Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive648

Why is this User blocked

Why is this user blocked for just one edit? [1] Is this another incident of an edoitor suspected to be Proabouviac or is there another reason. I think this needs to be out in the open too. I don't see any need to indeff from this [2] - or to be honest a need to CU in the first place. We have too many secrets lately festering away.  Giacomo  08:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This was a relatively obvious case. I even considered drawing a checkuser's attention to it by email. Please observe WP:DENY. Hans Adler 09:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following you "obvious case." I just assumed it was a regular editor reluctant to be seen agreeing with me (there's quite a few of those)  Giacomo  09:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably blocked because its a gutless sockpuppet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well if we blocked all of those, there would not be many people left editing at all.  Giacomo  10:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be good, too. HalfShadow 20:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We block as many as can be found. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

On that premise: I expect to see this User indeffed imediatly. Or there is going to be an immense amount of trouble! User:GiacomoWasHere.  Giacomo  22:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Like what? You'll type mean things at us or something? HalfShadow 22:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and its indeffed now, so we will have to see who suddenly goes very quiet.  Giacomo  23:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

These not-so-great impostors turn up now and then. They usually get sent to the phantom zone quickly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User pages imitating article pages

Hi, I don't know if this is the right place for this. I have found several user pages that seem to be imitating namespace articles, either ones already created or some that seem fabricated. "They" all have been editing each other's user pages and they to each through wikilinks. I have found only one IP address, 24.184.11.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), that has edited a handful of the pages. Here is a list of them:

User:Cmlf1 · User:Lade_Films · User:Ttlf3 · User:Tcdlf4 · User:Gglf2 · User:RichMaples · User:Mike_Glavine · User:Nyc2354 · User:Jjlf1

I don't know what kind of action should be taken on these articles, although I think they should be deleted or merged/moved to name space articles. If this isn't the right place, I can move the discussion. BOVINEBOY2008 17:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Mike Glavine and User:Nyc2354 are both blatantly obvious hoaxes, so I'm tagging them as such. The rest you may have to take to MfD, although you'll probably want someone else's opinion on that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Blade. And the link should be User:RichMaples234. BOVINEBOY2008 17:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to delete these. Tag them with {{noindex}} and move on. -Atmoz (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, they are all g11s from Lade Films (the remaining userpages are character-character-L-F-#). Just because they're bad attempts at advertising, doesn't mean they aren't advertising. Syrthiss (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted all the "character" accounts, blatant ads. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And the user should probably be restricted to one account, rather than the ~10 currently being used. Peacock (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That's why they're called G3 and G11, and not A3 and A11. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the swift action! BOVINEBOY2008 17:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

•  Confirmed:

• Nyc2354 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Priscilla Roberts (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Michael Roberts Jr. (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• RichMaples234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hmr234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wallstreetlegend234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Trainman123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• OnmuicFounder (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mickal Zaldon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kakistan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Winsodolf Zaldon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• John Zaldon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Largest Cities (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Lade Films (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Greg Gregory (Lade Films) (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• John Johnson (Lade Films) (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jjlf1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gglf2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ttlf3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tcdlf4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jtlf1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hompage (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• WIVKA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked. –MuZemike 00:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing, sockpuppet accussations, edit-warring, incivility

There seems to be a deeper issue here, but I observed that on the Tbilisi International Airport article User:Jasepl and User:Inspector123 were edit-warring over the inclusion of a particular Privatair flight (see this 3RR report Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Jasepl_reported_by_User:Stepopen_.28Result:User_warned._.29). In apparent response User:Jasepl went on to tag dozens of dynamic and shared IPs as suspected sockpuppets of User:Inspector123, with circumstantial evidence at best (Note: An admin deleted these notices from the IP talk pages, thus these edits do not show up in the edit history of Jasepl anymore). See [3] for one of this tagged as sockpuppet and then deleted pages.

Furthermore, after being warned for edit-warring Jasepl canvassed at least one editor [4]] and indirectly asked him to revert on his behalf. Also note this racist and bitey remark towards an editor who edited the controversial information to the Tbilisi airport article, [[5]]. Stepopen (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Your hands are not fully clean here. I protected the page because you and others were in a slow burn edit war. This is being discussed at the Airports project page. You have been to my page asking me to do something to him because he made a comment to another user you didn't like. This problem will only de-escalate when you walk away for a few minutes. JodyB _talk 14:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Inspector123 labeled himself as Pakistani, admits not logging in when not absolutely necessary and types something not English in edit summaries. Why would it be racist for Jasepl to use the word Pakistani? Why would tagging admitted IPs be inappropriate? HkCaGu (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so over half a dozen contributors have weighed into the discussion that supposedly was a result of my canvassing. Some of them I haven't even heard of, let alone canvas. And most of them I've had some skirmish or the other with over the years. But I'm sure a way will still be found to pin it all on me.

As for the other charge of racial assault, all I can do is laugh. The serial-vandalising user, Inspector123, happily swore away in English and some other language that I do not understand. I do know it certainly wasn't English. Inspector123 has on his user page, proclaimed to one and all that his is a Pakistani Wikipedian, so to presume that said swearing was in Pakistani wasn't too much of a stretch. If, after his leaving a bunch of (presumably) swear words on my talk page in a non-English language, saying "I don't understand Pakistani" and "swearing will not be tolerated, whether it is in English or Pakistani" are racial assaults, then I'm not the one who has issues.

Besides, this is the English language Wikipedia, isn’t it?

And regards the intimidation, Inspector123 has self admitted, on more than one occasion, that they have been editing using any of hundreds of IPs, for reasons ranging from "I'm lazy" to "I don't want to pretend to be an editor" to "I forget".

All of this has been clearly communicated to Inspector123 (or one of his many IP avatars) on hundreds of occasions. Yet he continues to do as he wills, resolutely refusing to follow editing guidelines or established procedure, while swearing away at those who revert invalid edits or remind him of the rules.

The fact that the serial illegal (for lack of a better word) edits and swearing has gone unnoticed likely is a result of his using so many IPs – a classic case of escaping accountability.

If anyone wants specific instances of any of the above, I'll be happy to provide.

So, as I asked before on more than one occasion, try to get a grip of the situation and an understanding of the guidelines first, and then wage all the war you want.

And yes, I still find it odd that an editor, who had made about a dozen edits in total, with the most recent one being a year ago, suddenly gets all hot and bothered about one line in an article about a relatively insignificant airport and about the imaginary mistreatment of one other editor. And those sockpuppet tags clearly said "suspected” – even after the above mentioned admissions. jasepl (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So why did you edit-war on this article and then canvassed User:Snoozlepet for support? Seems that you do not want to answer this question. And interesting how you are lying what you actually said. You said "Sorry. No understand. No speak Pakistani." NOT "I don't understand Pakistani". The fact that you lied about what you actually said suggests that even to you it is clear that you crossed the line here. Stepopen (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Carmonians and image problems

Over the last several days, User:Carmonians has been uploading a significant number of images (see file contributions) and placing them on the Carmona, Cavite article. While this editor has indicated a source for these images, he has refused to add any licensing tags to these images, despite many, many warnings to that effect (his talk page is filled with them). On 5 November, administrator ESkog placed a warning on his page asking him to stop this behavior, and cautioned him that continuing it may result in his blocking. The editor continued anyway, uploading another six unlicensed images (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). I placed a final warning on his talk page with a rather large stop hand sign after those six unlicensed uploads, advising him he was receiving a final warning [6]. Subsequent to this, he uploaded another two images, this time claiming he had rights and was releasing them to public domain (1, File:Patronjoseph.jpg). Editor has been notified of this thread, though he has to date refused to engage in any discussion on his talk page. Some assistance please. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

User hasn't made a single discussion edit, I suggest blocking until he wants to talk about it, he clearly has little understanding of copyright and licensing so until he asserts that he does understand these policies he should not be uploading any more files. Off2riorob (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Would any administrator care to take some action? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible legal threat at Talk:The Awareness Center

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard]]

Not sure if it is appropriate to interpret this edit as a legal threat. User notified of discussion here. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not really a legal threat, but that sort of discussion isn't constructive anyway. Stickee (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• It is a good idea not to overlook the actual focus of the discussion, which appears to be that the article is an entirely one-sided presentation of a person's work, sourced entirely to detractors. Unfortunately, the people who are trying to balance it don't seem to know how to write free content prose of their own. Uncle G (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

<span class="anchor" id="Ncmvocalist <redacted> moving thread">

Suspicious edits

There was a suspicious edit to the Naomi Campbell page last night at the same time as the Channel 4 programme Million Dollar Drop was running a question related to her age. The edit changed her year of birth to 1977 (from 1970), which made her appear younger than Kate Moss. Shortly after the show gave the answer to the question the change was undone by the same IP address. I can't be 100% certain, but I believe the original edit was made before the question was broadcast.

Shortly afterwards the same IP address edited the Isle of Man page at approximately the same time as Isle of Man was the subject of another question on the show. Again, the nature of the edit was relevant to the specific question asked. I'm not sure whether the edit was made prior to the question being broadcast, but the nature of the edit does suggest it was made by someone with foreknowledge of the question.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naomi_Campbell&diff=395252978&oldid=395004743 for the Naomi Campbell edit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isle_of_Man&diff=395253551&oldid=394829116 for the Isle of Man edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.187.202 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, IP is operated by Virgin Media out of Cardiff which also owns the TV channel in Cardiff... but there's nothing that can be done about this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Million Pound Drop question related edits

There was a suspicious edit to the Naomi Campbell page last night at the same time as the Channel 4 programme Million Pound Drop was running a question related to her age. The edit changed her year of birth to 1977 (from 1970), which was directly relevant to the question because it made her appear younger than Kate Moss. Shortly after the show gave the answer the change was undone by the same IP address. I can't be 100% certain, but I believe the original edit was made before the question was broadcast.

Shortly afterwards the same IP address edited the Isle of Man page at approximately the same time as Isle of Man was the subject of another question on the show. Again, the nature of the edit was relevant to the specific question asked. I'm not sure whether the edit was made prior to the question being broadcast, but the nature of the edit does suggest it was made by someone with foreknowledge of the question.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naomi_Campbell&diff=395252978&oldid=395004743 for the Naomi Campbell edit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isle_of_Man&diff=395253551&oldid=394829116 for the Isle of Man edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.187.202 (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As said above by Seb az86556 (talk · contribs), the "IP is operated by Virgin Media out of Cardiff which also owns the TV channel in Cardiff... but there's nothing that can be done about this". Goodvac (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Owns the TV channel in Cardiff"? what does that mean. Cardiff has more than one TV channel available. The channel the program is broadcast on is Channel 4, which isn't owned by Virgin Media, nor is Endemol the producer of the show. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's what happened. Basically some bored teenager was watching the TV show while on their laptop. They decided it'd be a "lolz" to edit the article that the quiz show was asking questions about so that it seemed that the producers had got the answer wrong, tehehe! No big media conspiracy, just mindless vandalism. GiantSnowman 22:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Threads conglomerated because they are obviously about the same thing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Virgin Media is also an ISP. Do you have any reason to believe the IP is from their corporate offices rather than just a random broadband customer? Bovlb (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's true that the Naomi Campbell edit was made before the question was broadcast - and bearing in mind that the edit was reverted by the same user just afterwards - is it possible that these edits were made by a member of the production staff in order to prevent people from cheating (by e.g. looking up the subject of the article on Wikipedia, and quickly texting the contestant?). The producers would pragmatically assume that most people quickly looking up a subject would go to Wikipedia's page and not do any further research. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible User:Bambifan101 sock

Resolved

 – SPI filed, Rangeblock initiated. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been some suspicious IP edits by Special:Contributions/98.85.78.64 and Special:Contributions/98.85.10.44 altering running times and dates and other various film credits which fits the MO of User:Bambifan101. Furthermore it's from a suspected Bambifan101 IP range as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bambifan101/Archive#03_October_2010_2. Can an admin look into this case please, and a possible range block? Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's another IP from the same range corrupting film information since the sock investigation was filed: Special:Contributions/98.85.7.221. This is affecting dozens of articles, so a range block is seriously needed here guys. Betty Logan (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh fuck, not him again... HalfShadow 00:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

what the hell I thought we were done with this idiot a long time ago, PS the range block would be 98.85.0.0/17Access Denied – talk to me 01:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello anyone here??? Access Denied – talk to me 05:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, he continued doing it for an hour or so after this report was filed, and no doubt will be back on tonight. I'm not going to bother reverting the damage if there isn't going to be some effort to prevent it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've filed an SPI on Bambifan and the IPs but the SPI Bot seems to be down (or maybe I just need to be patient). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please help manage the debate at Talk: Greek love

I would appreciate some help at Greek love where I am trying to nurture a debate on my upcoming nomination of the article for an Afd. However, the tags I have put on the article are being removed. This looks to me like an attempt to stifle debate. I am not the only WP user who believes the article is structurally compromised. The tags are appropriate. Please monitor this situation. Thanks. McZeus (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment would be the next step. While heated the discussion does not yet seem to have reached a stage where admin action is needed.--Salix (talk): 07:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I am impressed that the disputants could continue their debate so fiercely while the opening sentence of the article remained "Greek love is a tern in Modern English synonymous with other similar phrases". Suggest you all cease warring over the tags and go find sources to actually improve the content for our readers. Skomorokh 11:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

sockpuppet

The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bad edits r dumb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Someone resolved the thread above but its obvious User:Bad edits r dumb and The Fat Man Who Never Came Back are the same VoteJagoffForMayor (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Their editing behaviour is similar (like trolling), but "Bad edits r dumb" came after than the Fat Man, it seems. Diego Grez (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Does anyone but me think it is odd that an editor who has been here all of 4 days already knows all about ANI and spotted this right away? Risker (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah. Self-outing? Wouldn't surprise me if this guy's BerD. Highly interesting. StrPby (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • He's been around for a 4 1/2 years, albeit with some very lengthy pauses where he was presumably either editing under another guise or two, or was on vacation consuming donuts. Oddly enough, looking at his rap sheet, the length of his blocks have decreased each time, from indefinite to a week and now just 2 days. Weird. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Risker's reply was in regards to the OP.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, they're the same person. Unambiguous. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, who's the same? The original poster and blocked account or the two blocked accounts? TNXMan 18:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Soryy, Fat Man and Bad edits. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The same person as in you CU'd them? If so, shouldn't the sock's block be upped back to indef?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

VoteJagoff is not the one who linked the two, although it is indeed interesting that the user started posting to ANI a mere 4 days after creation.    Thorncrag  01:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If Fat Man has been trolling, not only with his main account but with a sock even (which is now blocked), why is he allowed to continue editing? This is what I find interesting and I think it's a legitimate question. VoteJagoffForMayor (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? I find Thorncrag's point more interesting Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• VoteJagoffForMayor (please consider changing your user name), Berd had started editing with a request to a cu, disclosing past identity(ies). Berd got blocked not for socking - but for disruptive editing. Fat Man is blocked currently on incivility issues. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Should user talk pages be deleted under the right to vanish?

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

---

This is an issue that's raised time and again, with inconsistent application by admins, so it would be good to get it sorted out so that admins know how to proceed. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#RfC on deleting user talk pages. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've contributed there, but I thought WP:RTV already stated clearly that talk pages are normally not deleted. If you refer to the recent deletion and apparent partial oversighting (?) of the talk page of Rlevse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for which I see no apparent reason, I've asked the admin who deleted the user page about it here.  Sandstein  06:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, RTV does say that talk pages are rarely deleted, but I think we need to make the guideline clearer one way or the other. Currently, some admins do it, and other don't, which leads to unfairness and people not knowing what best practice is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Avi changed [the] user name [redacted] to [redacted per RTV,  Sandstein  07:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)] and perma banned the account.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Commented at the RfC; thanks for the heads-up, Sandstein :) -- Avi (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Struck the oversighting part above. For some apparently technical reasons, some deleted revisions of the talk page did not appear for some time, but now they do.  Sandstein  07:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'll comment here because my comment is about the specific case and not the general RfC: Rlevse's page should stay, because it contains historically important Arbcom-related discussions, which people may need to refer to in the future. By the way, what the heck actually happened to that page, technically? It currently has 11,000 deleted edits in its history, but they are not viewable, and there is also no log entry documenting its deletion. Huh? – That said, I don't know why everybody is so bizarrely overreacting to this affair, on all sides of the issue. Bans? Indef-blocks? Deletions? Renamings? Seriously, what the fuck? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with respect to the WTF?, but according to Avraham, he deleted the talk page to protect the real-life privacy of the vanished user, which IMHO outweighs the interest to read old Arbcom discussions.  Sandstein  07:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Privacy? If something was said that needs to be oversighted then fix that edit, don't delete the whole thing. Are we supposed to pretend that Rlevse never existed? With neither a clear reason, a discussion, nor a consensus someone has deleted years of discussions about content, policies and procedures that have occurred on that talk page over the years. There are likely mirrors of many of its pages elsewhere on the web, and the user is referred to on countless project and talk pages across Wikipedia. Must we delete all of those too? This is a bad precedent.   Will Beback  talk  08:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, for an ex-Arbitrator whose decisions in Arbcom matters are still in force and whose participation in them must therefore still be discussable, it is plain unacceptable to have his account renamed without an identifying redirect. If a user clicks on his signature on an Arbcom decision, they must be able to recover his edit history. This is not negotiable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, does this matter for any practical purpose? If a judge retires in real life, do his judgments become invalid because he's no longer working at the court and has no listed address?  Sandstein  07:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It very much matters. Arbitrator actors are not detachable from the arbitrator's editing outside the Arbcom page, in the same way a judge's actions in court are detachable from his private life. Rlevse used to discuss his arbcom cases on user talk pages; and there are multiple other ways an arbitrator's actions may be related to interactions of his with other users elsewhere in his editing. All of this needs to be accessible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I suppose that's one way to look at it. That's why all process interactions should be limited to process pages... But wouldn't the correct forum in which to discuss the deletion be WP:DRV?  Sandstein  07:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

FPAS:

1. Anyone can look at the rename log and see who the user is now.
2. Arbcom should have a record of all their discussions; if they don't, shame on them.
3. Users have the right to retire, regardless of the positions they have held prior
4. There is no need for an identifying redirect. What would its purpose be, he is not returning. Period.

-- Avi (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Not every user is wiki-savvy enough to find the rename log, and even for the rest it's a hassle. Of course he has a right to retire, but that doesn't mean his participation in Arbcom may be obscured. As for "should have a record of all their discussions", that's beside the point I made. If I see Rlevse's signature in an Arbcom page, I must be able to figure out how and where he was interacting with (for instance) the other participants of the case outside that page. This is an essential part of the case. That's the purpose of the redirect. And, by the way, if by "period" you think you can just decide this by fiat and be done with it, you'd be mistaken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and something else, somebody needs to re-register the account name or prevent it from being re-created in some other way, to avoid recreation by impersonators. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried to, but it is not possible since the username Rlevse is not available for recreation due to their unified login. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, FPAS.

1. Have you tried going to the old userpage? The rename is right there at the top, at least it is for me.
2. His participation in arbcom is not obscured, and if anyone has any questions, I am sure there will be plenty of people who can say, "oh that was so-and-so".
3. If you see his signature, you will be taken to the userpage with the rename at top. If you se "Vanished xxxxxxx" you'll be taken there; and you can ask.
4. You can always ask the other people and read the comments. His comments on ArbCom cases and workshop pages will remain; it is solely the user talk that was deleted. AND if you have a good reason, I am sure you can get an admin to read the appropriate diff and get you its contents.
5. Yes, I am trusting that he will keep his word.

-- Avi (talk) 07:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, when I click on User:Rlevse or User talk:Rlevse, I don't currently find any link to the new account. It's merely a redlink. If you agree to have a redirect there, then I'm covered as far as that is concerned. The deletion of the talk page history is another matter though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I see it in a red box at the top. You are an admin, you see nothing at the top of User:Rlevse? As for a redirect, that defeats the purpose of the right to vanish. You may be interested in making your opinion known at Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#RfC on deleting user talk pages. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a red box too, but it contains only the deletion log, not the renaming log. BTW, about the argument of "you could just ask": if you don't have access to his edit history and/or his talk page history, you might not be able to guess that there is anything to ask about in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have no reason to guess, then why do you care? Anyopne specifically looking for Rlevse will know where to look or whom to ask (even if you don't see the renames, you see the deletion log). Anyone not looking should not find it; that is the point of RtV. -- Avi (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't remember the specifics, I know that Rlevse's talk page contained several important postings related to an arbcase. Therefore, it should be undeleted, and all future and current arbs should be forced to sign an agreement to prevent the deletion of their talk pages. Deletions like this are completely unacceptable. Offliner (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly, please comment at the RfC. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That RfC concerns the general issue of deleting user talk pages. For the specific issue of undeleting Rlevse's talk page do we need to open to DRV?   Will Beback  talk  11:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

He's been a controversial editor, and if he comes back under a different name and edits the same way, his presence will be obvious, yes? And if he doesn't come back, then it's moot, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I find you all completely rivetting, how you can argue on RLevse's behalf. This [7] is totally unacceptable - I can only assume those who left their "lovey" messages are ashamed of them and want them hidden.  Giacomo  08:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

11,000+ edits removed in one foul swoop. Crikey. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Erasing all evidence of the user's existence does not strike me as being appropriate action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I very much support Rlevse and his desire to leave Wikipedia but the thought of thousands of broken links makes me want to pull my hair out. -- œ^™ 11:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would normally like to contact the deleting admin (or whoever did this) before reverting, but since the deletion log looks like this:

(collapsed 'cos it widens the page loads – ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 16:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
* (del/undel) 18:42, 3 November 2010 Bencherlite (talk | contribs | block) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse: removed content, username for 1 revision ‎ (User edited while logged-out, revealing IP) (diff | more...) * (del/undel) 10:12, 8 June 2010 Vanished 6551232 (talk | contribs | block) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse: removed content, edit summary, username for 2 revisions ‎ (User edited while logged-out, revealing IP) (more...) * (del/undel) 11:05, 5 June 2010 Vanished 6551232 (talk | contribs | block) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse: removed username for 1 revision ‎ (User edited while logged-out, revealing IP) (diff | more...) * (del/undel) 10:46, 14 May 2009 Vanished 6551232 (talk | contribs | block) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse ‎ (removed content for 1 revision: gaveout IP) (diff | more...)

I am unable to determine who did this deletion. Since it goes against policy, and is not supported by consensus here either, I would have undone it, were I able to. However, it seems as if no mere admin can undelete this, and that a steward may be needed. Any revisions that contain problematic (personal) info can be individually deleted or oversighted if needed. Fram (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for this page ot be deleted. It need to be undeleted fast. What has happened here is against policy and protocol. Support Undelete.  Giacomo  12:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please. I really don't see the point in either deleting or restoring that page at this point. Can we at least avoid a steward wheel war about this? Hans Adler 12:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Actually, FPAS' argument makes sense, and it seems to be fixed now anyway. Hans Adler 12:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Now, who is this long standing sock [8] who even seems to have admin powers on Rlevse's page [9]. I am getitng very confided here. I think we need some proper explanations.  Giacomo  12:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That's simply his account, after being renamed, with all of his old contribs. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yerse, I gather that, but how was the account able to have admin powers after we are told Rlevs handed in the tools?  Giacomo  12:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have the admin bit, but it took a few seconds of staring for me to follow what had happened there. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I wish you would explain because I see Rlevse using admin powers yesterday, days after he supposedly surrenedered them (11:12, 8 June 2010 Vanished 6551232 (talk | contribs) changed revision visibility of User talk:Rlevse: removed content, edit summary, username for 2 revisions ‎ (User edited while logged-out, revealing IP)) Giacomo  12:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• 8 June is 5 months ago, not yesterday. David Biddulph (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I do recall yesterday evening that I briefly thought I'd seen the same thing, until I understood from the log that an admin had unprotected his talk and user pages for him so he could put up his wikibreak tags, after which the admin snapped them shut again. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am starting t have a spinning head, I think you have all been so underhand in this, admins, arbs, opening pages, revising pages, blocking editors, changing names, posting by proxy and supressing discussion. I am begining to think you are all so crooked you would not know yourselves if you met yourselves coming backwards.  Giacomo  12:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that the page in question has now been restored. David Biddulph (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If the vanishing editor is leaving under a negative cloud (such as the case of Rlevse)? then deletion shouldn't occur. GoodDay (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently my undeletion worked after all, it only took some time, because of the number of revisions. Anyway, I can see my undeletion in the log, but not who ever deleted it in the first pace, which is a lack of transparency I don't like. If whoever deleted it has a problem with my action, they are free to contact me at my talk page or here: as stated above, I was unable to do the reverse. Fram (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason you can't see it is because the user was renamed and it took the deletion log with it to the new name. -- œ^™ 12:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that seemed logical, but the history of the page, and the protection, revdeletion, ... are still at the one I undeleted. Only the full deletion wasn't logged (or at least isn't visible to me or Gwen Gale). The talk page of the new name of Rlevse also doesn't have a deletion log anyway. Fram (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I must say, I wasn't thrilled when I couldn't see who had done the deletion, either. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well ask who did so then?  Giacomo  12:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Having read what you posted above, do you think I'm being underhanded? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Having seen all that has been going on and the recent behaviour of Arbs and Admins, I have not a clue what to think anymore.  Giacomo  12:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Anyway, it looks to me as though someone with a meta-wiki bit did the TP deletion. I'd guess it's likely to be found in a public meta log somewhere. Maybe someone in arbcom knows who did it? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on this comment,[10] Avraham would seem to be the one to be asked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he may know. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the talk page had more than 5,000 edits, I think Avraham likely used his steward bit to delete it. I can't find the deletion in any of his logs, but I've seen unlogged steward actions now and then before. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse is very clever at finding people on other projects to do his bidding here. I remebber when he imagined he was being outed as Randy in Boisse he found some oversighter who could barely speak English, perhaps the same thing happened again.  Giacomo  13:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, I did the deletion as part of the RtV. Likely the logs are messed up b/c of the need for largedelete, which I have as a wikimedia steward. I searched for another steward to do the deletion, but none were available. While my personal opinions are contrary, as I posted at the RfC, I will not contest the undeletion by Fram while this discussion is ongoing. The last thing we need is to wheelwar. The Rlevse saga has caused enough hurt in the project, we should not be adding to it. However, I have courtesy blanked the page and I will protect it; I don't think anyone has issues with that while the discussion is ongoing. -- Avi (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is no special interface, it's just that the delete button works for >5K edits if you are a steward on meta. As to why the logs get messed up, you'd have to ask a developer like Werdna, I don't know. Sorry. -- Avi (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Avi, courtesy blanking and oversight of specific diffs has long been allowed. Deletion has long been discouraged,, and should be done via MfD. I do appreciate that as a 'Crat you are not expected to have as much knowledge of policies and procedures as non-admins like me, but you could, and should, have checked. Your behaviour was disruptive, contrary to policy, and served only to attract more atention to Rlevse. I do think you should refrain from acting in RTV cases until you can shew a better understanding of policy in this area. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The RtV process at current does not prohibit the deletion of talk pages, Duncan, and sometimes bureaucrats have to make decisions. I appreciate and respect that you disagreed with mine (which was already overturned above by Fram) but being that you were not the one to speak with Rlevse, and I was, I think I have a somewhat better idea as to how much pain he was in. I'm human and will continue to make mistakes, but erring on the side of a human being in my opinion is not a mistake. Also, I have full faith that the wikipedia project can proceed and flourish even if we lose some information; we are too robust for that. -- Avi (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Avi, Rlevse has my sympathy - he's one of the nicest people I've encountered here, as well as one of the very few sensible ones. I don't think he is helped by having you draw attention to him by ignoring policy. Courtesy blanking and protection are the best way to let things die down naturally for him. I am sure you acted with a kind heart, but unfortunately you just made things worse. DuncanHill (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I obviously did make it worse, much to my chagrin, but he specifically asked for a talk page deletion, and I made the decision it was warranted. I will maintain, though, that while policy indicates that it is rarely done, it does NOT indicate that it is forbidden. Regardless, I've been reversed and I'm not going to wheelwar, so so be it. I daresay that if there was less vitriol and more compassion by all, even if one felt that Rlevse was undeserving of said compassion, the entire fiasco would have never happened (RtV, deletion, you name it). -- Avi (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The way it was handled today, blanking the page but leaving the history, was the right way to do it. If there are any individual entries that could compromise the user's privacy or whatever, those could be individually oversighted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the "right to vanish" does not mean "the right to obliterate everything I ever did". Unless there are extremely specific and justifiable concerns of privacy, what anyone puts into this place should remain for good. The "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions..." line isn't just there for show. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• No IMO, they should not be deleted. A user talk page is a centralized location for figuring out what a user is all about. The reasons for leaving, the kind of editor a person was, though they are available in other locations (ANI, Arb pages, etc.), are most easily examined on the user talk page. Courtesy blanking is fine but leave a viewable history for anyone who wishes to see it. RegentsPark (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please let's not duplicate the RFC at WT:RTV. And please let's not rehash the Rlevse issue at ANI any further, it serves no visible purpose. If any issues associated with it are to be pursued, it should be elsewhere, (re)formulated in a way that may actually lead to a concrete action. Rd232 ^talk 00:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Requesting aid with an article that has continuously been page protected to preserve Libel

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

---

Main page: Wikipedia:Content noticeboard § Requesting help with sources being misrepresented in an article

DavidR2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ott jeff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
72.39.98.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is quite a bit of Libel posted in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonaVie

Many users have attempted to remove the libel and it has only resulted in the page being protected for long periods of time. I think something is going on as their seems to be a group of users attempting to control the article for the purpose of Defamation of the company.

I have looked over the sources and found very little evidence to support the claims made in the lead. Could we have something done about the Slander Please? Thanks DavidR2010 (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to be more specific. What do you allege is libelous? Also, what is your connection to that MonaVie company? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is surely the same user who has posted Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Vandalism of Article as an IP, and furthermore this is surely the indefinitely blocked User:Ott jeff, whose whole Wikipedia career consisted of promoting and defending MonaVie. Any chance for a duck block? — Gavia immer (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ott jeff itself is not currently blocked. He was at one time, but was unblocked upon promising to follow the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any current connection to the company I only noticed problems with the article. If people would just see the points I am making instead of attacking me I think you would see the facts. I looked through the sources and The FDA never warned MonaVie directly and yet thats how the article reads.

The sources don't provide any details on how Dallin Larsen was involved with any false health claims they just say he had a senior post and quit a year before the FDA shut that company down. Is there not policies on wikipedia on information about living persons and what to do if they are improperly sourced?

There is no mention in the sources of the MonaVie company making any claims at all its just not there in the sources there is only mention of another guys website making claims and being warned.

If it is similar to a pyramid scheme would that not mean that everything on wikipedia with a pyramid shape such as countries and companies to be fair need to be called that? The source of the pyramid scheme allegations here http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0811/050.html is really a review of another organization called TEAM and not of the company of MonaVie.

And the 1% of people make a profit part is contested in two of the other sources provided. One source has numbers like 45% and 37% and another source disputes the 1% comment and yet the article leans to the weight of the POV of the 1% statement.It is a valid point to make that distributor is also the first rank in this company and many stay at that rank as they are only purchasing products with no attention to make a profit so the statement "and very few distributors actually make a profit." isn't very necessary.

I am simply challenging the articles views and from what I see the sources don't support these statements and I found that there is a confusion here of what TEAM is and what MonaVie is and what an independent distributors website is and what the MonaVie Companies website is and these lead to the POV of the article being extremely off and misleading to readers.

I wish to improve the article however instead of my findings receiving an unbiased review I am attacked and accused of sock puppetry and disruptive editing. Thanks Alot! DavidR2010 (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

How about listing the top 5 "libelous" claims, along with sourcing refuting such claims? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Im pretty sure the attack on the CEO and calling the company of MonaVie a pyramid scheme is libel and the crap about claims coming from the company not being scientifically confirmed or approved yeah Im pretty confident in saying this is a distortion of the facts and libel. So you were previously involved in this article as well?

Are there any admins here that can look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonaVie without bias. Thanks. DavidR2010 (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

I was previously uninvolved with this article, and have looked. When Forbes claims that "Pyramid selling schemes are a dime a dozen. Orrin Woodward's organization is one step ahead of them all." about Monavie, then us reporting that "MonaVie has been the subject of controversy, as [...] the business plan is similar to a pyramid scheme" is not in any way libelous or otherwise problematic, but just reporting what reliable sourcs have said about the company. These sources may be incorrect, but then you will need to find a retraction of their statements, or Forbes etc. getting a conviction for libel for those articles, or other reliable independent sources of similar standing refuting the arguments of Forbes and so on. Whitewashing the (lead of the) article and coming here for help in it won't work, and continued disruption of the article will lead to either protection of the article, or blocking of the disruptive editors. Fram (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

However you miss the point entirely when reading the Forbes article "Pyramid selling schemes are a dime a dozen. Orrin Woodward's organization is one step ahead of them all." "Orrin Woodward, cofounder of a company called Team" the article is about the company of TEAM and not about the company of MonaVie. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0811/050.html DavidR2010 (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

No, I don't. "Hope, for most of Woodward's audience, is a fruit juice gussied up in a wine bottle labeled MonaVie and sold for $39. Unload enough of this stuff on friends, recruit them to do the same, and you can be rich." and "Team is one step ahead of all these juice selling schemes. It is a pyramid atop a pyramid. It is selling motivational aids to help MonaVie vendors move the juice" It is very obvious for anyone looking at this objectively that MonaVie is the pyramid, Team is the pyramid atop a pyramid, and hence "one step ahead" of other pyramid schemes. Fram (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright Fram so you are saying that because this source calls MonaVie a pyramid it is safe for wikipedia to compare it to a Pyramid Scheme? Look at the definition of a pyramid scheme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme.

Are you you saying Monavie has no investment or sale of products or services to the public and that MonaVie is a form of fraud? Accusing a company of fraud seems serious enough to me. And why no mention about the other points I made?

I think the admins here should just decide to play it safe with this article. DavidR2010 (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

I think what other editors have been trying to tell you is that Wikipedia isn't the place to fix your concerns - the article (like the rest of Wikipedia) reports what other sources say about the company. You need to address your concerns with those other sources first (e.g., get a retraction or print an update) before the article on Wikipedia will end up being changed. Shell ^babelfish 17:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

When Forbes says a company is a pyramid scheme, it's pretty much settled that it is a pyramid scheme. See WP:RS. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok so let me get this straight if Forbes says MonaVie is a Pyramid then it is assumed they mean it is a Pyramid Scheme and that automatically makes MonaVies product line dissapear magically and also makes them a fraud? How the heck does that make sense? It doesn't that is the issue we need to use common sense here to improve the article.

What about the other issues Do the sources really say Dallin Larsen was involved in false health claims of another company? Is he some kind of scientist that would know what does and doesn't work? All I see is that he quit a year before the FDA shut it down is it not POV to say he was involved based on that? What about the other statements about the company of MonaVies health claims not being scientifically confirmed or approved? Wheres the proof of the FDA having issues with claims that the MonaVie company made. Whats the big deal its only juice?

And why is it notable to say very few distributors make a profit? Is that an attempt to scare people away from building a business? Is it not a fact that most people don't make a profit in life? DavidR2010 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010

If you want to contest what Forbes said, you need to take it up with them.

If the MonaVie company has pubilished a refutation of Forbes' claims, that would be suitable for inclusion in the article, in general. Have they?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of the argument I got into with Insider201283 regarding claims regarding pyramid schemes in general (Talk:Pyramid_scheme/Archive_1#The_Connection_to_MLMs_is_relevant). It got quite bizarre as his argument was effectively claiming books published by Wiley, Sage, Greenwood Press, and Oxford University Press were unreliable because they were saying there were such things as legal pyramid schemes.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I am a terrorist...

WP:DNFTT. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – Thank you for the input Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC) 174.118.149.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [11] ...as are Materialscientist and Jpgordon Comments? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Constant reverting without discussion or reasons point the "terrorist" label to Seb az86556. Name calling and labelling help your cause a lot...NOT! --Special:Contributions/174.118.149.54 (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Does anyone else see a problem here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you could start by cleaning up your signature.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC) ?? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC) It's Navajo, right? 174, please stop calling people "vandals" and "terrorists" if you wish to be taken seriously at all -- have a look at what vandalism is, for a start. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC) If the user is vandalizing the page then the normal warn/block process should work, no?    Thorncrag  05:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Was blocked. Returns with different IP and restores the talkpage section on "Administrator terrorism"... I don't know what to do with this anymore. I need someone else's opinion. I don't appreciate "vandal", much less so "terrorist". Just saying... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC) 174 does not appear to be a vandal, but he's a persistent edit-warrior, and has been blocked at least twice (that I saw on a quick look). The section on "Talk:Long_and_short_scales#Administrator_Terrorism" indicates he doesn't quite get it. 174, will you please stop the name-calling and discuss calmly what your issue is with the article, on that talk page? Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC) OK, I give up. You have your power trip. Discussion was open and you made it clear none was wanted by deleting my edits, threatening me and removing my comments. --174.118.149.54 (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC) By now, at least 5 other people have warned you, disagreed with you, blocked you, reverted you, and declined your unblock request. No bell ringing. And no, I don't think I have to "discuss" whether I am a terrorist or not. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC) 174.118.149.54 and 173.35.12.221 do geolocate the same. Given the evidence, a block would probably be uncontroversial given the extensive warnings and blocks already imposed.    Thorncrag  05:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I wanted to at least take a crack at reasoning with him. Unfortunately, he shows a pattern we see commonly with some new editors -- immediately jump into a revert war on even a mild disagreement; shout and stamp feet and call the other editor abusive names; claim it's our fault, threaten to run away, we won't get their great contributions, etc. Bullying and abusive behavior are so endemic on the internet that I wonder if a majority of our first-time editors expect it to be that way here too. Often enough it turns out to be self-fulfilling, as an abusive newbie is unlikely to encounter someone calm and patient -- two qualities in short supply on Wikipedia these days. Antandrus (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. –George W. Bush 06:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC) At least this is a different take than the usual "Nazi" stuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist moving thread

Resolved

 – It's here, and that's where it's staying. GedUK  09:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a thread above asking for a community ban for SRQ. I moved it to AN because that is the proper venue for discussion of community bans (they can take place here when they arise naturally from a discussion regarding a specific incident}. Ncmvocalist moved it back, and when I attempted to correct his error, reverted me in the middle of the process. I'm backing off now, will someone please inform Ncmvocalist of the proper placement? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've notified him of this. Also, he changed the title of the thread, overriding the request of the initiatoing editor with his own opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

From WP:BAN:

Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, and to allow the subject editor to post a response. Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed, and the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue, usually Wikipedia:Editing restrictions or Wikipedia:List of banned users.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken should avoid editing the Wikipedia space altogether, or be restricted from doing so. He's misrepresented the way the title of the thread was changed; it shows he has no clue of what is going on when he edits here: he didn't look into what it was the user was actually requesting and why it was that the discussion started here (not AN). Ban policy' was amended when the Community rejected the view that all ban discussions must take place at AN. Policy now permits ban discussions to start at ANI (Community banning discussions generally take place at the administrators' noticeboard 'or a subpage thereof. [emphasis added]) That's why another ban discussion is also taking place in this venue (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ban_proposal:_User:Justa_Punk) and why other ban discussions have also taken place at this venue (irrespective of whether it stems from an incident). That Beyond My Ken isn't happy with this development doesn't mean his views trump policy (never mind the fact that policy isn't fully up to date). He boldly moved it to AN and it was reverted; instead of discussing anything at all, he's come here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken should avoid editing the Wikipedia space altogether, or be restricted from doing so.

  Thank you!, that gave me the best laugh I've had all day.

  Oh, and I restored the word "disruptively" from the title I gave this section. I meant "disruptively" and I stick by it. Your disagreement with my assessment doesn't authorize you to change what I wrote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, it's well established that you do not use titles to grind your personal axe. Please cease unless you wish to be blocked; the alternative is to keep the username as the title on its own. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're supposed to keep you headings neutral (not that that guideline isn't frequently ignored on this page). Disruption is in the eye of the beholder. Why do you insist that "disruptive" remain? I didn't find his reversions disruptive, and he explained them in his edit summary, and from what I read, it makes more sense to keep the thread here. Why haven't you tried to discuss this with Ncmvocalist on his talk page?---Sluzzelin talk 07:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, because Ncmv was moving the thread back, Doc of Soc's comment ended up floating free and posted to the wrong thread over at AN. I initially moved the thread when I did because I happened to be here just after the thread was posted, so it could be moved without any dislocation. As for the title of this thread, it is "neutral", in the sense that it neutrally presents the problem I saw with his moves, that they were disruptive. The title is not pejorative or a personal attack, it's a dstraight-forward description. I can't help it that Ncmv objects to it - many people object to having their disruptive behavior called out.

