad sad that you follow someone around an entire website trying to get a single article deleted").

When I posted a question at an RfA, he wikihounded me to the entry and then (with a “wtf” edit summary) sought on my talk page to bully me into not asking questions at the RfA, writing: “Are you going to go disrupting other people's AfDs and making POINTs just because you have a personal bone to pick with me?”[168] And then in another comment accusing me of “disrupting Kww's RfA”.[169]

He even recently butted into comments that Greg L was leaving on my talk page, trying to bully him into not giving me advice: “You have already given Epeefleche inaccurate "advice" before; perhaps you should reconsider continuing.”[170]

By singling me out and joining discussions on pages or topics I edited or debates where I contributed, he disrupted my enjoyment of editing. His following me around was accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, and other disruptive behavior. It was classic wikihounding.

Bad faith & Bullying. An example of Rjanag's bad faith and his bullying is his treatment of the Seventeen article.

1. As mentioned, in the first AfD on Sept. 13 he untruthfully wrote “all I see is three sentences in Seventeen”.[171] (emphasis added).
2. When I reflected the true size and content of the article by quoting it, Rjanag sought to bully me and embarass me, writing (responding to that and the rest of what I wrote): "Way too long." Another editor then intervened and responded to him: "Nonsense. WP:TLDR applies to policy pages and guidelines, not arguments. I, for one, appreciate the thoroughness."[172]
3. On Sept. 29 Rjanag again misrepresented the extent of coverage in the article here.
4. When I corrected him, he chastised me for quoting the article.[173]
5. On Oct. 3 he wikihounded me to another editor's talk page, and tried to bully me into not quoting the Seventeen article in full.[174]
6. Rjanag then avoided preciseness and disparaged its length in the 2nd AfD by calling it "tiny".[175]
7. When I then quoted it at the 2nd AfD, on Oct. 14 Rjanag criticized me vociferously for quoting the entire (tiny) review: “epeefleche, how many times do people have to tell you it's not necessary to copy and paste the entire Seventeen article into this page? Do you not realize how annoying it is?”[176] (NB: He was the only "people" who had done so.)

Edit warring/gaming the system. Rjanag’s tactics were inappropriately disruptive in related articles as well, as he edit warred and gamed the system (deleting sources reflecting notability, then adding unsourced text that would tend to suggest lack of notability on the basis that it comported with "everything I have been told", as detailed here.

This was just a continuation of pattern in which Rjanag previously deleted pertinent sourced material reflecting notability from the very articles he was seeking to delete—for purported lack of notability; see also [177].

Communications with Rjanag re his behavior. I repeatedly sought to discuss Rjanag’s behavior with him. I wrote numerous times in this regard, both on my talk page and in the AfD (as did others, including a non-voting editor):

Contacting Rjanag on talk pages and in AfD re his behavior

“Are you still wikihounding me? Please, I beseech you, stop”[178] “I'll ask you again, as I've asked you before. Please stop wikihounding me. Please stop trying to bully me into not communicating with others in a way that you prefer. Please. It's disruptive. Thanks.”[179] As I pointed out to Rjanag, he wikihounded me “by singling me out and joining discussions on pages or topics I may edit or debates where I contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit my work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to me. You are disrupting my enjoyment of editing. You're following me around has been accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, and other disruptive behavior. Please stop.”[180] “You not only wikihounded me to that discussion, you then once again used a bullying tone and accused me of "disrupting other people's AfDs". I've asked you repeatedly to stop telling untruths. I've asked you repeatedly to stop bullying me. I've asked you repeatedly to stop wikihounding me. You simply don't stop. This is innappropriate and disruptive.”[181] “This is not the first time you've done it—as here, where you were chastised for such behavior. That's classic wikihounding. I've asked you to stop in the past, and you're simply refusing to do so.” “Please stop following me to other discussions and trying to bully me into not asking completely legitimate questions of others. That's bullying, and disruptive.” “And if this isn't the poster child of wikihounding, especially given the circumstances, I don't know what is.” “Your continued incivility is not appreciated.”[182] "Your many innaccurate statements (always one-sided innacuracies, I should point out), bullying of me in an effort to keep readers from reading the truth, mischaracterizations, and wikihounding have been intensely disruptive. They interfere with editors being able to make a determination based on accurate facts and reasoned discussions.[183] "As I had sought to make clear, it is your series of flagrant and one-sided misrepresentations, mischaracterizations, wikihounding, and bullying that I find disruptive. I gather from your response that I'm getting nowhere however in raising it to you." Communication to Rjanag on how his “learn how to read” edit summary is uncivil, and bullying: [184] As to your request that I give an example of your bullying, the discussion surrounding my quote of the ("tiny") Seventeen article is one example. And the wikihounding/bullying at this. "you (Rjanag) are the one who has ... exaggerated/misstated facts numerous times in both this AfD and the prior AfD and in other discussions. Wikihounded me even to the doorstep of other editors' talk pages—one of whom wrote to you there: "It's a tad sad that you follow someone around an entire website trying to get a single article deleted". Mischaracterized the Seventeen article three times—on September 29, and called the Seventeen article "tiny" in this AfD, and incorrectly stated how long it was in the prior AfD—and then amazingly turned around and publicly chastised me writing: "epeefleche, how many times do people have to tell you it's not necessary to copy and paste the entire Seventeen article into this page? Do you not realize how annoying it is?" (if it were tiny, it could not have bothered you, and in fact you were the only one who had objected previously)."[185] "And yes, you did misrepresent in the first AfD on Sept. 13 that "all I see is three sentences in Seventeen". When I then quoted the article, pointing out that you had misrepresented its length, your response (to that and the rest of what I wrote) was, dismissively: "Way too long." Another editor intervened and responded to you: "Nonsense. WP:TLDR applies to policy pages and guidelines, not arguments. I, for one, appreciate the thoroughness."[186] "You then on Sept. 29 again misrepresented the extent of coverage in the article here. When I corrected you, you chastised me for quoting the article.[187] And actually yes, you did in fact misrepresent in the first AfD that "all I see is three sentences in Seventeen". [188] In addition, another editor (who did not vote to keep the article) wrote to Rjanag that he was “disappointed that you're not setting an example—as WP:ADMIN requires of you.... If you're upsetting a lot of other users in the same place, it's time to self-reflect.”[189]

Rjanag reaction to complaints re his behavior. While his misbehavior was pointed out many times by me and others, his response was simply to continue his misbehavior.

And—with total absence of contrition—write:

1. “I'm just amused to see you guys shooting yourselves in the foot by obsessing over these personal battles … You can complain about me all you want; it won't do any good for the closing admin.”;[190]
2. ”As for my "effort to keep readers from reading the truth"...oh goodness, sorry I got in the way of your efforts to spread The Truth to the poor unenlightened masses…. Gosh, I feel so bad.”;[191] and
3. "WQA is thataway”.

--Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Highly disconcerting: close relationship between Rjanag and closing admin. An admin (Backslash Forwardslash) closed the second AfD before the full 7 days had run. Similarly peculiar was the fact that he described a near-even vote as one in which "the delete voters ... had the numerical upper hand". His timing and his read of what the consensus was (both in numbers and in substance) left some editors perplexed. See [192].

When the closing admin was first up for RfA in February this year (he failed), only one voter (of 100) voted for him terming his vote "Very strong support". The one voter? Rjanag.

The number of other RfA candidates other than Backslash Forwardslash whom Rjanag has supported with a vote he identified as "Very strong support"? Zero.

Of further concern are the comments following Rjanag's vote by Ottava Rima: "of course the above user [Rjanag] would see the situation as -working- with someone you don't like. However, having Backslash close a discussion after his friends stated that outside consensus ... would be inappropriate is definitely a strong concern".

Rjanag then also supported Backslash Forwardslash in his second RfA (which he passed), and was one of the exceedingly few editors to challenge an Oppose voter's comments. See [193].

Furthermore, a glance at the communications between the two that appear in the most rudimentary of searches (as here and here; Politzer was Rjanag's former name) reflect a closeness that far exceeds the relationship a closing admin should have with the nom of a heavily disupted AfD that he is closing before the full 7 days have run.

This, taken together with Rjanag's repeated dishonesty in this process as detailed above in his single-minded effort to get his way, while ignoring basic essential wikipedia tenets of civility, honesty, and fairness--militates in favor of Rjanag being stripped of at minimum his rights of adminship. He is clearly not someone who should have those powers, for he brings disgrace to the project and to his title. I again, and more emphatically, suggest that this be moved to Arbitration, where proper treatment of the matter can be handled by those with the power to address such egregious violations by an admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have refrained from responding to this thread because I saw no need to escalate an already pointless argument by defending myself against frivolous complaints. But when you accuse another user, Backslash Forwardslash, of cheating when you have absolutely no evidence, you cross a line. Of course Backslash and I have interacted many times before, we both joined Wikipedia at similar times and work in similar areas, and many editors who've been around long enough have many Wiki-friends. That doesn't mean there was ever impropriety. Backslash Forwardslash is an experienced and neutral user who has closed hundreds of AfDs, it's not like he suddenly appeared out of the blue to close this one. And from the time of the beginning of the first AfD to the closing of the second, I had no interactions with him either on or off wiki (other than responding to one user's question on his talkpage while he was offline; other than that, I do not remember talking to him at all edit: looks like we exchanged a message in early October over the Nicholas Beale COI issue. not relevant to this subject, and trivial—I didn't even remember it.). So do not go around accusing other editors, especially ones like Backslash Forwardslash, of misconduct. I am not bothering to respond one-by-one to your other lies and exaggerations because they're petty and anyone can see through them, but this one is just too much. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to Master&Expert: I was unaware of the cool-down block rules since I've never proposed any block before, but I think that fact strengthens my case if anything. Let's focus on the spirit of my complaint and not the wording. Secondly, just because you've seen "other editors get away with" worse certainly doesn't make it okay.

To Black Kite: It's true the AfD was ugly, but that doesn't excuse Rjanag, and he was several degrees worse than anyone else. - Draeco (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What I think others are trying to say is that you should pursue our dispute resolution system; perhaps WP:RfC/U. If you find an issue with a deletion for any reason, please take it to deletion review. Beyond that, I don't see anything that can be done here at this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not protesting the deletion. I'm asking for action, not more comment (I've already cited sufficient editors' comments on his behavior above). This seemed like the right place, but correct me if I'm wrong. - Draeco (talk)

It appeared that Epeefleche was though. As for action, see my last sentence - perhaps after an RfC/U, ongoing issues that remain unaddressed can be actioned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I refrained from commenting here for a while because I figured it would do nothing but escalate the discussions; I saw no real desire for a response from me and I figured this would fizzle out on its own. But given Epeefleche's recent vitriolic messages about Backslash Forwardslash (above), I feel I should make some comments about the more frivolous or misleading of his claims.

First of all, a procedural thing: Epeefleche and Draeco have been quite selective in choosing which editors to notify of this discussion. Other than me, Draeco only sent messages to people who criticized me in the AfD—so it's no surprise that he's now got a thread full of people showing up to criticize me. Epeefleche, likewise...other than his message to Backslash, he has sent messages just to people who he thinks will criticize me more. If anyone asked the opinion of other people who participated in the debate, you would be seeing a much different picture of these editors painted.

As for Epeefleche's specific claims, I see no need to go through them all one by one, as most of them are misstatements or exaggerations whose nature is clear enough. In general, the point to take home is that I am not the "only" person who has taken issue with his behavior in this Shells fiasco, and Epeefleche is not the poor, helpless, victimized editor that people are making him out to be here. In fact, many other editors have had the same issues I had (for example, just taking his TL;DR thing...he makes a big deal over the fact that I linked him to WP:TLDR once, but J Milburn has also done so weeks before, and DGG also explicity advised him to shorten his messages; it's not like I'm the only one. And he makes some noise about how mean I was to call the Seventeen review "short" (or "tiny" or whatever)...well, I'm certainly not the only one to say that, most of the delete voters in the AfD also said specifically that they find the Seventeen thing too short, brief, cursory, trivial (pick whatever word you like). It was a tiny "review", there's nothing wrong with calling it that.

Then there are claims Epeefleche makes, like the one above where he says I "deleted pertinent sourced material" during the first AfD. The diff is broken, but judging by the timestamps the edit he's referring to appears to be this (admin-only link, sorry), where I removed blatant plagiarism that he had inserted. Essentially, what you have here is an editor who, while he appears to make valuable contributions elsewhere, has behaved very poorly with regards to this article, couldn't tell the difference between writing and plagiarism, ran all over Wikipedia to promote this band (see 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, where up until recently he was making a point of only listing an award that his pet band had been nominated for but refrained from listing 7 other equally non-notable awards--and 21 other equally non-notable bands--and then after I listed the rest, he complained at the AfD that I was making the Shells look less notable). Epeefleche has been flying off the handle at critics of this article since well before I was ever involved; see his run-in with J Milburn at NFCR, which happened before I had ever noticed this article (in fact, it's what brought the article to my attention), or look at the history of edit summaries to get an idea of some of the fighting he had with User:Psantora long before I had ever shown up.

