Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive606

Armenia-Azerbaijan, Yeghishe Arakyal Monastery, Amaras Monastery

Please note that a person has been edit warring on the above mentioned articles, POV-ing them by adding the Azerbaijani names of Armenian monasteries. He has been edit warring for weeks now, and the user User:Quzeyli also sockpuppets using an IP, I request banning the individual and protecting the articles. Stepanakertsi (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles are protected as there is an edit war going on over content. One week semi-protect for both. SGGH ^ping! 11:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: new problematic (see my posts on the respective talk pages: [1], [2], [3] and [4]) reverts [5] and [6] by Quzeyli... Sardur (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

droop speed control

Resolved

Revision history of Utility frequency

(cur) (prev) 15:27, 30 March 2010 Wtshymanski (talk | contribs) (26,438 bytes) (Please stop. This is just wrong and irrelevant. Undid revision 352963354 by Wdl1961 (talk)) (undo)

pls have some degreed electrical engheadline Subject/headline preview: (→droop speed control: new sectionrs stop this Wdl1961 (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean this edit to Utility frequency. Please discuss this on the article talk page or with Wtshymanski himself (note, copy and pasting the history is not discussion) before you make an ANI report. Also take care to mind the three revert rule, and advise the people you discuss in this thread of its presence. I have done so for you this time. SGGH ^ping! 15:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And also, making requests in non-moon language helps other editors who don't speak moon language. Syrthiss (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have left the following message with the other user:

Please be aware of an ANI thread another user raised regarding your edits to Utility frequency. It appears to be a content dispute at the moment with no need for admin attention, but if you could explain for the user who raised the thread (either on their page or the article talk) why you have made these changes it would be helpful. Also please take care to remember the three revert rule which applies to all edits other than those reverting obvious vandalism. Happy editing.

This should suffice, please try to engage them in discussion before you make an ANI report. If there are no further issues this can be closed. SGGH ^ping! 15:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

this has been discussed before. it is deletion of facts that makes wiki unreliable .moonlanguage there aint nothing there.Wdl1961 (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not copy/paste this into the article's talk page again as it serves no purpose there. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I found a clearer source on "droop control" which may clear up the problem, from the PJM Interconnection online training materials for their power system operators. It's now linked on Talk:Utility frequency. --John Nagle (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

BlackJack here has unleashed a torrent of abuse at me which includes numerous personal attacks, can he please be blocked. --88.111.55.202 (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

His comments seem pretty fair to be honest. raseaC^{talk to me} 18:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain why calling somebody a cretin, coward and scum is fair? --88.111.55.202 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In answer to someone who has conducted via several IP addresses a campaign of invective, including numerous personal attacks, that is designed to provoke; and given that you have called me "bitter, twisted" and a "compulsive liar", it is hardly surprising that I have reacted as I did. By the way, RaseaC, I apologise for losing my temper but being called a liar is extreme provocation.

I would also like to draw admin's attention to this person (88.111.55.202) launching an edit war in Marylebone Cricket Club and Variations in first-class cricket statistics by removing source information and ignoring a reasonable request to discuss the proposed changes on the talk pages first. He carried on a similar edit war yesterday on an AfD page by persistently reverting to an irrelevant point. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In every conversation I've had with you, you've lied time and again therefore calling you a compulsive liar is a pretty fair description. Being called scum is also extremely provocation but did I start chucking insults at you? The external links I've removed are spam that were added by the site's owners, the website is entirely unreliable. I would like to draw an admin's attention to the fact BlackJack was indefinitely blocked until 12 days ago, having been given a second chance any normal person would be on their best behaviour not to repeat the experience. --88.111.55.202 (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

88.111.55.202 is just the latest in a long line of dynamic addresses used by this person to attack me over some apparent grievance of which I have no knowledge. Yesterday he was using 88.111.63.26 to wage an edit war in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Blackmore. Other IPs he has used include:

• 88.111.48.107
• 88.111.39.197
• 88.111.60.218
• 85.210.127.158
• 85.210.83.167
• 88.109.8.46
• 88.110.56.81
• 85.210.135.210

I believe he has a WP account but he will not use that when he is acting as a vandal. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the reliability of the website in question, I suggest that members of WP:CRIC decide on that, which is why I requested a discussion on the article's talk page. Since no one in WP:CRIC has objected to the site previously, I see no reason why it should suddenly be a problem now. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Where did this discussion take place? The only discussions on WT:CRIC I can find are all uncertain [7], quite negative [8] and very negative [9] about the source. --88.111.55.202 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear. The second one was way back in 2007 and was clearly a misunderstanding about copyright. The first was an honest question by SGGH. The third was a routine piece of trolling by User:Richard Daft. There has not been a formal discussion: I said that no one in WP:CRIC (except a known troll) has objected to the site being used and some have even quoted it in their edits. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

As for him "not chucking insults at me", how about this one? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

So accusing three well-respected WP:CRIC members of being sockpuppets without any evidence are the actions of a fair and reasonable person? --88.111.55.202 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That was a mistake as I thought one of them was you, having been given incorrect information by a well-meaning colleague. I have apologised to all three people and two of them have graciously accepted while the third is not active today. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make a formal complaint about the activities of the person currently active as 88.111.63.26. He has previously been warned by admins on this page and WP:AN and he has alienated just about every member of WP:CRIC by his vindictive conduct. I recoomend a 24-hour block of the current IP and the establishment of a precedent to block any IP he uses in future. He is using the site to wage a war but he will not admit his reasons. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to take a step back mate, you've alienated just as many members of WP:CRIC as I have. How exactly do my actions merit a blocking? --88.111.55.202 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, WP:ANI is no place to continue a dispute, it is where people go to have problems taken care of. I advise both users to disengage, step back and breathe. Stop posting on each others talk pages, and stop posting here. An uninvolved administrator (which I am happy to state I am not) will come along and see if there is anything to be acted upon. You could both end up defending your own position so strongly that you end up with admin attention on you even if you are the victimised party. My two cents. SGGH ^ping! 19:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I could not agree more. I will withdraw and I have nothing further to say. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved from archive, unresolved. --88.111.36.3 (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing from this one now, because I have become too involved to remain objective since my investigations so far have led me too far down the road to believing that the two above IP addresses are involved (and should be added to, IMO) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft. I hand the baton to the next admin who wishes to take a more objective approach than I could now manage. My apologies. SGGH ^ping! 18:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Another sock of User:Roman888

Hi there, could someone please block User:BastilaShan987? Their sole contribution has been to create Scandals in the Malaysian Armed Forces, which is a recreation of Malaysian Military Scandals, deleted as a copyright violation (now existing as a protected redirect). The user is undoubtedly a sock of prolific copyright violator and sockfarmer User:Roman888 so I ask for the user to be blocked as well. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Gone, however made threat to return again (and again). I suggest a range block in consultation with SPI or whomever is appropriate. SGGH ^ping! 21:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. He's already been through SPI once where it was determined a rangeblock wouldn't be feasible for him. So just going to have to keep up the chase! --Mkativerata (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Block stats, if such a thing was important. SGGH ^ping! 22:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Privacy-invading troll User:Reportinprivacyviolation returns...

Resolved

 – -- user blocked. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 21:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

as Privacyproblemsbydavidtroll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Rrburke^ekrubrR 21:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about filters.

There are a couple of pages I keep a particularly close eye on and often someone from a 69.151 prefix shows up and adds nonsense to these pages. As the second and third parts of their address change every time they log in, it's not a matter of dealing with a 'single' IP. I could request semi-protection, but A) they (currently) don't show up often enough to warrant it, and B) most of the IPs editing the page are making helpful edits and this would block them out.

As this is the only user editing the pages who uses a 69.151. prefix, is there any way to set a filter to the pages in question that would either block or autorevert any edits coming from this prefix? HalfShadow 18:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblocks would work, assuming a sufficiently narrow rangeblock could be tailored. Rangeblocks are usually only implemented for frequent abuse though, since they run the risk of blocking large numbers of legit users. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Sounds like a question for one of our edit filter experts. —DoRD (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well this is almost a literal list of the IPs he's using. As you can see, they change almost daily, but the first two numbers stay constant. (I'm not editing the page in question, it's just beyond vandalising the pages I'm referring to, that's literally all he edits.)HalfShadow 18:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

More appropriate is semiprotecting the articles. I semi'ed Turbo Dogs (your example) for a bit but it seems like they're not actually vandalizing there, so I undid it. What articles do need protecting? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's just it; A good amount of the IP edits are actually helpful. He's not actually showing up that often, so he is manageable; I was just thinking if there was an automated way of cleaning up after him it'd be one fewer thing to do. HalfShadow 19:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If there are articles they're consistently problematic on, semiprotect those. If they're being helpful on other articles, leave them alone.

Unless they are consistently vandalizing in the same pattern, pattern detection with the edit filters is pretty difficult.

IMHO, at least. Someone else may have a better idea. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like the Extension:AbuseFilter does support an "ip_in_range" pattern ([10] line 381) even though the documentation doesn't seem to mention it. Obvious thing to do is apply it to that group of pages. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That could work so long as you narrow down the address space. The 64 address space is huge. It's probably much better if you identify the ISP and determine that address range. Shadowjams (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

ranges are 69.151.144.0/20 and 69.151.192.0/19, it's a southwestern bell dsl range in metro houston —Crazytales (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that temporarily filtering even a /16 range (even less so if it turns out to be just a /19 and /20 per Crazytales) across a handful of articles, and only for non-logged-in editors, will cause any big problems. It's nothing like a rangeblock of that size across the whole encyclopedia. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threat?

Resolved

 – Not deemed to be a legal threat Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In this edit Bsw123 seems to make a legal threat towards editor Off2riorob. BSW123 was already at a level 4 warning and this edit caused an AIAV report, but it is always better to create to many reports, then having to little of them. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that as a legal threat in any way. Can you please expand on your thinking? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any legal threat. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a legal threat, I dont know what results filters suggest, the editor has a last warning from me for inserting uncited synth content in the article.. this is the content ..In spite of her moral conservatism, Widdecombe currently writes a weekly column for the Daily Express, which is owned by a publisher of pornography, Richard Desmond.http://express.co.uk/search/Ann%20Widdecombe/1/created/40 the citation supports the fact that she writes a column for the express the rest is opinionated uncited synth. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess i am a little bit to jumpy today. "I will be reporting you for abuse of Wikipedia and seeking help in resolving this issue." sounded a tad like a legal threat, so i decided to just report it as such. If Off2riorob doesn't perceive it as one, ill just mark the case as resolved. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's apparent there is no threat of any kind there. I have tried to engage Off2riorob through his/her edit warring but he/she has refused to engage. I have now reported that user on the Administrators' Noticeboard for edit warring.Bsw123 (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Which I've marked as no violation, and I suggest you take note of what I wrote there. To give an idea of why your repeated additions are synthesis and personal opinion, consider this similar - but equally invalid - sentence: "Despite being a member of a white supremacist organisation, person X still lives in America, where Barack Obama is President". Does that make it clearer? Black Kite 22:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's quite dissimilar in format to the statement I contributed (not least in that "still living in a country" is very different from opting to undertake (additional) work for a publisher of pronography) I assume then that the following would be acceptable: "Anne Widdecombe writes a column for the Daily Express, which is owned by a publisher of pornography"; i.e. acceptable if the introductory "Despite her moral conservatism" is omitted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsw123 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, because you're still synthesising a charge of hypocrisy against Widdecombe based on two unrelated facts. Try this hypothetical one - "Despite being the owner of Apple, Steve Jobs is known to use a Windows PC" - the two unrelated facts synthesising an accusation that Jobs doesn't believe his own company's computers are as good as a PC. WP:SYNTH is quite clear on this issue. Black Kite 22:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I bet he loves Windows 7 :p --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, how grown up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsw123 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll give this to Windows 7: It appears to be an improvement over Vista. Regarding the original complaint, it's not a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, those sort of 'I'm going to report you' threats happen all the time, usually from editors somewhat unfamiliar with policy who think there's some sort of central administrative body who rules on editing disputes and/or hands out penalties for ill behaviour Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User page redirected to article space

I'm not sure what the correct venue for this is, so I'm asking here (WP:UAA seems to be for abusive usernames, which this isn't). A user (Docjudith (talk · contribs)) appears to have moved their page to article-space (at David Whiffen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). Verifiability of the article-space page aside, it makes it difficult to get ahold of this person, as they'll only receive "you have a new message" notices for changes to their old talk page. I'm assuming they've been acting in good faith, but is the page supposed to be there, and if not, how would they be appropriately encouraged to perform a proper user-space name change?

(ANI thread notification is here, though I have no idea if they'll see it, per above.) --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --Smashville^talk 19:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In future you can simply blank the userpage and boldly move the talk page back where it belongs. –xeno^talk 19:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a simple moving of a draft article to article space, with the user's talk accidentally along for the ride. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

My formal request

Resolved

This is somewhat in relation due to my Rfa yesterday, however, I would like a sysop to delete all pages within my userspace, including my user page. I will be using the .js WikiBreak enforcer, however, effective now, I am leaving Wikipedia. I find it terribly sad and humiliating to a project who cannot and will not account or consider human error. Adminship is no big deal, however, when one applies for such, those individuals are harassed, scrutinized, and humiliated amongst those who they try to work with to build an encyclopedia. I attepted to offer my help, however, it is apparent that I do not matter. None of my work, contributions, etc. matter because I lack judgement skills, the ability to focus on community consensus, and the ability to respect those of whom I work with. I'm terribly sad, however, I will not be somewhere that I am not wanted. If I had realized that there was so much dislike and disgust when my username was seen amongst the site, I would have left a long time ago.

Human error is a fact of every day life. Four or five AFD's that were "incorrectly" or "prematurely" closed out of dozens makes no difference. I wish that instead of focusing on the negative side of things, individuals would have looked at the good in a user. Negativity does nothing but hurt Wikipedia, and due to the large amount and lack of respect, I am hereby resigning and requesting that my Rollback rights and User Creation rights are removed. With love, my family... Dusti^SPEAK!! 03:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just tag them all with {{db-u1}}, except for the talk page, I don't think that can be deleted at all except in unusual circumstances. No need for admin intervention otherwise. Tarc (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Stickstickley

I don't know if this account has been hacked or whatever, but his User page (User:Stickstickley) is a mess of self-assigned barnstars with forged signatures. In addition, all of their edits today are vandalism. Woogee (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

He's been temporarily blocked and the User page deleted. Woogee (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

AnonMoos -language (or: things are heating up in the I/P-area again)

What is acceptable language on Wikipedia?

AnonMoos (talk · contribs) presently insists on the right to call Egyptian Muslim scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi for "that asshole" and a "bloodthirsty hatemongering racist", is this ok?

User:Tiamut and myself have tried to get him/her to retract his words here. We have also discussed it here. However, two other editors, Breein1007 (talk · contribs) and No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs) seem to agree with AnonMoos.

If this is accepted to stand, does that mean that in the future any editor on Wikipedia can write: "as my considered honest opinion, sincerely arrived at after intellectual deliberations and the consideration of various facts over a number of years -- that Israeli leader <fill in name here> is a bloodthirsty hatemongering racist"? (see: [11]) --and not be blocked? ---Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My only contribution to this issue was to point out to Tiamut and Huldra that obviously AnonMoos does not agree with their reading of BLP and that posting about it repeatedly on the talk page is not going to solve the problem. Huldra apparently thinks she's ethically bound to post something bad about an Israeli now. Go figure. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Calling living persons names like that, also repeated here March 28, is an unambiguous violation of WP:BLP. I am blocking AnonMoos for 48 hours in enforcement of that policy and am also warning him about possible WP:ARBPIA sanctions. I will redact, also as a policy enforcement measure, the current versions of the talk pages concerned. As to Huldra, you are getting very close to violating WP:BLP and WP:POINT yourself with your reply cited by No More Mr Nice Guy above, and I strongly suggest you remove it soon.  Sandstein  20:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the reaction. I was trying (after rather long arguments, both from Tiamut and myself) to get AnonMoos to see what kind of atmosphere their language could create, it was meant as a hypothetical situation. But in any case; I have redacted it. And I am relieved that this language is not found acceptable: it should´t be. Thanks, Huldra (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Having just read the guy's own words in his article, AnonMoos' assessment of the guy is not unjustified. He's progressive in many ways, but stained with hatred of Israel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

One can describe a clear hatred of Israel (or antisemitic behavior, or abusive views towards Islam or Moslems, or...) in accurate but not provocative or abusive terms. If one chooses words to inflame and abuse and create drama, rather than describe in a neutral and impersonal manner, then one is outside of the bounds of WP:CIVIL. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What can be done to increase/enforce compliance with the requirements of the discretionary sanctions ? They clearly aren't working. These kind of disruptive firefights happen pretty much everyday in multiple articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Roman888 back again

Resolved

 – Ducked and blocked, Quack quack~!

Could someone please block User:Golongong as a sock of copyright violator and sockpuppeteer User:Roman888? His edits have largely restored copyright violations to articles cleaned as part of Roman888's CCI. The content of his userpage aligns closely with Roman888's admin-bashing at the time of his block. I'll do the work over the next 24 hours to revert the copyvios.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I challenge this nomination as the individual above is on the premise that all new contributors are sock puppets. I am not Roman888 as claimed by this individual. I also wish to point out that this individual Mkativerata continues to abuse the system by deleting all contributions wholesale in the name of copy-right violations . Furthermore I called for this individual's right to make any further reports be curtailed until an investigation of this claims can be made. Golongong (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Roman I suppose it is about time for your second SPI. I just wouldn't want to see the sock of yours who gave me a barnstar blocked. I liked him. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to bring to the admins attention that Mkativerata is making unwarranted accusations that I am a sockpuppet. He has abused the rules on WP:CIVIL. He has the guile to threaten me in my User talk:Golongong. He has made accusations about me awarding him Barnstars. How is that for being rude. Golongong (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, well, well. Look who's back, and using the same sort of rhetoric as he did in his earlier incarnation. Roman has used one of his pet expressions on the user page for User:Golongong, which should remove any doubt that this user is yet another sock: To certain individuals in Wikipedia some articles are their personal fiefdom. I mean, really, how many people use an expression like "personal fiefdom" in the same context? Drmargi (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Quacks enough for me. Another gone. SGGH ^ping! 07:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request –MuZemike 07:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action: this one was copyvioing at a rapid rate. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And from me as well -- he's a continuous problem. Drmargi (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If it isn't Roman888 he talks, edits and userpages just like him, and he is as familiar with Wikis ins and outs (as per his unblock message). Obviously an uninvolved admin to deal. SGGH ^ping! 12:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it's already been declined... twice :) SGGH ^ping! 12:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Endofcertainty

This user has been rather prolific creator this morning creating a number of articals consisting of list of books bublished by Zed Books

Rather than me go through each one and tag etc - can an admin have a look, and perhaps give the editor some help.

see Special:Contributions/Endofcertainty

Thanks

Codf1977 (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Also note their COI. I42 (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've notified Endofcertainty of this thread. Deor (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I did with this edit. Codf1977 (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I didn't notice it because it was appended to someone else's speedy-deletion notification. Deor (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Codf1977 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the articles were lists of books published by Zed Books - see e.g. Zed Books & Authors: The Middle East. They were all tagged as A1 by an IP editor; I began the process of converting them to PRODs since I though the context was fairly clear, but Nyttend (talk · contribs) deleted them as A1s while I was part way through. The parent article Zed Books has also been prodded; I've left the creator a note about the GNG and WP:CORP and an offer of help if they need it. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Codf1977 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

West Virginia newspaper accusations of article tampering

Wednesday March 31, 2010 "Edits to online encyclopedia spark flap: Wikipedia user says Oliverio's campaign manager removed information from site" Ry Rivard, Daily Mail Capitol Reporter Charleston (W.V.) Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.com/News/201003300806 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.194.251.5 (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed a self-referential paragraph about the story from the article. I'd notify the admin in question of this thread, but I don't know their user name. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be me. The article (the IP was unclear on this) is Mike Oliverio. See further discussion on the article's talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I do. :) I'll let him know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for community input on User:GoRight

Although there is some support for restrictions, by far the most approved of proposal is a community ban. Most people supporting restrictions also support a full ban with equal preference. I'm therefore closing this discussion with a consensus to ban and blocking GoRight. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

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

On February 7th, I made a conditional proposal[29] for GoRight's unblock after a lengthy WP:RFU request. He had previously been blocked by 2/0 for multiple breaches of policy which culminated in a de facto community ban.[30] I took responsibility for acting as an uninvolved third party to monitor GoRight's edits and provide guidance where necessary.

Presently, I'm less than happy with GoRight's progress in overcoming the behaviors which led to his indefinite block. Specifically, I'm seeing incidence of disruption,[31] harassment,[32][33][34][35] wikilawyering,[36] and failure to assume good faith.[37][38]

At this point, I would like to bring the issue for community review and input. Whenever I have blocked or unblocked in the past, my criteria has always come down to a certain formula: Does this editor's positive contributions outweigh his negative ones? I believe that everyone deserves second chances, and that's exactly why I offered to unblock GoRight after his RFU. However, at this point I'm having a very hard time justifying his continued presence. His helpful edits since the time of his unblock do not outweigh the additional time and effort that his less than helpful edits have posed on other editors. I would much rather see a change of editing patterns than another community ban, but at this time I feel that greater input is needed as that that dysfunctional editing pattern seems to be escalating rather than improving. Trusilver 01:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what I am expected to say here. I believe that all of my edits are defensible in that there is a story behind them but if the community agrees with Trusilver's assessment of them then the best course of action is to block or ban me. I will respond to direct questions otherwise this is all I really have to say. I appreciate Trusilver's assistance in the past and I accept that he is acting in the best interest of the community. --GoRight (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

History shows a recurrent pattern: (1) GoRight gets blocked; (2) GoRight promises to do better and gets unblocked; (3) GoRight behaves quite well for a while; (4) GoRight gradually lapses back to his former provocations, bad-faith assumptions, etc; (5) eventually GoRight crosses the line; return to (1). We are now in phase (4). Whether GoRight continues to steps (5)->(1) is up to him, though my understanding is that the terms of his unblock allow others to short-circuit the loop. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of GoRight's edits are in talk and project space - this month alone disrupting existing disputes and filing frivolous ones, ignoring arbitrators, encouraging problematic editors, spraying talk pages with distracting requests, making thinly veiled threats, proposing sanctions against other editors, telling people to mind their own business while refusing to do so himself, ridiculing and annoying people, atrocious wikilawyering, etc. Those that aren't tend to be minor reverts of vandalism (and warnings for same). Indeed I've just scanned his contributions all the way back to the start of the year (over 1,500 edits) and was unable to find even a single substantive edit in main space.

While I would support restoring the community ban, I would equally support an MYOB sanction as suggested by TenOfAllTrades, likely modeled after Abd's editing restriction. This would be his third and final opportunity to prove himself by taking the Swiss Family Robinson option and finding somewhere quiet to edit in main space. -- samj _in^out 02:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I just kind of stumbled across this discussion and checked a few things and want to make a statement. The pattern that Short Brigade points out is fact and in my estimation will probably continue. but I like the suggestion of Samj, and I would make sure GoRight understands this is his LAST option. I suggest the the Swiss Family Robinson option and finding somewhere quiet to edit in main space. Just an outsiders thought. Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with comments from Mlpearc. There's a lot of work that could use the help of editors like GoRight. Would GoRight be interested in working on non-admin maintenance tasks? What about creating requested articles or helping cleanup articles? Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  This is a possibility for sure. Do you have some pointers to the types of things you mean by "non-admin maintenance tasks"? Creating requested articles may also be an option, but where does one go to find such requests? --GoRight (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Requested articles exists, but perhaps a more important task that needs doing would be [39]. If you worked on those articles (I probably should be taking my own advice), I am sure that the community would be very grateful. NW (Talk) 04:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There is tons of copy editing to do at Guild of Copy Editors; if you have good English skillz this is a place where wikignomes can thrive. Any help would be appreciated. Diannaa ^TALK 04:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Something also that I've been doing a little of, and not even scratching the surface, is checking school-related articles. These have a much higher than usual tendency for vandalism, and that vandalism very often gets by the recent change patrollers. Trusilver 06:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You can help source Category:Unreferenced_BLPs, clean spam and cruft from Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup. Hell, there is a lot of stuff at Category:Wikipedia_maintenance. Another option is commenting at deletion discussions, you can pick the one you like more: WP:AFD, WP:MFD, WP:TFD, WP:CFD, WP:RFD, WP:IFD or WP:DRV. Or just visit articles at random until you find one that a) you like the subject and b) it's underdeveloped; you can then expand it at will. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support (with equal preference) site ban or SamJ's proposal to impose a similar Abd restriction on GoRight. Only a few hours before commenting here, GoRight demonstrated that he already knew what a wikignome is and was tendentiously arguing that his contributions have been improving the project when by contrast, many incidents and existing sanctions suggest otherwise. If this was an editor who genuinely doesn't know what wikignome is, I'd be piling on the advice/guidance above, without any support for an involuntary restriction. But the very meaning of "final warning" or "unblock conditions" appears to be becoming meaningless. I cannot ignore what Short Brigade Harvester Boris has described, or the diffs in SamJ's comment, or the fact that this situation is not improving with mere voluntary measures and advice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Proposal for GoRight to consider The main problem seems to be that you have a very strong urge to get involved in subjects on which you have a very strong opinion (e.g. climate change) which you feel isn't covered neutrally on Wikipedia. But you have to understand that the way things are covered is almost always consistent with community consensus, and changing that is not an option. A better way to do something with your ideas in these matters is to write up an essay in general terms in which you explain what in your opinion is not going well on Wikipedia and then discuss that essay. Such activities are not disruptive. Count Iblis (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agree on Essay with Count Iblis ... working on essays is a productive path for GoRight to adopt. I proposed in the past that GoRight submit an essay to 2over0 as an unblock condition with demonstrated content production. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been intentionally mostly avoiding GoRight's edits after they were unblocked - why give myself the headache when the wonder of the wiki model is that we all provide checks on each other? The diffs above (and a little digging to be sure that the context is clear) indicate that they have not taken to heart the lengthy unblock discussions, past sanctions and formal and informal warnings, and advice from numerous editors. I am glad that other editors were willing to undertake this experiment, as I think GoRight genuinely cares about this project; I maintain that even editors with few edits to the mainspace can be very productive in generating quality articles. In the absence of a dramatic improvement in their approach to editing, however, I support a new indefinite block. Mandating that they go edit areas where they have not experienced conflict (viz. completely new areas of the project) could be a solution, but please please word the sanction extraordinarily carefully and clearly. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked, indeed urged, GoRight to avoid involvement in climate change articles during the early unblock period, but he has devoted most of his efforts to that field. Had I known that GoRight would also want to involve himself in the Abd fuss, I would also have counseled against that.

But GoRight is so clearly an intelligent and often insightful contributor that I cannot help but think that his skills would be wasted on wikignome work. He has some King Charles' heads, and he needs help with them. Some kind of behavioral ban would work well here, I'm sure.

2over0's original framework incorporated the following suggested limitations [40]

1. Some form of civility parole, as I view this as the main issue - antagonizing other editors is just not on, even in a toxic editing atmosphere. As I mention above, I do not think that these sorts of provisions have a stellar track record, so the wording here will need to be very clear to avoid frivolous reports of violation while still having teeth that an unfamiliar admin would feel comfortable invoking. I am not at all convinced that you understand my reasoning behind each of the diffs above, but if you are willing to give it a go there is some chance that this condition could be productive.
2. Topic ban from climate change related articles for six months. This is not the maximum allowed under the community probation, but rather the minimum I see as likely to be useful to the project. I am sensitive to the concerns of systematic bias you raise in your most recent email, but this does not extend to a tolerance for disruption.
3. Some form of ban from all disputes and noticeboard threads in which you are not a named party or otherwise clearly and directly involved, with the possible the exceptions of ArbCom and RFC/U. This is also easily open to conflicting interpretations, and I would want additional input before settling on clear wording that carries the same meaning both to the two of us and to people unfamiliar with the background to the restriction. I also consider it important not to restrict legitimate pursuit of dispute resolution.

I thought 2over0 had hit the nail on the head at that point, and it's a matter for some regret to me that he had not the time to follow through. Perhaps we should reconsider this rather than going for something more draconian. --TS 20:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It was less an issue of time than that I decided with some regret that if I had not by the point I gave up after three weeks of intense discussion been able to communicate to GoRight why and how their editing had been detrimental to the project, then I would not be able to. I freely admit that I am not the most socially ept editor in the bin, but neither am I alone in being able to convince GoRight to change their approach. If the community can fashion a workable system under which this project can continue to benefit from their contributions without suffering the all to common negatives, I would support that unreservedly. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I support Tony's proposal above, and also suggest that some sort of Chinese wall be erected between him and Abd as they appear to feed each others' worst instincts. I just found this blog from GoRight, with an attendant troll from Thegoodlocust. I change my view: let him hang. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I read it. Is it really that bad? I'm convinced we should embrace our critics, not ban them. I must say, I don't like how GoRight uses the term "pro-AGW". Nobody is "pro" AGW. Can we please use accurate terms? Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

    *sigh* My off-wiki activities are not germane here. The "About" page on the site tells you all you need to know. I am unaware of any policy that I am violating by running an off-wiki blog, but if such a policy exists please bring it to my attention so that I can take appropriate corrective action. Another user, much more prominent that myself, similarly runs a blog as well where he likewise comments on the comings and goings here, amongst other things. His blog has been discussed many times and the result is always that there is no problem with him doing so.

    @Viriditas : To be specific, the blog is NOT critical of Wikipedia in general but the Climate Change pages and the editing environment there specifically, that is to the extent that it actually is "critical". Regarding "pro-AGW" do you have some alternative that you feel would be more appropriate. --GoRight (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

    • I agree that GoRight's blog postings should not be used to sanction him on-wiki, regardless of how constructive or unconstructive those postings may be. If we go that direction there are many so-called "respected admins and content contributors" who could be held to account for far worse postings in other venues. As for "pro-AGW," think about what that literally means: if anything, it is GoRight and like-minded editors who are "pro-AGW." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Off-wiki actions should be held accountable on-wiki. If we loose "respected" admins and content contributors, so be it. -Atmoz (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Right, while we have little or no control of what happens off-wiki I see no problem with taking it into consideration when discussing on-wiki activities. While the discussion appears fairly benign, Guy obviously takes offense and it's hard to see how commentating on a running dispute via a one-way channel could be anything but disruptive (imagine if everyone was doing this). -- samj _in^out 08:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

        For the record, everyone is welcome to comment there ... including Guy. --GoRight (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

    • Is it "that bad"? Depends on how you define "that bad". It's the usual conspiracy theory bullshit, it further stirs already muddy waters and as a result of reading around his writing off-wiki I now believe that his aim ere is to see his POV better represented, rather than to collaborate. Where he says his off-wiki activities are not relevant to Wikipedia, this is the precise opposite of what he's arguing in the case of the disruptive IP at AN. Obviously I find him tiresome, persistent and frustratingly tenacious in advocating what seems to me to be a politically motivated campaign to reduce the emphasis on the scientific consensus behind global warming, he's also given spectacularly bad advice to Abd who has quite enough problems of his own to be going on with, and he piles into any dispute where he perceives that science might be winning, the difference the blog post makes is that it persuades me that he's here for advocacy not out of genuine concern for the project. We have no shortage of tenacious advocates who cause a lot less friction than GoRight. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I respect 2over0's and Trusilver's opinions that the attempted rehabilitation has failed. At this point the most appropriate action might seem to be indefinite block (a de facto ban) with user talk rights, so as to permit the continuation of good faith discussion of GoRight's editing rights.

As GoRight has indicated that he doesn't welcome my input. I would also respect that and would not participate in discussion on his talk page unless invited by him.