Anyway, what I came here to say before I leave this thread was to point out this consensus discussion on WT:Banning policy, in which it was established that AN was the preferred venue, because ANI is archived too quickly, among other reasons.

So that's it from me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, one more thing -- I see that the thread has now attracted comments, so at this point I think it's too late to move it back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note the use of the "anchor" statement, just above the section header (go into edit mode on the previous section), which preserves links to the previous titles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral page moving against consensus

Resolved

The article currently named Eggenberg Castle, Graz is so named because one user has recently moved it unilaterally on two occasions, firstly [12] and now again (after it was moved to a compromise title) [13] and [14]. All this despite the fact that there is a move discussion ongoing, there is clearly no consensus for it to be called "Castle", and the user making these unilateral moves hasn't contributed a word to that discussion. Could an admin please take a look and move the article to the appropriate place (I would suggest back to the original title, before the minor move war began, until consensus is reached in the discussion), and perhaps give some friendly advice to User:Gryffindor about respecting and engaging in the consensus-forming process. (I could trawl back in the logs to show that this isn't the first time he's done this sort of thing and had it brought to his attention, but I'm not asking for any sanction to be applied, just for it to be pointed out how we properly do things.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't really see consensus on the talk page. WP:NC suggests that we title articles according to common English-language usage. A rough-and-ready google comparison, excluding Wikipedia results, shows 6560 results for "Eggenburg Palace" and 9050 for "Eggenburg Castle". Make of that what you will.

It takes two sides to move-war. However, as a fellow admin Gryffindor should really know better than to short-circuit the consensus-building process and impose a solution while discussion is underway. I'm not going to reverse their move (see WP:WHEEL), but I suggest that you conclude discussion on the talk page and, when you can show a policy-based consensus for one name or another (a few suggestions have been made), request the move via WP:RM. I hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 10:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well not really, since it implies that someone can simply get away with, as you put it, short-circuiting the consensus-building process simply by virtue of having admin status (I find it rather astonishing that he's an admin, but in any case, it doesn't seem relevant to this issue, since the behaviour in question could have been done by anyone). If people can just get their way by move warring (no, it doesn't "take two to move war" - if A moves, B moves back per BRD, then A moves again, then only A is move warring) totally ignoring discussion, then that is how things will come to be decided. It's not up to me or anyone else to show a consensus for some name; it's up to him, as the person proposing a change; and if he can't show such consensus (and he has shown such contempt - now I discover he's an admin, I feel stronger language is justified - for community processes as not even to lower himself to participate in the discussion), then his action should be reversed. Ideally by himself, but if that doesn't happen, I would expect another admin to do it (and really have a serious word with him about how to use his admin rights).--Kotniski (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to back up my assertion that this user (admin!) has a history of this sort of behaviour, I've found this previous discussion which resulted from the exact same thing. (I see he does a lot of page moves, most of which are probably useful and totally unobjectionable, but I would have thought he needed to learn that when an issue is or has been the subject of discussion, then he doesn't get to just make the decision himself.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kotniski, you can put your axe down. I didn't see that there was a discussion going on about the rename, sorry about that. I'll put in my feedback there. Gryffindor (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But you remember doing exactly the same move before, right, so you knew it was opposed? Oh all right, consider this resolved (I assume you'll move the page back to its original name if your proposal doesn't get consensus).--Kotniski (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Err, not sure what you mean with "doing the same move before", but whatever it is I'm sure we can discuss the name over on the talk page. Gryffindor (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Jerod Impichchaachaaha' Tate

Resolved

This article is being repeatedly blanked out by this user. He claims to be the subject of the article, and wants the article removed. I am unsure of what policy this comes under, but his repeated blanking is a definite COI. Can an administrator please look into this? And please put a lock on the page for now - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 09:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved this from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), as it is an ongoing incident right this minute. I have no comment on this otherwise. — Gavia immer (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Article has apparently now been proposed for deletion, looks like the best course of action. ~ mazca ^talk 11:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:PROD has been removed. The prod stated that the source wished the article removed. How can this be verified? Ask him to state this on his own website? Also, can subjects of articles just "wish" their articles away? The article does not belong to them! - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 17:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair

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.

Enquries advertised. Further discussion here not required. Rd232 ^talk 17:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

---

In the absence of anything other, I am holding an enquiry into the last few days at the appropriatly named User talk:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair. All are welcome to comment.  Giacomo  14:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I imagine this is in your official capacity as ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

an editor...? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't much see the point. There is a CCI underway and any discussion over clarifying policy (and sanctions) for plagiarism should occur on the relevant talk pages. Whipping up the issue (as you did in the previous thread) is hardly collegial. Ok, so he quit in a huff after a pile on - and took a couple of days properly quitting. Is it worth continuing that chase? Rlevse is gone, what more can you achieve? (Were this an article you'd have to call this a "POV fork" ;)) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My major concern was the fighting over the protection of Rlevse's talkpage & complaints about his back-and-forth status of Retired/Indef Wiki-break. In otherwords, there's little to nothing I can add at your (Giacomo) enquiry. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Giacomo's and others' complaints about the hiding of Rlevse's history were totally justified, and that mistake has since been corrected. Hard telling what else there is to do now, except maybe to resolve to do better next time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you see, when Giano caused others to have a grievance, we are urged to move on (and, incidentally, unblock Giacomo without the need for him filing an unblock request). When Giacomo has a grivance, we must discuss it to death or else never hear the end of it from him.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. Giano didn't have a grievance, the community had one. They felt that his block should be undone, and someone finally listened after much huffing and puffing by those had him blocked. Please don't confuse consensus with someone's personal self-serving grievance. As you stated yourself Giano didn't post an unblock request. I tried pointing out earlier, to no avail apparently, that what got the peasantry all riled up was how admins were handling this situation. Rlevse made some mistakes, we all do. The matter would have been much less of a big deal if those who were annoyed by this, like Giano, were given their room to vent. All this protecting of talk pages and hatting conversations is what caused the unnecessary drama here. It would be good for people to remember that next time. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair

I am also holding an enquiry into the Rlevse affair, and it is here: User:Demiurge1000/Second enquiry into the Rlevse affair.

Everyone is welcome to comment on the talk page.

--Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Great - dueling enquiries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

request to cease discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Third enquiry into the—let's all shut the fuck up, can we? Stop extending drama, because now it's disruptive. Go write some articles. Thanks. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, I agree completely that swearing in a section title is just plain disruptive. Please stop now. HiLo48 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Oh please. Can we have less feeble Wikipedia jargon, and if necessary more swearing? Does "disruptive" nowadays mean anything whatsoever beyond IDONTLIKEIT and IDONTLIKEYOU? Best definitions for the word proposed on my talkpage (not here! ANI is full!) will garner fine prizes. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC). This sub-section should be deleted, as it just a criticque. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, agreed...it's bad enough we lost an editor over this; we really shouldn't go into this much discussion about it. It only extends the suffering, in a sense. =( --Ks1stm (talk) [alternate account of Ks0stm] 16:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I think people have enquired enough; I wish they'd stop. ~ mazca talk 16:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Meh, let him have his little kangaroo court. At least if it is in his own user space, it won't be bothering anyone else. The rest of us can get back to building an encyclopedia. Resolute 16:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Indeed, the damage has already been done: retired->indef wikibreak->RTV. Jclemens (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC) So where are the answers? East of Borschov 17:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC) You want answers?--KorruskiTalk 17:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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

RevDel needed at Eddie Vedder, Chris Cornell

Resolved

 – User's IPs and sock blocked; edits oversighted

An individual posting out of at least two Montreal IPs has begun posting increasingly detailed accusations of conspiracies against her by various celebrities. This appears to go far enough beyond garden-variety vandalism to warrant suppression of the edits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• IP is now editing as User:LAM ON EARTH. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I've blocked LAM ON EARTH. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And I oversighted the edits. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Fat Man

User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back has been indeffed: another dumb question from the non-admin peanut gallery. I don't know how to read blocks: does he have access to his talk page? The reason for my question is one of consistency; another indeff'd editor has been given access to her talk page and has continued there the same behaviors that led to the indef, so I hope TFM also still has access to his talk page, for the sake of consistency at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind: he just posted there, so I see he has access. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The block log [15] would say "cannot edit own talk page" if that condition had been imposed. Its absence implies he can still edit his talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, BB-- I guess I should get a cot :) I just wanted to make sure the Jester's privilege isn't less important than other indeff's  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And if you are curious, this is exactly what it would look like if the talk page access was revoked. That was one of those Chinese automated spamming accounts if you are curious. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, again; most helpful (I don't have much experience with these adminly matters). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User Scythian77 editwarring and POV-pushing at Iran-Iraq War

Scythian77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been on a POV-pushing rampage for a few weeks by now, adding the US as Iraq's co-belligerent in the campaign infobox, despite the lack of any sources for this assumption [16], [17], [18] (note the nasty personal assault- “Please do not start an edit war based on your racist agenda” - in the edit summary), [19].

It is not only simple edit warring (where our guidelines would warrant warnings for all participants), but impudent POV pushing, aimed at deliberately introducing a fringe viewpoint only shared by this user, a user who looks like someone's sock puppet and one or two other disruptive Iranian accounts like Xashaiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , who has been on a similar crusade [20], [21], [22] for years by now. They sometimes also add Kuwait, other Arab states or Soviet Union as combatants on Iraqi side (all unsourced, no clarity there), but the main point of their crusade is to include the US. I'd emphasise that what Scythian and his ally have been doing there is simply fringe POV-pushing and violation of WP:OR. It's strictly speaking no longer content dispute, for what kind of content can you write if you have no reliable sources to back up your opinions? They have nothing but their own WP:SYNTH and demagoguery to offer at talk page, all their arguments at talk having been rejected by third parties [23], [24] and their POV-pushing reverted by clearly neutral parties.

Instead of protecting the page, please deal this time with the POV-pushers. MIaceK (woof!) 09:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that Xashaiar has already been indefinitely blocked for Iranian nationalist disruption, however, the block was lifted once he “confirmed they will abide by 1RR in disputed area, and use process for resolution”. He failed to keep his promise, going on to spread his POV by edit warring on various articles like Iraq-Iran War. MIaceK (woof!) 13:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Three points. 1. Your labelling me as "one or two other disruptive Iranian accounts like Xashaiar " is beyond what you, as an editor, are allowed to do. 2. Read the wikipedia guidelines and do not mention unrelated things in your complains about another user. However, my block that you mention was on Cyrus Cylinder and was lifted. And as far as I know A: the promise that I will limit myself to 1rr does not relate to my edits on un-related issues like Iran - Iraq war (I am assuming that you know that these two subjects are not related which is obviously a wrong assumption). B: The countries that you keep deleting from the list (whose addition made me "iranian nationalist"!) as "all respected sources" claim were directly involved in military action against Iran during the war (you did remove the sources too, which is a serious problem in wikipedia). Interestingly you keep "deleting" these countries/parties from the list of Iraq supporting countries/parties and still keep some other unknown organisations in the list of Iran supporting parties! I mean lets laugh a bit: the well-sourced additions of (USA navy and arab league) to Iraq Belligerents have been removed by you and their re-additions by many others are called, by you, "iranian nationalism" but the addition of unsourced, un-claimed, parties like "PUK, KDP, SCIRI, Da'awa," to Iran Belligerents is your way of exercising "npov"?! 3. looking at the block-log of you (i.e. the user Miacek) shows that he/she clearly has a history of disruption on wikipedia and has been blocked 6 times in the last year alone for POV-pushing and edit-warring, to push his agenda (which if I am not mistaken is right-right neo-conservative POV pushing). Xashaiar (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If you had cared to check my block log, you would have noticed that I've been blocked on just two occasions, other entries you could refer to were either sysop mistake that they undid or change in block duration. Secondly, none (and I mean it: none!) of your sources has ever listed the US or Kuwait as co-combatant or co-belligerent of Iraq in its war against Iran. The only cherrypicked quoatation you've managed to lift from some obscure booklet tells about someone being 'were directly involved in military action against Iran'. You refer to this single sentence ad nauseam, coupled with your own WP:SYNTH conclusion that this made the US a belligerent. Others have tried to explain you that the US were also defending the Kuwaiti ships against Iraqi threats: to no avail! Thirdly, your characterization of me as POV-pushing and edit-warring, to push his agenda (which if I am not mistaken is right-right neo-conservative POV pushing) is laughable. MIaceK (woof!) 21:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wholly uncooperative editor on Paramore-related articles

I recently created List of awards and nominations received by Paramore to be in line with the rest of the band articles that we have here. Since then, Para.leaf (talk · contribs) has been added a bunch of fancruft and non-notable awards to the list. Despite repeatedly warning the editor about their edits and urging them to discuss on the talk page, they just keep editing. Further, they have been warned multiple times about marking their major edits as minor, but they insist on doing it anyway. I'm just about at my wit's end, hence posting here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't particularly want to comment on what's fancruft and what's notable, but what is notable is that this editor has been here since July and has never once posted on a talkpage of an article or user. I'm minded to use a short block, to get him to talk, but I'll give him one final warning first. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, now we've got this edit from an IP. The edit is basically a big undo of what Para.leaf did. In an earlier edit, the editor basically copypasted the entire {{Paramore}} template into the article, and that's being done now by the IP. It's not really within the scope of SPI (aside from WP:DUCK, anyway) so I'm not going to open a case for it. Does seem like the editor is trying to avoid scrutiny, though. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Now a new page was created at List of awards, nominations received, and miscellaneous awards and honors by Paramore by copying and pasting the contents of the page to a new one, but adding the miscellany. Related (possible sock?)? Yves (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for review of Rev/Del

I am not the most active admin on the Wiki, but I used RevDel in The Ogre Downstairs just now, admins can view the content, non admins can rely on my log summary. I'd just like a double check on my action, and for someone else to decide what should be done to the IP, as I wrote the article (not my best work, but still) I don't feel comfortable issuing a block. Diff of my revert is here--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Good call. I've reverted the IP's other edits (none of which was close to that level), but don't know if blocking would be effective (unless its an open proxy or TOR or something). Syrthiss (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked 70.160.15.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since it has no good contributions. This IP is on a DSL connection. There is nothing on Google about it being a proxy, so a report at WP:OP doesn't seem worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

All that is good. When I read it (somewhat shocked), I remembered discussions that there is zero tolerance for that kind of thing here and so brought it to this noticeboard, since I could not block him myself. Well, maybe I could have, actually, but by bringing it here, I made sure everything necessary would be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Sock Puppet

There's an editor in Pittsburgh who has been permanently blocked under multiple acounts as a result of threats made against me and an admin who intervened. It appears he's back.

He originally used the handle Gypsydog5150. Here were his contributions using that handle. Here is the original ANI discussion regarding his threats.

He then created an account called Hemmingwayswhiskey and used it to go through various articles undoing my edits. Here are his contributions under that account and here is the ANI discussion regarding that sock puppet account.

He also created a (now blocked) account called MisfitsFan10. The contributions for that account are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

He also makes edits using a dynamic IP that all trace back to Pittsburgh.

It appears he's created a new account called Owens&Minor91. Using that account, he's made this completely unsourced edit, which is identical to edits made by the other (now blocked) accounts hereand here. Here are his other contributions, which show a similar pattern to his original and other IP sock puppet edits.

I would appreciate it if an admin would consider blocking this new sock puppet.

At one time there was discussion of banning the range of IP addresses he was using. An admin noted that he reported the guy's abusive behavior to his ISP.

Thanks.

John2510 (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You could file a sockpuppet investigation (although this would mostly be for formality due to the post here). --Ks1stm (talk) ^{[alternate account of Ks0stm]} 16:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've indeffed the new account. Looie496 (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. John2510 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by dynamic IP at 1982 Lebanon War

A dynamic IP (listed below) that geo-locates to Japan has been making numerous disruptive edits to the 1982 Lebanon War. The IP makes no use of the Talk pages, does not explain his/her edits in the edit summary section, engages in tendentious editing, has been reverted numerous times by other editors and appears to be singularly focused on this one article. I am requesting that the article be Semi-Protected.

• 124.86.5.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 118.0.18.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 114.167.46.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 114.167.63.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 114.150.252.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 123.225.204.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 114.167.60.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 114.167.43.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• 58.91.49.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thank you--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done for a week. Enigma^msg 22:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Contentious RM needs closing

Resolved

 – The requested move issue stands resolved. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Could someone close the RM at Talk:El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium? There's a lot of disputation going on that would be assisted by an uninvolved close. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There was discussion there that the Requested Move process should be allowed to conclude, rather than opening an RFC or--i thought--otherwise canvassing for others to get involved. There's also been productive discussion, including about the tangent of Talk page formatting, now discussed in a separate section, which is fine. I think it's best to let an uninvolved Requested Move editor close eventually, and not call here for a quick close. --doncram (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, S's posting seems like a small violation of wp:CANVASS guideline, looking at the several criteria there for what constitutes inappropriate canvassing. --doncram (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Could you be clearer please? Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. SarekOfVulcan opened the Requested Move and had a clear position in the move. S has recently been involved in several disagreements with me, including blocking me (eventually overturned) and opening an RFC/U about me (eventually closed and deleted), and disagreeing at [wp:AN discussion] about whether the RFC/U was obviously delete-worthy, and following me closely and reverting edits in several articles, and also challenging me to open an RFC/U about him in some comment (don't have diff right now). Wanting a non-involved closer seems okay and good. But asking here, where SarekOfVulcan posts frequently, seems broadly like "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way", his way. It's a non-important article naming issue, really. But in 2 of the 4 wp:CANVASS criteria for evaluating inappropriate canvassing, Audience (votestacking) and Transparency (Stealth canvassing), the request here seems off. If the close were left to a regular Requested Move closer (admin or otherwise), that closer would be more focused on merits and less focused on anything about SarekOfVulcan vs. me. On transparency, the posting here was also not mentioned at the Talk page, where there was activity today, including some seemingly useful discussion. And since SarekOfVulcan had, at the Talk page, agreed with Orlady and me that a separate RFC should not be opened, it seems even a bit more odd that S was publicly taking a stance that the Requested Move process should conclude naturally, without other recruitment of other editors to get involved, but then asking here for someone to get involved.

I do get the impression that non-administrators posting here or at wp:AN, perhaps especially if speaking with knowledge about guidelines and policies, tends to get administrators' attention in a negative, closing-ranks kind of way. In fact, the Requested Move was closed by Wifione. Wifione, may i presume that was in response to S's request here? And was it also after reading / in response to my objection here (but i don't guess whether you had seen my posting here beforehand or not). The announced decision statement's phrase "perspectives of seeing guidelines in a unique format by one of the opposing editors" seems to be addressed towards me, i am not sure. If it was SarekOfVulcan's goal to get a closer with that focus, and in favor of S's view, then that was achieved. Note, I myself had just added a new argument to a summary of pro and con arguments about the move there, and ask a question, which could have perhaps swayed other participants' views, but did not get time to sink in or other due consideration. So I think this is a small miscarriage of justice, or at least that letting usual processes end would have provided for a cleaner close. It is really not that important in that the name of the article does not really matter, but there are other principles involved, which is why others and i had continued with discussion. I see no reason why it had to be closed. I do believe that wifione applied his/her best, objective judgment, but that the judgment was informed in the way that S wished. --doncram (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Contentious RMs, by definition, need an admin close. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So? Do you mean to suggest that RMs where there is disagreement need to be posted about here? --doncram (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No, they do not need to, but considering this is the board for requesting admin action, it's perfectly acceptable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not if it is, or appears to be, inappropriate canvassing.

And in this new edit by you, you revert me on some copyediting which i think improved the article, for consolidating discussion of the NRHPness. That is on the very article being discussed here, but do you have to go out of your way to find little things to disagree with me about? In following me closely elsewhere, you've shown a pattern of reverts like that also on articles where you were never previously involved. Seems petty. --doncram (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment on edits, not editors. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, editors often disagree on whether an edit "improved the article" or not. That's why we have talk pages. You add something, someone else removes it, you go to the talk page and ask why it was removed... and everyone discusses until a consensus is formed. At least that is how BRD is supposed to work. Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course there's room for disagreement on wording, which is why i said "i think" about my own. I am noticing that SarekOfVulcan is not responding about the issue of apparent canvassing, however. --doncram (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought "requesting an action that can only be taken by an admin on the board for requesting admin action is appropriate" was all the response that was needed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed (if possible).

User on a 69.151 prefix keeps adding nonsense to certain articles; we revert and/or block and he's back with a new number

Current numbers used:

• 69.151.149.61 (talk · contribs)
• 69.151.223.90 (talk · contribs)
• 69.151.220.70 (talk · contribs)
• 69.151.197.203 (talk · contribs)
• 69.151.215.120 (talk · contribs)
• 69.151.192.229 (talk · contribs)

...ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Can anything be done here? SP would stop him, but it would have to literally be permanent and talk pages are involved. HalfShadow 20:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

69.151.192.0/19 would cover that range, but there's a fair amount of collateral damage. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

69.151.128.0/17 blocked 3 months. Any further vandalism will have to result in long-term semi-protection. –MuZemike 20:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur on the collateral damage, but I was checking two more bits to the left (.128/17). (Would your /19 cover the first address?)  Frank  |  talk  20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Blah, you're right; I skipped that one in my calculation. /17 was right then. :/ — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify to Frank and the others that my rangeblock is anon only, account creation blocked; I have made a note in the block rationale to go straight to WP:ACC to request an account. The problem is that there has also been registered accounts this vandal has created, which goes back several months, hence the length of the block. –MuZemike 20:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, looks perfectly reasonable. Thanks.  Frank  |  talk  21:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Another IP range

An IP range from Pakistan has been following Geniac (talk · contribs) and reverting his edits, apparently over a dispute about Ahmed Rushdi. All of the IPs are from 119.154.XXX.XXX, but otherwise vary greatly. Some samples:

• 119.154.38.129 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.39.236 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.41.72 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.42.35 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.44.169 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.45.201 (talk · contribs)

• 119.154.104.231 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.105.231 (talk · contribs)

• 119.154.114.175 (talk · contribs)

• 119.154.121.27 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.123.206 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.124.183 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.127.90 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.129.98 (talk · contribs)

• 119.154.132.3 (talk · contribs)
• 119.154.133.120 (talk · contribs)

There are others, but those are the /24 ranges seen so far. Someone with more rangeblock clue than I possess is welcome to examine what might be done, as it's obvious that some selectivity is needed to keep from blocking much of Pakistan. Acroterion _(talk) 21:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And 119.154.41.197 (talk · contribs) has now followed my edits to an editor who self-identified as a nine-year-old. For the record, my mother's been dead for thirty years. Acroterion _(talk) 21:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I just swatted another one. A high proportion of the contributions from the /16 range appear to be the problem user; one way would be to use short range blocks, e.g. a couple of hours at a time (trolls get bored easily). It might be possible to narrow it down further but it does look like this would cause at least some collateral damage. Antandrus (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Some narrow ranges might work; it's not so fun to have to cycle your router four times to get an unblocked IP. Acroterion _(talk) 22:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a way to do it in three: 119.154.32.0/19, 119.154.96.0/19, 119.154.128.0/21 (with the ones you've given so far -- I didn't see any more on a quick run through the full /16 contributions). Antandrus (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. It's 0323 in Karachi, so I think I'll do 24 hours to discourage a return in 18 hours. Acroterion _(talk) 22:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I already did it ... it's tightly focused and shouldn't affect many other editors (there was a good editor, for example, one of the other /19 ranges). Antandrus (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I stepped on one, but set it back to your terms. Acroterion _(talk) 22:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing a quote from a user page

In this edit I removed a quote by Brewcrewer from Nableezy's user page. Nableezy has queried my action, but not reverted. Nableezy has been notified of WP:ARBPIA, but doesn't have any special restriction relating to civility etc. Was my action ok? PhilKnight (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If that's what Brewcrewer said and he's OK with Nableezy putting the quote on his userpage, I don;t see a problem with it. If not, then it could be seen as provocative. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see the generalizable principle that leads to the conclusion that it's appropriate to remove it. PhilKnight, could you please articulate it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In my edit summary, I described it as uncollegial. Also, I suspect that Brewcrewer would find it as provocative. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If Brewercrewer finds it provocative to have his words quoted in that way, perhaps that suggests that he might do well to rethink his post on that talk page. The fact that Nableezy is quoting it can't be the only thing amiss here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

:::@PhilKnight, I am afraid you removing the quote from Nab's user page shows yet another time that you are not uninvolved administrator concerning I/A conflict area.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry it was a wrong post.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1, could you explain? PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC) No problem. PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Phil's action. WP:civility as the basis. Which, inter alia, says: "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely". And that "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict". This appears to be less than civil. What is needed in the I/P area is greater civility by editors, not efforts by editors to inflame, insult, or bait each other.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec w Ep) The edit, especially considering the edit summary, adds more ammunition to an already active battlefield. The rule is that we should always comment on content, not the contributor. The rule is there for a reason, and if editors cannot abide by it they should think about removing themselves from the contentious topic to somewhere they can focus on content. If an editor has problems with another editor, there are ways of dealing with that such as RFC/U. Posting such as this to their user page is not part of the dispute resolution process. -Atmoz (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles section 4.1.2 - Decorum. The first line is clear. And the trolling line might also apply. There are two problems, though. Previous consensus has allowed Nableezy to do whatever he wants on his user page and another admin has mentioned that this sort of thing should be at AE instead of ANI. Cptnono (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

While it is nice that so many familiar faces have made an appearance, I would like to ask a few simple questions. How is quoting a user and providing a diff for the quote uncivil or an attack or "ammunition to an already active battlefield"? The reason the quote was there was because it is representative of some of the nonsense that users deal with in the topic area. I dont think there is anything wrong with including such a quote, I make no disparaging remark about the quote, I simply show what a user thinks, that the sources are "irrelevant". If somebody wants to make the absurd claim that accurately quoting a user and providing a diff for that quote is either "trolling" or "brings the project into disrepute" that user should be required to back up that claim with more than his imagination. Either that or strike the absurd line. I would like somebody to explain to me why what a user said on a talk page cannot be quoted on my userpage. With a reason with more substance than unsupported assertions that "civility" demands it. nableezy - 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, see the first line of the decision. It should be crystal clear. In regards to trolling, if you did it to make a point about the editor and to get under his skin then it might be considered trolling. Is it fostering courteous interaction with the user? Is it highlighting your constructive and collaborative outlook? No. It was a poor comment (assuming there is no other context) and it looks like you are attempting to showcase that and bring ridicule upon the other editor. But like I said, admins have allowed you to continue your behavior. I don't know why but that is the way it is.Cptnono (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Per WP:UP#POLEMIC, "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" may not be part of user pages. As such, the removal of the content was correct. This userspace issue does not seem to be within the scope of WP:ARBPIA, though.  Sandstein  18:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

How is accurately quoting a user either an attack or the recording of a perceived flaw? The flaw is with Wikipedia in that it allows editors who say that in a conflict on where a place is that what sources say that place is located is an "irrelevant straw man". How is accurately quoting a user and providing a diff of that quote a violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC? And if it were, shouldnt MFD be used? nableezy - 19:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

MfD is only for deleting entire pages. Under the circumstances, notably your repeated disagreements with Brewcrewer about I/P issues, the quote cannot be understood other than as an attempt by you to mock or disparage Brewcrewer. That is not allowed.  Sandstein  19:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

But Im not mocking brewcrewer, Im mocking Wikipedia. If you look at the talkpage I thank brewcrewer for his honesty on this subject. I dont have a problem with brewcrewer feeling this way or voicing this opinion. I do however have a problem with the administrators here who think it is a bigger problem that I quote a user saying the sources are irrelevant than the problem that there is a user who actually says the sources are irrelevant. nableezy - 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hadn't noticed the comment until I was notified of the discussion. In general I would not have a problem with being mocked over something silly that I said. But this "quote" of mine is being taken out of context. Anyone who reads the discussion in its entirety will see that I did not mean that in general "sourcing is irrelevant." I meant that for that particular discussion sourcing is irrelevant because the issue was which sourced content should be primary and which sourced content should be secondary. This much was explained to Nableezy at the talk page,[25] but s/he chose to ignore me and post the taken-out-of-context quote on his user page. These type of strawman arguments and incivility are par for the course in my interaction with Nableezy as seen at Talk:Rachel's Tomb#Location and Talk:Psagot#legality.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The context is provided by the diff. You cannot in good faith claim that the quote is taken out of context when the entire context is provided. These type of bad faith arguments are par for the course in my interaction with editors who disregard sources in favor of their own personal wishes. nableezy - 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

But you can in good faith argue that "The reason the quote was there was because it is representative of some of the nonsense that users deal with in the topic area" while the edit summary says "return brews finest hour" and it was posted 12 minutes after brewcrewer commented on an AE report concerning you, but almost two weeks after he actually made the comment you quoted? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because what you write isnt entirely true, but that is to be expected from you. Brew made the edit on 21:39, 21 October 2010. I initially added it to my userpage 6 minutes later. I took it down and then put it back up in the edit you reference. nableezy - 20:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you put it back up? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it's absurd. brewcrewer basically admits that nableezy is right, that's it's in the West Bank, but that the location should still be decided on who controls the area and his idea of what readers are interested in. The sources against Rachel's Tomb as being in the West Bank include an Israeli High Court decision; even Israel disagrees with brewcrewer's proposed location. The quote sums up the only reasoning justifying the edit. It's in the context of the exact same argument used in every disputed bit of Israeli occupied territory, that we should say it's in Israel because Israel controls it. This cycle is repeated over and over and over in different articles by the same editors, wasting massive amounts of time. Maybe nableezy should have just reported brewcrewer for tendentious editing but it's a perfect crystallization of what goes on here (and looks even worse in context).Sol (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious brew was saying "the sources are not the issue" not "the sources are not important".

Why did he put it back up when he did, right after brew did something he didn't like? Coincidence? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont know, whys the sky the blue? nableezy - 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Scattering of sunlight by particles in the atmosphere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame you can't be honest about why you did it. Do I really need to dig up the previous times you put stuff on your user page just to annoy other editors? You didn't used to be shy about it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The placement is intentionally provocative. Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been handled with kid gloves despite a multitude of violations on WP:ARBPIA such as calling fellow editors "certain ultra right-wing nationalists" and assuming bad faith, ignoring factual data as it is presented to him :

• "certain ultra right-wing nationalists" (2 November 2010)
• "I dont exactly believe most (all) of what you claim" (1 November 2010),
• "I will be reinserting this material once protection is lifted." (2 November 2010)

His style is to allege others are bad editors and his efforts are meant to counter them, which is a horrible starting point -- and leads to a horrible editor to work with. One that uses red herrings and ignores content and attempts at reasoning.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC) + 22:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC) + 01:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You really want me to respond to this nonsense? You might not look so good if I do. nableezy - 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"With respect", after all that?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The usual phraseology would be, "With all undue respect..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Even starting with an assumption of good faith, and ignoring that Nableezy has just been blocked elsewhere for incivility, I find it difficult to believe, after hearing about the history between the two, that Nableezy was doing anything other than engaging in uncivil mocking. And therefore find it unduly stretching credulity to believe his statements here that that was not his intent. But we need not go there, unless someone is seeking to have Nableezy sanctioned for incivility. All we need to do is let Nableezy understand how his edit is seen by the community.

Understanding (now) the consensus view on the subject, of course he, as a non-disruptive editor who is most assuredly not seeking to mock another editor against core wp guidelines, will be quite happy that the offending language that he had posted has been removed. End of story.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Uhh no, there were a few uninvolved views here, and Ill pay attention to them, but for the most part this section has been dominated by users who havent done much in the past few days except for request that I be blocked. Ill just have to find a creative way to include this quote, a way that would not be "uncollegial". nableezy - 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, I would suggest that you respect consensus. You were blocked this week. You now indicate a lack of interest in respecting the views of those who supported you being blocked -- as though their opinions about your editing or disruption are not legitimate. You have it wrong. As you were blocked on the advice of those editors, it is precisely those editors who you should be heeding. WP:consensus does not suggest that Nableezy should only heed the views of those who agree with him, and not the views of those who the blocking admins agree with. If you are indeed intending to be non-disruptive, as you maintained, you will heed the view expressed above.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In 3 years I have been blocked for 3 hours for civility. I understand why you are repeating this line, Ive seen you play this game before, you like to pretend that a somebody is a "problem user" with a "history of disruption". I dont see a consensus for anything here, and even if there were a drama board is not the place to determine the consensus on what may be placed on a userpage, MFD is. You can continue to comment here, but it wont affect anything I do. If uninvolved users have something to say I will certainly pay attention. Bye. nableezy - 14:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy. If we start using labels like "problem user" with a "history of disruption" for every editor who's only been blocked 6 times this year [26], we're setting unreasonably high standards. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

ahh, but all my blocks are in my one block log. How many of your friends can say the same? nableezy - 17:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have evidence of socking, you should retract that statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nab -- as you know, you have an impressive number of blocks, and separately an impressive number of bans. Some of the editors who you don't want to listen to here are the ones who contributed to complaints about your behavior that led to your blocks and bans. Again, I would suggest that those are precisely the editors you should heed, rather than ignore, if your goal is to be a non-disruptive contributor to the Project, which of course I'm sure it is.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It actually appears that adding up all of your blocks results in a number greater than mine. Does that mean that as you have so many blocks your view is irrelevant? Color me confused, I thought you kept raising others history because you had a clean one. Back to the point, Ill pay attention to whatever uninvolved editors have to say. That doesnt include the editors who made a complaint about my supposedly incivility which resulted in a 3 hour block for me and a 48 hour block for the user who wrote the line that prompted my response. Funny how not one of you had any problem at all with what that user wrote. TBS funny. nableezy - 22:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

couldn't be maybe that the other user's block for PA was disputed by all but three out of about a dozen or so editors, whereas your comment was an undisputable PA; could it? WookieInHeat (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• No opinion - If we want to talk about quotes, I think his "All that will happen is that uninvolved users will be drowned out by familiar faces making predictable positions", said in regards to this AN/I filing, was spot on. If we strip out the noise from the above discussion, we're left with one legitimate opinion against the quotation usage (Sandstein). So how about this; all those involved in the topic area zip it, and let people with no horse in the race get a word in edgewise if they wish. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Tarc -- I encourage you not to zip it. Let's AGF, and assume that even editors who have observed and supplied information relative to Nab's prior blocks are entitled to contribute to this discussion. It makes little sense to censor out of the discussion those editors who have made legitimate complaints regarding Nab, that have been supported by admin action. If fairness is our goal.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment it would seem the most logical conclusion would be that if brew doesn't mind the comment on nableezy's page, it's fine. that said, if brew feels the comment is being taken out of context in order to portray him in a negative light (which does appear to be the intention), it shouldn't be there. on another note, as per usual nableezy appears to be treading the civility line very carefully, being as condescending as possible without stepping over it (i.e. calling other users comments "nonsense" in this thread). WookieInHeat (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to propose we start a page somewhere called "I/P Bickering", thus allowing the rest of the wiki-verse to return to more productive things. This has already become the predicted forum for attacking favorite targets. Sol (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Need to find a wikiproject to review articles

Clearly this guy has an interest in some topic, but I'm unable to determine what the topic is. The articles he is creating don't have valid intros or descriptions, so it's almost impossible to tell what the topic is. I'd really like someone from a valid WikiProject to take a look at all this work to see what can/should be done. But I cannot determine the WikiProject where I should post the comment. Can someone help? — Timneu22 · talk 16:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The linguistics people would seem to be who you're looking for; SemEval probably stands for Semantic Evaluations. I'm tempted to tag SemEval for G11 as it stands now, though; I won't, but someone should take a look at it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I added a note to that page. Hope that's right. Thanks — Timneu22 · talk 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely not A1, as you tagged it. Have you tried to discuss this with the user? Or notified them of this discussion? -Atmoz (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you identify the context of that article? — Timneu22 · talk 17:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I could barely figure out what the hell it was; although that's an unusual use of A1, I think it was a reasonable application of it, given that the article doesn't have any (I only figured it out after running a Google search, and I'm still only guessing; I could be wrong). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering the first line has a link to the conference, A1 is clearly inappropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The article still reads like an advertisement, though; I'll let someone else judge that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. This is a new user trying to write their first article on a topic they are obviously familiar with. It may or may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, but new users are not required to know all the rules. In fact, they are encouraged to be bold and this user was when creating this article. The proper response is not to summarily delete their work, but to work with them to try to improve the article, or communicate with them and explain why their article may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. So please, stop biting the newcomers. -Atmoz (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If i may speak, SemEval is a series of conferences discussing on an issue in Natural Language Processing. The reason why you cannot find the details online is because the google engine pagerank gave you the relevant sites but there is no 1 website that will explain to you what the whole idea of SemEval is about. There are 5 workshops held and each workshops have sub-workshops, that they call them tasks. and therefore when you search on google, only bits and pieces of the sub-workshops are reflected. The wiki page was a first step to gather all these bits and pieces into 1 site and it is only a first step. please help to improve this wikipage by giving us suggestions on how to make the wikipage more wikiable to the readers. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvations (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please pardon the creation of the multiple page, because it is an attempt to simplify the page after reading the comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SemEval#why_wikify so i thought of porting out the different sections might be a way to wikify the page. But that's how open source stuff are, one puts up and the rest improve. thank you for your tolerance.Alvations (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have a life outside Wikipedia, I made that comment knowing I would have to leave for a while, and I was trying to draw someone's attention to it. Since I won't have the amount of time necessary for at least several hours, and I'm now attempting to deal with another unrelated matter, I wanted to make sure someone would notice it. Honestly, if I was new and I saw my own comments, I'd be more interested in rectifying the problem than anything else, which seems to be the case with this user, so don't worry so much about hurt feelings. The work still needs to be done; I'm more than happy to put in the time, but I'm not sure if/when I'll have the time to sit down and do it. Just relax, OK? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Side not we are on our Second SPA, popping up The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Third SPA The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fourth The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fifth. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

{{notavote}} has failed us here's number six The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Three year old spammer account has popped up in support. Definite off Wiki-Canvassing going on. Two of the IPs have been from different continents so socking doesnt seem likely. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

please remove false statement

Resolved

 – Obvious sock is obvious, I'm not sure why I didn't block it when I protected the page, to be honest.Black Kite (t) (c) 04:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive640#Conflict of interest, probable sockpuppetry, edit-warring 2|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive640 § Conflict of interest, probable sockpuppetry, edit-warring 2]]; and [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive641#Dcahole redux - now including copyvio|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive641 § Dcahole redux - now including copyvio]]

Men's Health (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moved from WP:AN

I have tried to remove "The magazine does not submit itself to be measured by circulation or demographic companies" from the magazine article on Men's Health but all tries to do so have been road-blocked. I also tried to add sourced content including criticism but these were also erased. What a waste of time! At least remove the false statement or I'll ask Men's Health if they'd like to do an expose on how to decrease your anxiety, by never trusting Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allowkeeps (talk • contribs) 06:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Uhm.. was that a threat?? Do you actually expect us to help you now? -- œ^™ 06:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Allow me to be the first to say.. lol. ... But seriously, we've all been editing here for a long while, and even we know wikipedia should never be used as a source. It is a tertiary source, after all.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm confused How on earth would a site you say can't be trusted become any more trustworthy by allowing some random internet user to remove content that is sourced to a New York Times article just because this unknown user says "no no, it's not true"? See WP:V policy. I can't access the article right now, so maybe someone else could check if it actually supports the statement. DMacks (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This has a familiar ring. Wasn't someone edit-warring over that same magazine a month or two ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • You're probably thinking of the delightfully-named Dcahole (talk · contribs), who later sockpuppeted as Amongelse (talk · contribs). The similar username of the complainant is surely just the product of the unavoidable quantum randomness of the universe. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The statement in the NYT doesn't appear to be referring to Men's Health. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Unsurprisingly, there is comparatively little substantial difference (note that some of the differences are just blank line changes) between the preferred versions of dcahole (talk · contribs) and allowkeeps (talk · contribs). Uncle G (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The contested statement appears to be false. At any rate the NYT source given refers to Children's Health (magazine), a related magazine by the same publisher. Rd232 ^talk 09:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Concerning Agadha

Moved to WP:UAA

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorncrag (talk • contribs) 06:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It'd be great if some kind admin would go over there; it's not too bad yet, but they're starting to pile up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing a quote from a user page