I could go on, but I doubt anyone wants to read a novel-length Wikipedia post. The take-home point is, again, Epeefleche is not some unfortunate helpless editor that I chose at random to descend upon and harass. He has caused problems with numerous other editors during discussions surrounding The Shells, and has done many things unbecoming of an editor with three years' experience. He and Draeco have selectively notified only some editors to try and paint a different picture for you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not purposefully select certain editors; I notified all and only those whom I had mentioned in my initial proposal. - Draeco (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My thought is that this is too complicated and fact based (I notice that Rjanag won the AfD or the subsequent Drv, not sure which) to be dealt with at this page, I suggest the parties avail themselves of dispute resolution, or consider avenues such as an RfC. I don't think it can be done fairly to everyone here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche et al are welcome to start one, but I don't really intend to participate (beyond the message I left above). From skimming the above, it's clear that the only people who are complaining are the ones from the AfD; none of the ANI people who have commented (Black Kite, Master & Expert, Chamal, CoM) seem to think anything needs to be done. If Epeefleche et al. believe the AfD was broken they are welcome to start a DRV; if all they want is for someone to say "yes, Rjanag is a mean guy" then I'm not really concerned. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine. No administrative action advisible here, parties advised of possible courses of action if they deem it appropriate. Many thanks for bringing it to attention of AN/I, and note that there is also a civility area which might be more appropriate. Enjoy the rest of your day.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review my block

Resolved

 – Block reduced to time served. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see my notice. If the community decides, any admin may change my action without further discussion with me. - Altenmann >t 20:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, certainly the editor has been warned frequently, and doesn't seem to have modified his behavior, but going straight to an indef block is too harsh in my book. The editor had a clean block log prior to this, so it isn't clear to me that there was any imminent disruption. I'll look a bit more and see if my opinion changes. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I'm even seeing the frequent warnings - user isn't in the habit of blanking his userpage, and all I'm seeing is a dialogue about some of his edits that looks like a continuation of a debate on an article talkpage. I'm also not sure (because there are no template warnings) where the bad edits are taking place. Is there a site of current disruption? Failing something dramatic elsewhere, I would have thought a stern warning from an unconnected admin would have been a preferable first step. But do point out what I've missed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much input here. I am prepared to reduce this block to time served. If anyone wishes to weigh in to the contrary, please do soon. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And unblocked. Marking this resolved. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was out for a long time, so I could not deliver more detail. In addition to notices from other users in his talk page, I had discussion with this user in several article talk spaces. He himself raised an issue of lacking sources. I did tell him that this does not invalidate wikipedia policies.

Please notice that my indefinite block was not and infinite block or ban. As you may have seen from the phrasing of my note in his talk page, its purpose was to force him to make a pledge to comply with the policy. I really don't want to ban him from the wikipedia: he seems to know the subjects he writes about.

Anyway, I am OK with the resolution for now. - Altenmann >t 22:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Drsimonwood

Drsimonwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (possibly the same as 209.139.218.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) keeps filling Polyglycoplex with ® symbols, removing the advert tag and all the wikilinks, and breaking all the references (diff). Seems straightforward enough, but the user also keeps changing the claimed inventor of Polyglycoplex from one "Dr. Vladimir Vuksanto" to "InovoBiologic®", which this article claims has a financial relashionship with a Simon Wood. I would warn the user again with Template:uw-mos3, but I don't want to get sucked into someone else's apparent priority dispute - I just want to make the article readable! Maybe someone here knows better how to handle this. Thanks. --Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a uw-mos4 and explained why the symbol is not to be added. Hopefully this will be an end to the matter. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The warning went unheeded and the editor has been blocked for 24h. We may need to keep an eye on this one. Mjroots (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Block review of User:Interpride

• Interpride (talk · contribs) was blocked with a massive template explaining they were blocked, apparently, for making promotional edits ... and maybe their

username. If they had made their edits under another username I don't think we would have few issues with edits and certainly wouldn't have blocked. Could someone have a look and see if we can't be a little more welcoming here? -- Banjeboi 16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith bad block. I can't see that they were even warned. If they had been contacted with a request to consider WP:COI and they continued to edit in this manner, that would be grounds for a block. But this? No. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 17:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. We need to assume good faith more often here. And by that, I mean assume good faith of the blocking administrator. JBsupreme (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Single purpose/promotional account. That's clearly obvious from the editing pattern. They were slowly turning the article in question into a promo. HalfShadow (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked the blocking admin for explanation but have not seen a response yet, I have also notified them of this thread. Being outside the situation could you point out which of their edit was actually blockable, or even disputed? They seemed to be adding extra details that are unneeded but that in and of itself shows a lack of experience on Wikipedia - not an effort to cause harm. -- Banjeboi 17:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

When you start adding 'sunshine and puppies' edits like this, you're no longer being encyclopedial, you're being promotional. HalfShadow (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This block appears entirely appropriate. Aside from the generally promotional editing, the user was also adding copyvio text, with an often heavily promotional tone, cut and pasted from the organization's own website. Note that this edit [194] corresponds to this link [195] and this edit [196] corresponds to this link [197] and this edit [198] corresponds to this link [199]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not going to persuade many people that this type of account should not be blocked. It's a problem when people's first edits are about the organisation where they work (rather than blatant spamming, these are COI edits) and they get blocked, sometimes hardblocked. But blatant advertising will always be blocked very quickly and you're unlikely to change people's minds about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like a reasonable block - organization name + promo edits normally translates to a hard block, and there's at least one edit that reads somewhat promotional. Nonetheless, it would be optimal if the user was contacted beforehand, since this is not blatant spamming. Tim Song (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That's my point I guess. Instead of telling this user their name needed to change and their editing smacked of promotionalism we blocked them with no dialog whatsoever. That seems counter-intuitive to dealing with newbies and actually a bit hostile even if intended to curb promotional-like editing. Where's the civility? Where's the effort to explain why the edits were flawed before the indefinite block? -- Banjeboi 18:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a good block. One should be expected to only go so far with regards to not biting newcomers. I highly doubt that this person (assuming this is not a role account, which is likely the case anyways) was interested in anything else except staking ownership to the page and turn the page into a mirror of its website, which is not what we're here for.

With that said, I haven't looked at all the contribs to check for copyvios or blatant spamming, but a softblock was warranted at the very least. MuZemike 18:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block. This is exactly what I would have posted to WP:UAA. Sorry Benjiboi, I understand why you'd be unhappy about this kind of block but a username that indicates representation/affiliation with the article subject, combined with edits like "Members of our organization are dedicated volunteers who organize and work to put on Pride events all over the world" justify the block and are in total compliance with our policies and guidelines. -- Atama頭 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this was a good block - but someone (Benjiboi?) could engage with them in more detail to explain why what they were doing was not appropriate on Wikipedia, and help mentor them through engaging more productively with a new account as an individual person not trying to act as an official organizational PR person. This seems the classical "didn't know better" rather than "malign intent", and those people can often simply be educated. Benjiboi, you up for that? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This was a good block indeed. I think this thread can be closed now. Keep up the good work, blocking admin. JBsupreme (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh. I find this to be a case of using username blocks like a roll of duct tape -- that is, a low-quality solution to a variety of problems it wasn't originally designed to solve. It's a topic of ongoing debate on WT:U whether it's appropriate to instantly username block someone just because their username points out their COI. This was a pretty typical example of such a block, so the block is defensible, but I'm hardly going to applaud the blocking admin for their blunt solution either.

Talking to the user about COI and asking them to change their name would have accomplished the same result, with just a tiny bit more effort, and without making Wikipedia look as belligerent toward outsiders as it usually does. rspεεr (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

LIttle word from the blocking admin--I have always personally taken a hard line on spamming. Whenever I see a user making promotional edits to an article whose title matches his username, it's almost always an automatic block. Blueboy96 03:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sal the Stockbroker

Resolved

 – Redirected. — Jake Wartenberg 02:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sal the Stockbroker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I would like someone to look at this before it becomes an edit war, Sal the Stockbroker is a know person and everything on his page has a source. But another user keeps redirecting it to The Howard Stern Show staff (this person should have his own page). Can someone please look at this. thank you // 98.117.40.154 (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources cited are reliable, secondary sources. So there is no actual demonstration of notability, making the redirect of the page a defendable action (even though edit warring never is). Regardless, this is a content dispute, so please seek dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And upon taking a closer look, given that much of the content is quite disparaging, the lack of reliable sources renders a good portion of the article a BLP violation. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:War began with Soviet offensive

Resolved

 – blocked as a disruptive (POV pushing) username --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This account seems to be created solely to participate in an edit war in Continuation War (page history:[200]). The name of the account coincides with the first phrase of the paragraph he inserts in the article. Seems there are no contribution to other articles: [201]. --Dojarca (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Dschinghis Khan

On a somewhat lighter note, an editor has taken it upon himself to rename anything connected with that German disco-era singing group to Genghis Khan (pop group), on the grounds that that would be their name in English. He did this with no apparent discussion, and he ignored me when I asked why. And of course instead of a standalone name, it now has a disambiguation. So was this a proper rename under normal guidelines, or is he just being a busybody? And if it's the latter, I would like someone to move it back, since that would require an admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Technical point: the article actually could be moved back per WP:MOR. But triggering a move war would of course be bad. Wknight94 ^talk 04:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that. But I wouldn't do it anyway unless there was consensus or if it was a mistake of some kind, which in this case it's neither. I noticed the guy of this notice. I just wondered whether we're supposed to translate a pop group's name into "true" English or if he just made up that rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia is not for a translation you just made up, the title should not be translated. There are many thousands of articles about non-English subjects which have non-English titles. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The exception presumably would be if the group was actually known in the USA as "Genghis Khan". As far as I know, they were really only known in Europe at the time, and the internet has given the group higher visibility, albeit nearly 30 years later. In short, unless the editor can find evidence that the group was widely known in the English-speaking world as "Genghis Khan", then it needs to keep its original spelling. Have I got that right? And if so, what's the proper course of action? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As evidenced in the editor's contrib's [202] he also changed the name of their song "Moskau" to the Anglicized spelling "Moscow", despite the fact the song was sung in German (as was their original song, "Dschinghis Khan"; they were a group that named themselves for their first song.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that both titles should be returned to their original locations and the article move-protected (sysop only). Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not need to be move protected. Prodego ^talk 11:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So, the guy still has not responded. Should I just go ahead and move it back? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

He claims they released records in the USA under "Genghis Khan". Sounds like some research is called for. When I get the chance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Sijokjose

Between now and 2006 when he arrived, this user has made less than 50 contributions (so-far undeleted ones, that is); the majority of these edits were on the article Chempanthotty. As his talk page indicates, a lot of the content he was involved in was deleted, and he's also been warned for removing tags (such as speedy deletion notices), inserting spam links and recreating deleted pages. Recently, he seems to be continuing to insert spam [203], as well as removing maintenance tags and inserting original research [204]. He has never responded on his talk page, and indeed, I fail to see him contributing to any talk page. The now-deleted User:Sijokjose, Sijo K Jose and Sijokjose probably says enough in that he is not able to build an encyclopedia in accordance with our policies. I bring it here for an admin or the community to classify the problem, and remedy it accordingly. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, some of the IPs that also edited the article engaged in problematic conduct, like plagiarising content from [205] - that unreliable source seems to be what much of the article relies on. In any case, it would help if CU clarified whether there is (likely to be) any relationship between the user and the anons who recently edited the article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Chuthya and the David Shankbone article

Continuing on the earlier thread regarding User:67.160.100.233, it appears as though the widespread predictions at the deletion discussion that the article for David Shankbone would become a harassment coatrack were prescient. User:Chuthya has taken up the ball now, adding a (since removed, and it must be said: non-notable) photograph of a goat urinating to the article. He has stated his intention to attempt to add non-notable male anatomy photographs to the article, as well. Other of his edits pick up a common harassment tactic used against User:David Shankbone, while yet another appears to be highly questionable. I've attempted to explain to him why several of his recent edits are problematic, and not all of his edits have been prima facie harassment (but still appear to fail wp:rs and wp:blp, and apparently open the door to his other goals). However subtle, these edits and his apparent motive appear highly problematic, especially for a wp:blp. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Chuthya of this discussion. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I explained on my talk page, all of my contributions to that article involve inclusion of CC licensed images that were contributed by the subject. These images were voluntarily uploaded to Commons by the subject. If the subject feels that these images are embarassing, he certainly has the right to request their deletion as their author. I hardly see how editing an article to include contributions by its subject could be construed as harassment. As I also stated, the subjects numerous contributions of free photographs of male anatomy could be included in the article, but undoubtably shouldn't without discussion first. Lastly, I initiated a discussion in talk regarding inclusion in the article the subject's contributions in the area of gay pornography. The article is arguably non-neutral with regard to coverage of the subject's intrests and contributions in this area. But rather than boldly including this in the article, I initiated discussion in talk. User:J's characterations of my edits, and presumption of what my "goals" are, are a woeful example of not assuming good faith. Chuthya (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned to you earlier, adding a non-notable photograph of a urinating goat to the biography of a living person regardless of your explanation, stretches any possible assumption of good faith past its breaking point. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you feel the image is notable, it is an example representative of his work and contributions to the project. It would be prefectly legitimate to include any of his contributions in the article, though arguably some would be more controversial than others. Images from Commons don't need sourcing because they're automatically sourced on the description page. That's the purpose of Commons. If you question the attributability of Commons, then you question the project's ability to comply with GFDL and Creative Commons licenses. Chuthya (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between attribution and actual reliable sourcing. Given the variety and significant quantity of his work, decisions made by you or me to include certains pieces of his work give rise to the potential for a sort of editorial original research potentially lacking in neutrality, as was the case with one of the images you intended to insert and the other images you indicated you would like to insert. This is highly problematic, especially for a wp:blp, and especially given the amplitude of not reliable contributions that could be pulled from here and Commons. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What dialect of bafflegab is that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a unique dialect utilized primarily when trying to craft a response to a wp:ididnthearthat question. It boils down to: Special:Contributions is not a reliable source. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I should have recognized bullshit when I heard it! So, if a normally reliable source, say Scientific American, uses one of David's images from the Commons and says "Photo of Colbert by David Shankbone via Wikimedia Commons", that means it magically becomes, to use your word, "reliable" even though they took that information from the Commons as supplied by David. Is that your argument? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The distinction being that Wikimedia Commons, which is to say you or me, are not a reliable source for editorial decisions, while Scientific American is by our standards. You can call it "bullshit," but it's the only way I see for keeping exactly what happened here today from continuing to occur. Selecting photographs for a biography of a living person that are anything other than a headshot can be a highly editorialized process, and as was displayed here, it can be an easy way for someone with a point to make to make that point much better than they could have with "a thousand words." I don't know of any other wp:blp with these sorts of issues, because I don't think any other notable living person has hundreds or thousands of images from which any given editor lacking in neutrality could pick from to make their point. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit it gets off the hook for choosing which of the many great images of David's to use, but it's not much better than choosing randomly or asking David for his favourites. You keep coming back to this very idiosyncratic idea that reliable sources are needed to prove that David took the image in question. If that were the case, shouldn't we be looking for images that have been written about rather than just re-used, sometimes without credit? Don't you think choosing appropriate images for any artist requires some level of discretion? I'm not suggesting that we insert the goat into David Shankbone, but can we try to treat this BLP like we treat other BLPs? There seems to be some ideas that this article is special, when we really ought to be going out of our way to show that it is not, and to see if there are shortcomings with how we handle BLPs. Please don't bother to reply. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's idiosyncratic. Again, I don't know of any other wp:blp where this particular issue has ever been an issue, so "treating it like other" biographies, for me, is falling back to relying on pictorial editorial decisions made by secondary, reliable sources, rather than by us. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I should know better than to wade into this, but your repeated use of the phrase "non-notable photograph" makes me wonder if you think it means something. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. If it were a notable photograph that he had taken, which had been printed in or covered by reliable sources, perhaps its inclusion would be reasonable. As a non-notable photograph, the only motivation for its editorial selection would be on the part of User:Chuthya... I'm sure there are a lot of reasons for why somebody would think a urinating goat would be appropriate to include in a biography of a living person. I just can't think of any. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