I do not endorse Guy's opinion of GoRight's blog posting. Although I do not agree with it I do not think it betrays Wikipedia's principles. There are some websites that are well known troll-friendly venues, and I've been unstinting in my criticism of such activity both on and off Wikipedia, but I think GoRight's intent is altogether more wholesome. --TS 00:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Not an admin, nor uninvolved, but I support a total ban of GoRight. He's a troll. He has always been a troll. He always will be a troll Has never once contributed anything positive to Wikipedia, except when he thinks he's going to get banned. Then he'll do some menial task until the shitstorm blows over, and then he'll continue on with the trolling. Repeat ad nauseam. -Atmoz (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Didn't GoRight have something to do with the recent CRU rename? Whether you agree with the rename or not, his participation in the original discussion could be perceived as positive. I think he deserves a strongly worded "last chance" with a line drawn in the sand. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You are thinking of this. The final discussion was unrelated but generally consistent with it. --GoRight (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• ~5,000 words were spent discussing 2 (changing 'hacking incident' to 'email controversy') and as an outsider applying the WP:DUCK test it's got POV pushing written all over it. Let's just agree to disagree that this should be "perceived as positive". -- samj _in^out 16:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  Unsolicited feedback. --GoRight (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• while (1 > 0); last_chance (GoRight); end Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• while (2 + 2 = 5); climate_change_articles; end Alex Harvey (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - almost everyone asking for a ban on this thread is involved either with Abd or climate change articles, both of which would place them in direct conflict with GoRight. ATren (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

  ATren, be very careful, see here why "2) Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket are indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed." This is what I did to get in trouble. Count Iblis (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• One does not have to go anywhere near Abd or climate change articles to end up "in direct conflict with GoRight"... visiting his talk page (or waiting for him to visit yours) is more than adequate. That's exactly the problem we're trying to solve - many of the areas GoRight works are existing debates (or turn into debates when he arrives) so we can either keep him from debates (MYOB sanction) or keep him from editing altogether (community ban). -- samj _in^out 17:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• I find it severely obvious that only people who have interacted with GoRight have an opinion on him. On the other hand, I find it interesting that you claim that every editor involved with Abd or climate change "automatically" is in direct conflict with GoRight. That does seem to indicate a problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I find it very interesting that those wanting to ban GoRight have had some of their actions highlighted on the blog he started. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it's interesting or in any way unexpected, for reasons that should be obvious. An argument that people he has mentioned on his blog are prohibited from commenting on his actions is -- well, let's call it curious, and leave it at that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, a couple of the editors have also tried (and failed) to get websites deleted from wikipedia that were critical of them (e.g. encyclopedia dramatica). I think if these people can't laugh off criticism then they shouldn't be on the internet and certainly shouldn't be trying to ban people due to their own personal issues. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a red herring. GoRight's problematic behavior is on-wiki, and was already evident before the blog was started. Indeed the oldest posting on that blog was made either at the end of his last indefinite block from Wikipedia or at most a few hours afterwards. I also find the notion that Trusilver and 2over0 are posting about GoRight's problems in order to get back at him for the blog somewhat improbable. Let's concentrate on GoRight's actual problematic behavior, not his claims on an external site about the behavior of others. --TS 18:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

What Tony said, plus most of this predates most of us even knowing the blog existed. Mind you, by the "logic" you used in respect of the "link" between me and Quiggin and Lambert, you and GoRight are practically married as a result of your posting comments there and you are therefore disqualified from participating in this debate. Sauce for the goose, as they say. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Guy is the one who brought it up, and he seems to have a habit of taking his off-wiki critcisms on wiki (e.g. [41]) and he isn't the only one advocating a ban (e.g. Atmoz) who have also been criticized on the blog. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested to see how neutral you would be about a website that published an article about you written by someone who had taunted you about your sister's death and stating that your recently deceased father was a paedophile. I'd say describing it as "worthless" is comparatively mild, actually I think it's a cesspit and I can't wait for the day it runs out of cash, hopefully assisted down that route by a series of lawsuits for the egregious defamation they publish. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: Thegoodlocust is also an active contributor and commentator "on the blog [GoRight] started", which apparently routinely criticises editors off-wiki. -- samj _in^out 19:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said I wasn't a contributer which is why I decided to comment unlike the other people who are most obviously involved in a COI with regards to GoRight. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Broad consensus that a problem exists: suggest MYOB restriction

There seems to be broad consensus that GoRight's conduct remains problematic and the community would benefit from restrictions. While there is some sentiment that such restrictions should be regarded as the Last Chance Saloon, I don't think this would necessarily be productive because it might encourage some editors to try to trip him up. How about a simple Abd-style "Mind Your Own Business" restriction enforceable by blocks of escalating duration? --TS 19:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

MYOB wouldn't do anything about other problems such as attempts to provoke others. Further, since GoRight seems to be using Abd as his role model, any attempt hold him to account likely will be met with similar drawn-out and draining debate. I'm personally getting fed up riding this merry-go-round: at this point I'm willing simply to declare that GoRight is exempt from Wikipedia's behavioral standards and leave it at that. It would save all the block, unblock, reblock drama and the resulting megabytes of argumentation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to put him in a special category, why not just block him indef, that's pretty special. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

He was indeffed, but then he was unblocked with a "final warning". Now it's clear that the problem behavior continues, yet nobody has rolled up their sleeves to reblock. Instead, some users were advocating yet another final warning in the form of SamJ's proposal (which I was barely ready to support, but I thought ok - equal preference to a ban is at least generous). Now, it's become even more hilarious with one user suggesting we shouldn't impose final warnings because "it wouldn't be very productive". This resembles a debate about weeds. There are people who appreciate its problematic existence and try to cut its source (that is, at its roots) so that the rest of the garden doesn't become adversely affected by the weed. Yet, some people protest with "no, this weed is a plant in the garden, don't harm it, don't uproot it, its presence is productive, if you think it's causing problems, just trim the top off and it will solve everything". For those of us who have had experience with weeds, that sort of comment is frustratingly clueless or foolish, depending on who it comes from, because it's known that nothing will change until the weed is uprooted. Alas, the sad fate for the Wikipedia garden. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

People are not "weeds" nor do we treat them as outcasts. Your words are virtually identical to those of every dictator who tried to eliminate the opposition or tyrants who created scapegoats to blame for their problems. We should not dehumanize those who we view as at fault, but rather try to uplift them and give them our hand, even as they bite it. The old thinking that we are separate from everybody else, even our perceived enemies, is no longer valid. GoRight's faults are our own. This view is the only way back to the garden, where weeds and pests are an integral part of the discourse, a mosaic, a web of life. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your angle here, Viriditas. Comparing Ncmvocalist's frustration with a twice-indef banned user to the actions of a dictator trying to eliminate his opposition is taking an argument too far. Dayewalker (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas off-topic, blocked for incivility

Note: I've responded on your talk page. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Viriditas seems to have continued to take his argument too far: "The blocking policies are a childish and immature response to a problem that will not go away. Virtual communities require a broad range of users to survive. When you narrow this pool to such an extent, the community will die...it should be easy...allowing problem users to enroll in a trainng program that will enhance their understanding of the site." Does anyone, other than myself, have four words in response to that? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC) More importantly and to the point, Wikipedia was not meant to be used as an MMORPG for noticeboard addicts and people with too much time on their hands who should be busy writing an encyclopedia or helping others write it. It's all about editors and readers and improving the relationship between the two. Too much time is wasted playing "noticeboard" and very little time is spent on improving editorial skills and retaining users. The threat of blocking and being blocked is about as effective as the prison system; In other words, it doesn't work at all. People come here because they want to contribute in some way. Everybody has a special skill or talent, and some bring real knowledge and expertise. That's what we need to tap into and develop; Everything else is pure fluff and a waste of valuable time. We don't need another little dictator who sees people as weeds ripe for the Roundup. Time to grow up. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC) And now you are making personal attacks, being uncivil, and soapboxing, which is in line with some of the misbehavior that has been brought up about you not that long ago. The community disagrees with your view about tendentious editing as it is counterproductive to either writing an encyclopedia, or helping others write it. Addressing tendentious editing has become no different to the weed comparison I brought up above, and it's a pretty understandable frustration. Nobody denies the fact that people come here wanting to contribute in some way; that they cannot do so constructively and use Wikipedia as a game, a battleground, and as something that does not comply with our core policies (be it NPOV, BLP, or others) is indeed the problem. That you (a) suggest I see people as weeds when I don't and (b) personally attack me by calling me a little dictator, when you'd already been told you were going too far, suggests that no amount of training (even by you) would satisfactorily improve the situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry you feel that way. In the above, you explicitly compared editors to "weeds" who should be "uprooted". I responded by pointing out that this type of dehumanization was and is the preferred rhetoric of historical dictators and tyrants. Sadly, this aggressive POV is to blame for the disruption and disintegration of virtual communities and leads to their eventual downfall. I'm not sure, but it could be a symptom of hormones. If true, Wikipedia needs stable, mature people with real world experience making unemotional decisions about how to work with editors, not immature MMORPG addicts playing "noticeboard", and racking up blocks. We are dealing with real people, not blips on the screen. We all need to try harder to treat editors as real people, and deal with them on that level. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I don't think you are, otherwise you wouldn't continue being uncivil. I compared Wikipedia to a garden and tendentious editing to the weeds that we find in the garden. I maintain that until the weeds are uprooted, there will be no satisfactory change in the long term - and this means removing the source of the problem. I'm sorry if you still feel "dehumanized" by such frustration. Even if I was to play along with your uncanny misinterpretation, that would still not warrant the uncivil comments (and personal attacks) that you've been making overall and the way you've tried to disrupt this thread. I request that someone prevents Viriditas from continuing to engage in such unseemly conduct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Note: Viriditas has been blocked for repeatedly engaging in the incivility above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth taking into account GoRight's interpretation of Abd's MYOB sanction (as clarified: "The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you."). Here's the money quote: "Please note that the meanings of the words 'discussing any dispute' and/or 'comment about any conflict' are distinct and non-overlapping with the words 'participating in a dispute'". The moral of the story is that if the MYOB sanction is not 100% water tight then GoRight won't WP:HEAR it until we've all been dragged through clarification after clarification after clarification after clarification as we have with User:Abd (who has since declared that he'd rather retire than be forced to mind his own business). Sometimes the pursuit of justice just isn't worth the effort - there comes a point where we need to cut our losses.

Between this epic wikilawyering, the personal attack against User:William_M._Connolley a day or two ago and today's sporadic reshuffling of the municipal broadband article I'm leaning more and more towards restoring the indef block and leaving the onus on GoRight to explain (on his talk page) under what conditions he should be allowed to participate. -- samj _in^out 04:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

TheGoodLocust off-topic discussion of WP:NPA

You call that a personal attack? I've seen far worse - especially from the "victims" you are presenting. Besides, it is a valid point considering the whole Essjay business - some people will put forward their so-called academic credentials as a way to bend the wiki-winds in their favor. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, this is a clear and recent violation of WP:NPA: criticising someone for displaying their academic credentials and cherry-picking quotes out of context is hardly WP:CIVIL - comment on the content, not the contributor. Essjay is irrelevant - there's no doubt that William_M._Connolley holds a doctorate, nor any imperative for other editors to take that into consideration. -- samj inout 11:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Wow that's how you read that? What specifically was GoRight's criticism - tell me his actual words that you find so offensive and not your interpretation. The fact of the matter is that WMC and Short Brigade (the other editor pushing for a ban) were criticizing people in actual sources for their PhDs - there was no criticism from GoRight that was just a lighthearted joke on his part. Anyway I could care less if WMC has a PhD, I have no idea if he does or not, his article doesn't have a source supporting that claim (last time I checked anyway), and it doesn't really matter since his PhD doesn't deal with the group of articles that he edits.TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Yeah nice try changing the subject there, but this is about GoRight's conduct, not WMC. GoRight is already on a last-last chance-- he shouldn't be running around causing trouble, he should be keeping his head down and avoiding controversy. Obviously this is impossible for him, thus, out the door he should go. Jtrainor (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Broad consensus for ban

I think it's clear that my suggested sanction would not be appropriate. GoRight's propensity for wikilawyering and antagonistic engagement would not really be addressed. I believe there is currently sufficient consensus to support withdrawal of the "final chance" and implementation of a ban from Wikipedia. --TS 12:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support for reasons stated above, though if GoRight were subsequently able to construct and explain suitable editing restrictions on his talk page (so as to demonstrate his understanding of the spirit of MYOB restrictions rather than trying to WP:LAWYER around them) then I would be happy to give him a last, last, last chance to prove his potential with substantive edits in quiet areas. -- samj _in^out 15:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with this assessment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral. If you can pick through the shitstorm that occurred in the edits above, I think that Ncmvocalist made some pretty good points. Wikipedia is not therapy, and should not be treated as such. There are only two types of editors, in my mind, the ones that add to the project, and the ones that don't. Now, there are quite a few more respected editors than GoRight who I feel are a bigger liability to the project than he is, and they are in no danger of being kicked out the door. But still, my rationale behind giving GoRight a second (or third, fourth, whatever) chance was that he being contributing to the encyclopedia in an appropriate manner. He did this for a short time, then fell back into his old patterns. My first choice for a sanction would be a broadly construed MYOB and stay away from EVERY article that's even mildly contentious. Every person that edits on Wikipedia is a volunteer, we all sacrifice our time in the pursuit of knowledge. Because of this, every editor on the project deserved dignity and respect - This is why I'm usually the first to suggest that someone be given a second chance. But my patience isn't infinite, and something needs to be done. A ban is my second choice, I'd rather not jump immediately into it, but neither am I going to stand in the way of it. Trusilver 18:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• What would be the point? If he's banned/blocked he'll just cajole a well-meaning admin into unblocking him like he's done all the other times, and we'll be back here again in a couple of months. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If this turns into another defacto ban, and an admin gets cajoled in that manner, we can pass it off to ArbCom as it would be clear sufficient evidence that the community cannot resolve this issue with its own mechanisms. If this is a formal ban however, an admin would not be permitted to touch the ban without community consensus (if they did without a consensus, then again, it'd be passed off to ArbCom). As a community, we agree that there's a problem and it needs to be addressed - we need to demonstrate that we've attempted to address and resolve the issue through the mechanisms that we have available to us, whether it's through agreement, disagreement, consensus, or even no-consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• A ban is fine by me, if he's allowed to stay then he needs a MYOB sanction and topic bans from controversial areas as Trusilver suggests, but to be honest I can't see the point. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, unless someone can work out something truly brilliant along the lines of what TS quoted above from my unblocking discussion with GoRight. The Ban Appeals SubCommittee is probably the best place for any appeals. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have nothing personal against GoRight, but I can't stand Wikilawyering and I think he's had enough chances to change his ways. Too much drama over one person. I support a ban. -- Atama頭 17:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• I'm of two minds on this. He's behaved quite well and quite abysmally. I'm willing to accept a MYOB sanction and a ban from all controversial areas broadly construed, but it begs the question: How many restrictions are we going to have to place on one editor before we call it quits? So support ban and weak support for broad restrictions. AniMate 18:01, 31 March 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 disregarding consensus and guidelines, forcing edits through

User:Magicianbink has been continually forcing his edits through on the Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4 article and other video games in the same series. Me and several other editors have opposed his edits which consist solely of adding lists of music used in the game(s), and his responses so far have been: Personal attacks[42], forcing his edits through[43](by his own admission), and just circumventing the consensus, which is against adding the listcruft he wants to add. We have explained why the information is inappropriate, which guidelines apply, we have tried explaining how he could go about it in another way, the general response is: The rules support what HE is saying. So, the next logical step is bringing it here. Eik Corell (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

- Hello this is magicianbink, I have tried on numerous occasions to work with both Eik Corell and Falcon9x5 to find a way that i can update the article and provide information that is relevant to the the Tony Hawks Pro skater series, while i understand the a basic list of songs Isn't conducive to a good article i have explained my intentions of improving that format, which has only been met with further negativity. As a person who has followed the series and have used these articles for reference i can safely say that the consensus has in the past leaned toward content edited in a somewhat similar fashion to my own, and those editors have also been met by pressure and bullying by users that by my own experience have no inclination to compromise. I understand there are rules but there are also exceptions to these rules otherwise why would there be any debate at all or the need for any means of consensus if these rules were so set in stone Magicianbink (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just like to point out that Magicianbink hasn't tried to "find a way" to update the article, and has essentially ignored the four separate times I've tried to give advice on how to include the music[44][45][46][47], three separate times on the alternate ways he can work on the list without leaving it half finished on the article itself[48][49][50], and has instead repeatedly reinserted the list (which I and Eik above feel is gamecruft, listcruft etc) without modification. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, I have been slowly working on the article leaving it edited but functional, i have tried to come to an understanding about the relevance of the the music to this style of game and how i would like to slowly improve it. but instead of actual constructive feedback i got dismissive remarks and "wiki bullying". I understand their concerns but i have no intention of harming the article only to add to it and improve the overall value of the information contained thank you Magicianbink (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Additionally i would like to point out the both Eik Corell and Flacon9x5 have been accused of over-zealously removing content by many other users, my goal was to reestablish what was there in the past only to have it once again removed Magicianbink (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone gonna handle this or not? Eik Corell (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I will attempt to provide an independent opinion on the situation at hand as I believe it is rather interesting. What we have here are two groups of users edit-warring for the past 3 weeks on several articles. All these articles have multiple issues ranging from grammatical errors to layout problems. Instead of fixing these issues, however, some users focused on razor sharp policy enforcement which resulted in alienating several new Wikipedia members that could be later asked to fix the aforementioned problems. As for now this activity has been counterproductive. OutOfTimer ^{Wanna chat?} 16:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Small spam spree on firearms articles

IP addresses in the range 96.14.x.x ( 96.14.33.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 96.14.46.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at least) are spamming spam links into firearms articles. I'm trying to ID a range to rangeblock, if others can look around and see if they're doing more (recent changes?) I'd appreciate it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Also 166.164.190.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Edits are of the format:

*[http://www.fnscarrifle.com/ SCAR Portal information site "all things SCAR"]

...added into the External Links section. All the links I checked so far are to domain squatters, this is clearly some sort of spamming. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

They also hit Unidentified flying object repeatedly. I gave up and rangeblocked 96.14.0.0/16 for 3 hours. Someone may need to extend that if they return later tonight / tomorrow morning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• That's IPs on two ranges, rangeblocking is likely to be difficult to maintain for this spammer so I have blacklisted the site. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

But there's multiple sites involved. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to list them, only two are blacklisted thus far. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Big, big backlog. Admins?

Resolved

Some help over at WP:AIV, please. I've never seen a backlog this big, but I'm fairly new here. In any case... ALI ^{nom nom} 16:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the admins have trimmed it down to just two, recent reports. Marking resolved. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It was indeed a pretty impressive backlog at the time, though! Amazing how this piles up, it was only left alone for less than an hour. All good now. ~ mazca ^talk 17:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it was a biggun. Many were Report was good at the time, but is now stale. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising.! –xeno^talk 17:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight Elections

The Arbitration Committee has determined that there is a need for additional oversighters and checkusers to improve workload distribution and ensure complete, timely response to requests. Beginning today, experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the Oversight or CheckUser permissions. Current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other. The last day to request an application is April 10, 2010. For more information, please see the election page.

For the Arbitration Committee - KnightLago (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Repeated POV-pushing by RevSpitz

RevSpitz has engaged in a pattern of POV-pushing edits despite numerous warnings. Most recent example is this one. Groupthink (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Two edits in the last three months hardly constitute "a pattern". No admin intervention appears necessary for an account that is barely active. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 00:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So it's OK for a user to log in once every one or two months and make nuisance edits, even if repeatedly warned not to? Groupthink (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and it turns out that this user has COI problems, too. Groupthink (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the COI concerns. The user hasn't caused enough disruption recently to warrant a long-term block, and a short term block for an editor with such sporadic activity likely would be fruitless. Try opening up a dialogue with RevSpitz on his talk page to being up the COI concerns. If this is indeed Donald Spitz's acct, then he has no place editing any of these articles. We need to address that personally on his talk page (ie. not in template format), so that if this continues without being addressed, then we have the grounds for an indef block. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 19:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger, wilco. Groupthink (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiRecontributer47

I've recently nominated an article by this individual (under his former username, User:Alexking321, which was changed this morning at his request) for AfD, so I'm already involved and probably not the best person to deal with this. I'm just concerned (and puzzled) by recent events, such as [51] this one, where he gives another editor a final warning (as a first warning, and for what I'm not precisely sure), and [52], where he adds a spurious semi-protection template to an article. Essentially, this individual has created two articles, Chana Shapiro and Ariel Israel Zeckler, and seems to feel he owns them. I've nominated the first at AfD. Will someone uninvolved have a look at this editor's brief history and do whatever seems necessary? It might just be some friendly guidance that's required, but the pattern of edits and the lack of communication concerns me. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I erred a bit -- it seems as though he contributed two more articles, one of which was deleted, and has a 12-hour block in his log that I forgot to mention. The ownership issue still applies, though. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I Have an issue with the username change, which I have just flagged up on the Talk page of the admin who did the change Nihonjoe (see here) - in summary a 'new' user called Alexking321 was crated 1 min after the user change and has been editing articles that the original user edited. Codf1977 (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this has nothing to do with a name change specifically. If he's abusing multiple accounts, I see no problem with blocking both accounts. Otherwise, there's nothing for me to do here. The username change was handled entirely appropriately. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the way the change of user name request was handeled was correct - my issue is with the underlying reason for his/her request in the first place. Sorry if my comment was misleading in anyway. Codf1977 (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly this is someone who has figured out how to game the system in order to avoid scrutiny. I've been seeing this more and more lately... an SPA account will pop up, make some edits, create some junk articles, request a rename... it's all just smoke and mirrors. It's pretty unlikely that someone else would randomly create another account named Alexking321. Both accounts should be blocked, Alexking permanently and the other one until he promises to stick to one account and stop creating promotional articles about non-notable people. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

They're not adverse to blatant copyright violation either File:Anne-Marie-Hutchinson.jpg --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just had to fix her vandalism on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chana_Shapiro here Codf1977 (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin have a look at this as both accounts are currently editing. Codf1977 (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WikiRecontributer47 Codf1977 (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination and disruptive editing

User:Duke53 has been generally uncivil and made no constructive edits in the past few months. He has been called a troll on several occasions, and in my opinion, for good reason. I've raised the issue at CCN and at WQA, but only one outside opinion has surfaced (asserting the incivility of Duke53 on a particular matter). The CCN discussion illuminates Duke's manner of treating fellow Wikipedians.

The most disturbing example of incivility was when he recently stated: (light gray background mine, emphasis his)

"I'd almost forgotten how adept you mormons are at playing the 'victim'( even after committing mass murder at Mountain Meadows!)".

He is vehemently trying to discredit or scare away User:Routerone and generally seems to despise Mormon editors. On a few occasions, Mormons have attempted to edit his userpage, removing elements they found offensive, though Duke always restored the offending content (see his userpage history). For further details, see his contribs. Please block or seriously warn him as you deem appropriate. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Duke53 is probably beating that one item to death. However, Mountain Meadows massacre makes for interesting reading for those who think the Mormons were all sweetness and light. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The offensive item, or one of them, was Duke53 posting an illustration currently in Temple garment, ostensibly to keep it from being deleted due to being "orphaned". There has apparently been some effort to take that photo out of Temple garment article on religious grounds. However, wikipedia's not-censored policy forbids that, provided the photo is what it says it is. That's kind of like the Muslims who want illustrations of Muhammad censored. Wikipedia doesn't do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Yeah, Duke53 is really pushing the WP:CIVIL boundary, which has led Routerone (talk · contribs) to do the same. It's all outlined at CCN, though no uninvolved admins have really assessed the situation. Duke53 has been blocked before, and warned a zillion times (see User talk:Duke53, but still treads the line between outright incivility and just not WP:AGF. tedder (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

•Hi tedder, a zillion times ? Wow! I had no idea it was that many. Since you brought up the fact that I've been blocked before, let's review that. I was blocked twice, both over the essjay incident (how long ago was that, BTW? ); apparently friends of essjay's didn't like my insolent attitude over their handling of the incident. Oddly enough, you have neglected to mention Routerone's two recent blocks, which have occurred during this calendar year. I hope that you're not saying that his behavior is due to my edits. Tsk, tsk. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The part I forgot to mention was the lds church's official, systemic denial of any mormon involvement in that cold blooded massacre, which continues, to some extent, to the present day. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Please do look into the repeated vandalism at my user page. I have wanted that taken care of for quite some time now. Censorship is NOT allowed at Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. Duke53 | ^Talk 03:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside the conflict for a moment, your characterization of Duke53 as a "troll" with "no constructive edits" seems completely inaccurate. He's got a good [53] number of mainspace edits, and a quick look at his contribs shows he's not a troll. Furthermore, he's allowed to put whatever he likes on his user page. Dayewalker (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've analyzed Duke53's last 500 contributions, dating back to the end of 2008. Here are some rough statistics for his mainspace contributions (counts may be off by a small number due to hand counting/classifying):

• Number of mainspace edits: 195
• Edits by topic: LDS (Mormonism) related = 69; Duke University related = 63; all others = 63
• Edits by edit type: revert/undo = 107; content deletion = 14; minor (cite tags, typos, wikignoming) = 63; significant content addition or constructive reworking = 12
• Breaking down reversions by topic:
  • Undo Duke-related vandalism (Dook, etc.) = 31
  • Undo drive-by removal of LDS temple garment images = 8
  • Revert non-vandalism (Duke-related topics) = 13
  • Revert non-vandalism (LDS topics) = 38
  • Other topic areas (reverting both vandalism and non-vandalism) = 17

I think a closer look at his contributions, particularly his interactions with other editors in both LDS-related topics and otherwise, would be merited -- not just a count of his overall edits. Also, for reference, note the RfC from 2007 that was closed when Duke53 got busy in real life and left WP for a few months.

Submitted for your consideration, alanyst ^/talk/ 05:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A little late to the ball aren't you, alanyst ? Making some time for a bit of tag teaming again ? I am impressed that you took all that time to 'analyze' my edits. To neutral admins: it might behoove you to take a look at alanyst's edit history and his uncanny knack of following me wiki-wide; he calls it watchlisting ... others have referred to it as 'stalking'.

As for that RfC, guess who started it ? Alanyst ! (another mormon) Coincidence, I think not. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the past I did keep an eye on your contribs and stepped in to try to resolve or defuse the conflicts you have gotten involved in. Several times I have helped resolve them in your favor or achieve a mutually satisfactory outcome. It has been a Sisyphean effort.

Incidentally, it should be no surprise, based on your contributions, that most of the editors complaining about your behavior are LDS; we bear the brunt of your hostility and contempt, apparently for no better reason than that we are members of a religion that you despise. But there has been no coordination as you imply; I simply visited my watchlist and was led here, on my own. alanyst ^/talk/ 06:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(on ANI and User talk:Duke53) Duke53 - Please consider this as a final warning on disruptive incivility towards other contributors to Wikipedia. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are core Wikipedia policy. We expect contributors here to treat each other in a collegial and adult manner. You are clearly not acting in a constructive, collegial, or friendly manner at the moment, and it's disrupting multiple locations on Wikipedia including ANI here and now. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion here on your and others' related behavior - in a collegial, adult, and civil manner. Please don't push the issue further. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The behavior of Routerone and other editors doesn't excuse Duke53's behavior (nor does Duke53's behavior excuse anyone else's). This really needs to stop. Duke53, why not concentrate on something not Mormon related right now? If you don't want to be blocked, you are going to have to avoid anything that even looks like a personal attack. Note that what you refer to as stalking is something we refer to as WP:Wikihounding. If you think someone is doing this, you should bring a case against them with diffs, not call them a stalker. Just as anyone unhappy with your userpage should do what is normally done in such instances, bring a case here. Dougweller (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

TY, Dougweller. Don't you think that it's also time to address the repeated personal attacks against me, as well ? It's gotten to the point that any lds or pro-lds editor has been allowed to say anything they feel about me with no fear of recrimination or official action taken against them (for example, I haven't seen any warning on this page to them about being blocked). Their 3RR violations, vandalizing of my user page and edit warring have been tacitly 'allowed' for quite some time now as well. What's the sense of having rules if there is an elite group that is exempt from following them ? Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And one of the editors you are probably talking about has complained on my talk page that I've ignored you and told them off, so since I've made everyone unhappy I must be doing something right. :) I haven't been following it that much, but I did warn Routerone for vandalising your talk page and was also involved in obtaining a short block for him for sock puppetry, so I don't agree that there is any elite group. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And I do thank you for that. But what I'm referring to is the repeated personal attacks that most admins seem to allow. Like it or not, there is a pattern of lds editors 'swarming' and tag teaming non-lds editors with reversions, personal attacks and false accusations ... admins seem reluctant to get involved with that. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing that happens here at Wikipedia could ever make me 'unhappy'; life's too short to worry about this stuff ... I like the basic premise of WP, but can't sit back idly while a group of editors make this their private playground to proselytize for their organization; at times some of these articles look like publications written and released by their general authorities. I sincerely thank you for your involvement. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk!

It's worth objecting to Duke53's veiled comment that the people who have trouble with his behavior are all mormon. Certainly myself and User:Baseball Bugs aren't. I'm sure there are more. Duke53's behavior is reprehensible no matter what "side" someone is on. Of course, Duke53 thinks I'm a terrible admin already, so take this with a grain of salt. tedder (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

" ... Of course, Duke53 thinks I'm a terrible admin already" And why wouldn't I ? I don't believe that admins should be able to pick & choose which vandalism incidents and 3RR violations they can ignore. Keep up the good work. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. Never mind that administrators should not use tools when they are involved. That's what WP:3RR and WP:RFPP are for- let outside administrators evaluate what is going on. I feel fairly secure administration of things, since both the wildly anti-mormon crowd (duke53) and the wildly mormon crowd (Canadiandy1 and his IPs) complain about me. tedder (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Context for those following along at home: Duke53 complaining at AN/EW, Duke53, angry I didn't take action at my talk page. The "3RR boy" screenshot in an astoundingly unreadable font was in response to the rejection on both my talkpage and AN/EW. tedder (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Angry ? Not hardly ... anybody who can get 'angry' about the events here needs anger management classes. Nothing that happens on a second-rate internet 'experiment' will ever get me angry; rather, I sit here and laugh at the antics at Wikipedia. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreadable ? perhaps you need glasses; that would explain why you allowed such an obvious 3RR violation to occur with no action. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's very hard to read, but obviously Tedder shouldn't have blocked Routerone as he's been involved with the article. The decision not to block but to close the 3RR complaint was made by user:Atmoz who could have blocked if he'd chosen to, but clearly decided not to block. You're complaining about the wrong Administrator. If either Tedder or I think someone on that page should be blocked we should bring it here (or to 3RR), not do it ourselves. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Violations of WP:AGF, WP:OWN, WP:COI, and WP:3RR by User:Beyond My Ken

I've been editing Wikipedia for years under IPs. I follow WikiProject Films. I saw that article Yesterday Was a Lie is noted as C-class with some accuracy issues. I read up and there was a deletion nom a few months ago. In the deletion nom, it was poined out by the nominater that there are contradictions in the articles "review" section. In the nomination discussion, Beyond (who singlehandedly controls the article) spoke up and said that he agreed there were "inconsistencies" and said that they were caused by some edit warring between himself and a sockfarm. He said that the article required cleanup by a third party. Since this time, the article has almost entirely been edited by him, but he hasn't fixed the errors. I point out that the errors mostly paint the movie in a less favorable light. I vivisted the article for the first time today to clean up these errors. Immediately Beyond jumped down my throat and started reverting. He violated 3RR. He placed a "suspected sock" tag on my IP address userpage with no evidence (I a;lready said he's welcome to checkuser me). He then got the page semi-protected, and reverted my constructive edits for the fourth time. I opened an account (this one), which he immediately edited the userpage as well and put a sock tag on it! I've tried to have reasonable talks with this man about the content of the article here here and here. All that accomplished was him ignoring me, calling me a "sock", refusing to address my specific questions about the article's accuracy, and - get this - saying that he will not "allow" the article to be edited by an IP or new account. "Allow" is the word he is using. This guy has some real ownership issues with this article. If you go thru and look you can see he's controlled this article for months (though he lies and says "a sockfarm" controls the article) and he looks like he's edited all the articles linked from it as well, so there's some real conflict of interest going on here. DivaOfDan (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so a reminder of the background here. Yesterday Was a Lie, and all the articles connected to it, were the subject of an attempt by a sockfarm to dominate and control their content. The farm has been blocked. The recent activity of the farm includes:

• creating an account - User:B-Wuuu - who linked all the existing blocked socks to his account, and attempted to give himself a "fresh start [54]
• attempting to report me for "Wikihounding", and carrying on the argument with an IP sock [55]
• creating a new account - User:Stoopach - who tried to insert unsourced personal information about the director (James Kerwin) and star (Chase Masterson} into their articles, then created numerous new accounts to try to delete my AN/I report about it and revert the deletions in those articles. [56]

I speculated at the time that all this new activity might be related to the upcoming release of the film on home video. A couple of days ago, an IP editor added innocuous information about the film's video release to the article.[57] Today, another IP editor from the same range attempted to edit the article back to something resembling the state it was in when the sockfarm had control of it -- downplaying negative material and highlighting positive stuff. [58] When confronted by me, the IP editwarred to keep the material in,[59] and refused my suggestions to discuss it on the talk page. .[60],[61] Shortly, User:EdJohnston semi-protected the page. Discuss continued with the IP, who created a new account User:DivaOfDan, and when became heated after I templated their talk page with a "suspected sock" template. That was perhaps precipitous of me, but I felt the evidence was good, considering the history, that this was another sock of Sorrywrongnumber.