In this edit I removed a quote by Brewcrewer from Nableezy's user page. Nableezy has queried my action, but not reverted. Nableezy has been notified of WP:ARBPIA, but doesn't have any special restriction relating to civility etc. Was my action ok? PhilKnight (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If that's what Brewcrewer said and he's OK with Nableezy putting the quote on his userpage, I don;t see a problem with it. If not, then it could be seen as provocative. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see the generalizable principle that leads to the conclusion that it's appropriate to remove it. PhilKnight, could you please articulate it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In my edit summary, I described it as uncollegial. Also, I suspect that Brewcrewer would find it as provocative. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If Brewercrewer finds it provocative to have his words quoted in that way, perhaps that suggests that he might do well to rethink his post on that talk page. The fact that Nableezy is quoting it can't be the only thing amiss here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

:::@PhilKnight, I am afraid you removing the quote from Nab's user page shows yet another time that you are not uninvolved administrator concerning I/A conflict area.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry it was a wrong post.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz1, could you explain? PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC) No problem. PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Phil's action. WP:civility as the basis. Which, inter alia, says: "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely". And that "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict". This appears to be less than civil. What is needed in the I/P area is greater civility by editors, not efforts by editors to inflame, insult, or bait each other.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec w Ep) The edit, especially considering the edit summary, adds more ammunition to an already active battlefield. The rule is that we should always comment on content, not the contributor. The rule is there for a reason, and if editors cannot abide by it they should think about removing themselves from the contentious topic to somewhere they can focus on content. If an editor has problems with another editor, there are ways of dealing with that such as RFC/U. Posting such as this to their user page is not part of the dispute resolution process. -Atmoz (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles section 4.1.2 - Decorum. The first line is clear. And the trolling line might also apply. There are two problems, though. Previous consensus has allowed Nableezy to do whatever he wants on his user page and another admin has mentioned that this sort of thing should be at AE instead of ANI. Cptnono (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

While it is nice that so many familiar faces have made an appearance, I would like to ask a few simple questions. How is quoting a user and providing a diff for the quote uncivil or an attack or "ammunition to an already active battlefield"? The reason the quote was there was because it is representative of some of the nonsense that users deal with in the topic area. I dont think there is anything wrong with including such a quote, I make no disparaging remark about the quote, I simply show what a user thinks, that the sources are "irrelevant". If somebody wants to make the absurd claim that accurately quoting a user and providing a diff for that quote is either "trolling" or "brings the project into disrepute" that user should be required to back up that claim with more than his imagination. Either that or strike the absurd line. I would like somebody to explain to me why what a user said on a talk page cannot be quoted on my userpage. With a reason with more substance than unsupported assertions that "civility" demands it. nableezy - 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, see the first line of the decision. It should be crystal clear. In regards to trolling, if you did it to make a point about the editor and to get under his skin then it might be considered trolling. Is it fostering courteous interaction with the user? Is it highlighting your constructive and collaborative outlook? No. It was a poor comment (assuming there is no other context) and it looks like you are attempting to showcase that and bring ridicule upon the other editor. But like I said, admins have allowed you to continue your behavior. I don't know why but that is the way it is.Cptnono (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Per WP:UP#POLEMIC, "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" may not be part of user pages. As such, the removal of the content was correct. This userspace issue does not seem to be within the scope of WP:ARBPIA, though.  Sandstein  18:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

How is accurately quoting a user either an attack or the recording of a perceived flaw? The flaw is with Wikipedia in that it allows editors who say that in a conflict on where a place is that what sources say that place is located is an "irrelevant straw man". How is accurately quoting a user and providing a diff of that quote a violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC? And if it were, shouldnt MFD be used? nableezy - 19:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

MfD is only for deleting entire pages. Under the circumstances, notably your repeated disagreements with Brewcrewer about I/P issues, the quote cannot be understood other than as an attempt by you to mock or disparage Brewcrewer. That is not allowed.  Sandstein  19:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

But Im not mocking brewcrewer, Im mocking Wikipedia. If you look at the talkpage I thank brewcrewer for his honesty on this subject. I dont have a problem with brewcrewer feeling this way or voicing this opinion. I do however have a problem with the administrators here who think it is a bigger problem that I quote a user saying the sources are irrelevant than the problem that there is a user who actually says the sources are irrelevant. nableezy - 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hadn't noticed the comment until I was notified of the discussion. In general I would not have a problem with being mocked over something silly that I said. But this "quote" of mine is being taken out of context. Anyone who reads the discussion in its entirety will see that I did not mean that in general "sourcing is irrelevant." I meant that for that particular discussion sourcing is irrelevant because the issue was which sourced content should be primary and which sourced content should be secondary. This much was explained to Nableezy at the talk page,[27] but s/he chose to ignore me and post the taken-out-of-context quote on his user page. These type of strawman arguments and incivility are par for the course in my interaction with Nableezy as seen at Talk:Rachel's Tomb#Location and Talk:Psagot#legality.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The context is provided by the diff. You cannot in good faith claim that the quote is taken out of context when the entire context is provided. These type of bad faith arguments are par for the course in my interaction with editors who disregard sources in favor of their own personal wishes. nableezy - 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

But you can in good faith argue that "The reason the quote was there was because it is representative of some of the nonsense that users deal with in the topic area" while the edit summary says "return brews finest hour" and it was posted 12 minutes after brewcrewer commented on an AE report concerning you, but almost two weeks after he actually made the comment you quoted? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because what you write isnt entirely true, but that is to be expected from you. Brew made the edit on 21:39, 21 October 2010. I initially added it to my userpage 6 minutes later. I took it down and then put it back up in the edit you reference. nableezy - 20:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you put it back up? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Because it's absurd. brewcrewer basically admits that nableezy is right, that's it's in the West Bank, but that the location should still be decided on who controls the area and his idea of what readers are interested in. The sources against Rachel's Tomb as being in the West Bank include an Israeli High Court decision; even Israel disagrees with brewcrewer's proposed location. The quote sums up the only reasoning justifying the edit. It's in the context of the exact same argument used in every disputed bit of Israeli occupied territory, that we should say it's in Israel because Israel controls it. This cycle is repeated over and over and over in different articles by the same editors, wasting massive amounts of time. Maybe nableezy should have just reported brewcrewer for tendentious editing but it's a perfect crystallization of what goes on here (and looks even worse in context).Sol (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious brew was saying "the sources are not the issue" not "the sources are not important".

Why did he put it back up when he did, right after brew did something he didn't like? Coincidence? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I dont know, whys the sky the blue? nableezy - 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Scattering of sunlight by particles in the atmosphere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame you can't be honest about why you did it. Do I really need to dig up the previous times you put stuff on your user page just to annoy other editors? You didn't used to be shy about it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The placement is intentionally provocative. Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been handled with kid gloves despite a multitude of violations on WP:ARBPIA such as calling fellow editors "certain ultra right-wing nationalists" and assuming bad faith, ignoring factual data as it is presented to him :

• "certain ultra right-wing nationalists" (2 November 2010)
• "I dont exactly believe most (all) of what you claim" (1 November 2010),
• "I will be reinserting this material once protection is lifted." (2 November 2010)

His style is to allege others are bad editors and his efforts are meant to counter them, which is a horrible starting point -- and leads to a horrible editor to work with. One that uses red herrings and ignores content and attempts at reasoning.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC) + 22:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC) + 01:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You really want me to respond to this nonsense? You might not look so good if I do. nableezy - 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"With respect", after all that?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The usual phraseology would be, "With all undue respect..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Even starting with an assumption of good faith, and ignoring that Nableezy has just been blocked elsewhere for incivility, I find it difficult to believe, after hearing about the history between the two, that Nableezy was doing anything other than engaging in uncivil mocking. And therefore find it unduly stretching credulity to believe his statements here that that was not his intent. But we need not go there, unless someone is seeking to have Nableezy sanctioned for incivility. All we need to do is let Nableezy understand how his edit is seen by the community.

Understanding (now) the consensus view on the subject, of course he, as a non-disruptive editor who is most assuredly not seeking to mock another editor against core wp guidelines, will be quite happy that the offending language that he had posted has been removed. End of story.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Uhh no, there were a few uninvolved views here, and Ill pay attention to them, but for the most part this section has been dominated by users who havent done much in the past few days except for request that I be blocked. Ill just have to find a creative way to include this quote, a way that would not be "uncollegial". nableezy - 02:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, I would suggest that you respect consensus. You were blocked this week. You now indicate a lack of interest in respecting the views of those who supported you being blocked -- as though their opinions about your editing or disruption are not legitimate. You have it wrong. As you were blocked on the advice of those editors, it is precisely those editors who you should be heeding. WP:consensus does not suggest that Nableezy should only heed the views of those who agree with him, and not the views of those who the blocking admins agree with. If you are indeed intending to be non-disruptive, as you maintained, you will heed the view expressed above.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In 3 years I have been blocked for 3 hours for civility. I understand why you are repeating this line, Ive seen you play this game before, you like to pretend that a somebody is a "problem user" with a "history of disruption". I dont see a consensus for anything here, and even if there were a drama board is not the place to determine the consensus on what may be placed on a userpage, MFD is. You can continue to comment here, but it wont affect anything I do. If uninvolved users have something to say I will certainly pay attention. Bye. nableezy - 14:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy. If we start using labels like "problem user" with a "history of disruption" for every editor who's only been blocked 6 times this year [28], we're setting unreasonably high standards. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

ahh, but all my blocks are in my one block log. How many of your friends can say the same? nableezy - 17:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless you have evidence of socking, you should retract that statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nab -- as you know, you have an impressive number of blocks, and separately an impressive number of bans. Some of the editors who you don't want to listen to here are the ones who contributed to complaints about your behavior that led to your blocks and bans. Again, I would suggest that those are precisely the editors you should heed, rather than ignore, if your goal is to be a non-disruptive contributor to the Project, which of course I'm sure it is.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It actually appears that adding up all of your blocks results in a number greater than mine. Does that mean that as you have so many blocks your view is irrelevant? Color me confused, I thought you kept raising others history because you had a clean one. Back to the point, Ill pay attention to whatever uninvolved editors have to say. That doesnt include the editors who made a complaint about my supposedly incivility which resulted in a 3 hour block for me and a 48 hour block for the user who wrote the line that prompted my response. Funny how not one of you had any problem at all with what that user wrote. TBS funny. nableezy - 22:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

couldn't be maybe that the other user's block for PA was disputed by all but three out of about a dozen or so editors, whereas your comment was an undisputable PA; could it? WookieInHeat (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• No opinion - If we want to talk about quotes, I think his "All that will happen is that uninvolved users will be drowned out by familiar faces making predictable positions", said in regards to this AN/I filing, was spot on. If we strip out the noise from the above discussion, we're left with one legitimate opinion against the quotation usage (Sandstein). So how about this; all those involved in the topic area zip it, and let people with no horse in the race get a word in edgewise if they wish. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Tarc -- I encourage you not to zip it. Let's AGF, and assume that even editors who have observed and supplied information relative to Nab's prior blocks are entitled to contribute to this discussion. It makes little sense to censor out of the discussion those editors who have made legitimate complaints regarding Nab, that have been supported by admin action. If fairness is our goal.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment it would seem the most logical conclusion would be that if brew doesn't mind the comment on nableezy's page, it's fine. that said, if brew feels the comment is being taken out of context in order to portray him in a negative light (which does appear to be the intention), it shouldn't be there. on another note, as per usual nableezy appears to be treading the civility line very carefully, being as condescending as possible without stepping over it (i.e. calling other users comments "nonsense" in this thread). WookieInHeat (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to propose we start a page somewhere called "I/P Bickering", thus allowing the rest of the wiki-verse to return to more productive things. This has already become the predicted forum for attacking favorite targets. Sol (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Need to find a wikiproject to review articles

Clearly this guy has an interest in some topic, but I'm unable to determine what the topic is. The articles he is creating don't have valid intros or descriptions, so it's almost impossible to tell what the topic is. I'd really like someone from a valid WikiProject to take a look at all this work to see what can/should be done. But I cannot determine the WikiProject where I should post the comment. Can someone help? — Timneu22 · talk 16:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The linguistics people would seem to be who you're looking for; SemEval probably stands for Semantic Evaluations. I'm tempted to tag SemEval for G11 as it stands now, though; I won't, but someone should take a look at it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I added a note to that page. Hope that's right. Thanks — Timneu22 · talk 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely not A1, as you tagged it. Have you tried to discuss this with the user? Or notified them of this discussion? -Atmoz (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you identify the context of that article? — Timneu22 · talk 17:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I could barely figure out what the hell it was; although that's an unusual use of A1, I think it was a reasonable application of it, given that the article doesn't have any (I only figured it out after running a Google search, and I'm still only guessing; I could be wrong). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering the first line has a link to the conference, A1 is clearly inappropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The article still reads like an advertisement, though; I'll let someone else judge that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. This is a new user trying to write their first article on a topic they are obviously familiar with. It may or may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, but new users are not required to know all the rules. In fact, they are encouraged to be bold and this user was when creating this article. The proper response is not to summarily delete their work, but to work with them to try to improve the article, or communicate with them and explain why their article may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. So please, stop biting the newcomers. -Atmoz (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If i may speak, SemEval is a series of conferences discussing on an issue in Natural Language Processing. The reason why you cannot find the details online is because the google engine pagerank gave you the relevant sites but there is no 1 website that will explain to you what the whole idea of SemEval is about. There are 5 workshops held and each workshops have sub-workshops, that they call them tasks. and therefore when you search on google, only bits and pieces of the sub-workshops are reflected. The wiki page was a first step to gather all these bits and pieces into 1 site and it is only a first step. please help to improve this wikipage by giving us suggestions on how to make the wikipage more wikiable to the readers. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvations (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please pardon the creation of the multiple page, because it is an attempt to simplify the page after reading the comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SemEval#why_wikify so i thought of porting out the different sections might be a way to wikify the page. But that's how open source stuff are, one puts up and the rest improve. thank you for your tolerance.Alvations (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have a life outside Wikipedia, I made that comment knowing I would have to leave for a while, and I was trying to draw someone's attention to it. Since I won't have the amount of time necessary for at least several hours, and I'm now attempting to deal with another unrelated matter, I wanted to make sure someone would notice it. Honestly, if I was new and I saw my own comments, I'd be more interested in rectifying the problem than anything else, which seems to be the case with this user, so don't worry so much about hurt feelings. The work still needs to be done; I'm more than happy to put in the time, but I'm not sure if/when I'll have the time to sit down and do it. Just relax, OK? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Side not we are on our Second SPA, popping up The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Third SPA The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fourth The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fifth. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

{{notavote}} has failed us here's number six The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Three year old spammer account has popped up in support. Definite off Wiki-Canvassing going on. Two of the IPs have been from different continents so socking doesnt seem likely. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

please remove false statement

Resolved

 – Obvious sock is obvious, I'm not sure why I didn't block it when I protected the page, to be honest.Black Kite (t) (c) 04:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive640#Conflict of interest, probable sockpuppetry, edit-warring 2|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive640 § Conflict of interest, probable sockpuppetry, edit-warring 2]]; and [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive641#Dcahole redux - now including copyvio|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive641 § Dcahole redux - now including copyvio]]

Men's Health (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moved from WP:AN

I have tried to remove "The magazine does not submit itself to be measured by circulation or demographic companies" from the magazine article on Men's Health but all tries to do so have been road-blocked. I also tried to add sourced content including criticism but these were also erased. What a waste of time! At least remove the false statement or I'll ask Men's Health if they'd like to do an expose on how to decrease your anxiety, by never trusting Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allowkeeps (talk • contribs) 06:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Uhm.. was that a threat?? Do you actually expect us to help you now? -- œ^™ 06:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Allow me to be the first to say.. lol. ... But seriously, we've all been editing here for a long while, and even we know wikipedia should never be used as a source. It is a tertiary source, after all.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'm confused How on earth would a site you say can't be trusted become any more trustworthy by allowing some random internet user to remove content that is sourced to a New York Times article just because this unknown user says "no no, it's not true"? See WP:V policy. I can't access the article right now, so maybe someone else could check if it actually supports the statement. DMacks (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This has a familiar ring. Wasn't someone edit-warring over that same magazine a month or two ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • You're probably thinking of the delightfully-named Dcahole (talk · contribs), who later sockpuppeted as Amongelse (talk · contribs). The similar username of the complainant is surely just the product of the unavoidable quantum randomness of the universe. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The statement in the NYT doesn't appear to be referring to Men's Health. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Unsurprisingly, there is comparatively little substantial difference (note that some of the differences are just blank line changes) between the preferred versions of dcahole (talk · contribs) and allowkeeps (talk · contribs). Uncle G (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The contested statement appears to be false. At any rate the NYT source given refers to Children's Health (magazine), a related magazine by the same publisher. Rd232 ^talk 09:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Concerning Agadha

Moved to WP:UAA

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorncrag (talk • contribs) 06:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It'd be great if some kind admin would go over there; it's not too bad yet, but they're starting to pile up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Schwyz and User:Tobias Conradi

Sorry for brining User:Schwyz up yet again but I think I've linked them to an editor who was blocked three and a half years ago, was involved in an ArbCom case and has a community ban. As such I'm feeling out of my depth and don't know where else to post. I realise this is given more limelight to this user so I'm happy for this thread to be quickly deleted / archive as long as I get some advice.

Anyway both myself and User:JaGa are convinced that User:Schwyz is actually User:Tobias Conradi - we've discussed this a bit here. Although I pointed them at Tobias we reached the conclusion they are the same person independently and largely using different evidence.

Reasons I think it was worth posting here (despite all users already being blocked) are:

1. To see if any admins that were around when Tobias has been dealt with before have anything useful to add.
2. It appears to me that we have uncovered only a small proportion of socks. The users involved have boasted of this and there are several users I have concerns about but which haven't edited enough for me to be confident. Given the disruption these users cause very quickly I think they need spotting and dealing with quickly but only having a couple of people looking for them and the slowness of WP:SPI means things happen quite slowly so I'm unsure how best to proceed although I do think this needs more eyes on it.
3. I have no idea how to go about linking the reports at WP:SPI - as they're all banned starting a new SPI doesn't seem the way forward.

Dpmuk (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak to the first two points, but I think I can help with the third. It may be worth putting a notice on the NPP talkpage to watch for a new user suddenly creating 30 one-sentence articles, and to bring it to the attention of an admin who can answer point 1 above. PMDrive1061, who is an admin, and I were working to head some of this off at the pass by creating a decent, referenced stub for Tuma River, which seems to have been the source of a lot of the latest problems; a liberal dose of salt may also help (I'll watch out for the articles he's looking to create, and see if I can beat him to it if possible). Finally, if Schwyz turns out not to be Tobias, it may be worth a separate community ban to help deal with the socks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Time for the hammer

I say we shoul ban Schwyz for sockpuppetry, disruption, and refusal to accept consensus ,anyone agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Access Denied (talk • contribs)

Support; it's about bloody time. PMDrive1061 and I were thinking about starting a ban discussion, but it seems we were beaten to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy close - This user is already banned, per the finding that Schwyz is actually the sock of an already banned user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So are we agreed that Schwyz = Tobias? If so I'll ask for the SPI pages to be merged and update tags etc. As a non-admin I didn't feel particularly happy doing this without an admin making the call they're the same person as only admins make decisions on sockpuppet cases. Dpmuk (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with an update. I just told The Blade that I remember Tobias Conradi from new page patrol, but I thought he was an editor in good standing. Hadn't seen him in a long time...now I know why.  :) He's made a fine mess of things and topped it off with some really irritating trolling. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask on #wikipedia-en-spi for a clerk to do some merging.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate cleanup tag removal

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

---

Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) has been making a habit of removing cleanup tags from articles without addressing the issues to which the cleanup tags refer. For instance, he often removes the {{unreferenced}} tag from articles that have zero references and zero external links, or he removes {{orphan}} tags from articles that have zero incoming links. A quick look through his contributions for just the last few days brought up many examples: [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. He ignored my message on his talk page today and continued to remove tags [37]. He even went so far as to edit war about it with another user, as can be seen here. I can't imagine any reason why a user would remove cleanup tags without addressing the problem first. It seems like he is trying to sweep the problem under the rug so that no one notices. Cleanup tags are an organizational tool which help other editors fix problems with articles, and removing cleanup tags disrupts that organization and prevents known problems from being addressed by willing editors. Therefore, since Colonel Warden's behavior is disrupting/preventing (or, at the very least, making more difficult) the process of improving the encyclopedia, I would characterize it as vandalism. While there is a clear pattern of disruptive behavior here, it's unlikely that punitive measures are required. However, is there any consensus to give Colonel Warden a warning such that the continuation of this behavior will result in a block? SnottyWong ^confabulate 00:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Suffice it to say that my actions are all in good faith and I shall be happy to discuss any particular cases with interested parties. Excuse me if I don't go through this list in detail now as it's time for bed and the details seem likely to be wearisome. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• I can't imagine any particular details that would justify the removal of an {{unreferenced}} tag from an unreferenced article without first adding references, or removing an {{orphan}} tag from an orphaned article without first introducing links into other articles. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 00:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Orphan tags are regarded by many editors as a nuisance. Banner tags about references are not much better because they merely state the obvious in an intrusive way. There have been repeated complaints about such intrusive tagging at Village Pump and, following a recent discussion of this sort, I have been doing something about it. Per WP:V, references are only required for material which has been "challenged or likely to be challenged" and so should not be insisted upon in a general and indiscriminate way. Again, there have been recent discussions at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability which confirm this and these inform my understanding of the matter. And so to bed. Good night. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Do you want to cite those actual discussions? If you want to use the as a defense provide them. We're not going to hunting through the archives for you. The discussion you already cited on your talk page has absolutely nothing to do with what's going on here. You cited a discussion about a bot proposal. That isn't blanket permission for you to start going through and removing maintenance tags without addressing the concerns raised in them.--Crossmr (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say block for blatantly disruptive edits, maintenance tags have a long history of acceptability on wikipedia except for a very small minority of editors I've run across who view maintenance tags on articles as some kind of personal insult to them, but that usually comes with other ownership issues on the articles in question. This edit [38] is further evidence of disruption. it's a blatantly false and misleading edit summary. Unless Colonel would like to show us where on the article's talk page [39] he added an explanation? He's now claimed that it's the talk on his page, but he didn't state that in the summary and any editor reading that would expect to find talk on the article page. It seems from the talk his trying to remove the other templates is to get the ARS template solo time at the top of the article. This makes these edits come across as pointy.-Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Removing orphan tags because "are regarded by many editors as a nuisance" is an action against long-standing consensus and without prior discussion. Moreover, it's pointless because editors and bots will put them back.
• Prod tags removal without any explanation isn't very friendly action neither. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Using "cleanup" as an edit summary, Colonel Warden removed cleanup and unreferenced tags from an article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Colonel Warden's inappropriate removal of cleanup tags, dishonest edit summaries, bogus sourcing to "save" articles at AfD, and dissembling when challenged is getting to be a real nuisance. I think a block at this stage would be more punitive than preventive but it should be made crystal clear to the Colonel that his interpretation of various guidelines and policies is seriously at odds with the rest of the community's, and that the way he acts upon his idiosyncratic interpretation frequently meanders over into disruptive territory. If it continues, a lengthy block would be appropriate. Reyk _YO! 01:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• The Colonel is a good wiki-friend of mine. Alas, in his frustration with people who tag when they should be fixing, he has been trying to make a point in what seems a disruptive way. He knows as well as all of us that the consensus is that articles must be referenced to meet WP:V, & that his interpretation to the contrary is not generally accepted. He may not think "unreferenced" tags helpful, but they are used to compile lists and categories that most of us --myself included--find essential for improving such articles. I consider removing such tags without indicating at least some minimal sourcing does tend to disrupt our processes.

As for "orphan", I personally agree with him that the tag is disruptive to readers if used on the article page, but unfortunately there does not seem to be consensus for that. I;d love to do something about it. But calling attention to it in this way is not a good idea

I see no need for immediate block. If our disapproval is clear enough, I suppose he will not resume in the morning. If he does, then I think we will be forced to do that until he agrees to stop. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand (but don't agree with) the argument that tagging articles for cleanup is viewed by some as less constructive than actually cleaning them up yourself. However, using that same argument, how is untagging the articles (and still not cleaning them up) any better? SnottyWong ^confabulate 04:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There are several helpful routes: fix it if you can, try to find someone to fix it if it's something you don;t know how to do, list it for deletion after considering the other BEFORE options if it is unfixable, or remove the tag if it's unjustified & say why. There is a neutral but unhelpful route: leave it alone. There are some routes that are actively unhelpful: listing it for deletion without trying to source it and considering WP:before, or removing the tag without good reason--both of which impair the ability of others to fix it. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• There is no clear policy on cleanup tags. From my reading of policy this would fall under a content dispute. As such it should first be resolved on an article's talk page and then afterward follow the rest of the dispute resolution process. Lambanog (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Which talk page would you like them to discuss this on? Perhaps if this were one article, I would agree, but Colonel Warden is doing this on multiple articles. The next tag he disruptively removes should result in a block. AniMate 02:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Colonel Warden states he has his reasons for doing so for each article, his removals should therefore be challenged on each one and he should then state his reasons for each. If the removal of these cleanup tags is detrimental there are surely editors watching these articles who will challenge their removal and form consensus against. That is the process. Lambanog (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I can understand removing PROD tags from pages that you think are notable (although a reason would be useful, as suggested in WP:PROD). However, what would you consider a good "reason" for removing unreferenced tags from unreferenced pages? That's just plain disruptive because it stops editors from fixing problems with articles. WP:V is a policy which every unreferenced article violates. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Is the article being edited by another editor? Is the unref tag older than a year? Is the article a stub article on an uncontroversial topic? Unref tags are unspecific tags and their usefulness is debatable. I have stopped editing an article because of the insistence of another editor for imposing one and then when addressed, coming up with another tag. Such tags are sometimes used to coerce content contributors. If an article really has a problem a more specific tag can probably be used. For example in the example you gave below the best tag to use wasn't the unref tag but the copyvio or copypaste tag. If that is explicitly stated in WP: V there is no argument—but it isn't. If consensus is for all unreferenced articles to be tagged, then I don't see why it is not automatic and already the case. I seem to recall a proposal for such at the pump, but if it is not in the process of being imposed I presume it was defeated. If so, there would not seem to be consensus on this view. Lambanog (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Yes, there was no consensus to automatically tag articles, and there were some reasonable arguments made - in certain circumstances some tags are spurious - but I still can't see how removing a tag which says "This article has a problem - please fix it" and which enables editors to improve such articles by being able to identify them is anything other than disruptive. You appear to be suggesting that we should hinder editors from doing so; I have no idea why. If I was cynical, of course, I would suggest that Col. Warden is doing it so that other editors don't find non-notable unreferenced articles and nominate them for deletion. By the way, the correct tag for the example below wasn't a copyvio tag - it would've been a speedy delete G12 tag. We don't tag pure copyvios, we delete them. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
            • There is something called the general disclaimer which gives the warning. It could be argued unref tags are little more useful than spoiler tags. I'm sorry for not picking up on G12 as the most appropriate action; I could not see the deleted article. But again it illustrates how these tags aren't really as helpful as one might think. The mere existence of the copyvio and copypaste tags tends to shift attention away from the G12 route. Similarly the unref tag distracts from actually fixing the problem and supplying a reference. Lambanog (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
              • Er, what? I can understand how an article groaning under the weight of multiple tags might be confusing, but you appear to be saying that a tag which points out to editors that the article requires references distracts them from actually providing references? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? Black Kite (t) (c) 04:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
                • No need to provide the reference there's already an unref warning—someone else can do it. Lambanog (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • I can't see the psychology of that thinking to be honest, but even if some editors think in that way, it is vastly outweighed by the fact that removing the tags hinders editors who do want to improve articles from doing so - at which point the tags would vanish in a correct manner. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
                    • Not if these tags end up annoying editors who would otherwise keep improving the article. Tagging is a relatively lazy way of dealing with issues. If an article is already being actively edited by another editor they are actually likely to be counterproductive. Much better would be to inform the other editor on the talk page to please add a reference. Lambanog (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
                      • I would say the only "lazy" thing is creating an article and then not being bothered to reference it. If editors are "annoyed" by tags then perhaps they could, you know, actually fix the problem so they can remove the tag. I realise that's a can of worms when it comes to tags like NPOV, but for open and shut cases like unreferenced and orphan tags it's not exactly rocket science. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
                        • There are gaping holes in Wikipedia policy that allow the abuse of tagging on almost any pretext with only common sense as a bulwark for defense. If you wish I will go through your article contributions and tag all the "flaws" in them. I'll say Amish furniture if not copy and pasted took more than a little work, certainly more than tagging it for deletion. Jealousy (Queen song) and Ace in the Hole (Cole Porter song) are given as other examples of articles where Colonel Warden inappropriately removed an unref banner—but these articles are hyperlinked to album articles that have references. Maybe {{cn}} tags or AfD or merging were options but removing an ugly banner that was larger than the article itself looks perfectly defensible especially since it didn't seem controversial. I find the assumption of disruptiveness here based on the articles presented tenuous. Only the mild 3RR episode looks to be of concern. This ANI action before other dispute resolution forums were tried could potentially be considered more disruptive. Coercion of volunteer editors to comply with certain standards with the use of tags is potentially more damaging to the project. If it is so easy, in all cases the one putting the banner should show they have made an effort to find references before they pretty much demand another editor currently working on the article to do so. Lambanog (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Note that I have attempted to discuss this on Colonel Warden's talk page, but my comments were ignored. SnottyWong ^speak 02:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• More of a problem is stuff like Mobile Money for the Unbanked. Col Warden removed a PROD tag from this with no rationale, along with the wikify and unreferenced tags. He didn't provide a reference when removing them, mainly because he didn't look for one - I know this because a five-second search for refs would've shown that the entire article was a straight copyvio from this page... Black Kite (t) (c) 03:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • @Lambanog: Actually, as far as I read it, there is a clear consensus on cleanup tags--note the perennial proposal: Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Move maintenance tags to talk pages. Removing them completely is no different (arguably even worse) then moving them off the topic of the article, or on to the talk page. You're right that removing a particular tag from a particular article can be a content dispute--that happens all the time with things like NPOV tags. As Black Kite says, though, its hard to imagine a good "reason" from removing numerous unreferenced tags from an unreferenced articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It's also initially hard to see how removing sources from an article can be considered good. But I've seen it happen and then have a tag from the unref group put in their place. Lambanog (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • If they were valid sources, then that's equally as bad. But that's not relevant to the issue here, which is removing correct tags. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
        • But that question has to be answered first: Are they really correct tags? From the examples given I've looked at above, Colonel Warden in my view has some arguments at his disposable to justify his actions. Lambanog (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
          • An unreferenced tag on an article which contains no references is (obviously) always correct. What argument could you use to claim that it was "wrong" and remove it without adding a reference? Black Kite (t) (c) 06:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• I almost never remove an unreferenced tag outright. My normal practice is to change it to "refimprove" as soon as I have added at least one RS reference. Once I've added a variety of RS references, I then remove the refimprove tag. I do not believe it appropriate to remove an unreferenced tag without either adding a reference or verifying that some sort of reference, even if it is a bare link, exists in the article. My understanding of best practices mirrors my own behavior. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is my own practice as well. If there plainly are existing references on the article, regardless of how they are formatted), then of course it's correct to remove an {{unreferenced}} tag from that article. In most cases, though, if there were no references, then applying a minimal fix for that leaves an article that surely still has referencing issues. As a side point, I myself have removed references from an article and replaced them with an unreferenced tag. If the material offered as a reference is insufficient, inappropriate, or not actually a source for what it is implied to support, that is the correct action. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with both of the above users, as this is pretty much my method of working, and from my understanding "the way things should be done here". Removing tags and not supplying reffs seems like disruptive behavior, dont we even have a vandalism template for it? Heiro 04:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, heres one example Template:Uw-tdel2, amongs others found here Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Heiro 04:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The stark difference between the colonel and snotty is that the colonel actually improves these articles, enriching the encylopedia as a whole, wereas snotty complains and deletes other editors contributions. The same can be said of most of his supporters here too. It will be a truly dark day when such excellent work is punished by such negative editors. Okip 05:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden and Snotty have edited 98 of the same Articles for Deletion.

Snotty has put up Colonel's subpage for deletion, and it was keep snowball keep.[40]

There maybe a pattern of intimidation developing here by Snotty, which may warrant more research if this behavior continues. Okip 05:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Number one, NPA; you can say that without straying into the aforementioned territory. Number two, that's a nifty combination of a red herring and argumentum ad hominem; Snottywong's views aren't being questioned here, it's Colonel Warden's actions. Number three, did you read anything above? The reasons why this is disruptive are pretty clearly laid out; I'm not sure how much clearer it could be. However much of an inclusionist you may be, removing tags for the sheer sake of removing them isn't helpful, as has been said above; you're either not listening or pretending not to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me why I hate this site so much.

Your response is full of the same old tired unoriginal tripe I have read for years.

The "this is out of the discussion boundaries" argument. Who made you the person who creates the boundaries of discussion? If snotty wants to complain about other users here, he had better be ready to defend his own behavior also. This is the standard policy in RFCs, and it is standard here too.

I disagree with you so you obviously dind't read what was said argument or everyone's favorite acronym: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

The bottom line here, when you strip away all acronyms is that:

1. Colonel and snotty have completely opposite views of what wikipedia is. Snotty does in fact spend an inordinate amount of his time deleting other editors contributions.

Spin that anyway you want, with as many acronyms as you want, but that is what it comes down too. Okip 05:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the bottom line here is Colonel Warden is disruptively removing tags. AniMate 05:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You're making my point for me better than I possibly could have. Please, I implore you to read what a red herring is, or even the Chewbacca defense. We're trying to deal with one issue; if you've got some sort of problem with Snottywong's attitude, you can bring that up elsewhere, as I'm sure you well know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Disruptive editor; no surprise. ↑ w/disruptive friends ↑ Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, extraordinarily constructive editor who has, this time, done something disruptive; and with many friends, who are not all of them all the time disruptive, and not all of them all the time perfect. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Now we are templating the regulars.[41] So predictable. And previously sock puppet Jack is here, (ironic he is lecturing on "disruption") along with his staunchest defender AniMate. No surprise there either.

The Blade of the Northern Lights, if you would like, I will post the applicable RFC policy which states that if you bring a complaint against someone, then your behavior will be scrutinized also. The same would go for here. If Snotty wants to attack other editors on ANI, editors should know the background of this dispute. I can't count how many times someone has brought someone to ANI and their behavior is scrutinized also. Latin terms and cute pop terms aside, you can't quote any policy about how ANI should be narrow because their is none. This is your opinion only. Okip 06:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an RfC; don't play me for a fool. I'd suggest you try reading denying the antecedent; you may find it informative. But this is getting off track; could someone maybe hat this, as there's no way this little subsection will be productive? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

don't take the bait; he hates this site, from which I infer he's not here to build an encyclopedia. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Blade, I used to know most of those cool sounding latin debate terms too.  :)

Looking through the ANI's I see that there were two others that they argued in.[42][43] Maybe a non-parital admin can volunteer to mentor the next argument so Snotty does not escalate this to ANI.

Okip 06:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Before it's hatted, I agree with DGG here. CW is a constructive editor although I disagree with some of his actions, and I find this removal of tags a mistake and potentially disruptive and something that he should refrain from doing in the future (on this scale, there are clearly times when it is appropriate to remove tags). The tags are a benefit to the project in that they attract editors who will fix the problem. I tag articles where I don't have the time, the interest, etc to work on them, other times I work on them instead. It would be ideal to always work on the article, but in real life it isn't possible for editors who are very active unless that's their only priority. The conflict between these two isn't helpful of course, nor is stoking the fire here. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

@DGG; wasn't pointing up at you ;) Jack Merridew 06:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's consensus here that removing these tags is disruptive and Colonel Warden should refrain from doing so in the future unless he has fixed the problem or can easily demonstrate that the tags no longer apply. Are there any other issues to deal with? AniMate 06:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't believe so, it should be hatted now. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Nate2357 and Nate5713

Nate5713 (talk · contribs) and Nate2357 (talk · contribs) are clearly the same editor and edit related or the same articles, and in June I posted to 5713's talk page suggesting that I block one of his accounts. Today one of them created an article which was turned into a redirect by another editor, and the 2nd account has been reverting the redirect. I know that there can be legitimate reasons for having more than one account, but this use of two accounts isn't one of them. As I've been involved with this editor I'm doing what I said I'd do in June, bringing it here for the attention of other Administrators. I can see no reason to let him continue with two accounts. Dougweller (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The "article" that this editor attempted to create was Ancestry of Jesus, which he did because his attempts to use a non-reliable source to add material to Genealogy of Jesus were reverted by a number of editors, including myself. The new article was clearly a content fork intended to get around the editor's inability to get a consensus to use a poster created by uncredentialed amateur researchers as a reliable source . Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The arguably unreliable source that I have been wrongly accused of using has a name: The Adam and Eve Family Tree[44][45] (and yes, I used your links). One might note, interestingly, that I NEVER use such a controversial reference in my relentlessly deleted article, none of the links provided say otherwise[46]. While you check my real refs, notice also how I never actually undid the redirects, yet my additions are undone anyway.

To get strait to the point, we know that all Administrators have to post some kind of explanation on the discussions page as to why they would want to delete this piece of work. Yet the Talk page remains empty, I have received no notice, no prior explanation, just an angry administrator going, undo, UNDO, UNDO!. Therefore, seeing the obvious lack of prior discussions before deleting the content of this article, I must dutifully report the saddening renegade nature of these particular administrators: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs), Ironholds (talk · contribs), and Dougweller (talk · contribs).--Nate2357 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As to this, "two accounts" bit, I don't really pay attention to what I am doing with which account, I just happen to log in to whatever account the computer I am using remembers. If you ever block one account, then when I inevitably come back to that computer I'll just create a new one. So, it doesn't really matter to me what you do with my accounts, it only gets me adjudicated when people undo my edits (why do we even have that button, anyway?)--Nate2357 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's always so much easier when they brag about violating the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Correction, I am not an administrator, and have never held myself out as being one. Any editor can (and should) delete material which is contrary to Wikipedia policy.

Your answers suggest that you have very little understanding of Wikipedia policies, so I suggest you might like to read this; your "article" is a content fork, which is not allowed. We have an article on this subject, called Genealogy of Jesus, and you can't start a new article on the same subject with a different name simply because you're not getting your way with that one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ironholds is not an admin either. Dougweller is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I am. If I wasn't involved I would probably block him, particularly after his statement that he will continue to create new accounts if blocked. I'll also note that both Beyond My Ken and I gave edit summaries explaining our reverts, Nate did not. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm about --> <-- this close to doing so. However, in the realm of WP:AGF I have notified him of WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK (on both accounts) and requested him to modify both his behaviour and his statements on this thread. This is clear misuse of alternate accounts, and meets sock clearly. The threat to evade is to be taken seriously, but he has a very short time to rethink that because if he does, all hell's going to break lose. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Both your summaries say very little. As a matter of fact, the only thing they say is: FORK. If the message you're trying to convey to me is that I just created the page because it wasn't allowed on the main article then you're saddeningly misinformed. Did I use a reference that was not appropriate, for instance? You could have, and should have opened a discussion or at worst sent me a message to explain to me what you found disturbing, BEFORE you delete all my work, not after. Administrators are required to do it (even Dougweller), and all other users should probably do it anyway if they intend to delete an entire article.

One very important fact must be known: The section that I created on Genealogy of Jesus (which was mercilessly deleted by Dougweller without discussion, by the way) is NO comparison to the article I tried to make. The only problem, repeat the only problem with the section, which apparently gives justice to delete the whole thing, was that I cited The Adam and Eve Family tree, which we decided was an arguably unreliable source only AFTER it was deleted. This new article I created NEVER mentions the Adam and Eve Family tree, so I am at a loss as to what could possibly be so heinous that it justifies deletion without warning. I really don't know what's wrong with my article. If you had a problem you should have discussed it. Just saying FORK postmortem doesn't cut it. I don't know how else to explain myself.