J, someone seems to have reformatted several comments here, so I'm not sure if you were replying to me, but you seem to be saying that only images printed in or covered by RS can be included in David Shankbone? Is that really what you are suggesting, or did I misunderstand? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Photographs of the subject are one thing. Photographs taken by the subject are another thing altogether, and, just to start with, there needs to be relevance to the subject greater than him simply having taken the photograph. I personally interpret wp:rs and wp:blp as being problematic in the instance of this biography: User:Chuthya wanted to discuss User:David Shankbone's Wikipedia contributions in the article. I think that's where secondary, reliable coverage becomes important... Along those lines, I'm not yet convinced using a different standard for photographs contributed to Wikimedia, as opposed to text contributed to Wikipedia, is going to work for this biography, given the actions undertaken by User:Chuthya and likely to be undertaken by others. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that David took the image of a goat or of Whoopie Goldberg(or any of the literally thousands of images he has contributed). I don't understand why you would think RS is relevant here. Is this something to do with the mysterious "non-notable photograph" you alluded to earlier? DO you think a third-party needs to affirm that David took the photograghs? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

See my response to User:Achromatic below, which also covers the questions you raised. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(to Chuthya, to avoid confusion) Oh for christ's sake who do you think you're kidding? AGF is not a shield for the patently obvious tactic here of picking the most famously controversial/salacious images from his commons collection and jamming them into the article to make a point. This has nothing to do with sourcing or attribution, so drop that false argument, please. On another note, this is another reason why marginal BLPs shouldn't be created. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless the photos are relevant to the article content as sourced to reliable independent coverage, it's not clear why they would warrant inclusion. As far as examples of the subjects work, why not use ones that relevant to the content? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for WP:POINT and WP:BLP violations. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this block. Looking at the article I see there is an entire gallery section of "example" photographs. Who gets to decide which ones should be included? If the subject of that BLP has contributed photographs on a range of subjects, shouldn't that be reflected? Otherwise I would think the gallery is itself improper (as may be the case).

I think continued discussion would have been preferable to a block. As long as that editor was willing to work through dispute resolution and abide by consensus, blocking someone whose position is controversial seems problematic to me. It very well may be the case that they are trying to make a point, but we are expected to assume good faith. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, I don't see how one can assume good faith when an editor is attempting to add a photograph of the rear end of a goat to the biography of a living person. Assuming good faith is one thing; ignoring the obvious point (at best) is another. That being said, I'm not convinced, as you highlight, that the gallery can survive wp:rs and therefore wp:blp, and this may be a heretofore undiscussed issue that needs to be addressed (as I mention above in reply to User:Delicious carbuncle). user:J aka justen (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - it seems to be your point that the WP page of an artist should only contain art/photography OF the artist, not BY the artist. One wonders why you are not at Rene Magritte, removing the imagery of "The Treachery Of Images" and "The Human Condition", after all, they apparently hold no relevance to the article. Or perhaps Andres Serrano, where no image of the artist appears, but only "Madonna and Child II", an image which shows these religious figures floating in human urine, after all, surely it is stretching past the boundary of good faith to assume that image is there for any purpose other than to discredit the artist. Or perhaps you'd care to explain to people why some artist's page should have their work exhibited, but that you are fighting tooth and nail for another artist's page NOT to have their work exhibited? Achromatic (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding my position: Andres Serrano has a vast body of work with individually notable pieces which have themselves received significant reliable secondary coverage. If I may, Urinating Goat is no Piss Christ, and the image could not have been selected because of its notability within the "portfolio" of David Shankbone. Rather, it appears to have been selected editorially to make a point, as User:Cirt and others have noted above. Likewise, his intention to include photographs of male anatomy appears geared to include otherwise tangential salacious content in a biography of a living person (as User:Tarc noted above), even though said photographs are representative of a very small portion of what User:David Shankbone has uploaded. All of this to say that I don't believe I've created a double standard: if any of User:David Shankbone's images, individually, receive reliable secondary coverage, they should be included in his article. If not, any given editor selecting which to include here can become a significant editorial neutrality issue, as was proven here, and I think that's why we should look closely to wp:rs and wp:blp to figure out how to deal with this sort of situation. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the subject of the BLP has added numerous photos related to gay and sexual subjects. If that part of their work is notable and has been covered in reliable independent media it should be represented (along with other subjects they have worked on). But again, I think the key is that a reasonable discussion based on policies and focused on article content would be the best way to proceed, rather than assuming the worst and blocking someone who includes content that is controversial. If the blocked editor had insisted on continuing to add that material without participating in discussion towards resolving the dispute, that would be a different issue. But I don't see a sign of that. Instead I see anyone who comments anonymously on the talk page regarding the photos that are and aren't being included bein attacked. It's not clear why a goat's ass is helpful to include, so maybe I'm being naive, but if isn't a significant photograph why is it on Wikipedia to begin with? I'm not an expert on David's career or his photographic work, or the media coverage of it, if there is any, so I'm open to discussion on how it should be represented. This Wikinews story notes that censorship and pornography issues have arisen in the past [206]. Were they covered in reliable independent media? Right now the article is full of shots with celebrities and a bunch of shots he's taken of celebrities. That doesn't seem terribly encyclopedic or representative of his body of work. Does that mean it needs more genitalia? Maybe. Maybe not. Let's discuss what's appropriate. Blacketeers article was deleted as soon as there was a controversy about him. If we're going to have these articles on BLPs we need to be transparent, neutral and accurate. If not then just delete the thing and be done with it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is controversial. If I thought someone was a goat's arse and put an image of a goat's arse on their article (even if they took the photo) I would fully expect to be blocked for it. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For whatever reason, User:David Shankbone is a very widely "followed" editor on here and in the peanut gallery, and has more than a few (unfavourable) "followers" who apparently would like to use his newly minted wp:blp as a new conduit to make what they believe to be unflattering points about him. As to why preventing this is controversial, I can't speculate. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Look guys, if Shankbone uploads a photo to Wikipedia or Commons with his name on it, and does not choose to "opt out" of his BLP, then any of his photos can be placed in the article as representative of his work. If he was willing to put his name on a photo of the rear end of a goat, then I don't see why he would object to it being placed in his article as representative of his work. It is not a BLP violation as long as it contains no infammatory or insulting verbiage in the image caption. Do not block people for linking to his images in his article. If Shankbone doesn't like it, he can ask for his bio to be deleted. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think wp:blp is clear that using images "out of context," such as was the case here, is unacceptable. Where did you come up with the interpretation that wp:blp only applies to image captions? user:J aka justen (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not out of context to display any of the images that this guy took. If he's willing to take such a picture and upload it to Commons with his name on it, then he is adding it to his collection of work for which he is known for. Who are we to judge which images (apart from featured images) have more value or are more representative than any other? History is history, art is art. We present the content, within our policies, and let the readers decide for themselves if it has merit or not. Again, if this guy doesn't want to be associated with those photos anymore within Wikipedia, then it behooves him to ask that his BLP be deleted. Otherwise, I guess he'll just have to accept the consequences for the decisions that he makes or has made. A good lesson for us all. Cla68 (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Who are we to judge which images (apart from featured images) have more value or are more representative than any other?" Precisely. Which is why we should only highlight images that reliable sources have printed, used, or otherwise commented on. "Otherwise, I guess he'll just have to accept the consequences for the decisions that he makes or has made." Seriously? Beyond that, I think your viewpoint is entirely out of touch with wp:blp. "Anything you contribute to this project can and will be used against you in your biography" is not in line with the spirit of Wikipedia or Wikimedia, and makes a laughingstock of our policy on the biographies of living people. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what the issue is. Here's a stab at it. It's one thing to decorate your user pages with any and all photos you can find in commons. Far as I know, that's totally acceptable. But when photos are used in an article, even when they're free, they need to be "notable" in some way. Presumably the subject is notable, so obviously photos of himself would therefore be notable. Maybe photos of himself with celebrities would be notable. But photos he's taken from behind the camera are presumably only notable to the article if someone else says they are, i.e. if they were cited by an external, reliable source. I think that's what the argument is. Maybe someone can tell me if I've got it right or not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the gist of it, I do believe. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Since "notable" has a special meaning here at WP, I think that it is a poor choice of word to use in this discussion. Even so, notability relates to the suitability of the subject for an article in WP, not simply for inclusion in an article. There is a guideline for image use and choice at WP:IMAGE which should be applied here, as it would for any other article or BLP. Outside of that, I can see nothing that even suggests J's criterion for image choice in any WP policy of guideline. I believe this is a conflation and misinterpretation of several guidelines and policies into a synthesis of utter nonsense that serves only to avoid discussion on which images are appropriate for this article. This is a flawed strategy which will ultimately backfire. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean my position is based on "conflation and misinterpretation." The policy guideline (wp:image) is clear: "Contributors should be judicious in deciding which images are the most suitable for the subject matter in an article." The other policy (wp:blp) adds that images must be used in clear "context." There are several editors arguing here that any number of images that have little context within the content of the article would be perfectly fine, simply because User:David Shankbone took them. It's clear that our community editorial judgment in this case is failing, and given the wide latitude here in terms of possible images, that seems likely to continue to be a concern (as does happen with text, as well, hence wp:or, wp:npov, and so forth). Lastly, just because "notability" is a significant concept for article retention here doesn't mean the phrase "notable image" is a "poor choice of words." It's a perfectly valid and clear concept (explained numerous times above) that can help editors more neutrally decide which (if any) of User:David Shankbone's images should be included in his article. If you don't like that idea, you should probably explain why instead of blustering ad hominem everytime somebody here suggests it. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think "ad hominem" means, but I'll resist the temptation to show you. There seems little point in arguing with you here since you are evidently intractable and cannot distinguish between policies and guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether wp:image is a policy or a guideline makes a significant difference to the underlying argument for you? In any event, the guideline is descriptive, not prescriptive, and "judicious" selection of which images to use would seem to be common sense. As would the policy requirement that the images be in "context." I still can't make heads or tails of whether you're arguing against that, for that, both, or neither? user:J aka justen (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I will try to make it simple for you. Apply WP:IMAGE just like any other article. Apply WP:BLP just like any other BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Carefully chosen photographs that fit into the context of the article? That certainly makes your position clearer than spending your time calling other positions "bullshit," for future reference. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well let's get to the crux of this then - from the criteria people have outlined, this photo is fine for the article? It contains the notable individual, it contains other notable individuals we have articles on. Otherwise by the arguments outlined here, we have to remove all of the pictures on the Shankbone article because they are not used in any reliable sources I can find, simply on his blog and uploaded on the commons. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The talk page has a "gallery" of images which have been reprinted, used, or commented on by reliable sources. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Chuthya, again

Fresh off his block, User:Chuthya has returned to the article and is now using image captions as a backdoor around wp:rs for including references to pornography (as previously promised). It also looks like he's moving from wp:point to plain old wp:disrupt, and is edit warring to keep his harassment in the article. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason why this editor should ever edit an article related to Shankbone, ever. I suggest the next admin to read this topic ban him from David Shankbone, broadly construed. Hipocrite (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked for 72 hours. The community or another admin can consider a ban from editing the Shankbone article or something more extensive if need be. This edit during the last block was not heartening (particularly since the editor did not come right back and start up again), and it might be worthwhile to review this editor's contributions to see if they are really here to contribute or just stir the pot. As always I'm open to an unblock so long as the user in question agrees not to engage in the behavior that led to the block in the first place. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that Chutya's actions appear to be disruptive, I feel compelled to point out that this complaint appears to be based on flimsy material. The image, as uploaded by David Shankbone, is named "Friends eating lunch at the home of Michael Lucas on Fire Island.jpg"; Michael Lucas (director) is a director of pornography; and Chutya does not appear to have made any promise to refrain from introducing to pornography into this article. I don't think this is how we would deal with someone who added a questionable image to Robert Mapplethorpe. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The block is based on disruptive behaviour by an editor who is apparently taking cues on how best to harass User:David Shankbone through this biography. Using a vacation photograph as a backdoor to associate the article with pornography, without reliable sources, is a blatant wp:blp violation; the fact that you don't see that is quite peculiar. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Read my first sentence where I say "Chutya's actions appear to be disruptive". If you don't understand it, read it again. You seem to have great difficulty understanding what are reasonably simple sentences. Perhaps there's a friend or family member nearby who can help? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're a riot. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The block seems fine in the circumstances, but I don't think we need to do anything else - further misconduct probably can be treated without special restrictions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

To Delicious carbuncle, who made the comment at 21:07, if you agree that "Chutya's actions appear to be disruptive" then I assume you are okay with the block, and if not then obviously feel free to object to it more directly. Your analogy to Robert Mapplethorpe is rather inapt in my view and I think you've confused one person in the Fire Island photo for another. Mapplethorpe is well-known for homoerotic photography, thus he is far more analogous to Michael Lucas (director) who is also known for homoerotic visual imagery (which is reflected in his article). "Shankbone" has taken some pictures of naked people and their body parts, but as the article on him points out, he is primarily known (to the extent that he is known at all) for interviewing famous people and for photos of clothed famous people, both of which we have pictures of in the article. If someone has a good reason why a photo of Shankbone on vacation with some topless men (including a known member of the pornographic film industry, which it was apparently very important for Chutya to mention in the article caption) bears inclusion in his BLP then by all means have at it on the article talk page, but I think it's clear that Chutya is primarily interested in disruption right now. If that continues when they come off their block then we can deal with it then as Ncmvocalist says. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

One additional point for the record as it were, in case we end up seeing problems from this user again, or want to take more stern measures now. The user name (as was suggested here) is apparently a well known Hindi curse word (perhaps a mild one, but whatever). I don't think there's any possibility of this being a coincidence, as the user has created this nonsensical page featuring the phrase "How can she slap?", which is apparently a reference to an Indian reality television show called Dadagiri. As the controversy section of that article states, an uncensored video from that show which appeared online and which lead to the "How can she slap?" meme also featured uncensored curse words like "chuthya" (or "chutiyah"--however one romanizes it). Point being this editor has a foreign curse word for a user name and a record of contributions that suggests they are not here to help write an encyclopedia (see their talk page and the general nature of their contributions for more on that). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to add my concern that the unblock "proposal" User:Chuthya has made on his talk is very troubling given that his edits to date appear to have been crafted specifically to try to get around wp:blp and do not appear to be motivated by an attempt to improve the article. He's been blocked twice now in the past day for using the article as a conduit to harass User:David Shankbone, and I think it's becoming clearer that this harassment is just a game for him. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request declined because the user appears to think the edit at issue, and his conduct in general, would be fine if he just used the talk page more. (It would not be.)  Sandstein  12:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Guitarherochristopher Yet again.