In any event, this apparently pushed the new account over the edge. He's now called me an "asshole", a "Nazi with a God complex", a "douchbag" and some other things I can't recall at the moment.[62],[63],[64],[65]

It may be that I was wrong in my dealing with this person, but my suspicions were legitimate, and their conduct never improved and deviated from the sockfarm patter: same article, same argument, some kinds of edits, same MO. I think, although I may be wrong, that I offered enough affordances that if this was indeed an innocent editor unconnected with the sockfarm, they would understand my situation and my hesitancy and suspicion, and act accordingly, but that really never happened. This person has been fairly confrontational from the start, and never backed down. [66],[67],[68]

I would suggest that they be blocked for uncivility and disruptive editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC) (diffs to come shortly)

I can't speak for any sockfarm's but none of my edits downplayed anything, as can be seen in the diffs. My edits corrected inaccurate information that Beyond kept inserting into the article. He has never - not even now - addressed my specific points, just keeps talking about the sockfarm. This isnt about your sockfarm, man. It's about your ownership of an article that you are too close to. The bottom line is that he "agreed" (word he used) that the article had "inconsistencies" (word he used) and that it needed to be edited by fresh eyes. Yet when he didn't like the position that those fresh eyes brought, even though the position was simply factual, he immediately called the fresh eyes a sock and started warring. This man clealry has WP:COI with this movie for whenever reason. DivaOfDan (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh nice, anybody noticed this?!! Man worked on the film! Hows that for biased. what a class act - the guy has too many ANI's against him to count, and in one it looks like he tried to post the home address of the movie's filmaker?! AND he was a sockfarm himself to? Why is he still on Wikipedia please? This man is dangerous. DivaOfDan (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The "DivaOfDan" account seems suspicious. Only started editing in the last few hours and an early edit was [69]. Orderinchaos 05:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I already exaplined I just created the account a few hours ago because I page I was working on got semi-protected due to Beyond's ownership complex. And that early edit I mde was in response to Beyond making the same bad faith edit to my user page with absolutely no basis. DivaOfDan (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I don't expect everyone to wade through the whole history of this thing (and believe me, it's been going on for months -- the interminable nature of it is one of the things that has me on edge about any suspicious behavior), let me just say that the arguments being made here by DivaOfDan are exactly the same arguments brought up by the sockfarm everytime they bring me to AN/I! And isn't it intersting that this person, supposedly completely new to the problems surrouding Yesterday Was a Lie on Wikipedia, is able to dig up all those obscure things about me in a very short time?

You see, this is the kind of thing that raises my hackles and makes me think that everything is not all it seems to be, the kind of behavior that provoked me to template their page with a suspected sock notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Next time don't bother putting the sockpuppet template - which does about nothing anyway - and instead go straight to SPI. Tim Song (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is quacking way too loudly. Blocked indef as a sock of Sorrywrongnumber (talk · contribs). Tim Song (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I'll have to settle in for the long haul -- I'll create a user page with all the diffs on it so the next time this comes up I can just point to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not resolved at all. Just because you make up the fact that Im some sock of a sockfarm doesnt mean its triue. Go ahead and checkuser me. I got nothing to do with that stuff and my points are valid. This giuy is a loose cannon. So what, is anyone who doesn't like this guy a sock? 208.88.120.88 (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So here is the blocked editor, evading the block.

According to his last comment on my talk page, he seems certain that a checkuser will clear him of sockpuppetry -- but, of course, meatpuppetry is just as forbidden, and telling people to fuck off and piss off, and calling them assholes and a nazi with a god complex is generally enough to get one blocked in any case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And editing article about film's you made is also forbiden, meatman.208.88.120.88 (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And BTW Mr. Meatpuppet, how do you deinfe meatpuppet? Any editor whpo agreed with edits a previous editor made is automatically a meatpuppet? So any consensus = meatpuppetry? Bwasically anyone who disagrees with you is either a sock or a meatpuppet, eh? Nice. So it's impossible for anyone to legitimately disagree with your biased propaganda edits without them being a meatpuppet. Again man, you seriously need to STEP. BACK. Spend ome time with your family. Looks like you edit 24 hours a day on this thing. What, is stage management work in NY slow these days? Seriously how do you support your wife and 2 kids in NY if your on Wikipedia 24 7? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.120.88 (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This is kinda typical of the attitude of this editor, whether or not they're a sockpuppet or meatpuppet or whatever. I asked them -- with good reason, I think -- not to post to my talk page again, unless they were mandated to do so by Wikipedia policy, and the response I got was:

I'll post whenever and whereever I like as continuing content discussions are going on. You can always dleete. But that type of control issues, Ed, is why I called you a Nazi. That may work in your world of NY stage management but it doens't work in real life. [70]

So. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please block this IP for a while? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So convenient for you isn't it. I lose my cool, I admit, because you accuse me of totla bullshit when you know its total bullshit. So I lose my cool and then you can just change the whole subject to the fact that I lost my cool, rather than addressing the serious, serious bias issues at hand. Step away from the article. You're too involved. That's the bottom line, whether I'm blocked or not. Step away. Your cover is blown.208.88.120.88 (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that all this information is easily available through the handy link on the article talk page. Clicking on the 'Thoughts' link at User:Beyond_My_Ken yields Ed Fitzgerald and googling that name + 'Yesterday was a lie' shows the users involvement in the production as the first hit. Unomi (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Watch out Unomi - you say that and youre automatically a sock or a meatpuppet! Either agree with Ed or youll be blocked! 208.88.120.88 (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't work on the film: [71] (page down to where it says; "One more thing, and may I please never have to talk about this film") In fact, except for a short music video I co-directed for a friend of mine, which never got any airplay anywhere, I've never worked on a film in my life. I'd like to, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well then, we believe you just because you said that. Sure.208.88.120.88 (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't particularly care about what you believe at this point, but others might be interested in knowing the facts, you never know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Still conveniently avoiding all the fact-error issues I brought up in my edits huh Eddie. So if you didnt work on the film why is someone with your name on the film? Why have you singlehandedly controled the article for months? Why are you so defensive of simple fact edits to it? Why have you edited the articles of almost eveyrone who worked on the movie and even the articles about critics linked from the movies page!? Why did you try to post the address of the filmaker? There is not way you are going to convince anyone you have no involvement in this - the WP:DUCK aplies here. 208.88.120.88 (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You know what, scratch that I lost my cool again. Focus on the content. You still wont say what about my content edits are false and why you insist on keeping the page with wrong information (like the festival reviews ect.)208.88.120.88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC).

Nope. For you, that boat sailed a while ago, at least as far as I'm concerned. Maybe I'm the sensitive type, but you don't get to visciously attack me in public, and then expect me to play nice-nice with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

How convenient. That way you can ignore the facts. "For me"? What does that even mean? This isn't for me. This is for YOU. I dont care if you play nice; you already proved you cant when you started your ownership complex. This is for you, friend. You got one chance to prove you don't have a conflict of interest here, like people are starting to realize you do, yet you stay silent. I read the sock investigation against your sockfarm man, looks like you did the same thing there! When you were caught socking you stayed silent whenever you were asked if you were a sock. So your MO is that you stay quiet and shift the subject whenever you know you're caught. So basically we can take this as amdission of your bias.

Look friend You have an opportunity here to explain your clear bias but you won't. You hide behind "for you that ship has sailed." If I were you I'd start watching my own ass; your bias is showing through. By the way, since you said up there that "One more thing, and may I please never have to talk about this film" then why are you still obsessing over it? Right, I know it's because you have NOTHING to do with it. But because you don't like me personally youre not going to explain yourself. Guess what friend, your ship has sailed a long time ago too. Your cover is blown friend.208.88.120.88 (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone could wrap this up?

(out) OK, two short points to make here, and then I have to stop, even though I'm having such a good time:

1. Really, shouldn't 208.88.120.88 be blocked by now, just on the basis of his edits here? Tim Song blocked the other IP the editor used, but this one's still swinging away, being quite personal.

1. I just went over to IMDB, and realized that someone has altered the "Ed Fitzgerald" credit there to be not just someone in the art department, but an art department intern! I want to thank whoever did that, as it gave me the best laught of the night. I mean, I'm 55 years old, I've been working professionally in the theatre since I was 19, and two or three years ago I was supposedly an art department intern!!!. Priceless.

Anyway, could someone please block this person? The account's been blocked, the original IP been's blocked, this is obviously the same person, so this is outright and blatant block evasion - and this "discussion" has taken up much too much space. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so it was altered? Meaning you've been visitng that page in the past, huh? Wonder why since it has nothing to do with you, right? Well, I guess you would be offended if someone altered your credit to be an intern. Keep digging yourself in deeper. [attack redacted] 208.88.120.88 (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Also I should mension the account was blocked because of made up lies thrown at me by Beyond, and completely unverieifed and unconfirmed thru a checkuser. I could just as easily say your a sock Beyond and ask an admin to block you, right? Again, keep avoiding the real matters at hand, why don't you you're just prolonging the inevitable 208.88.120.88 (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

All for wrapping it up. Like Unomi (who Beyond will inevitably call a meatpuppet) point ed out, its easily verifiable that Beyond worked on the film - or at least that there is a strong likelihood he worked on the film, enough to warrant erring on the side of caution. Simple solution is to permanently block him from editing the article and associated articles that he's obsessed with owning. Allow third parties - not the sockfarm he hates so much - to make the factual corrections that Beyond already agreed to (and is now denying) were introduced because of Beyond's sockfarm edit warring with the other sockfarm. Reutrn neutraility to the article! for the love of all that is holy.208.88.120.88 (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have hardblocked 208.88.120.88 for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts. I've seen enough deception/harassment from this person from this ANI thread alone. –MuZemike 07:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - agreed. The personal comments are entirely unwarranted. Orderinchaos 11:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As a coda to this, the editor, now using the IP address User: 208.88.120.87 spent 40 minutes last undoing every edit I've made in the last few days before being blocked. I beleive all these vandalistic edits have now been undone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I hardblocked 208.88.120.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) this morning as proxies. Tim Song (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems clear now that this is indeed Sorrywrongnumber - no one goes off the deep end like that without some prior history driving it. I assume he changed ISPs, which is why he was so sure that a checkuser would "clear" him.

I'm not looking forward to whatever his next move is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

An AFD I am involved in is completely infested with socks. The main account User:Tasbian was blocked as an enforcement measure to do with the Arbitration case into Scientology. He has since come back many times and attempted to build an empire around a new list, which is the subject of the AfD (which, I emphasise, has nothing to do with Scientology, although IMO still falls under disruptive editing more generally), and has harangued (under his many identities) voters of all persuasions. Following the relevant SPI, his accounts were blocked, but he's created new ones and consistently edited from IPs. Now he's taken to messing with votes.

If the AfD were any other article I'd have semi'd it, but given it is a community discussion seeking community opinion, I've brought it here instead - what the hell do we do? Orderinchaos 05:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that AfD's 7-day clock runs out in a few hours. I see there are already notes about the socking (and blocking of them) there, so I'd wait to see how well closer ignores that mess and figures out the valid users' comments. DMacks (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Now closed as no consensus (User:Stifle (notified)). If you think the socks affected that, talk with the closer, file WP:RFD, and/or get some evidence of un-noticed socks that contributed (and may have been inappropriately considered as viable !votes). DMacks (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, yeah...drv not rfd. DMacks (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I based my closure on established users, and there were both numbers and arguments on both sides of the discussion. (In fact, the keep side was stronger, if anything.) I'm happy with the closure; you are of course welcome to file a DRV if you disagree. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I add this?

Can I add Talk:Marina_Orlova#addition to the article now? I was told I needed to the quotes from the show in both languages which I have now done.--Sinistrial (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am asking here because last time I was told I would probably be blocked if I added it again!--Sinistrial (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If a consensus to add the material has been reached, you're not going to be blocked, but a quick glance at the talk page leads me to believe that consensus has not been reached. —DoRD (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

They have all stopped editing it though.--Sinistrial (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User:78.60.71.164

This person is making TONS of vandalizing edits. There are numerous pages being vandalized and I have tried reverting it and the clue bot reverts it back. This user is blatantly falsifying pages and is purposely changing factual info to made up and fake info. In other cases they are taking articles without errors and purposely adding errors to them. There is so much vandalism I don't even know where to begin. One person alone cannot possibly revert back all of the damage and the clue bot is not allowing reverts of all the damage done. This user has already been warned more than once on their talk page and has not quit. This is out of control and clearly intentional vandalism to numerous articles. Can someone please stop this?74.194.176.82 (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have given a final warning to 78.60.71.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and will keep an eye on his/her contributions. In the future this should be taken to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism where it will be acted upon more quickly. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. What about the tons of vandalism they did to numerous articles? How do I revert it? Clue bot reverted it back when I tried to fix it. There is a lot of vandalism that needs to be fixed.74.194.176.82 (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It has all been fixed. Unfortunately, sometimes undoing vandalism is itself mistaken as vandalism by the bot when it comes to anonymous editors. Evil saltine (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thank you very much for your help.74.194.176.82 (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandal or clueless? Or a child, perhaps?

Could someone with better people skills than I have a word with Zac001 (talk · contribs)? Woogee (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The very first edit he made indicated that he expected people to want to revert him. That shows a bit more self-awareness than your average child making bad edits, and smacks of a vandal pretending to be a child to delay a block. I know I'm supposed to assume good faith, but the pattern of the edits indicates a troll, at least into the preteen range. A child legally perhaps, but not in any way that would make a difference in how we treat this. Willing to accept a good argument for another explanation, but I'm inclined to "Only Warning" him and report him to WP:AIV if he ignores it. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Gotta Agree with Shadow on that one.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Warned. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Outing edit that should probably be deleted

Resolved

Can an admin please delete this edit and possibly semi-protect the talk page until the end of DIREKTOR's block? IPs (presumably of some blocked rivals in the unending Balkan Article War) have been leaving taunts and removing legit talk page commentary as well. The most recent looked like an attempt at outing, which is what prompted this post. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the diff from the page, please contact oversight. Nakon 01:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Just realized you meant that you had removed my link to the diff. Sigh... I'll try there. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 01:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Reported, and both problematic edits have been expunged and a block levied against the offending IP. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 01:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hutaree Vandal

Can We block this ip 93.86.123.183 it keeps removing text From Hutaree and traces to Serbia. I am inlcined to think it is a Proxy.Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No reason to suspect a proxy that I can see. I've warned the user. You can't block an without giving *any* warnings. The most recent edit looks like a content dispute, not vandalism. An attempt should be made to resolve this on the article talk page before leaping straight to blocking. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, notified user per the guidelines for this page. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Books12 creating inappropriate page

Books12 (talk · contribs) is apparently a bored kid, home sick from school according to one of his now deleted edit summaries, who has decided to have some fun by using Wikipedia as his personal webhost, creating several inappropriate articles. One of these, It's All Good To Me has been deleted four times in the past couple of days. A well meaning editor moved a copy of the page to Books12's user space as User:Books12\It's All Good To Me in the hope that he would restrict his playing to there, but today he created Orlando's Dream, so it hasn't stopped him. I've left yet another warning warning on his talk page but I suspect he's just going to ignore it, as he's done previously. Perhaps some administrator intervention is warranted to get this editor back on track. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears I should have waited a few more minutes.[72] --AussieLegend (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Behavior of Breein1007 making fun of user who cant speak english well

There is this user Ani medjool, he cant speak English very good. So this Breein1007 (talk · contribs), not only follows him around and reverts all his edits, but also makes posts at talkpages making fun of Ani medjools english: [73] [74] [75] I'm sure there are many more posts by Breein1007 just like these, but these were all I could find right now.

The edits are at Arab-Israel articles which I think some sort of general sanction apply, and I'm sure this is unacceptable behaviour. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please notify the user first. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, we are a broad church, and should be tolerant of different cultures; however, this is the English language Wikipedia, and could reasonably expect a basic level of communication in the English language; in this case, I don't see any "making fun", and I don't see any attempt to reach out to help this editor. That's unhelpful, but it's not an admin issue. Please try to talk to both parties rather than bring it here. Rodhullandemu 01:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) If Breein1007 is reverting edits because Ani medjool's command of English is not sufficient to provide high-quality English text, that's one thing, and legitimate (although the nice thing to do would be to fix the edits to bring them up to snuff), but I agree that making fun of Ani medjool's writing on talk pages by using pidgin English is uncivil and uncollegial, and he or she should knock it off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he's clearly mimicking a bad english writing style to mock the user. He should be blocked given his other recent trolling. This has nothing to do with the other user being able to communicate and has everything to do with this user following him around mocking him.--Crossmr (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We have to apply some good faith when it comes other user's command of the English language. Afterall, we put up with American English. raseaC^{talk to me} 01:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu - Here is a randomly selected talk page comment by Breein1007:

"My knowledge of Arabic doesn't make me anything close to an etymologist. :) Anyway, based on the etymology, wouldn't it be appropriate to have the French word as well? I don't know what the word is, otherwise I'd put it in myself." [76].

Given that is their normal way of writing, this is making fun:

How know we that they no speek arab? It not for us to make guess like this because we no have reliable source to inform about this. So then we must to assume yes they speek arab.

This is making fun:

You" no make any "sense" when you post "your" comment like these one.

This is making fun:

But I only agree with you in you say that we need article on Israel steal everything in their "culture", "cuisine", "people", "language", "weather", etc! You bring up idea here so why I do not able to support? If you no want people agree with you then please no bring up ideas in wrong place.

They should stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit to a certain temptation to make fun of this whole conflict, as it mostly about middle eastern food, not any of the more relevant issues in the complex relationship between Israel and it's neighbors. (indeed there is already an entry at WP:LAME regarding hummus) Of all the ridiculous nationalistic arguments we have on Wikipedia, the ones about whose culture "owns" which foods are among the most ridiculous. That being said, clearly Breein is being deliberately nasty and should cut it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is particularly unclassy move, and one that goes against our general policies on user interaction and the proscriptions of the ArbCom I/P sanctions. Unomi (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the reporting user failed to notify, as required, the user they reported, but invited the third party to comment. Notification now done. —DoRD (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to assume good faith and say that he is simplifying his words in order not to use big words that will confuse the other user. And a certain amount of frustration has to be allowed for (if the misspelling "speek" was intentional). I would suggest that cautioning the user would be sufficient. Blocks are not for punishment, after all.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, he's clearly being scornful about the other editor's poor English skills. However, I agree that a warning would be sufficient if he cuts it out from now on. Edit: so I've done that, marked this resolved.Black Kite 07:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a slightly different take on this situation, having fixed some of Ani Medjools previous edits, and taking a closer look at his contributions aftwerwards. Since I think this requries admin acdtion as well, I'm unmarking as resolved. Feel free to re-close it if you think no further action is needed.

I agree that Breein 1007 is likely mocking Ani Medjood, and that this needs to stop. But what is being missed is that more than likely, Ani Medjool is not a new user, and is only pretending to have poor English skills.

He is using an exaggerated form of what he imagines a non-native speaker would use, but such a charade is difficult to keep up, and he slips up here and there, enough for the facade to be transparent. For example, perhaps the clearest, "signature" of AM's edits is improper use of the verb "To be", incorrectly writing things like "They all be by editor" instead of "they all are by ..." , or "this be disruptive edit" instead of "This is ...". but elsewhere, he lapses , and shows that he does do know the proper usage, as in here: [77] - "Israel is..", "Za'atar is not native".

Other examples include improper spelling of "Photo" - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMarkook&action=historysubmit&diff=351662249&oldid=292617019 - but here [78], which is earlier, he correctly spells it, consistently, several times, as well as here:[79]

Looking into AM's editing history, there are curious inconsistencies, and ample evidnce that this is not a new account which is quite capable of writing proper English. Consider his 3rd article edit, with the perfectly correct edit summary "added sourced information about adoption of arab food by Israel", or even his very first: "add more sourced information ..." - but a few weeks later, he has suddenly "forgotten" how to use the past tense: [80] -"this is source information" but still knows how to properly use "to be" - "the proof is shown" - (sadly, even this knowledge was lost a few weeks later :()

His first edit to wikipedia, BTW, includes a perfectly formatted "cite news" template, and is written in grammatically correct English: "Even in the United States, a country traditionally considered an ally of Israel, news media like the Santa Fe New Mexican state that..." His second edit is not just a revert, but one made with an edit summary that uses the uniquely Wikipedia-ish shorthand of "rv" for a "revert"

"Early" in his WP editing carrer, he knew how to properly address other users, even correctly embedding thier user name in edit summaries with the User: designation, as in here, but later, there was a curios regression to calling and addressing users as "the breein user" [81]

or consider this edit, (by an IP which is clearly the same user, as this edit shows) : "i did not vandalize. please do not accuse me of such things. vandalism is when destruction or damage is done under false pretense. i did not destroy or damage your page under false presence. other users have now notified you of your violation of the revert rule, so why do you not call their action vandalism? do you have something against me and my edits? " - is this someone with poor English skills? It is obvious that if AM is capable of producing the previous, that he is only pretending when he write something like "Breen user, please stop personal attack of me by patronize me bad english, as this be disruptive edit too. This be discuss of article, not "make fun of Ani Medjools english". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzu Zha Men (talk • contribs) 20:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you convinced me, and you've made a record incase anyone holds that warning against B1007. Many thanks for your analysis. That being said, I would suggest we reclose.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tzu Zha Men for that analysis. I too suspect that Ani medjool is faking his poor English, as well as his online identity as an Arab. There were mistakes in his Arabic language text on his user page. I noted this in this edit to his talk page, which prompted him to remove the text in question [82] in October last year.

Based on this linguistic evidence and that provided by Tzu Zha Men above, I think Ani Medjool is a troll who is faking an Arab identity to create disruptions at articles in the I-P area subject area. Many a reasoned debate has been derailed by his inflammatory and nonsensical interventions which often to do more harm to the position for which is allegedly advocating. I don't believe he is sincerely advocating for these positions, but is instead trying to make other editors who are, seem ridiculous by using extremist, often racist commentary and reasoning. This discredits those using policy based arguments to argue for essentially the same things (a kind of smear by association situation).

Can anything be done about this? Because its getting really really tiresome. Tiamut^talk 09:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What you're describing is called a straw puppet, the use of an account to "argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side." ← George ^talk 09:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of months back, I went back in Ani Medjools editing history and I myself noticed that he had a better english in the past, so there are several people that have noticed this. But I do not know if he is faking an "Arab identity". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this the same Breein1007 that flamed me for politely telling Gilisa I couldn't understand what he meant by "And how exactly did it cause to that my post removed?". How consistent of him. Factomancer (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha! maybe we need a CU on Breein1007 and Ani medjool. Actually it would make perfect sense. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Highly doubt it anyone could pretend so well, let alone keep it up for months. It could be another user though. Also, might want to add this to your diffs. ← George ^talk 10:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that when Breein1007 first came to Wikipedia he immediately started moving articles and telling me that "as usual you are using" [83] its pretty obvious that the Breein1007 account was not his first account at Wikipedia and he has not told us his previous account. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would indicate that he was an editor here before, but not necessarily that he is Ani medjool. Also, came across another rather uncivil comment towards Ani medjool. ← George ^talk 11:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I agree that Ani medjool's English is difficult to understand (about the worst I've seen on Wikipedia), but there's no need to be uncivil towards them. It's also possible that they're using Google translate or some similar tool to translate from their native language into English. ← George ^talk 10:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that there would have to be some sort of consensus that Ani Medjools (does that name mean anything to a speaker of Arabic, btw?) was actually faking it before any action could be taken. I think that would be beyond the scope of AN/I because of the length and need for evidence judging. Perhaps a RFC/U would be in order?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe "ani medjool" means something like "I'm anonymous" in Arabic, though I could be mistaken. ← George ^talk 11:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to see this thread really get into it, especially as it is rather stale by now and it might be wise to renotify the original involved parties. Is there anything that admins can do to help the situation now, in the opinion of commentators?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Problems surrounding the editing behaviour of both Ani medjool and Breein1007 have been ongoing for months now. Perhaps allowing people more time to present and look at evidence of their disruptions would be appropriate? What do you we gain by simply closing his thread and allowing both to continue on their merry way? For those of us who like to make productive contributions to the discussions and article content in this subject area, having users operating as socks or strawpuppets who make inappropriate commentary is a big problem, not a little one, to be swept under the rug.

To be clear though, it certainly should not be you (i.e. Wehwalt) that takes any admin action in this editing arena, per your pledge when you were elected to adminship that you would refrain from doing so if elected due to concerns raised about your partiality. Tiamut^talk 12:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What I would propose, or if you prefer, suggest, is that you start a new entry here at AN/I clearly setting forth what the problem is with these two editors and what you believe should be done about it. Right now, you're probably not getting the full input you want from admins because this is well up the page, under a fairly misleading heading compared with what is being discussed, and which was marked "resolved" for many hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me like Supreme Deliciousness wants to have a CheckUser done to see if Breein1007 and Ani medjool are the same person. I highly doubt they are, and I doubt that a clerk would ever endorse it. Out of curiosity Wehwalt, does a CheckUser check if two specified accounts have the same IP address, or does it check if a given editor has ever edited as any other account with the same IP address? I actually think it's more likely that one or both would be separate sock puppets of banned users, rathen than sock puppets of each other. ← George ^talk 12:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

When Bree first turned up, AM tried encouraging SD to raise an SPI to identify Bree with all and any of four accounts that various of us thought were unlikely. However, Nableezy did come up with some suggestions for who Bree is that we thought rather more convincing. See the thread at User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2010/January#SPI. I can't remember whether an SPI was ever raised in the end. The addresses identified for Bree are in another country from that above identified for AM.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont think Breein is either of the accounts I named back them. Im not even convinced that there was a prior account for Breein. nableezy - 18:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have to suggest that you ask someone who is more familiar with the intricacies of checkuser than I am. But certainly, you may wish to open a WP:SPI investigation. Regarding Tiamut's comment, I am not proposing to take any action myself. I simply offer my advice, for whatever it is worth. Whether that pledge (which is entirely self enforced) is still valid, given a year and a half since my RfA and an ArbCom election in which I secured a majority of those expressing a preference despite my refusal to give a further pledge, is a question for another day.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Such accusations and conjectures should be avoided. I find it very hard to believe that there is any connection between the WP identity of AM and Breein1007, such connection seem to be as nothing more than circumstantial-at most. But I do find it peculiar that AM choosed not to comment on this ANI even though the AN/I was opened on his behalf. I also don't think that AM faked his Arab identity, at least there is no real evidence for it. Anyway, only time will tell who he is.--Gilisa (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ani medjool hasn't commented here because I blocked him shortly after this thread was opened for moving an article against consensus. Therefore nobody should draw any inferences based on his lack of participation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Odd that Breein1007 hasn't responded either, but the more I look into their edit histories, the more I'm convinced that there's almost no way that they're the same person. If anything, based on a history of poor grammar, I would bet that Ani medjool is the same as several "throw away" accounts from late 2008 who also edited articles on Arab foods (especially Hummus). I didn't see that any of those accounts was banned though, which makes me guess that they just lost their password and weren't really sock puppeting (which is why I haven't filed an SPI on the issue). ← George ^talk 04:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very odd, considering that this AN/I was submitted on a religious holiday when I certainly will not have the opportunity to comment. What a shocker. Breein1007 (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, didn't realize there were religious holidays that precluded using Wikipedia. Regardless, chag samayach! ← George ^talk 05:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess that says something about your knowledge of Jewish holidays then! Maybe you should explore some Wikipedia articles about them if it interests you. I was not able to use the computer or any other electricity for approximately 49 hours from Monday night to Wednesday night. Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss it. I am still slightly confused why this AN/I is open? If someone wants to a) submit a sockpuppet investigation about me b) submit a report against ani_Medjool c) submit another report against me d) discuss any other issues, then go ahead. The topic discussed here was resolved, and I don't appreciate the gang coming to this page and throwing in their comments about other issues to fuel the fire. Breein1007 (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Draža Mihailović article

Resolved

 – All edit-warriors blocked.  Sandstein  17:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I appear to be completely unable to keep sourced information in the Draža Mihailović article. A group of Serbian users (namely User:BoDu and User:FkpCascais) got together and edited-out everything they did not like about the article [84], afterwards simply edit-warring until their version remains on top. No matter how many sources I bring forth, no matter what I do on the talkpage, there is no way to convince these users to stop with the POV vandalism and leave the sources alone. I've also come under personal attack. [85][86] I recently finally decided to report User:FkpCascais for this [87], he has been blocked for a week but is still demanding that I restore his edit - I have no doubt he will resume as soon as he is able. User:BoDu is still here however, and has once again begun edit-warring the disruptive edit into the article. [88]

I am talking about this edit. The text has been radicalized to the extreme. Not only are the edits contrary to sources, not only do they delete sourced information, they also actually alter quoted historical documents, discriminate against professional scholarly sources on the basis of ethnicity and ethnic sentiment, destroy the neutrality of the text by incorrectly utilizing ideological labels in a childish POV manner, and generally ruin the quality of the text with appalling grammar and syntax. Nothing helps, it honestly seems like there is no way to keep the sources in there. I'm frankly at a loss. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Brittanica claims that this issue is disputed. Serious historians such as Walter Roberts, Matteo Milazzo, Lucien Karchmar, Simon Trew, Heather Williams etc, claim that Mihailovic was a resistance fighter until the end of World War II. Therefore, it is clear that Wikipedia must not claim that Mihailovic was a quisling. BoDu (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The above is simply not true. :P None of these authors actually oppose the ones deleted from the article, the user is merely playing word games around the term "resistance leader". Draža Mihailović was in fact a resistance leader that collaborated with the Axis. Britannica is a misquoted tertiary source and refers to the legitimacy of post-war events. This is not at a dispute at all, but an attempt to edit out information personally disliked by the user. It may be useful to note that this matter had been brought up before, and that in blocking User:FkpCascais, Black Kite specifically listed this edit as one of the prime causes of the block, citing "exceedingly obvious" disruption. [89]

In either case sourced information is being removed for weeks now. Admin attention is sorely needed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Enough. There is a good faith content dispute there. This is not the forum, though certainly an admin may want to keep an eye on the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, there is actually no content dispute at all. The matter was plainly not even investigated properly, and the silly listing of obviously fake sources above has unbelievably managed to end all hope of assistance. The matter is very, very simple. Two users do not personally like the sourced information so they keep removing it and edit-warring over it without any listed references whatsoever. This is the most ridiculously obvious case of sources removal, yet there seems to be no alternative but to try and edit-war the sources back.

Unbelievable, anyone out there can remove five scholarly university publications and the text they support if he's just willing to edit-war enough about it. Good to know, next time I want to force an alteration into an article, I won't be so stupid as to spend weeks on research. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

1) A few months ago I read several works on an issue, I did the research, I explored the position of the scientific community. It lasted a few weeks. 2) I posted the information in the article, listing five scholarly university publications as sources. 3) Two users arrived and removed it, then edit-warred to keep the information out. 4) I reported the matter on WP:ANI, nobody bothers with it, as we can all see.
How do I enter sourced information in Balkans articles of enWiki? Why do I even bother with sources and policies? What is the point of listing references in articles? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The content removals look like fairly blatant POV edit warring to me. I've blocked BoDu for 24 hours for WP:3RR and given them formal notification of WP:DIGWUREN. As the two edit-warriors are both now blocked there seems to be little point in protecting the article as well, but this can certainly be considered if disruption resumes when the blocks expire. Hope this helps. EyeSerene^talk 16:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur. I've now also blocked DIREKTOR, who has made an additional revert subsequent to your block of BoDu, thus breaking WP:3RR. I am also marking this as resolved given that all involved editors are now blocked.  Sandstein  17:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Uff, maybe I should have protected the article. You can't win some days; I assumed he realised he was right on the edge of 3RR which was why he came here... EyeSerene^talk 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

EyeSerene, Sandstein and Wehvalt, don't you think that it is clear that Mihailovic's role in World War II is disputed issue? If so, please could you revert the edits to last revision. BoDu (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, one of Wikipedia's finest contributors to the articles on the Balkans, which are appallingly bad in general, is being hounded out of the project because AN/I is like the Coliseum. Most posters here know nothing of the topic matter concerned; they just want blood. Anybody's. Drama whores. This point has been raised again and again and again, but has never been addressed. There is no forum on Wikipedia to which you can turn for expert arbitration to resolve the problems DIREKTOR has attempted to draw your attention. If he leaves, as other good contributors have done through sheer frustration, the encyclopedia will be a far poorer place.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Here comes the fanatic Slovenian Alasdairgreen27 (a close frienf of banned Direktor) with patetic commentaries. He has just written on Direktors' talkpage that Wikipedia is edited and - most importantly - administered by teenagers, for whom the niceties of encyclopedic content are irrelevant. He should be punished for this offense toward all the mature, serious and honest administrators.Luigi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.234.24.246 (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked for nationalist battlegrounding. AlasdairGreen27, WP:ANI is not a forum for resolving content disputes, as DIREKTOR should have known. All admins can do is address conduct problems such as edit wars.  Sandstein  05:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User Carrot top25 continues to upload copyrighted material

User:Carrot top25 continues to upload copyrighted material, despite warnings and attempts at dialog.--Svgalbertian (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for repeated copyvios after being warned many times not to. –MuZemike 03:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks and accusations of article ownership, vandalism

Hello. I am a new editor who has been working to improve the article Not Myself Tonight. The article was in very bad shape and I made some major improvements to it yesterday ([90]). Later, some unsourced infomation, original research and other factors were added to the article that made it messy (addition of a producer's "nickname", Jamal Jones, and introduction of a poor sentence structute [91]) by User:Lil-unique1 and unreliable sources were added too ([92]) from User:Candyo32. I reverted both changes ([93])([94]) and made some other improvements to the article.