Like I said earlier, I don't care what happens to my accounts. If both accounts are blocked, I'll probably not make the same mistake I made before and just use one account. But it doesn't matter to me what name I use, so long as I know that it is me. --Nate5713 (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• A note that I am not an administrator, and have never made myself out to be one. The suggestion that I am, however, did provide a good belly-laugh for me and probably the hundreds of individuals opposed to such events, so thanks for brightening my evening. The problem, at the root of it, is that you cannot use multiple accounts in that fashion and you cannot create content forks. Sourcing is irrelevant - you cannot have two articles covering differing viewpoints for a single topic in such a fashion. That's all there is to it. Ironholds (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the bottom line: The article I created may or may not be a fork. If someone happens to have read both my article and the Genealogy of Jesus, they may post their suggestion of a possible fork in the discussions page like anyone else. If someone out there feels that the content of my article is getting too similar to that of Genealogy of Jesus, then he or she may provide evidence for this claim in the discussion page like anyone else. And if and when we are in agreement, the creator and the antagonist, then may the information, resources, references, and content be stripped away from their home and deleted. But to delete everything without cause, without explanation, without warning, that must warrant some kind of discipline on this website.--Nate2357 (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, here's the bottom line: the article is a fork, period. It doesn't matter that they differ in specific content the subjects are the same, i.e. "ancestry" = "genealogy". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ah.... I'm beginning to think that we are being trolled. NateXXXX just made an edit which changed the date of the Battle of the Vale of Siddim, and gave as a ref "as calculated by James Ussher". Ussher, you may recall, is the Bishop who calculated on the basis of Biblical begats that the world began on Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Asked Nate to explain that here, on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The above accusation is totally off topic, probably trying to the blame off himself. Last time I checked, the battle of Sidon vale is mentioned only in the Bible (fact 1). Ussher chronology, as you have just stated, says that the world was created 6,000 years ago. In other words, all of James Ussher's calculations come solely from the Bible, with a little help from archeology of his day. Now, if I referenced the Bible, as we all well know, I would be accused of Original research. Therefore, I took pity on the fact that the article's date read, "somewhere around 2000 B.C.", and made it more precise. Because the battle was only mentioned in the Bible, there are only two reliable sources to give a more precise date: Ussher chronology and the Wall chart of World History. Because I was earlier accused of using the wall chart as a reference on Emperor Yao, (which is silly because before my edit there was a citation needed) I was forced to cite James Ussher instead. What else did you want me to do?

This BMK is accusing me of trolling, which is quite preposterous but not surprising. How is this possible? because BMK has a remarkable reputation for breaking Wikipedia policy and then blaming others for it. This is not the first time he has accused someone of sock-puppeting, yet he has had at the same time owned not just two but three accounts[[47]]. He has also been known to relentlessly revert edits (while refusing discussion) and then falsely accuse his victim of Edit-warring[[48]], which is exactly what happened on the Ancestry of Jesus[[49]]. He has also been known for hounding and harassment[[50]], of which I thankfully have only seen the beginning of so far. In other words, he reputation, unlike mine, is filled with the following phrases: SOCK, hounding, harassment (twice), violations of: AGF, OWN, COI, and 3RR (which he also falsely accused me of), trolling for reactions, and giving away private information. It is he who is the troll by repute, and not me. --Nate2357 (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A very interesting answer, not for what it says about me, since that's all bullshit, but for what it says about Nate, his POV, his understanding of what a "reliable source" is, and his supposed unfamiliarity with Wikipedia and its policies, which he now rattles off with ease. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nate: Next time you're interested in smearing someone, you'd be better off not taking as examples a puppetmaster who is indef blocked, and a very problematic editor with a habit of misrepresenting the facts, who is also indef blocked.

Jusy sayin'... Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You also missed the fact that my backhistory, including my two previous (not simultaneous) user IDs, is linked on my user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Back on track

So, as the old joke goes, enough about me... the question here would appear to be: What should be done about a POV-pushing editor (troll or not) who refuses to accede to basic Wikipedia policies, such as one account per person, refuses to listen to others when they try to explain policies to him, whose understanding of what constitutes a reliable source is so widely divergent from consensus (Bishop Ussher, the "Wall Chart of World History" and the poster "Adam & Eve's Family Tree"), and who, when confronted, switches to battleground mode? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Nate2357 for refusing to get the point after BWilkins note yesterday and gaming the system by going right on using both accounts. Courcelles 15:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Matt319 and politician succession boxes

Just a quick heads-up before it turns into a conflict - Matt319 (talk · contribs) has been removing the names of successors-elect from the articles of defeated American policitians. I've asked him to at least get some consensus, and use edit summaries when he does this, but he's pressed on regardless. Opinions welcome. Kelly ^hi! 00:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the user's edits and left them a warning. Report them to WP:AIV or leave a message here if the disruption continues. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fastily, your actions, and that warning, were wrong. The succession box has a field called Succeeded by (note use of the past tense) which is filled by the name of one's successor. In the US Congress, and state elections as well, that successor does not take office until he or she is sworn in. In fact, those in office prior to the election last week, are still in office; they have not yet been succeeded by anyone.

Yet you have engaged in wholesale reversion of correct edits by Matt, in apparent disregard of the discussion on the talk page, which makes these exact points. And you have threatened Matt with a block. That is very unfortunate, both for the good-faith editor who made the corrections, and Wikipedia.

Please undo your edits and remove the unjustified warning on Matt's talk page. Kablammo (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you cleanly ignored my note at User_talk:Matt319#Hold_up. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Politically and legally correct action is that until sworn in, there is no successor. For example, if one of the recently-elected people were to die before taking office, I believe in most cases the person currently in the job would temporarily continue in it. We cannot add a successor yet, as they have not officially taken the job. Removing said persons from "succeeded by" was a valid line of action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. We're not crystal balling, here. Barring very unusual circumstances, these people are the successors. Then again, this really isn't requiring admin intervention at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. They "are" not the successors yet. (Does verb tense mean nothing?) Kablammo (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is why we use terms such as "president-elect" and "senator-elect", or phrases such as "soon to be senator" - it's because they are not yet the president or senator. As such, they have not officially succeeded anybody. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If we wish to be pedantic, yes, the correct verb tense is "will be." Still, I see no reason to leave off "will succeed X as Senator on DATE" to the article. Again, though, this is getting off-topic for AN/I. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think many of these articles contain text to that effect (but really should be worded "is expected to succeed"), but the problem here is the succession box uses the past tense. Succession boxes have a field for "heir-apparent" to be used for current monarchs in lieu of the succession field; I don't think we really need that here, but there is no reason why the text for politicians cannot mention the putative successor while the infobox remains accurate. Kablammo (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Grundlelovesthe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Possible new sockpuppet of Grundle2600 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)?

Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks  Unrelated, but a watch and wait attitude is probably best. TNXMan 00:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been several impostor accounts recently, so this could be the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Dylan Flaherty‎ edit warring with another user on that user's talk page

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

---

• Dylan Flaherty‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Malke 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This all started over the user Malke 2010 (talk · contribs) moving an out of place comment to the talk page of a request for mediation case.

Dylan decided to say that Malke didn't have common sense for doing such a thing, a point that they defended in response to an being told it wasn't civil.

Malke didn't like the header due to it's implications, and decided to change it to something more reasonable, something that Dylan didn't like, and proceeded to edit war over. They have also denied any incivility, simply stating they were 'misunderstood', despite the clear evidence to the contrary. Both these editors are currently in dispute, as referenced in regards to the mediation cabal, so the incivlity comes as no surprise. I admit I got a bit riled up myself in regards to their actions; I tried cautioning Dylan in regards to the edit warring, but from the most recent edit(which is also linked above), it's difficult to believe they understand their actions are wrong, especially since they warned the owner of the user talk page that reverting was ill-advised.

Given that this editor has not taken my own cautioning to heart, and that they refuse to admit they've done anything wrong, I request that an admin warn them. There is a better chance of them taking that to heart, than my own words. I am not going to bother further on this matter; I have other things to do, and I frankly don't have the patience to do anything else, so I'm going to go try improving the encyclopedia some, or maybe I'll just go play some games. However, if someone does need me to answer a question, I will reply.(Malke and Dylan notified.)— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus suggested that my warning to Malke about rule violations was uncivil. While I'm certain he has misunderstood it and taken it to mean something other than intended, I have attempted to redact my words entirely. Unfortunately, Malke refuses to let me. I really don't know what to do at this point other than walk away. (There's some history here, as you might have guessed, but while I'm willing to explain it if it comes up, I'd rather not rehash it now.)

In any case, I have no idea why I'm awake right now. I'm going to bed, and tomorrow I'll see if Malke has succeeded in her goal of getting me blocked. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin with this editor. It's almost like he has an obsession. He creates these dramas, like edit warring on my talk page, all over the place. Every page he goes, Tea Party Movement talk page, Mediation Cabal talk page, Moonriddengirl's talk page, my mentorship page, my talk page, other people's talk pages. He just won't stop it. All of this is over one word in the Tea Party movement article: 'grassroots.' That's it. He's edit warred against consensus and got the page locked. He's called me a liar and insinuated another editor was a liar because we don't agree with him. He put this on Moonriddengirl's page which she deleted, of course: [51]. He'll say things like, "I'm not going to call you a liar to your face. . ." and he suggests what an editor can do to 'regain their credibility.' In the meantime, no constructive edits can be made because we're all tied up dealing with his circular arguments and insults.

Willbeback has tried to help him and has warned him multiple times on his talk page, yet nothing changes. I'd be happy to supply diffs. It will take a while, since there are so many.Malke 2010 (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Willbeback's comments on talk page: [52]. Malke 2010 (talk) 09:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is past due time to ask both to completely and totally disengage from each other, and now. Mediation being on article content, there is simply no need at all for either to comment on the other, the other's edits, the other's perceived behaviour, the other's intentions, indeed, the other's existence at all. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Both parties warned in accordance with the above, and I suggest that their interaction has gone way past the threshold of the community's patience. Suggest archiving this as resolved. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Watch request

Could a few more people please add the subpages of the Article Wizard to their watchlist? The subpages are listed at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard/Documentation. We seem to have settled on semi-protecting these pages, which most of the time is fine, but on the odd occasion where this sort of thing happens, it needs to be reverted a bit more quickly. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 09:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I indef-blocked the user as an advertising-only account. -- œ^™ 16:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal: User:Justa Punk

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

---

Resolved

 – Justa Punk (talk · contribs) is banned by the community. T. Canens (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I am currently proposing a full siteban on Justa Punk (talk · contribs). After his indefinitely block, he has, to date, created over 15 sock puppets within the period of three months. He continually creates additional accounts to harass other users, de-tag all his socks' userpages, well after his talk page editing privileges have been revoked. He has also participated in a campaign of email harassment which has not been constructive, to say the least. He has said he was done with Wikipdia, but obviously he is not. I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him. –MuZemike 21:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Full Support obviously not constructive little chance of redemption at this point The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - to help to reduce and deal his ongoing disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Over 15 socks? That's enough. Jusdafax 23:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support 15 socks? We need a "Puppetmaster of the Month" award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sol Goldstone (talk • contribs) 23:22, November 8, 2010
  • What would such an award look like? I'm thinking maybe this, populated instead by a gaggle of socks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Shh... we have WP:BEANS for a reason The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support So we can easily revert and delete any disruptive edits made by his sock puppets. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 23:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support- yeah, clearly a disruptive influence right now. Reyk _YO! 00:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Full Support-enough is enough already. Heiro 00:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support I've been involved with him ever since Bejinhan (talk · contribs) brought up socking concerns over an AfD we were all involved in. He refuses to give up, and still believes he is helping the project. I recall him telling Deskana just before his initial block for socking, blah blah ... socking aside [emphasis mine] ... blah blah, that he was right in his actions. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Having being one of those dealing with him since the AfD, I strongly support this proposal. He has been creating various accounts and vandalizing my pages as revenge for the SPI. If that's not called harassment, what else would it be called? Bejinhan talks 03:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

*Comment (and this had better stay if anyone believes in the right to defend yourself against lies);

1. Of the present 18 accounts that can be described as socks only five have been created since the perma-ban in early September. Each of them with the purpose of righting wrongs still to be corrected (such as letting Bejin know she did the wrong thing - and it was about that article she re-created and not the SPI itself. That article is not notable and I stand by that).
2. I never de-tagged any user page. It was the user talk pages, which is not the same thing - and I have NOT touched them since the perma ban.
3. The harassment on WP has concluded because the message has been sent and received. There has been no email harassment. MuZemike was doing the wrong thing and I was defending myself. If he calls that harassment then he has serious problems. Note that he is the ONLY person I have emailed. There has been NO ONE else.
4. If you want me to stop altogether - there's only one way. Clear my talk page per WP:UP. I've been trying to do it myself but MuZemike won't allow it - against said rule. The stuff there all pertains to the SPI ban only and that ended in early September. The consequent perma-ban is not noted in any way shape or form per anything that WP:UP requires to stay. So I have the right to remove it. You are denying me that right, so I have the right to keep trying to find ways to make it happen - and if it means creating another sock as I have here, then so be it. What do I have to do otherwise to get closure hmm? Or are you lot so anti human rights you won't allow it? Strongly recommend you think about that.
5. Finally - if this comment is removed (unless Bejin's is as well which will indicate this page should not be edited by anyone except the bot) it will prove my point. I will be heard on this and I am entitled to be heard. Thank you for your attention. MasterJP (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC) (AKA User:Justa Punk)

Your editing privileges have been removed and you're not entitled to blank the talk page of another account unless it is the account you are using. I think I wouldn't be wrong in saying that your hatred towards me and your true colors are being unraveled one by one. -grim smile- Bejinhan talks 13:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note – un-archived since he is obviously still at it, as shown above. –MuZemike 15:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - And while we're at it, can someone block and tag the sock above? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support his comment above as User:MasterJP confirms that he just doesn't get it. When you are under a ban arrogance does not help you case. JodyB _talk 16:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Worldcat use

Dunno if this is the right place for it, but I want to bring a topic up for larger discussion. When & where is the appropriate place to use Template:Worldcat? Reason for my asking is I've come across an editor (User:Matkatamiba) who's been merrily adding it to articles across the spectrum. For example: [53] (which is where it first caught my eye), Miley Cyrus and Kevin Costner. Said editor has added it to about 125 articles to date, and has suspended the addition for now.

But in digging further into this, I can't see any instructions on what articles this template is intended for and as a result it's found in some rather.. unusual places. For instance, both Southern Railway (Great Britain) and Sexual Compulsives Anonymous have a Worldcat link on it. I came across a mention in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 18#Proposal:_Worldcat_link where it was first proposed, which then led me to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 2#Worldcat_link which seems to be the first public announcement of it. A search of the Admins' board here comes up a mention of it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Community_sanction/Archive2#Adding_100.2B_external_links where one editor placed Worldcar links on 100 articles and got a tentative debate about when it is useful. Nothing seems to have been resolved in that earlier debate though either way... and it seems to have been under the general radar in the interim.

Comments and thoughts from the peanut gallery about where (or even if) this template should be used?? Tabercil (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the template would be a useful addition to the pages of people who have created artistic content -- books, movies, music, etc. as it provides an overview of their creative work from the perspective of what is held by thousands of libraries around the world (although primarily North America). It gives information on their most widely held works as well as the topic areas their work covers, etc.

However, I can understand the need to determine where it might make the most sense to add these links, so as Tabercil says above I have voluntarily suspended such links until guidance on the use of the template can be determined. I have no desire to pollute Wikipedia with unwanted links. Matkatamiba (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This was briefly discussed on IRC and I have been concerned about it popping up in External links sections on a few articles on my watch-list. Considering that all relevant pages to cite WorldCat on will have citations to publications, the fact that all OCLC links already point to WorldCat and all ISBNs point to a page which links to WorldCat as an option, this template seems highly redundant. If the (Beta) name pages on WorldCat are particularly helpful, I suggest they are first added to the Open Directory Project and interested users ensure appropriate ODP links are added to External links for which there is a well established consensus. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult for me to determine from the above comment if everyone really understands what the WorldCat template I have been using links to. It links to the appropriate "Identities" page for an individual, which summarizes their contributions to our cultural heritage as well as works others have written about them, all on one page. This template does not link to a particular work in the WorldCat database. In other words, any reference to ISBNs (that represent individual works) is inappropriate. Matkatamiba (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I think the use of the template on pages like Southern Railway (Great Britain) and Sexual Compulsives Anonymous is completely spurious and unfortunately muddies the water around a perfectly legitimate template, when used appropriately. Matkatamiba (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

At the least , the template needs rewording: Worldcat does not offer full world coverage, It is fairly complete for the US, a little less so for Canada, less again for the UK, and erratic for Australia. Elsewhere it covers only the major national and some but not all of the larger university libraries. It can therefore not be used by itself as a valid argument for which meaning of a word is the most prominent, unless the discussion is limited to the US/Canada.

There are times when I think it useful as a shortcut. It's a link to a secondary external resource that will in turn link to many other specific resources. I see no need to do this yet more indirectly through another project. It seems obvious to me that if you want books on a subject, you should look for them in a large union library catalog, but in real life I find people can use a reminder. But isn't this for the VP, not here? DGG ( talk ) 11:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In my browser at least, the linked page is unformatted XML. I don't see how this is useful to readers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If you see unformatted XML, there is some sort of error. Is this consistently the case? Matkatamiba (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. My browser identifies it as a document of the type "text/xml" and that is what it appears to be. What is your relationship with Worldcat, incidentally? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've given this some more thought, and I would like to propose that the use of the WorldCat Identities template be advised for use only on the pages of North American book authors until such time as the WorldCat database is a better representation of library holdings in other countries. Although North American libraries hold books from many countries, the incompleteness of the database for authors in other countries should probably be assumed until there is a better representation of library holdings for countries outside of North America. This would mean it would not be advised for use on some of the pages I've recently added it to, so if desired I will return to those pages and remove it. Matkatamiba (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary deletion of contributor's file uploads

User:Rodrigopo, who appears to have departed from this site in March of 2010, has uploaded 16 images, all of which appear to be copyright violations of one type or another. In every case, he's claimed he's the sole creator of the works. Some blatant examples: File:Avemaria.jpg, File:Colegio San Agustín (Lima) logo.png, File:Giselaturevista.png. It appears in many of these uploads that he's taken screenshots and claimed them as his own, or taken images from magazines and claimed them as his own, and subsequently claimed they were public domain. The user has a history of image problems (see all the warning on the user's talk page). Since the user is no longer around, and these are pretty clear cases of copyright infringement, and the other remaining images in his uploads are dubious at best, I'm seeking an administrator to delete all 16 images left in his contributions history. Please see all his file uploads. For what it's worth given he's been absent for 7 months, the user has been informed of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Spot checking these, a few are clear violations of nonfree policy (e.g. using a scan of a magazine cover as a picture of the person who appears on the cover). Others are obviously compliant (e.g. nonfree logo use) but need to be properly labeled, so it might be more constructive to fix rather than delete them. Yet others require an unwarranted leap of good faith - we would have to believe a claim that some professional-looking photographs are the editor's own creations when we don't have any evidence one way or another beyond the editor's own claims, which are in doubt for other images. Following this a little further, I see the editor made lots of unsourced text contributions to some of the same articles, so there could be BLP problems as well. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked IP user talkpage abuse

Resolved

 – Protected for duration of block OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

..at User talk:67.1.4.91‎ LeadSongDog come howl! 22:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of Clean start?

"A clean start is when a user sets aside an old account in order to start afresh with a new account, where the old account is clearly discontinued and the new account is not merely continuing the same kinds of behaviors and activities."

As a result of numerous complaints and this ANI discussion], Gniniv (talk · contribs) wrote at ANI on September 15th "you can see that my user has been retired". On the 19th he posted to his talk page [54] "'This user is now retired, but I have returned to Wikipedia as another User per WP:CLEANSTART. There was an immediate complaint [55] about this (about his returning under cleanstart after retiring in the middle of an ANI discussion about his behaviour).

Since returning as Terra Novus (talk · contribs) (who signs himself "Novus Orator" he has made various promises, eg to avoid editing in "large areas of Wikipedia (such as Creation-Evolution related articles)" (one of the areas in which he had problems) while at the same time continuing to edit related articles such as Russell Humphreys and giving a Young Earth Creationist spin to others [56] and receiving a one week block for his edits at Heim theory -- see also this discussion at FTN [57] about his edits there. And about his setting up a new Wikiproject for Young Earth Creationism, first without going through the proposal stage (at one point today on the original page, now userfied, there were only 2 members, his old account which was marked inactive) and his new account). You can see at the new proposal page Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Young Earth Creationism that he admits to having a history of contentious editing.

My question is whether he is entitled to claim that he started a new account under WP:Clean start, considering that he retired his old account in the middle of an ANI discussion, then came back claiming Clean start, while not making major changes in his editing habits and earning a one week block not long after returning. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• That's not a clean start, that's just transfering accounts. He should be blocked for this. Secret ^account 17:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Having observed both incarnations of this User (I have been monitoring contributions though not getting involved discussions), this is most certainly a misuse of Clean start, Either the user switched to new name was to avoid scrutiny or has fundamental misinterpretation of the rules of clean start. Based on the actions of the user as i have observed most likely its the former. I think a topic ban on Creationism might be our only hope here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• If it is known that this is the same editor editing under account, then it is indeed not a cleanstart but a "transferring accounts". However, there's no need to block for that. There's only a problem if the link is not known, and the user is "pretending" to be a fresh user, but doing the same old stuff. If it is known it is the same user, then simply treat the contributions of the new account as a continuation of the old one, and deal with it as such. Would the behaviour been sanctionable if it had been done with the same account? If yes, then sanction. If no, then don't. Cleanstart is irrelevant, since the link is known there is no cleanstart. It's just a change of account - and that's allowed. The old problem is if users hide behind an undisclosed account to allow them to continue the same problematic activity.--Scott Mac 18:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "There's no need to block for that" - generically, no, but given the circumstances of the transfer WP:GAME comes into if the same problem behaviour continues post-transfer. Rd232 ^talk 01:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• This user has been causing endless difficulties, making promises to reform and breaking them almost as soon as (or sometimes even before) they are made. His edits against consensus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Young Earth Creationism (now deleted and moved to his user space) are one example of that. Other ploys include creating physics templates to include Heim theory as "emerging physics". Or his recent attempts to introduce what turned out to be Young Earth Creationist commentary on the talk page of the featured physics article Oort cloud. Every time he is criticized he promises to reform, but unfortunately it seems at the moment that his editing patterns have become worse. Every edit he makes requires careful attention from other wikipedians: very few have any positive value. The article he created today is an example of this kind of unhelpful editing. It resulted in this thread on FTN.[58] The article did not survive. If a user requires every edit to be carefully examined, with just cause, that is not a good use of volunteer time. Mathsci (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Topic ban. Enough is enough. Those more familiar with him will be better able to delineate the borders of the topic ban, but he clearly needs to stay away from the topics he sought to escape from under CLEANSTART, an escape effected because his behaviour was coming under scrutiny. Rd232 ^talk 01:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd support a topic ban on anything to do with Young Earth Creationism, broadly construed. He also needs to remove any mention of Clean start from his userpage. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • In view of the problems with his edits as both Terra Novus and Gniniv, any topic ban should also cover articles, their talk pages and templates in physics and astrophysics, broadly construed. Mathsci (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree, Broadly construed Young Earth Creationism Topic ban. I frankly dont see an alternative here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This user has been acting disruptively and misusing clean start. On account of the continuing behavior in related topics, I support a topic ban on Young Earth Creationism, very broadly construed.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll agree, but I don't think the problem is just Young Earth Creationism or cosmology or fossils or Heim Theory. TN's edit history corresponds very closely to many of the doctrines that are held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church and some of its more recent offshoots. YEC is a central doctrine among Adventists, and I understand that Heim Theory, for example, is claimed as necessary by some factions of that religion as part of an alternative hypothesis to the Big Bang theory. Physics articles would be of special interest for similar reasons: alternatives to mainstream physics are needed to support some of the religion's creationist beliefs, e.g. some Adventists believe that physical constants like the speed of light have not, in fact, been constant over time. It's entirely possible that I'm mistaken, of course, and if so, I'll be glad to apologize. But if I'm correct then I'd have to say that I don't see how a narrow topic ban is going to do much good here. Everyone has a right to his religious beliefs, of course, and I would never do anything to infringe on that. But none of us has the right to push our religious beliefs on others, and it seems likely to me that doing just that has been the principal focus and motivation for TN's presence here, and that a topic ban that's restricted to just the limited areas that have been mentioned so far is likely to prove insufficient for that reason.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • We can take those issues one at a time. this is where (s)he is causing disruption thus its where topic ban is being placed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks, OhioStandard, this link seems to confirm what you wrote.[59] Mathsci (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Is Russian Wikipedia Corrupted ?

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

---

ru:Википедия:Заявки на арбитраж/Скайпочат (need to translate somehow)
Brief descripition:
In Russian wikipedia was revealed the Secret Society that includes part of Administrators, Arbiters, Bureaucrats, Checkusers and so on
by decsion of arbiters two persons were punished:
the one who revealed this secret society lost his rights for participation in discussions
the one of memebers lost his flag of Bureaucrat
no one else was punished
(cf. a half a year ago when was revealed another secret society that didn't have so many Administrators as memebers they had a lot of punishment) --Idot (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

PS Now I am a candidate for Arbitres (please see ru:Википедия:Выборы арбитров/Осень 2010/Выдвижение), but for questions about this Secret Society [60] I was voluntarily blocked [61] (Idot (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC))

The English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over matters at the Russian Wikipedia. Meta might be a better place to raise any issues, but I'm not familiar enough with its workings to say so with confidence. Bencherlite^Talk 15:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Libel claims raised at National Council Against Health Fraud

Background: The NCAHF is a consumer advocacy non-profit which disseminates information about dubious alternative medical treatments. They have also been involved in lawsuits related to various alt med practitioners.

Incident: The NCAHF article included summaries of two lawsuits, Aroma Vera and King Bio. MastCell recently removed these as being based solely on primary sources. I replaced the information with added sourcing from the NCAHF website and a Chiropractic trade journal called Dynamic Chiropractic. WP:WEIGHT and WP:LIBEL issues were raised on the article talk page and at my talk page. Discussion continued on the article talk page.

Question: Is there a libel claim when describing the findings of US court rulings? Is it appropriate to warn editors of libel claims in this fashion? (I think the Primary/RS/Weight issues can be handled on the article's talk page, but not if discussion of the court cases is illegal).

Involved editors:

• Ocaasi - original poster
• MastCell - notified
• QuackGuru - notified
• User talk:188.2.165.138 - user notified by Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Responses

• All serious legal questions should be addressed, via email, to the Wikimedia Foundations legal department. You can reach them by email: legal AT wikimedia dot com. Threats of legal action should not be used to influence the editing of others, if you do so you may be blocked. See Wikipedia:No legal threats. If the Wikimedia Foundation finds legal issues credible, then foundation-level action will be taken (see Wikipedia:Office actions). See also this page for additional contact information. --Jayron32 21:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  Does that mean that QuackGuru's cautions about LIBEL and warning about being blocked for addressing these cases are premature or misplaced, and barring some official foundation action, discussion can continue? Ocaasi (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm a frequent editor in this field, so I cannot be considered "uninvolved". However, interpretation of the court finding can clearly be libelous, and even more clearly, can be a WP:BLP violation, even on the talk page. Quoting a court case is cannot be libelous; however, at least one of the sources that has been used for the text has been convicted of libel by falsifying quotations, so we need to be careful. According to the findings in Barrett v. Rosenthal, repeating libelous material on the Internet is protected, but it's still not the right thing to do. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  Did you note any interpretation in the lawsuit summaries, or are you just speaking generally? Do you agree mentioning the factual information from the lawsuits is not libelous so long as there is no interpretation (obviously, RS/Weight issues still apply)? Would you identify which source has been convicted of libel, and your source for that assertion; also, is that relevant--Barrett has been found by courts to not be a qualifying legal expert in certain cases, but we don't automatically rule out QuackWatch, so I'm not sure what you're really basing that suggestion on. Barrett v. Rosenthal is a red herring; unless there is actual libel, then the legal or moral implications of repeating libel merely assumes the conclusion. So, what is the libel you are identifying? Ocaasi (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  If you re-read Arthur's comment, I think you'll find that he's saying that quoting a court case cannot be libelous, but it's still generally not a good idea unless independent, reliable secondary sources have also discussed the case. Our standards of inclusion are a bit higher than "not legally actionable". MastCell ^Talk 23:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  I did see Arthur's comment that quoting court cases is not libelous. My query about 'legally actionable' cases was due to being accused of possible libel by QuackGuru, so I can't respond to it without addressing that lowest denominator. My edit and talk page comments sought to provide a variety of secondary sources that summarized or addressed the lawsuits (including the NCAHF). So, I don't concede that merely covering legal bases is what's going on at all, however necessary it is to do so when those allegations are raised. Ocaasi (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - This BLP/N discussion is related. User:Ronz was blanking reference to these court cases in a noticeboard discussion of Stephen Barrett's reliability in a specific context, claiming WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. Some of the parties involved here also commented there. I'm not sure how informative it is other than pointing out that there are ongoing objections to discussion and/or inclusion of these court cases here on Wikipedia.Griswaldo (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• This post needs to be more specific as to what action by admins is being requested. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  Ed, I'll repeat my question here: Do QuackGuru's cautions about LIBEL and warnings about other editors being blocked for factually addressing these cases violate WP:LEGAL? Are QuackGuru's warnings or Arthur Rubin's warnings about WP:BLP violations in this AN/I thread applicable if the information is true and verifiable? Ocaasi (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Quackguru is not saying that he is going to sue anybody, so his comments don't violate WP:No legal threats. If you think that some material was removed from a talk page on the grounds of WP:BLP that you think is not entitled to that protection, can you offer a specific diff? EdJohnston (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

QuackGuru left the note on my talk page "You may want to think twice before editing the article again" [62] and "This could be blockworthy if restored without consensus" [63]. The question is whether QG can make threats of libel/blp violations and blocks about the adding of accurate, verifiable information to articles, and if not, whether his cautions are verging on threats. Simply, can we address the findings of US court cases provided the descriptions are accurate and verifiable? If so, should QuackGuru cease his BLP/Libel warnings?Ocaasi (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Those are quite clearly threats, but I'm not sure what can be done at AN/I presently. If you disagree with Quackguru about BLP, or LIBEL issues perhaps you should post to the BLP/N. Don't let him bully you with threats, but you wont get a an answer to the content question here. Get it answered first, then if there is no libel issue you have grounds to ask for behavioral remedy if Quackguru continues with the threats.Griswaldo (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible sock

Resolved

 – nothing in it. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

New User:Turco85 has the same peculiar attitude about non-white Britons as User talk:Koorja did one week ago.
Sorry for any inconvenience, Varlaam (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Apart from this edit I am not seeing any similarities. Koorja seems to focus on calling people British rather than English even though they were born in England. Turco85 concentrates mostly on matters Kurdish/Turkish. Am I missing something here? Please provide diffs if you think there is more to it than this.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah.

Koorja's edits came in two batches, a recent batch of pretty girls, and a single older edit, this sportsman, Tamer Hassan.

Koorja knew I had discovered the pretty girl edits. I never referred to the older change to Hassan.

Koorja ceases operation. Turco, a "brand new user", starts up 5 days later and immediately discovers Hassan and changes him in the style of Koorja.

And also talks to my Talk page. Uncharacteristic of a newbie with no axes to grind.

This is all supposition, of course. Are you able to check the IPs and see what's happening?

It seems beyond coincidence. I haven't met a sock before; this guy has the flavour of one to me.

Varlaam (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole "born in England but not English, only British" is Koorja's same POV.

Please feel free to investigate. I have no need to be a 'sock'. Turco85 (Talk) 22:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

But Tamer Hassan is British. His ethnicity is Turkish Cypriot. As a Turkish Cypriot born in London myself I have a British passport not an English one- because there is no such thing as English citizenship. And I stand by this argument. Nonetheless, please feel free to investigate.Turco85 (Talk) 22:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI I am not a brand new user. I have been on wikipedia for 2 years. Turco85 (Talk) 23:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I sincerely apologize for a case of mistaken identity based on this unlikely coincidence. I clearly should have looked further into your editing history.

Again, my apologies. Varlaam (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably connected

User:67.1.4.157 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) LeadSongDog come howl! 22:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC) (The above IP editor inserts "FU,CK..." while this one on the same subnet inserted "FUC.KOFF..." a few weeks back. Both commenting on same politician.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That user hasn't edited since 24 September. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limuel B. Forgey III

The Afd was opened yesterday. Today, the article under discussion, Limuel B. Forgey III, was deleted per {{db-author}}. Could someone close this debate now? If this is the wrong place to ask this, apologies in advance. Voceditenore (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. In those cases you can simply close it yourself. T. Canens (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I know non-administrators can do this, but I've never done it before and didn't want to make a mess. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Image Deleted and Cannot ReUpload

I once uploaded a photo about 6 months ago to Wikimedia and used it on a page where I must have incorrectly entered the license usage because it was deleted by the bot Abigor. It is a creation of my own work and I simply put something wrong in the summary box but now it won't let me reupload the photo since it is identical to the old photo. How do I go back and delete the old photo and reupload the same one with the correct licensing?

420 (cannabis culture) 14:25, 9 May 2010 CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs) m (12,425 bytes) (Removing "Boulder4202009.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Abigor because: Missing essential information: source and/or license.) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloradostate (talk • contribs)

• Two things:
  • Abigor is not a bot.
  • You originally uploaded the file at the Wikimedia Commons, which is not Wikipedia, so if you have a problem with the file's deletion, you need to bring it up at the commons wiki. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• You managed to find commons:Project:Undeletion requests/Current requests back in May 2010, and the file was even undeleted for you to fix the problem, the very same day that you asked. You failed to follow through, and the file was deleted once again a week later. Go to the right place, and follow through properly, this time. Uncle G (talk) 23:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for RevDel

I think requests for revdel are still being dealt with here? Should this be noted somewhere on the policy page?

Anyhow, I think this revision on Rishi Bhutani needs to be obliterated per criteria#2 at WP:REVDEL. Not sure if you'll be wanting to block the IP as well, I couldn't find any evidence to support the claims. Also, not the best article in the world, but seems to have sources out on Google that mean it doesn't need deleting! Mechanical digger (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ensdorse immediate use of RevDeL Thats total garbage and BLP violation to bootThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Deleted, looking into whether this IP is an open proxy. Rodhullandemu 01:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

POV forks of Communist terrorism

Left-wing terrorism was created as a POV fork of Communist terrorism and recent edits have deleted over 80% of that article and moved to the POV fork in a coordinated manner. It is asserted that the deletion of 80% was by "agreement" whilst I find no such agreement. Might some admin kindly review the articles and see why the POV fork exists, and the move of material without any merge discussion and without any moving of edit history ought to occur? Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried reverting? Is there a discussion on the talk page which supports the move? What you've brought up here isn't per se a problem. Jclemens (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Full list of diffs posted on your UT page. One editor warned me that I would face sanctions if I disputed the new POVforks. Collect (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

[64] is my edit quoting the coordination of editors. (basically saying precisely how they intended to delete Communist terrorism as an article after the RfC to change the title was clearly rejected.

[65] shows creation of the Left wing terrorism article.

[66] shows massive deletion from the parent article. [67] shows Igny reverting my edit.

[68] shows moving a large section (without preserving edit history). [69] shows moving almost all the rest with the claim "per talk." [70] I reverted the move to the POVfork. [71] then redeleted the content calling it delete POV fork content per talk (making the apparent assertion that the original article is the "fork"! [72] Anotether then asserted that the deletion was revert to talk page agreement) which does not exist.

[73] One editor asserts that the article Communist terrorism falls under Digwuren and warns me that I will be sanctioned for edit war if I dispute the POVfork. Sigh. The fact is that two editors knew they were creating a POVfork, established the means for deleting the original article, and are carrying it out contrary, IMHO, to WP policies. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

<sigh...> Communist terrorism is the POV-fork here. this article is being defended (fairly tendentiously) by two editors (Collect (talk · contribs) and Justus Maximus (talk · contribs)) to make the argument that Marxist philosophy generally put explicitly advocates for terrorism, which is not supported anywhere in the literature. The sticking point here is that some early Marxists talked about 'revolutionary terror' (the extirpation of a ruling class, ala the terror in the French revolution), and C & JM are using the coincidental equivalence of the word 'terror' to argue for Marxist support of modern terrorism. It's just a silly argument on the face of it, but there's no getting through to them on the point.

Collect, I imagine, is hoping to use administrative power to defend the POV-assertions being made in the article, since there's no appropriate sourcing or argumentation for his position. You might bear that in mind as you look into the situation. --Ludwigs2 17:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Strange - I made no comments about anything other than the title which was kept in a RfC for title change. The issue about POVforks is which arrticle was on WP first, and attacks on me do not help your case on that. Collect (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect: giving my impressions of the failings of your reasoning do not constitute an attack on you. If you don't like that I think your argument is silly, make a better or clearer argument. --Ludwigs2 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Collect's claim is absolutely false. He states that "It is asserted that the deletion of 80% was by "agreement" whilst I find no such agreement." In actuality, the key point here is that no consensus was needed for this move. I demonstrated that the content I moved to the 'Left wing terrorism' article did belong to this article and not to the Communist terrorism article. This has been done using a neutrally formulated google.scholar search procedure and noone has pointed at any concrete flaw in this procedure. Since overwhelming majority of academic sources describe the moved content as "Left wing terrorism" and not as "Communist terrorism", the move of the content to the more appropriate article is a neutrality issue that cannot be superseded by the editor's consensus. I explained that on the article's talk page several times (and noone, besides Collect and, probably Justus Maximus, objected). I also encouraged other editors (on both talk pages) who may disagree with my results to do alternative gscholar search, followed by about a week long pause before the move. Collect was perfectly aware of all of that, so the only plausible explanation for all of that is that he tries deliberately mislead people. (Of course, I would be glad if someone proved I was wrong).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Another Collect's false claim is: "One editor warned me that I would face sanctions if I disputed the new POVforks." The editor who warned him was me [74]. However, I warned him not about disputing some POVfork, but because he reverted the move that has been done in accordance with neutrality requirement, made after a long discussion on both talk pages, and supported by majority editors. In addition, the reverts made by Collect were supplemented by misleading edit summaries (the text was not "deleted", it was moved).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)IOW the edit summary claiming agreement was wrong? But that edit summary exists - hence your assertion that the statement is "absolutely false" is false itself. Google is not considered a valid source for naming articles. As for your personal attack that I am "deliberately trying to mislead people" - I ask you redact instantly. Read WP:NPA. The issue here, moreover, remains whether setting up a POVfork and then deleting sections (80%) of the original article is proper on WP. Period. Note that the rename argument failed - this is a backdoor method of achieving what was not accomplished by any consensus. BTW, moving without moving edit history is deletion by any standards. Collect (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not google, but google scholar. You are supposed to know the difference between these two.

With regard to my claim that your statement was false, I doubt it was a personal attack. You claimed that I deleted the content, whereas in actuality I just moved it to the more appropriate article. You claimed that I referred to some alleged consensus, whereas my major point was that the content must be moved independent of any consensus, you claimed that I warned you about sanctions for disputing the new POVforks, whereas my warning had a relation to the reverts made against the neutrality policy and supplemented by misleading edit summaries. Obviously, all these your claims were false, and, taking into account that I explained the issue many times, I have a serious reasons to suspect that that was done deliberately. However, if you will let me know that you didn't do these false claims deliberately I'll gladly retract the statement regarding the deliberate nature of your claims. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't the articles have the potential of being non-pov forks? Surely there an article could be written about general left-wing terrorism with a spinnout of a subarticle specifically on communist terrorism? This seems to be an issue of a content dispiute - namely what the articles should include and how they should relate to eachother. That is outside of the purview of this board. Requests for POV checks should be made elsewhere. If there are ownership issues, as ludwigs2 suggests, or other kinds of misconduct then that should be presented clearly and with diffs. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The original diff the content move was based on is here [75]. I demonstrated that all these terrorist groups are characterised by the words "Left wing terrorism" and not "Communist terrorism" by reliable sources (by contrast to google, gscholar look predominantly through academic sources). These post was made on Oct 24, so everybody had a lot of time for presenting their counter-arguments. However, no counter-arguments followed. Based on that results, I proposed to move the content to the Leftist terrorism which was just an disambiguation page, however, other editors preferred to create a Left-wing terrorism article, which, probably was more accurate, because it was in agreement with what the source said. Taking into account that the move was done based on what majority RS say, that cannot be characterised as POVfork (even if it fits a content fork criteria).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

PS Interestingly, the 'Left wing terrorism' article was created on 19 April 2006 [76] whereas 'Communist terrorism' only on 29 nMarch 2007 [77]. What POV fork are you talking about?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

@ Maunus: I think there may be a valid article on communist terrorism (or at least a valid subsection on the topic at left-wing terrorism or under revolutionary terrorism), the problem is keeping the POV-assertions in check. that would be easier if there was no content fork on the topic. --Ludwigs2 20:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Another problem with a 'communist terrorism' article is that 'communism' and 'Marxism' are not synonymous, whereas the article as it stood seemed to argue that they were. This confusion is likely to be unavoidable in an article that does not go into great detail explaining terms. An article on 'left-wing terrorism' on the other hand merely needs to provide WP:RS that any group included is both 'left-wing' and 'terrorist' - much simpler, and less likely to cause the sort of endless debate that plagues this topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Collect:

• Since I recreated the article Left-wing terrorism, you should have informed me of this discussion thread, which you did not.
• I recreated the article before Petri Krohn commented on my talk page about it.
• The text was moved from CT to LWT after discussion among editors. Your edit-warring on this is contrary to the warning that the Arbitration Committee has issued you against edit-warring on certain topics, that includes CT.
• The article CT includes many topics, including the views of Marx, the actions of Communist governments and left-wing terrorists. Whether or not CT is a legitimate topic is debatable, but it clearly has a broader scope than LWT. Calling it a POV fork is like calling "Cities in California" a POV fork of "Cities in the USA".
• Can you please explain what you find POV about the article LWT. Other than the material transferred in, everything is sourced to mainstream academic writing on terrorism, which defines LWT as a specific type. The others are right-wing terrorism, nationalist terrorism, single issue terrorism, religious terrorism and state sponsored terrorism. Since all the other generally accepted major types of terrorism have their own articles, is their any reason why this type should not?