Resolved

 – Indef blocked by User:Jake Wartenberg HalfShadow (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Further to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#Guitarherochristopher and various warnings we still, IMO, have a major issue with this editor. Leaving alone the various misuse of WP:NFCC as previously warned [207] [208] and the endless WP:NOT#MYSPACE issues - again as warned [209] [210] and [211] (typical example) It finaly looked like he was "getting it" by adding content [212]. Alas Not.'. With a combination of MYSPACE attitude and misuse of NFC now being added to direct copyright violation I'm now of the opinion that we need to move this editor, sadly, away from the project. Input please. Pedro :  Chat  12:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking on the bright side, he's adding content to articles. Copyright warning issued. Mjroots (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now I look at it this is not the first time we've had copy-vio problems - User:Guitarherochristopher/Coldplay Releases New Album In 2009 and User:Guitarherochristopher/Genesis Band Member Gets Sacked Out Of The Drums and User:Guitarherochristopher/What Happened To Micheal Jackson?. See here Pedro :  Chat  13:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been issued literally dozens of warnings for various things. I've had this guy on my watchlist for some time. Support whatever action you see fit, Pedro. Tan | 39 13:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a block as well. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd support one as well with the idea that he'd have to start showing some significant good contributions on his talk page to earn back any editing privileges.--Crossmr (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. Why are we enabling this:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#Guitarherochristopher
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive565#Guitarherochristopher, again
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#Block needed: compromised/shared_account
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#User talk:Guitarherochristopher
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#Guitarherochristopher

Continuing to issue warnings, hoping that this time they'll end the disruption, is counterproductive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, I agree Floquenbeam. I have to say that this user realy, really does not seem to "get it" no matter what. Whilst a block from nowhere can seem overly harsh, in this case I really cannot see any positive input from this guy. Net negative in my opinion. A shame, but it is what it is. Pedro :  Chat  14:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We can't afford to check each edit by this person, and if he is going to keep using copyright material then we need to put a stop to it. If communication has not helped this person "get" it then a block is justified to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Chillum 15:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

ARGH, to hell with it. he's been here before, he's been warned, he won't contribute, he won't listen, he's been given help, he takes up peoples' time... just block him for good. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 16:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I also believe an indef block to be appropriate, and have implemented one. — Jake Wartenberg 17:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont belive there has ever been an ANI for a single user 6 times!--Coldplay Expert 17:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You haven't met Ottava Rima, Giano, Beta or Child of Midnight yet, have you? Absolutely no offense intended to any of these editors. I'm jussayin'. Tan | 39 17:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No I havent are they blocked? and Im glad that you are;nt mad about me getting mad at you :)--Coldplay Expert 18:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup? I don't know how much this needs to be looked over or not, but there's a massive amount of new article cleanup that would need to be done to catch things published since what I saw the last set of warnings were, including a full new wikiproject where he was able to add talk pages, categories and priorities all in very short order. Honestly, it's pretty impressive work given the short amount of time available... past the fact that it might need to be deleted. A separate, larger article authored and added in the past 24 hours is already up for PROD under gleeful tag WP:HAMMER, but there are about 10 edits done to other pages that were done to link in to it. Since I have no privileges, someone with authority to delete and revert up to about 60 edits might be needed. It's that or a theoretical max of 60 extra AfDs in the coming week. I can slowly plow through each edit in the whole project space and determine their viability and status and it probably wouldn't take more than a few hours. I think. Depends on how many backlinks? In any case, it'll all have to be looked over for PROD, AfD, CSD or project deletion at some point regardless of other decisions... I'll volunteer to grind through all the new articles (I do actually know the subject matter), pending an okay or more input here. I'd be spending my time on AfD review anyway so please don't think I'm trying to strangely torture myself. Datheisen (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't much we can do at this point. The user continues to ignore the warnings; or in some cases acknowledges them but continues to not follow them. This user just doesn't see the point. I believe this user is trying to help out in subjects he's interested in (music/Coldplay), but doesn't know the proper way to do so. His treating of Wikipedia like a social networking site is also of concern. Netalarmtalk 00:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Probably resolved. User has place the "Retired" template on their talk page and stated that he is no longer active. Netalarmtalk 00:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be an issue of WP:COMPETENCE. I'm not volunteering, but is anyone prepared to offer mentorship, which although perhaps onerous, might turn GHC into a productive editor? Rodhullandemu 00:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not speaking from experience, but I'm thinking retirement doesn't null all his edits and articles created for deletion, so the manual parse of all his last edits of the past 48hr or so will need to be looked at one way or another. I very seriously don't mind. I'm sure you have some way to do a blanket delete over things, but he DID seem to put information in some of the new articles and that can't be ignored, as from what I see he can be very knowledgeable in what he contributes to and it could be a loss of some perfectly useful and notable Wikipedia entry information to delete, which I would object to. Even if no one else suggests, my view would be all edits going to need to be looked over by the same guidelines as any other. I guess there are a fair number of reverts to it wouldn't all be delete tags that would flood in. Does anyone object to my going through them all for possible revert/merge/delete marks as all normal separate articles like would be done with anything else? Or what special instructions might you suggest? Can't say you weren't warned about a ton of CSD or AfDs in that article category... Datheisen (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh jeez, just indefinitely block him and tell him if he does not play by our rules he does not get to "play" here at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Already indef. blocked by Jake Wartenberg.--Giants27(c|s) 01:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(reopening) I was asked if I could nuke all of Guitarherochristopher's pages. I've never used :nuke before; can someone else do it? tedder (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Wknight94 ^talk 12:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing sourced material

User:Ketabtoon is - once again - removing sourced material: [213]. I have not reverted his edit. But an admin should take a look at it. In the past weeks, he has been continuously removing sourced material from various articles, pushing for POV, mostly in support of Pashtun nationalism or pro-Taliban positions. Meanwhile, I have tagged the article. Tajik (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Addition: I have just re-examined the edit. The source seems to be very weak, so Ketabtoon cannot be criticized in this case for removing any "reliable" source. Yet, admins should still take a look at the article. Tajik (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at the phrase that Ketabtoon removed in that edit: "He has also claimed that Prostitution is only done by the non-Pashtun ethnic groups and is unacceptable for Pashtuns, clearly showing his hatred towards non-Pashtun ethnic groups.". That's not NPOV regardless of the source, and was removed quite properly. Looie496 (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note to those interested or would like more detail and context of this, I've given a generic proposal to start on a clean slate and work article details out from scratch here[214] and there's already some good faith. Hey, the article is only 2 days old, so we only have to look back that far to get a new starting point, hm? I didn't mean to pounce on and steal this ANI's ability to give input over there, I simply didn't see that this incident had been posted here, my apologies! Datheisen (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. Tajik (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Brenont

Brenont (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) has been warned again and again for several years to stop changing regional spelling variations, and yet, the user continues to do it. Can something be done about this? Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

My spot check of user's contribs shows a bunch of good gnome-ish copyedits. I actually didn't see any inappropriate spelling changes, though I didn't look extensively and I don't doubt their existence. Unless there are a lot of them or s/he edit wars about any that are reverted or contested, I wouldn't worry about it. If there are particular ones you feel strongly about, revert those, leave notes on the article talk pages explaining the issue, and try to work it out peacefully. I do see some talkpage discussion [215] [216] and the editor seems to be willing to discuss the situation reasonably. If you still think there is a serious problem, please post some diffs and maybe an uninvolved editor can initiate a friendly chat on Brenont's talk page or here. I don't think this situation calls for any real escalation yet. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Nikkolson

Has made an autobio in their own userspace and has now moved it to article space[217]. It's a typical A7 autobio, I moved it back and told them why, they ignored this and moved the page back. Somebody please deal with this as I'd rather not engage myself in an edit war. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I went ahead and deleted the page, blatantly violation of WP:NOTE and A7. I will warn the user. ~ Arjun 23:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for reporting. ~ Arjun 23:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that in the process of doing this you also wiped out the history of User:Nikkolson? Looie496 (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that was the general point of all this, yes. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It seemed likely to be non-controversial, so I went ahead and restored the "talk" portion of the page, merging it back into his own. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppets or meatpuppets

There are obvious meatpuppets or sockpuppets !voting keep and saying many personal attacks here. Joe Chill (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have started an SPI here.   pablo_hablo. 11:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

IPs are also causing trouble on the AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Being solicited here --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:DEL, AFD debates can be semi-protected in extreme cases, that would seem appropriate here. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's give admins the benefit of the doubt here: there's no admin on even the Uncyclopedia who would call it a "keep" based solely on the arguments presented there. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the debate to protect against the extremely unsubtle canvassing attempt. This will hopefully allow the debate to be concluded on the article's merits rather than the behaviour of participants. ~ mazca ^talk 12:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way I agree with Bwilkins that the admins wouldn't have been at all influenced, but the personal attacks going on might have deterred other editors from contributing. Cassandra 73 (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Noleander

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Having read this overlong thread, I see a lot of heat and little light. Please remember that ANI is not a a forum for dispute resolution but a venue for requesting and discussing incidents requiring rapid admin action (such as a block), which appears to be neither requested nor required here. If people perceive a specific editor's contributions as persistently problematic, they should pursue WP:DR and possibly open a WP:RFC/U.  Sandstein  19:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

---

A thread regarding User:Noleander has only just been archived. However, new evidence has now emerged that should be brought to this board.