All of my edits were then reverted by Lil-unique1 ([95]), meaning that the unreliable sources, unsourced nickname, poor sentence structure etc returned. I reverted the changes ([96]) and left a warning template on his talk profile - I chose the "addition of unsourced material" template as one of the many that I could have used ([97]). Candyo32 then reverted the improvements again ([98]), so I left him the same talk message ([99]). Candyo32 voiced some concerns and we engaged in a civil conversation on our talk pages (this can still be seen there), but this user still reported me for vandalism ([100]).

After this claim was dismissed by the ruling admin, a rude and scathing attack was posted on my wall by Lil-unique1, in which some accusations were levelled at myself and my editing motives and the user tried to explain why his addition of original research should be ignored, despite the fact it contradicts the sources ([101]). For the record, I am not a "fan-based editor", claiming to own the article and/or "Christina Aguilera fan"; I am a keen editor who improved the article from its lowly state here [102]. Other contributions, which pass Wiki policy, have been added by other users and I have not reverted these. I look forward to seeing the outcome of this case. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've notified Lil-unique1 and Candyo32 (because they may also be involved) of this thread. This looks like a content dispute to me, and that's not something that administrators have any remit to adjudicate. However, we can address policy and behavioural violations. A number of editors - mainly KingOfTheMedia, Lil-unique1 and Candyo32 - have been reverting. This needs to stop. The WP:3RR threshold is a bright line, and crossing it for anything other than obvious vandalism or WP:BLP issues always attracts a block. If the article wasn't currently at AfD I'd protect it for a few days to let the dispute cool down and give editors a chance to discuss their content differences on the talk page (per the suggestions listed at WP:DR and the good practice described at WP:BRD). As it is however we'll have to rely on goodwill and self-restraint; I'd strongly advise all editors to leave each others edits alone and try to work out their dispute on the talk page. The spirit as well as the letter of WP:3RR will be applied to any further reversions. I'd also advise against any discussion of editor's motives for contributing; we comment on content, not on the contributor, and in the absence of compelling reasons to think otherwise we assume we're all here to improve Wikipedia. One last point: KingOfTheMedia, it might help to bear in mind that there are many reasons why edits are removed, particularly with new contributors who are unfamiliar with our numerous content policies and guidelines, and it may be that talk-page consensus determines some of your edits to have been inappropriate for sourcing or other reasons. It's sometimes best to propose edits on talk pages first to gauge consensus and solicit advice; it can help to avoid these sorts of situations. EyeSerene^talk 10:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention to KotM that (if you're not already aware) we have something called "the Christina Aguilera vandal", and it's possible that in some wise your edits resembled this individual's "work". (I haven't looked into any of the particulars of this dispute, save for what's written here, so I don't know; I -DO- know, however, that I've seen plentiful mentions of their shenanigans on various noticeboards, so clearly they've been a problem.) GJC 17:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Apologies i've only just seen the notice on my page. I joined the article and edited it to make it more suitable and ato match the editing standards of other major pop song articles. I agree that perhaps a mass revert was not required however i've noticed that the different between my first edit and KotM's was that i altered the sentance structure. at no point did the user making this complaint talk to me on my discussion instead he/she has accused me of editing in an inappriate manor and left a warning template on my page without justification. With reference to Jamal Jones.... that is not Polow da Don's nickname, rather it is his proper name. Polow da Don is his nick name and is attributed to him for his production's. It is normal practise to list a song-writer by their actual name (as this is what they are registered as with song agenicies like BMI repertoire, ASCAP and Songfile) and then by their producer name when they produce something. I feel this is a little over-the-top and is simply experienced editors and new ones getting off on the wrong starting terms. In the end we were all trying to make the article better but KotM is coming accross as assuming WP:owenership of the article as he keeps reverting things back to the way he wrote them. And like GJC has pointed out the editing is somewhat similar to that of the 'Christina Aguilera Vandal' which is why i was concerned. I believe KotM is trying to retaliate against myself and Candy32 because Candy32 reported KotM on the vandalism noticeboard to try and get him blocked but it was revoked by admin who said the notice was on the wrong notice board. In future i will be more careful about making reverts and double check what i'm reverting. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Lil-unique1 for your helpful response. I see the AfD has now ended and the article seems to have stabilised (as far as an article about an upcoming event can), so hopefully there will be no further disruption. Obviously I can't comment on the content - that's for you and the other editors to agree on - but your undertaking to use reverts sparingly is welcome. Hopefully the other editors will too. One final point: both you and Candyo32 used your rollback during the dispute ([103] and [104]). Because it was only once each it's not worth making a big deal about, but I'd be remiss if I didn't remind you that rollback is only for "undoing blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense" (WP:ROLLBACK). All the best, EyeSerene^talk 08:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Mike Arcuri

Moved from WP:AIV by ⇦REDVERS⇨ 08:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Mike Arcuri (Congressman) section. I hope I am reporting this correctly. I am an occasional contributor to the page referenced and have a very hard time making edits in this system but try. I have noticed that the "Controversy" sections of the Mike Arcuri Wikipedia page has been almost continuosly cleaned of all Mr. Arcuri's controversial activity. He is a figure of suspicion locally and seems to have people who occasionally remove the "controversy" section, most usually at or around election time, which is approaching. In the recent past I have reposted the "controversies" and even added citations and sources but these too are removed, and recently I WAS BANNED AS IF I WERE THE VANDAL. Can we find some sort of way to protect the article as this is just shameful activity I presume on the part of Mr. Arcuri or his sympathizers. Knowing him well I can tell you that they cannot STAND any criticism and will go to great lengths to hide, or personally lash out at anyone who dares criticize this man. I am therefore asking for some help from Wiki editors that can handle the problem with more aplomb than I can. As you see I can barely keep up with the rate at which they vandalize the page and the citiations that I searched very hard to find that support the "criticisms". Additionally, I note that other items that would make Mr. Arcuri appear in a "negative" light such as his bare win over his last contesting candidate in 2008 have been completely removed from the article. Can we get a little help from you guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.50.152 (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The controversy section isn't cited. Please use Wikipedia's citation practices (i.e. ref tags) to cite your contributions, then it would be a lot easier to defend your position. SGGH ^ping! 09:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

To ANI: I do see some POV content in Arcuri's favor, and some edit warring has been happening in the article.

To 67.249.50.152: Realistically, it takes quite a bit of experience with wikipedia editing process to operate in a contentious article like this, because 1) the article is a biography of a living person, so criticism will tend to get removed unless documented to a rather high standard (see WP:RS for verifiability guidelines, and WP:WEIGHT about assessing relevance); 2) there isn't that much editing work being done on the article, so talkpage discussion is sparse and there's not likely to be much help from other editors; 3) your editing may have genuine neutrality problems which are being legitimately pushed back; and 4) if someone is trying to tilt the article in Arcuri's favor, they are probably more practiced than you at the tactics of such things, so you'll have a hard time getting things straightened out. The usual remedy is a request for comment to get more community input; but again, before you do that, you should make a persuasive case for your editing on the talkpage, and making that case takes experience. Your best bet is probably to abandon the article and edit less controversial topics for a while, til you get the hang of this place. Remember don't panic, there is no deadline, so keep cool. One of the most valuable skills of an editor here is being able to walk away from conflict. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveler's Dream

Some (preferably admin) eyes may wish to pay attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveler's Dream as there seems to be some massive off-wiki canvassing and possible hostilities and off-topic banter going on there. Regards, –MuZemike 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering it was within a few hours of being a full week, in the interests of reducing acrimony I did a non-admin close as "no consensus to delete", since credible policy-based arguments had been made both ways. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is a non-admin closure appropriate for this case, given that it has shown up here at ANI? I think an admin should probably weigh-in here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC).

If there's been canvassing, it should be closed by an admin. Dlohcierekim 17:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure "reducing acrimony" is a good reason to pre-emptively close as a "virtual keep." The arguments advanced by the page creator seem particularly weak when you actually visit the links and discover that none of the linked references mention the band, aside from a few playlist entries for a local radio station. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, my feelings about the sourcing arguments were probably influenced by being the creator of Atwater-Donnelly, and the trouble I had digging up good sourcing for it. I still don't see a firm consensus to delete Traveler's Dream, but if there's an admin who disagrees, I won't quibble. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I've undone your closure to let an admin take a look. No offense intended, I'd just rather let the AfD run to completion, rather than concluding there is no consensus a few hours early just after some more unbiased eyes have been brought in. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Closing now - may take some time :) EyeSerene^talk 08:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Closed as delete. EyeSerene^talk 10:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Single-purpose account Dooiney

Dooiney (talk · contribs) is currently incorrectly fixing baseball-related articles, changing the capitalization incorrectly per the Manual of Style. He/she seems to be a single-purpose account created just to change the capitalization of a player's position incorrectly. I propose that he/she be warned to stop or be blocked. Comments? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

They've been warned. Changes like Dooiney have been making might be considered good faith edits, if mistaken ones. But if after they are warned that they are making a mess, they continue, that can be considered willful disruption and can be treated as vandalism, and acted on accordingly. -- Atama頭 16:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User: Snow storm in Eastern Asia

I think user Snow storm in Eastern Asia needs attention from an admin.

Snow storm in Eastern Asia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

William Avery (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That isn't their password (I've tried it to check) but the edits are... odd. Possibly hacked into? I've disabled it just for three hours to enable us time to work out what is going on without further damage being risked. SGGH ^ping! 10:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've rolled back all their odd edits. It looks to me like a frustrated user's retirement-explosion. SGGH ^ping! 11:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a user I know well from a number of railway-related articles, and their edits had always been perfectly reasonable until this happened. Could it be a horribly misguided April Fool joke? Alzarian16 (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Help with an MfD close?

Hi all, I'm a bit unsure how to handle this MfD. Long story short, months ago an article was up for speedy deletion but I thought it might be salvageable so I moved it to my userspace; in the meantime its creator continued making some edits. Recently someone else put it up for MfD saying it will never be encyclopedic, and I myself voted "delete" because I too no longer believe it's worthy of inclusion. I was just going to leave it at that; several voters said, "it's in your userspace, delete it whenever you want". But since the other user made edits and yada yada, I'm not quite sure if I still have the right to speedily delete it, or if maybe I could delete it and e-mail the user a copy (although then it would lose the edit history), etc. See my message here.

Any input or guidance from someone more familiar with deletion and attribution issues and stuff like that would be much appreciated. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think your initial feeling is correct, and U1 wouldn't be appropriate. You should transuserfy it and let the MFD run. –xeno^talk 15:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mundane cyborgs

• It appears that the result of the double AfD for Mundane cyborgs and Intermittent cyborgs was delete, but Intermittent cyborgs is still there. Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not now, it ain't. TNXMan 16:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

More uncivil comments by user:Parrot of Doom

Resolved

 – Not really uncivil, no need for admin action

user:Parrot of Doom seems to be involved in two conflicts today: [105]

What must happen before an admin steps in to warn a user or to block him? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The answer is "more than this". This isn't kindergarten. Tan | 39 17:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's uncivil, I don't want to think what a personal attack would be! PoD is free to put what ever he or she would like on to his or her own talk page. I am marking this as resolved (though of course, any person may reverse this if they disagree). Aiken ♫ 17:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The user in question is a purely disruptive user who is likely to be blocked soon. I don't see any problem here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It says on top of this page that civility complaints are to go to Wikiediquette first. - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Horse dead; quit baiting; don't reopen
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BlackJack here has unleashed a torrent of abuse at me which includes numerous personal attacks, can he please be blocked. --88.111.55.202 (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC) His comments seem pretty fair to be honest. raseaCtalk to me 18:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Could you explain why calling somebody a cretin, coward and scum is fair? --88.111.55.202 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC) In answer to someone who has conducted via several IP addresses a campaign of invective, including numerous personal attacks, that is designed to provoke; and given that you have called me "bitter, twisted" and a "compulsive liar", it is hardly surprising that I have reacted as I did. By the way, RaseaC, I apologise for losing my temper but being called a liar is extreme provocation. I would also like to draw admin's attention to this person (88.111.55.202) launching an edit war in Marylebone Cricket Club and Variations in first-class cricket statistics by removing source information and ignoring a reasonable request to discuss the proposed changes on the talk pages first. He carried on a similar edit war yesterday on an AfD page by persistently reverting to an irrelevant point. ----Jack | talk page 18:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC) In every conversation I've had with you, you've lied time and again therefore calling you a compulsive liar is a pretty fair description. Being called scum is also extremely provocation but did I start chucking insults at you? The external links I've removed are spam that were added by the site's owners, the website is entirely unreliable. I would like to draw an admin's attention to the fact BlackJack was indefinitely blocked until 12 days ago, having been given a second chance any normal person would be on their best behaviour not to repeat the experience. --88.111.55.202 (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 88.111.55.202 is just the latest in a long line of dynamic addresses used by this person to attack me over some apparent grievance of which I have no knowledge. Yesterday he was using 88.111.63.26 to wage an edit war in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Blackmore. Other IPs he has used include: 88.111.48.107 88.111.39.197 88.111.60.218 85.210.127.158 85.210.83.167 88.109.8.46 88.110.56.81 85.210.135.210 I believe he has a WP account but he will not use that when he is acting as a vandal. ----Jack | talk page 18:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC) As for the reliability of the website in question, I suggest that members of WP:CRIC decide on that, which is why I requested a discussion on the article's talk page. Since no one in WP:CRIC has objected to the site previously, I see no reason why it should suddenly be a problem now. ----Jack | talk page 19:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Where did this discussion take place? The only discussions on WT:CRIC I can find are all uncertain [106], quite negative [107] and very negative [108] about the source. --88.111.55.202 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Oh dear, oh dear. The second one was way back in 2007 and was clearly a misunderstanding about copyright. The first was an honest question by SGGH. The third was a routine piece of trolling by User:Richard Daft. There has not been a formal discussion: I said that no one in WP:CRIC (except a known troll) has objected to the site being used and some have even quoted it in their edits. ----Jack | talk page 19:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC) As for him "not chucking insults at me", how about this one? ----Jack | talk page 19:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC) So accusing three well-respected WP:CRIC members of being sockpuppets without any evidence are the actions of a fair and reasonable person? --88.111.55.202 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC) That was a mistake as I thought one of them was you, having been given incorrect information by a well-meaning colleague. I have apologised to all three people and two of them have graciously accepted while the third is not active today. ----Jack | talk page 19:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I would like to make a formal complaint about the activities of the person currently active as 88.111.63.26. He has previously been warned by admins on this page and WP:AN and he has alienated just about every member of WP:CRIC by his vindictive conduct. I recoomend a 24-hour block of the current IP and the establishment of a precedent to block any IP he uses in future. He is using the site to wage a war but he will not admit his reasons. ----Jack | talk page 19:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC) You need to take a step back mate, you've alienated just as many members of WP:CRIC as I have. How exactly do my actions merit a blocking? --88.111.55.202 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Okay, WP:ANI is no place to continue a dispute, it is where people go to have problems taken care of. I advise both users to disengage, step back and breathe. Stop posting on each others talk pages, and stop posting here. An uninvolved administrator (which I am happy to state I am not) will come along and see if there is anything to be acted upon. You could both end up defending your own position so strongly that you end up with admin attention on you even if you are the victimised party. My two cents. SGGH ping! 19:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC) I could not agree more. I will withdraw and I have nothing further to say. ----Jack | talk page 19:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Moved from archive, unresolved. --88.111.36.3 (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I'm withdrawing from this one now, because I have become too involved to remain objective since my investigations so far have led me too far down the road to believing that the two above IP addresses are involved (and should be added to, IMO) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft. I hand the baton to the next admin who wishes to take a more objective approach than I could now manage. My apologies. SGGH ping! 18:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Moved from archive again, still unresolved. --88.111.62.210 (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I rolled this back twice; IP is pretty insistent. Recommend another admin delete this thread - there's nothing more to be done. Tan | 39 17:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC) All I want is a neutral admin to come along and give their view on whether the personal attacks made by BlackJack warrant a warning or block, it doesn't seem too much to ask. --88.111.62.210 (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Look, Mr. IP, it's over. BlackJack (talk · contribs), keep your cool and don't commit personal attacks, even against those asking for it. I will personally block this IP address (and whatever future numerical sequence it becomes) if this thread is re-opened...particularly since this individual is very likely responsible for the personal attacks by 88.108.11.162 (talk · contribs). WP:BAIT applies here. — Scientizzle 17:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meditation Cabal

Announcing...the Meditation Cabal, our next measure against disputes and wikidrama! Please discuss, improve and implement the (proposed) cabal! Quickly! Before ANI gets deleted! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Page nominated for deletion while Newpage tag in place

I was doing new page patrol and came across the page Petrolsoft Corporation and nominated it for deletion because it had no sources. I was watching the page and saw the creator starting to add sources so I removed the db-corp and replaced it with appropriate improvement tags as well as the Newpage tag and continued to assist the new user with finding and adding sources over the next day and a half. However, User:Ihcoyc aka Smerdis of Tlön nominated it for deletion while still under development.

Timeline of significant events:

• 18:41, 2010 March 14 Mathteacher69 (talk | contribs) new user account
• 19:18, 2010 March 14 Mathteacher69 (talk | contribs) (2,174 bytes) (←Created page with ' Petrolsoft Corporation
• 19:29, 2010 March 14 Stillwaterising (talk | contribs) (2,205 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7)
• 19:41, 2010 March 14 Mathteacher69 (talk | contribs) (2,482 bytes) (source added that verified significance)
• 19:46, 2010 March 14 Stillwaterising (talk | contribs) (2,471 bytes) (rm speedy)
• 21:32, 2010 March 14 Stillwaterising (talk | contribs) (3,372 bytes) (changing construction to newpage tag)
• (next 38 hours had 21 revisions by the creator and myself)
• 09:50, 2010 March 16 Ihcoyc (talk | contribs) (5,908 bytes) (Nominating for deletion; see WP:Articles for deletion/Petrolsoft Corporation)

At the point the page was 39 hours old and was last edited 10 hours previously by myself. The page was also nominated as a contested speedy deletion, however since I removed the db tag myself I'm not sure that's accurate. I brought this matter up with the nominator (see our talk pages) but do not find Smerdis of Tlön (Ihcoyc)'s justification that this page was advertising to be appropriate. I would like the promises in WP:Starting_an_article#While_an_article_is_being_constructed to be honored and this user to be warned against doing this in the future.

A complaint called "Greeted with Hostility" was started at User_talk:Jimbo_wales#Greeted_with_Hostility by User:Mathteacher69 and commented on by myself. The suggest was made there that this should go to ANI. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The page was an essentially promotional article claiming that software from a defunct business had a dramatic effect on the oil industry. Basic searches revealed no sources that confirmed any of these claims; moreover, the content of some of the sources claimed would appear not to bear out the claims made by the article. The essay referenced by Template:Newpage is not policy (and that template does not affect policy), but even so, it says that "The page may be marked for deletion using any appropriate method of the deletion process if any of the following conditions are met: ... advertising, spam". This was a software business concentrated in the oil industry. I doubted initially that it would get much coverage outside of the "local media, or media of limited interest and circulation" required by the business notability guideline, and I noted from the history that it had already been proposed for speedy deletion. So I nominated it. Frankly, it looks like a publicity piece and an attempt to assert importance well beyond what the sources will bear. It still does.

If this company and its software really had the effect on the oil industry the article claims it had, I'd expect a few more people to have heard of it than actually appear to, and the coverage to be other than routine notices of its acquisition by another company that's apparently been buying up small oil software businesses right and left. I chose "notability" and promotional tone as the grounds well ... mostly to be polite. But frankly, the more I compare the large claims of the article with the sources that do not confirm them, the fishier it looks to me. Yes, I think the business existed, and was acquired, but that's about all that's confirmed by any reliable source. The large claims of importance remain unsubstantiated.

The volume of angsting and lawyering that's gone into this again confirms to me that we need to set a much obviously higher bar for business to business software and service companies, and frankly makes the article look even more suspicious. The opponents of this nomination have apparently taken their outrage everywhere short of the throne of God himself.[109] I regret any upset to a new user that this nomination caused, but I don't think there's any way on earth that this page could ever meet the applicable notability guideline. The longer this drags out and the more forums the dispute is shopped to, the more suspect the underlying article looks. My conscience is entirely clear. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if it's non-notable. What I'm trying to get my head around is why someone would be so anxious to "promote" a defunct company? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The business isn't so much defunct as acquired; the one thing that can be confirmed about it seems to be that it was acquired by the Aspen corporation. The supposedly triumphant confirmation of notability claimed so far is a paragraph in the Company News notices section of the New York Times, that ASPEN ACQUIRES ANOTHER PETROLEUM SOFTWARE COMPANY[110]. Again, I don't think that otherwise non-notable businesses become notable when routine notice is made of their buyout or merger on a business page. Now, the wording suggests to me that the people at the Times had seen stories like this about Aspen before. At least some of its products may still be a going concern. All of this is my own speculation, of course; but the article now does say that "Over a several month period, Petrolsoft's Supply Retail software suite was integrated with Aspen Technology's PIMS crude selection and refinery operations planning and execution software. Petrolsoft's suite of supply chain management tools completed Aspen's fully integrated petroleum offering from the sourcing of crude oil, through the manufacturing process, and down to the end customer putting gasoline into their vehicle." These claims are currently referenced only by helpfully supplied links to Aspen's website. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And what do you want an admin to do about this right here, right now? Oh wait, I forgot. I thought this was for serious issues that need admin attention. –MuZemike 03:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As to whether or not this company is notable or not is to be discussed at Afd not here. My point is that the last and most substantial source was only recently added, and that took 2 weeks to find. If the article had been given at least a week for the sources and promotional nature concerns to be addressed (no advert tag was ever placed) only then could a FAIR Afd could have taken place. Most of the delete votes were placed while the article was still unfinished. Rushing an unfinished article into Afd while it's clearly unfinished only serves the nominator's agenda and has put undue stress on the article creator. There's a promise made at WP:Starting_an_article#While_an_article_is_being_constructed that's linked to on the welcome template saying "Articles tagged with the new page template are generally not subject to deletion except under certain extreme circumstances (e.g. blatant attack pages)." that's not being kept. I propose that if the Afd result is delete then a new Afd should be held without bias toward the previous result. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's not badger the sorry bloke (whomever that will be) who will close the AFD in advance, OK? We all need to step back and let the whomever is going to close it close it. Regardless the decision, there are always additional venues to pursue when the AFD ends. –MuZemike 04:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Where was it ever decided that when you tag a new page with the newpage template, it is save from our normal speedy deletion processes (except for extremes like attack pages and copyvios)? This is not included in the policy page WP:CSD, so the page Wikipedia:Starting an article gives a clearly incorrect message. I have accordingly removed that line from the page. Fram (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Good call. – ukexpat (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There's clearly differing opinions and conflicting instructions on how to deal with Newpages and whether new page creators should be allowed time to build pages before Afd is started or not. Clearly scrambling to finish pages while Afd is underway is not the ideal way to create an encyclopedia "anybody can edit.". Where is the best forum to discuss this policy (or rather lack thereof)? - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's common practice to build a new article under a user's own sandbox. Once it's ready with complete sources to clearly establish it's notability, the page can be moved (or created) in article space. I'm not entirely sure what the {{newpage}} tag really serves as there are better ways to create new articles. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How are new editors meant to know about sandboxes? They just create the article then improve it as they go along. I did exactly that until my fourth page. If an experienced editor comes across a part-completed page that the creator is still improving, they need a way to let everyone know. The {{newpage}} tag is a perfectly good way, unless you can think of a better one. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The idea that unfinished or substandard articles should be kept out of mainspace and be removed as quickly as possible is definitely an immediatist point of view. The reality is that many new editors will skip this suggestion and submit articles that have potential but need assistance. By skipping wp:BEFORE (or ignoring Newpage) and rushing to delete does not allow other editors an opportunity to assist the new user in article development. The result is that the article is removed and likely never reintroduced and the new editor is frustated and discouraged to the point as to be unlikely to make futher contributions. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The result of the AFD was 'no consensus' so no action is required. The discussion on this has been helpful. This problem will come up again though and I'm considering coninuing this discussion at WP:Deletion of newly created pages and hoping that a guideline can be formed on this. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Can an admin or two please take a break from April Fools jokes and block a few vandals? Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems clear now. -- Atama頭 19:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why, exactly, is Grundle2600 getting more last chances?

Please do not conflate minor April Fools jokes with actual serious ongoing disruption incidents, even if community sanctioned editors are the jokesters.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) As you may recollect, Grundle2600 was given a last chance here and here and here and here and here .. you know what, if I kept going, it would just be pointy. There are many more links - just search the board for "Grundle2600" and you'll find him getting last chance after last chance. He must have contributed something incredible to the encyclopedia at some point, I guess, to get so many last chances. Guess what! He's still disrupting articles to poke fun at liberal politicians. His most recent is here, correctly reverted as vandalism, pulling from something Hank Johnson said relating to the temporary relocation of 25,000 army construction personell to Guam to build a military base. His statement, that Guam would "tip over" was taken literally by the shining-lights of the blogosphere - [111]. The only leeway at this point is an indefinite ban. Someone grow a pair. Hipocrite (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Happy April Fools Day! Please don't waste ANI's time on this. By the way, the person who made the statement at the video was not joking. He was totally serious. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Grundle's insinuation that his vandalism was "just a joke" is belied by this. No more last chances. Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC) The information that I added was so obviously false, but at the same time, was well sourced. I was mocking the fact that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC) (ec)I have to agree with Hipocrite. With that sort of history Grundle should have been banned a long time ago. We apply sanctions, topic bans, 1RR, and he doesn't seem to listen or care. While a few questionable edits are okay for an otherwise productive contributor, the volume of work he creates for everyone else swamps his contributions. His lack of remorse and attempt to explain away intentional vandalism as harmless makes it clear that his interest is solely in avoiding a block, not in changing his behavior. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 20:37, 1 April Most of those other things that I did were genuinely good edits, which were censored by the liberals who want readers to wrongly think that President Obama has kept all of his campaign promises, and who also want readers to wrongly think that Obama's administration is the most transparent in history. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)2010 (UTC) @Grundle:But to pick a politician to make fun of was a poor choice, don't you think so? And YouTube is not a RS BTW.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I agree with you on those points. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I was assuming that everyone who is smart enough to read wikipedia is also smart enough to know that islands are attached to the bottom of the ocean, and thus, cannot tip over and capsize. The very fact that this ANI page is up for deletion shows that I'm not the only one here who appreciates a good April Fool's joke. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC) As an example of how my topic ban has made wikipedia worse, I'd like to point out that even though it was reported by the New York Times, the article on Obamacare does not say anything about how Henry Waxman is planning to hold a hearing to question companies about their statements claiming that the plan will increase, not decrease, their expenses. As another example, even though the Boston Heralrd reported that Obamacare requires the government to hire 16,000 more IRS agents, the Obamacare articles does not mention it all all. If I had not been topic banned, I would have added both of those things to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Yes but you have been topic banned, so STFU. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I was banned from editing political articles. The text that I added to Guam was "Recently, Guam has become so overpopulated that the island could end up capsizing." That's not political. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC) No it's vandalism, and we do generally block vandals. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC) It took me a while to realize what "STFU" means. I never use that kind of language when I talk on talk pages, which only backs up my case that I never should have been banned from talk pages on political articles. As far as me mentioning that stuff here at ANI, I did so just to give examples of how my topic ban has made wikipedia worse. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC) None of the people who favored my topic ban had the decency to answer these 7 questions that I asked about my topic ban. Tarc claimed that my questions had already been answered. But when I asked him to quote the answers, he refused to do so, because such answers never existed. The real reason for these bans and blocks is to censor the articles in question from my additions of well sourced, relevant content that is critical of the subjects. Everyone who favors banning and blocking me is on the political left, and wants to prevent me from adding relevant, well sourced information that is critical of politicians on the political left. That's why none of the people who favor my indefinite topic ban have ever had the decency to answer my 7 questions. This proves that the real reason for my bans and blocks is to censor the articles from relevant, well sourced information that is critical of the political left. That is why none of the people who favor my bans and blocks has ever had the decency to answer my 7 questions. Also, none of the good things that I added about Obama to the Obama articles have ever been erased, such as his plan to stop raids on states that legalized medical marijuana, or his extending benefits to the gay partners of federal employees. I was always allowed to add info that portrayed Obama in a positive light, without anyone ever erasing it. It was only when I added things that portrayed him in a negative light that I got in trouble. NPOV requires both the good and bad things about Obama to be included. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC) This is not a discussion about your topic ban. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Because of the topic ban on me and a few others editors, there has been extremely little discussion at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama in the several months since these topic bans took effect. Wikipedia is much worse off because of this. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC) If the people here at ANI really want to make the encyclopedia better, they will end my topic ban, or at least, end my topic ban on talk pages, so that I may make suggestions for constructive edits. No one ever showed any diffs to justify banning me from talk pages. I halve always been civil and polite on talk pages. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC) No seriously, this is not about your topic ban. It's about you vandalising an article in the name of a joke and whether we should block you indefinitely for doing it. Now isn't the time to discuss lifting a topic ban. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Moan. The thing is, Grundle, you're coming here after a "joke" that can generously be described as stupid. Please don't ask for favors now. Go home and do something constructive for a month and then come ask. At least a month.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC) I am closing this section. The joke was not related to the existing community sanctions and was not grossly disruptive in other ways. This did not require administrators intervention. The community edit restriction is not going to be lifted, either. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Cpianoclear68

Can someone blcock this guy (a sock of SGF's) e-mail. Standard procedure. Thanks :)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 20:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done [112]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User:212.219.57.126 Weston College

I edit from Weston College when I am in college I have noticed the amount of vandalism that has been appearing since the block was lifted. I don't want to get caught up in this situation, I wondered if there was anything that could be done as I can't really find anything around the wiki, other than blocking the IP address again for the recent vandalism. Corruptcopper (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reblocked the IP address. It shouldn't affect your editing though; registered accounts will be able to edit as normal. EyeSerene^talk 11:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, much easier to know that I can edit without thinking bout being caught up in the firing line or the vandalism that I am trying to fight. Corruptcopper (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. We can see it's a shared educational institution address so there's no danger of you being blamed for vandalism from that IP. EyeSerene^talk 23:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Issue with userpage

Resolved

 – User blocked

A user named User:Blackmagic1234 is posting personal things on his userpage, saying someone is stalking him. He went on a cursing hate rant, and I know it's a person's free will to decide what to do with their account's page, but can someone at least send him a message or remove his post on his userpage? Thanks. Kagome 23 (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be trolling him. Please leave him alone. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Topic starter reported and blocked trough WP:AIAV. Guess that takes care of the issue (For now at least). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Also whacked the sockmaster, Abby 92 (talk · contribs) and the other sock, Abby 94 (talk · contribs). Granted, they're stale, but can't take a chance on him coming back again and "remembering" their passwords. Blueboy96 22:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Blue, i feared i had to file a long SSP case, while SSP seems to be a bit undermanned these days. Ill keep the user page on my watchlist a week or so to see if this continues. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth blocking the IP that edited the Kenneth article as well? Theresa Knott | token threats 22:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that possible? The other two accounts might be too stale to prove a connection. Blueboy96 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Kagome 23 stated in the edit summary that he/she only edited the Kenneth article in the edit summary. Looking at history of the Kennith article then that points to the IP being User:142.162.196.79 Theresa Knott | token threats 23:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually looking at the IP edits, it also adited a page that was previously edited by Abby 92. Too much of a coincidence, certainly the correct IP. I'm going to hard block it for a while unless someone tells me that doing so is a bad idea. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter she will return with another IP or Username but doesn't matter I decided to leave here for good since she will no doubt continue going at it and so on. Black Rose (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

NotAnonymous0 (talk · contribs) has removed my comment at MfD

Resolved

 – Just a misunderstanding

After nominating the Wikipedia:Sandbox for deletion (Which I feel is completely unfounded, we need the sandbox, it decreases vandalism by allowing a place for users to make test edits without disruption) NotAnonymous0 removed a comment that I had left that opposed the deletion of the sandbox. Is it not against policy to remove a good-faith comment made at a deletion discussion? Immunize (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's an April Fools joke (no comment on whether it's a funny one) that you probably took too seriously. But yes, people should not remove others' comments at XfD, you're right. I just wouldn't worry too much about the Sandbox actually getting deleted based on what is clearly a joke nomination. ~ mazca ^talk 22:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any rule preventing users from making "joke nominations" of pages. After all, deletion discussions are serious matters, and I think that this sort of behavior should not be allowed. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, as a general rule we frown on jokes in the actual article space but anywhere else is normally tolerated in the spirit of the day. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The nomination of this page for deletion is childish, not funny. Woogee (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed the comment because I thought it spoiled the joke. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 22:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised, given that Immunize tried to get a whole bunch of other humor pages deleted not too long ago. As Sgt. Hulka said in Stripes: "Lighten up, Francis." –MuZemike 00:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Black Redux

Resolved

 – Talk page disabled, subject directed to OTRS and Godwin Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I recently blocked this user for making legal threats. This is the latest response from him and I'm not sure what to make of it. Leave it alone? Direct him to Godwin? Disable his talk page? He claims to have been in contact with contributors ^[who?] about the issue. Thoughts? TNXMan 18:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'd disable the talk page and send him Godwin's way. That reads like continued legal intimidation to me. I am neat 18:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Definitely disable the talk page, and I'd suggest revision deleting might not be out of line. That's abuse of editing rights if anything is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you both for your advice. I've disabled the talk page and left a note directing them to Godwin. TNXMan 18:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Perhaps a note directing them to WP:OTRS is in order as well. If there's something specific he objects to, perhaps one of the volunteers can help. Team ANI 18:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, the related article Edwin Black is an unsourced mess. I've cleaned up a paragraph or two, but it needs a lot of help. TNXMan 18:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I already directed Mr. Black to the proper contact form [113]. He refused to communicate with "anonymous committees". Pointing him towards Godwin was the best solution. He can now either have the perceived issues with his article dealt with professionally or he can continue to sock and make legal threats. The ball is in his court. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Request changes on the MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list

Resolved

I am requesting that the following images on the MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list be modified to allow the Talk:Autofellatio page to view them, as there is an RfC on the lede image. Autofellatio-Kiki26 edited.jpg, Fellatio-auto.jpg, Autofellatio3.jpg, and 01011674c.jpg. Thanks in advance, Atom (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Normally such changes are requested by means of the {{editprotected}} template. They are not really necessary here, because you can just link to the images on the talk page instead of displaying them, like that: File:Autofellatio-Kiki26 edited.jpg, File:Fellatio-auto.jpg, File:Autofellatio3.jpg, and File:01011674c.jpg. (I strongly assume these images are not safe for work.)  Sandstein  04:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Admin needed for image recoveries

In September 2008 some images were lost from the Commons database. I've recently identified a few which had been transwikied from en.wiki and which should be recoverable using the undelete feature. If an admin here could go to the local undelete page, save the images locally and then reupload them to Commons it would be much appreciated.