TFD (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

First - the discussion was not intended to be about any editors at all, just about the article. Diffs were posted only after they were requested, again not mentioning anyone individually. The "discussion" was nowhere near a consensus as Paul recognizes above. So much for any claim of that sort. And the term "POVFORK" refers to setting up a new article in order to remove an older article - I need not assert any specific POV for it to be a POVFORK. And OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is well known as a non-reason for any act on WP, so the existence of an article on "Christian terrorism" would have zilch bearing on whether the new article, and the 80% shrinkage of an existing article in order to make the original article a near stub, is a POVFORK. I assert that it is a POVFORK pretty much by definition on WP:POVFORK. Collect (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "The "discussion" was nowhere near a consensus as Paul recognizes above." One more false claim. Although my point was that no consensus was needed, I never stated there were no consensus. In actuality, Collect and, probably, Justus Maximus were the only persons who opposed to the move (without providing any serious arguments) [78]

Re "Whether or not CT is a legitimate topic is debatable, but it clearly has a broader scope than LWT" Cannot fully agree. Since "Communist" is a subset of "Left wing", the LWT is supposed to have a broader scope. However, taking into account that the major part of the 'Communist terrorism' article belonged to the 'Left wing terrorism' (and was moved there), the current scope of the 'Communist terrorism' article is unclear. Instead of starting this useless quarrel, Collect should have find new sources and, based on that identify the scope of this article (which is supposed to be "terrorism associated with Communism sensu stricto, not with the Leftist movement").--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ugh! Ok, if we're going to get into a debate about whether left-wing is a subset of communist or vice-versa - a debate, I'll suggest, that cannot help but devolve into furious polemics - then we should just do the reasonable thing which would be to create an article called Revolutionary Terror and merge left-wing, communist, right-wing and any other terror-forks you care to mention into it. that article might be over-long, but once we've gotten that into a decent shape we can discuss creating content forks in a reasoned and balanced manner (as opposed to the current trench warfare approach). how does that sound? all in favor of creating the Revolutionary Terror article and bulk merging, say 'aye!' --Ludwigs2 23:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I assume Revolutionary Terror would not cover the use of modern terrorism by ostensible revolutionaries. So Pol Pot would be in; but Red Army Faction would be out? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The attempt to combine all of that under the name "revolutionary terror" (without "ism") may cause a problem. Some mainstream sources define terrorism as a "weapon of the weakest", implying that only small groups that conduct a hopeless struggle without well articulated program used to resort to such tactics. These sources separate terrorism from guerilla warfare and state terror. I didn't do any exhaustive search, so I have no idea if these views are mainstream, however, I would say that it would be incorrect to combine small group terrorism and state terror in a single article.

The idea to create a Revolutionary Terror article seems good, because many sources draw parallelism between Jacobin dictatorship and later revolutionary regimes. However, the discussion about this issue goes far beyond the subject of this thread.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Request to close ANI is not the place to discuss content disputes. TFD (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Creation of POVforks and coordinated edits to reduce an extant article by 80% or more is not a "content dispute" but one of WP:GAME on the part of those who coordinated tactics with the specific aim of removing an article which they were unable to get a name change for. Collect (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

One more false accusation. Please, provide an evidence of any coordinated actions. Please, note, that I moved the content unilaterally to comply with neutrality policy, and my post was made not to get a support for this move, but to inform the editors that the content will be moved irrespectively to any consensus if the proof will not be provided that my search procedure was biased, flawed or wrong. This invitation was addressed to everyone, including you, however, no serious counter-arguments have been provided. WP:AT says that "article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article." The google scholar results provided by me demonstrated that, judging by what reliable sources say, a significant part of the article's content belonged to another article. I am asking you again, do you have any concrete objection against that conclusion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The only 'coordinated action' here, collect, lay in my recommendation to everyone involved that we stop debating the issue and begin editing the article. The reason I recommended that is because we'd had pages upon pages of talk-space debate in which neither you nor Justus showed any inclination to give a single inch on any point whatsoever. You're both reasonably intelligent, and you are both capable of endless streams of rhetoric on this issue, so the talk page had turned into a frigging debating club. what's the use of that? If you want to go back to talking, let's do that, but the 'King of the Hill' game is over. --Ludwigs2 16:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Collect is yet again repeating the accusation of "coordinating edits". Talk pages exist precisely for that purpose – for coordinating the editing process. What would be unacceptable would be doing the coordination off-line, on some secret mailing list. As for the claim of efforts of coordination, I have moved my "infamous" comment on TFD's talk page to a user essay. You can find it here: User:Petri Krohn/How to get rid of POV crap. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Jesus article vandalism

Resolved

At the bottom of the Jesus article, there is a pic of a donkey and it declares itself to be mohammad. I tried to remove it, but could not do it. The same pic has been transcluded to a large number of other articles too. This was brought to my notice by another user on the Jesus talk page. Please help.-Civilizededucation^talk 07:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed it. LiteralKa (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that may not be needed: vandalism that manifests as "mystery content" like this is always template vandalism, and you can always find it by checking the list of templates in the article that appears on the edit screen. Also, 99% of the time the vandalized template is the one that was edited most recently. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I was wondering how it was done.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Is wikipedia policy to confirm that the Bible is a story book?

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.

Enough - {{In-universe/Generic}} covers the required tag; discuss renaming it if desired on the relevant template talk page. Unarchive this thread only if you're willing to justify a need for further discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Rd232 ^talk 12:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

---

We have two editors, Cush (talk · contribs) and Banzoo (talk · contribs) who persist on tagging biblical articles as fiction similar to comic books and calling the bible a work of fiction. While they are more than entitled to their opinion, forcing it into articles appears to be a violation of NPOV to me. We have always kept the discussion about the Bible's fact or fiction in the appropriate articles such as Historicity of the Bible, and we keep Biblical articles like Solomon's Temple free from fiction or comic book tags. Now Cush and Banzoo appear to be tag-teaming to push this view. Can someone take a look and see if 1) I'm right or wrong and 2) apply any necessary preventative measures? This is getting to the point of an edit war, and despite my believing that their pushing is disruptive and not covered by 3RR, I'd prefer to get an outsider's perspective. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the Bible is a nice piece of literature in the fiction genre, this seems to be disruptive POV pushing pointy editing. Heiro 13:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cush and Banzoo warned about disruptive tagging. Adding terms like "mythical" to describe King Solomon is less clear, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is unnecessary. That is handled in Solomon#Historical figure. We have wikilinks for a reason. -- Avi (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Really off-topic here, bordering on flamebait. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just another example of editors using "myth" to mean "fictional", while trying to hide behind one particular dictionary definition of "myth". The don't do that with the Quran, of course, because there would be hell to pay. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)because there would be hell to pay - pun intended? Agreed though; there is the same aim behind the "myth" edits, even though they are more marginal --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC) If it became known that wikipedia editors were labeling the Quran as "fiction", those editors would probably end up on the same list that Salmon Rushie is on: future targets. Those atheistic editors may be POV-pushers, but they're not crazy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Non sequitur. Hell, I'd do it just to prove you wrong, but I'm not in the habit of being WP:POINTy. This whole "they're afraid of teh Moooslims" canard is tiresome. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Baseball Bugs what is your point here? I don't see anything productive in your comment about Islam, and it certainly has nothing to do with the current conversation. Are you implying that we edit Islam related topics here while tip toeing around because we're all afraid of the wrath of some fundamentalist cleric's fatwa? That's completely absurd and the insinuations about Muslim retribution your making are one step from hate speech in my book. Please leave such comments at the door before you enter. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC) The point is that they're perfectly willing to attack Christianity because they know they can get away with it, but they're unwilling to address the same issues in Islam. If the Bible is fictional, so is the Quran. Yet nobody makes that point in the Quran article. How odd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The part of the biblical story which deals with such kings as David and Solomon are works of fiction. That is not a personal opinion but the overall understanding. There is no archaeological or historical evidence that even slightly hints at the historicity of said kings or any edifices that would have been erected during their supposed reign. Unfortunately there is not other tag that can be used to indicate that an article is written in a manner that it can be mistaken for representing scientific research based on reliable sources. As I had stated before, "Solomon's Temple" must be presented as "Arthur's Camelot". The Bible is not a reliable source, and until such time as any confirmation for the biblical claims comes from archaeology and historical research the article deals with a subject out of a work of fiction. Of course the editors driven by their religious views differ, but in an encyclopedia that should have no weight. ≡ CUSH ≡ 13:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just my two cents: for possible archaeological evidence of King David's existence, see Tel Dan Stele and Mesha Stele. --Sreifa (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Historical accounts in the bible should not be treated any different from other ancient sources of infomation. Who is to say that the stuff recorded in ancient steles is also factual and not embellishments or untruths? Chesdovi (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"No historical evidence". That's typical atheistic circular reasoning: "The Bible is fictional, therefore it does not depict historical events, therefore it is fictional..." and so on. Making the bold assertion that the accounts are false brings to mind what a radio character used to say to doubters: "Vas you dere, Charlie?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It goes without saying that stuuf in the bible had been verified by outside sources, List of Biblical figures identified in extra-Biblical sources. Chesdovi (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hush! Don't confuse them by presenting facts. It might scramble their brains, such as they are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, could you please refrain from your generalising slurs against atheists and atheism? I don't know the agenda of the editors in question, but certainly, like fundamentalist Christians are not representative of all Christians, the same applies to atheists? --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Labeling the Bible as "fiction" is itself a slur, so don't go lecturing me about "slurs". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, someone needs to learn that two wrongs doesn't make a right. With your slurs of all atheists on account of the actions of two editors here puts you in exactly the same category as they are. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't slur all atheists. Just the ones who try to use language to slur Christianity or other religions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't think slurring has any place in Wikipedia at all, regardless of the reasons for it. But you did manage to slur all atheists by claiming something to be "typical atheistic circular reasoning". --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am an atheist, but I do think that categorising the Bible as fiction is wrong, if not outright POV-warring. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia have double standards? Is it wrong to add a tag to push clarity into an article? Readers have the right to distinguish mythical stories from historical facts. The current state of the article is highly misleading to readers. I think it is a first to consider adding a tag that encourages clarifying an article as a POV! I did not add any text in the article. The only intention is clarity and avoiding double standards. Why the stories in the bible should not be treated like any different book? Either Wikipedia have a single and only standard that is applied to all articles, or it should be stated clearly since the start that Wikipedia favor some subjects, therefore they are treated in a way that is misleading to readers. --Banzoo (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: does this dispute hinge merely on the use of the word "fiction" in the {{inuniverse}} template? Because eg here the template seems appropriate aside from that issue - the article doesn't really discuss the subject (Solomon's Temple) from a perspective external to the Bible. But there is plenty of discussion about the historicity of the Temple, which shouldn't be entirely tucked away in other articles - it should be at least summarised there. Perhaps the quickest solution to this would be to add a parameter to the template which avoid the use of the word "fiction". Or else a subtemplate, like {{In-universe/Anime and manga}}, i.e. {{In-universe/Bible}}, with a wording that upsets no-one. Rd232 ^talk 13:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why can't fiction be called fiction? Does Wikipedia bow to religious doctrine?? As soon as I find some time I will suggest a new introduction of the article in question. The mythical nature of the subject must be conveyed unambiguously. ≡ CUSH ≡ 13:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of "double standards", neither the words "myth" nor "fiction" appear in the Qur'an article. Would the anti-Bible POV-pushers here have us believe that the Qur'an is factual? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Myth" and "fiction" are not at all the same thing. In addition, the historicity of different things in the Bible varies enormously. So in addressing the topic as a whole on Wikipedia, we should be neutral: "fiction" is inappropriate. The non-historicity of any specific thing can be discussed in context with appropriate evidence, but that is not what the template is for, and it appears that the wording of the template is the only issue. Rd232 ^talk 14:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. The issue here is not the Bible as a whole, but one particular claim made therein. There are indeed other stories in the Bible that are confirmed by extrabiblical sources, but not the Solomon material. ≡ CUSH ≡ 14:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's an argument akin to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, there is a solid point here; that as a historical account Biblical only data is not generally accepted as accurate historical record. So we have a disconnect; do we present purely factual history or do we present it from a Christian perspective. Clearly the former is preferred; so while Solomon's temple does not really qualify as "fiction" it is also not (yet) historical fact. The article probably needs some tweaking to establish that, but does it need the tag? Probably not; that feels pointy. (it is important to remember in all of this, that the Bible is generally not accepted as a reliable historical document - by which I mean it is widely recognised in scholarship that it contains both historical fact and fiction, and the problem is sorting out a from b. So in the context of Wikipedia we are best to treat there articles as Christian history and history as described in the Bible (where no other historical context is available). The articles should reflect that while they are based on a historical document the context and reliability of the Bible in objective history is problematic and so it exists in a "no mans land" of unproven historicity.) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why a "Christian perspective", and "Christian history", in relation to a story that originates in Judaism?Griswaldo (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yeh sorry, Freudian slip there. Should have said "religious" but I was trying to disambiguate (as someone mentioned Islam as well) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the Bible is fictional, in the sense that a lot of its assumptions and stories are absolutely not supported by scientific consensus about cosmology,history,archeology etc. About the Quran, well, most of it is fictional as well, just like the Bible, the Book of Mormon or the Scientology OT documents. If this is not clear in the Quran article, we have to make it clear. Obvious. --Cyclopia^talk 14:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Those would be the scientists who say the bumblebee can't fly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That, appropriately enough, is a myth.--Korruski^Talk 14:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed a myth that the bumblebee cannot fly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, it's a myth that there are "scientists who say the bumblebee can't fly". Why you peddle untruths like that, I really cannot say. DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That story is based on a study that came from a scientist, as was widely discussed at the "common misconceptions" page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe any scientist has ever seriously suggested that bumblebees 'cannot fly'. They may have said something similar as a joke, or they may have said that they could not currently explain how bumblebees can fly, as it was contrary to their understanding of physics. If it was the latter, then this would be just one in a long list of things that scientists have, at one time, been unable to explain but, later, were able to explain as their understanding grew. That is rather the point of science, after all. Either way you appeared to be using this strange little fact as an attempt to undermine the credibility of scientists? If so, I simply cannot understand your point.--Korruski^Talk 16:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is getting a bit silly, as a simile it was not a very good one - and indeed incorrect as well. The origins of the story and vague, but it was certainly never suggested in a serious scientific way that Bumblebees couldn't fly. At best it is a story from the early origins of our understanding of insect flight and aerodynamics. In fact the assertion was not that Bumblebees couldn't fly - it was that our current equations indicated they should not be able to fly, and therefore we were missing something. It is simply a scientific quip. It's use here was as a logical fallacy to forward and argument, unsuccessfully. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

See Bumblebee#Myths. I am not sure what the buzz is about here. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

They're correct. The bible is a work of fiction. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoa

Of the discussions that really should not take place at ANI, the historicity of the Bible is by far... the most recent. Is there some reason that a neutrally worded version of {{in-universe/Bible}} cannot resolve this issue? Rd232 ^talk 14:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's religion. Reasonability (on either side) doesn't enter into the equation. That said, this does sound like a good compromise. Which is why it probably won't happen... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A tag won't resolve the issue. A rewrite of the article would. ≡ CUSH ≡ 14:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue is your tagging and aritcle with a dubious use of In universe Temp. I wouldnt have this proposed one be a variation of "In universe" but some sort of template that is simliar would seem to be an effective and appropriate solution here The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think RD232's idea is a good one, but unfortunately it doesn't solve the problem for editors like Cush, because they are more interested in associating the biblical stories with the term "fiction" than with improving the article. That's the real problem, and it wont be solved with practical solutions I'm afraid.Griswaldo (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As long the article does not convey the Solomon+Temple story as real history, the term "fiction" does not have to appear. Right now, the article does not make it clear enough that the biblical story is without extrabiblical confirmation. It gives dates and thus gives the impression to deal with actual history. That is unencyclopedic at best. ≡ CUSH ≡ 15:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No your right, It solves reduces the content dispute element but not the conduct dispute The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not my conduct, but the rampant religionism throughout articles that deal with biblical stories and present them as real history. ≡ CUSH ≡ 15:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am about as atheist as it gets, but I call bollocks. A fictional or historical book doesn't become absolutely true just because a religion decides to believe in it and then passes it down for thousands of years. But if it wasn't fictional in the first place it also doesn't magically become completely false just because people, including some morons, believe in it. As far as I know all the books that mention that temple are historically oriented and have only later become part of a religious canon. If a Vatican Council decides to integrate the Ilias in the bible as part of a new "Third Testament", will that suddenly turn Troy into a purely fictional place? Hardly. Hans Adler 15:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

But that s not what is going on. The Bible does not include Solomon and his Temple from elsewhere. It is the only text that speaks of either. ≡ CUSH ≡ 15:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty important historical cities, buildings, etc. that we only know about from one or two historical sources. In this case the sources are Samuel, Kings and Chronicle. These were separate books before at some point the Jews decided that they were important enough to include them in their canonical writings. It is conceivable that when the Second Temple was built, some people invented the first to give their new building a fake ancient history. But in the absence of actual evidence for that, that's basically a conspiracy theory. You must really distinguish between the fictional books that were incorporated in the bible and that a vocal minority of people (mostly in the US) read in literal ways that were obviously never intended by their authors, and historical books that were also incorporated and that are fraught with the same problems as any other extremely old history book and therefore need interpretation by competent historians. Hans Adler 16:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's perfectly compatible with atheism to consider the Bible (and similar scriptures in other religions) a work of moral philosophy, rather than having to stoop to "fiction" or "the inspired word of God". You don't have to agree with its moral philosophy any more than you have to agree with Nietzsche's, but some people do and such people should be shown at least the minimum of human respect. Physchim62 (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Since "myth" really best applies to only certain parts of the Bible, and its use in that technical meaning would be misunderstood by the vast majority of our readers, it is probably most appropriate to make sure the text documents that events and persons depicted are believed by many to be historical, but that such historicity or the accuracy of the accounts have been disputed over the years. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Folklore would perhaps be better than myth. DuncanHill (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • My two cents: Is the Bible factual? I don't think so, but then I'm an atheist, so I wouldn't. Is it fiction? Probably not all of it - it seems at least in part to be based on oral accounts of historical events, later written down. Other parts are probably better described as 'mythic' in the technical sense, and whether they are 'true' or not isn't of significance in assigning this status. So what is the Bible? It is a holy book of a major world religion, taken by many (most?) believers as a source for a moral code, and a minority of believers as literal truth. The idea that all books must either be 'factual' or 'fictional' is frankly nonsensical if one is discussing moral codes, and of little help if one is trying to understand religion (which is real even if the beliefs aren't necessarily). Labelling the Bible as 'fiction' is just plain silly. Atheists can have irrational beliefs too.. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I propose the following compromize. If the eternal inflation idea is correct, statements in the Bible that do not violate the basic conservation laws, would be factually correct. See also here. Count Iblis (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"If...". That has got to be one of the most wildly off-topic arguments anyone could come up with. If 'eternal inflation' etc is true then everything that can happen does. One of the many things that can (and therefore must) happen is that such off-topic nonsense is ignored. I propose that we assume that in this universe it is, and get back on topic pronto... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How about {{Religious Story/Bible}} and let people draw their own conclusions. The Eskimo (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd think {{Religious Belief/Bible}} would be more neutral. Or {{Holy Book/Bible}}? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Done

{{In-universe/Generic}}. Now I suggest you all disperse before you get hit by some large wet fish, which (neatly) is both entirely fictional and quite real. Rd232 ^talk 16:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That still includes a category calling the work "fictional", which doesn't resolve all the issues here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. This is not about distinguishing fact and fiction, it's about how far we can trust certain historical texts that have only survived by accident, because they were made part of a religious canon, so that most of the other literature from that era no longer exists. We wouldn't use such a category for an article that uses Herodotus too uncritically, and neither should we do in this case. Hans Adler 16:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Category removed, and any template renaming can be discussed at Template talk:In-universe/Generic. Are we done yet? Rd232 ^talk 17:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):The issue with a tag like that is the way it automatically categorizes the article in a way that implies that books like the Bible (and the Quran and the Mahabrata and all the rest) as fiction in the literary sense of the word. The problem is that religious texts occupy a more nuanced place within the world than "This is a fictional work like The Hobbit" and "This is a work of scientific fact like the Journal of the American Chemical Society". The world of writing is not a set of binary choices where a work is either stone cold fact or completely made up. The role of religious texts within their religion should not be minimized or trivialized by those outside of that religion. Wikipedia articles on religious texts need to BOTH make clear the internal AND external analysis of religious texts, i.e. they need to cover both theology and outside commentary. There is a place for critical commentary and analysis on religious texts, even on reporting on notable critical commentary which discusses the historicity of religious works, or lack thereof. However, to trivially assign a tag which equates a religious text with a simple work of fiction is grossly disruptive, as it is essentially the opinion of the placing editor that the religion itself is trivially fictional, and it belittles the role that religion plays in the lives of many people. If I may be so bold, Wikipedia must be agnostic on the veracity of religion in general. It should not take the stand that religions (and by extension, their holy texts) are true or false, rather Wikipedia articles should be silent on that issue. This is a case where doing nothing at all is preferable to doing anything. Don't tag the articles with anything, unless some actual cleanup (grammar, referencing, etc.) needs to be done. --Jayron32 17:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Jayron. Haploidavey (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Up to a point, Lord Copper. In particular, "to trivially assign a tag which equates a religious text with a simple work of fiction is grossly disruptive..." overlooks the fact that there previously was no specific tag for this problem ("in-universe"ness without commentary) which avoided the term. Now there is. Rd232 ^talk 17:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The changes you have made since I left my above comments appear to be good; that is the removal of fiction from the tag is helpful. Thanks. --Jayron32 17:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the problem with a tag like that is I created it a few minutes ago. I've removed the fact/fiction categorisation, but not quite got an alternative to actually work. Somebody else please fix it. Rd232 ^talk 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I don't think this is a good option. Tags are supposed to be temporary, until someone comes along and fixes the issues therein and removes the tag. The nature of this case would mean that the tag never gets removed, as there are no other sources. I personally think that just about everyone in the world, certainly everyone who has access to Wikipedia or can read English, has enough awareness of the Bible to know that it is a religious book, regardless of their opinion on historical accuracy or fact. This whole thing reeks of WP:POINT. Just because something can be labeled, does not always mean it should be labeled. Sven Manguard _Talk 19:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

See my comment below. Of course there are other sources. Rd232 ^talk 20:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we look at the article, rather than the tag

The article is not titled The Temple of Solomon in the Bible is it. If the article is supposed to be about Solomon's Temple but only includes information from the Bible, then it's a POV problem, not an 'in-universe' problem, because it doesn't adequately reflect all mainstream views on the subject. In this case someone needs to stop tagging it in-universe, and go away and find some archaeological information to make it more NPOV. If the intention is to have an article that only describes the Temple of Solomon as it is referred to in the Bible, then rename the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really a POV problem; the article is about Solomons Temple, a possibly historical building referenced in the Bible. The problem, particular to that article anyway, is how to present that in a way that makes clear the Bible is the root source without implying any strong bias against it (as a source). The article name is not at issue, neither is the content really. As I see it only minor tweaks are needed to fix this (which probably should have been done rather than tag it...) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what I mean. If the article is intended to be about Solomon's temple generally, then it should cover what the Bible says about solomon's temple, what the archaeologists and historians say, what solomon's temple means as a cultural reference (eg in Mediaeval christianity and Islam, the connection to the Knights Templar etc etc). If it presents the biblical evidence as if it were an established fact, which seemed to be the complaint, then it's POV. It is fixable to an extent by being clear that the description comes from the bible, but is that the only problem? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The "in-universe" tag was ("fiction" issue aside) quite apposite: the article is primarily from the perspective of the Bible. No discussion of historicity, a handful of artifacts mentioned, no cultural significance, etc etc. It is not substantially different from an uncritical rendering of the Biblical view of the subject. Rd232 ^talk 18:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Elen, what happened to your legendary common sense? This temple was destroyed 2500 years ago, roughly half a millennium before the Library of Alexandria was destroyed. There aren't many texts left from that era, and apparently the only surviving texts that mention this particular temple are the three books of the bible that mention it. There are all sorts of problems with such an old text. E.g. it is for historians to decide whether the temple's description can be taken literally or should be seen as a metaphor for certain religious ideas. But the bible is now our only primary source for the temple, historical secondary sources being much later and therefore presumably useless. Obviously all scholarly discussions of the subject will focus on the primary source, and it's only natural for Wikipedia to do the same. Unless there is a dispute between modern scholars, in which case we should of course describe that as well. And in the unlikely event that they ever manage to get some excavations done on the Temple Mount, we may have to update the article, of course. (More likely, someone might develop a method for X-raying the mountain.) Hans Adler 18:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What on Earth are you (and others) talking about, as if there isn't plenty written about this? Yes, there's little or no contemporary sources for these sorts of things, but, for example Gscholar rapidly turns up something like this. Without a discussion of these issues the tag is justified ("Fiction" issue aside, i.e. my new template), and with them reasonably covered, it can be removed. Rd232 ^talk 19:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hans, Rd232 has got what I mean (I think). Solomon's temple isn't fictional like Hogwarts is fictional, it's clearly something (like the Hanging gardens of Babylon) described by ancient sources that purport to be history, and which may or may not have existed in something resembling the form described. So 'in-universe' is a meaningless thing to tag it with, and a great long discussion about whether the Bible is "TRUE(TM)" or not is irrelevant also (Wikipedia not treating the concept of 'Word of God' as constituting a reliable source). When we write an article, we set out to reflect all the significant and mainstream views from reliable sources. One view is that the descriptions in the various components of the bible are more or less history, and that Solomon's temple was 'something like that'. However, this is clearly not the only view on the subject - there's a lot of archaeology out there, there are records from the other major players on the world stage at the time, there's a whole bunch of hermeneutics and other studies - and if the article presents as if the only view is that the Bible more or less has the right of it, then that is POV. The article can certainly use the description from the Bible, but it must moderate it with all the other significant mainstream POVs.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Solomon's temple isn't fictional like Hogwarts is fictional, but it is fictional like Camelot is fictional.

And without the Bible, nobody would have ever come to the idea that Solomon or his temple could have existed. There is no occurrence of either outside the Bible. As plain as that. So what really are the possible POV here? ≡ CUSH ≡ 23:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem here is that in this article the Bible is not a considered as a religous text per se. You see, the Bible is a primary source document containing a lot of historical detail and even more fiction, folklore and embellishment. So the issue is not one of POV. It is one of finding the right academic assessments of the text and historical context. The term POV is so often thrown about in articles such as these, when actually it is not really the right way of phrasing the issue. The article does not (if you read it) present the POV that Solomons Temple really existed - but some parts of it are phrased in a way that makes it unclear that the details are historical reconstructions based on the source. So, the problem is not neutrality, but one of accuracy (in our writing, not the content). I know that seems like a finicky distinction, but I think viewing it in that way makes the argument less partisan :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, fairy snuff. If you see it as bad writing rather than bible-literalism, then that should be easy to remedy. Cush needs to unknot his pantyhose - we don't treat King Arthur or Gilgamesh as equivalent to Harry Potter either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point. Some day, in a few thousand years, the Xenu story may be one of the few things that have survived from our age. (I hope not, actually.) In that case it will be a perfectly good historical source for the existence of a type of jet plane called "DC-8" at some point roughly around the 20th century. Hans Adler 23:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(I meant to add this to my text above but then you all replied :) I want to make the following point because, as an Atheist, it is easy to dismiss the Biblical canon when, actually, considered as a flawed primary source it is one of the few insights we have on early history): This particular example is the extreme example of this problem; because the Bible really is the only source we have. There is no occurrence of either outside the Bible.; this is a poor argument, once you understand the context. The Bible canon survived by virtue of being a religious text. Contemporary and later documentation from the time of the temple simply has not survived as well. As it is, probably Solomons Temples is an example of Biblical canon embellishing the truth (to a lesser or greater degree we do not know). So the way to look at this is not that the Bible, as a religious text, is spinning a fairy tale about a mythical temple. Instead we should look at this as possibly giving us a piece of insight into very early history - but with the caveat that there is nothing else to support the truth or inaccuracy of its existence. This is the approach most scholars will take.

In reply to Hans, you make a good point, and that is the core reason why the Bible is inherently flawed - not because it is definitely misleading, but because we struggle to verify much of the details --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The academic consensus is that the biblical kings David and Solomon are in fact purely fictitious and no such rulers existed. So Solomon's Temple was certainly not Solomon's. The remaining question is whether there was in fact a temple that preceded the Herodian Temple. Well, archeology and historical research do not confirm the existence of such an edifice. So does the article make it sufficiently clear that we are dealing with a story of literature and nothing more? ≡ CUSH ≡ 23:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm Cush, I ageee with most of your statement BUT If memory serves we can't do archeological research to confirm or deny the second temple due to this little place called the Dome of the Rock The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, get some education. The Temple Mount has been dug up countless times throughout history. There are numerous caves and tunnels in it. And we know pretty well about the platform and its history. So archaeological records of the site are plenty. The current arrangement of administration of the site or the current building existing there are utterly irrelevant to the subject. And we are talking about the first temple here, anyways. ≡ CUSH ≡ 00:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah Forgive My ignorance as Scripture and the Israeli\biblical archeology has never been my speciality. I can tell you quite a bit about Plantation, Southeastern USA Archeology. By the way you ought to know Plunder of Centuries gone by only makes Archeologist have less data not more. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cush, I think your first statement is pushing it somewhat, I've never personally encountered a text that was prepared to be that dismissive, but I'm sure you have a reliable source that says that Solomon was a myth. I can find a couple that say that he probably wasn't a myth, including one that I'm sure you'll be familiar with, that believes the problem is that archaeologists should be looking among the Bronze Age sites, not the later ones. Your second statement is not necessarily relevant (Lincoln Cathedral wasn't built by the devil, but it's still an interesting building), and your third statement is pushing it somewhat again. I had it drummed into me that an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence (although that was referring to the Bronze Age in Britain, not in the Holy Land), and while it is true that there is no evidence for a structure of the kind referred to in the bible, on the site referred to in the bible, I am still seeing speculations in the mainstream as to what the sources might have referred to. And we don't treat Gilgamesh as literature either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Since Avi asked in the original post and no one has address it, my view is that this does not fall under any of the exemptions to the 3 revert rule. There was a full blown edit war on the page prior to the initial post in this thread, with at least editors already at 3 reverts within a 24 hour period, contrary to it being described as "getting to the point of an edit war". The rule of thumb is to revert once then take it to the talk page. There was very limited discussion of this on the talk page until after full protection was applied. Whether or not those adding the tag were being disruptive is besides the point; there is very little actual harm done by a tag on the top of an article. Sure, you may not like it and it may not be appropriate, but it will not be the end of the world if it says up another 24 hours. I think pretty much everyone could have acted better in this situation, and maintain that if everyone would have used the talk page it could have been discussed calmly without the need for administrator intervension. That said, the article is now fully protected, there is limited discussion of the content dispute on the talk page, and I see no reason for this thread to continue. -Atmoz (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrator intervention is necessary because there is no clear policy in WP about dealing with religious claims that touch on subjects of history or supposed history. WP demands reliable sources that establish historicity, except when it comes to biblical stories? The problem persists for many years now. At the moment, WP often conveys a view on ancient Near-Eastern history that is factually wrong, because it allows religious positions to supersede archaeological and historical research. It is always easy to quote the Bible, but it is a lot more effort to find the publications that scientifically deal with the various subjects in question. ≡ CUSH ≡ 22:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As long as the article's lede states that the depictions are based on Biblical sources, the reader is then able to decide for themselves whether to accept it as historically accurate or not. -- Avi (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You've got it right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

WP is built on reliable and verifiable sources, not on expressions of religious doctrine. Articles that give construction and destruction dates of an edifice in a geographically determinable spot are not religious but historical in nature. Just referring to the Bible is not sufficient in that case. Or so I thought. ≡ CUSH ≡ 23:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you put the Bible on hold for now, and go fix the similar problems in the Quran article. Then let us know how that works out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:DNTTR, I'm calling this a warning for you, Bugs. Your flogging this horse is becoming a taunt. I know you feel personally offended by this issue, and by Cush in particular, but you're really going over the line here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "personally" offended, I'm annoyed that the editors in question are pushing for Christianity to somehow be treated differently from Islam. I will point out, as regards warnings, that I typically do pay heed to what admins tell me. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop this. The issue at hand is an issue of Judaism. Christianity or Islam are pretty irrelevant to the subject. I am pushing for historical accuracy and for putting archaeological and historical research over religious doctrine. The Qur'an does not even remotely come into play here. ≡ CUSH ≡ 00:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment First thing I did this morning was a RFPP, its Fully locked now for 3 days (until 15:15, 13 November 2010 UTC time.) As this entire thread as been a Content dispute that should have been raised at WP:NPOVN I say this thread should be closed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This threat is only a symptom of a larger problem in WP, as stated by me above. Will the administrators address the issue? ≡ CUSH ≡ 23:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cush, work on proposing policy to fix the systematic bias instead of making WP:POINTY edits that cascade into edit wars. Or better yet avoid the areas that cuase you problems and head back to the Middle Earth and Ancient Egypt stuff where you dont get so agitated The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so you basically tell me to stfu and leave the field to the religious editors to convey as history whatever they come up with? Thanks a lot. ≡ CUSH ≡ 23:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No merely observing that such actions as todays are counter productive to your goal and put you at risk of being blocked. Best way to Fix Wiki is to fix policies that are unclear or vague as they are the ones that cause problems you are so concerned with. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Administrator intervention is necessary because there is no clear policy in WP about dealing with religious claims that touch on subjects of history or supposed history. Entirely misguided, if not comprehensively wrong. The administrators have a purely technical function; no special clout over the policy-building process at all. Suggest you re-read WP:ADMIN and WP:CON. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 23:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  Consensus does not work in articles that touch on matters of religion. So WP needs to have a clear policy on that. Who to ask for one? ≡ CUSH ≡ 23:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) OK; I recommended that you read WP:ADMIN. You obviously ignored my advice, or else you would have seen the sentence, "It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone." And the sentence, "Administrators should be a part of the community like any other editor, with no special powers or privileges when acting as an editor."
  Your opinion is that "consensus does not work" in particular controversial areas. Now you may be right (which would be unfortunate for the project, if a small victory for your good self!) or you may be wrong. I just don't know. But regardless of your thoughts on the matter, administrators have no editorial authority, nor authority over policy, above that of regular editors. It is imperative that you understand this very basic aspect of the way Wikipedia works. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 00:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And? Nevertheless, administrators are the ones who should be able to instruct editors how to launch a push for a new WP policy. ≡ CUSH ≡ 00:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No policy building is a legthy process not fit for ANI. you can propose policy over there -> at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). I recomend starting a draft in user space and get feed back before proposing it at Village Pump The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any need for new policy: the existing ones cover this just fine. If there is a problem with one or two editors systematically not respecting them, then WP:RFCU and go from there. If there is a problem with substantial numbers of editors systematically not respecting them, it may eventually brew into an Arbcom case. Rd232 ^talk 00:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cush, it should be perfectly clear that while the Bible/Qu'uran/Bagavadgita etc are reliable sources for what they contain (ie we don't need a secondary source to confirm that the Bible says what ever it says in 2 Kings 23), the concept of 'the Word of God' does not constitute a reliable source in Wikipedia. Therefore, while one can says "The temple is recorded in 2 Kings 23 as being 200 cubits square with an elephant on top", based on that being what the Bible says; one cannot say "we know that the temple was 200 cubits square with an elephant on top", based on the Word of God being a reliable source. That's the key difference. The text is not fiction, but it's no different to any other ancient document that purports to be history, and claims that it is 'so' because the Bible said it must be refuted on those grounds. One would require reliable modern secondary souces to confirm that archaeologists now believe that the temple was approximately 200 cubits square with an elephant on top. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance but does the bible say there was an Elephant on top? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It might.... Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It had only been 100 cubits square until the elephant got on top of it. :'( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

is the elephant on the roof looking for the panda's bananas ? Off2riorob (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Could be. I'll bet you didn't know that there is a sizable Jewish contingent among elephants. You can sometime see them in circuses, wearing their yarmulkes. That's only the orthodox, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah a break through on the Elephant's Predicament! I was just informed by List of the animals in the Bible that Solomon had a Chimpanzee so natrually it was the Chimpanzee's banannas the elephant was surely looking for The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, part 2

Am I the only person to read this thread (well, I admit I read most of it until the curse of TL;DR kicked in) & more than wonder if every one of you hasn't been trolled? What real benefit has there been to this discussion about whether to treat some or all of the Bible as fiction? Will arriving at a new template or defining a proper definition of myth which does not include its pejorative connotations actually helping to write an encyclopedia. All that's happened is a bunch of otherwise intelligent folks have spent their time arguing & wikilawyering over an opinion held by a handful of militant & disrespectful atheists, time that could have been better spent doing something far more useful.

I hereby move that the two individuals responsible for this thread, Cush & Banzoo be either indefinitely blocked or community banned for trolling, this thread closed, & everyone involved in this discussion go fix some articles. And having said that & likely offended some of you for speaking bluntly, I'm off to bed. -- llywrch (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with atheism. Stop throwing that around as an insult. This has to do with accurately presenting biblical material as such without selling it as actual history. Doing so often violates numerous WP policies (NPOV, UNDUE, RS, NOR) and it is dishonest towards readers. ≡ CUSH ≡ 08:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• I really think you need some sleep. For thinking that you have the right to ban individuals for the sole reason that they inserted a tag that encourages clarity to be pushed inside an article? What next? Other people will consider the "citation needed" tag as disruptive and start banning whoever uses it? Please understand the content of the tag in question before jumping to unrelated conclusions. --Banzoo (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. The articles had issues, which the users sought to identify with a tag. There is now a template that allows them to do so without (I think) upsetting anyone (might possibly be renamed). What I would like to know is if there is any further discussion required here - the joking around above about elephants suggests not. Rd232 ^talk 09:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• The Bible isn't fiction, it's faith-drawn myth and parable told from within an historical background. Swaths of the latter are quite verifiable, other swaths aren't. So long as readers are straightforwardly told what's verified history and what's not, the goal as to any worry about misleading readers is met. Bushels of sources can be had to support the notion that from any meaningful editorial outlook, the Bible is not Harry Potter. Edit warring over this is... lame. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

@Gwen Gale: Many stories in the Bible are fiction. But in many articles on subjects related to the Bible language is used that does not convey that. BTW, it was not me who put in the fiction tag. I only restored it after it got removed. ≡ CUSH ≡ 11:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• • And, by implication, forgetting the atheism issue, and totally assuming good faith, Cush may be sincere but seriously ignorant on this subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Ksaine

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

This user (and his sockpuppets) is blocked in Ru-Wiki (see ru:User:Ksaine) according to many causes. Now he has started to do some similar edits in En-Wiki: renaming article (with name which are used for a long time) without discussion (for example, President of Russia), superfluous wikification (dates and/or places), incorrect (user-fabricated) acronyms and some others (for example [79]).