Earlier this month, Noleander created an article in this form [218] which contains material under the heading Michael Medved that is plagiarised from the Neo-Nazi Stormfront site [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=98084&page=2]. Noleander claims here and here that he didn't know the material originated with Stormfront and says he plagiarised it from an equally anti-Semitic article at Radio Islam [219]. He still claims that the material was not a copyvio [here] despite the fact that not only were the same quotes used as in the articles at Stormfront and Radio Islam but also the same linking phrases "Medved continued" etc. also are used.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I wrote that article, and yes, I cut-and-pasted some text from the RadioIslam web site. I was trying to get some quotes from Michael Medved from a magazine article he wrote. As I put the text into the article Jews and Hollywood, I failed to proof-read, and failed to remove text that was between the Medved quotes. That was a mistake, and I profusely apologize. I have no idea who originally assembled Medved's quotes in that manner: RadioIslam? Stormfront? There is probably no way of ever knowing. In any case, it is appropriate to include a few quotes from Medved's article ... that is not a copyright violation. As for using RadioIslam as a place to find material? Yes, it is a rabid site, but it does contain material that is often not found elsewhere. I did make a mistake, and I apologize. However, I must point out that I believe this ANI (and the other ANI accusing me of antisemitism) is misguided. They are attempts to ensure that certain material is not included in this encyclopedia (particulary the Jews and Hollywood article). Accusations of minor CopyViolations and Antisemitism are distractions intended, I believe, to distract from the real issue at hand. My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship. Looking at the history of some articles, there appears to be a concerted effort to ensure that some notable material never appears in this encyclopedia. ANIs like this one are one tactic (and it works rather well, I must say :-) Im willing to engage in a discussion on whether that article belongs in this encyclopedia. In fact, I have been positively (and cheefully :-) engaged in that discussion in the AfD for that article. That is where the focus needs to stay. --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:DUCK Anti-Semitism is never a good idea, and these 2 articles REEK of it...Modernist (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• They are both up at AfD, let your conscience do the talking. -- Avi (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Avi, actually I voted delete in both instances. Anti-Semitism with a pretty new name is still nauseating...Modernist (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Disclosure: I'm involved in that I voted to keep the relevant article at AfD. I don't necessarily think this ANI report was made in bad faith as Noleander does, but I understand his reaction, as this is the latest in a barrage of accusations, and the consensus has been that most that occurred prior to this were unfounded. He's only human. Overall I've actually been struck by Noleander's exceptional level-headededness in the face of rabid bad-faith assumptions (of the type that can be seen above). He's in fact been much more level-headed than I've been throughout this ordeal. One need only read through the AfD to see that (if one has the patience; it's pretty long). Since the copyvios have been corrected, Noleander has apologized, and the article is at AfD, I think the matter is settled for now as far as ANI goes. Equazcion (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• At this point, I agree we should not be discussing User:Noleander. However, we should exercise our options as participants in this project to accept or reject the article, completely independent of the original author, who may have had the best interests of all at heart. This is a referendum on the article, its content, its structure, its focus, and how it represents the project as a whole. My own opinions can be seen on the AfD page, as can those of many others, on both sides, which is why I suggest we all let our conscience do our talking. -- Avi (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I really must disagree with Avi in this situation. I think this thread should specifically focus on User:Noleander. I won't deny that his comments betray an educated and articulate human being. However, these same comments show someone who is incredibly anti-Jewish. I don't think this is assuming bad faith in the least. Would anyone stand for a similar article that was solely created to angrily decry the involvement of Muslims in organized crime in India? Or the petty crime committed by aboriginals in Australia? No, it would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Noleander has explicitly stated that his objective here is to provide negative information about Jews in order to counteract Jewish bias on Wikipedia. To that end he has largely provided copyrighted information from Stormfront and radio Islam.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Im not anti-jewish, or anti-palestinian, or anti-this, or anti-that. I simply view WP as a very valuable asset for people around the world. I also think it has several "blind spots" where it is missing important material, due to political correctness. I first noticed this in regards to the articles on the Mormon church: there was no mention of they way blacks were treated by that church from 1850 to 1970. I decided to jump in and try to add some material there, and after two years of back-and-forth with some very tenacious editors, I think those articles are now balanced. It stikes me that the topic Jews and Hollywood is under-represented in this encyclopedia. So I jumped in, wrote an article, and put it in the Antisemitism category: not trying to hide anything. The canard "Jews Control Hollywood" is notable, but is missing from this encyclopedia. The issue, again, is not an editor, or the editor's motivation: it is absence of notable information in this encyclopedia. Every minute we spend talking about editors motivation, is a minute we are not improving the articles. Hmmmmmm ... or is that the goal of these ANIs? --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that actually is the point of ANI. Article content is generally discussed in other places. To Moshe, I'd ask him to please provide diffs for the accusations he's made about Noleander's spoken intentions. Equazcion (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I cant speak for Avi, but he may be refering to my post above, where I said "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship." --Noleander (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Scroll up a bit and also look at many of his comments here- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misuse of antisemitic accusations and here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"I simply view WP as a very valuable asset for people around the world." Do you really think this helps us move towards a resolutuion? Is there any reason why an anti-Semite or a racist or homophobe or sexist would not believe this? "I..." (this is me speaking, I just figured I do the Sandra Bernhardt routine first) "...I come here only because of my love for humanity." The problem is that in a few days you put up at least two articles that cut and pasted material directly from a neo-Nazi website and from an anti-Semitic Islamic (no, the two are by no means identical!) radio website, to create articles that - without any kind of scholarly analysis of framing, strung together anti-Semitic canards. If you care so much about Wikipedia, why didn't you create an article on gays controlling Broadway? Or on Jews controlling Wall Street? Or on the way that accusing someone of being a homophobe is a way of silencing them? Or how accusing someone of being a racist is a way of silincing them? You see, it is the highly selecteive nature of your choices that raises concerned. You view WP as an asset for people around the world? Well, okay, then why don't you work on an article on embryology? Or on urban renewal projects? Or dadaism? I mean, there are so many articles you could work on if you are motivated just by your passion for helping people, right? Why these? Now here is something strange - a number of times I called attention to the need fo ranalysis and framing, how historians and sociologists for example analyze anti-Semitic canards to reveal something about anti-Semites or about that period in time. You wrote back something like you are not an expert in sociology or history. Well, then, here is another question: why write articles on topics in which you have no expertise? I mean, we all agree Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, right? But shouldn't we edit articles on topics we know something about? Why do you specifically pic topics on which you are ignorant and then use Wikipedia to spread um, well, your "knowledge" about these topics? Why?

In fact, here you are lying about your motives. On the AfD pages you have stated that your concern is that accusations of anti-Semitism are a form of censorship and your motive is to publicize this. Well, dude, that is a violation of WP:SOAP and you already admitted to it. And of course, only an anti-Semite complains that accusations of anti-Semitism are meant to censor. Look at it this way: if someone accused of anti-Semitism is an anti-Semite, surely you would agree that there is nothing wrong with accusing them of anti-Semitism, right? And if someone is not an anti-Semite, well, all they have to do is say so right? If someone is not an anti-Semite, it is always very easy for that person (or countless others) to say "No, I am not anti semitic" and to go on talking. I know of no case in which anyone ever accused of anti-Semitism was somehow prevented from speaking. Of course, if many people are convinced that someone is an anti-Semite, they are under no obligation to listen, are they? Well, Noleander, do you thinkg that people's hands should be cufed and their ers fordibly turned to the loud-speakers so that they have no choice but to listen? You also brought up "self-hating Jews" and provided two examples. I know people who will not go to hear Noam Chomsky speak. But I have neve heard him complain that he was somehow "silenced." Can you clarif your agenda, I mean, besides wanting to sprinkle the world with sugar and make everyone happy? I mean, something specific and to the point?

If your problem is that some topics are "censored" at Wikipedia, creating articles to soapbox is not the solution. Do you think that every AfD is an attempt to censor? Do you think Wikipedia should allow anti-Semitic articles? I am sure you have a lot more to say in response but I'd appreciate yes/no answers to at least these two questions. Then I would really like you to address two points: (1) concrete examples to illustrate this: "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship" and (2) how, precisely, do these two articles reverse that censorship? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstien, what constitutes an anti-semitic article? We have an article on anti-semitism. I don't see how you can say with such conviction that this particular article is any more "anti-semitic" than that. Is it the title? What is it, specifically? I'm asking this question in anticipation of a discussion that somehow does not belong at the AfD, but if your issues are content-related, this discussion probably belongs there. Equazcion (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

From my limited experience with Peter Cohen, I don't believe the accusation can be made that he started this discussion in an effort to get to the article by targeting the author; if I'm not mistaken he had already been defending the author against charges of this kind, and is on record as being highly sensitive to this issue. My feelings as to the rest of this are mixed. Noleander apologizes for where he got the material, as I think is appropriate. Besides that, I would really recommend to avoid this analogizing from contentious article topic to editors, which I think could hardly be a worse instinct in our attempts to have neutral policy-based discussions. Noleander's comments in general suggest to me someone who admittedly is not especially familiar with these topics. In my view that is relevant, along with his apparent lack of familiarity with various aspects of Wikipedia. If an editor pushes through these topics over years and shows an inability to edit appropriately, then the editor should face sanctions. If an editor comes in and makes some initial mistakes, then I don't believe that this can be the initial response. It isn't that you know whether one will turn into the other; it's that you can't know on so little information. In all I think this is a legitimate point to have raised, but otherwise I agree in full with Avi on the general way forward. Mackan79 (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion, I answer your questions in the paragraphs above. If Noleander simply admitted that the article he created were ill-planned and poorly-executed, and perhaps ill-conceived, I would have let the matter rest. I and many other editors have suggested a variety of encyclopedic ways that most if not all of the themes raised in the articles could be beter handled with different research and in other existing articles - so this is not a matter of censorship. But rather than accept the constructive criticisms offered, Noleander just dug in her heels, repeating that articles critical of Jews get censored at Wikipedia, which makes two serious errors: first, it misrepresents the lack of tolerance for anti-Semetic articles with a rejection of articles on topics critical of Jews, and second, she is blind to the number of articles here that include criticisms of Israeli persecution of Arabs or occupation of the West Bank. Read Jean-Paul Sartre's Anti-Semite, Jew, as he pointed out, it is the anti-Semite who has the persecution complex. Many editors have suggested othe ways Noleander's concerns could be handled at Wikipedia, as opposed to these two very offensive articles. Noleander, rather than accomplishing her ends without offending, prefers to demand that the offensive articles stay in, flip-flopping on her motives as necessary. I think that speaks volumes. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me make a proposition: This encyclopedia already contains many articles on canards like Kosher Tax, Well poisoning, The Franklin Prophecy, etc. Oddly, the encyclopedia does not contain any mention of the "Jews Control Hollywood" canard ... not even one sentence in Antisemitic canards. That is an omission in this encyclopedia. My proposition is: let's work together to add that material, either in a dedicated article, or as a section in Antisemitic canards. I'll be happy to cooperate with you on that task. What do you say? --Noleander (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Others have already proposed that the Hollywood Canard be discussed in the Antisemitic Canards article - if you are now agreeable I can't fault you for that! I do wonder why you did not do this, originally. It sounds reasonable to me. However, I have no expertise on this and only make contributions when I have expertise or have done the research. If you have time to read the books and articles on the topic, you'd certainly be helping the project, maybe there are others you can enlist. Also, at 23:05, 22 October 2009 I asked a series of specific questions I would still appreciate your answering, to help clarify things. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That was easy. So the problem was that he created separate articles? I'm very confused, but also relieved. Equazcion (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Mackan79 is correct that up to the point that User:Hipocrite unearthed the word-for-word quotation of material from anti-Semitic hate sites, I had been defending Noleander from editors who were making what seemed to me to be baseless attacks on him implying that he is anti-Semitic. I do believe that accusations of anti-Semitism are often made for ulterior, opften Zionist, motives and as a result of acting on this oopinon I have ended up on the Jewish Internet Defense Force's list of Wikipedians they dislike. Indeed, the last time I was mentioned on this page was by a JIDF activist complaining about me.

However, now that I know that Noleander was quoting material verbatim from a blatantly anti-Semitic article - the Radio Islam article is no less bigoted than the Stormfront one - my stance has changed. I have brought this to this page because I think Wikipedians need to ask themselves whether an editor who plagiarises material from hate sites is someone we want anywhere near a serious encyclopedia that has a key policy advocating a neutral point of view based on the contents of high quality mainstream publications.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're making it sound like plagiarizing material from hate sites has been a long-term practice for Noleander. He made a mistake and apologized already. You've made mistakes before, right? Why not wait and see if this actually proves to be a pattern, before assuming that it will? Equazcion (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

But he also treated material from the notorious Institute for Historical Review as if it were a reliable source. And you forget that his cconduct was already ringing alarm bells for some editors before this specific cribbing from hate sites was identified. This user has been taken to ANI before and his conduct should be treated as a serious nthreat to Wikipedia not swept under the carpet by people who seem to believe that fool me twenty-eight timesd still means ni shame on me.--Peter cohen (talk)

• S1Rubenstein: Yes, someone in the AfD did propose a section in the Antisemitic canard. I immediatly concurred that that was an acceptable way to go (I would find the diffs, but I dont have 30 minutes to hunt thru the AfD :-). Not only did I agree to a section (in lieu of a full article), but when a different proposal was made to broaden the article to "Jews and Hollywood" I agreed that such a change was fine. I'll tell you what: If you will create a "Canard: Jews Control Hollywood" section in Antisemitic canard now (I mean in the next day or two, when you have time) I will then help edit that section in a neutral and cooperative manner. --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

noleander break

Noleander, I'm very glad that you've agreed to merge parts of the Jews and Hollywood article with the article about Antisemitic canards. On that note, I disagree that Wikipedia is overly censorious of antisemitism. Legitimate criticisms of specific people or organizations do belong in Wikipedia and are placed there. However, not all criticisms are legitimate, and Wikipedia is not a place to spread false accusations or weasel worded criticisms. Criticisms that are not based on facts from a reputable source, such as comments about Jews from RadioIslam, should not be presented as facts in Wikipedia. Do you understand my point? --AFriedman (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I don't understand your point. Unless you're actually saying Wikipedia shouldn't say that radioislam said certain things. Or Wikipedia shouldn't say that certain people accused certain other people of things. I rather think those do belong here. The fact is, these accusations were made. The accusations themselves being ridiculous doesn't change that. Equazcion (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on whether or not those things being said are notable, and said by reliable sources, doesn't it? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. What sources of questionable reputability say can be in the articles about those sources, with information about why their reputability is questionable. What RadioIslam says about Jews (and why, and what is wrong with it) can be in the article about RadioIslam, but not presented as a fact in an article about Jews. --AFriedman (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Noleander, I'm curious about the sources you've been using. I've looked at the original article, and even the current one, and it appears that you are citing many different sources. You've already stated that you got the Medved quote from the antisemitic website Radio Islam. Given that that was the source, and not Moment, and in light of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and WP:RS, can you explain why you have attributed the quotation to Moment, and how you know the quote is accurate? Also, in that vein, I note your original version of the article, for example, also cited Vogue when quoting Dolly Parton and Victor Marchetti's defunct newsletter "New American View" when quoting Victor Marchetti. Did you actually read those sources? Or is it possible that you actually read the material on, say, a Holocaust denial site like the Institute for Historical Review, which you also cited in your article? Say, on this page: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n5p14_Marchetti.html? Also, you've quoted J.J. Goldberg's Jewish Power: inside the American Jewish Establishment fairly liberally. Do you actually own the book? Have you read it? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Jayjg: Regarding the sources. Medved and Marchetti quotes were from Radio Islam web site and Institute for Historical Review web site. Dolly Parton was not directly from a hardcopy of Vogue, but from Washington Post article here. Yes, I own a copy of J. J. Goldberg's book and have read it. Regarding the WP:RS policies, I was not familiar with those rules, but I'm quickly becoming familiar with them :-) It is clear that when material is indirectly quoted from a web site, the fact that it came from a web site must be in the citation ("... quoted in .."), since the nature and reliability of the site is may make the material significantly less reliable than if the quotes were directly from the original magazine/journal. Based on the citation rules, the citations for the magazine sources were incorrect, and that was a mistake on my part. --Noleander (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