It's only a question of 12 images so it shouldn't take long. The relevant images are most easily found through [114] where they are tagged with the edit summary "recoverable by en.wiki admin". From the file talk page there is a link to the log for the relevant file page on en.wiki.

Many thanks /Lokal_Profil 01:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at a couple of them and am not seeing the local versions to undelete. I may be doing it wrong, though.

Hopefully there is a way or I'm just doing the access wrong. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've locally restored several here after persisting. Some aren't working still, though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting better. Still not seeing File:Navy and Marine Corps Overseas Ribbon.jpg and a couple of others; may need the page on commons deleted to get to the one on english to undelete? Some that failed initially worked on second tries, someone may be acting elsewhere helping this along. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at those. NW (Talk) 02:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

How to properly do it one way: [115]

How to do it another way: [116][117]. NW (Talk) 02:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded the locally recovered ones to Commons so the en.wiki versions can now be deleted again. Many thanks for the quick work. =)/Lokal_Profil 02:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you get everything you were looking for cleanly, or are there still pending images? I'll go redelete on confirmation we're all done... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Got all the ones I had identified as coming from en.wiki. Thanks again =) /Lokal_Profil 03:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please also delete File talk:USNRRib.gif and File talk:Non regular scheme thumb.png which I accidentally created in the process. /Lokal_Profil 03:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

7 day comment period for new Wikipedia payment policy for editors.

April Fools' Day is over
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In an ongoing effort to combat vandalism in Wikipedia, Mrs. Jane Wales, wife of Jimbo, has been appointed to the newly created position of Chief of Subscription Services at Wikipedia effective 1 April 2010. This position is tasked to develop a fair market price for subscriptions. Mrs. Wales announced a new policy which will become effective at the end of the 7 day comment period. All editors who edit over 2 edits will be required to pay a sliding scale subscription fee to continue editing. The fee will be nominal starting out at $1 per year for residents of Africa, South America, and the Indian subcontinent/Myanmar/Afghanistan/Tajikistan. Other areas will assess a fee of $5 per year. The requirement to pay by credit cards is intended to stop child vandals from editing (or get them started in a life of crime when they steal their parents' credit cards). This fee will not be charged to new editors initially until they reach their 3rd edit, in order entice new editors. By having a fee, it is presumed that most vandals will not want to pay and will move on to websites like Yahoo Answers! and Citizendium. Watch this board for more information on how to pay this new Wikipedia enhancement! April 1 Band 15:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC) In the UK, people making April Fools jokes after midday are considered to be the one who's a fool. Just sayin' :o) ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 15:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC) "April 1 Band 11:07 am, Today (UTC−4)" --(ʞןɐʇ) ʞıɹıɥs Also I already did the payment to edit april fools joke a couple of years ago. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC) No, Suomi, slot off and take this crap back to Twan. Jokes like this aren't funny; they're dangerous to the gullible. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 11:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User removing content without explanation and against consensus, making personal attacks

Resolved

 – User blocked due to sockpuppetry. –Turian (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

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

This user has been removing text from articles on venues where professional wrestling pay-per-view events have occurred without explanation. There are too many diffs to post here, but check his contribution history since March 24 on any article on a stadium or arena. I started this thread at WT:PW in an attempt to resolve the issue without having to come here. From what I understand from the discussion at WT:PW and at Talk:Safeco Field, his argument basically boils down to:

1. Professional wrestling events that occur at major sports venues are not notable (most of the mentions of events he has deleted are WWE pay-per-view events that have WP articles, and he also conveniently neglects to delete mentions of concerts, for example by Elvis Presley and Selena at the Reliant Astrodome).
2. Attendance figures for WWE events that are cited to a reliable source are not reliable because most newspapers simply repeat what WWE claims the attendance to be. He claims that "WWE has a history of inflating attendance figures" but does not back the claim ([118]).

Another user pointed out that this user may be a sock of Paul Harald Kaspar (talk · contribs), and I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul Harald Kaspar. Since then, Stan Simmons has been back at his disruptive edits and has now launched personal attacks, calling his talk page warning notices "harassment" and those leaving the warnings "wrestling nerds" ([119], [120], [121]). Particularly disturbing is this message to Turian (talk · contribs) accusing him of anti-Semitism, something that so far as I can see has not come up at all in this dispute except on Stan Simmons' end. In the time that I've been typing this up he left this message on my talk page calling my actions a "witch hunt." I would like an immediate temporary block on Stan Simmons pending the results of the SPI. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I posted the above he is now making an unfounded accusation against another involved editor, 3bulletproof16 (talk · contribs), stating that he has received anti-Semitic emails ([122]). I find this difficult to believe considering that Stan Simmons does not have a linked email address as far as I can tell. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an orchestrated witch-hunt by the pro wrestling Wiki-cabal, with the typical accusations of "sockpuppetry" (and emails from one of the cabal members of an anti-Semitic nature) thrown in for good measure. They seem to have an uncontrollable fetish for inserting needless and trivial "facts" about their favourite pseudo-sport into every article imaginable, then quickly band together when someone takes the time to remove these useless "facts". They operate as if there are certain articles that only they can edit, which violates what is supposed to be the purpose of Wikipedia.

To put it bluntly, I am being harassed by a Wikipedia version of a lynch mob. Stan Simmons (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the content, there's no reason why those events shouldn't be listed. They shouldn't be tenants, but they should be listed. And unless there's an attendance figure from a reliable source arguing what was already published in a reliable source, the figure should remain without implication of any deception on the event-holder's part.

Glancing over your contributions, the only one who has been making any anti-semitic attacks has been you, and those have been self-inflicted. Hazardous Matt (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Stan, perhaps you should read WP:WOLF. –Turian (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My buddy Turian? [123] Excuse me Turian but when was the last time we've even talked? Not that I don't want to be friends, I mean I'd like to be your friend, but I'm just saying Heh Seriously though Stan please do in fact tell when did I ever sent you an email? ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• My look at this suggests quite strongly that this is another sockpuppet of User:Chadbryant; the User:Paul Harald Kaspar account used very similar arguments to do very similar things to this editor, who has been unwilling to accept outside feedback and comments. There is a SPI underway that will hopefully turn something up; in the meantime, other admins would do well to cast a glance at this. (I'm involved, for the record.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• User has been blocked for one day by Ged UK (talk · contribs). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Alexia123456789

Yesterday, I deleted Story of a monster, an article created by Alexia123456789 (talk · contribs) and left them a message explaining why. This morning I received this, this and (my personal favourite) this. Any action needed, or should I just ignore it? Despite the editor's promise to "delete [my] retarded stuff", they may well not return. --Kateshortforbob _talk 12:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically, you didn't even delete it. Dmol placed the speedy, Bwilkins deleted it. However, blocked vandal user is blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point - my brain is obviously overloaded on easter eggs! Thanks for taking a look at it, Syrthiss. --Kateshortforbob _talk 12:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem on Race and Intelligence mediation

because of the spurious ANI proceedings initiated by Mathsci, here - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Criticism_of_mediation_on_Race_and_intelligence, I now have had user:JzG close the mediation case without cause or discussion. I've reverted and left him a note on the matter, but if it happens again I am stuck, because I do not want to get in an edit war over the matter. I do not know precisely how to deal with an admin who would unilaterally close a mediation, against consensus (as there is no consensus to close the mediation in the thread above on even an attempt at establishing consensus in the mediation itself), and without any discussion anywhere on the matter.

I've had enough of this, and I would appreciate some administrative action on this matter now before it spins farther out of control. --Ludwigs2 17:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

my mistake - I just now noticed that JzG and Guy are the same user, so he did indeed participate in the above discussion. however, the rest of what I said still stands. --Ludwigs2 17:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, "spurious?" I don't think so. But yes, your mistake: you have been getting admin action, Xavexgoem and I are both admins. Oddly, the two admins involved are the ones whose actions you reverted and then asked for admin intervention. Ironic, no? Guy (Help!) 18:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

spurious, yes. Closing the mediation is a matter that Mathsci could have quickly and easily handled on the mediation talk page. Instead, he chose to hijack a thread on a different subject and turn it into a vindictive attack on me for no particularly good or useful reason. I don't share his taste for drama-trauma, and I'm sorry if you do. However, all I am asking is that you respect what seems to be the actual mediation consensus that we should push ahead with it a while longer. I don't quite see what the problem is with allowing that, and I'd be happy to have you explain.

And just so you know, my attitude on admins is that they are just editors with a decent amount of experience and some extra powers. getting a sysop bit set does not make one smarter, wiser, more noble, or more correct than any other editor, and if an admin starts behaving as though that's what the sysop bit does, s/he should have it taken away immediately. I respect you for your experience, Guy, and normally I would listen to your advice. But when it comes to consensus decisions you get to argue your case in a proper discussion just like the rest of us more proletarian editors. or am I wrong? --Ludwigs2 19:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a fairly well-known fact that any issue brought to the admin boards can and often will turn round into an investigation of wider issues - especially in the not infrequent episodes of foot-shooting we see. Mathsci raised, in my view, valid points which you chose to try to deny. If you think admins are nothing special (which is true) then why are you soliciting admin action here? We don't usually take sides just because someone says we should. You have admin attention in the other thread, you've chosen to revert the actions of those admins and then come here asking for admin action to stop the admin action, which is bordering on surreal. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

to answer your first question: you'll notice that I am not objecting to Mathsci's concerns about whether the mediation should be closed, or that I might not be the best person to handle it. that is certainly something that should be discussed, if that's the way he feels, and I would be happy to discuss it. However:

1. There is nothing in that discussion that currently requires administrator intervention. The idea should have been shifted to the mediation talk page and carried out there, and we would have quickly come to some kind of resolution about it.
2. Mathsci never attempted to discuss the issue, he simply launched into an extensive diatribe in which he dragged out every thing he thinks I've done wrong since the first day I joined wikipedia, and kept harping on it endlessly. It was rude, uncivil, and totally uncalled for in any context, much less this one. I'm actually shocked that an administrator (such as yourself) didn't rein him in and insist that he adopt a more civil, productive tone; If someone had, we would have quickly come to some kind of resolution.

In short, Mathsci chose to ignore a number of quiet, simple, civil ways in which he could have expressed his concerns and resolved the issue, and reached instead for a protracted personal attack against me which quickly went beyond any mediation issues into pure nastiness, with no hope or possibility of a civil ending. I hope he got some pleasure out of it, because I can't see what other value taking that particular approach has.

To answer your other question, I came here because you seemed to be acting in bad faith, and I don't have the special powers of an admin to keep you in check. I was (frankly) worried that you were going to tendentiously edit war the mediation into closure against consensus, and then use your admin powers to block me if I tried to prevent you. with that in mind I came here looking for someone uninvolved who could match the special powers you have been given, and hopefully give myself a little breathing room. thankfully it turned out I was wrong, but you can see why I might be concerned about that kind of bad behavior, given the comments you've made about me here and in the thread above. --Ludwigs2 20:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting but unsurprising that Ludwigs2 created a new thread without informing me. Mathsci (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There are still problems with mediation on Race and intelligence. Another editor emailed me about this exchange between Ludwigs2 and Xavexgoem.[124] [125][126][127] In the meantime I left this conciliatory message on Ludwigs2's talk page.[128] Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

<- The article Race and intelligence is being rewritten directly into mainspace. The request from Aprock and me that it be written on a subpage of the mediation case has been rejected. At present hardly any established editors are involved in mediation, with several single purpose accounts dominating the discussion. Ludwigs2 is also now editing the article. [129] That is exactly why the article should have been placed on a subpage of the mediation page, with its own separate rules. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have also previously suggested using a draft page, so to as A.Prock. The editors currently active in the mediation are already in agreement with each other and don't need mediation. The majority of editors on the other side of the dispute, for unspecified reasons, have not been recently participating. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The plans to edit this article into directly into mainspace have been part of the discussion on the mediation page for at least 2 to 3 weeks. I don't know why the issue was not addressed at that time, or at any time prior to the beginning of editing, but consensus at the time that editing started was that it should be done in mainspace, and since editing has commenced I have requested that it be allowed to finish, if only for the sake of the David.Kane, who is generously volunteering his time and energy to the task. I have decided on the mediation page that we allow it to finish, and at its completion we can move it to a subpage if that is what seems best. That would require at most 2 minutes, so this is a non-issue.

Further, I have asked both Mathsci and Wapondaponda repeatedly to suggest revisions on the mediation page, which could be quickly added into the outline. that request is still pending, and I am looking forward to their input, but I would suggest to both of them that relying on procedure rather than participation is against the spirit of several wikipedia policies (most notably wp:BURO).

As a mediator I am constrained by the by the consensus (or lack thereof) that appears in discussion on the mediation page. as I have said repeatedly, if these editors want anything (closure of the mediation, editing on subpages, fresh hot coffee and bagels for breakfast) they need only raise the issue in the mediation page for discussion, and they will be heard. I cannot anticipate their objections, however, and I cannot do much about belated complaints over actions where they chose not to participate in the discussion. Silence=Consent, and while I can see now that they disagree that issue can be addressed at the appropriate time. the procedural matter is not significant enough to warrant disrupting the current editing process, particularly given the time constraints on the process.

I will also admit to a certain amount of confusion. both Mathsci and Wapondaponda have objected to the state of the R&I article (Mathsci quite vocally in a previous thread here), and the revised version - while not perfect - will certainly be an improvement over what it is replacing. I can't quite understand the sudden shift from complaining about the quality of the article, to complaining that the poor-quality article is being replaced. can one of you explain that discrepancy, please?

at any rate, I am issuing a challenge to both Mathsci and Wapondaponda, as follows:

• Go to the mediation page and make constructive, article-related suggestions about how we can improve or revise the new draft to be acceptable to you.
• If you choose not to participate with constructive, article-related suggestions, cease these constant disruptions on procedural grounds.

We are here to build an encyclopedia; we are not here to carp endlessly about procedural trivialities. --Ludwigs2 16:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have stated my concerns on the mediation page, but I would also like to get views from independent editors. My specific concern is indeed procedural. For the sake of simplicity, I would describe the situation as follows. There were two groups of editors involved in a dispute. As the dispute could not be resolved on the talk page the two parties requested for informal mediation. Over time, individuals from one group stopped participating due to various unspecified reasons. As a result all the parties who have remained active in the mediation are from the same "group" in that they were already in agreement with each other and don't need any mediation to come to an agreement. The question at hand, is mediation necessary for parties already in agreement? My view has been that if the parties are already in agreement, they can simply use the talk page to implement whatever changes they like, mediation is not necessary. Mediation is only necessary for parties that disagree not parties that agree. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall any discussion of editing in mainspace, let alone any agreement among a diverse set of mediators that that was the way to proceed. If you could refer to those discussions for review, I'd appreciate it. A.Prock (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with the above two users (Aprock and Muntuwandi). The editors left in the so-called mediation process all represent a WP:FRINGE minoritarian view. There is no ongoing significant debate in the academic world about race and intelligence as the first sentence of the lede currently suggests, even if some of those involved in mediation have convinced themselves of it. There is no evidence whatsoever that any departments in major universities where there is specialisation in psychometry (eg the Centre for Psychometry in the University of Cambridge) spend any time at all producing research in this area. Yet this small club of editors, most of them WP:SPAs, has decided exactly that, without the slightest shred of evidence. Ludwigs2 has turned a blind eye to that, although it forms the basic false assumption behind the rewriting of the current article in mainspace.

It seems that within this group of editors (Captain Occam, Varoon Arya, mikemikev, David.Kane, ...) there has been a trend to create a walled garden of fringe articles. Varoon Arya (talk · contribs) seems to have been spending his time whitewashing various articles on "Race and X", most particularly Race and crime, where in one set of edits he removed a large tranche of cautious well-sourced material to push another point of view. The same applies to Race and genetics. Now they seem to be doing the same to Race and intelligence. I don't know if the term tag team is appropriate here. The current article in mainspace has twice as much material at present on the minority hereditarian point of view and presents very poorly the mainstream environmental point of view.

Ludwigs2 must surely be aware that all editors subscribed to mediation who represent the cautious mainstream point of view (futurebird, Aprock, Ramdrake, Wobble, Slrubenstein, T34CH, Muntuwandi and Mathsci) have essentially abandoned mediation. Comments, even when constructive, are being ridiculed and stifled (in collapse boxes) on the mediation pages. There are many problems with the current rewriting of the article by David.Kane (talk · contribs) directly in mainspace. It is wholly inappropriate, for whatever reason, that a mediator edits the mainspace article during mediation. Mediation has been used procedurally to justify POV-pushing of an extreme kind in the article. That Ludwigs2 is protesting vociferously when editors criticize this faulty procedure is just a symptom of the deeply flawed fourth round of mediation. I can't see any way - apart from starting afresh after some kind of pause - to restore normal editing and discussions on the article and its talk page. I don't believe the group of editors I've mentioned above want a stable version of the article, unless it gives undue emphasis to their minoritarian viewpoint. Mathsci (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

@ A.Prock: here's the first link I found on a quick look. it dates to February 27, near the beginning of the 'Time to start the process' section. I don't know how much or to what extent it was followed up on, but there was never any objection that I saw, or I would have begun a discussion on the issue. I do not think it seemed like a big issue to anyone at the time.

@ Wapondaponda: I half agree with you, but not completely. While some editors have backed off (for as you say various unspecified reasons), there is diversity among the remaining participants, they just have been working towards some agreements. as it stands there are two editors who strongly lean towards the genetic side, a couple more who lean towards the environmental side, with the remainder arrayed across the middle. unfortunately, the group that has suffered the most attrition comes from skeptical editors deeply opposed to the genetic perspective (a function of page dynamics, that, which I have been trying to address with limited success), but to compensate I have already advertised this draft at wp:FT/N#Race_and_intelligence.2C_new_draft (as well as wp:NPOV/N#Race_and_intelligence.2C_new_draft) in the hopes of drawing in some reviews from editors on that side. The current draft, I think, is not perfect, but it does represent the material fairly well with respect to sourcing, and it does represent at least a semi-reasonable balance of the material available in sources.

so, again, we're back to this point. we have the following choices:

1. we can continue to haggle over the procedural issues: this will either have no effect whatsoever (aside from wasting our time) or it will end up throwing out months of effort on the part of all participants (ending up wasting the time of even more people and leaving the situation where it started)
   • OR
2. we can use what we have accomplished in the mediation as a starting point to build an even better page.

I reject the first as silliness, and so I'm laying down the same challenge I gave you above. Go to the mediation page and make constructive, article-related suggestions about how we can improve or revise the new draft; and if you choose not to do that, quit trying to disrupt things on procedural grounds. If a good, neutral article comes out of this, then no one will care whether the procedure was perfect; If the article that comes out is not neutral and not good, then it would not remain even if the procedure were absolutely fine. No one is trying to cram this mediation down your throat as something special. Either participate in it to make a better article, or don't. But don't sit here on ANI and complain that you're being excluded when I have all but begged you to participate. --Ludwigs2 23:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, nothing constructive can come out of this round of mediation, no matter how many times you claim the opposite. As I wrote above, it is built on a faulty premise, that can be read in the first line of the new lede. I can't understand why you are so adamant to wikilawyer your way out of the unfortunate and worrying fact that those representing the mainstream academic point of view have now all abandoned mediation. There's no loss of face in abandoning this failed fourth round of mediation as an unsuccessful experiment in two weeks time. The amount of time people have spent in discussions is not a factor. Mathsci (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

@Ludwig, I can't find that discussion in the current page. Looking at [130] from march 29th, and two of the three mentions of "mainspace" are by you, with only Occam agreeing with you. A.Prock (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

@ Mathsci: I'm not inclined to listen to the opinion of someone who has made absolutely no constructive contributions to article development. talk about wikI-lawyering! If you don't want to be part of the solution, at least stop trying to be part of the problem.

@ A.Prock: Ok, but I don't know what I can do about it now. again, I raised the point, no one seemed worried about it... it seemed sensible at the time, and it is now what it is. what suggestion are you making? --Ludwigs2 05:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, the article is highly likely to be reverted to a version prior to mediation. You are likely to have some of your editing privileges restricted for continuing mediation between two sides in a discussion when one side had clearly withdrawn from mediation. Mediators certainly should not be excluding editors from being involved in mediation as you are doing now by this kind of bullying behaviour. Are you claiming that the multiple requests for tentative changes to the article to occur outside mainspace were unconstructive (that's the only thing I've commented on yesterday very briefly on the mediation pages since the positive, universally accepted suggestions I made in November)? Mathsci (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Having given this a little more thought, I must say that if someone who was initially involved in a mediation no longer agrees to be bound by it, then that by itself should probably mean the mediation is over. Mathsci has stated that he won't edit the article in either case, but really that needn't be part of the analysis. He could just as well say the opposite without doing anything differently. That he was part of it and now rejects it is really all that matters. If others want to re-convince him, that should be up to them, but also it presumably should not be up to the mediator. Mediation is supposed to resolve disagreements, not serve as a parallel discussion forum to build up inertia or what not. Certainly the mediator should not be suggesting that a mediated version be locked in place. That's my two cents, anyway: if an involved editor wants to end a mediation, that means it's over. Mackan79 (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

---

So, a little while ago on that case page someone had asked me what I define as "progress", as I have given this mediation 2 weeks to show some before I close it. I didn't get the chance to answer, as that discussion was closed for fears that it would be too tangential a discussion. I happen to agree, since the politics over there are rough. It's a valid question.

Progress in a mediation is defined by parties on opposite sides of the dispute working together.

The mediator facilitates this; this is the mediator's job. This is the only thing the mediator measures the case by. MathSci et al are on the opposite side. You don't have a mediation if they're not involved. What you got is a two-week extended stay on MedCab's open list. I don't care how hard you have to grit your teeth to actually talk to him in any meaningful way. The whole point of your existence is to get people from talking past each other. Meanwhile, you talk past MathSci and take it personally as he talks past you. I have never seen a mediator do this. If you can't grit your teeth and work with it within 2 weeks, then you have 2 weeks to see the writing on the wall. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

well, Xavexgoem, ordinarily I would agree with you. However, on this page that is an impossibility. The mix of personalities on this page, along with the deeply entrenched attitudes of various participants, means that there are several points which will never find consensus in abstract discussion. At this point (given the general environment of the page, and the efforts to sidestep the process using ANI as a tool) the only thing I can do as a mediator is throw out the best draft of the article possible given what's been agreed on, in the hopes that people will be far more sanguine with the draft than they thought they would be when it was an abstraction. As soon as that's done, and people have had a chance to review it and comment, then I'll walk away from the page and leave them all to their own devices.

And no, I don't talk past Mathsci. I tell him what I want from him (as a mediator), and I tell him what I will not accept from him (as a mediator), and I leave him to do what he wants. The evident fact that what he wants is my balls on a stick is irrelevant to me and to the article; sooner or later (hopefully) he will get bored calling for me to get blocked, and then maybe he will help build the article. In a real-world mediation I would have done exactly what I did here - asked him to take his concerns about me as a mediator up in mediation, for proper discussion - however, in a real world situation he wouldn't be able to ignore the request by running to ANI, as he has done here. Don't blame me for his decision to subvert the system.

Let me be frank: If I were going to impose my own perspective on this article, it would be a far different thing. Personally, I lean heavily towards the environmentalist side on this, and I think the genetics perspective (while not fringe, the way that a lot of editors cast it) is a fairly minor perspective in the field. I am not sure that I am happy with this draft myself - I need to go read it now - but it is the draft that was developed, and I will defend it (as mediator) for the sake of the discussion.

I signed on to mediate one contentious article. Mathsci has apparently made it necessary for me to mediate to the entire wikipedia community, which is - interestingly - fine with me. Despite some comments people have made, I am a very good mediator (though you're right that translating my skills to wiki-mediation has a learning curve, and poses some interesting challenges). However, I am only going to mediate between people who participate in actively building the article. If you want to call me seven kinds of a stubborn shithead for that. that's fine, but right now you, and Mathsci, and every other participant in this thread are actively interfering with the development of this article, and of wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Is that really what you want to be doing? --Ludwigs2 16:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You're talking past him right now. Stop sniping at him; it's that easy. He may continue, but you'll be taking the high road. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

---

• Comment It might be an idea to initiate an RfC/U on Ludwigs2 once order has been restored to the article. His polarised behaviour as a mediator differs very little from his disruptive behaviour in the recent NPOV discussion here. Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please tone it down, Mathsci. Speaking of polarized behavior, how about your suggestion that the mediator be blocked here, without any possible basis for doing so? Assuming your concerns about the mediation are valid, it is no reason to berate anyone. Mackan79 (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Varoon Arya has made a good comment over at the mediation case, as well, specifically to you (MathSci) here. It's only half as snipe-y as most, I promise ;-) It might be a good way in. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)i

@ Xavexgoem. Thanks, I saw that before your intervention here and commented there. But Ludwigs2 decided to micromanage what I had to say. I've never seen behaviour like that before.

@ If Ludwigs2 were behaving like the other three mediators, that would be fine. That he is persisting in continuing mediation, despite the abandonment of the mediation process by one of the sides seeking mediation, is deeply worrying. If have no idea why he has failed to recognize this or why he is behaving as he is on the mediation talk page (see below). Mathsci (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to see what the reconstructed article looks like. This has been a contentious article for years as many POV warriors try to promote their views. "Not starting from here" is one way to try to break the deadlock. I also suggest that the mediator stands back once the rewrite is complete, as in cases where the mediator engages in active edits, it has left an unnecessary level of suspicion over the mediation attempts. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with this. First of all, David.Kane has been given the exceptionally thankless task of writing this into mainspace. I'm also not confident that all the people on the opposite side have necessarily read the results. I'd rather that mediation, if it continues, works on something that was at least 1/2 agreed to than on something that had almost no agreement. Asking for reverts (and protections, I might add; this can be dolled out on both sides) isn't any better a sign on the side of the opposite party. And I think that the 2 weeks is good. Despite my aggressive cluebat above, I do want to see Ludwigs succeed. MathSci's reply to my comment leaves the impression that I think Ludwigs is a bad mediator. I don't think that; just one who has much to learn, should he choose to continue mediations (he also has one on Aesthetic Realism, fwiw). Were he or anyone else genuinely bad, they would be asked to leave MedCab. There are still tactics to be played with... the current ones, not so much. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear about writing the article, I had previously stated that I had no preference as to who gets to write the article, as long as they faithfully use the material that has been agreed upon in the mediation. Seeing that there was plenty of disagreement during the mediation, I cannot say that I was a party to giving David Kane the thankless task of writing this into mainspace. David Kane specifically requested editors to come to an agreement first before he wrote the article, because he didn't want us to waste his time writing a new article only for it to be rejected. However, David Kane, with the approval of Ludwigs, proceeded to write the article into mainspace while both editors knew that disagreements existed, thereby risking that David Kane's efforts might indeed end up being a waste of his time. I believe this is a disingenuous tactic by Ludwigs to ram through an article that has no consensus, because psychologically many editors would think that since Kane has spent a day or two writing a new article, his efforts should be given a chance. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Something I think it’s important to point out here is that even if progress is defined by users agreeing with one another who didn’t before, rather than just improvements to the article itself, then even by that definition this mediation has definitely made significant progress. Before Ludwig took on the role of mediator, there was no agreement at all between the people who wanted the hereditarian hypothesis to be given more space in the article (me, Varoon Arya, mikemikev, and TechnoFaye) and those who thought it was being given too much space already. (Ramdrake, Aprock, Slrubenstein, and Muntuwandi). With Ludwig’s help, we’ve come up with an outline that pleases everyone in the first camp except TechnoFaye, and also pleases at least half of the second camp. Aprock and Slrubenstein have both expressed some amount of approval over the article’s current structure, and Ramdrake also approved of the general idea behind it (basing it around the data, rather than the explanations) although he hasn’t expressed an opinion about the outline itself because he stopped participating before we’d reached that point. For the approximately two years that I’ve been watching this article, this is the most agreement I’ve ever seen between the two “sides” of the debate over it.

As I mentioned on the article talk page, there are at least eight users currently involved in the article who approve of the new direction it’s taking, including users who take both perspectives about the cause of the IQ difference. As far as I can tell, you and Mathsci are the only users who disagree with the changes being made to it. That’s 80% agreement. If this level of agreement had been reached on the article talk page at a time when the article wasn’t in mediation, it would have certainly been sufficient consensus for us to make the changes to the article being discussed, and as far as I know this is the first time in two years we’ve reached this level of consensus about anything. The fact that we have now is a significant accomplishment. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued disruption by Ludwigs2

Ludwigs2 has continued collapsing/refactoring my comments on the mediation page, which I believe are pertinent. [131] That is confusing the roles of mediator and editor. He cannot be both. He has been instructed above to behave properly by the chair of the mediation committee. That does not involve passing comment on the content I add or refactoring any of my comments that I consider relevant to the article. He is there to facilitate dialogue not to comment on what other editors think important. He may not edit or change other editors' comments. Could some administrator please have a quiet word with him or block him if he continues? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As part of facilitating dialogue between this article’s editors, Ludwig has required us to abide by certain rules if we participate in the mediation, and you agreed to these rules yourself when you signed up for it. If we make comments that go against those rules, he refactors our comments. He’s done it to me also.