I don't ask to block him, but ask to point him to his errors. I have tried to explain him his errors, but he has not understood or don't want to understand. I am one of admins, who blocked him in Ru-Wiki for similar edits, errors and other causes, so I am not very happy to explain or discuss his errors with him again (as well as I can be named non-neutral editor). I suggest, that his actions on my user talk and in articles MIET and Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (Technical University) are very close to harassment (harassment in one porject (en-wiki), because of my action in other project (ru-wiki), there he is blocked) or/and trolling. Alex Spade (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Have you raised these points with the user on his talk page?
• Have you raised them on the relevant articles' talk pages?
• Have you notified the user that you have raised this topic here?

It may be that things are different at ru-wiki, but for how things are done here please read what it says at the top of this page. David Biddulph (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A simple check of User talk:Alex Spade shows that they are in contact, though he did not notify. I shall do that for him. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have discussed or tried to discussed his/my edits at my talk page. But he has not understood or don't want to understand and I have got tired to explain. So, I repeat, I don't ask to blocked him, but ask somebody other to point him to his errors. Or, somebody, please, correct MIET and Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (Technical University) in concordance with en-wiki principles (for example remove wikilink from dates in concordance with User:Full-date unlinking bot actions).

Or, in other words shortly, I suggest we need mediator or neutral editor for these pages, who knows en-wiki principles better than I or Ksaine. Alex Spade (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this connected to the section above? TNXMan 19:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Alex Spade (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I will explain to Ksaine that he does not have the right to prevent you from deleting discussion from your own talk page if you wish, and also that he is very close to breaking WP:3RR there. I just tried to leave him a warning template but I then noticed that it said the opposite to what I was trying to say :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thank You, dear S.G.^(GH) _ping!! I asked user User talk:Alex Spade to talk me if he will be write to administrators but he didn't this. More over, he was deleted his discussion page (all our dialogues about these thems) - look here.

I just used discussion page of user to discuss our different visions on edits in article "Moscow Institute of Electronic Technique". I can't understand what user says about "harassment".

P.S. In Ru-wiki I really was blocked for "using pupets", but I still disagree with it. More over, I think this is not place to discuss other lang-wiki projects, but in ru-wiki this user does similar mistakes discussing anything: If he wants to discuss something with admins, he doesn't talk about it his "opponent", more over, he can't describe new users their mistakes. So, he can't described what is wrong in my edits. And he didn't want discuss this questions on users's talk page.

• • I have a counter-claim to him:

1) user Alex Spade accuses me of "inventing fictitious names." So, with regards to the paper Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (Technical University), I created a supposedly "non-existent" abbreviation - he didn't said concretic, but it could be no more than "МИЭТ (ТУ)", I recommend user to watch authoritable sources and past one of them as example that this abbreviation exists. More over, he himself, in his opinion, doing these "mistakes" because he writes abbreviations "TU MIET" and "MIET" when at official website it said that it's only "TU MIET".
2)On the same page with the article the user rolls back the changes without any explanation, leading to the absurd situation: the page again in obvious need of improvement.
3) The user marks senseless redirects on pages where he puts down templates "{{Db}}", and urged rolls back changes to remove them, explaining that "it's necessary, for the administration"
--Ksaine (user talk · user contributions) 20:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't know about discussion ges, and after reading message of administrator, I will not doing so wrong mistakes in the future. --Ksaine (user talk · user contributions) 20:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

* I suggest this be marked as resolved, as admin action has neither been requested nor seems (now) to be necessary. It can always be re-opened if things get out of hand. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC) ... which is now much closer than I expected; I have left 3RR reminders for both editors. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've stopped to edit after 3RR-notice, but my opponent have not. I understand, that some of my edits are not obvious. But let me ask some simple question about en-wiki principles (which are not required any knowledges about MIET or Russia).

(1) Should I explain why full date are unwikilinked? Or somebody can do it (explain or/and unwikilink) as neutral editor.

(2) Should I explain why sup-category are removed? (Sup-category is Category:Universities in Russia for Category:Universities in Moscow). Or somebody do it (explain or/and remove) as neutral editor.

(3) Should I explain why uncreated category are removed? Or somebody do it (explain or/and remove/create) as neutral editor. Alex Spade (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Are you normal? It doesn't mean who explains, it means how and what explians. You, Alex Spade, explains almost nothing. Firstly, I don't need in explanation about note 1 - I understand that because of consensus all wikifications of dates are deleted. For all other question there is discussion page and you MUST discuss if you are activity editor, look at the questions there, please.

I'm not against if You explain all the things You doing here. If You have any answers for me, ask please.

And, in conclusion, "I understand, that some of my edits are not obvious." - not obvious, they are senseless. - Not all, not much...but some of them. - Here you exactly noticed. --Ksaine (user talk · user contributions) 02:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Last editions (copied from Talk:Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (Technical University))

Alex Spade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

1. Look 1 (lines 10, 12), 2 plus look at "РГТЭУ"&lr=216 3 and 4 etc. It means that all phrases as, for example National Research University “Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology” (NRU “MIET”), not “Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology” (NRU MIET). Last variation is absolutely wrong in this case. At the same time, similar variations are: National Research University “Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology” (NRU “MIET”) and National Research University “Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (MIET)”. Can You understand me? If this note is wrong, You need to put any links according to the evidence.
2. Please, don't delete empty, or red categorys. (1, 2) This is not conducive to their establishment! This is a job of bot, not yours.
3. About variations of abbreviations: "МИЭТ" shown on the official website - the most useful abbreviationб and (as "MAI" or "MAI (STU)", etc.) it is brend, or "also known as". There are very rare cases when an acronym is enshrined in official documents and have always used the same abbreviation. "МИЭТ"|МГИЭТ|МИЭТ (ТУ)|МГИЭТ (ТУ)" - all of these abbreviation uses up today on official websites of education, organisations that cooperate with MIET|MIET (TU)|TU MIET. For example: МИЭТ (ТУ), [=2712 МИЭТ ТУ], МИЭТ-ТУ, MIET-TU, МИЭТ (ТУ), МГИЭТ (ТУ), МИЭТ (ТУ) also look МГИЭТ (ТУ) and much more Internet search engines.
   1. P.S. I already said about this user at his discussion page.
4. Don't delete words "language" from description of link. I do not see any sense in this revision.
5. About links
   1. Why were removed external links to "YouTube", which is an official video channels MIET? They are easily verifiable. I have not found anything about this in subparagraph "External Links". --Ksaine (user talk · user contributions) 13:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just a note to say that I have left a request at WikiProject Russia asking if some people from there could take a look at the article and the dispute. The issues here are mostly communication problems, perhaps. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TFcon

Could somebody take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TFcon? There's some things happening there that have me slightly concerned. --Divebomb (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It is being infested with fanboy single-purpose-acounts. I wouldn't worry, their !votes will be largely discarded in the final tally. Another one to note is Central Canada Comic Con. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just wanted some extra eyes on that AFD. There's clearly off-wiki canvassing going on behind the scenes. ----Divebomb is not British 13:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing tags on Afghanistan

I warned User:JCAla many times to stop removing the tags in Afghanistan but he doesn't listen and continues to remove them. He has written alot of unencyclopedic details in Afghanistan#Foreign Intrusion and Civil War and when I tagged the sections he logs in just to remove the tags. He got blocked 2 times in the last 2 months for edit-warring [80] and continues to be disruptive. Btw, his edits are all relating to one subject, the 1992-2010 Afghan civil, in which he is trying to make one group a hero and everyone else as the traitors or bad guys.--Jrkso (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We are already discussing the issue here. User:Jrkso has disputes with many people [81], [82], [83], [84], [85] on the issue of Afghanistan because he ignores reliable sources, falsifies his own sources and tries to mislead on important issues. He has been blocked more than two times (my blocks were all in connection to him). On October 27 a fellow editor asked Jrkso to provide specific points to discuss. As of November 8 he had not provided any, that is why the tags were removed. A majority of editors agrees that the section Jrkso is disputing is well-sourced and not POV. Jrkso is creating a lot of difficulty for normal editors because he is disputing relevant edits backed by reliable sources by starting time-consuming edit wars. He does not acknowledge reliable sources even when a majority of editors considers them reliable. —JCAla (talk) 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Stalker

Not concerning me, but trouble is brewing between User:Vexorg and User:Arthena. Apparently some incivility is involved, see [86]. But more worrying is that apparently User:Vexorg is stalking User:Arthena. I do not know at what article it started, but looking at the edit history of Subring, Sling (weapon), Deadpool and Pilipinas Win Na Win shows that Vexorg is quite obviously following Arthena and reverting his/her edits (with very superficial reasons given in the edit summary). The article subjects are very disparate, very unlikely that this can be explained by similar interests. Furthermore, as far as I can tell Vexorg never edited these articles before Arthena did. Little doubt that this is plain and simple stalking, and not even well-masked. Stepopen (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• - I had a look at this and it is a mild case of stalking after Arthena gave Vegorg a PA warning note after a mention of OCD in a edit summary and then Vexorg follows Arthena to a couple of articles and reverts him and the Arthena again gives Vexorg a note asking why he is focusing on him and then Vexorg again follows Arthena to two articles and reverts him. Perhaps a Administrative warning will suffice to get him to cease the behavior, he hasn't edited for two days. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• - Vexorg is aware of this thread as he logged on and deleted the note about this thread. is there any Administrator interest in this report? Off2riorob (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look especially friendly or collegial but it does seem to have stopped for the moment. Worth keeping an eye on and worth keeping a permalink to this thread handy in case it comes up again, but I don't see anything actionable. Yet.  Frank  |  talk  13:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Right Frank, thanks for looking and commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment

Resolved

 – IP blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody check out the history of Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. Seems to have gone to hell in the past hour or so. Grsz¹¹ 15:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Started with one IP editor that has finally come to understand we're not a general discussion board for stuff only tangentially related to the topic, and another IP editor (who claims to be a regular, despite not having editted before today) has taken over in making WP:POINT-y edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We could always pending change it like we did to the science desk not too long ago. --Ks1stm (talk) ^{[alternate account of Ks0stm]} 15:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Potential Libel issue on Ty Harrell

Would you please see Ty Harrell? The same editor, User talk:Tarheelbabies, has been removing content on the page. After several reverts by the recent changes patrollers, s/he wrote in the summary "I am an associate of Ty Harrell and he has asked me to remove several pieces of false information on his wikipedia page. Harrell is no longer married so his spouse does not need to be listed." (See diff.) I was thus wondering if it might actually contain libel issues, and, from the look of things, Tarheelbabies may soon be blocked for vandalism. Based on the edit summary, I was beginning to get worried that it might start a legal threat/action against Wikipedia or the RC patrollers. Thanks for any information. (RC patrol editors are User:Wayne Olajuwon, User:Wuhwuzdat, and User:Fae) Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Talking to the user. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Formidable.heart: attempted consensus manipulation by altering other editors' entries at AfD

In this edit, Formidable.heart, in the course of entering an over-the-top speedy delete !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Critzos II (2nd nomination), removed the strikeouts placed by other editors who had previously entered speedy deletes but reconsidered. I don't even know if there's a standard Wikipedia behavioral category for this sort of thing, or an established set of expected consequences, so I'm referring it here in hopes somebody will know what's supposed to happen next. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason you didn't (a) ask him about it first, and (b) consider the possibility that it might have been a mistake, instead of intentional? Way too early for ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats pretty blantant abuse. Accidently deleting some one's comment is one thing removing striking is too deliberate The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Also smells like a sock, but too little data to suggest who. Rd232 ^talk 02:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Its one hell of a Sleeper, it was created last may. Says its a high school Junior Dojo Student. I think its more likely a student of the BLP subject who saw the tag and dropped by rather than a sock. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In the afd, [87] he altered an IP edit as well as one by User:Cerebellum, as well as removing the strikeout of a speedy delete by a second editor, then added a delete as an IP editor. Edison (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I missed that ug Some one wanna I file an SPI see if there is any more to this??? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the changes to my edit were superficial (dashes before signature removed) and the only change to the IP edit appears to be the addition of an asterisk. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

r to Floquenbeam: It was so far out there that I didn't find any non-abusive interpretation credible. The assumption of good faith does not survive the positive demonstration of bad faith, and all that. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like the easiest solution is to do a rollback. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored the strikethroughs as soon as I noticed what had been done (which took quite a bit longer than you'd think). A rollback didn't seem appropriate because that would have removed simultaneously entered commentary on the AfD. —chaos5023 (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's sometimes just a matter of doing what's easiest. One can do a rollback and then immediately restore the part of the edit that was legitimate. OTOH, sometimes dicks and vandals should just be deleted with an appropriate edit summary instructing them to try a better approach if they wish to get their point across. Whatever the case, it's good you solved it. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP user

• 65.209.244.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.114.137.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 24.118.14.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

On 4 Nov, 65.209.244.80 changed "Byford Dolphin has length of 355 feet (108 m), breadth of 221 feet (67 m) ..." to "Byford Dolphin has width of 355 feet (108 m), breadth of 221 feet (67 m) ...", not understanding that breadth is a synonym for width, and the breadth was already given. He also changed "for long-distance relocation it must be moved by specialist tugboats" to "for far relocation it must be moved by specialist tugboats", without realising that 'long-distance relocation' is idiomatically correct, while 'far relocation' is something no English-speaker would write. He also failed to supply an edit summary for the changes.[88] When Emerson7 (talk · contribs) reverted that, instead of discussion, he re-reverted three more times to insert the same material,[89][90][91] (including an edit summary of the vandalism is yours, arsehole) until he was blocked.

On 10 Nov, editing as 85.114.137.152, he continued the edit war to insert the same changes,[92][93], being reverted first by Emerson7 and then by me (RexxS). My attempts to explain to him on his talk page were met by insistence that he was correct and by insults, then by further abuse at the article talk page, Talk:Byford Dolphin#RexxS, what is wrong with you?. On the same day, he also perpetrated the following abuses of the English language:

• "through exchanges of angular momentum" -> "through trades of angular momentum";
• "at the boundaries of stronger resonances, objects can develop weak orbital instabilities over millions of years. The 4:7 resonance in particular has large instability. KBOs can also be shifted into unstable orbits" -> "at the boundaries of weller resonances, objects can develop weak orbital instabilities over millions of years. The 4:7 resonance in particular has broad instability. KBOs can also be shifted into instabil orbits"[94]
• "Before fast computers were widely available" -> "Until swift computers were widely available"[95]
• "The four large satellites of Jupiter plus the largest inner satellite — Amalthea (moon)|Amalthea — adhere to a regular" -> "The four big satellites of Jupiter and the biggest inner satellite, Amalthea (moon)|Amalthea, cling to a regular"
• "an undiscovered planet" -> "an indiscovered planet"[96]

and more, principally concerned with replacing the word 'large' with 'big' or 'broad'. He was questioned about some of these changes by another editor, Kheider [97]

Today, 11 Nov, he is back as 24.118.14.160, casually tossing more insults at Emerson7 and myself, "ignorantly or deludedly", "emerson7 the illiterate".[98] Although some parts of his edits are indeed useful, he seems to have an idiosyncratic view of what English is, and is attempting to inflict it on Wikipedia. He will not listen to reason, but insists on his own view: "And RexxS, my English is not poor. Yours and the world's is."

In addition, the three IP addresses used geolocate to: Santa Clara, CA; Berlin; Minneapolis, respectively. An SPI request by Emerson7 was declined, because there wasn't anything checkusers could do. I am concerned at the users ability to hop IP addresses and assume that proxies are being used.

It would be nice to think that the IP user could be persuaded to edit constructively and collegiately, but I see no evidence that he is amenable. I therefore propose that he be site-banned as disruptive, so that when he IP-hops again, we can use WP:RBI to avoid further waste of community time and resources. --RexxS (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The marked linguistic idiosyncracies in the above edits strike me as characteristic of the person who posts prolifically to Usenet as "Autymn DC"—often with spelling flames, ironically enough. Her peculiar diction (orthography as well, less evident in the above) seems to be premised on some sort of quirky Saxonism. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If these edits really are all the same person, they are almost certainly editing through a proxy (one IP is in Minnesota, one in Dusseldorf, the third wasn't saying). RexxS, could you make a report here Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies to get it checked. I can block all of these, but he/she is certain to hop again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC) S'okay, Zzuzz got um Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting, Odysseus, as I got the same sort of impression about an "old English obsession". It was also not uncommon in the old days for flamers on usenet to find open proxies to use, so the two seem to tie together. Thanks Elen & Zzuzz for solving it, even if temporarily, I'll look to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies if she shows up again. I don't think there's anything more needed here, so unless anyone objects, could an uninvolved editor check it over and mark this up as "resolved" please? --RexxS (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

User Go porch books disrupting Wikipedia to make a point

Go porch books (talk · contribs) has an unresolved content dispute related to Hyundai and various Hyundai cars with North wiki (talk · contribs). Instead of resolving this on the Hyundai talk pages or following other dispute resolution avenues, Go porch books has instead been adding negative information to articles related to Honda and Toyota, i.e. violating Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Other users have repeatedly asked them to stop trying to make a point this way, and instead work to resolve the problem related to Hyundai. See User talk:Go porch books, User talk:Dbratland#What can I do?, and User talk:North wiki#POV pushing.

Go porch books (talk · contribs) could very likely win consensus on the real problem (i.e. Hyundai) if they would cease acting as if "two wrongs make right" by damaging unrelated articles. --Dbratland (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. If my behavior looks bad. I apology this. But, same thing apply to North wiki (talk · contribs).

1. "various Hyundai cars with North wiki (talk · contribs)."...

Various? No true. I only dispute with 2 articles.

1. My edits are completely normal. It 100% based on sourced materials.[99] [100] [101] Please explain what these edits are problem?
2. I only follow north wiki's style edit. It is obvious North wiki are deliberately adding negative information about Hyundai (and Honda POV pushing) without giving any indication why it is significant. This is Tendentious editing. However, if i did same thing it is completely wrong? Go porch books (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I added these. My edits are really problem?

• 3/5 stars by NHTSA under 2010 new test rules. In 2010, The Toyota Camry is one of worst safety vehicles rated three Star under new rules as of November 2010. Source : [102](NHTSA) [103](consumerreports), [104](AOL), [105], [106]
• In October 2010, it is reported that Brake Defect from Honda Honda Legend were delivered to customers before the problem is discovered. Honda says that it doesn’t know how many of its vehicles have suffered a faulty brake system. The U.S. Honda outfit says it will replace the faulty seal and, if leaking has occurred, the brake booster will be replaced as well. At least some owners in the UAE, Saudi Arabia and other GCC countries are likely affected. Honda told that no stop-sale is issued. Source : [107][108][109]

Is it really problem? I exactly borrow from north wiki's edit.

• In October 2010, it is reported that a small number of Sonata turbo model with improper rubber hose feeding oil to the turbo unit were delivered to customers before the problem is discovered. Hyundai told media that no stop-sale is issued.[110] (edit by north wiki)
• In November 2010, it is reported that Honda Accord received the highest possible safety rating among 2011 model year passenger cars tested by NHTSA, edging ahead of Hyundai Sonata.[111] (edit by north wiki)
• Hyundai's ranking fell to twelfth in 2007.[112](edit by north wiki)

Is it similar? OK. If my behavior is bad. I apology this. I can STOP it. But, North wiki (talk · contribs) did it first. (I did same thing as him. If his edit is OK, My edit is also OK) I EXACTLY learned from him.Go porch books (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If "it is obvious North wiki are deliberately adding negative information," then remove the information or, if your edits have been reverted, discuss the matter at the talk page for the related article. Doing what you admit is tendentious editing to other pages is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and will get you blocked.

Also, as I already told you on your talk page,[113] you should not use North wiki's conduct as a justification, excuse, template, or anything else for your edits. Your edits are the issue here, not anybody else's. If you choose not to edit within the guidelines, you may be sanctioned. Whether or not other editors are sanctioned or how they conduct themselves is not the issue here. The issue here is your conduct—which to this point, I've assumed good faith that you did not understand the guidelines and, as a result, have not blocked you for it yet. However, it's been explained repeatedly, and saying that another user "did it first" will no longer excuse any misconduct.—C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I did EXACTLY same thing as North wiki. He did it first. And he inserted every negative things to Hyundai pages, Is it OK to his behavior? I can also insert Honda's recall information. The recall was FACT. Sourced material. my edits are completely NORMAL with proven relaible sources. I can't find what is the bad point of me. North wiki are deliberately adding negative information about Hyundai (and Honda POV pushing) without giving any indication why it is significant. This is Tendentious editing. You should point out these. If north wiki stop this first, i can stop it. Go porch books (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't find what is the PROBLEM of my Toyota Camry and Honda Oddysey edit. (explained at above. all proven sources) Is it really problem? Go porch books (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a very immature outlook. If Wiki north's edits were incorrect, then he may have made a mistake or had a misunderstanding. The difference is that you are purposely adding inappropriate information, and trying to justify it by saying that someone else did the same thing, so it should be ok. Grow up and discuss the issue like an adult. SnottyWong ^verbalize 22:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that if the information is verifiable and notable then it should not be removed from articles. I agree that subsequent edits by Go porch books and North wiki are possibly motivated to prove a point, but at the end of the day, the information is verifiable. Some of the information that has been added, such as the 570,000 Honda vehicle recall and the significant downgrade to the Toyota Camry (XV40)'s safety rating is very notable. Whether or not other users like this "negative" information is irrelevant. In summary, the information added by North wiki and Go porch books should be included. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen anything so childish as the way that Go porch books is behaving. Snottywong's excellent advice to "grow up and discuss the issue like an adult" should be heeded. Wikipedia is not the place for petty playground spats. Perhaps he/she (or even the both of them) should be given a short wikiholiday to consider their actions. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Go porch books filed a WP:ANEW report,[114] and now both of them are blocked for 24 hours as a result. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Requesting immediate vandalism only block

Resolved

 – user blocked, edit revdel'd. Thanks for the quick response! --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

See this. Only edit of User:Beenvery. Requesting immediate block as an account used only for vandalism. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I also revdeled that diff. It was pretty eggregious, to say the least. Keep an eye open to see if he comes back. Given the fact that he found that template and knew roughly what he was doing, he's not new to Wikipedia today. I have no idea, as yet, who he is, but that was not his first edit. --Jayron32 22:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The person was behind a couple of proxies, both of which have been blocked. TNXMan 23:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad editing

FD45 (talk · contribs) has re-created the hoax article Pokémon X at least twice and got warned for it. He has also created several WP:FAKEARTICLEs in userspace, including User:FD45/International Song Festival Junior / Infant. After that, he created {{Diogo The Mii}} and My Jaime has a Digimon!, further hoaxing material. Not one of his edits has been in good faith, just flat out hoaxing and nonsense. All this even after two "only warning"s for his bad edits. Given that he's clearly not here to make anything useful, can someone please drop the block on him? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

John has blocked, I'll deal with the fakes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations

Please watchlist Wexham Park Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for recurrence of BLP violations by an anonymous editor. I have not semiprotected as the edits were a couple of weeks back, the chance of recurrence is still there. There is no source for the text and zero relevant hits for the name of the individual, so this is probably a personal vendetta rather than a good-faith attempt to document controversy. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As stated the content was potentially defamatory, so I suppressed the edits. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Toa Nidhiki05 disruptive editing

A dispute has been on-going for a number of months as to which candidates should be included in election infoboxes. There is an ongoing RfC on the issue and an another discussion continuing on the topic. However, User:Toa Nidhiki05 has seen it fit to remove the candidates he does not want to see in the election infobox and continutally revert the re-addition pending discussions. It is borderline vandalism. The user is disruptively editing and, despite repeated calls for discussion and consensus before this removals, the editing continues. See [115][116].--TM 02:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This was a misunderstanding and forgetfulness on my part for the Mass. one; the other is not disruptive at all, as I am clearly enforcing WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, both of which are important pillars of this website. Toa Nidhiki05 02:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus reasserting grossly offensive remarks

Resolved

 – For now, at least, by Elen of the Roads with a one month block. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Communist_terrorism&oldid=396140016

Bishonen, first of all I think you're being disrespectful to women by expecting me to assume that Dianaa doesn't know as much as other admins or by implying she doesn't know what she's talking about. Second, the charges of "disruptive behavior" brought against me have never been substantiated by any evidence. All those alleged "libelous remarks" etc. were established to be a figment of the imagination of Andy and Paul, which is why Andy himself got blocked and forced to retract his statements. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)"

For Justus Maximus to suggest that his calling Paul Sibert and myself 'pro-terrorist' was a figment of anyone's imagination, or was not at least grossly offensive and contrary to Wikipedia rules is utterly ludicrous, as reference to the previous AN/I discussions on JM will demonstrate. As for the reason I was blocked, again JM's version is without foundation, as is also demonstrated there. It was made clear to JM at the time of his last blocking that he was expected to comply with Wikipedia standards regarding personal attacks as a condition of unblocking, but instead he seems to prefer to rewrite history to make himself out as some sort of victim in the entire affair. Frankly I'm sick of his endless nit-picking and off-topic rants about everything and everyone that doesn't conform to his viewpoint. It is disruptive to the editing process, and has already driven several established editors to exasperation. Isn't it time to say enough is enough?

(For more of JM's personal attacks, see here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karl_Marx&oldid=396158328 - and of course on his own talk page).

AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

JM was blocked for personal attacks but was unblocked with the notation "per final chance. please reblock if editor resumes his/her disruptive editing".[117] since then JM has continued to make abusive comments, such as "Besides, your signature does seem to be not only deformed but also positively off color".[118] TFD (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am less concerned with this marginal incivility than with JM's propensity for tendentious editing: it seems to be very important to him that communist leaders such as Lenin be labeled as terrorists, and his crusade in that direction is getting to be disruptive. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if both of you could provide examples that can be read on this page, without other editors having to look through JM's edit history. TFD (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Mind you, I have looked through the edit history. This is an area of history/politics/ideaology where people argue toughly. However, JM is somewhat conspicuous for his readiness to assume bad faith and generally insult editors who do not agree with him. The accusation that Bishonen was being "disrespectful to women" because she disagreed with an editor with an apparently female name was pure trolling. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am also noting this in response to a perfectly civil comment by Paul Seibert. If Looie496 or others have evidence of tendentious editing also, I am minded to reblock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You want more? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karl_Marx&diff=next&oldid=396157729 AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Because he is now arguing that he did nothing previously to warrant a block, editing tendentiously, bullying behaviour and personal attacks, I have blocked him for a month. He can think about how to better argue his case in that time. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if Andy, Paul, and anyone else he's ever disagreed with could please stay off his talkpage, so as not to precipitate an issue. If he starts making allegations against individuals, I'll deal with it. I have advised him that if he sounds off like last time, I may suspend editing of his talkpage. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Clear User Space

Can someone look at this, and let me know if, in a future case like this, it requires admin status to deal with this, and if not, what the correct process would be to do something about it? (I'm a little unclear about user space policies, so I wanted to play it safe in this instance). Thanks! The Eskimo (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well nevermind, it's been blanked, but still curious: It was a blatantly offensive series of texts and images that would be offensive to Muslims. Do only admins have the tools to delete or blank a user space when it's so obvious? The Eskimo (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, WP:Office members also are able to delete and stuff - Arbs and Crats are nowadays admins as well, so they use those flags. Non flagged editors cannot delete, since there is no way of providing tools for only "serious" abuse as that is often a qualitive judgement, but they can certainly blank before going to find someone with a mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the reply! The Eskimo (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

edit warring at Armenian language

Armenian language is an area I don't want to be using my buttons, so could others take a look pls. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:Courcelles already picked it off for you. --Jayron32 04:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for a few days, and served Aryamahasattva with an WP:ARBAA2 notice over the slow edit war. Courcelles 05:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Was wondering what was going on with the block - since I was about to file a complaint against Aryamahasattva myself, and may still do so. You may notice that said editor has not once engaged on the discussion page. This explains Courcelle's action, which I had questioned - although I must say I protest the block rather than just a warning to Aryamahasattva.μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Attack pages tonight

I have speedily deleted an unusually large number of attack pages tonight, a weird trend. I am gonna knock off for the night so if admins who are night owls or in different time zones could keep an eye out for this kind of activity that would be great. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus reasserting grossly offensive remarks

Resolved

 – For now, at least, by Elen of the Roads with a one month block. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Communist_terrorism&oldid=396140016

Bishonen, first of all I think you're being disrespectful to women by expecting me to assume that Dianaa doesn't know as much as other admins or by implying she doesn't know what she's talking about. Second, the charges of "disruptive behavior" brought against me have never been substantiated by any evidence. All those alleged "libelous remarks" etc. were established to be a figment of the imagination of Andy and Paul, which is why Andy himself got blocked and forced to retract his statements. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)"

For Justus Maximus to suggest that his calling Paul Sibert and myself 'pro-terrorist' was a figment of anyone's imagination, or was not at least grossly offensive and contrary to Wikipedia rules is utterly ludicrous, as reference to the previous AN/I discussions on JM will demonstrate. As for the reason I was blocked, again JM's version is without foundation, as is also demonstrated there. It was made clear to JM at the time of his last blocking that he was expected to comply with Wikipedia standards regarding personal attacks as a condition of unblocking, but instead he seems to prefer to rewrite history to make himself out as some sort of victim in the entire affair. Frankly I'm sick of his endless nit-picking and off-topic rants about everything and everyone that doesn't conform to his viewpoint. It is disruptive to the editing process, and has already driven several established editors to exasperation. Isn't it time to say enough is enough?

(For more of JM's personal attacks, see here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karl_Marx&oldid=396158328 - and of course on his own talk page).

AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

JM was blocked for personal attacks but was unblocked with the notation "per final chance. please reblock if editor resumes his/her disruptive editing".[119] since then JM has continued to make abusive comments, such as "Besides, your signature does seem to be not only deformed but also positively off color".[120] TFD (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am less concerned with this marginal incivility than with JM's propensity for tendentious editing: it seems to be very important to him that communist leaders such as Lenin be labeled as terrorists, and his crusade in that direction is getting to be disruptive. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if both of you could provide examples that can be read on this page, without other editors having to look through JM's edit history. TFD (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Mind you, I have looked through the edit history. This is an area of history/politics/ideaology where people argue toughly. However, JM is somewhat conspicuous for his readiness to assume bad faith and generally insult editors who do not agree with him. The accusation that Bishonen was being "disrespectful to women" because she disagreed with an editor with an apparently female name was pure trolling. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am also noting this in response to a perfectly civil comment by Paul Seibert. If Looie496 or others have evidence of tendentious editing also, I am minded to reblock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You want more? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karl_Marx&diff=next&oldid=396157729 AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Because he is now arguing that he did nothing previously to warrant a block, editing tendentiously, bullying behaviour and personal attacks, I have blocked him for a month. He can think about how to better argue his case in that time. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if Andy, Paul, and anyone else he's ever disagreed with could please stay off his talkpage, so as not to precipitate an issue. If he starts making allegations against individuals, I'll deal with it. I have advised him that if he sounds off like last time, I may suspend editing of his talkpage. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Clear User Space

Can someone look at this, and let me know if, in a future case like this, it requires admin status to deal with this, and if not, what the correct process would be to do something about it? (I'm a little unclear about user space policies, so I wanted to play it safe in this instance). Thanks! The Eskimo (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well nevermind, it's been blanked, but still curious: It was a blatantly offensive series of texts and images that would be offensive to Muslims. Do only admins have the tools to delete or blank a user space when it's so obvious? The Eskimo (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, WP:Office members also are able to delete and stuff - Arbs and Crats are nowadays admins as well, so they use those flags. Non flagged editors cannot delete, since there is no way of providing tools for only "serious" abuse as that is often a qualitive judgement, but they can certainly blank before going to find someone with a mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the reply! The Eskimo (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

edit warring at Armenian language

Armenian language is an area I don't want to be using my buttons, so could others take a look pls. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:Courcelles already picked it off for you. --Jayron32 04:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for a few days, and served Aryamahasattva with an WP:ARBAA2 notice over the slow edit war. Courcelles 05:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Was wondering what was going on with the block - since I was about to file a complaint against Aryamahasattva myself, and may still do so. You may notice that said editor has not once engaged on the discussion page. This explains Courcelle's action, which I had questioned - although I must say I protest the block rather than just a warning to Aryamahasattva.μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Attack pages tonight

I have speedily deleted an unusually large number of attack pages tonight, a weird trend. I am gonna knock off for the night so if admins who are night owls or in different time zones could keep an eye out for this kind of activity that would be great. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

RevisionDeletion noticeboard (II)

(Moved to WP:AN) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of user talk page

Hi, I'm responding to a user's rquest to have his old talk page deleted, since he's no longer active after a ban. Since the request was made by email to the OTRS team, its contents are confidential, so I need an administrator to contact me through the email link on my user page. (Btw. I'm just relaying the request and have no opinion as to the rules or routine regarding talk page deletion). Cheers! Asav (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sent you an e-mail. Courcelles 10:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

IP hopper Armenophobe

I'm coming here with this as the only response I got down at WP:CCN was this editor trying to censor my post: Someone (from Turkey according to geolocate) has been going between articles relating to the Urartu empire and removing references to Armenia. He's left me a message on my talk page accusing me of being an Armenophile, but beyond that refuses to talk about his edits. I've quit leaving warnings, because he switches to a different IP address every day. Banning probably won't accomplish anything with the IP hopping, I'm thinking page protection is going to be necessary. Special:Contributions/78.182.3.207, Special:Contributions/78.182.11.67, Special:Contributions/78.180.98.119, Special:Contributions/78.184.226.130, Special:Contributions/78.190.176.59, Special:Contributions/78.190.178.106, Special:Contributions/78.180.112.18 (same pattern, also attempted to delete the above list from my post at WP:CCN). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I would notify the editor, but as he keeps hopping IPs there's no guarantee he'd get the message; although considering his attempt to censor me at WP:CCN, I'm guessing he's stalking me and will be aware of the discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Tha EnSiGN--regularly adding unsourced info to album articles without discussion

Tha EnSiGN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User: Tha EnSiGN has a history of making changes to album articles, mostly to the producers or extra performers on those albums. The user has a talk page full of templated and untemplated warnings about this behavior. I, unfortunately, have little knowledge of the subject, so I'm not sure if these are legitimate or not. But this seems vaguely similar to other reports I've read on ANI before of long running socks who do the same thing. Looking through the editors history, I see no response to any of the reports, no use of article talk pages, and no edit summaries. Anyone else think this looks suspicious? off to notify now Qwyrxian (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

being threatened on wikipedia

hi i dont know if this is right place. i receive this vandalism on my page [121]. i think its related to discussion im having here [122]. user there canvas 2 other users to get more keep votes and when i mention this one of them vandalize my page with no explaination here [123] . because latest vandalism and threat is right after i ask person to explain many times why they remove image from my page with no explaination and they are rude to me[124] i think its related. not sure what to do now. thanks. sorry if this wrong place please tell me where. :) SunHwaKwonh (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The IP address that vandalised your page has already been blocked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

i see thanks. since i start the delete discussion many people have bothered me i have think that one of these users log out to vandalize my page? is this possible? should i stop using wikipedia because im in danger now? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is possible for people to log out of Wikipedia. But then they give away their IP address, so that makes them look even sillier than they already are. What makes you think you are in danger? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

you see what comments were left on my page? they dont seem danger? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's called vandalism. Get over it, move on. LiteralKa (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, IIRC the edits in question were only racist, not threatening. LiteralKa (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Why was I not notified that I was being discussed? Again, you asked me once, a suitable answer was given by another member of the community. LiteralKa (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I deleted the offensive revisions. Highly, highly unlikely that was User:LiteralKa. In fact no way. (By the way, parallel discussion on my talk page.) Be advised that anyone who comments on GNAA in any forum is subject to trolling. We can protect your user page if it becomes a problem. Antandrus (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

First, SunHwaKnowh accuses me of canvassing; now he's accusing me of vandalism. Neither LiteralKa nor I defaced his userpage. By attacking the GNAA redirect, SunHwaKwonh has painted a large target for trolls and vandals on himself. That vandal could be anyone. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

it is strange that IP who vandal my page dont even vote in delete discus. literalka removed image from my page with no explaination text. also IP who vandal my page says they arguing with me here so must be someone i already meet and talk with. only 2 of those people. i say maybe you vandalize i not accuse. you say you would not say things like post on my user page? also you did canvas you supposed to notify people in nonpartisan way but you only notify people who will vote keep. then you say it not a vote so doesnt matter. not add up. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, I defended myself so many times on the other discussion. Like RL0919 and I have said, this is becoming repetitive. I did notify those users in a nonpartisan matter, and even RL0919 agrees: The postings he has made so far seem to be limited and neutrally worded. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• im sorry i cant assume good faith these two users are being rude and condesending and i dont want to be vulgar threatened so i have to do this. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I was never rude, and there are sysops here to protect you from threats. Please remember that this is the Internet and that you are anonymous. You are safe, and you don't have any real threat to worry about. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    • is not true goatse organization of hacker so not safe. you been rude like treating a baby. also why you look at every edit i make? scary. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Please don't be paranoid. Goatse Security has only exploited website and browser vulnerability. They never broke into anyone's computer. They can't figure out who you are, since you are using a fictional character's name as your pseudonym. The only person who should be afraid of privacy issues is me, since I'm extremely transparent. I'm not sure what your baby comment is referring to. I'm not treating you like a child. I'll answer your question with another question: Why were you viewing my contributions and the messages I leave other users? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
        • because you did it to me first thats how i learn you can do it. that dont answer why your still do it and a lot more. i dont think its your real name and you cant prove it so stop saying that its weird like im supposed to believe everything you say since you always use policy for your own goals. but doesnt matter why are you so defensive here. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I had the pop-ups gadget enabled, so when I hovered over your username, I saw that you had a copyrighted image on your userpage, so I removed it. I then check your contributions in case you had violated the image policy elsewhere. That's my explanation. I'm being defensive because you're accusing of breaking policy and vandalism. And now you're accusing me of manipulating policies. Don't I have the right to defend myself from such claims? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
            • yes but why are you still looking at all my edits. thats how you know to come here even though i didnt know i had to tell you. anyway if my claims are false people can see it themselves by looking at it. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There isn't anything wrong with viewing other users' contributions. I have the right to know about any discussion concerning me. Right now, it appears as if you prefer closed discussions and leaving individuals such as myself out of the loop. Wikipedia is supposed to be transparent. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• stop putting things in my mouth. i asked a question you dont have to get offended , every time i ask something you and others think im attacking you im just asking . this is what i mean being you being rude. you have right to know about this but im asking how you found out because i forgot to tell you, i dont know procedure. my mistake. but how did you find it. this isnt helping anything why are you arguing here. you just have to say its not you who do vandal to my page. are you saying it wasnt you who put such horrible things. not accusing you of canvas here i only mention it. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• i probably not reply to what michaeldsuarez say unless it really important because he just try to make me angry. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not putting things in your mouth. You asked me why I viewed your contributions, and I answered. I already said that I wasn't the vandal, yet you continue to push and push. I'm not trying to make you angry; I'm simply trying to help you understand my position. And you did accuse me of canvassing when you started this threat. You did more than just mention it; you attempted to draw a connection between the alleged canvassing and the vandalism. I'm looking for sympathy from you, not anger. The Internet is just text, so I'm can't convey the tone of comments properly. If you perceive my comments as rude, then that reaction was unintentional and I'm sorry for that. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    • after what you put me through with stalk me on here and denial of canvassing which you did clearly according to policy i state on delete discussion , and then after the terrible things put on my page you have no sympathy for me and you dare ask for sympathy FROM me?????? i cant believe it. someone threaten to do X rated things to me and you have no sympathy and demand sympathy. how can you say you not try to anger me after asking sympathy. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure whether you realize this or not, but I never seen the vandalism done to your userpage, and I can't ever see that vandalism since it was oversighted. I'm not sure how you were threatened, and I can't ever be sure. I never stalked you; I simply didn't want to be left outside the loop. Anyone can view anyone's contributions. Can you please try to understand the situation from my side of the field? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
        • you are asking so but you never try to see from my side. to me it look like you canvassing. i still thin you canvass. if you apologize i think you better person but you deny deny deny. and i know it true because you do what policy say you should not. so why should i feel this way for you now after being threat? when you find this long time after you should stop looking at my contribitiions. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
        • admin here [125] say we cannot convince each other so we both say everything about each other here so we can stop ok? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Done. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so watchers of this thread are aware: The discussion at User_talk:Antandrus#thanks has expanded significantly. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Reading all of SunHwaKwonh (talk · contribs)'s posts, I feel that we are being trolled. Goodvac (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that after several rounds of trying to get SunHwaKwonh (talk · contribs) to accept that Michaeldsuarez (talk · contribs) and LiteralKa (talk · contribs) had not done anything wrong, and subsequently warning him to stop making baseless allegations, I ended up blocking him for 24h after he tried to start an RfC in the middle of the deletion discussion, and continuing to allege that everyone who had already contributed had been canvassed by Michael. His unblock request alleged that I am also biased (what a surprise), which failed to impress the reviewing admin. I suspect he may return when his unblock expires tonight, in which case, I think more weight may be given to the opinion above. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee

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

---

User:MickMacNee has featured here before, and a couple of weeks ago received an indef block (his nineteenth) for repeated incidents of edit warring, pointy and tendentious arguments and personal attacks on other editors. The recent ANI discussion [126] included the following (prescient) statement from an admin: "In view of his block log I do not believe that any assurances he may give about future good conduct are credible, because his persistently aggressive mode of editing can only be explained as reflecting aspects of his character that are very difficult or impossible for a person to change at will. As such, I ask that any unblock of MickMacNee be considered, if at all, only after thorough discussion in a community forum and accompanied by measures that prevent his returning to the topic areas in which he has been disruptive."