noleander break 2

Equazcion, you've been quite stalwart in your defense of Noleander, insisting that he has, at worst, made a few minor and innocent mistakes, and that those who have raised concerns are subjecting him to "rabid bad-faith assumptions". But is that really an accurate assessment of the concerns raised? As is clear, Noleander has created articles using quite obviously antisemitic sources, such as Radio Islam and the Institute for Historical Review. He has claimed that he was, for example, with the "Jews and Hollywood" article, merely attempting to describe an antisemitic canard. Yet, rather then an exposé, those assessing the article found it to be a one-sided original-research/coatrack essay attempting to support the canard. Noleander has stated quite plainly that "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship." He himself believes that there is a conspiracy to suppress/censor negative information about Jews; exactly the thesis of many of the (often antisemitic) sources used in the articles he created. And he's certainly been as good as his word; contributions he makes to articles relating to Jews appear to be almost uniformly negative. So, what are we all to make of this behavior? Should we, as you seem to propose, view it as essentially neutral, normal Wikipedia editing, with a minor mistake or two? Or can we at least state that it is "anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent"? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Noleander was describing a de-facto censorship, rather than a premeditated one. Some of his latest statements might be interpreted as otherwise, but I feel that's more a product of his frustration than anything else, and this frustration is being felt on both side -- evident from certain lengthy comments by certain individuals who are quite visibly emotional regarding this topic. He used anti-semitic sources because that's what the article was about: a collection of instances of anti-semetism. You generally find such instances at anti-semitic sources. I do believe the copyvio incidents were isolated, and see no reason to believe otherwise. Describing anti-semetism, and pointing it out, and even seeking them out in an attempt to fill a perceived void in Wikipedia's content, are not in themselves anti-semitic acts. "those assessing the article" are a rather large group of people, and their assessments fall on both sides on the debate. Equazcion (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "Noleander was describing a de-facto censorship"; what "de facto censorship"? Also, why on earth would you use and rely on unreliable antisemitic sources to describe antisemitism? It's not as if there aren't hundreds of scholarly books and thousands of scholarly articles on the topic! In addition, he doesn't apper to have been "describing anti-semetism" at all; rather, as the comments at the AfD point out, he was, at best, regurgitating it, and at worst, promoting it. And finally, regarding "those assessing the article", aside from a couple of stalwart defenders like you, who appear to have completely ignored/denigrated the valid concerns raised, the assessments are strongly to the side of "POV OR coatrack essay". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Noleander perceives a void in Wikpedia's content. He called it censorship, because he saw it as confined to a certain type of information. In that sense it would be de-facto, in that it wasn't intended necessarily, but is nevertheless the perceived effect. I'm not sure how many scholarly works there are on Jewish leadership in Hollywood; I hope there are hundreds as you say, for the sake of the article. Nevertheless, the lack of scholarly works present, and the use of sub-par sources, could be attributed — and normally would in the majority of other situation — as lack of experience with Wikipedia's sourcing standards. The "comments at AfD", again, are not proof of anything, as there are comments on both sides of the debate. I admit there are a majority of delete votes currently, but not necessarily with the rationale you describe, and a majority doesn't necessarily mean a correct conclusion. I've often stood in the minority opinion and have no qualms about it. You dismiss those who disagree with you as having completely ignored valid reasoning, but they of course feel the same of you, so saying such things gets us nowhere. Equazcion (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There are thousands of works on antisemitism, which is what you are claiming Noleander was attempting to highlight (rather than promote). As for an alleged "lack of experience with Wikipedia's sourcing standards", Noleander has been editing since February 2006; "newbie" excuses won't wash. And I state that you appear to have completely ignored/denigrated the valid concerns raised, because that it what you have quite obviously done, in your own words, when you dismissed the concerns of others as "rabid bad-faith assumptions". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There were some rather rabid bad-faith assumptions, but I suspect we're referring to different comments entirely. There were also some quite valid concerns raised, and I respect them. I'm not saying Noleander is a newbie, but his experience with article creation or sourcing could be lacking. I'm assuming that's the reason, because I'm supposed to, until a longer-term pattern reveals itself. Equazcion (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, with regard to this: "He himself believes that there is a conspiracy to suppress/censor negative information about Jews" -- He's not posting negative information about Jews. He's posting instances where notable figures have said or written negative things about Jews. There's a huge difference. Equazcion (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How so? If one edits Wikipedia solely for the purpose of highlighting or promoting negative commentary about an identifiable group that has been subject to serious discrimination, is that not, in effect, the same thing? If one were, for example, to edit Wikipedia for the stated purpose of highlighting negative comments made by notable figures about African-Americans, and just happened to use a lot of racist sites as sources, would we all be saying "innocent mistake, no harm, no foul"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is that very perception of "promotion" that I debate. I don't see any promotion here. The language used was matter-of-fact, reporting incidents without judging them to be positive, or negative, for that matter. I don't see any "highlighting", either, although we may have different definitions of that word. If one were to edit Wikipedia for the stated purpose of correcting an imbalance in Wikipedia by adding negative comments made by notable figures about African-Americans, I would not object to that or feel particularly offended. If he happened to use a lot of racist sites as sources for said endeavor, I would let him know about Wikipedia's sourcing standards. If he apologized for using said sources, I would say "Thank you for understanding", and then I would cease speaking; and wait and see if it happened again. Equazcion (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The language used was matter of fact? Not according to large majority of those who !voted at the AfDs, and found them to be inherently POV essays that drew conclusions. Your view of this matter is decidedly at odds with that of most other people who have looked at the articles. Moreover, your view of Noleander's actions contradicts his own stated intent. You're entitled to that view, but I can't see why anyone else would take it at all seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm in the minority opinion, and fully accept that. Equazcion (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked through all of Noleander's edits, but the extent I did look through does not suggest a focus on anti-Jewish editing; if anything it suggests to me a focus on criticism of "organized religion" in general. That's a topic I'm familiar with, and what I see in his edits suggests a fairly broad-based approach. I regret saying this, because I don't feel that I'm in a position to judge Noleander's interests, and I doubt that this is the most productive way to evaluate editing. Mackan79 (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

He has two main foci; his primary one is adding critical material about the Mormon church, and his secondary one is adding critical material about Jews. That is trivially obvious when one looks at his contributions. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I see his fourth most edited article is Criticism of Religion. Here is a section on the talk page of Religion I just skimmed through. I would say this supports my assessment. Mackan79 (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's his fourth most edited article. His first, second, fifth, sixth, ninth, twelfth, thirteenth and fifteenth most edited articles are criticisms of Mormons. In fact, his top two articles (criticizing Mormonism) comprise over 40% of his mainspace edits. In addition, his eight, tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth most edited articles are about Jews. As for his fourth most edited article, Criticism of Religion, the criticisms are sometimes quite specific.[220][221] I would say, and rather more convincingly, that this supports my assessment. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Mackan seems to be attempting to dismiss Noleander's actions as representing an anti-religious bias rather than any anti-Jewish bias. As an atheist I would not care in the least if that were the case. However the facts do not support this view. If anything his actions have more in common with the attacks on secular Jews by William A. Donohue than anything anyone has written about the religious aspect of Judaism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been enjoying this debate, but in a practical sense, analyzing Noleander's past edits in an attempt to judge his character or future actions seems to cross the line into completely pointless. Is there an accusation of policy violation somewhere in this? Is there any reason not to let this go, and see what Noleander actually does in the future? Equazcion (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

For some slightly ORish thoughts here, I consider this to be pretty difficult ground for the modern religious critic, as distinguished from so many here who are steeped in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I can cite someone like Richard Dawkins, probably the most prominent critic of this type, who is discussed in Wikipedia's article, Jewish lobby, for being accused of spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories in saying that atheists try to create such a lobby of their own. I would guess I am not alone in thinking, Dawkins, stick to what you know! I doubt many people really think he's antisemitic. But there are many like him, who share his familiarities and lack of familiarities. On Wikipedia, while I certainly appreciate an editor like Slrubenstein editing only in the areas of his expertise, the fact is that others of us edit to push the bounds of our knowledge, and sometimes avoid editing in areas of professional involvement. I should say that I certainly do not mean to defend the copying of something from a clearly antisemitic website; if a professional writer did this, it would be a problem. I am saying that if a college student does this it is something different. We let college students edit here, people who didn't go to college, I think we have administrators who are something like 12 years old. It doesn't mean we should lower standards, least of all regarding the creation of bigoted content, but we should recognize that the content is usually the standard, except where statements of a discriminatory agenda are quite clear. Sharply negative speculation about individual editors, even where there's thought to be some reason for it, is problematic. I do also agree with Equazcion's comment just above. Mackan79 (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to make an important and i think relevant qualification. While I seldom stray from my areas of expertise, I will for the same reason many and I think Mackan does: in the process i learn more. But this only works when I work on new articles after having done serious research - to work on the Jesus article I read four books used in college courses. If we are to be as good an encyclopedia as we wish, we should expect the same from other editors. I'd say this is especially the case with controversial situations like anti-Semitism. Be that as it may, Noleander is clearly soapboxing, he has said he thinks that articles criticle of Jews get surpressed at Wikipedia, so he wants to wrkte articles criticle of Jews to challenge such supression. This is just a terrible thing to do and I find Equazcion's doffed support of Noleander - she has supported Noleander in every way, never questioning anything - mind-boggling. If I have misunderstood Noleander i apologize but i have requested clartification many times and have not been given it. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's terrible to want to counter a perceived suppression of information on Wikipedia? I find that mind-boggling. Again your claim that he's "clearly soapboxing" can be countered by my equally-useless claim that "he's clearly not soapboxing" -- unless you can provide proofs using diffs or quotes, which have thus far not been forthcoming. Equazcion (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

noleander break 3

Let me submit that there is a series of appropriate questions. The first question is whether an editor is adhering to policy. The second question, if not, is whether the behavior is correctable. The third question is what should be done. Here, it is fairly clear that there are policy violations regardless of where the material was taken, in that overly large sections were copied from unreliable sources without appropriate attribution. The major question seems to be the second: do the editor's actions show that they are correctable? My view is that this is the question to be resolved, and that currently it can't be resolved, primarily because this appears to be the first time these issues have been raised with this editor.

I might add that I wish this could all be resolved by interviewing the editor, yet I question whether intense group scrutiny is likely to achieve the desired result. One thing to keep in mind is that a Wikipedia editor is not necessarily a public figure, we don't ask to know who they are, and accordingly while we take the encyclopedia seriously we recognize (largely with WP:AGF) that editors may be of any age, background, level of education, expertise, or so on. It seems to me that this is an easily forgotten but significant point. Mackan79 (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're saying we should wait and see how this editor acts in the future, and I think that's the appropriate course of action. However, the editor has already stated a certain intent, and we may be able to assume he follows it. If some people here seem to think that intent would itself be a policy violation, what do we do then? Equazcion (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Intent is not a violation; action is. However, it is reasonable to allow stated intent to explain actions. At this point, if Noleander adheres to wiki policy and guideline in the future, it matters not if s/he is a Judeophile or Antisemite. However, if Noleander's future actions indicate a continued reliance on inappropriate sources and article creations, the stated intent would take on a greater role in the understanding of his or her actions, at least in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement, then, at least on where to go from here. I believe this incident has been resolved. Equazcion (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not in agreement, and I don't believe it's resolved. Please don't close discussions in which you're involved again. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Big, huge oops on my part. I mistook Avi's comment for one by you, Jayjg, and therefore thought the closing would be uncontroversial. I sincerely apologize. Equazcion (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said on my Talk: page, please keep in mind that there were many others who raised concerns regarding Noleander, and they all need more than an hour to evaluate and respond as well. Many of them will be off-Wikipedia right now, for various reasons. Indeed, Noelander himself has not had a chance to reply. In light of the various claims of "censorship" flying, including in the very articles that Noleander created, hasty closing of this discussion would seem, at best, ironic. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't have been so quick to close just because I thought you and I were in agreement. However, on that point, regarding where to go from here, are we in agreement? I promise I won't close the thread again if you say yes :) Equazcion (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

noleander break 4

This feels like the spanish inquistion :-) Seriously, I'll repeat what I've already said several times: I feel that WP is too "politically correct" in some areas. For some odd reason, I feel like I can help improve the encyclopedia in those areas. If you look at my edit history, you'll see that most (80%?) of my edits are adding/tweaking text that is critical of formal religions (Mormonism, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, Scientology). I'm an equal opportunity skeptic :-) When I started working on Mormonism articles, there was some tension, but as the months went by, I began to respect the apologetic editors ("apologetic" meaning "defender of religion") and - I hope - they somewhat respected me. After a year or so, I was actually adding in lots of positive info about Mormonism, and improving the formatting of the articles.

Regarding this ANI: I have no particular axe to grind: just trying to fill in some perceived voids. I'm the first to admit I am a lousy writer, and am very ignorant of many WP policies (including how to properly cite sources). On the other hand, I am also the editor that added the following topics into articles An Empire Of Their Own:

• Jewish actors were forced to change their names
• Jewish producers, far from putting out J. propaganda, actually refrained from depicting J. themes in movies
• Jewish Hollywood figures were unfairly targetted by McCarthyism.

Some of the above has since been removed by other editors, but I was - to my knowledge - the first to add this material into WP.

And lets not forget my favorite story in WP:

In this chapter, Gabler also gives examples of anti-Semitism endured by the Hollywood Jews. Gaber quotes Milton Sperling telling a story about Joseph Schenck: "Schenck walked into a bank .. and the banker said to [the man with Shenck] 'What are you doing with a kike?'. Years later, Schenk went back to this banker and said 'This kike wants to borrow $100 milllion'... The banker said 'I'll be very happy to do business with you' and [Schenk] said 'Fuck you'." -ref - Quoted in Gabler, p. 132

Do you know who added that? I did. (It has since been removed by another editor).

So, sure 80% of my edits focus on negative aspects of religion. You know what? My two favorite books are God is not great and The God Delusion. Heck, I was the editor that added the horrible crime by Islam when it destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan into the article Criticism of Religion (and no Islamic-apologetic editors threw an ANI fit about that). Is there some rule that contributions by a given editor must be 50% positive and 50% negative? I repeat, these ANIs are very obvious attempts to intimidate editors that would add (valid, notable) negative material about religions. --Noleander (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am appalled and astonished by the above. Admissions of being a lousy writer, a lousy editor, condescending comments about Mormanism, Judaism and other peoples religious beliefs and a smug assurance that your views matter? Are you kidding? What an incredible, incredible egotistic waste of time, - you think Wikipedia is too politically correct - so you figure a few Anti-Semitic articles will help things out, I thought I've seen everything, till now...Modernist (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Equal opportunity, huh? How about evangelical Christian? There are many of those who are anti-Jew/Mormon/Catholic/Scientologist/whathaveyou. You need to answer the question above by Jayjg about your sourcing at subsection Noleander break one, and why you think that Stormfront and RadioIslam are reliable sources for content. That would shed a lot of light on your conduct here. That being said, I agree with the opinions of editors above who think the article in question is an unacceptable coatrack. Auntie E. 17:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to rip my hair out after reading that, but to put it more delicately, I'd echo most of what Modernist said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

noleander break 5

(outdent) I am not one to encourage or particularly tolerate antisemitic activity on Wikipedia - but the point that overvigilant antisemitism can interfere with reasonable scholarly discussions and documentation of antisemitism is a valid one. Antisemitism is an important topic to bring out into the light and have encyclopedia articles on, because it's a fairly significant societal phenomenon, no matter how offensive or wrong we may feel it is.