Mediation is a two-way street between the editors and the mediator. It involves more than just getting him (and the other editors) to listen to you; you have to listen to the mediator also. If you aren’t willing to do that, then you shouldn’t be part of the mediation, since this is one of the requirements for participating in it. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I was one of those requesting mediation, I am aware of the rules for mediation in this case, which concern conduct and the need to concentrate on content, rather than editors. Ludwigs2 is going beyond those rules and is interfering inappropriately with other people's edits. Those rules of mediation did not apply in this case, where I discussed the use of a spin-off article, written expressly for Race and intelligence and used as an argument to justify the contention that the hereditarian point of view was mainstream, not one pushed by a small fringe group of scientists, largely supported by the private Pioneer Fund. (The article was called Mainstream Science on Intelligence, originally a short letter to the Wall Street Journal with about 50 cosignatories. The WSJ letter is cited in the article and has been discussed at length on Talk:Race and intelligence.) Ludwigs2 was not empowered to make judgements on arguments that were intellectually complex, no matter what the temptation. He has been bending the rules now for a prolonged period, in a way that, judging from those left in mediation, seems to have favoured one side of mediation over another. In this case the final result looks as if it will be completely unacceptable because it violates WP:NPOV. He has stated that he wants to lock the final result, but that again is against policy. A deliberately ambiguous article, giving undue weight to minority points of view, will not last long on wikipedia. Ludwigs2 is one of those in favour of blurring the guidelines for covering minority views in articles (cf his edits to WP:NPOV - [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], etc). He seems to have treated mediation on Race and intelligence as some kind of experiment. Mathsci (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The subject of Race and Intelligence is already covered sufficiently in Wikia.[139][140] These articles were taken from Wikipedia and have remained there peacefully. --Horse wiz (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikia’s article about race and intelligence is pretty good. It looks like it was copied from Wikipedia’s race and intelligence article in 2006, and Wikipedia’s article about it was fine for most of that year. It didn’t start to decline in quality until sometime in 2007.

It’s been suggested that we revert Wikipedia’s article about this to another version from later in 2006, which is fairly similar to the one you linked to, but we weren’t able to obtain a consensus for that. Hopefully the current mediation case will be able to produce a new version of the article that’s just as good, though. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

4 editors turning WP into a Battlefield

I don't know if this is the right place. Perhaps I should be at Arbitration Enforcement , but I am concerned about the following editors. User:Vexorg,User:NickCT, User:Supreme Deliciousness,User:Unomi

The first three have made very unsettling attacks on those who don't support their anti-Zionist agenda and are thus sowing dissention and not collaboration:

• Vexorg: [141] Vexorg "having being the recent target of t the disingenuous Zionist Lobby on Wikipedia, particularly by the attention seeking MBz1 and her little sidekick Stellarkid..."

  NickCT: [142] "There certainly is a disingenuous Zionist Lobby on Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, take any article regarding a contentious Israel-Palestine issue than look at how many of the people contributing to the article/talk page actually are Isreali [sic]. It's a little scary. For contentious China related articles, you don't get ethnic Chinese editors trying to control the article. Same goes for pretty much every other nation but Israel. "

  Supreme Deliciousness [143] "You see The Lobby has dominated Arab-Israeli article for a long time, and you are one of the few who challenges their Israeli pov pushing, so this is why they are trying to collectively get rid of you."

Diffs demonstrating the bias they are putting into articles:

• Vexorg: [144] "(Prime Minister Tony) Blair has been a long time member of the Zionist Lobby group Labour Friends of Israel."

Vexorg developed the category of Zionism in the United Kingdom and has since been adding various groups to it [145](edit summary:"Adding pertinent Categories - Israel is the Zionist State") and edit-warring it into the articles: [146]

Wikiproject Israel is on my watchlist. When I went today I saw that user:Shuki had written something there claiming that "Unomi and Supreme Deliciousness were taking advantage of the weeklong Passover holiday to "slap[ping] occupied cats on everything." [147] Supreme Deliciousness responded by [148] "bringing meatpuppets, Shuki?" Considering the earlier comment by Supreme Deliciousness, I decided to see for myself:

Supreme Deliciousness also started his own category here: [149] entitled Category:Universitys [sic] in Israeli-occupied territories, and then proceeded to categorize all the universities himself, apparently reverting anyone who disagreed. Here are just a few with their edit summaries.

• [150] edit summary (rv worldview is not pov, Israeli pov is pov)
• [151] another rv with the same edit summary as above.
• [152] rv here with same edit summary
• [153] rv here

Unomi Created category "Companies with economic ties to Israeli-occupied territories"[154] Based on the link Big Campaign which is a propaganda anti-Israel site, NOT an RS at all. Using this bogus site and its information, Unomi tagged the following companies with his newly created category.

• [155] Sainbury
• [156] Hanson Cement
• [157] Unilever
• [158] Argos
• [159] Tesco
• [160] Fermentek
• [161] Sodastream
• [162] Carmel etc

These editors all have a serious anti-Zionist agenda and frankly should not be editing in the area. This is not collaborative work but an attempt to bully large chunks of POV into articles all the while denigrating the "opposition." While we know that this area is full of passionate intensity, we still must respect our fellow editors viewpoints and try to deal fairly with them and with the articles that others have written. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from Vexorg Stellarkid is a well known pro-Zionist editor, along with his/her sidekick Mbz1. I have just received notice of this section. Stellarkid is lying. I have not developed the category Zionism in the United Kingdom - I am not going to waste time on this continuing childish soap opera by immature people who wish to push their pro-Zionist agenda onto Wikipedia by continually trying to denigrate anyone who edits in a manner which is contradictory to the their political agenda. Personally I think administrators should indefinitely ban both Stellarkid and Mbz1 for the continual waste of time they are causing in this Online encyclopedia. Apart from defending against untruths claimed about me, I shall not waste time with this immature crap any longer. Vexorg (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, please, you are a smart guy, surely you see the hemispatial neglect-like nature of your complaint ? For the sake of completeness and neutrality you could have included diffs for the countless occasions where editors on the other side of these discretionary sanctions busting battles have made similar 'attacks on those who don't support their agenda and are thus sowing dissention and not collaboration' and who 'attempt to bully large chunks of POV into articles all the while denigrating the "opposition."' or indeed remove material. Editors shouldn't have to deal with this nonsense everytime they try to edit an article. Highlighting the behavior of one side while ignoring the behavior of the other is part of the problem. I would like to see admins blocking people much more often and much more proactively to try to stop the fighting, POV pushing, soapboxing etc. This is the kind of thing I have in mind (who it was and what side they support doesn't matter, it really could have been any of a number of people who repeatedly ignore the sanctions). It was a short block, nobody died and it sent a clear message. If someone was briefly blocked everytime they said or did something inconsistent with the sanctions I would hope that they would eventually get the message that they must comply with the sanctions. I have to say, NickCT is wrong about China related articles. Having worked on some myself the CCP vs Falun Gong narrative wars between editors are depressingly similar. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from Wikifan12345 It is funny to see Unomi using a blatant unreliable and dare I say, hate-site as a source, when only yesterday he filed an AE in attempt to impose sanctions on my user because I claimed the Jewish Virtual Library was a reliable source. He argued JVL was unreliable because one of its pages contained two conflicting graphs, and then accused me of being "evasive" when I failed to answer appropriately (his POV). This screams POV-pushing and some users might be offended that such propaganda is being edited into the site. Libeling companies that may or may not have a presence in the WB or Gaza as criminal and wicked (as these categories clearly infer) is akin to the hate-driven Zionist boycotts developed by the Soviets. I haven't taken a full look at the articles but based on the diffs provided by stellar the opinions of these users closely resemble classic antisemitic canards. Then again, we all know where I stand in this arena so perhaps I'm not the most objective person. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please be precise, who exactly are you attributing antisemitic sentiments to? And yes, you were evasive that can be seen clear as day here, you even admitted to not having read the source you erroneously thought backed up the content you reinstated in the article, and you are still misrepresenting my position as I had at no time brought up that it contained two conflicting graphs. Please stop being disruptive. Unomi (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"these users closely resemble classic antisemitic canards" - What a load of utter fraudulent nonsense!! The Zionist movement is a political ideology not a race. Wikifan12345 you are being disingenuous!! There's NOTHING in these diffs that's even in the same universe as racism. Please desist with your offensive links. Vexorg (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment By Unomi As April 1st spoofs go, this one is rather poor. Unomi (talk) 06:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment by cptnono I saw those comments on Facts talk page and was pretty offended. This continuing to assert that editors are in some sort of Israel Lobby is just not OK. A bunch of us in the topic area have said some low things in the past, and this is another one of those that just needs to stop. It baits people and rocks the boat too much. I'm cool if people want to hurl those accusations but do it the right place. A user's talk page which is already problematic is not the correct venue. That section should have been removed days ago based on some of the other attacks. If you have a problem take it to AE or here. Get some diffs and word it in a way that is to better Wikipeida and not attack other editors.Cptnono (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Wikifan Anti-Zionism and Anti-semitism have a long, inter-relationship. The Soviet-movement was designed to discredit Jews who wanted to emigrate out of Russia because of institutionalized antisemitism. In other words, "anti-Zionism" was simply a cloaking device to instill the same paranoia and propaganda once defined as antisemitism in a new, Marxist/communist context. Promoting fantasies like Jews have too much power by replacing "Jew" with "Zionist" is the same exact message. To say otherwise is purely gaming semantics. Based on the diffs provided by stellar it is obvious users are trying to undermine the credibility of wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply by Vexorg - Oh please! No one buys that old 20th century Jew <=> Zionism propaganda any more. And you're not even in the same ballpark as there's not even any Anti-Zionist edits being discussed. All I can see is some agenda to remove the mention of Zionism from Wikipedia. Surely you are not ashamed of it? Vexorg (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Supreme Deliciousness: What is this really about? Take a look at the edits. The category I created was meant for Israeli universities in the occupied territories. The entire world sees Golan as occupied. The United Nations [163] United States [164] European Union[165] United Kingdom[166] Arab League[167] and the same thing for the Westbank. So that is the majority worldview, all countries sees it as occupied except Israel. I opened this discussion at the talkpage [168] While I reverted it 1 time, Shuki reverted it 3 times, re adding that the university's location is in Israel. [169] [170][171] Who is the one disrupting?

Same thing at Herzog College, I revert 1 time he reverts 2 times and tells me to "take this POV to a central discussion before slapping it anything" He calls the worldview pov while he re inserts the minority Israeli viewpoint and tells me to take it to a central discussion when I had already made a post at the talkpage and he didn't respond: [172]

His disruptive behavior continues over several articles: take Mey Eden for example. The perfectly suitable and neutral category:Companies operating in Israeli-occupied territories. I revert 1 time and open the discussion at the talkpage explaining how the worldview is that it is occupied and how the category is suitable: [173] he reverts twice [174] [175] and says "take this POV to a central discussion before slapping it anything" when i had already opened the discussion at the talkpage without him responding.

Not only that, but he makes a post at the Israel WP project in an obvious attempt to gather Israel supporters [176] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by NickCT This seems like a rather pointless complaint from a pro-Israeli editor about resistance he's encountering against letting him and his buddies ride roughshide over Wiki's NPOV policy. Not sure this conversation is worth the space. If you have any specific complaints StellarKid, let me know. I'd be happy to discuss. NickCT (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

@Sean.Hoyland - re "I have to say, NickCT is wrong about China ..... editors are depressingly similar." Hmmm... I've editted out some POV material on China Civil War articles and haven't seen this kind of thing. However, I'm interested to hear of your experience. I'll have to add those articles to my watch list! NickCT (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by RomaC Insinuations of antisemitism constitute highly offensive personal attacks, particularly for the many Wiki editors from Jewish homes who are not here solely to advance Zionist rhetoric. Enough already with the new wave of SPA editors who play the antisemitism card whenever an editor strays from the Israeli gov't line. We discipline editors who make personal attacks using such epithets. We also have conflict of interest guidelines that say editors' work on the project should not be to advance outside interests. Really, enough is enough. RomaC (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite emptying a category while it is being considered for deletion

1. [177]
2. [178]
3. [179]
4. [180]
5. [181]

Please direct him to revert and desist. Unomi (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• No. It's covered by WP:RBI and you "accidentally" forgot to mention that it was you adding the category in the first place. Next? Guy (Help!) 13:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Err, explain to me why it matters that I added the category in the first place? And what does RBI have to do with this? Verifiability is trivially easy to meet, the source that stellarkid mischaracterizes is A research paper prepared for the Sir Joseph Hotung Programme for Law, Human Rights and Peace Building in the Middle East, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. And many of the articles above already have content regarding criticism stemming from it. Please do be more careful, and please do refactor. Unomi (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This ANI is the battlefield

The irony here is that Stellarkid's continued attacks on anyone who makes edits that don't follow the pro-Zionist cause have now manifested themselves in him/her claiming 4 editors are creating a battlefield yet Stellarkid has just created a battlefield in order to draw people in to fight again. We've already seen one cyber-warrior appear with repulsive accusations of anti-semitism. I must resist the temptation to be drawn into this crap yet again. Vexorg (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Vex. Would suggest you resist temptation. Frankly though, I'm not even remotely tempted to waste my time bickering here. NickCT (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Few more comments by Stellarkids

First, I apologize for my error in claiming that Verxog started the category above. I have struck it out. Unsurprisingly, Verxog calls this a "lie." Second, I notice that the thinking here seems to be that "the best defense is a good offense." I hope that the uninvolved editors that read this (and PLEASE read it) will see past this. To my mind the offensive strategy is meant to distract, and the argument should be heard on the merits. Third, with respect to Vexorg, I did not include what initially brought him to my attention which was at an Afd for an article written by one of his "opponents" in which he made an false accusation against the author. [182] While he claimed ignorance of the facts as his excuse, he has never apologized for his behavior and indeed continues attacking her in this ANI. Here is a couple more diffs that demonstrate the battlefield mentality that I am talking about [183][184][185]. Stellarkid (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the categories issue, when editing in the I-P area, creating categories about "Zionism" and then going through various articles and categorizing them and then reverting other editors' reverts is really unhelpful. There seems to be little to no understanding by these editors that one does not suddenly destabilize articles like this in a sensitive area such as I-P. So-called "Zionist" editors have a right to have their perspective respected as well, by open discussion and consensus building on the talk pages. This precludes the kind of blanket tagging the editors above have been doing, or the edit summaries that are frankly insulting to others. Stellarkid (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Enough

Both sides here are off base. Go back to your corners. Wikipedia is not a battleground.

If uninvolved administrators have to start blocking any editor who is disruptive and taking sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we are fully capable of doing so. There had been a multi-year on-wiki detente and working partnership between the camps, agreements to disagree. That has started to fail in 2010. You can find your way back to appropriate and acceptable behavior, or take your fighting somewhere else. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I think you are off-base here although I appreciate the sentiment. There is a serious difference between disruption and taking sides. There is no question that there are sides, but it would be wrong to sanction users based on their having a "side." There are clear sides in many issues. But disruption is another matter and should be handled. We have editors referring to themselves as "targets of the Zionist Lobby" -- Others complaining that there are too many Israelis on Wikipedia (as if all "Zionists" are Israelis) (When was the last time the Israelis complained about the number of Palestinians or Arabs editing? Is there a survey I missed somewhere?) We have other editors calling the other side "The Lobby" and claiming "The Lobby" dominates the "Arab-Israel article" for a long time. This isn't collaborative editing, it is disruptive editing. Multiple tagging of articles along with reversions based on clear political motives, tagging from established propaganda sites like "The Big Campaign" is just plain wrong. If a kid gets kicked in kindergarten and goes to the teacher for redress, you don't expect the teacher to tell the child that she deserved it or that both will have to stay after school. Assuming that the kid isn't simply lying to get another child in trouble, (which is why we provide diffs), we expect the teacher to discipline the child that did the kicking. Otherwise what is the point or use of this board? Stellarkid (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that is quite enough. If you had bothered to follow the link that I actually gave when adding the cats it would have been clear to you that it was the pdf here, A research paper prepared for the Sir Joseph Hotung Programme for Law, Human Rights and Peace Building in the Middle East, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Stop being lazy and go read sources. What you are engaging in now is disruptive. Unomi (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Accusing another user of being lazy and not reading sources. I read the note you put up questioning me earlier and I had written to it but you withdrew it so I did not post my answer. I did indeed go to the source which was a private company called "Profundo" which does reports for its respective "clients" for money. Wikipedia does not base its categories on a report from a private company which has not been evaluated. This particular report was sourced by you to the anti-Israel propaganda site since apparently they were happy with the results of the report. Stellarkid (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is why you linked to the landing page of 'The Big Campaign' as my source, right? If you look at where the pdf is actually hosted you can see that the University department clearly endorses it: It is an empirical study forming part of a wider project which examines economic and trade issues arising from Israel's occupation of occupied Palestinian and Syrian territories.. I also think you should reconsider saying 'anti-Israel' all the time, you should consider that people who are for the normalization of relations are actually doing so in the best interests of Israel. There is nothing 'Pro-Israel' about letting it spin into a failed state scenario. Anyway, this is not the place for it, I am withdrawing from this thread, please do hit me up on my talk page if you want to discuss further. Unomi (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with the sentiments expressed in that last message. Georgewilliamherbert, with all due respect, I have been growing very frustrated lately with comments about this issue from you. How can you come to this board and say "Enough complaining about disruptive editing! Both 'sides' shut up and just live with each other or I'll ban you all!"? How is that encouraging collaboration? There are certain editors involved in this issue that have proven time and time again that they are unwilling to collaborate or compromise with the so-called 'Zionist lobby'. Their comments demonstrate that they are here for one reason and one reason only: to fight his so-called lobby. In other words, to battle. I am not assuming bad faith here, I am making these conclusions based on the specific things that these editors have stated. The diffs are listed above, and there are more. If they are here to fight a political battle, they are violating Wikipedia policies and going against the basic nature of Wikipedia and the WP:5P. I fail to see how reporting disruptive editors is off-base. Breein1007 (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And as an added note, when you say "uninvolved editors have to start blocking any editor who is disruptive and taking sides... we are fully capable of doing so", I would just like to say that I wouldn't exactly consider you uninvolved anymore. Breein1007 (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are being satirical for comic effect, I'd remind you that 1st April is more or less done here, and it's long been the opinion of ArbCom that taking administrative action does not make an uninvolved administrator "involved". Rodhullandemu 23:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Because those doing the reporting are equally disruptive. WP:FOOTSHOT is frequently seen here in AN/I. And to the last comment, WTF? I have never seen George involved in Israeli-Palestinian editing. Where are you getting that from? Tarc (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess my understanding of involved was wrong then. That doesn't change anything about my first post, though. Breein1007 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I was sharing this with a friend and he said it sounded as if George was saying "A curse on both your houses." I understand that this is the way a lot of people feel about this seemingly intractable issue in real life. But surely we can do better here at WP. We are not fighting the war, just asking each other to be civil and as you say honor the basic Wikipedia principles. That is what I am trying to do here, rather than editwar, personally attack other editors or groups of other editors, or attempt to push my POV without consensus. Stellarkid (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you not see the irony in reporting four editors, editing distinctly different pages, for their shared view that some group of other editors is colluding against them? Your kindergarten analogy isn't too far off, but it's more like a game of playground kickball, where both teams believe the other is cheating, and use everything at their disposal to "level the playing field"—each whining to their teacher about the other. In that case I would expect the teacher to take the ball away. ← George ^talk 00:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

But its my baaaaall! This whole discussion got a little off track. The editors on Factomancer's page need to stop slinging the evil Jewish lobby thing around. Pretty simple request. Admin: "Don't do that" Them: "OK, won't happen again".Cptnono (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, totally agree regarding this whole "lobby" issue, but I don't think bringing a list of names here is an effective way of accomplishing that - any more than if one of the editors Stellarkid reported had brought a list of editors they felt were part of this "Zionist lobby." Bringing up lists of people, instead of identify singular, actionable incidents that violate policies, only fans the flames of incitement and makes the whole thing worse. ← George ^talk 01:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(past multi-ECs). Both sides here (and in the last few weeks, others in the same topic area) have all uniformly said "It's not my fault, I didn't do anything, look at the abuses they did". Multiple uninvolved administrators including myself have found blame on both sides. It is not true that everyone who's pointing out problems is in fact themselves also causing other problems, but I believe that a majority of both sides who are stepping into ANI and related areas are guilty of misbehavior.

This is all what our policy against using Wikipedia as a battleground is here for. This type of conflict degrades everyone's participation in Wikipedia and degrades our ability to be neutral, reliable source based, and a constructive ongoing project.

I and other uninvolved administrators are attempting to find a way to curb the disruption without denying too many people their ongoing ability to edit Wikipedia. There have been numerous short blocks, multiple edit restrictions, and more warnings on ANI and user pages and article talk pages in the last month or so than I can recall in prior periods. The problem is not going away.

Administrators are not Teachers - but we do control part of the ball, in the sense of having the technical ability and the operational authority to issue blocks for abuse which continues despite warnings. We also can put various edit restrictions in place, propose more community bans or edit restrictions, or file an arbcom case.

Admins have to be fair - neutral or at least impartial on the content dispute, and fair and not abusive to individual editors. But we have our powers, to block and take other actions, to protect the encyclopedia and the project and community.

To the participants in this dispute - I want to be as clear and unambiguous as I can here. What you all are doing is wrong, and disrupting Wikipedia, and it needs to stop. If it stops by you all individually stopping the disruptive behavior and resuming the collaborative detente between the Israeli and Palestinian / Arab camps, that's fine. If that does not happen by itself, editors who are participating in the disruption and who continue to do so will get individual warnings, final warnings, and then begin being blocked.

If you are a participant in Wikipedia from either of these camps, please understand that we as administrators are not looking for an excuse to punish or restrict you - or anyone else. But our responsibility to protect Wikipedia - the articles, the project, the community, and other editors - also comes into play.

Please remember our core community and project policies, the five pillars - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is free content, Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner, and Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

What is relevant to this ongoing incident is a failure to assume good faith, part of WP:CIVIL, and failures to remember That we're an encyclopedia (and not a battleground, etc), that we're a neutral point of view, and failures to treat each other with respect and civilly.

We cannot change the outside world here. But we must as a project continue to constructively build and maintain the encyclopedia, and respect each other. If you are not willing to respect and deal with the participants from the other side with good faith and basic human dignity, please turn around and walk away from the project. Our core values and policies require you to treat everyone acceptably well here.

Please reconsider your own conduct and attempt to work in better harmony with your neighbors here.

If you won't, then I and other administrators will walk you out the door. I really don't want to do that. But nobody on either side should have any doubt that we can, and if you force the issue that we will. There are bigger things at play here than anyone's individual contributions. Please find peaceful ways to coexist. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet sadly the disruption continues George. I've even been stalked at a sockpuppet report - <sigh> Vexorg (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that this discussion has moved to here. ← George ^talk 08:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) As an admin who has recently had the unpleasant experience of taking various enforcement actions in the I/P area, I agree with everything that George just said. The seething battleground mentality of a relatively small number of editors on both sides of the conflict is just staggering. If we administrators find that our current whack-a-mole individual enforcement actions are no longer sufficient to contain the disruption generated by this virtual reenactment of the real-world conflict, I am willing to institute and/or support very broad-ranging topic bans on anybody whose conduct in this area has been even remotely problematic or noise-generating during the last few months. Also, if there are other administrators who are interested in participating and have the required stress tolerance, I intend to propose a WP:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement to help coordinate administrator action in the arbitration-covered problem areas (Balkans, I/P etc.) and to jointly track long-term enforcement issues on the article or editor level.  Sandstein  10:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate any input into whether something like this draft might be a good idea: User:Sandstein/WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement.  Sandstein  10:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The longer these guys are here the more experienced they become in using process to fight their war. I support any form of fast-track resolution to the perennial fights. Those who are unable to work together without constant bickering, we can do withou. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comments by Georgewilliamherbert at the top of the page. The détente that had held at Israel/Palestine articles has come unraveled in recent months as more aggressive editors have joined the fray. I also agree with Sandstein. I encourage uninvolved administrators to be more aggressive in enforcing WP:ARBPIA. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Pieter Kuiper

Could an admin take a look at this section and take any necessary action. Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) has already refused multiple requests (from three separate editors) to tone down his comments on an article talk page. Physchim62 (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevant diffs are: [186][187][188][189][190][191] The user has been informed of this thread here Physchim62 (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

He's definitely being rude and condescending. However, this is really more of an issue for WP:Wikiquette alerts. I'll leave a note about civility, though that's as far as I'm willing to go. Am I a ten 18:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Physchim's April 1 joke didn't go down well with Peter. I suggest we stick to the policy WP:Waste of Time. Count Iblis (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Um he deliberately fucked up one of our articles and you call that an April fools joke? If that's the case (I'm not 100% sure) then I'd call it vandalism. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no indication that it is a joke. It looks like Physchim screwed up (maybe, I don't get the physics), and Pieter called him on it in an exceedingly rude way. Assuming good faith here, but unless Physchim has a history of intentionally inserting incorrect information and formulas, I don't see any reason to do anything other than a Wikiquette note for Pieter. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I second ShadowRanger's interpretation. There was an associated thread at WT:PHYS where he asked for clarification on the issue (1/r was correct, and there are at least two ways to derive it). My impression was that Count Iblis was making a joke when referring to it as an April Fools prank. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh I think I understand what Iblis and Theresa are saying (they're implying that it's a POINTy response to some old disputes these editors have been around). Yeah, if this is a joke, it's not a good one, so cut it out. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Pieter has a history of being rude, and reminds me way too much of Likebox for my liking, but both sides should take a chill pill IMO. The mistake has been fixed, and it's all that matters. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Call that a mistake? Physchim embarked on a major rewrite with supreme self-confidence but without any understanding of basics (really, highschool level). And without any textbook at hand. When challenged, he does not look it up. Only very slowly some understanding is dawning. This may be symptomatic for a pattern of editing that the self-appointed physics coordinator should be worried about if he cared about accuracy of the information here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it is precisely this anomalous behavior of Physchim that makes me believe that this was an April 1 joke. Yesterday, Physchim played the role of a newcomer to Wikipedia who had spotted big errors in Wiki articles and was being bold to correct the "mistakes". His postings at Wiki-project physics was just role-playing. Let's see what Physchim will do next year... Count Iblis (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO this should be seen in the context that Pieter opposed an WP:AE filing which Physchim had made against Brews ohare a few days ago, in a manner to which Physchim didn't take kindly. (The matter was closed subsequently with Physchim in the minority.) It is probably better to write this off as needless wikidrama and close it with no action taken, and a desire that the parties correspond in a better tone next time. Orderinchaos 17:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• At the point
  • where talk page civility becomes more important than factual accuracy, especially in hard science articles, and
  • where we tell knowledgeable editors that they are incivil if they tell another editor to stop editing what they don't understand,
• we should abandon all pretence of being an encyclopedia, and just tell the public that we are playing at being an encyclopedia. Fortunately, it seems we haven't quite reached that point yet, but sometimes it feels like we are well on our way. --JN466 13:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • That'll happen over my dead body. Theresa Knott | token threats 13:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, there was a more or less knee jerk rejection of the proposed guidelines in WP:Editing scientific articles last year. Count Iblis (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ed Roberts page move

Resolved

 – Simple misunderstanding. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ed Roberts (computers) passed away today and his page will be linked by many external sites. Jackyd101 has never edited this page and without notice he moved it to Ed Roberts (computer engineer) This breaks page view counter [192] on the day it will get the most hits. If the consensus of the editors is to move it back to Ed Roberts (computers) this peak day will be missing from the edit count history. I have left a note on Jackyd101 talk page but could someone move the page back until there is a discussion on the best title. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't see anything wrong with this. One can just combine the page views to get the grand total. This name is more descriptive itself and had I seen this, I would've probably done the same. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur, no action required. Access statistics are not a consideration when choosing page titles.  Sandstein  05:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I was asleep during Swtpc6800's messages. I made the move as I don't think that Ed Roberts (computers) is very useful as a disambiguation, although if another title is prefered I have no prejudice against it being changed - I was being WP:BOLD. Apologies for any disruption involved.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This issue can be closed. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring to introduce misinformation into the project namespace

I've got a problem with Reisio (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. He's decided that this essay needs to make some fairly wild claims, such as "Most Wikipedia policies and guidelines directly contradict each other" and WP:IAR "invalidates all other policies, guidelines, and even itself." (This isn't an April Fool's Day issue.)

I'm not sure what to do about this: It's not exactly vandalism, but it is disruptive, and very few editors seem to be watching the page. The page is linked from WP:POLICY, and frankly POLICY needs this "FAQ" about what the difference between a policy and a guideline isn't on Wikipedia. Having the previously accurate explanation present this kind of serious misinformation is harmful to editors who are making a good faith effort to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have made a bunch of disruptive edits today, more than are reasonably explainable away as April 1 prank activity.

I have left him a "That's not funny" and disruption warning on his talk page; hopefully he will slow down and discuss on talk pages now if he continues.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey look at that, you waited a full nine minutes after finally clarifying your concerns on the talk page before calling me a crazy spreader of misinformation here. Nice. :p Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays wasn't an FAQ before or after my edits, and if WP:POLICY doesn't have a distinction anymore, it's because its editors purposefully removed it (with your help). The essay was not accurate, but now it is. You are right about one thing, though: my edits are not vandalism. ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not the responses you were hoping for? :p Is this witch hunt over yet? ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You asked, on your talk page, what I thought you were doing which was disruptive. So -

Edit warring at Compact fluorescent lamp to remove cited content which multiple other editors have restored, including questionable edit summaries: "sure, but ASSUMING pigs fly and ASSUMING muppets are sentient, lights made out of pudding emit even less mercury!" ...you're saying it isn't a nonsensical contrivance depending on not one but two fantastical assumptions merely... because it exists? Or what? (rvl)

Your edits on the page in conflict here, Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays - [193] being the one that started the edit war, and which you've reverted to.

* "there are no useful definitions for"

* "even though it's a waste of time"

* "an essay by the principal author of [[WP:ROUGE]] about a silly word"

* "Most Wikipedia policies and guidelines directly contradict each other"

* "Furthermore, [[WP:Ignore all rules]] is a major policy which invalidates all other policies, guidelines, and even itself."

* insertion of three {{fact}} citation needed tags in the essay.

* changing "scrutinized more closely" to "completely unnoticed"

In addition to edit warring, this is more or less textbook disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:HDS

I tagged an article that HDS wrote, Vision Éternel for speedy a few days ago. After he removed the tag twice, I decided to list it for AfD. He received three notices yesterday on his talk page about removal of speedy/AfD tags, including a final notice, and has removed the Afd tag now. He has also recently removed three more [194] [195] [196], which I will revert shortly. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Editor is currently blocked for 24 hours by me. I was concerned that perhaps their account had been compromised, but apparently they were blocked for similar behavior back in 2007. As always, no objection to user being unblocked if they agree to stop their disruption. Syrthiss (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I put the tags up on the article, and voted Delete. No published sources, but that doesn't mean I voted speedy, just because it doesn't have no references. Minimac (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Improper AfD closure?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles mayoral election, 2013 was closed as a non-admin closure after the nominator asked to withdraw the article for deletion consideration. However, there were several delete !votes in the discussion. I thought that a non-admin closure should not be done when people have requested deletion of the article. Was this an improper AfD closure? And if not, can an admin please reopen it? Thanks. Warrah (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the close. The closing editor not only wasn't an admin, they are the creator of the nominated article and a "Keep" !voter, which is clearly a conflict of interest. --RL0919 (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh the irony. It was nominated as being crystal-ballism, as a stub with just the date, which was actually not speculative, and has now been kept because it's full of speculation about potential candidates! A week is a long time in politics, folks, I bet you a pound that the potential candidates list changes between now and then. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive mass nominations at AfD

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.

No admin action required. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

---

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

The above user has been repeatedly mass nominating bus route articles at AfD, despite calls from various users to take part in a centralised discussion already taking place. Since this user is an admin, she obviously feels she is above logical discussion and prefers to act in a disruptive manner, ignoring everyone else on WP.

There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport#London_bus_route_articles, and has been for about a week now on how to handle non notable bus route articles, and the general consensus is just to redirect them. Currently there are several users going through each article individually and attempting to source where appropriate, and if the route is just not notable, make the redirect. This user is ignoring what is currently going on and has set upon her on mission to eradicate every bus route article from the face of the earth.