He was subsequently unblocked by an admin who was in personal communication with Mick, an action the blocking admin opposed [127]. Subsequently, Mick filed this AfD in which all the behaviors he's been noted for over the years just keep rolling on. Some sample diffs: [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135]

As Sandstein accurately commented in a discussion of the block removal, "MickMacNee has given no credible assurances for future good conduct or even that he understands why he was blocked." Folks, come on. This is the way Mick argues. This is the way he's always argued on Wikipedia. He is going to keep on with his tendentious, combative, disruptive behavior, and he will continue to provoke other editors into slugfests, as long as he's allowed to do so. May I respectfully ask what you are waiting for?  RGTraynor  18:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to send this to arbitration. The second mover needs to get a wakeup call in these unblock wars, rather than punishing the third mover. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, I wasn't thinking of seeking to censure the unblocking admin; regardless of my view on his judgment in this matter, I have no reason not to think he was acting in good faith.  RGTraynor  19:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Scott acted in good faith. That's not sufficient. Performing contentious unblocks in the face of disagreement from the blocking admin and some in the community is a serious problem and exacerbates other problems. Were I or any other admin to reeves his decision as he reversed the original decision there is no doubt we would be desysopped quickly. I'm not suggesting that we do that to scott but we have to talk about the problem his action represented and the problems it may have caused. Protonk (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of correcting your AfD link above, as the link was broken. David Biddulph (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Frivolous complaint. Suggest closure and consideration of sanctions against the complainant. You can't get into a pissing contest with someone at AfD then drag them to ANI with a load of diffs, most of which show your opponent correctly drawing the attention of participants to relevant guidelines/policies/essays. I don't believe MMN has been any more uncivil than RGTraynor. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • On further examination, it seems RGTraynor has just picked every edit by MMN in that AfD. Only the second-to-last is anything more than fair comment (and not, I might add, because he uses naughty words). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Eh? "My 'behaviour'? You can just stop your sly insinuations and general dickish posts right here thanks." is fair comment? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Fair point, though I've seen worse go unnoticed. This feels a lot like running to teacher after you picked a fight with the school bully because you know he's already in trouble. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Erm? First off, I'd recheck that "further examination." Not counting opening that AfD nor counting where Mick made responses to several different editors in the same diff, he's made eighteen diffs. I highlighted eight; would you care to retract that "has just picked every edit" remark? Secondly, while "blame the victim" presumes there is a victim in this matter, you seem to be falling into similar behavior. I'd prefer not to believe that you'd be so opposed to WP:AGF as to claim that no one who can be construed to have a grievance files such a complaint other than through malice or with an ulterior motive in mind. Surely, for instance, in the debate about Mick's indef block just two weeks ago, you didn't ask for sanctions on any of the twenty admins and editors who endorsed that block, even though some admitted to having a history with him themselves. That being said, Mick's long and colorful history speaks for itself, and no further debate from me is needful or appropriate. If people feel that ArbCom is a more suitable venue for this matter and an admin wishes to file such a case, fair enough.  RGTraynor  02:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse Close. Consider WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED N419BH 19:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This really needs to go to ArbCom. MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been obnoxious across many areas of WP: I can count four separate admins who have applied indefinite blocks, and yet he is still allowed to edit. The fact that he occasionally makes valid contributions should not mask the fact that he has shown himself over a period of more than two years since his first block to be incapable of conforming with the constraints of a collaborative project. Physchim62 (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) user notified. I have been involved with MMN only since his last unblock on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 32‎. Although I'd say his behaviour (discussing with very many opposing votes) seems to become counterproductive (in my eyes), there is not much he has done wrong. In the deletion discussion named above, 2 users discussed his 19 blocks and suggested not to listen to him anymore, which was hardly a comment 'on the subject'. As I said, I have no idea on his full history and how that should be taken into account, but the most recent comments seem to simply take a battle between RGTraynor and MMN here.... L.tak (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This comment to another person participating in the Afd was hostile and the type of comment that the civility guideline was intended to address. Mick's repeated aggressive conduct towards other users is off putting to the point that another user would think twice before approaching him to discuss an issue, or participating in a discussion where he is involved. I agree this needs to go to ArbCom since the Community is not able to sort this out. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I am in no way uninvolved here, but I will say this on the complaint. I've seen Mick say much, much worse things than are seen in the diffs here. Mick isn't a nice person, he isn't pleasant to work with, and I don't think he should have been unblocked. That being said, nothing in this complaint, if treated independently of the rest of his long and troubled history, would come close to warranting a block. Even with his history, these incidents don't indicate that another block is needed, at least not yet. Taking this to ArbCom now won't be useful either. Wait for another big incident before going to the Arbs, give them something fresh to work with. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused about this one. Did he refactor someone's comment or am I missing something? Sven Manguard _Talk 20:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Close. Neither MickMacNee's nor RG Traynor's behavour in this AfD is exactly exemplary, (and Traynor's bringing this here is questionable). As they have both made their view abundantly clear, I suggest they both unwatch it and let others decide the outcome.  pablo 20:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• To me it is abundantly clear that this belongs at Arbcom. While the behaviour at this AfD would not be anything sanctionable as a one-off event, it's equally an umpteenth example of an AfD being overwrought by MickMacNee's overly aggressive mode of discussion. The unilateral lifting of his last block against community consensus just underlines that this is beyond the ability of community consensus to resolve, and is hence one of those situations best solved by arbitration. ~ mazca ^talk 20:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's either that or a personal interaction ban with ... everyone. Rd232 ^talk 21:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Mick should be banned from AfD's (atleast for his own good). As to how long? that's up to the community. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• What, again? Obviously the community is not handling this, so dump it on ArbCom; it's their job. Jack Merridew 22:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Would a community ban be quicker and easier? Mick could always appeal it to ArbCom in his inimitable manner should he wish to. Physchim62 (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree that this is a three pipe arbcom problem. The community cannot resolve this. It must go to arbitration. --23:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. I think ArbCom may be the way to go here. The community has failed to handle this, though the last block really should not have been reversed and that probably needs to be addressed at ArbCom as well. AniMate 01:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so who's going to take it there? Physchim62 (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot say that I am surprised. I will write a request for arbitration.  Sandstein  14:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Possible Suicide Threats/Death Threats

Forwarded to the Foundation, we're on it. Thanks! Christine Moellenberndt, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved  – Korruski says WMF is on it move along The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I guess... start the routine... sombody... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC) more... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I have contacted the Wikimedia foundation. An admin will need to block the user and someone with checkuser access will need to find their location.--KorruskiTalk 11:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC) FYI - I have received confirmation that someone at the WM Foundation is looking into it.--KorruskiTalk 11:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Didn't get to post this until now, but the Foundation has it and we're on it. Thanks! Christine Moellenberndt, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

• Mdupont (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On Gjeravica (diff);. User copy-pasted article over redirect, after being informed multiple times that copy-paste is not valid way for moving articles. diff, diff, diff, and placed a note atop with this:

"NOTICE: This article is a fork of the article Đeravica because they refuse to change the name to albanian. there is an ongoing edit conflict with the serbs over the names in wikipedia."

As there are no ongoing edit conflict, i am asking for a block, as nothing else helped. User is not willing to cooperate, which is clear from his "they refuse" attitude, and other posts on wiki. And also, he is pointing to the national origin of editors, which is unacceptable. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Final warning given for copyright-violation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I am an active wikipedia editor. I am willing to cooperate. Lets resolve this. Where is the copyright violation? James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste copying within Wikipedia is a copyright violation when it does not maintain the relevant article history. Of much greater importance, though, is that such "forked" articles are not allowed by Wikipedia policy, even if they have correct attribution. — Gavia immer (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A copy-paste move is indeed a copyvio but not a daunting one, since it can easily be fixed afterwards with a move, which also moves the contrib history. Nor was this vandalism. However, it was indeed a PoV fork, which isn't allowed, along with what was more or less a non-consensus beginning of a page move, both of which are not only disruptive, but since it has to do with a topic area under Wikipedia:General_sanctions, any uninvolved admin can either sanction or if need be, block such behaviour rather swiftly. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I see the problem. I will not make forks. It was just an expermiment to try and resolve the issue. Obviously this is no place for experiments, because the issue is very serious. Please accept my apology. There are very many places that I have seen where important information is missing like the albanian names from Kosovo articles and where also the point of view seems to be not neutral. I will work on fixing them inside the existing naming scheme and without copying articles. We have been trying to recruit new editors and alot of them dont want to help wikipedia because they feel offended that the place they live has a different name and seems to be biased. That was my motivation to try and resolve that. I see that it was the wrong way. thanks Mike. James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally we go with the most common Anglicised form of a name for the article title and mention any variations prominently in the first sentence or two of the lead (see WP:UE). That, plus redirects from the alternatives, should hopefully handle the mechanics of naming and finding an article. It is difficult where national sensibilities come into the equation, but hopefully sticking strictly to the naming conventions at least produces a consistent result. Sometimes we just have to accept that we can't please everyone. EyeSerene^talk 12:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

In Kosovo the articles are using mostly serbian letters that cannot even be typed. This is not very optimal. Also The links between the articles are also all in serbian, so if you dont know the serbian name, but know the albanian or english name it is hard to navigate. My patches to include the albanian names of the links are also being removed. It seems that the only place we can agree to add them are in the lead of the article. this is not really optimal. If we could at least list both names for the links, I would be happy. James Michael DuPont (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Current names have been agreed by community consensuses as most common, and most appropriate. Also, some of them are English common names too, so those were not used just as being Serbian, it were used per wikipedia guidelines regarding names. Also, your addition of dual language links in EVERY POSSIBLE PLACE makes articles completely unreadable. And also, this is not wikipedia only for local community, this is at first encyclopedia for English speaking community, and names have been chosen appropriately. Who wants to find article by their other names, can use redirects, but articles should have other languages only in lead, as explained by EyeSerene. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There has never been a consensus that the names of the cities of Kosovo should be in Serbian. --Sulmuesi (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing conflict over links and content of the Qumran article

For more than a week I have been involved in a slow edit conflict, not really knowing how otherwise to proceed, over the Qumran article. This is an article about the archaeological site of Qumran. I am attempting to make sure, as I see it, all content is on topic and neutrality is maintained.

1. When the person I am in conflict with wants to post external links that are about other aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls and material of his own production, I remove them. They are already to be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls article, so he's getting the publicity there. At the moment he is no longer trying to post one of his papers, the published one, though he continues to insert his unpublished paper as an external link and has decided to add a link to a Dead Sea Scrolls organization, an organization I long ago created an article for which has the link, The Orion Center, an article that can be accessed from every Dead Sea Scrolls related article through the navbox I put at the bottom. In an effort to clarify the problem to the editor, I divided the remaining external links into two categories, "Scholarly articles about the site of Qumran" and "Other links about the site of Qumran". The editor now removes these categories in order to insert his links.

2. The editor also inserts a comment, I consider both tangential and argumentative. He considers it background to his interpretation of the site. I work on the notion that if material is about the contents of the scrolls, then it is not directly relevant to the site of Qumran. The particular comment follows information about a scholarly opinion from Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, the person who first suggested that the scrolls came to Qumran from Jerusalem, an opinion which reflects a particular approach to the analysis of the site. The editor wants to insert this afterwards:

Rengstorf (p.15) also asked: "What is the explanation of the fact that the Essenes, who, it is claimed, speak, among other things, precisely about themselves and their views and customs in the Dead Sea texts, but always use other names for themselves?" In fact, many scholars have concluded that the Hebrew origin of the name Essenes indeed appears as a self-designation in some Qumran scrolls.

The "In fact" ushers in unnecessarily argumentative material about the Essenes. This for me is clearly not related to the site of Qumran. The editor believes that the Essenes were responsible for the site of Qumran, which is his prerogative, though here the material is gratuitous.

Here are my last two edits: [136] and [137] They represent the battleground.

To sum up the positions, I'm arguing lack of consensus, relevance and neutrality, a conflict of interest, and original research. He's arguing for relevance and against censorship.

The conflict is probably exacerbated by the fact that the editor and I have had conflicts on internet for well over ten years. It continues in a mild form on the discussion page

My desire here is to find some efficacious resolution to the conflict. I'm not interested in any punitive action or discouragement of editing. I just don't want to have to continue in this tug-of-war which is for me fruitless. I can of course abandon the article, though it is the only one I do much work on (though I have written over a dozen articles for the DSS topic), but that would be to me to say that I have wasted my time. The best solution in my eyes would be if I could find an administrator who would be willing to spend the time needed to adjudicate the problem. Though this is a highly specialized topic, an understanding of the problems shouldn't require more than some patience. I would have tried a third opinion but there was no way I could think of providing a neutral presentation of the "facts".

Thanks for your consideration. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The material that Ihutchesson removes from the article should remain in the article because they are descriptive of current major issues in the discussion of Qumran, as I document with peer-reviewed scholarly publications by numerous scholars. Some of my improvements to the article remain. And the link group headings are inaccurate and misleading; I have suggested that link annotations are more helpful for readers. I have published in multiple peer-reviewed scholarly publications, have archaeological excavation experience in Israel, and have a Duke U. Ph.D.; I have not seen any such scholarly peer-reviewed publications from the one who deletes major scholarly views and who classifies links as "scholarly" or not. The article version without the observations that he deletes is certainly *less* "neutral." I recognize that there are issues on which there are different interpretations, no consensus yet. I seek representation for major issues, giving both sides, and giving the reader options to be aware of and to read a range of the major viewpoints. Let the reader decide. The reader cannot be well informed if major viewpoints are censored out of the article, as one editor (who acts as if he owns the article), unfortunately, does. Let the readers have all relevant major facts. Coralapus (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

This editor has missed the point about my removal of his unpublished research interpreting some of the contents of the scrolls. The article is not about what may be in the scrolls but the site of Qumran. There are other places where he would better find grounds for posting his material, for example in the Dead Sea Scrolls article, where it seems to be more relevant than an article about the archaeological site, if his original research (WP:OR) is well adapted to be anywhere on Wiki going by the Wiki ethos. And posting one's own materials does seem to be a conflict of interest (WP:COI).

The inclusion of material purely because it can be hitched onto another piece of information by the same person, thus allowing for a gratuitous comment still seems to me to be argumentative, provocative and unhelpful in its context.

He has also upped the frequency of his reversions: in the last 24 hours it was three times. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In simple terms, the majority view of archaeologists and scholars about Qumran is that Essenes lived there; a minority view is that Essenes did not live there. I hold the majority view; he holds the minority view. He misleads readers by excluding--on quite changing, ad hoc, any means to an end grounds--sufficient material from the majority view to be proportionally represented. The scrolls are archaeological facts relevant to the site, in the majority view. I seek to have both views represented and let the readers decide. He prefers to slant the article to the minority view. Readers would be ill served by his biased editing. I allow both views for readers to consider. I have not erased in the bibliography his non-scholarly article that represents the viewpoint of no one (to my knowledge) besides him. That, in an abundance of allowance of a distinctly minority view. His approach, simply, is to seek to erase that with which he does not agree, while pretending to neutrality. I have written articles for Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, Anchor Bible Dictionary, and other peer-reviewed journals and books, and I know that his approach is neither fair nor scholarly. Coralapus (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

This noticeboard is not a forum to debate your views about the Essenes. It's a place where administrators consider the conflict set before them. I think you misunderstand what Wiki does and are breaking the rules

1) posting your own materials as references,

2) insisting on material that isn't directly relevant to the article, and

3) publicizing yourself rather than working on a good neutral article.

Your publications are very nice, but again tangential here. Besides, you had editors there, while you are the editor here, and you don't seem aware of the necessities of the job of keeping to the topic or evaluating the worth of the materials you present. For some reason you refuse to see that gratuitous mention of Essenes in a place where such mention is not needed doesn't help the article. Consensus for your material has not been established and I stress that it is your material. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually discussion of Essenes is called for. Descriptively, it is one of the main issues. Your exclusions are unbalancedCoralapus (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

We are dealing with the site of Qumran, not your musing on the Essenes. Obviously your claim that a discussion of them "is one of the main issues" is false regarding the article and shows that you aren't interested in the site of Qumran at all. You have been trumpeting the Essenes from one end of the internet to the other over the last ten or so years, insinuating them everywhere you can. Please try to see that you are not dealing with the site of Qumran, but your pet interest. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have peer-reviewed publications on archaeology, Essenes, and scrolls and care about all three. And archaeological experience in Israel. (And "Jannaeus" is linked at Bible and Interpretation, a location you use for links). It is simply a fact of history of scholarship that Essenes are relevant to Qumran. Your personal wish and intention to keep that away from readers, to hide the question, the debate, from them, is a clear-cut case of bias. If your bias is sustained, readers loose.Coralapus (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)CoralapusCoralapus (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

If I took a poll of the scholarly internet groups you have been ejected from or cautioned on, what percentage of people would claim that you were a good judge of bias? Please, you need to realize that you are too involved with your own views to do balanced editing on the Qumran article. You cite your own material. You link to your own material. You push your own views to extreme lengths. And all that is totally against Wiki policy. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I do wonder whether, given your history of using aliases on sites that explicitly forbid that, and your use of names quite similar to names of real scholars--i.e your use on ane [ancient near east] and orion [Dead Sea Scrolls] list of "John J. Hays," when there is a real Hebrew Bible, John H. Hayes--I wonder whether Raphael Golb (another sockpuppet) was encouraged by your use of false names, indirectly or directly. (?) In either case, a reader of an article on Qumran should be informed of the majority view as well as the minority one. Just because you temporarily managed to exclude majority views elsewhere hardly recommends a repeat obscurantism. I have added links to other scholars.Coralapus (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

An entertaining kneejerk reaction doesn't change the basic problem that you are not helping the article with your lack of perspective, a lack endemic in your willingness to inject your own materials wherever possible and pervert what the article says to your own tangential ends. (You didn't do the poll.) -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you think it is funny, but did you apologize to Prof. Hayes? And, if you care to reply: was Raphael Golb encouraged by your use of false names?Coralapus (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

You are making a false accusation in public, Stephen Goranson. There are laws against such abuses. This is endemic of your inability to stick to the subject. You inveterately introduce content inappropriate for the context in which you work: your own original work, your partisan views. Your comment is merely a continuation of the same kneejerk, showing your guileless attempt to think that someone would misspell the name of the person they were supposedly trying to imitate. That's fantasy. We should note that I am here under my name and you are here as a sockpuppet. Now please put aside this misguidedness of yours and try to concentrate on what is beneficial and neutral in the presentation of the Qumran article.

It seems that you have stopped inserting references to yourself in the article for the moment and I thank you for that. However, I don't see why you removed the headings "scholarly articles on the site of Qumran" and "other links to the site of Qumran". They represent the groups of links they described. What is wrong with them exactly? You are still maintaining the tangent about the Essenes added to a sentence about Rengstorf. He is clearly there because he was first to propose the Jerusalem origin of the scrolls, an act of credit where credit is due. Your insertion has nothing directly to do with the context, so why do you keep reinserting it? -- Ihutchesson (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked a question; unanswered. Coralapus (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus (Stephen Goranson)

Please explain your question. --Ihutchesson (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your unnecessary and inaccurate heading of "scholarly" excludes Qumran im Netz, while including another that is less so--hence, inaccurate. Coralapus (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus (Stephen Goranson)

There were two headings. One was about scholarly articles, the other was for other links about the site of Qumran, which includes the possibility of Qumran in Netz. No inaccuracy shown. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I put in a reference to a major question--the name Essene found at Qumran or not--surely relevant--with a VanderKam reference, which you erased. I will replace that major point of view of VanderKam, Isaak Jost, Melanchthon, Wm. Browmlee, C. Murphy and C. Evans and many others. You should not censor that. Not prevent readers from knowing the relevant *fact* that several scholars find the Hebrew of the name Essenes in Qumran scrolls, as a self-designation. Erasing that would be censorship, bias, distortion, obscurantism. Coralapus (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus (Stephen Goranson)

Rengstorf's mention is a historical one about the site. Your dragging in of Essenes purely because he was mentioned is an argumentative tangent. You do not have a consensus for this tangent. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Rengstorf's mention is a historical one about the site." Yes. And the site is Qumran. Hence relevant. He and numerous other scholars say it is relevant. The question is plain, though perhaps you do not know the answer. The link headings misled, on plain reading. What is different about a mention of an article by me compared to mention of an article by other editors (including you)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coralapus (talk • contribs) 11:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have put no references to my work in the Qumran article, unlike you who go around putting your stuff wherever you can. Beside Qumran, other Dead Sea Scrolls topics you've inserted yourself (& the articles I have already complained about) are:

The Dead Sea Scrolls: [138]

The Essenes: [139]

The Wicked Priest: [140]

The Copper Scroll: [141]

You have also specifically inserted your own name in these articles:

Murphy's Law: [142]

Limerick (poetry): [143]

Serenity Prayer: [144]

Scrimshaw: [145]

Bob's your uncle: [146]

All of this is disguised under your pseudonym, Coralapus, so that no-one could see what you were doing. Coralapus has advertised Stephen Goranson as a librarian at Duke University, a Duke researcher, and an ADS member (from the American Dialect Society List). In fact, Coralapus may have inserted every reference to Stephen Goranson on Wikipedia. If there is not a sin-bin for such behavior on Wiki, there should be. You have the audacity to try to libel me over using a pseudonym on internet about ten years ago and here you are using a pseudonym to disguise yourself while you parade your wares, showing how you use Wikipedia.

I want to try to maintain a neutral article on Qumran. I don't want to have to deal with your insistent insertion of your name and biases. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I propose ban of both users. Jehorn (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It is your prerogative to make such a proposal. It is important to note that when I first posted on this noticeboard, I was seeking administrative help find a reasonable resolution to a problem that was not going away and could not be resolved by we antagonists. What you see here is what I knew to be the case, our inability to end the dispute. I did not, and do not, know how to put this to an end without outside intervention and I couldn't find any Wiki solution, so I came here. I wanted help. I could abide with any decision. I have no desire to stop Coralapus from editing. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

edit warring on WP:Carlingford Lough

Carlingford Lough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3 users are involved in tag-teaming edit-warring on this page. All three Users have made contentious revisions without discussion first. These Users have supported each other in countless discussion topics, swaying consensus. This has to stop! Users involved are the usual suspects of Virtual Revolution,O_Fenian and Mo ainm. This is somewhat of a contentious edit as they wish to remove 'Northern Ireland' from the body of the infobox.

Here are the diffs:

• edit dated 2010-11-09T11:36:31 by VirtualRevolution "Undid revision 395720705 by Factocop (talk)".
• edit dated 2010-11-09T11:05:14 by O Fenian "Revert. Please take your concern over the name of that article to Talk:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border".
• edit dated 2010-11-09T10:19:24 by Mo ainm "remove piping"

Can an admin pick this up and deal with them?Factocop (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• This editor is aware of the editing restrictions on articles which says quite clearly that "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."

  With these reverts here and here they clearly went beyond the 1RR for the article. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, thats only if you deem the article to be related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism....My reverts were only in response to edits that had not been discussed prior, in the discussion page. Given that there was no discussion, the edits can only be described as disruptive.And it does appear suspicious that all 3 editors appear at the same time on the same page, and only to support each others edits.Factocop (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Have you never heard of a watchlist? You are the one who was edit warring I made a legitimite edit removing an incorrect pipe link that was in the article which you reverted twice. Mo ainm~Talk 12:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Hmmm. This administrator is seeing a rather different view of the situation from the conveniently restricted view through one article that comes from the above. I see the the three edits by Factocop (talk · contribs) that prompted several of the reversions:
  • Changes "United Kingdom" to "Northern Ireland"
  • Changes "United Kingdom" to "Northern Ireland"
  • Changes "United Kingdom" to "Northern Ireland" and "Ireland" to "Republic of Ireland"
• no edits by Factocop to:
  • Talk:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border#Requested move
• a whole load of edits by Factocop to:
  • Talk:Giant's Causeway#Northern Ireland is a country
• and several people noticing that this is a spillover from the above at:
  • Talk:Carlingford Lough
• We seem to be spoiled for choice as to which sanctions to apply. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles the Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log sanctions, or even just plain old Wikipedia:Edit war for failure to do the "D" part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle after the aforelinked people did the "R" part. And I can hear a boomerang gently whirring through the air right now. … Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • this argument has also lead to a disscussion thread on Sareks talkpage, they still edit warred though on carlingford lough--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

•  
  1. I received a warning for my previous edits and apparent spillover. I opened up a discussion on the topic to discuss further. I have posted a very compelling argument that none of the said users have been able to respond to.
  2. I was unaware of Talk:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border#Requested move
  3. The 3 users I have mentioned have also commented on the Giant's Causeway page. so what?
• The 3 users troll pages like a pack of wolves making edits and swaying consensus with their greater numbers. It would be a real shame if this is to continue.Factocop (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • the page was under 1RR you broke that rule Facto--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I also think Factocop that you were warned about commenting on other editors so describing them as packs of wolves and trolls I'm sure is in breach of that. Mo ainm~Talk 13:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Do you mean like you have done here? - User talk:NorthernCounties#Factocop. Factocop (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed, told very bluntly. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

To assume that editors with the same views are acting in concert, or suggest they have ownership issues or similar, can be a breach of WP:AGF.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I am not suggesting anything, it just very suspicious that they should appear on the same page at the same time to make the same edit and without raising the change in the discussion topic. Very suspicious.Factocop (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, of course. You're not suggesting anything, it's just "suspicious." If I could roll my eyes any harder, they'd pop out of my head. You're making a very blatant suggestion of WP:MEAT here, without evidence. I'd suggest you retract that statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Currently blocked for 48 hours, unable to retract at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The article should be reverted to it status before the edit fighting began & then protected. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well thats what I tried to do, revert back to the original but obviously very difficult to do with a clique of users intent on forcing the issue.Factocop (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thats a mistruth look at the diffs supplied by Uncle G Mo ainm~Talk 15:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • well if I have made 2 reverts and Mo,O Fenian and VR have made 3 revisions collectively then that would mean that the page is not in its original state.Taxi!!!Factocop (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
      • It's a clear infraction, with these edits here and then here there is not "IF" in this matter. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Let me remind my fellow admins of this clear warning to some of the participants - I'm off for lunch. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that. I'm finding it hard to match with reality Factocop's statements that
    • xe assumed that the border between these two places was not Troubles-related;
    • xe didn't know about Talk:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border#Requested move, despite the edit summary in the second diff that xe pointed to in bringing this here;
    • this was a reversion to the status quo, when in fact the status quo has stood otherwise since this edit dated 2009-04-06T00:22:28 (citing the house style manual), which seems to be a span of just under one year and seven months.
  • Uncle G (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm too am finding it hard to match with reality Factocop's statements per their admission here, plus this report here and this report here. This is going to be a long term problem. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Ahem! Uncle G (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • • As I understand it, they are not this editor. Could we not clarify this? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop was WP:DUCK blocked as a sock of the Maiden City. Somehow he then persuaded Shell Kinney that although he socked as Pilgrisquest, and apparently edits in the same IP range as the Maiden City, and he edits just like the Maiden City, he isn't the Maiden City. If there is more evidence now that his edits make it probable that he is the Maiden City, then the correct course of action would be to reblock as a sock of Maiden City. I'm not familiar with the Maiden City's edits, so I'll go with the opinions of others here. this is the archive sock investigation, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City awaits your new evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop and Blue is better are  Confirmed with regards to each other according to MuZemike. Pilgrimsquest was  Confirmed that this account is the same as Factocop (talk · contribs) by Tnxman307. So regardless of the The Maiden City they are still a sock and block evading editor. Have I got that right? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Holy smokers, how'd Factocop manage to get unblocked? GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I asked the same question a few days ago, when he was edit warring over the Irish name of a soccer stadium. He had been indef'd at one point,[147] but somehow he convinced an admin that he wasn't a sock. Even disregarding that, he's got a pretty impressive rap sheet for a guy who's only been registered for 2 months. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder, what is the Irish for "He gawn, bye-bye!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Tá sé imithe buíochas a ghabháil le Dia. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Factocop accounts needs to be blocked as a sock-puppet. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised he hasn't been already. This needs an immediate indef placed on the main account. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the admins will take care of it once they've finished their weekly bowling outing. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, why wasn't I invited? *sniff* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, bowling is dullsville. Sometimes it's so quiet you can hear a pin drop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: it is correct that I blocked Factocop per WP:DUCK as a sock of TMC (TheMaidenCity). Blue_is_better was blocked per the CU evidence of being Factocop. This "spilling over" of one dispute to another page about Northern Irleand being/not being a country is similar to TMC's MO. I've asked Shell Kinney for clarification on the unblock. It was based on private evidence so if she can comment I've asked her to leave a note here--Cailil ^talk 10:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• • In the meantime, could you extend the current temporary block until you get an answer? It's due to expire soon, and it's clear from his talk page (including reference to this discussion as "rubbish") that the block has so far done nothing to change his approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • Factocop's claim that he was cleared of all cases of sockpuppettry is totally misleading. He admitted to being Pilgrimsquest and Dame edna uk, and even admitted to evading the block as an IP mere hours before his indefinite block was removed by Shell Kinney. Quite why this self-confessed abusive sockpuppeteer is allowed to edit is beyond me, that he is apparently not The Maiden City does not change the abusive sockpuppetry he has admitted to. O Fenian (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible socks

Factocop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Blue is better (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pilgrimsquest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The_Maiden_City (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BritishWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Not a sock.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City/Archive

BritishWatcher was not mentioned in the SPI, and is still active, but here[148] Blue is better indicates he is a sock of BritishWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which he immediately reverted when he realized that he had given the game away.

Here[149] and here[150] Pilgrimsquest claims to be a sock of Factocop while denying being Blue is better (nor Maiden City, in another link).

If you look at their histories, they are all pushing the same anti-Republic of Ireland viewpoint and sharing invective for specific other users, especially O Fenian.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that I've seen BritishWatcher make intelligently-thought out edits. Although, both Factocop and BritishWatcher do suffer from WP:IDONTGETIT, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:IDECLINETOREADTHATPOLICY, and WP:WHONEEDSCOMMONSENSE at times. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That may well be, but the blocked editor Blue is better appears to be a sock of BritishWatcher. The checkuser is feverishly studying this matter, as we speak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Has an SPI been filed - where? Has BW been notified? If BW is a sock, he should be treated no differently and suffer the same fate as any other sock. Many socks make intelligent edits, that does not excuse the behaviour. A CU should clear it up fairly quickly. --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have notified BritishWatcher. The SPI at the top of this sub-section is the only SPI that I'm aware of. Supposedly, the admin who released Factocop from bondage recently is looking into this situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the edit given above where blueisbetter replaced BW's sig proves anything, it stood for awhile. I actually remember it, considered it a Blueisbetter mistake at the time. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It actually only stood for a minute or two, as he reverted himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of similarity of interest in one side of the British Isles topic, and a degree of similarity in style, although BritishWatch, while he can get chippy sometimes, doesn't seem to go ballastic like those other guys do/did. So it could have been a mistake, but it's a weird mistake to make. I'd just like to have a checkuser look into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not a sock and i dont mind a checkuser making sure if it is really needed. The second post currently displayed on factocops talk page is by me asking him to read the IMOS and that it needs to say Derry. Ive also undone quite a few edits where people change Derry to Londonderry. I am not a fan of the present agreement on use of Derry / Londonderry but ive not gone around changing it like some socks have. Ive undone such changes and even reported some to AIV. Ive not been active in recent weeks on wikipedia, some of the things that have been taking place over the past month or so on here have been pretty depressing. This sadly reaffirms it even more. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

'Tis best for everyone, that the CUs be run, so as to clear up any doubts. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And I'd feel pretty fooled if BW turns out to be a sock because he certainly doesn't act like one. So I'd still wager he's not one, but a CU will confirm. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clear things up, Factocop appealed to the Ban-Appeals SubCommittee with the claim that he was not Blue is better. The Arbs reviewed and decided that claim was correct; I carried out the unblocking, but I'm just the paper-pusher there :) I don't believe the bit about Pilgrimsquest was brought up at all during the review. With that in mind I re-checked Factocop and confirmed that he is also Pilgrimsquest (talk · contribs) and Dame edna uk (talk · contribs); I have blocked the Factocop account indefinitely. Blue is better is unrelated (but iirc the last SPI found different socks there) and BritishWatcher is unrelated to all of the above. Shell ^babelfish 17:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Would I be right in saying that User:Clonbony is also a sock of Factocop, based on this report? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm..based on the data I would have said Clonbony was unlikely (but a single-purpose spam account), probably best to ask MuZemike directly since he may well have information I don't. Shell ^babelfish 20:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I never doubted BW. Somehow, I couldn't ever picture him wanting to hide United Kingdom with a pipe-link. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As I sampled BritishWatch's contributions, I became reasonably convinced that he was not a sock of "Factocopy", but I wanted to be sure, and checkuser has since cleared him. If Clonbony is a sock of both Facto and Maiden, then Facto would indeed be a sock of Maiden after all. I'm not so sure that matters at this point. I think there is enough awareness of these one or two sockfarms out there now, to raise a red flag when or if yet another seemingly new account dives immediately into these orange-and-green controversies from out of the blue. (Did I leave out any color metaphors?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to use purple prose, but I think you meant to say "yellow-bellied sockfarms" if that's not too violet an adjective. THF (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't know how close I came to saying that, begorrah. But the purple prose one is good. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying Shell and just as a note to everyone TMC has a history of 'stirring it' so that claim to be BW was probably just a disruptive attempt to cause trouble for BW--Cailil ^talk 20:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The fact he reverted it almost instantly is what led me to think that it was a Freudian slip (I've seen it happen before). But I couldn't find anything else to concretely tie them together. But it's better to know than to wonder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked for conformation on User:Clonbony being another sock of Factocop. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, User:Clonbony is  Confirmed as User:Factocop, along with User:Dame edna uk. I have also double-checked and verified mine and Tnxman307's earlier findings that User:Pilgrimsquest, User:Blue is better, and User:NI4Life are also confirmed as Factocop. –MuZemike 22:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless it's possible for one person to edit in two completely separate locations simultaneously, BritishWatcher and Factocop are  Unrelated. –MuZemike 22:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So is Factocop also Maiden City? This seems a little confusing.

I see that at least one other major sockfarm, the one connected with Schwyz, was taken down today. It's starting to look like the climactic scene from The Godfather. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

...only everyone has nice warm feet... HalfShadow 23:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice work cleaning out the sockfarm MuZemike, it dose seem to point to Maiden City being the sock master though. Confusing, but a result all the same. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In the bigger picture, it really doesn't matter whether it's one guy, two guys or a hundred guys. Regardless of how many they be, they be gawn. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am glad i have been cleared, i too found it odd at the time when he changed my signature, remember seeing it at the time. Thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Observing who started this thread initially, this is a textbook WP:BOOMERANG. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

147.114.44.200 etc.