I don't on quick review see clear evidence in Noleander's conduct that he's problematically antisemitic or editing grossly inappropriately, or trying to promote antisemitism as opposed to document it. There has been much sound and fury above about apparent or alleged bias with few diffs.

I think that it would be entirely appropriate to ask that those who believe there's a problem provide us with some specific diffs to show either point incidents or a wider pattern, and lacking those to close it with a "Just so we're all clear, there's going to be heightened scrutiny going forwards, but no action taken at this time" closing message.

I'll leave it open for now to offer the opportunity for someone(s) to offer diffs if they have them, but I would close (and recommend others to) if in a few hours diffs aren't forthcoming. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, stuff imported from Stormfront, POVish articles about Jews all covered up with the canard of "WP is too politically correct". You're (Noleander) an anti-semitic POV pusher. A clever one, to be sure, but a POV pusher all the same. Crafty (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

When I am researching appropriate topics, I find that Stormfront, Covert Action Quarterly, Soldier of Fortune, the Chinese Communist Party, and Internet Trolls are all reliable sources. Usually on their own statements and positions; often on related topics.

That I grossly disagree with nearly all of what nearly all of those groups believe in doesn't mean that they are uniformly useless information sources.

Again - I am not ruling out someone finding diffs which are more specific. But I went and looked, and I didn't see any fire under the smoke here. I am perfectly happy to wield the banhammer on deserving antisemitic types who try and advocate on Wikipedia and push POV - I have a number of times before and undoubtedly will again. But I don't see that here.

I know plenty of educated intellectuals who study controversial topics who get caught up in backlashes. So the basic issue is familiar to me.

If I am misreading it - if there's actual evidence he's a problem - someone can surface some diffs and convince me. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But absence of evidence is reason to not overreact or react prematurely. If you really think he's a problem - do your homework and find some diffs. If you or anyone does so and my initial assessment turns out to be wrong then I'll not object to admin enforcement action, and I'll take it myself if it seems appropriate. But I'm not convinced yet, and the way to convince me is diffs, not rhetoric.

SO - again - diffs, please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• A few thoughts and ideas:
  • Let's stop making ad hominem attacks on Noleander based on a mostly responsible overall record (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Etiquette ("forgive and forget") etc.) Some of the most valuable edits are made when people have a vested interest in improving the information about a particular subject, often with a particular viewpoint in mind. Regardless of Noleander's stated or unstated intent, most of Noleander's contributions which were critical of Judaism and other religions seem to have remained within the scope of reasonable editing. The edits cited by Slrubenstein as evidence of Noleander's previous record of anti-Jewish editing, for example, were valuable and creative contributions to articles. The article Jews and Hollywood, in my opinion, was a conspicuous exception. Here, I think the inclusion of quotes from antisemitic sources led to lines being crossed in core areas such as Wikipedia:Verifiability (since the sources were not reputable), Wikipedia:Coatrack (since the core information should have been the individual people and their contributions, not the antisemitic accusations), and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ("Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"). IMO it should have been clearer to Noleander, at an earlier stage, which lines he crossed and when, and so I am offering some suggestions.
  • For a course of action, one possibility is to give Noleander a Level 2 warning on his Talk page for some of these violations (a Level 2 warning does not include threats or assumptions of bad faith, and also does not include a welcome since Noleander is not a new user). This type of warning is found in Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. As I said, we should also try and make sure we and Noleander understand exactly where he crossed the line so he can think about how to prevent it from happening again.
  • I also feel that possible antisemitism is particularly troublesome even by the standards of bigotry, since the Holocaust occurred less than 70 years ago and antisemitism is still widespread. Antisemitism is a special (I am not saying unique) case because of its potential to lead to violence. --AFriedman (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Was with you up until the end; I don't think antisemetism is particularly troublesome, any more than any other possible bias. Objectivity is paramount over any sort of activism, at least when running an encyclopedia. Could you provide something specific, like a diff or quote from the article history, in which Noleander violated your NPOV snippet of "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"? Equazcion (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Equazcion, I think we agree on the big picture, i.e. the first 2 paragraphs that suggest some violations and propose a course of action. Do others agree that Noleander violated NPOV, Coatrack and Verifiability and warrants a Level 2 warning, as well as a note or suggestion that he avoid violating these policies in the future? Regarding the NPOV concerns, I was rethinking that a bit and let me explain: the article originally focused overwhelmingly on accusations of disproportionate Jewish influence, much of which came from fringe and unreliable sources. Viewpoints that were sympathetic to Jews, such as the ADL, were mentioned more briefly and were less thoroughly explained. To me, this seems to violate NPOV. As for antisemitism being particularly troublesome, I am not saying it belongs in a special category relative to anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-Armenian or anti-African bigotry, for example. All these have the potential to cause actual harm to people. However, we probably don't need to be as careful about other types of bias. An outright attack on another group, such as students of Cornell University, may equally violate Wikipedia policy. However, it is less likely to incite people to hatred and therefore less concerning. Offline, it is acceptable to sing anti-Cornell songs at football games that one could never sing about Jews or Muslims :) --AFriedman (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I disagree. It's not our job to run the encyclopedia in such a way as to prevent violence. If it were, there are many articles I can think of that wouldn't exist on Wikipedia. The antisemitism issue we're dealing with in this incident is an emotional one. Let's not kid ourselves with righteousness. As far as NPOV, I didn't see there being enough material from the ADL to balance the volume of content needed to describe the antisemitic incidents, and adding more would've seemed forced. That kind of balance isn't what NPOV is about anyway. NPOV refers to a reporting style and language, not balancing content volume on two sides of an issue. If you had a diff regarding "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves", that would've been something, as it seems central to many of the arguments presented against Noleander: People are saying he asserted the opinions themselves, or "promoted" them (essentially the same thing), rather than merely stating facts about opinions. If there's actual evidence of that, I'm willing to re-examine my position. So far, no one's presented anything, and until that happens, I don't see any need to discuss any course of action other than accepting Noleander's apology and seeing what he does in the future. Equazcion (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
          • For those who want to discuss what our role is on Wikipedia, above and beyond the question of Noleander--I still disagree with Equazcion's assessment of how severely we should sanction antisemitism and racism relative to other types of bias, and why--I've responded to the more general issue on Equazcion's talk page. Good night. --AFriedman (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Eh, I don't think the two assessments are so far apart. The articles had serious problems, starting with the titles; without repeated instances following feedback that isn't something we generally punish people for, but I think it can be recognized. For one thing, to start an article on controversies with Jews and Hollywood with the allegations about the film industry's negative portrayals of African Americans, and then suggesting that otherwise this history isn't covered on Wikipedia... well, I think a mainstream way to deal with that issue would not be to cover it as a controversy of Jews and Hollywood. My personal suggestion to Noleander would also be, really, please stop saying that people are complaining out of ulterior motives; this is speculative, it's an assumption of bad faith, and it does no good at all. Similarly (and because I assume it is done for the same reason) I think it's bad form to delete people's talk page messages without comment. On the other hand, I think Afriedman is clearly right that the personal attacks here have gone much too far all around. I can't support an additional formal warning without assuming bad faith (which I don't), but otherwise I think AFriedman's comments are well made. Mackan79 (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• I support the view of AFriedman. Noleander is hereby warned about plagiarism, and copyvio (See top of this thread), and directed to be much more careful about neutral point of view, not writing coatrack type articles, and verifiability. I'm still willing to assume good faith. However, if there is any more copying of Stormfront content into Wikipedia, I'll be quick to change my mind and reach for the block button. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and that's policy. Jehochman ^Talk 09:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Noleander break 6

Mackan and others here are trying to focus on behavior rather than intent. I agree this is a constructive approach, and refreshing - I acknowledge the limits of my original approach which was to raise questions about intent. But this is a problem with collective attacks (like homophobia, racism, sexism etc) - one can always say one was being ironic or providing an example and not intending to do harm. This is especially an issue here where at least one of the articles in question has been revised during the AfD procedure (not in and of itself a bad thing, but it makes it hard to kep a consistent AfD discussion going). I know some editors did not like the way I originally forwarded the problem, and I will confess now to one big doubt I have: I am concerned i may be misunderstanding Noleander. That is why I raised a few questions of my own the other day ... but they were not answered.

I would still appreciate it if Noleander would answer these questions: Do you think that every AfD is an attempt to censor? Do you think Wikipedia should allow anti-Semitic articles? I am sure you have a lot more to say in response but I'd appreciate yes/no answers to at least these two questions,at least as a start. Then I would really like you to address two points: (1) concrete examples to illustrate this: "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship" - perhaps this can be interprested different ways so I would like no room for misunderstanding - and (2) how, precisely, do these two articles you started reverse (as you claimed they would) that censorship? Again, as concrete and specific as posible to leave no rrom for misundanding. I am acknowledging I may have misunderstood you in the past. I ask these questions in good faith to clear up misunderstandings. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Is User:Georgewilliamherbert seriously implying that articles on Stormfront (website) satisfy WP:V and WP:RS? That is how I read his remarks, in view of the copy-pasting by Noleander under discussion.Even the wikipedia article describes it as a hate site. Perhaps, instead of describing his private life and contacts with "educated people", Georgewilliamherbert should clarify this matter a little more carefully than he has done so far, particularly since nobody expects this kind of misleading comment and soapboxing to come from an administrator. Mathsci (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. George's claim sounds bizaare. There seems no reasonable way under any reading of WP:RS that they would be a reliable source for anything. Heck even if Stormfront makes claims about itself I doubt I'd consider it a reliable source for that. I'm deeply concerned here. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

GWH's statement about Stormfront, etc., concern a important point about when obviously unreliable sources can be treated as reliable sources. This may sound like a contradiction, but it is actually a subtle point which many people get wrong: such sites are reliable only about what they say. One example would be the canard about President Obama being a Muslim: if Stormfront states that he is a Muslim, this is a reliable source for saying "Stormfront stated that they believed President Obama was a Muslim" -- & nothing more. These sites can also be cited in some cases where their statement is at odds with verifiable truth. For example, if Stormfront stated that at their annual picnic they claimed it was attended by 10,000 people, I have no problem quoting them on this -- as long as you include the material from a reliable source (like a local newspaper) which reports only 50 people attended their annual picnic, which consisted of 10 Stormfront supporters & 40 anti-Nazi protesters.

I believe this was the point GeorgeWilliamHerbert was trying to make. (And sorry for the leftistliberal use of italics.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at. They are a reliable source for their own claims - we do not need a secondary source to say "Stormfront said this", we can cite Stormfront as having said something directly if they did. That is not implying that anything they say is accurate or reasonable in any way. But if they say it, they said it, we can note that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(To George) But they are not what Wikipedia calls reliable sources. They are allowed to be used as sources about themselves in articles about themselves, or in sections of articles about issues they're directly involved in, but that doesn't mean we call them reliable sources (even for information about themselves)—otherwise we'd find them used in all kinds of articles: Stormfront says this, Stormfront says that, about its own views, where we don't care what they think. They are self-published, questionable sources whose use is limited largely to their own article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

To quote myself from what started this: "When I am researching appropriate topics, I find that Stormfront, Covert Action Quarterly, Soldier of Fortune, the Chinese Communist Party, and Internet Trolls are all reliable sources. Usually on their own statements and positions; often on related topics."