What do I hope to achieve from this thread? An admin with an ounce of common sense should step in and close all these discussions, pointing the user to the ongoing discussion linked above, and telling her to stop being disruptive. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Jeni ^(talk) 00:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Note, the admin in question has now resorted to calling me a troll.[197] Is this really the example admins should be setting? Jeni ^(talk) 00:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• No action is warranted here. There is no reason to assume these nominations are not in good faith. It is quite clear from the nomination statements that the nominator has followed WP:BEFORE in a genuine effort to not nominate the routes that are notable. Indeed, when one looks at this raft of unsourced, unverified tracts of original research, it is clear that the nominations are quite proper. The community at large decides on the notability of articles, not individual wikiprojects.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think the best course of action would be for BHG to stop nominating articles for now, but the ones already open should be left as they are, as people have commented on them. Consensus may well be different to that on the bus talk page, and the talk page discussion does not trump the policies of WP:V and WP:NOR which are the main concerns - lack of sources to assert notability, and original research.

I think you should tone down the hyperbole a bit though, Jeni. Saying things like "[This user [...] has set upon her on mission to eradicate every bus route article from the face of the earth" helps nothing. Aiken ♫ 00:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, I wondered how long it would take Jeni to try this.

Firstly, I am not on a mission to "eradicate every bus route article"; I have sought community consensus on deleting some of the most egregiously non-notable ones. Most of the articles I have nominated abysmally fail all wikipedia's notability standards, but rather than comment on content, Jeni has set out to simply derail the consensus-building process at AFD by disruptively posting attacks on me which have nothing to do with the articles under discussion.

I have since found that Jeni and a few other editors interested in buses have been using set of notability criteria (at Wikipedia:UKBRQDRIVE#What_qualifies_as_a_route_notable_for_an_article.3F_ which take no account of established Wikipedia inclusion guidelines such as WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

It appears that I have inadvertently stepped into a walled garden, which is why evidence of the utter non-notability of most of the articles I have nominated for deletion is being met with diversionary accusations of misconduct.

Please can we just use AFD for its normal purpose of discussing the notability or otherwise of the articles concerned? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Jeni says "The above user has been repeatedly mass nominating bus route articles at AfD, despite calls from various users to take part in a centralised discussion already taking place. Since this user is an admin, she obviously feels she is above logical discussion and prefers to act in a disruptive manner, ignoring everyone else on WP"

Actually, I have repeatedly asked Jeni to provide some evidence of the notability of articles whose deletion she opposes, and have consistently been met with abusive refusals to do so. I invite anyone interested to read the AFD discussions and make up their own minds on who is putting themselves above logical discussion.

Oh, and for the record, I finished processing my list of bus route articles to scrutinise. We'll see what the outcome is of open AFD discussions on these articles, and then I will be happy to discuss with the bus projects how to move forward. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Jeni's !votes and lack of AGF are bordered on disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I looked into one of these cases in detail and found that the supposed lack of notability was false - a simple book search turned up numerous references, as one would expect for this famous form of transportation. This and other aspects of the matter indicate that the deliberations mandated by our deletion policy are not being followed. As the volume of nominations is already causing editors to give up in disgust, so that proper consideration cannot be given to the topics, these nominations seem quite disruptive. It may also be that nationalism comes into this - I seem to recall BHG and Jeni going at it over the naming of motorway articles and the animus generated by this may be spilling over into other transportation articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• You have 7 days. to provide those sources. I just read most of them and didn't see you provide any sources or say anything beyond making bad faith assumptions. If you found so many sources on one route, why didn't you add them tot he article? Sorry you want to keep an article and claim sources you need to provide them. I saw a couple AfDs where book sources were discussed but it seems that the book sources were trivial coverage. A sentence or two.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here a selection from the many I found. I'd list more but it's late.

1. Engineering Volume 209
2. Process control and automation Volume 8
3. Railway Gazette International Volume 107
4. The Commercial Motor Volume 135‎
5. The London RT bus: the story of London's longest-lasting bus

Colonel Warden (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am delighted that Colonel Warden found sources I had missed for one of the articles. That's a good outcome at AFD: wider scrutiny resolves a problem someone had missed. But check through the other articles, and you will see several (e,g. 187) where even User:Alzarian16, the editor who has worked a lot on these articles agrees that it's utterly non-notable.

  But as to the rest of CW's comments ... wooooweee, that bad faith on stilts, with the power turned up to number 11.

  How I got into this is simple. Over a week ago I found an uncategorised Category:Bus routes in Cardiff, added parent categs, and took it CFD for upmerger at here. That discussion broght up concerns about the notability of bus routes, so I looked at the articles and AFDed 2 of the 3: Capital City Red and Capital City Green. At the CCR AfD an editor suggested I look, at the London buses, so I did: I took a random sample of 6, and found them so woefully lacking in references, and so devoid of any sign of notabilty when I looked for sources, that I AFDed them.

  I'm saddened to see that Colonel Warden's has leapt so rapidly into making false accusations of nationalism. I have nominated dozens of non-notable Irish articles for deletion, so I am quite happy to stand by my record of neutrality in deletion debates, and I think it's a great pity that there are a very few British people who seem to find it acceptable to launch into allegations of ulterior motives when they disagree with someone Irish. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  This is par for the course here. It is quite common for something that someone likes which isn't notable to be nominated for deletion. Since there is no way to genuinely defend it it almost always results in a few things including assumptions of bad faith, insults, harassment, etc. As someone who often nominates for lack of notability I've been subject to all kinds of it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• We're talking about London buses here - one of the most notable transportation systems on the planet, about which numerous books have been written. Sources for such article are quite feasible and the relevant project is engaging in this work already. Nominating a great flurry of articles is quite unhelpful as it generates unproductive discussion of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Quite, which is why we have London buses and Buses in London. Not every route is notable and worthy of an article. Aiken ♫ 01:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• The system might be notable. Doesn't mean every individual route is notable. Perhaps you misunderstood me. If you found sources that were relevant to an article why didn't you provide them? Claiming sources without providing them especially when asked borders on disruptive, especially taking into account your already numerous assumptions of bad faith. No one has demonstrated where anyone was supposed to know there was even a discussion going on in the first place even if it was relevant to whether or not they could nominate something for deletion. There are no notices on the pages themselves that I can find.--Crossmr (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Pointing out that a discussion is already in progress on the topic is now disruptive is it? I've had to put up with BHG's endless requests asking why I think these articles are notable, when I haven't even attempted to comment on the notability, and made it clear that I wasn't about to in that context. Jeni ^(talk) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Since that is irrelevant yes. Projects do not own articles and people are free to edit, change, or nominate them completely independent of what the project is doing.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please please do point me to somewhere where its been stated that projects own articles? I certainly can't see anything! I don't think half the people involved in that discussion are even in the LT WikiProject, I'm not! It's just a convenient place to hold a centralised discussion. Please stop making silly assumptions you know are blatantly untrue. Jeni ^(talk) 01:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• You claimed that since the projects were discussing these articles someone couldn't nominate them for deletion. That's ownership. Unless there is already an existing deletion discussion going on, anyone from anywhere is free to start one.--Crossmr (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I claimed that since there was already an on going discussion (please do note the lack of the word project there) it is rather WP:POINTy to completely ignore said discussion, refuse to take part and continue on a mass nomination spree. Please please do read things :) Jeni ^(talk) 01:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand WP:POINT very well and I suggest you reread it. Jtrainor (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I read it fine. Please refrain from assuming bad faith. That seems to be a big issue for you in this matter. Is the discussion on a project page or not? Just because you didn't say "project" is irrelevant. The discussion is happening in relevant project space. Not at the pump. It isn't pointy at all to nominate something for deletion. It is an assumption of bad faith to assume that though since most of the ones I visited were good nominations there is an utter lack of significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Going on your logic, any discussions which take place on a project page are completely worthless and pointless by virtue of their location. Sorry, doesn't work like that.. discussion occurs in the most convenient place where a group of editors get together and find something which needs discussing. Been around Wikipedia long? Jeni ^(talk) 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, they just don't supersede deletion discussions or the requirements for one. Also can you show me where she was notified of the discussion prior to her nominations? I just checked a couple random route pages and cannot find any notifications on their talk pages that their fate was being discussed. And yes, I've been around wikipedia for years. Have you? It seems you've got a real problem remembering core behavioural policies and guidelines and you're really pushing disruptive now with your continuance. If you can't discuss this in a civil manner without assuming bad faith I might suggest you take a step back.--Crossmr (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Blurp, looks like me and Crossmr simulposted. Cross, I was replying to Jeni, not you. Jtrainor (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of bad faith aren't helping your case at all, Jeni. Frankly, the only thing I could accuse BHG of doing wrong in this instance is not batch nominating the London bus routes, thus forcing me to !vote delete multiple times instead of once. Resolute 01:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but it seems that any way of bring these articles to AFD is going to cause objections. I thought it was easier to consider the routes separately, but after a few suggestions of batching them, I did batch the last group (a nomination for the West Midlands articles). Jeni's response was to accuse me of making a disruptive indiscriminate nomination which included "both notable and non notable routes" (tho she didn't identify which).

I don't know why it makes any difference to her, since she has posted at great length to all the other AFDs about her refusal to even discuss notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I wasn't serious in the criticism but that didn't translate via text.  ;) Resolute 16:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Mass Afd is a disfunctional method at the best of times, but when it makes it to ANI, well, assessing the articles and their potential properly and individually in good faith against the GNG, is now a mere pipe dream in the face of multiple cookie cutter JNN votes. MickMacNee (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see this as "disruptive". The AfDs are in proper form. They seem to be getting both "keep" and "delete" votes. They're not frivolous. Usually, we have this argument over spinoff articles from fiction fans who get carried away with enthusiasm. This time, it's bus fans. --John Nagle (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like major cruft. I suggested in the 187 afd that the folks working on these articles should compile them all into a wikibook instead of spraying them across N separate encyclopedia articles. A wikibook puts all the info in one place, which is almost certainly preferable for readers and doesn't cruft up the encyclopedia. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I really have lost the will to do anything about this, as in my eyes, since I have started, Wikipedia has become a bureaucratic piece of rubbish, and I now edit less and less. However, what I want to say is, as an admin, should BHG have started AfDing articles without even saying one comment at the discussion that was going on at the time? Surely, something should have been said at the discussions, even just one sentence out of politeness, before going on an AfD rampage. Does anyone have any manners any more, or do we all have to start causing chaos and confusion without discussion, to get what we want done? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• I'm out too [198], if I was ever really in in the last year. Anybody interested in this topic needs to just hand over their cash to the London Omnibus Traction Society, Wikipedia institutionaly just cannot handle applying their generalised-into-abstraction GNG wording, to dealing with this sort of specialised topic. It's sad to see that people honestly seem to think this is just travel information, or that just because they aren't interested in the subject, that it cannot possibly be the case that this topic is actually written about to death in proper information sources, most if not all you have to pay for unlike this unreliable and frankly unworthy infohost. It's downright insulting to see people getting away with labelling experienced editors having to deal with this mass Afd as ignorant hoarders of junk, who don't have the first clue about N/V/RS. Still, we all know where we are if we just stick to the usual topics at this infotainment hobby site, i.e. pop culture pap, or subjects sourced soley to Google. I can rack off whole articles about that all day everyday, properly sourced and everything! MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • P.S. BHG is now adding a tag stack to each article in turn, in ascending numerical order. I am at a loss to see what that achieves, apart from a lot of work for BHG, given the fact the issues to be addressed are exactly the same for every single article, and every editor that I am aware is interested in the subject, is already fully aware of this discussion. It definitely feels POINTY to me, it's certainly not motivating me to do anything about it. She might as well batch Afd the whole lot and accelerate discussion of the meta-issue, rather than waste her time like this, as in my experience on the topic I would bet £1,000 that 99% of these tags will still be in place in two years otherwise. MickMacNee (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  I am working through the articles one by one, adding tags as appropriate to that particular article. I have not tagged all the articles in the same fashion, and in most of them I have removed an incorrect "unreferenced" tag, because of the articles were tagged that way despite having some external links to primary sources. The purpose of those tags is, as usual, quite simple: to identify for readers and editors articles in need of attention. So far, I have done #1 to #40, and about one article in ten appears to me to include anything approaching either a remotely plausible assertion of notability or anything which might be taken as evidence of notability.

  In most cases, the overwhelming majority of the articles contains material which is unreferenced and supported by none of the external links. Mick thinks it's near certain that even with the tags in place, these articles will remain in the same sorry state for at least two years. I don't quite share that pessimism — I think nthatr some of them may be improved — but what if Mick is broadly right about the lack of attention the articles will receive?

  He has protested at AFD that he doesn't want the articles to be deleted, and now he doesn't want them tagged as in need of attention. So I can see only only two possibilities. Either a) Mick wants the articles to be left for years as a pile of unreferenced material, contrary to WP:V, in the hope that some time more than two years hence somebody may actually produce something which finally starts to meet verifiability standards; or b) He wants them to be cut back to stubs, eliminating all the unsourced stuff. Which is it? For all the denunciations, all I have seen so far is Mick attacking any solution to current swamp of unreferenced material which neither asserts notability nor offers evidence of notability.

  WP:V is very clear that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". In this case, the heat and fury comes from a number of vociferous editors trying to revert that that burden. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• As the main editor working to improve these articles, I might be expected to agreee wtih Jeni, Arriva and Mick's interpretations. But I don't. I can't actually see much wrong with many of the nominations, although I am disappointed that BHG didn't join in the discussion first. Most of the routes didn't show notability when nominated (only a small number such as London Buses route 73 or West Midlands bus route 8 could be said to), and the AfD nominations are forcing us to improve the articles to give them a chance of being retained. My only worry concerns one specific case, London Buses route 66, which BHG and others have praised [199] [200] but still appears likely to be deleted on somewhat dubious grounds. As for the article tags cited by Mick, they may well not achieve much but they aren't against any policy I know of - and as I intend to source most of these articles over the next few months, several will be removed by me when I feel the article concerned shows notability. So although I'm not best pleased at so many articles facing the threat of deletion, I don't feel any major action is required. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Alzarian16, I just can't understand the logic of writing so many separate articles about bus routes in one city. My city also has a lot of bus routes, and I could imagine getting interested in them and wanting to read about them, but a separate article about each one just seems pointless. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to raise that point at the relevant AfDs, but I don't see how it's relevant to this thread since we both seem to be in agreement that no action is required. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Coming back to the actions of the user, which is the topic of this discussion, I'd like to point out that this same editing pattern has been applied to Capital City Red and Capital City Green. Both have been nominated for deletion by User:BrownHairedGirl, despite the fact that no-one agreed with her and that several other users have confirmed that the articles are well sourced, meet the required guidelines and should not have been nominated in the first place- see here and here. Therefore it seems that BrownHairedGirl is either unfamiliar with the guidelines of deletion nonimation, or is ignoring them. This editing is indeed very disruptive. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:24, 2 April 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.

Uncivil comment made by user:Parrot of Doom

Resolved

 – Per Tarc, an hour ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a good faith edit earlier to today's featured article claiming that usage of the Long s in a quote was confusing and unnecessary: [201]

user:Parrot of Doom reverted the change and rudely pointed out, "It's only confusing to those without the ability to think.": [202]

I took offense to this and warned him if he didn't apologize I would report his behavior to an administrator: [203]

He then refused to apologize: [204]

This is an obvious case of uncivil behavior. Please block him for at least 24 hours. This user needs to learn some manners. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User was uncivil. User was warned. User was threatened that he would be blocked if he didn't apologize? That step-3 isn't part of the standard discourse. Do not escalate the situation--can't change the past, all we really care about is if the original claimed problem continues. DMacks (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how anybody but me warned him. It would be far better if an administrator did that. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this page (sarcasm), and thanks for the threats. Where I come from, we would call that a rather pathetic attempt at bullying. But then again, in the world of the civility warrior, the rules only apply in one direction. Enjoy your minute of wikidrama. Parrot of Doom 17:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Parrot, perhaps you could have worded your comment in a more pleasant way? I do think, however, that forcing an apology out of someone is always a futile exercise. Aiken ♫ 17:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The only people who find the use of the long 's' confusing are those who cannot be bothered to sit still for a few seconds and read it correctly. I do not replace the long 's' in quotes for the same reasons I do not change the punctuation of those quotes, which in 18th-century England can go on for 50 words or more without a full stop.

Its a cultural thing. Where I'm from, we're not afraid to speak our minds. Where the complainant comes from, I suspect he considers such behaviour to be reprehensible. His argument collapsed like a pack of cards the instant he started making threats. Civility on Wikipedia should have a tagline - "You'll fucking agree with us, or else". Parrot of Doom 17:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Where Wikipedia stands, we comment on the content and the edit, not the editor. Making something clearer, even if it is already clear to many, is a good thing; on its face, there's no advantage to being obtuse, essoteric, or using less-standard/non-common forms. You could have commented on why using this less clear (at least to some, even if they are non-thinking readers) is an advantage. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't making it clearer though, its modifying a historic quote out of sheer laziness. There's nothing "unclear" about the long "s". Its perfectly legible to anyone who has half a brain. I don't write articles for the lowest common denominator. Anyway, this was a rather funny excursion but if you'll excuse me I have more important matters to attend to. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• How about summing this up with a "Parrot, less dickish edit summaries ", followed by a "Moby, man up", and then moving on? Seriously... Tarc (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As you know then, there are many different cultures here on WP, so some may take offense to you speaking your mind. I think you could have very easily undid the change without the provocative remark. But, of course, it's your choice. If you had done it that way, there would be no issue made out of it. Maybe something to think about when you're disagreeing with people. It is possible to disagree and not be unpleasant about it. Aiken ♫ 17:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your point is taken, but you're writing as though I care about the opinions or emotional frailties of people like Moby-Dick. I don't. I find them to be beneath contempt. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

More Insults?

Beneath contempt? That's two insults in one day. Holy Christ! What's it going to take to block this guy? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Blasphemy? I think you should be blocked for that, or at least given a Stern Warning by an admin. I demand you apologize to the Son of God. Tan | 39 18:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Especially since it's Easter. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably ſomeone who haſ a valid point. Parrot of Doom 18:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Moby-Dick3000. Just let it go or try and grow a thicker skin. I ante ma 18:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Tan, you really don't some seem to be helping here and you're an admin.Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of forum shopping? It's kind of frowned upon. Nev1 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of speedy deleting User:Moby-Dick3000/My sandbox before this gets too far out of hand? Compiling a "mean things said to me" list can't really be a productive use of user-space. Tarc (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That hardly seems like an appropriate user page. I think similar pages have gone through AfD and been deleted. Nev1 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP: another data point

[205] - negative unsourced information in the article since creation in 2008. Let's not forget that just having some sources is not a magic talisman that prevents an article from violating WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of that looks sourceable. See [206]. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

among the "BLP violation" removed by JzG were the two facts that "Rowe kept his seat in the 1979 provincial election .... Rowe lost his seat in the 1982 provincial election. " Let's not forget that not having sources does not mean we should not look for them. JzG, are you planing to bring every unsourced negative BLP statement here, instead of trying to source the ones that look factual? Perhaps this example is a very good "data point" of the wrong way to approach the problem. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed an unsourced paragraph because of an OTRS complaint. I have no opinion on whether material is reinserted with sources or not, and no real interest in that specific article other than resolving a complaint from the subject regarding material which was unsourced and asserted to be incorrect. My point was that we have been saying, for quite some time, that he's a liar, with no cited source. That is, I think, unambiguously wrong. My point was that the article was not unsourced, but it contained controversial and unsourced elements. The job of BLP cleanup, which we all agree is necessary, requires more than simply a checkbox "has it got any sources" approach. That was my message. Incidentally, DGG, are you an OTRS volunteer? If not please consider signing up. Your diligence would be an asset. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism of ANI page to make it look like another editor engaged in vandalism

I would like to request that someone with technical knowledge look into some vandalism that occurred on this ANI Board. It was in the thread starting with my name "Zlykinskyja's conduct on AFD page." At the end of that long thread (closed today for archiving) there is a discussion about me supposedly engaging in vandalism, but I never made those vandal edits. Whoever tried to frame me engaged in serious dishonesty on the ANI Board. Although the last poster simply tossed it off as a simple error, I find that very hard to believe. There was indeed actual vandalism of the ANI thread, and the diff with the red letters looked like it was mine, but I never engaged in that vandalism. It would be very helpful if some person with good technical skills could look into this so that the person who engaged in such dishonesty could be held accountable. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted a redirect to WP:AN that no longer shows in the history. ???? Dlohcierekim 17:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Xeno is assuming that the problem was caused by an extremely poor connection on your end garbling the line. I'd strongly suggest leaving it at that (and perhaps changing your account's password if it's not particularly strong), as any investigation is likely to end in either a "indeterminate cause" or a "compromised account" finding. The former would be a waste of time, the latter would mean your account is blocked. There is absolutely no upside for you in this; the movies may make it seem like any "hack" can be traced and identified, but the real world isn't nearly that neat and tidy. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This [207] is the edit in question. Do you remember writing the added portion of your comment? If so, it's likely you just garbled the text above it by accident. Think about the resources that would be necessary to hack your account - which is unpriveleged. See also Occam's razor. –xeno^talk 17:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I added the regular sounding text at the bottom of the page. But it looks like there was a deliberate, detailed, changing of the text above in a manner that is unquestionably vandalism. Such fine tuned, detailed changes do not look like an accident or a bad connection. Someone intentionally made those changes and then tried to frame me by making it look like I engaged in vandalism. That is indisputably dishonest. (I note that The Magnificent Clean-keeper has engaged in a pattern of harassment against me, and then he was the one to accuse me of vandalism.) Whoever did this, I cannot say for sure but I consider this to be part of the ongoing harassment against me intended to discourage my participation in the editing of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. I will certainly change my password, but the fact that someone was sick enough to do this and to possibly do so by figuring out my password is quite creepy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Do you realize how ridiculous your accusation sounds? So let's see - someone hacked your account; or performed a man in the middle attack; or perhaps even hacked into Wikipedia's database itself; all so they could falsify a diff -- and all of this just to make it look like you garbled a few letters of someone elses post? Ridiculous nonsense. If you like, I can indefinitely block your account as compromised and you can start a new one. –xeno^talk 18:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sure, Xeno closed the thread above and here we go again. Same accusations, same behavior, same editor.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am absolutely certain that another person made those vandalism edits. I am certain that I did not do that and that it does not look like an accident or bad connection. I would like an administrator to please refer me to whatever security department or person handles hacking or password stealing incidents. I am 100% certain that some misconduct has occurred, and would like to get to the bottom of this. I would also like to note that anonymous harassment on the Internet is illegal under federal law. Something like this should not be happening. Now I have to worry about my password, hacking into my computer, and other security issues. I have read somewhere of hacking incidents on Wikipedia escalating into real world harassment. Given that it is clear some sort of hacking has occurred, I would like to pursue this as fully as possible within Wikipedia to protect my account and myself. Clearly, there is some sort of sicko involved. But I have thought that for a while now, given other incidents. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you are absolutely certain your account has been compromised, I have blocked it indefinitely per the blocking policy. Please secure your personal workstation (virus, malware, trojan scan, etc.) before creating a new account. –xeno^talk 19:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeno--Was that supposed to be funny? I asked for help with this and you just go and permanently block my account? I don't find this funny.

I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to please answer my question above as to where I can report this hacking incident. There is something wrong with a situation in which some sicko can hack an account, no one wants to help resolve this, and the person hacked gets permanently blocked. TemporaryAccountDueToHackingIncident (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Z, this diff looks as though there might have been some kind of browser or operating system incompatibility. I had a similar thing a few years ago, where a browser I was using would from time to time (but oddly, not always) change characters in previous posts. Or there may have been a server glitch. I doubt it was a hacking attempt. If your post about this is the only reason you were blocked, I'd respectfully suggest an unblock. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved administrator, and Xeno's actions seemed inline to me. Generally, if someone believes they have a compromised account, or there is evidence that an account has been compromised, we block it. We do so because using another person's account in order to avoid scrutiny and to deceive the community is disallowed per WP:ILLEGIT. This is standard procedure. Are you now claiming you weren't hacked? -- Atama頭 20:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Another uninvolved admin here, and I agree. If you believed you account had been compromised, and you had to “worry about [your] password,” the logical solution was for you to start a new account with a different password. xeno has facilitated that process (although your new account name is a tad cumbersome). So, unless your new account is “hacked” after this point, this issue is resolved. — Satori Son 20:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(yet another ec)To SlimVirgin: Barring invocation of WP:IAR, are we even allowed to unblock in this case? If the account is legitimately suspected to have been compromised (and a user insisting that it is would constitute sufficient evidence), then we don't know who we are unblocking (even if they change their password, that doesn't prove that the compromiser wasn't the one to do so). I recognize this is a especially flimsy case for a compromised account (I feel a little bad for my part in accidentally reinforcing this belief), but I've never heard of an unblock following suspicion of a compromised account. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In legitimate cases of actually hacked accounts requesting an unblock, we usually request a checkuser before unblocking to see if the original owner is likely back in control of the account. Sarah 02:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The most exceptional part of this 'hack' is that they were able to intercept the edit you admitted you made and then add the garbage above it! This hacker surely should focus on something more fruitful than making it look like you had a bad connection...

Please read what Slim wrote, this is what my initial assumption was - a funky connection. But since you insisted that you were absolutely certain your account had been compromised, I blocked you as required.

If you calm down, and accept the most likely explanation (that you had a connection hiccup), please issue an unblock request stating the same and I, or another admin, will lift the block. –xeno^talk 20:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The point I was trying to make is that hacking your diff was effectively impossible (and xeno's additional note that the difficulty of doing so would make it highly improbable even if it is possible). That only leaves two possibilities:

1. Your connection went bad (who knows, maybe a burst of solar activity coincided with you hitting submit)
2. Your machine and/or account was compromised in some way. If the former, it was probably not related to Wikipedia; if someone had actively attacked your machine to make it look like you were a vandal, they would probably go for something even more damning than a gibberish diff (say, using slurs against other editors, which gets you banned incredibly quickly). If it was due to a machine compromise, then the damage was probably incidental; a virus interfered with your connection, but it wasn't related to Wikipedia (so we can't do much to help). If your account was compromised, then that means your password was too easy to guess and/or brute force, and there is little we can do about that; the solution is to use stronger passwords.

Only your insistence that it was a compromised account led to your block. If you sincerely believe this, reformat your machine with a fresh install of your OS, install a virus scanner and all security updates, create a new account with a strong password (at least eight characters, with a mix of upper and lower case letters and a smattering of numbers and punctuation) and move on. I sympathize, but you left xeno no other option by the policies here. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point just one thing out and then I'll move on: it is a rather odd thing that someone surreptitiously took over Z.'s account, just to garble some diffs of mine, that showed her behaviour towards other editors, just while she was repeating, undisturbed, her umpteenth accusation — without diffs — against us, basically... Anyway, she admitted to having been hacked or whatever, so I guess this incident too is over. Peace. ^___^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A block seems a little unfair to me. Zlykinskyja engaged in some hyperbole, and as a result has lost his account. It's not a big deal in this case because it's a new account and he doesn't have a lot of edits to it, so there's no real harm in asking him to set up a new one, but he could similarly change the password for his current one. The latter seems fairer to me, unless there are other issues I'm not aware of. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Other than the fact that the user is sure that he has been compromised, I have no objection to this block being lifted. Please do what you feel is best. –xeno^talk 20:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For Salvio Giuliano to try to put the blame on me is just outrageous. That is all I will say about his continuing nonsense.

My question to the administrators is what is the procedure for looking into hacking incidents? Is there an official section or area where this can be reported or looked into? Will someone please answer this question?

It sure looks like some kind of harassment to me, given the prior pattern of harassment. Also, within seconds after I posted under my temporary name, I received a notice from some brand new account (i.e. fake account)that he was accusing me of being a sockpuppet and that I was being investigated for sock puppetry. So that incident is another indication of harassment being involved. Also, I just went back to the Talk page on my temporary account and saw that the Notice of the sock puppet investigation has been removed. So I do not have confidence that this has all been some kind of accident. TemporaryAccountDueToHackingIncident (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If Wikimedia did have an information security team that looked into claims such as yours, you would surely get laughed out of their office. The hack you refer to is 1) extremely improbable (approaching impossible) and 2) so difficult to acheive that they surely would have done something other than garble a few letters.

I deleted the sock claims because you're not a sock, you're a legitimate alternate account.

You need to take your fingers out of your ears and listen to what people are telling you: you had a connection hiccup. –xeno^talk 20:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And in case you are worried, the sockpuppet investigation was immediately closed. The filer wasn't fully aware of the circumstances and opened it out of ignorance, not malice. Constantly claiming harassment in cases where a mistake in good faith is the most likely cause only makes people less inclined to listen. I might suggest (don't take this as a command, it's only a suggestion) that you take a voluntary break for a day or two. When you're getting this worked up, you're only hurting yourself. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• On the one hand, I don't think a block for a compromised account is correct; in spite of what Z is "certain" about, it seems quite obvious to me that this is either a software malfunction, or at worst incorrectly done oversighting. I was about to unblock (per Xeno's note above), when I looked through Z's entire contribution log, and realized we're dealing with an aggressive single purpose account, whose only desire is to fight and argue over one subject. I can't bring myself to unblock when I know it will just disrupt the encyclopedia more. Yes, I know, autoblock is disabled, and someone whose more a stickler for policy and "doing things according to the rules" might wish to unblock, but I won't do it. If a new account is created, can we consider giving him a much shorter leash next time? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see one of her former accounts, user:PilgrimRose. No further comment... The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• This whole topic is a joke. Can WP:DENY be invoked here and move on? Rehevkor ✉ 21:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine, if there was no hacking of my account as some are so certain of, then it was not compromised and there is no need to block my account for being compromised. Recall that this issue started when The Magnificent Clean-keeper falsely accused me of vandalism, which I knew I was not guilty of. It was one of the administrators who said that either' I was guilty of vandalism, or my account was compromised. This is what I was told:

Your account made that edit. You can't fake the diffs (at least, not without direct access to Wikipedia servers that Magnificent Clean-keeper doesn't have). Either you made the edit, and therefore committed at least one verifiable act of vandalism (or more, I haven't looked at the rest of this thread to check the whole history), or your account is compromised, in which case it will be blocked for that reason. If you made that edit, you're better off admitting it, because the alternative is that your account will be blocked and you'll have to create a new one. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 16:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it is technical knowledge so much as an easily guessed password. Unfortunately, a compromised account needs to be blocked regardless of how unfair it may be, simply because it is impossible to be confident that it is in control of the correct editor. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 17:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been open about the fact that I have limited computer knowledge, so had to do the best I could about figuring out why it looked like I had engaged in vandalism. But originally one of the administrators who seems to know a lot about technical issues TOLD ME my account was compromised, if in fact I had not engaged in vandalism. Now I am painted as the wrongdoer for believing that my account was compromised, as I was told, and trying to get to the bottom of it. What a waste of time. So since now so many are certain there was no hacking there is no legitimate need to block my account for being compromised. So please unblock it and I will simply change the password to remove any doubt. TemporaryAccountDueToHackingIncident (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Floquenbeam. There seems to be one issue after another with your account, including point-making rather than editing in a disinterested way. I can't think what kind of restriction would be appropriate, but simply unblocking feels problematic too. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I already unblocked before seeing this as my block was strictly for the apparent compromised account.. If there is to be a block for disuptive editing it should stand on it's own. –xeno^talk 23:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

First, sorry for ignoring the possibility of a technical glitch that caused that. While improbable, it would still be possible, and I should have allowed for that. Second, I'm not an admin. Third, after that initial omission of a technical glitch as an explanation, both myself and xeno explained to you multiple times that the possibility of a technical glitch existed, and that insisting that your account was compromised would force a block based on Wikipedia policies, you ignored us and continued insisting that your account was compromised. I'm sorry that led to a block, but you were told *exactly* what would happen multiple times and paid no attention. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there have been issues in a highly contentious article that go both ways. You need to look at the whole picture, including what has occurred by editors on the "other side of the story". This whole huge dispute about the article Murder of Meredith Kercher has just been submitted for mediation a day or two ago. It is a very extensive dispute, and has already been discussed at length for eleven days. Now it will go to mediation. Furthermore, I am not a single purpose account. I tried to branch out to a new article but was WikiHounded by one of the same editors who seemed to be trying to block my participation on the murder article.