147.114.44.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
147.114.44.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
147.114.44.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
147.114.44.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP 200 had claimed to be Factocopy, but has never been blocked. He also mentioned 209 at one point, and 209 was confirmed to be an IP of Facto's. The others listed also appear to be Facto's. Shouldn't that IP range should be awarded a lengthy block? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If it shuts down the sock factory for the time being, I'd say go for it! --Domer48_'fenian' 19:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Could these IP's be linked to Maiden City? If so it would clear up that loose end? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop has used at least one of these ips. It seems to be a proxy server for a very large company.  pablo 19:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean he's an employee of that company? Or is he "piggybacking" somehow? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Some useful information can be taken from this template which was placed on one of the IP's on practical steps which can be used to address the problem should it persist. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga song articles

Resolved

 – Reporting user blocked — Gavia immer (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Since early April, users Tbhotch and Chasewc91 have breached multiple policies regarding song articles about Lady Gaga, with Tbhotch refusing to accept the general consensus that writing credits should be attributed to the stage name not the real name, whilst Chasewc91 keeps suggesting that Alejandro is a synthpop song, when in reality, it is a song with electropop and disco influences. I would be grateful if these two are banned from the Wikipedia community altogether. 12:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.208.210 (talk)

I moved this here from WT:AN, where it would have passed unseen. I note that the IP has not notified either editor mentioned above. — Gavia immer (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Followup: I've notified all editors of this thread. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to wonder where a consensus to credit stage names arose from. Song credits are a fairly serious and precise matter of legality; when ASCAP cuts a check to her every month, the name on the paper is most certainly not "Lady Gaga". Tarc (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Almost always, the name on the logs is the stage name, the contract with the (song/composition) performance rights group such as ASCAP carries both the stage name and the legal name, as do their databases. The stage/marketing name is always the name to credit, that's what it's for. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Close this, block the user per block evasion CharlieJS13 (talk · contribs) Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 18:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Persistent sockpuppet

Resolved

 – SPI created. Editors directed there to comment. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Shaniceymcmb (talk · contribs) is the same user as 10alatham (talk · contribs); other accounts that have been blocked include 2012alatham (talk · contribs), 2014alatham (talk · contribs) and Alex "Coyle" Latham (talk · contribs); can an admin intervene please? Thanks, GiantSnowman 17:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've opened a new case for this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/10alatham. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the other blocked users to the SPI as well. GiantSnowman 17:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

McYel

Resolved

 – Blocked indef, potentially identifying information removed from user page.  Sandstein  22:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

For your consideration, McYel (talk · contribs) is posing as a generic black power bible nutcase. But I have the suspicion that this is an act, and that we are in fact dealing with a troll. The reason for this suspicion is that when transcluding Image:Egyptian races.jpg he gave an 'alt' tag of "A cartoon centipede reads books and types on a laptop". [151] You will probably agree that this isn't quite in-character for this type of user. --dab (𒁳) 19:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

ah wait, I just realized that the centipede thing may originate with an incredibly naive perusal of the Help:Files tutorial. So maybe this is the genuine article after all. Either way, some people should probably look into this. --dab (𒁳) 19:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I just realized that this user had been indefblocked twice already and then unblocked upon promising to improve his behavior. Since he now started mass-crossposting his thing to talkpages, I have indefblocked the account a third time. Feel free to still look into it if you like. --dab (𒁳) 20:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Looks like some kind of mental issue, falling under "Wikipedia is not therapy". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, good block. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 20:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, I don't think he's blocked. I can still see his page and talk page and the stuff about his parent's names and bdays, which is seriously uncool (and dangerous) for him to have on a Wiki The Eskimo (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

He still has the privilege to edit his own talk page, which is standard procedure. If he continues the nonsense posts and doesn't submit a proper unblock request, that privilege will likely be taken away, which is also standard procedure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Verbose rap synopsis meme" revisited

Original ANI post here. Though most of the fans of this meme have given up on adding the synopses, now an User:Rooot is trying to circumvent the consensus by adding a news blog post about it as if it is a notable meme (which it is not), a violation of WP:Notability and WP:UNDUE, and perhaps WP:POINT. Root also made a personal attack and removed the subsequent warning from their talk page). Would appreciate back up on this as it's not as much of a slam dunk as removing the silly summaries. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are failing to assume good faith here. It clearly has taken on a life of its own and is notable. The edit in question was a single line referencing this fact. Don't try to portray me as having put in even a segment of the "synopsis" in an attempt to circumvent anything. This was the entirety of my addition: "In early 2010, a highly-detailed 'synopsis' of this song was added to its Wikipedia page to much fanfare and media attention." (with citations) Rooot (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

One blog on one fairly minor news source is not sufficient to show it either 'taking on a life of its own' or 'fanfare and media attention'. The fact that it is a 'single line' edit is largely irrelevant and, in any case, when you consider the overall length of the article, creating a whole section about this is most certainly giving it undue weight.--Korruski^Talk 22:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that, as the lone entry in the "legacy" section, it drew significant attention. However, that section was not created just for this piece of news, but could easily be filled in with all kinds of other cultural responses to the song. This is common practice on Wikipedia articles. The reason I made the section was that it just didn't seem to fit into any other existing section. Furthermore, stop pretending it is just one isolated blog. As I mentioned before, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of internet sources on the subject viewable with a simple Google search. Please do not try to diminish my position because of the simple fact that I only linked one of them as the citation. If you would like, I can go back and cite 50 different sources. Either way, the fact remains that the creation of the "synopsis" has become a notable, newsworthy cultural event. Rooot (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait. We're linking to an off-Wiki article which describes an on-Wiki edit which has been removed? Does navel-gazing not apply here? Corvus cornix_talk 02:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And apparently Rooot is willing to edit war to get their way: [152]. Corvus cornix_talk 02:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, they have not yet, so lets not convict them of such a crime until they do it. --Jayron32 03:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The original assertion is that the edits are a "violation of WP:Notability and WP:UNDUE, and perhaps WP:POINT". Are you able to explain how the edits are a violation of each of those policies? Otherwise, just dropping them in adds no value, please.Cander0000 (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no reliable sourcing for the claims made in the silliness, just people's interpretations. Re-addition, up to and including edit warring, for which you have been blocked before, is the POINT problem. Corvus cornix_talk 19:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't re-addition. Rooot (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

WMC and Hipocrite blocked

WMC and Hipocrite are now unblocked Raul654 (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is probably in the wrong place, if so someone move it - I don't usually do enforcement. After this exchange here, I have blocked William M. Connolley and Hypocrite for one week. These guys obviously still do not get it. They are supposed to desist from pursuing this battle, and turning up to oppose an RFA and then saying "we can't say why" is either pushing at the bounds yet again, or deliberate disruption. The crats can decide whether the votes count, but it seems a clear case of pushing at the topic ban - and contempt of a very clear community request for this nonsense to cease in every shape and form. Enough is enough. There may be others involved in the RFA who should also be given an equal block.--Scott Mac 22:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Well, that'll teach me to vote (or !vote) at an RFA, knowing that you can be blocked for doing so... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Bad block. What do you expect them to do? Not vote against a candidate they do not trust? There is no interaction ban, and they are not banned from interacting in community decisions. In fact, Arbs have actively reaffirmed their right to participate in the ArbCom election. I see no reason why they should not be allowed to vote in an RfA. And politely refusing to elaborate on topics covered by the topic ban has also been recommended as best practice. Yes, people are pissed off. Yes, the mob is swinging torches and pitchforks. But that is no excuse for an unjustified and unjustifiable block. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC) This already has been discussed in detail already at Wikipedia:BN#Opposes_without_accompanying_rationale. Your swooping in later to fire off blocks only served to reignite the flames of a matter that was essentially settled. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Procedural comment only: Scott MacDonald, you may want to explicitly state on the user talk pages whether the blocks are arbitration enforcement blocks or not, given that special procedures apply to the review of such blocks. For future reference, WP:TW supports the corresponding template, {{uw-aeblock}}.  Sandstein  22:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Sandstein. I'm a bit not up on that stuff, so grateful for the heads up. Although I'm not clear whether this is an enforcement block, or a disruption block for gaming - or whether it matters. They know what they are doing, and they know what disruption it will case. This is calculated trolling, nothing less--Scott Mac 22:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Well, the distinction matters with respect as to who may lift the block under which circumstances (see WP:AEBLOCK).  Sandstein  23:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC) OK, I'll wait on one or two more comments. I'm willing to back peddle if that's the consensus. However, it is no conincidence that these guys keep finding ways of carrying on that "just, technically" stay within the letter of the ban, but push us a bit further. My view is enough is enough.--Scott Mac 22:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Might it also be "no coincidence" that you take swipes at WMC in threads posted to WR? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Not sure what this is about. It looks like an assumption of bad faith....but I don't even know what this refers to.--Scott Mac 22:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Oh, that's just too good. Might I say that faux-naive really isn't your style? Let me refresh your memory with an example.[153] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I'm not going to comment on William's block. I think the block of Hipocrite wasn't a good idea. He's certainly allowed to voice his opinion at RfA - any RfA. It just looks to me like he's trying to participate in an RfA (which is certainly not forbidden) without running up against even a very activist interpretation of his topic ban. I think Hipocrite has clearly been respectful of the spirit of his topic ban since it was placed; if you've seen him pushing the boundaries elsewhere, let me know, because I haven't seen it. I'd advocate undoing this block; I say that as someone who was active in the climate-change ArbCom case, and as someone who supported (and supports) the RfA in question without reservation. MastCell Talk 22:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I've unblocked Hippocrite. He's got not history of pushing at the ban (that was my error) and he will stay away from commenting on editors involved in CC pending any arbcom clarification.--Scott Mac 23:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC) From my brief reading, it looks like a catch-22 for all concerned. Time to turn our brains on and use common sense, I think. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Scott, I hate to tell you this, but I think these blocks were a mistake. First, the editors affected do have a sanction against them for this. Second, they do have a right to comment at an RfA. Third, perhaps their comments were (or were not) a little too coy or passive-aggressive, but if so, just let them stand; right now they're probably helping Sphilbrick's nomination more than they're hurting. Fourth, I believe it's better to discuss this and get a consensus before blocking -- nothing in this case required immediate unilateral action. Fifth, I think bureaucrats are capable of running RfAs without others' help. Sixth, in some ways, this sets the 2 blocked editors up to claim global warming martyrhood; they may even appreciate having been blocked. Sometimes it's just better to passively tolerate a small dose of irksome drama if the more active alternative, a block, is going to create a bigger show. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC) A. B. said everything I was going to say, plus some. Scott, if you are thinking about reversing your own blocks, I'd say move ahead on that. --RL0919 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Agree; both were bad blocks. A.B. said it. Just one editor's opinion. Saebvn (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I don't want to wade into whether or not this was an appropriate block, but I will note that it would have been possible for WMC and Hypocrite to register their oppose !vote and provide a concise justification, couched in general terms, without going anywhere near the limits of their topic bans. They did not do this; instead they !voted in a manner guaranteed to prompt questions which they knew they would be unable to answer. Thparkth (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Are you kidding me? What, exactly, was my oppose !vote but exactly that? Please paste it here for everyone to see. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC) As SM obviously unblocked Hipocrite, and apologised, I respectfully suggest that this thread focus on his block of WMC, if anything. - jc37 23:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC) You said "I do not trust this user not to abuse the tools to push a fringe POV". In my (rather lightweight) opinion, that read as an argument against the candidate on climate change content grounds - whether it was intended that way or not. You could have said "I am not persuaded of his ability act neutrally in contentious areas" which would have made the same point without inviting drama. All the same, I'm sure you made a good faith effort to comply with your topic ban on this, and I'm glad you're unblocked. Thparkth (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I'm just flummoxed by these blocks, especially since ATren, also topic banned, voted in favor of this candidate and was not blocked. It seems entirely arbitrary. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I agree with with the many other people in this thread who have pointed out that these are bad blocks. What's worse, as ScottyBerg pointed out, is that there appears to be an element of selective enforcement here. Why was ATren not blocked as well? How is his comment there different from WMC's and Hippocrite's, except that he supported the RFA? Raul654 (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC) The blocks may or may not have been bad. But I posted here noting that others may wish to look at other users. I didn't see ATren. But really, since when did anyone have to block "everyone doing x" before blocking "anyone doing x". We've never worked that way, and you know it.--Scott Mac 23:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Now that you've noticed ATren, why aren't you blocking him? ScottyBerg (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC) You think it would be wise when I've carried out a contentious block and asked for review for me to start adding to it? If my blocks are bad they'll get undone - if more are needed other can do that.--Scott Mac 23:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Let me rephrase my question: if you'd noticed ATren, would you have blocked him? If not, why not? I'm not suggesting he should be blocked, but just trying to figure out the basis for these horrid blocks. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Shouldn't Scott Mac be sanctioned now, for behaving like a completely dishonest arse and misusing his block button? Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC) You're assuming those are considered bad things around here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I know how it works here. If Scott had been a regular editor who misused his rollback button it would have been taken away pronto. But he's one of the Immortals, so he gets away with murder. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't have phrased it quite that way, but I think you're absolutely right. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC) First things first, the users he blocked should be unblocked before we start focusing on sanctions, as someone mentioned above we should be focusing on the block of WMC. Thenub314 (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC) You focus on what you like. My attention is drawn to the evident dishonesty of these blocks, and yours should too. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Note: I have now unblocked both users. I asked for a review here, and it is evident that there is significant disquiet about the blocks. I am big enough to read consensus and humble enough to back down in the face of it. That's exactly why I posted here for peer review. Thank you to those of you who took the time to review the actions and offer you opinions and honest criticism. I'm happy to admit, that I've obviously misjudged the mood in relation to these things and I'll learn from that. I do, however, want to strongly protest at the unnecessary and unjustifiable assumptions of bad faith that a minority of those who have offered an opinion here have engaged in. Calls of "dishonesty", and vague innuendos accusing bias and partisanship are not something I expected, and have absolutely no place in proper wikipedian discourse. Shame.--Scott Mac 00:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC) No opinion on the block, since I haven't followed its history. However, agree in total with the second half of your humble post. "Shame" indeed; it's the usual suspects, with the usual axe to grind. "Honi soit qui mal y pense", or WP:AGF: you pays your money and you takes your choice. No obloquy should attach for an honest mistake. Rodhullandemu 00:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Keep in mind that some of the editors here are basically anarchists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC) If you don't want to be accused of dishonesty then don't behave dishonestly. Simple. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Malleus, please cool it. Scott made a bad call, but he's trying to rectify the situtation. Inflammatory rhetoric is not helping. Raul654 (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC) How can he possibly rectify it? The damage is done. Malleus Fatuorum I haven't. I'll say nothing more about your abusive assertion, I don't believe calling people liars is particularly helpful.--Scott Mac 00:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC) I agree. However, I also think that you lost your objectivity. First, blocking because of a perceived "mood" is a bad idea, wether that perception is right or wrong. Blocking based on an ArbCom decision without knowing what that entails is also not too hot. But what really concerns me is this discussion of Wikipedia review. You keep bad company. There may be valid reasons for that, but you even howl with the wolves. And after spending time in that echo chamber of agitation, you come here and block two editors from one side of the debate, but not one from the other side, who has done the same deed in the same place. I'm quite ready to accept that you did not notice this, but the question you should ask yourself why you didn't notice it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC) You have now twice accused me of bad faith and hidden agendas. I have already denied exactly the assertion you make, and now you repeat it. I don't know what else to say except your personal attack is a nasty smear. If you have evidence for disbelieving my assurances then produce it. I am, for what it's worth (and it really should not matter), a strong believer in climate change who has no involvement in the wikipedia dispute whatsoever. I have no acted in a biased way, and do not expect to have my integrity called into question by the likes of you.--Scott Mac 01:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Is this intended to be in reply to me or did it appear in the wrong place? Given that I especially stated that I'm ready to believe that you failed to notice the asymmetry in your actions, how did I accuse you of bad faith? Bad judgement, yes, and I stand by that. Bad faith, no. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC) (EC) Scott, I've worked happily with you before regarding BLP-related issues on a climate contrarian.[154] But the way you have acted here has made me lose confidence in your forthrightness. It's not so much your views as your dissembling in the face of criticism, such as your feigned ignorance when I brought up your comments in the WMC thread on Wikipedia Review. I feel like I've been taken for a ride. Very disappointing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Dissembling? "lose confidence in your forthrightness". What am I being accused of? One post to WR, making a humorous comment that people with strong views will tend to think that more important than anything else. I'm genuinely taken aback by this whole thread. The block may have been overkill, but I have been nothing less than objective. If you are unable to believe me about that, I can't help it.--Scott Mac 01:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Your grasp of English appears to leave something to be desired, not unusual amongst admins. I never called you a liar; what I said was that you behaved dishonestly, which you did. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC) WP:DIFFs please, or retract per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You've been warned above. The alternative is a block. Rodhullandemu 00:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Which, considering it's Malleus will probably last all of 30 seconds, because the rules only apply to other people, but hey... HalfShadow 00:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)} @Malleus: Don't make accusations you're not willing and able to back up with some evidence. Doing so makes you look bad, not the person you're accusing. Rd232 talk 00:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC) And now the usual threats from the usual suspects begin. You boys just make me laugh. Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC) You should not make unevidenced accusations of bad faith. It is not a laughing matter: if you have something serious to discuss, then let's do so, with evidence. If you just have suspicions, kindly keep them to yourself (and avoid the Boy Crying Wolf effect). And if you're just pissing about at ANI for no good reason, please stop it. Rd232 talk 01:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Talking about shame, do you intend to tell WMC that you unblocked him? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC) OK. Let's let this thread close down. Scott brought his action here for review, and he took the responses on board and reversed his own action in light of them. That's laudable administrative behavior, the sort of thing we want to see (and encourage) from admins. Let's not spoil the moment with accusations and threats of civility blocks. MastCell Talk 00:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Agree. Let's not forget that this is a wiki, when anything can be undone. Scott brought his block here for review, and it was found to be less than satisfactory. He need not have done so although given the subject matter, he should be commended for seeking community input. However, there is no reason why that should have resulted in the usual criticism of Scott as an individual or admins as a community. "One swallow does not a summer make", as the proverb goes. But it does have to be noted that some editors take any error, minor or otherwise, as an excuse to take issue with our structures, without offering a cogent alternative. The proper venue for doing that is by way of a request for comment, as opposed to sniping at individual editors in the apparently forlorn hope that someone else will do it on their behalf. There are two ways of putting this: "Shit or get off the pot" and "Put up or shut up". There may be other ways, but they don't currently seem to apply. Rodhullandemu 01:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Spam links to a "emerging religions" book

An IP 128.157.160.12 is adding promotional links to their new holy book and saying such things as ""I have recently read this book and find it to be just as reliable a source of information as the Book of Mormon. Could you please let me know why this data was removed? I certainly hope this is not some Wikipedia editor trying to oppress an emerging religion". I've twice removed the material, sourced to an ad site for the book and to facebook, pointing them to WP:PROMOTION and tried to explain to them that this isnt a site for promotoing their beliefs or getting converts. I'm now at 2 reverts and they have reinserted the material. Could I get some outside eyes on this please> Heiro 22:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hate to be rude here but that really wP:BITEY, he is not a Spammer but a "true believer" here to share about his faith. I'm heading over now. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

He is not a "true believer." I had a look at a google, and his "book of Zelph" is a parody of the "Book of Mormon." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if he was a "true believer", pray tell what is the difference between someone here to "share about his faith" and someone here to share about his personal website, book or other creation? Both objectives seem to be promotion, something that should be avoided no matter what the reasons behind may be. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm So Much for WP:AGF. My point is "true believer" then it would likely be counter productive to make the individual feel like we are trying to censor him. In that case we should welcome the individual and help him understand our complicated rule book about wP:NOTE, wP:RS and such not act like they phamacuitical company or Publicist. However since is obvious a NOT the Case Forgive me for assuming good faith on the part of the the IP in question. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Could we bring some "Revert, block, ignore" love to the target pages, please? Thanks for the notification, Heironymous Rowe. --TS 22:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe no one noticed the sarcasm in "every bit as reliable as the Book of Mormon"? But what about Zelph itself? Is that entire article a hoax? Or is it just this "Book of Zelph" that's a hoax or parody? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No its a legit Figure Google Scholar no comment on whether he deserves his own article though The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Boxer Rebellion

Boxer Rebellion is a controversial topic, because there are two versions of it:

• (1) Version one: The Chinese government official version, in that version, Boxers were patriotic anti-imperialists hero.
• (2) Version two: According to independent historians (Chinese and non-Chinese, including Yuan Weishi, 侯宜傑, (中国社会科学院研究员) Boxers were bandits, killers, rioters and arsonists. I have read a lot of assays, books, including 庚子國變記, 拳變餘聞, 西巡迴鑾始末, and 「神拳」義和團的真面目, books by Jane E Elliott, Peter Harrington, Michael Perry, Albert Feuerwerker, S. Cheng, Larry Clinton Thompson, and Xiaorong Han. After reading so many books, I know that the current version of Boxer Rebellion is a unbalanced and misleading article, which required a complete rewrite.

When I tried to discuss with Дунгане on ways to improve the content of the article, Дунгане began to accuse me of being a racist and a lier:

• User:Arilang1234's position on this article is almost exactly the same as White supremacist Arthur Kemp,
• Arilang1234 has lied about his translations before
• According to Arilang, Leo Tolstoy and Mark Twain are Communist propaganda activists,
• The Kuomintang has also called Western Christian missionaries imperialist,
• User:Arilang1234 pushing blatant POV, violating concensus, and refuses to talk out disputes with me before editing the article,
• Arilang1234 has lied about his translations before,

It is very clear that Дунгане is more interested in conducting in personal attacks against me, than trying to improve the article. I strongly feel that such a conduct should not be tolerated among wikipedia editors. Arilang ^talk 00:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Separating the issues is of paramount importance here. Disputes over content are not the province of admins, and if they can't be sorted out on the relevant Talk pages, should be referred to some form of dispute resolution. Personal attacks, however, should be supported by clear examples. Thus far, your complaints are too vague to be actionable. Sorry but we aren't psychic, so please try to narrow down your complaints. Rodhullandemu 02:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Laundry List of Bad faith edits by User:Arilang1234

Hello, everyone, I'm afraid that User:Arilang1234 has been exhibiting blatant POV and has not shown and interest in constructively contributing to wikipedia. This is not a mere dispute, i actually tried to talk it out with Arilang, but unfortunetly, he revised massive sourced sections of the article without giving an explanation, falsely claiming that the "Lead section changed per talk page discussion", no one except Arilang had agreed to change anything in the lead on tthe talk page.

Also, Arilang displays extremely hateful and uncivil language toward manchus in his sandbox intro

Arilang violates WP:SOAP by suggesting that wikipedia articles are to be edited for political reasons

Also, lets take a look at Arilang1234's earliest edits on wikipedia- quote directly from what Arilang added to the article in 2008- "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme." he and some hired Mongols fought off a group of barbaric attacking Boxers with wooden sticks - Manchu tribal rulers chose to remain ignorant and barbaric

I hope you will objectively analyze Arilangs "contributions", to the article, and his massive copy and paste from wikiesource into the talk page, claiming these wikisource text should be used as a "reliable source" for the article.

User:Arilang1234 does not understand that wikisource is not a reliable source- [155]. Not only That, even if wikisource is counted as a reliable source, User:Arilang1234 has either not read it, or, I'm afraid to say- has lied about the contents, saying "You need to be able to read Chinese", yet the majority of the wikisource article is about the Communist party against Japan, not just the "Chinese Communist Party only attack KMT", as Arilang claimed here

Arilang is also engaging in Ad hominem Straw man attacks, claiming that the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China" was used as a source in the aritcle, yet i only see western sources in the refernces, none of them from the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China".

in another edit, User:Arilang1234 either did not read the content, or, again, i'm reluctant to accuse people of this, but this is the only other possibility- lied when he said "Remove unreferenced content", since there was a reference in the information he removed

User:Arilang1234 claims here that "Jane E. Elliott's book is not about Boxer, it is about art.)"

Yet anyone can see the description of Jane E Elliott's book "Some did it for civilisation, some did it for their country: a revised view of the boxer war", on google books is "This book marks a total departure from previous studies of the Boxer War. It evaluates the way the war was perceived and portrayed at the time by the mass media. As such the book offers insights to a wider audience than that of sinologists or Chinese historians. The important distinction made by the author is between image makers and eyewitnesses. Whole categories of powerful image makers, both Chinese and foreign, never saw anything of the Boxer War but were responsible for disseminating images of that war to millions of people in China and throughout the world."

In addition, Arilang1234 has frequently insulted dead people because of their ethnicity, calling Qianlong Emperor a outdated,backward barbaric chieftain, just because he was a Manchu.

Arilang thinks its okay to say barbaric Manchus, which is clear racism against Manchus.

Arilang also thinks wikipedia is a platform to accuse Manchus specifically of perputrating atrocities.

Arilang also does not understand that the article is not "limited" to actions only done by Boxers, just because it has "Boxer" in the title, Boxer Rebellion. According to Arilang's logic, all references to British should be remove from the French and Indian War article, since the title only says French and Indian, yet the British played a major role in the war

arilang seems to think that since the title only contains the words "boxer rebellion", that the article should only be about Boxers, and that massive sections should be deleted because they don't contain the word "boxer".

Quote from Arilang1234- " have make a judgement based on commonsense, is that the Chinese official version cannot stand up to scrutiny, in short, their effort to promote Boxers as national hero is just pathetic."

Since when are wikipedia users allowed to insert their own personal opinions and use wikipedia as a soapbox?

I also do not appreciate the threatening tone Arilang1234 is displaying in this question against me. not only is it threatening, it is completely irrelevant to the article.Дунгане (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:Arilang1234 does not understand that original research is not allowed in wikipedia

User:Arilang1234 should take a look at Wikipedia:No original research- "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Arilang1234 said above- "After reading so many books, I know that the current version of Boxer Rebellion is a unbalanced and misleading article, which required a complete rewrite."

Apparently, Arilang1234 does not comprehend that original research is not welcome in Wikipedia.Дунгане (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:Arilang1234 also using straw man attacks

NO WHERE in the Boxer Rebellion article, did i edit that the Boxer were "anti imperialist hero", and no chinese source, government or otherwise, was used as a reference by me or anyone else-

• User:Arilang1234 has a history of making hateful, racist comments on Boxer Rebellion talk page, and threatens to attack people

Quoted directly from User:Arilang1234- " when it comes to the subject of history, we need to be more firm towards lies and cheats. Do you follow internet news Benj? There is this guy by the name of 阎#年, he is 72 yrs old yet was slapped in the face in public! Because he shamelessly advocate Manchus rule on CCTV. If I happen to be there, I personally will throw some rotten eggs on his face. "Old Chinese communist education history text books blamed the western power on everything, is just like putting the horse behind the cart. Yes, western powers were evil, we all know that, but what about Manchus, have anyone really really have a closer examination and analysis on Manchus, WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST 300 YEARS? Why didn't they adopt modern western weapons(or at least buy them, if they cannot manufacture them), Why did they stick to bows and arrows when fast loading rifles(Wincester) could be bought in international markets, instead they spend massive amounts of silver bars on garden building. My conclusion is the Manchus deserved every battle field defeats they got in the 2 opium wars"Дунгане (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Arilang1234 does not understand that wikipedia is NOT a political platform

In addition, he seems to think that wikipedia is a political platform for him to put issues in the "spotlight. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotionДунгане (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:Arilang1234 use wikipedia to advance ethnic hatred against non han chinese races

[156] [157] [158]Дунгане (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Again, Arilang1234 is using wikisource as a source,- [159][160] Arilang1234 Himself created the wikisource articleДунгане (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop creating a new sub-section for every single qualm you have with this editor. Just use a simple, bulleted list, instead of what I term to be spamming ANI by making this bigger than it is.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hehee - I was gonna say that if this becomes a standard AN/I report procedure, we're in for some serious trouble... Doc talk 03:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. One says "barbarian", other says (in effect) "Nazi". Are we done here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Дунгане put a lot of effort into this report (duh ;>): and this random diff stands out to me in particular. "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme."[161] That's a really terrible, unreferenced "addition" to the article. Sure, that's possibly just a content dispute, but "overzealousness" (is that even a word?) in reporting shouldn't necessarily reflect negatively on the issues brought forth. Дунгане: "short and sweet" is often the best way to go about it, but each case is different. Doc talk 04:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Good thing there wasn't a Wrestler Rebellion; those buggers fight dirty... HalfShadow 04:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was (and is):

• Arilang, you don't have to change your views, but quit throwing "savages" and "barbarians" around.
• Dungane, you don't have to change your views, but quit letting "white supremacist[s]" out of the box.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I noted Arthur Kemp, a White supremacist's views on the Boxer rebellion were similar to Arilang here to refute Arilang's ad hominen attack that in which he claimed that since that the view in the article is the same of that as Mao Zedong, that it must be falseДунгане (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• sigh*.... so was that helpful? Or did it pile on? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:Arilang1234 had added the word "undefined" across the article, breaking numerous links and causing massive mispelling, not only once, but twice here and here

I'm not a tech guy, but i seriously doubt Arilang's explanation, which is that his "PC had been planted with some sort of bugs". If we look at the way Arilang inserted "undefined" into the links, it looks as if he did it in almost the same places, but added one more in the second attempt, almost as if he did it manually.

In addition, Arilang1234 made five consecutive edits to the article and one to the talk page in between the two edits when he inserted undefined all over the article, and nothing happened in those edits. they are listed here-[162][163]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boxer_Rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=395301531[164][165][166]

I find it nothing short of amazing that this was the result of a bug in Arilang's PC.

He also thinks its okay to test the article instead of the sandbox, leaving another editor to remove what he added during the "test".

As Arilang1234 stated above, he wants a major rewrite of the article. So hypothetically, if he slipped in the word "undefined", all over the article, instead of blatant vandalism, which would be seen right away, later, he could come back to it, and fix it, by "rewriting" the entire article to his own POV.

And i've been advised not to add more incidents to the list, so after this, i will not report anything unless it is ongoing in the article.Дунгане (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm the third opinion editor that got requested to take a look at the dispute. From a third party perspective, this dispute basically boils down to this:

1. Arilang notices that the article has a POV slanted in favor of the Boxers (which is true).
2. Instead of changing the contentious content, he leaves it as is, and adds more contentious content in favour of the opposite POV.
3. Дунгане begins to revert him.
4. And thus, we have this dispute. They've been going back and forth, over increasingly trivial problems.

Now, it should be made clear, the original article did have POV problems. But the correct response was to discuss the POV content, gain consensus, and change it, not to add more controversial content, but from the opposite POV. I've been trying to remove POV from both sides, although there is a lot of cleaning up to do.--res Laozi speak 06:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible case of WP:OWN at G.A. Siwabessy

Editor User:Hahndyto has repeatedly removed things from this article such as:

• Defaultsort and categories
• Persondata
• An interwiki link
• Tags such as multiple issues, orphan, poor English, and rough translation, without the issues being addressed (diffs: [167], [168], [169], [170], [171])
• Syntax fixes (diff: [172])
• Conversion of external links to Wikipedia articles to internal link format

He/she has also re-added some things that were taken out such as:

• Notes about the author of the article (diffs: [173], [174], [175])

Additional diffs showing examples: [176], [177], [178]

There are more diffs, but I think these show what I'm talking about.

I've tried to explain that other editors are allowed to edit this article, and that some of the things being removed are standard to Wikipedia articles and should be left in, but I don't seem to be getting through. Can someone help? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

tagged under G12, it said at then end The article had been published in magazines Tabaos, Media Information & Communications, for limited community, Maluku Foundation Scholarship Fund (YDBM), Volume 7, No. 3, October 2010, Jakarta The article reads like a bad translation of such an article as would be published Foundation's website or News letterThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The images he uploaded to Commons are all blatant copyrigh tviolations and I've tagged them as such there. - Burpelson AFB ✈

The G12 was declined becuase the source the Author claims its copied from is not an online source. Thus the Admin was unable to verify wehther or not it was a copy vio when the idividual says it right there in the above diff. Ug The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03

54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

user Special:Contributions/BullRangifer

could someone please look at recent reverts and vandal warning issued to me by this user, and give him a polite WP:AGF warning. thanks. i can't edit his talk page and let him know about this thread.188.2.48.67 (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you informed BR about this thread pursuant to the instructions you got when you started this thread? Hipocrite (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Try reading the post before complaining about it, Hipocrite. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I've informed BR of this thread, in addition to cautioning him about poor templating. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of this. My talk page is semiprotected because of frequent harassment. I see now that we're dealing with a serial IP (using several IPs) who has been repeatedly - in spite of other editors' reversions and objections - deleting referenced material and otherwise being unconstructive. My intentions are good, but I'm not perfect. I'm trying to protect the project and may have used the wrong template, but I chose the mildest one, since mass deletion of references is usually referred to as vandalism, even if it's of a mild type. How should we deal with this IP user? They have been requested to start an account but haven't done it yet. All their edits need to be collected in ONE edit history. Right now they are avoiding the scrutiny of other editors by scattering their edits between several accounts. Permanent semi protection of the Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett and NCAHF articles would be one way to avoid these situations. That way IPs would have to use the talk pages more and get consensus before making such radical and controversial edits on these very touchy articles. This happens quite often, and semi protection for a week isn't good enough. It needs to be permanent. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

'protecting the project' from me? i feel like a criminal now :P if you were not serious, you would be funny. that article lacks reliable secondary sources that talk about it in depth, and therefore its notability is dubious. it has bunch of dead links so that it would appear as notable, and once they are cleaned, it becomes very obvious that its notability is practically non-existent. 188.2.48.18 (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Your attitude isn't really the way to approach this. And IP-hopping doesn't make you look good, either. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

it takes two to tango. [179] 188.2.48.18 (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Except this isn't tango. Your being snobbish and condescending. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

BR is 'protecting the project' from me, and now I am being condescending. interesting. 188.2.48.18 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

For those who wish to know, 188.2.48.0/24 would be the most effective method of dealing with this issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a rangeblock? Right now I'd be happy if the Serbian IP editor would get an account so their editing history would be collected in one place. IP hopping after having been advised amounts to a violation of our policy against avoiding the scrutiny of other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's only avoiding scrutiny if the user is doing this on purpose. Have you any evidence that he's resetting his IP to keep being an annoyance?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"Avoiding scrutiny" has to do with its effect here, not necessarily with motives. It's avoiding scrutiny regardless of motive. I'm not implying it's deliberate as there are other reasons for why IPs often change. The end effect here is still the same - other editors get confused and have trouble knowing who is speaking. If they had a stable IP it wouldn't be a problem. Since it's the same person, they should get an account when they have been notified that their actions are disruptive and confusing. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are the Serbian IPs (so far)

• 188.2.48.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.2.48.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.2.164.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.2.165.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.2.172.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.2.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Boxer Rebellion

Boxer Rebellion is a controversial topic, because there are two versions of it:

• (1) Version one: The Chinese government official version, in that version, Boxers were patriotic anti-imperialists hero.
• (2) Version two: According to independent historians (Chinese and non-Chinese, including Yuan Weishi, 侯宜傑, (中国社会科学院研究员) Boxers were bandits, killers, rioters and arsonists. I have read a lot of assays, books, including 庚子國變記, 拳變餘聞, 西巡迴鑾始末, and 「神拳」義和團的真面目, books by Jane E Elliott, Peter Harrington, Michael Perry, Albert Feuerwerker, S. Cheng, Larry Clinton Thompson, and Xiaorong Han. After reading so many books, I know that the current version of Boxer Rebellion is a unbalanced and misleading article, which required a complete rewrite.

When I tried to discuss with Дунгане on ways to improve the content of the article, Дунгане began to accuse me of being a racist and a lier:

• User:Arilang1234's position on this article is almost exactly the same as White supremacist Arthur Kemp,
• Arilang1234 has lied about his translations before
• According to Arilang, Leo Tolstoy and Mark Twain are Communist propaganda activists,
• The Kuomintang has also called Western Christian missionaries imperialist,
• User:Arilang1234 pushing blatant POV, violating concensus, and refuses to talk out disputes with me before editing the article,
• Arilang1234 has lied about his translations before,

It is very clear that Дунгане is more interested in conducting in personal attacks against me, than trying to improve the article. I strongly feel that such a conduct should not be tolerated among wikipedia editors. Arilang ^talk 00:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Separating the issues is of paramount importance here. Disputes over content are not the province of admins, and if they can't be sorted out on the relevant Talk pages, should be referred to some form of dispute resolution. Personal attacks, however, should be supported by clear examples. Thus far, your complaints are too vague to be actionable. Sorry but we aren't psychic, so please try to narrow down your complaints. Rodhullandemu 02:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Laundry List of Bad faith edits by User:Arilang1234

Hello, everyone, I'm afraid that User:Arilang1234 has been exhibiting blatant POV and has not shown and interest in constructively contributing to wikipedia. This is not a mere dispute, i actually tried to talk it out with Arilang, but unfortunetly, he revised massive sourced sections of the article without giving an explanation, falsely claiming that the "Lead section changed per talk page discussion", no one except Arilang had agreed to change anything in the lead on tthe talk page.

Also, Arilang displays extremely hateful and uncivil language toward manchus in his sandbox intro

Arilang violates WP:SOAP by suggesting that wikipedia articles are to be edited for political reasons

Also, lets take a look at Arilang1234's earliest edits on wikipedia- quote directly from what Arilang added to the article in 2008- "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme." he and some hired Mongols fought off a group of barbaric attacking Boxers with wooden sticks - Manchu tribal rulers chose to remain ignorant and barbaric

I hope you will objectively analyze Arilangs "contributions", to the article, and his massive copy and paste from wikiesource into the talk page, claiming these wikisource text should be used as a "reliable source" for the article.

User:Arilang1234 does not understand that wikisource is not a reliable source- [180]. Not only That, even if wikisource is counted as a reliable source, User:Arilang1234 has either not read it, or, I'm afraid to say- has lied about the contents, saying "You need to be able to read Chinese", yet the majority of the wikisource article is about the Communist party against Japan, not just the "Chinese Communist Party only attack KMT", as Arilang claimed here

Arilang is also engaging in Ad hominem Straw man attacks, claiming that the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China" was used as a source in the aritcle, yet i only see western sources in the refernces, none of them from the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China".

in another edit, User:Arilang1234 either did not read the content, or, again, i'm reluctant to accuse people of this, but this is the only other possibility- lied when he said "Remove unreferenced content", since there was a reference in the information he removed

User:Arilang1234 claims here that "Jane E. Elliott's book is not about Boxer, it is about art.)"

Yet anyone can see the description of Jane E Elliott's book "Some did it for civilisation, some did it for their country: a revised view of the boxer war", on google books is "This book marks a total departure from previous studies of the Boxer War. It evaluates the way the war was perceived and portrayed at the time by the mass media. As such the book offers insights to a wider audience than that of sinologists or Chinese historians. The important distinction made by the author is between image makers and eyewitnesses. Whole categories of powerful image makers, both Chinese and foreign, never saw anything of the Boxer War but were responsible for disseminating images of that war to millions of people in China and throughout the world."

In addition, Arilang1234 has frequently insulted dead people because of their ethnicity, calling Qianlong Emperor a outdated,backward barbaric chieftain, just because he was a Manchu.

Arilang thinks its okay to say barbaric Manchus, which is clear racism against Manchus.

Arilang also thinks wikipedia is a platform to accuse Manchus specifically of perputrating atrocities.

Arilang also does not understand that the article is not "limited" to actions only done by Boxers, just because it has "Boxer" in the title, Boxer Rebellion. According to Arilang's logic, all references to British should be remove from the French and Indian War article, since the title only says French and Indian, yet the British played a major role in the war

arilang seems to think that since the title only contains the words "boxer rebellion", that the article should only be about Boxers, and that massive sections should be deleted because they don't contain the word "boxer".

Quote from Arilang1234- " have make a judgement based on commonsense, is that the Chinese official version cannot stand up to scrutiny, in short, their effort to promote Boxers as national hero is just pathetic."

Since when are wikipedia users allowed to insert their own personal opinions and use wikipedia as a soapbox?

I also do not appreciate the threatening tone Arilang1234 is displaying in this question against me. not only is it threatening, it is completely irrelevant to the article.Дунгане (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:Arilang1234 does not understand that original research is not allowed in wikipedia

User:Arilang1234 should take a look at Wikipedia:No original research- "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Arilang1234 said above- "After reading so many books, I know that the current version of Boxer Rebellion is a unbalanced and misleading article, which required a complete rewrite."

Apparently, Arilang1234 does not comprehend that original research is not welcome in Wikipedia.Дунгане (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:Arilang1234 also using straw man attacks

NO WHERE in the Boxer Rebellion article, did i edit that the Boxer were "anti imperialist hero", and no chinese source, government or otherwise, was used as a reference by me or anyone else-

• User:Arilang1234 has a history of making hateful, racist comments on Boxer Rebellion talk page, and threatens to attack people

Quoted directly from User:Arilang1234- " when it comes to the subject of history, we need to be more firm towards lies and cheats. Do you follow internet news Benj? There is this guy by the name of 阎#年, he is 72 yrs old yet was slapped in the face in public! Because he shamelessly advocate Manchus rule on CCTV. If I happen to be there, I personally will throw some rotten eggs on his face. "Old Chinese communist education history text books blamed the western power on everything, is just like putting the horse behind the cart. Yes, western powers were evil, we all know that, but what about Manchus, have anyone really really have a closer examination and analysis on Manchus, WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST 300 YEARS? Why didn't they adopt modern western weapons(or at least buy them, if they cannot manufacture them), Why did they stick to bows and arrows when fast loading rifles(Wincester) could be bought in international markets, instead they spend massive amounts of silver bars on garden building. My conclusion is the Manchus deserved every battle field defeats they got in the 2 opium wars"Дунгане (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Arilang1234 does not understand that wikipedia is NOT a political platform

In addition, he seems to think that wikipedia is a political platform for him to put issues in the "spotlight. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotionДунгане (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:Arilang1234 use wikipedia to advance ethnic hatred against non han chinese races

[181] [182] [183]Дунгане (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Again, Arilang1234 is using wikisource as a source,- [184][185] Arilang1234 Himself created the wikisource articleДунгане (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop creating a new sub-section for every single qualm you have with this editor. Just use a simple, bulleted list, instead of what I term to be spamming ANI by making this bigger than it is.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hehee - I was gonna say that if this becomes a standard AN/I report procedure, we're in for some serious trouble... Doc talk 03:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. One says "barbarian", other says (in effect) "Nazi". Are we done here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Дунгане put a lot of effort into this report (duh ;>): and this random diff stands out to me in particular. "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme."[186] That's a really terrible, unreferenced "addition" to the article. Sure, that's possibly just a content dispute, but "overzealousness" (is that even a word?) in reporting shouldn't necessarily reflect negatively on the issues brought forth. Дунгане: "short and sweet" is often the best way to go about it, but each case is different. Doc talk 04:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Good thing there wasn't a Wrestler Rebellion; those buggers fight dirty... HalfShadow 04:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was (and is):

• Arilang, you don't have to change your views, but quit throwing "savages" and "barbarians" around.
• Dungane, you don't have to change your views, but quit letting "white supremacist[s]" out of the box.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I noted Arthur Kemp, a White supremacist's views on the Boxer rebellion were similar to Arilang here to refute Arilang's ad hominen attack that in which he claimed that since that the view in the article is the same of that as Mao Zedong, that it must be falseДунгане (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• sigh*.... so was that helpful? Or did it pile on? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:Arilang1234 had added the word "undefined" across the article, breaking numerous links and causing massive mispelling, not only once, but twice here and here

I'm not a tech guy, but i seriously doubt Arilang's explanation, which is that his "PC had been planted with some sort of bugs". If we look at the way Arilang inserted "undefined" into the links, it looks as if he did it in almost the same places, but added one more in the second attempt, almost as if he did it manually.

In addition, Arilang1234 made five consecutive edits to the article and one to the talk page in between the two edits when he inserted undefined all over the article, and nothing happened in those edits. they are listed here-[187][188]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boxer_Rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=395301531[189][190][191]

I find it nothing short of amazing that this was the result of a bug in Arilang's PC.

He also thinks its okay to test the article instead of the sandbox, leaving another editor to remove what he added during the "test".

As Arilang1234 stated above, he wants a major rewrite of the article. So hypothetically, if he slipped in the word "undefined", all over the article, instead of blatant vandalism, which would be seen right away, later, he could come back to it, and fix it, by "rewriting" the entire article to his own POV.

And i've been advised not to add more incidents to the list, so after this, i will not report anything unless it is ongoing in the article.Дунгане (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm the third opinion editor that got requested to take a look at the dispute. From a third party perspective, this dispute basically boils down to this:

1. Arilang notices that the article has a POV slanted in favor of the Boxers (which is true).
2. Instead of changing the contentious content, he leaves it as is, and adds more contentious content in favour of the opposite POV.
3. Дунгане begins to revert him.
4. And thus, we have this dispute. They've been going back and forth, over increasingly trivial problems.

Now, it should be made clear, the original article did have POV problems. But the correct response was to discuss the POV content, gain consensus, and change it, not to add more controversial content, but from the opposite POV. I've been trying to remove POV from both sides, although there is a lot of cleaning up to do.--res Laozi speak 06:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)