I did not say, do not believe, and did not imply anything along the lines of "Stormfront is a Wikipedia 'Reliable Source' on other topics". Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. Profoundly unreliable sources are not useful as sources. We don't quote what Stormfront has to say, we quote what reliable sources say about Stormfront. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

RSs writing about Stormfront are not as reliable for what they said in their own publications, as their publications are. Outside sources are of course more reliable as to the true nature of their intents and methods. Any source is usable is used appropriately. It would of course have saved a good deal of trouble if this article has not used material from them--it could have been written nevertheless. There is unfortunately a practical danger in even examining evil-other people will rightly or wrongly think you are doing so out of sympathy. Nonetheless responsible journalists, academics, and writers of secondary & tertiary sources need to do so. Experience shows that even if they do it very carefully, they will be attacked by the bigoted. Yet to avoid doing so is to succumb to this well-intentioned bigotry. That's the problem with bigots: even when they are well-intentioned, they destroy liberty . The encyclopedia is built on the basic assumption that people do not need to be protected from ideas--any ideas, no matter how unpleasant. we need to have the courage and integrity to do so, or we will become a mirror image of Conservapedia. "This message has led to great harm to millions--please don't repeat it" is not an acceptable concept; it is less likely to lead to harm in the future if it is discussed openly--that's part of the reason for freedom of speech. That, and sure knowledge that every time there has been well-intentioned censorship, it has proven to extend itself--this is one of the valid uses of the slippery slope argument. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not about "protecting" people from information (NOTHING we at Wikipedia can do will protect people from any other information freely available on the web, to arrogate for ourselves that role is hubris.) The issue is this: part of prepresenting information accurately is to provide information about its context; in this case, being up-front that this information comes from Stormfront and as cuh reveals something about Stormfront's views with more information about Stormfront as necessary. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been away from Wikipedia for a couple of days, and found this thread as an indirect result of the fact that I closely watch Criticism of religion. I am troubled by the extent to which much of the talk here seems to be taking the form of personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith against Noleander. I have not followed the pages this thread discusses, but I've carefully read all of this talk and looked at the pages that are under AfD. It seems to me that copying wholesale from hate sites is a pretty abysmal idea, but it also appears that Noleander has apologized for that, and that the problems with page content are in the process of being addressed without the need for administrative intervention. From what I've seen at Criticism of religion, Noleander is a thoughtful editor who has done a lot to improve the page, albeit with a slightly heavy hand as a harsh critic of all religions. I consider myself to have a very sensitive radar for antisemitism, and what I've seen in the edits I've watched is consistent with someone who likes Hitchens and Dawkins, as Noleander has said above, and not consistent with someone who is using Wikipedia to push hate speech. I hope that the outcome of this ANI will be for Noleander to have a better sensitivity to what concerns some editors, and particularly to become more careful with sourcing material that can be expected to provoke sensitivity, but I also sympathize strongly with Noleander's comparison of this talk with the Inquisition. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish, in the articles in question, no one has accused/criticized Noleander of/for challenging Jewish belief in God, or Jewish theological claims, or actions that Jesws justify with reference to God, the Bible, or religion. The issue here is his having taken, for one article, anti-Semitic (i.e. racist, not anti-religion) quotes from notorious anti-Semitic outlets (Stormfront and a radio station) - and in the process, incedentaly, probably violating copyright and RS. His critics accuse him of presenting this information in such a way as to minimize any kind of encyclopedic value (e.g. by looking at reliable sources for historical or sociological analysis of such racist discourse) and in effect to appropriate Wikipedia space to propogate anti-Semitic canards, without providing readers with any kind of context. The other article is really a personal essay on how Jews accuse people of anti-Semitism in order to censor them. Aside from many obvious problems (Jews do not control the state and cannot censor anyone; if someone is falsely accused of anti-Semitism they can easily say so; if someone really did make an anti-Semetic remark, and regrets it - like when Rev. Jesse Jackson called NYC "Hymietown" - they can meet with Jewish leaders, apologize, and move forward; and real anti-Semites who have no interest in dialogue with Jews or making apologis maybe ought to shut up rather than continue spewing hatred), this really was a personal essay presented as an article and should have been kept an essay. I know for a fact Noleander had made good edits in the past. But here somehow he has gone of track, wildly off track. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, WOW, I've been gone from here for just a little while and I didnt expect to have to read a book (or two) just to catch up, I didnt imagine this discussion would still be going on, let alone have gone through multiple breaks (5? really?). I must admit, I skimmed, didnt read everyone fully, if I missed a particular point or am repeating one made multiple times I apologize, but here is my opinion (as an editor) and yes it will be lengthy no need to point it out to me later, bear with me, I have good points to make- The two Jewish related articles I have seen Noleander create/contribute almost exclusively to where POV forks that by design could only be written in a POV anti-semitic manner. I am equally surprised the AfD's have not been closed out in favor of delete already and I am inclined to think that the discussion here, by still going on, is influencing the decision not to close those two out. Wikipedia is not a democracy and we dont go by votes, but in my opinion the overwhelming majority is in favor of delete and yes that should be one of many considerations for an admin. The facts are still that it is a POV fork and that fact alone is one to have an admin close it immediately in favor of delete, and I humbly ask that an admin be bold and do so as quickly as possible. Many of you know me as being emotional and sometimes over-the-top and agressive in getting my point across, but I hope you also know me as being fair and always fighting the good fight in favor of what makes Wikipedia stronger and to protect the weaker of our members, and that I wouldnt stick myself in this fight if I didnt have a strong belief it was on the right-side of our policies and guidelines. I hope you take that in consideration and see that it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to close out as delete on both AfD's; as for Noleander's fate I am not qualified as an editor to give an opinion, though I sympathize with those that want a topic ban keeping him from Jewish-related articles.

• That was my comment as an editor, now is my comment as a Jew- the two articles are a disgrace and an insult to me personally and to my race. They are libelous, you can throw citations on libel and it still is legally libel (dont accuse me of making legal threats, you know what I meant by saying that). Such articles are terrible and inexcusable. To allow such articles on Wikipedia is a slap in the face of every editor of minority background on Wikipedia. Because Jews are so such a small minority in the US and other English speaking countries (this being English Wikipedia after all) it is easy for gentiles to sweep racism directed towards us as "not particularly dangerous". As I pointed out before, this is how organizations such as KKK and the NAZI's operate. Ban, burn, destroy books and other information regarding our (Jewish) contributions to society, slur us in reliable publications slyly (the name and topic of Noleander's articles I am 90% sure were actually used in those publications by the KKK and by skinheads, and no they arent allowed as RS or for use establishing notability), slur us openly, and then we know where they go to after their propoganda has caught a sizable toehold. I draw the line here and now, this is one reliable publication where they will not slur and we will not allow their hatred to be published in order to diseminate their hatred and beliefs. To claim you are putting forth a bigoted view in order to make an article "neutral" and present "the otherside" is EXACTLY what the NAZI's and KKK have done in the past (and neo-NAZI's and the current Klan continue to do). I do not understand why if one's only edits to Jewish-related articles are always negative how that can be considered being a neutral constructive editor; he is a clear POV pusher. If you study the history of anti-semitic organizations you will see the parallels to what Noleander is doing and why Jews (and other minorities as well) understand that the line must be drawn quickly and forceably and early-on. As a Jew, and not as an editor, I strongly urge, beg, plead, pray, and even cry for justice and for the quick closing of the AfD's as "delete" and a topic ban be put on Noleander restricting him from editing Jewish-related articles.Camelbinky (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

my little essay

This has been a draft in my userspace for about a day now. Some individuals involved in the debate at my talk page have already seen it. I'm presenting it here for consideration, and feel free to comment.

I've been genuinely confused over the past few days as to why Noleander's articles were causing such flareups. Slrubenstein's rather lengthy and, pardon my honesty, visibly emotional comments were particularly vexing, especially as he seemed to back down completely when Noleander expressed agreement to contribute to existing articles instead. Why would the same content be that much more acceptable in an existing article?

I then read this comment by User:HereToHelp, at the AfD for Jews and Hollywood: "NPOV means tempering information about cranks with information from scholarly sources of all points of views. The censorship was of pro-Jewish views, and of satsistics, and of basically anyone who hadn't written an antisemitic text."

But, what if the article is about people who write anti-semitic texts? The "censorship" this user referred to struck me. He seemed to be saying that an article about perceived Jewish leadership in Hollywood could only ever contain reports of accusations and other negative statements, and therefore doesn't belong on the encyclopedia. Without being able to sustain positive comments and incidents as well the negative, the article should not be on Wikipedia, he seems to be saying.

This would explain why the content has been deemed so much more acceptable in existing articles, since the suggested articles contain the positive as well. As long as we see the good while we're looking at the bad, everything is fine; as is my understanding.

Isn't this overstating the need for balance? Must all articles counter-balance the negativity that occurs in the world with proportionately positive content? Can an article not simply be about a negative subject?

I wonder if articles depicting negativity alone, or rather, articles whose titles, by definition, confine their content to collections of negative incidents, are allowed on Wikipedia; and, does it work the same for positive incidents, too? Must both always be present to make an article? Why or why not?

PS. NPOV isn't the answer, as NPOV only states which sources and which language to use, not how much content must be placed on each side of an issue. Equazcion (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not correct that WP:NPOV only states which sources and language to use, not how much should be placed on each side of an issue. WP:UNDUE is part of that policy, and it specifically addresses what you're talking about. Articles who confine their content to collections of negative incidents are usually POV forks and are generally not allowed in Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 22:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Equavizcion reflects on my motives without sharing my response. No matter, I will share it with you myself: Racism is not a matter of negative versus positive views. My own opinion is that boasting about how great Jews are and what they have done for Hollywood is just as distasteful as the opposite. Racism is about reducing individuals to representatives of groups. This is what makes Farrakhan a racist. He is quite right that an array of people in the "entertainment industry" have produced racist and stereotypic images of blacks. He is racist himself when he blames "the Jews." Blame Al Jolson or Director X or screenwriter Y. Are they Jews? Then the burden is to demonstrate how this is relevant and not an accident. Even if it is relevant (i.e that something about Jewish identity, e.g. that Jews having to pass as whites led them to be fascinated with minstrelcy, in which they parodize their passing as blacks, an argument I think a professor at U. VA has made) this does not mean that "The Jews" are responsible for racist stereotypes. That itself is racist. But saying something like, "if it weren't for the Jews we wouln't have such great movies as Bridge on the River Kwai" is at best silly. It is not a matter of "positive" or "negative." This leads to a simplistic notion of balance that leads people like Equavizcion to chase her tail, and to keep losing focus when reading comments by me and others (I think AuntieE is making a similar point above - and I note that as often happens neither Noleander nor Equavizcion responded to her comment) . For most of us who would edit an encyclopedia, what makes an article good is never that it says some good things and some bad things, that is just silly. That may be what is expected in a Jr. high school research paper but by the time you get to high school, or at least college, you are suposed to learn what really is required for competent research presentations. Now, as to why would I prefer a discussion of Jews in Hollywood in other articles? I explained my reasoning quite plainly on the AfD pages, and see no need to repeat myself.Slrubenstein | Talk 23:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Atama. That's the first policy-based argument that might actually fit. Slrubenstien, you're making the same accusations of racism again; these again are reports of opinions, not assertions of opinions. You've yet to provide any examples that show assertion (not unlike most other people making such claims here). Thank you Atama, I'm going to have to mull that over. Equazcion (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion, stop misrepresenting me. I am not making any accusations, at all. I am responding to an essay you wrote (hint: the name of this section is "My little essay") in which you make insinuations about what I believe. You do not know what I believe, so your insinuations are mistaken. I think I have a right to set the record straight and explain what I do believe, if you are going to make false claims about what I believe. You imply that I believe that racism is saying bad things about Jews, and neutrality, or whatever we call an acceptable state at Wikipedia, is accomplished by adding good things about Jews. You are implying that I believe this, and you are wrong. On your talk page you invited me to respond to your essay, but i guess you were being disingenuous there. I thought that when you invited me to respond to your little essay, you meant that I could confirm your interpretation of my beliefs, or provide an laternative. Since you are wrong, I am providing the alternative.

You cannot have it both ways. you cannot accuse me of making acusations and then fault me for not providing examples. Guess what, Einstein: I did not provide examples because i am not making accusations. I am simply providing my definition of racism, since you claimed to know my definition and got it so terribly wrong. Maybe it was your little essay that was meant to be an "accusation?" Slrubenstein | Talk 11:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not about you and I, and I meant no 'insinuation'. I used your comments in conjunction with others' to describe the situation as I saw it, and made every attempt to clearly spell out any inferences I made. I was trying to figure out what the problems with the articles actually were, as this was a major point of confusion for me. This was not something sinister. This was an attempt at gaining clarification. You made it personal, and continue to. Perhaps specifically naming you encouraged that, but I didn't know how else to make my point. Nevertheless I apologize. As for accusations, well, call them what you want, but you've said the article is racist and antisemitic, and those claims are what I'd rather have proof of (diffs/quotes that violate NPOV) than take at your word. Equazcion (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology, but i am confused. You wrote that I was making the same accusations of racism again, which I was not doing. I said that I am not doing this and you apologize ... and then you say that I am continuing to make the same accusations of racism. it is hard for me to follow your reasoning.

My reasoning is very easy to follow. In your little essay you write, "Slrubenstein's ... comments were particularly vexing" and you wonder why, and then as an answer you wrote, "content has been deemed so much more acceptable in existing articles, since the suggested articles contain the positive as well. As long as we see the good while we're looking at the bad, everything is fine; as is my understanding." All I said in response was that your conclusion is wrong, and that my problem was not the absense of "positive" content. I wrote that I considered certain lkinds of positive views to be just as racist as negative ones - I was only trying to explain why you are wrong to say that I reacted as I did because of a lack of positive comments. That is all I was doing. I was not singling out any Wikipedian as a racist, I was not naming anyone as a racist, I was not accusing anyone of racism, I was just explaining why you are wrong to think my view of racism is that it only takes the form of ngaitve comments, and should be remedied by positive comments. That is it, that was my point. And your response was: "Slrubenstien, you're making the same accusations of racism again." So while I am glad you are apologizing, I am not sure what you are apologizing for. For claiming i was accusing people of racism when I am not? Frankly, it seems like all you want to do is attack me and it really doesn't matter what I say. Is it that hard for you to say "Oh, I misunderstood why you favor existing articles over the ones currently at AfD?" I mean, that is the topic of your essay right, why some people (me being one among others) have no problem with some existing articles, but do have a problem with the ones currently at AfD? Isn't your claim that we accept negative comments only when balanced by positive comments? Di I misinterpret that? So why is my correction "No, I am not asking that positive comments be added and the reason I prefer other articles is not because they have positive comments" interpreted by you as my accusing someone of racism? Tell me whom, in my comment on your essay, I am accusing of racism (aside from Al Jolsen)? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There are really two articles combined into one. Both are acceptable but should be separate. The first is about Jewish persons' contributions to Hollywood, which would require sources and explain why Jewish people came to Hollywood. The second is about a conspiracy theory. That also must be reliably sourced but instead the article relies on primary sources of people commenting on perceived Jewish control. These comments are then balanced with statements defending Jewish influence in Hollywood. It violates WP:OR. Articles about historical subjects should not mention conspiracy and fringe theories. On the other hand, articles about conspiracy and fringe theories should not present them as mainstream views. The fact that this article began as an attempt to promote a conspiracy theory means that it cannot be salvaged and it is offensive to try to do so. After all, readers can always go back and find the original title and draft of the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think past revisions are a concern. When content has been fixed, the article is generally considered fixed. There's no problem with past revisions unless personal contact info has been posted, or something of that nature. Equazcion (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Four Deuces, I think that is the reason I can't get too concerned about this article whether it is kept or deleted: in the versions I have read, it is a confused mess which lacks a point. And I expect that if either -- or both -- of these articles were written instead of what we have now, there'd be a lot less outrage over this matter. Some subjects require a lot more care to write about than others. -- llywrch (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2009 (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.