The sole issue now is how my account came to be blocked today. First, I was falsely accused of vandalism. Then I was told that either I engaged in vandalism or MY ACCOUNT WAS COMPROMISED. Then the same editor who told me my account was compromised told me that my account was blocked because I CLAIMED that was compromised----but that is what he told me! I don't know anything about computers, but when I was told that my account was compromised I was sure scared. Now it turns out it wasn't even true. The whole thing has been a huge waste of time. I thought it was compromised because that it what I was told. Please just unblock the account and let the very major and complicated dispute proceed to mediation. I also note that there is a policy against blocking accounts trying to resolve the issues through mediation. TemporaryAccountDueToHackingIncident (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgetting the Meredith issue, which is your main interest, if you look at this edit, you're saying the most important thing about this woman is that she's a grandmother and former primary school teacher. Not that she's been convicted of murder. And you launch immediately into the injustice of it, before explaining what "it" is. That's not appropriate editing, and combined with all the other issues, and taking things to various noticeboards, it makes an unblock less appealing. If you want to continue editing, something would have to change, I think, or you're going to keep on getting into bother. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I wouldn't start that article by saying she's a convicted murderer either, by the way, but fixing an article to make it arguably worse isn't the best way to help. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The problems I have raised for mediation include how to incorporate NPOV and BLP policies into a contentious article. It will be a learning experience for all involved, but once resolved the education can be applied across the board to other articles. Really, for all the complexities and hours and hours of debate concerning the Kercher article (and murder articles like it) something as extensive as this needs to be resolved in mediation. Beyond that, the problems will just continue. As for the NPOV noticeboard, I did not file that. The only thing I have filed is for mediation, plus this item today resulting from confusion after I was TOLD that my account had been compromised. The problems have arisen from the Kercher article and NPOV and BLP issues, which are too complex to dispute here. These issues have been discussed here for eleven days, and I am now way, way too tired to continue here. But I do think mediation will provide a full and complete forum for sorting things out in a formal, organized and thorough way. So, after eleven days here, mediation is my next stop. Thank you to the very nice person who unblocked my account. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It was the same very nice person who blocked it in the first place. :) As for the content issues, there are few disputes that can't be resolved through a careful application of the policies, so I'd urge you to read WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Try to stick closely to them, and write about issues as though you don't care about them, as though you're someone who's just flown in from Mars. That should do the trick. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor apparently had a previous account compromised also (don't know which account). Either he's got gremlins, or he's a shlimozl. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not compromised. See my post further up.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgim, thanks for your advice. I'm hoping to learn more and practice more through mediation. It sounds like it will be a good experience. In the meantime, I will review the materials you have provided. As for this word "shlimozl" I don't know what that is, know very little computer lingo, will no longer be trying to figure out computer "compromising" topics, and am done here. Anyone curious about my name change can read the detailed explanation on my User page. As for the temporary name I used today, I will officially "retire" that now. Thank you to the person who removed the "Compromised" notice from this account. Now I am all set! Since I started this topic, I would like to ask an administrator to kindly close and archive this thread. Good night all! Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So, to make a long story short: once again, scot-free. Peace. ^______^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're saying the OP "got away with" something, keep in mind that by coming here the user has raised his visibility significantly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I meant that I entirely agree with Floquenbeam and SlimVirgin; and that I'm sorry that she was not even given a warning, regarding the way she behaves. Nothing to do with the security of her account (I think that the hypothesis that someone hacked into her account just to garble some diffs is ludicrous...). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A comment on the beginning of this discussion

I'm only seeing this now, because I was preoccupied with another matter. The behavior which was reported above, about an edit to AN/I which had good text added below and corrupted text above, has happened to me several times, twice on AN/I, and each time it happened as the result of an edit conflict. The discussion about it on my talk page can be found here. I have no solution to it, except to check carefully after an edit conflict to make sure that nothing untoward has happened. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Could be an edge case hit for unusually long pages, though I have no idea if the problem is on server or client side. The noticeboard is usually three times the length of any other page. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 03:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange indeed. At least Z can be rest assured s/he isn't being unfairly targeted =) –xeno^talk 12:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's happened to me once or twice before as well. In one case, editing a long talk page, it reverted almost 3 weeks of history on the relevant talk page, apart from the diff immediately before mine, and a vandalism diff from 2 weeks earlier that had been reverted. I checked by going "back" in my browser and it definitely was set to edit the current page. I was able to fix it myself, coming to the conclusion the software had got way confused. (I've had a look for it - all I remember was it was probably in late 2008 - but can't find it to link here.) Orderinchaos 03:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:24.77.207.189

Resolved

I notified an administrator in January 2010, regarding 24.77.207.189 (talk · contribs) and his disruptive editing here. The result was a warning among a list of many. I had originally been contacted by a concerned editor here way back at the beginning of January 2010. Since, this anon user has not changed his editing style, and his attacks on other editors has continued to be very aggressive and profane, especially in his edit summaries. A scroll though his contributions looking at edit summaries tells the story; A fair number of good edits (although many seem to attacks, real info can be found it the actual edit) with a sprinkling of blatant vandalism every once in awhile. Given the extensive, specific warnings and subsequent block (amazingly only one so far), I request a long term block of 3-4months for this IP. Outback the Koala (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked 3 months NW (Talk) 23:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeking closure

Resolved

 – MFD closed as a moot point. –xeno^talk 22:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Can some admin please close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#User:Ash/analysis? It is loooooong overdue, but since the page in question has already been deleted at the request of the user, the closure will probably not be seen as taking sides in the underlying conflict. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Would have been better to make the request without the personal dig. Just sayin'. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I hear you, and you are right. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete and create protect

Resolved

 – Title salted, accounts blocked Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone delete islamtube and salt it? It's been speedy deleted several times today with the author simply recreating it and even using socks to remove speedy tags. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted once again - creator is on a final warning: "Create an inappropriate page again and you'll be blocked". Which they will be, if they do. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

He's now recreating it in his userspace [208]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And one more mainspace speedy. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed the image the user was using on the userpage, as copyrighted images should not be used in userspace. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Admin needed to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramakapa and delete associated page

Resolved

Being allowed to run course as AfD - the result is a foregone conclusion anyway at this stage. Orderinchaos 05:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Multiple editors have searched for evidence of this town's existence with no success. According to the checkuser and a followup, the article's creator and the remover of the original speedy-nom appear to be meatpuppets at the least, if not sockpuppets (they are part of a group of accounts, most of which do no more than create one fake page and/or support another fake page in the sockfarm). With zero evidence for its existence beyond the vague endorsements by the socks, it seems like this is an excellent case for early closure. Just need an admin to look at the same facts and agree with me. Any takers? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't come across as a very neutral way of requesting administrative attention. What is the big hurry that needs this to be closed outside of the normal AfD closure process? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This should never have needed an AfD in the first place, as it would have qualified under hoax csd. Except the creator used socks to remove the speedy template, and more recently, to remove the AfD template (an account was created whose only edit was to remove the AfD and NOINDEX templates; I've restored them). When an article qualifies for speedy deletion and is only around because of abuse of the system, I'm not inclined to give it the full seven days. Every vote cast in the AfD as been for delete, and WP:SNOW seems to apply here. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 12:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: At this point, we've got six unambiguous delete votes (one of whom explicitly endorsed speedy, the rest of whom simply noted the complete failure of WP:V and endorsed deletion with no reservations), and no keeps. The socks aren't even bothering to vote. Can we please close this? WP:SNOW was made for this sort of scenario. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the rules for speedy deletion apply regardless of the presence of a CSD template or other deletion discussions in progress. So if the article is an obvious hoax, any admin can delete per CSD:G3 at any time (and close the AfD as "speedy delete"). Bobby Tables (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say this can run as a normal AfD personally - there's nothing exceptional, we delete hoaxes there all the time. That being said, IMO there's nothing against early closure if sufficient evidence has been presented that it unambiguously doesn't belong here. Orderinchaos 17:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The outcome is probably a foregone conclusion, but unless there's an urgent need to delete it (it's used as an attack page, has BLP violations, personal info about someone, etc.) I would suggest letting it run its course procedurally. If nothing else, an AfD closure will allow for G4 speedy deletions in the future if any sockpuppets decide to recreate it as a joke. -- Atama頭 19:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Namiba

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

Two things:

1. His edits on Tim Cowlishaw. They started as BLP cleanup; they ended up as Editing warring and disruption. He claims certain information is controversial, when it clearly isn't. At one point, he deleted Cowlishaw's birthday five times in a 24-hour period, even though Cowlishaw blurted it out on cable TV. He also deleted information about Cowlishaw's beat work; information he claims is controversial but really isn't. Even if he's right about BLP policy, he still edit-warred.
2. He POINT prodded an article I created, then nominated it for AFD

For edit warring and disruption, this guy needs a block of several days Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

To quote Wikipedia:Edit warring, "Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." I never removed sourced material, and in fact was the only person adding sourced material to the article. A ban would be quite out of place. In fact, should anyone be interested, I started a discussion similar to this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tim Cowlishaw. However, I have no interest in content warring with anyone. I just want unsourced material removed from prominent BLP's.--TM 15:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you want to or not, you still edit warred, and you still removed uncontroversial information Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exceptions to 3RR is applicable here. If its not sourced, it shouldn't be on a BLP. Jeni ^(talk) 15:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ugh, the version that Purplebackpack89 kept reverting to was god-awful IMO. "Cowlishaw is the third-most lauded Around the Horn panelist..." is gushy meaninglessness. Tarc (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Basically the same about Cowlishaw being the third panelist to 200 wins appears on the Around the Horn article. It's worth noted that in the show Around the Horn, somebody wins every day. Also, there's nothing wrong at all with the information about his beats Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Then say exactly what it means. And source it. Much preferable to edit-warring over poorly-written prose and unsourced errata. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's looking like time to knock heads together here. Purplebackpack89 and Namiba need to disengage from each other or they may well have the choice forcibly removed. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I already made that suggestion when Purplebackpack brought up the same issue at WP:BLPN. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Disengage? If removing potentially contentious information (and a birthdate with no source IS potentially controversial) is a reason to threaten a editing ban, I don't know what wikipedia is coming to. As far as I am concerned the issue is resolved and my edits have been upheld. I'll edit the same way (except for perhaps having less toleration and bringing the problem public sooner) every day of the week.--TM 04:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Administrator removes access rights from expert user, refuses to reverse

Resolved

 – Confirmed permission regranted. There is no need to remove it from inactive users. On the other hand, there was no need to brew up this storm in a teacup. Perhaps you could just talk it over with a third party next time? NW (Talk) 03:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi everyone, Last July, I noticed that Tbranch (talk · contribs) had made some highly valuable edits to our articles and talk pages about blue whales and minke whales. This user appears to me to be a top expert in these subjects. The blue whale article is indefinitely semi-protected[209], so I asked User:TeaDrinker if he could give Tbranch "confirmed" permissions which would allow Tbranch to edit the article directly.[210] TeaDrinker agreed, and within a day Tbranch made an excellent edit to the semi-protected blue whale article. This user has made a total of four edits, and there is no dispute about their quality. Today, Jac16888 (talk · contribs) changed Tbranch's permissions from "confirmed" to "none," which means that Tbranch will no longer be able to simply log in and edit the blue whale article. I asked Jac16888 why he had done it, he gave me a factually incorrect answer as justification for the change, has given no alternative explanation, and has refused to re-grant "confirmed" permissions to Tbranch.[211] I ask the community to decide that Jac16888's removal of Tbranch's permissions were unjustified and for an administrator to re-grant the permissions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Well this is a complete waste of time. As I have explained to Clayoquot, I removed the confirmed right from a few users at Wikipedia:Database reports/Inactive users in user groups as they never/barely edited after receiving it. The user whom Clayoquot is demanding be granted confirmed permission made one edit after being made confirmed and has not edited since, this was last july. Besides, were they to come back they would only need to make 6 edits to be autoconfirmed anyway--Jac16888Talk 03:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC) The complete waste of time is requiring an editor to write an explanation to Tbranch that their permissions have been removed and that they need to make six edits before updating blue whale, and then requiring Tbranch to make six edits, just so that an admin doesn't have to click one button. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC) How many times do I have to say this to get it through your thick skull, Tbranch has not edited since July, chances are they're not going to again. This is not an issue, stop causing trouble --Jac16888Talk 03:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Jac, take a corner. Telling someone to "get it through your thick skull" is considered a personal attack and you as an admin should know better. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC) I personally don't see why we should remove the confirmed right from users who have made constructive contributions, but it is pointless to restore it to an obviously inactive account. He has made just one edit using this right, and that was months ago. If he ever returns, he can easily get autoconfirmed or request the confirmed userright again. There's no storm in this teacup, unless you chose to brew it here on ANI. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)I'd have to agree with this in principle. I don't see a reason to force an expert user to make edits outside their field of interest/expertise, for the sake of being able to make one edit to a semi-protected article. The sporadic nature of his contributions makes it more likely he will simply choose not to make that improvement, were he to return. decltype (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC) If you all don't mind, I'll going to close this. It's a waste of time and energy on both sides. If he ever comes back, he can ask for the right again. End of story.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Website blacklisted by bot

I'm sorrie if this is the wrong place, please tell me where is because I've tried finding the right place and noone knows.

I've been adding links to wikipedia without having created an account, I didn't know this was nescessary. Now a bot has blacklisted my website adres! Apparently it blacklists websites submitted just by IP adresses when it occurs more then twice.

I don't have the rights to undo this blacklisting, so could someone please do this for me!

ttp://shotgunsolutionpaytodie.blogspot.com with an "h" in the beginning offcourse, is the adres. It's listed here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist

Please someone help me, I've been trying to figure this out for days now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypt666 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally, blogs are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. What makes this one special? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And just adding it as a bare "external link" to many articles is probably a breach of the external link guideliness so it has probably, rightly or wrongly, been viewed as linkspam. – ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm obviously not aware of the rules. To how many pages am I allowed to add my blog? It's not just a blog. Just a blog is where collectors put up their vinyl rips, it includes some good ones and many many garbage. This is more of a hardcore history website. It's all the music I have gathered for myself over the past 12 years and it's all stuff I actively listen or have been listening too. Also I have an absolute hearing which means these bands are all unique in sound, there are no copycats here. As you can see all the pages include biographies and pictures, many already have link sections but I still have alot to do. Regular history pages include many very bad commercial acts who made complete garbage but got famous with it nevertheless. This is a very bad thing. Here you can find the history through the eyes of a fan and it includes all the small acts and not just the big names. I've had a really hard time finding the right music myself in this vague scene that's completely ruined nowadays so I think my page is very important for other kids to be found. As you can all see there are no banners or any other way I'm making a profit of this page and there never will be, I do this because I love this stuff and want others to be able to find it. Most of it are bands with old vinyl that isn't for sale anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypt666 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

None, especially since you're posting copyright violations, which we have zero-tolerance for.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite plainly, it's advertising and wikipedia is not free advertising space.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Then could I at least place 1 link to my page on the harcore punk article? Because I think the acticle seriously could use the addition of my website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypt666 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What you mean to say is, your website can seriously use the extra traffic from the free advertising you'd have here. No, you cannot add the link to hardcore punk.--Atlan (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes offcourse I can use the traffic. So can all the other external links and my website is alot more relevant then the links you are allowing at the moment. And I don't think the copyright violation is fair in my case. This is not Brittney Spears here ok?! What use is it for me to mention an 80s DC hardcore punk band noone knows and it's impossible to buy the record if I don't provide a download link? Beside the downloads are not hosted on my domain. And you're allowing all kinds of links to other music directories who have nothing but an identical bio to wiki and nothing more, I have as much right as those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypt666 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

So you think Wikipedia does not allow copyright violations only when it involves Britney Spears? I don't care how obscure those punk bands are, a copyright violation is a copyright violation. If there are other equally bad external links out there like you say there are, feel free to remove those too.--Atlan (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Given this person's lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policies, and the rather poor judgment displayed above, I don't think it's such a good idea to suggest that they go on a tear of removing what they perceive as "bad external links". Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously. I was only making the point that equally bad external links being present don't legitimize their own link. I doubt that this user gives a damn about editing Wikipedia beyond adding their own link anyway.--Atlan (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Topic closed. I would appreciate if someone could remove my ip adres from the logs since I had no idea this would be logged here and it's private. Nobody has to go on a tear for links, it's just not fair mine is being excluded. And as a matter of fact I was going to add some band pages to wiki but obviously not anymore, I might be a friendly person but not that friendly. I worked on this page and all the info for months full time the get it all together and it's one of the best hardcore webs on the net just as it is right now. The link belongs to those article just like the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypt666 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, I said it was a bad external link, not a bad website. I'm sure punk rock lovers appreciate the work you've put in your website, but that doesn't make it any more suitable for Wikipedia. Like I said, if there are other links on Wikipedia that are equally unsuitable, they should be removed instead of adding more. As for your IP address, no that can't be removed from the logs unless there are pressing privacy concerns. "I didn't know it was logged" isn't one of them.--Atlan (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Allright allright I understand, it's for being a punk isn't it! Blacklisted, banned from society, wiki, what's next?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypt666 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

*facepalm* Rehevkor ✉ 20:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice one there, completely missing the point of what we've been trying to tell you. We here at wikipedia take copyright concerns very seriously. The fact of the matter is is that your site violates copyright, and thus we cannot post a link to it. Further, wikipedia is not free ad space.

This has nothing to do with your lifestyle choice. Stop with the strawman arguments.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing on Talk:John Pershing

I would like to point out that Baseball Bugs, on the talk page of the John Pershing article, is canvassing for editors to report me if I return the information that was removed from the infobox. The admin who protected the page has stated numerous times that he has no opinion on the article, and that it was protected only to end an edit war. I have stated myriad times that there will be no edit war, and that I will go about this by the book. I have sought the counsel of the admin who protected the page. I have promised to behave in a professional manner. And yet Bugs continues this nonsense about my "edit war". He has said that he will have me "blocked so fast it will make my head swim". He has also stated that the nickname in question is "not negotiable", and that it is "OUT" ( his capitalisation); the same kinds of unilateral statements for which I was warned. Now, on the talk page, he is demanding that other editors report, not revert me if I return the name to the infobox.Mk5384 (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Take this to WP:DR first, ANI is the last resort. Take heed or you might find yourself getting the short end of the very short stick. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No one took me to DR before coming here.Mk5384 (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Don't you remember? That was a direct result of your pointy and disruptive behaviour. Please note that by bringing your complaint here, you are now at great risk of getting an indefinite block, and that's hardly something one should look forward to just after coming out from a 48 hours block, only to go back to what got you the block in the very first place. Personally, I find you to be extremely trollish in mentality and comments... which per WP:DFTT and WP:DENY, my only response now is to bid you adieu~! Have a safe trip out, goodbye. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That's just silly.Mk5384 (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Like I've said to you before... make or break, the choice is yours to bear. Don't pin the blame on others for your own silliness, thank you. Bye~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think what Bugs was trying to say was that anyone with a past argument over this should not revert any change to re-insert or add nicknames because that would be edit warring on all sides. The exact posting is here [212] , [213]. I dont think anything too terrible was meant by that and, since he didn't visit user talk pages and post multiple messages to have you reported, I don't see how this can in any way be considered canvassing. Might not have been the best choice of words (we've all been guilty of that, myself included, at one time or another) but I don't think a malicious intent was there. -OberRanks (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then fine, but I still have my doubts. Bugs posted that after I went out of my way to say that there will be no edit war on my part, and that I will do this by the book. As can be seen by his posts, he dosen't want that name in the infobox, preiod. And he does have the right to hold that opinion. However, threatening to report me for edit warring for making an edit with which he dosen't agree is unacceptable. Asking other editors to do it is doubly so.Mk5384 (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet at the same time you state, and I quote: "The information is backed up with 62 sources, and I will return it." It's very hard not to read that as a declaration to continue inserting the nickname (i.e. edit warring) as soon as the protection is removed.--Atlan (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

He's said he won't. If he does, bring it here if appropriate or to an appropriate page. Nothing to see here, please disperse.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• WP:LAME covers this. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Also, read point number 46 of WP:OWB. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just an observation from an uninvolved editor: having looked at the discussion over the point of contention, I have to wonder, Mk5384, why it is you are so intent on being the lone voice here? Even if you are completely right & everyone else is wrong, the article won't be made completely unreliable by this one omission. And there are over 3.2 million other articles in the English Wikipedia, many of which in need of attention. I strongly suggest that you walk away from this article & work on something completely unrelated. -- llywrch (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Llywrch, it's an SPA issue... please take a look at point number 9 of WP:OWB and you'll understand what I mean. Regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what would give you the idea that I am the "lone voice", and the SPA charge is even more absurd. Have you even looked at the talk page, or for that matter, the edits I have made prior to this becoming an issue? Mk5384 (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Help forging (forcing?) truce related to sticky prods

A situation has gotten out of hand.

To make a long story short, I'm looking for help from an impartial admin.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Truce proposal and Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#STOP IT and do whatever you think is right.

Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid over-dramatization and don't open threads on (perceived) user issues in the middle of discussions, as those belong on user talk pages and other relevant places, and they stifle proper discussion, can jeopardize consensus building... You should take this kind of (trivial) things to user talk pages. That's it. Cenarium (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm an impartial admin, and looking at those sections, I believe I can see exactiy where the problems are arising, although I don't think the starter of this thread would like to know that. People need to calm down a bit on this page. Black Kite 11:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

possible sock puppets of Dacodava

Oneinthemillions (talk · contribs) has just arrived and started tagging articles for pov, etc. Another editor has reverted some saying this is a sock puppet of Dacodava (talk · contribs). It seems quite likely this is a sock, but I don't know enough to take it to SPI. Does anyone else? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As the editor cited above for identifying the possible link between Dacodava and Oneinthemillions, and as someone who has similar difficulty in filing an SPI (particularly for an established case such as Dacodava's), I fell I should comment a bit more: having first noticed the problem but not knowing the ropes, I made into a post here (the admin is presumably quite familiar with Dacodava's case). As you will perhaps note, the problem is spread over many articles, and Oneinthemillions is, well, just one of several very likely socks of Dacodava - I have the same suspicion regarding User:Brantfordcan‎ and User:Burcze. Dahn (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPI isn't too complicated once you get into it. If you use the button for the new case (changing SOCKMASTER to the username) then just fill in the section. List the socks you believe are involved (IPs and accounts) and your evidence, including diffs. Remember the WP:DUCK test - if it looks, sounds, acts, smells like a sock, it's probably a sock. SGGH ^ping! 10:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Biased, trollish editor

Resolved

 – User:GADFLY46 blocked indefinitely by User:Bigtimepeace for BLP violations and disruptive editing, User:Nwerle blocked indefinitely by User:NuclearWarfare as an alternate account of GADFLY46. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

GADFLY46 (talk · contribs) appears to have enough knowledge to request account rename [214], yet appears (pretends?) to be incompetent enough to create an article that consists of himself asking a question [215]. He also has a history of making biased, unsourced, and BLP violating edits like these [216], [217], [218], as well as making personal attacks [219]. His talk page is a long list of notices and warnings. I can't tell if this is an immature kid, an incompetent, a troll, or a typical soapboxer, but they ought to be blocked in any case. I see very little to indicate they are here to contribute in a constructive manner and even less indication they understand what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The editor continues to both play dumb and behave in an uncivil manner [220]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have witnessed this user's incivility as well, here as some diffs: [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], and a personal attack against me here. Sorry if some of the diffs overlap Burpelson's diffs. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's another lovely example [228]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That was from two years ago, so it's not really fair. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I dunno... overt racism doesn't really lose it's ability to disgust me. Anyway, he's also recreated his previously renamed account [229]. -- Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) That talk page is certainly problematic. I also have difficulty understanding why he resumed editing with the previous account, but it certainly is worrying given the overall (and long term) lack of civility. jæs (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There's recent evidence that editors are aware that they can be abusive and then get a "name change" that just shifts their abusive history aside, followed by reregistering the old name without its early history. I have no hard facts on this, just my perception that there's been an uptick in the use of this tactic. Basically the recreated account needs to be permanently blocked to prevent this tactic from working. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that too. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess all the admins went to the pub. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just got back from the pub (actually not really, unfortunately) and am looking at this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the last 50 contributions dating back a month, I've gone ahead and blocked User:GADFLY46 indefinitely. The main concern here is a pattern of adding defamatory information to BLPs, a problem which seems to date back at least to last summer. Some recent examples include the following. [230] [231] [232] [233] [234] In general the editor seems to be on a mission to insert their POV (and angst over certain issues) into articles, for example [235] [236] [237] [238]. Warnings have been given in the past (and recently) and are generally met with rudeness (this being a recent example). The user also seems to enjoy complaining, pontificating, and deriding others on article talk pages [239] [240] [241] [242] [243]. It's possible that some of the recent edits helped in some fashion, but the vast majority were somewhat or very disruptive, and the BLP violations are a dealbreaker. Other admins can feel free to review this block of course, but I'm not seeing any reason to allow this person to continue to edit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Should the User:Nwerle account be blocked, as well, then? As briefly mentioned above, this was his previous username, which he recreated and — for whatever reason — used for editing briefly, again, in February. jæs (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that account was blocked[244] a couple of hours ago by NW. —DoRD (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Eaboutspots70

Resolved

Sock of SGF. Block E-mail. This is standard procedure.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 15:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done ~ mazca ^talk 16:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Chenlill123

Resolved

 – All the news that's fit to print has been taken off the presses due to copyvio, user blocked as a Xiamenb2c sock. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

ANy idea what's going on with this user? He seems to be running his talk page more like it were a newspaper or news site. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why they are doing it, but I recognize the pattern. Probably the same person behind all of these accounts:

• Xiamenb2c (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c01 (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c02 (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c03 (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c04 (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c06 (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c08 (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c1 (talk · contribs)

Same pattern of dumping large amounts of blogs or news articles into their talk page with no other interaction. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just figured it out. Chenlill123 is trying to link spam as all of the articles have embedded links about shoes or other items for sale. I just blocked the account for being a spam-only account. The Xiamenb2c (Xiamen B2C?) accounts did not have embedded links. I'm still pretty sure they are related. -- Gogo Dodo (talk)

Mdb10us

<span class="anchor" id="Mdb10us (talk · contribs) and possible paedophilia">

Referred to ArbCom per policy. –xenotalk 16:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I recently asked about the above user and if his photo uploads were acceptable, which they are, broadly - even if I believe he's here simply to use Wikipedia to exhibit himself. He has a tendency to remove decent photographs of exhibitionism and replace them with poorly taken photographs of himself - photos that have double exposures or blurred images. Now, I've been doing a bit of Google searching around his username, and someone sharing his username seems overly interested in photographs of naked and semi-naked Thai, Vietnamese and Laosian children. Now, I'm not saying that they're the same person, but the user Mdb10us on Flickr and other sites displays what I see as paedophilic tendencies. I'm concerned that they're the same person, and I would like a second opinion on whether or not this user is actually here to help Wikipedia, or simply to, ahem, *show off*. NSFW Google images Link to illustrate my point: <link removed, and verified by Rlevse> - contains photos of nude children and flaccid phalli. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC) <link removed> (link includes picture of young naked child)someone called Mdb10us states in 2007 that he was administrator of two (now closed) flickr groups, childpureway and Children naked beauties. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Not going to open the links but if they contain children in those situations then this needs top be reported to the appropriate nation's police service as a matter of urgency. Regardless if their nature is benign that needs to be the call of the police not ourselves IMO. SGGH ping! 14:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC) You did well to report this person, Cavalry; those pictures as well as that user are very disturbing. We certainly don't need people like that here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Blocked and referred to ArbCom. Whether this is excess of zeal combined with cluelessness or paedophilia activism ArbCom is the relevant authority. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Like SGGH I wouldn't open that link and the sooner it's erased the better. Jack forbes (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC) I agree.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC) As most of you know, wiki takes a very strong ANTI pro-pedo stance. On wiki, child porn is governed by the laws where the wiki servers are at, which is in Florida, USA. And in the USA child porn is as illegal as it can be. I'm removing the link. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Some may say you were right the first time ;) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC) legit typo — Rlevse • Talk • 15:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Could someone extend this block to the commons account if possible? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I requested a global siteban, I don't know if that's being actioned. The images on Commons also need to be nuked. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I had requested deletion of the images and blocking on commons a few hours ago and it's been done. Cenarium (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh man: commons:Template:Nopenis - that made me laugh out loud! Guy (Help!) 22:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Attempted Outing

Resolved

 – User in question indefinitely blocked for harassment/possible outing, TallMagic directed to the oversighters. –MuZemike 19:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a sockpuppet investigation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Glasscity09, and one of the users that is part of the investigation, "CRedit 1234" is harrassing and making personal attacks. Part of these attacks involve privacy violation in his attempts to "out me", wp:OUTING. He is continuing even after I asked him twice to please stop. This is taking place primarily on the sockpuppet investigation page linked above. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Madokhn

Resolved

 – User:Madokhn blocked indefinitely by User:Tanthalas39, Mulvane, Kansas semi-protected for 2 weeks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Madokhn (talk · contribs) has continously added back non-notable residents to Mulvane, Kansas and Derby, Kansas, undoubtedly himself and his friends. On March 31, he was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on Mulvane, Kansas and subsequently added back the non-notables via two IP addresses: 72.205.231.236 (talk · contribs) and 68.103.79.169 (talk · contribs). Both IP's were blocked for 24 hours and Madokhn had his block reset everytime he edited as these IP's. Today, after his block expired, he added back the non-notables to Mulvane, Kansas with the following edit summary: "This revision was confirmed by the Mulvane newspaper." (here) Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The account has been indef'd. SGGH ^ping! 18:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I also semi-protected the Mulvane article for two weeks. Tan | 39 18:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mat kilau

Resolved

• Deleted article whose discussion page is still open. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Closed. Black Kite 20:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Complaint about threat of RFCU by NicholasTurnbull

Resolved

For no apparent reason admin NicholasTurnbull has accused me of having a sock puppet. He has neither revealed what other account he claims I might have, nor has he revealed any evidence. Is this an abuse of admin privileges? If so, I would like to file a complaint. · CUSH · 22:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Cush) My thoughts were initially that Sanskit (talk · contribs) was a sockpuppet of yours, since both of you exhibit very similar prose regarding being considered under death threat by Judeo-Christian editors, and both created userboxes that are substantially similar in intent and tenor on the same subjects. In addition, both MfDs (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User dislikes semitic one god religions and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cush/Userbox/NoReligion) were on the queue at the same time, and both owners voiced their view of being subject to death threats from Judeo-Christians in a similar tenor. In addition, both of you seem to have a similar dogged persistence in heated behaviour regarding Genesis creation myth, etc. Since there *are* differences in your behaviour, from what I can see, I don't honestly know. If I have made a mistake here, I apologise. However, you are free to request comment on my behaviour at WP:AN/I -- and actually I would be grateful for an outside opinion regarding the diaspora of this dispute. I have not, as of yet, actually placed a Request for Checkuser, given there does not seem to be quite enough evidence to do so. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Corrected --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Note: I have stricken my original notification that an RFCU would follow. This is part of a wider dispute regarding Creationist topics and a series of userboxes which in some cases violated WP:ATP. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So to get this sorted out: without having evidence you informed me that you have started a RFCU (without telling me the circumstances but giving me a "last chance"), only to tell me later that you admit you have no evidence and you have not in fact started the RFCU ?? · CUSH · 22:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't really quite say the right thing. I apologise for that. However, no RFCU was filed, and I never left a message saying one had been filed, merely that it was my intention to file one. Closer investigation shows that to be unwarranted, and in any case, that was a poor message. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "Alright. I was trying to give you a chance to stop using the other account with dignity... but so be it, an RFCU is on its way.".

And to clarify the death threat thingy: I did not mean to say that I have received actual death threats, but that I cannot really AGF in editors who adhere to a god that wants me dead (and you as well, btw). And I say that adherence to such a deity says a lot about one's character. Does it not?

And now I am letting this issue go and return to making a map for the Avaris article... · CUSH · 23:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't adhere to that God that you speak of (or any deity for that matter), and I never have, so that statement is a lost slur. But how can you seriously expect Wikipedia editors and administrators to assume good faith of you to a better degree, and not start to wonder if you are running alternate accounts when you behave with such gross paranoia and assumption of poor faith towards so many people? Even if I was a theist, what gives you the right to make character judgements of this nature? Quite what my agenda that you obliquely claim I have is I am at a loss to divine; I am merely an uninvolved administrator. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What? Whether you adhere to any deity was not the point at all. The point was that the deity certain people adhere to wants you dead as well. Are you not highly offended by that?

And believe me, I have no split persona. I am not paranoid either, I only reject people who adhere to deities of violent character. · CUSH · 02:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

something

is happening at White American and I can't quite figure it out. The photo collage that should be there is gone. The list of names in it this there but no image. Anyone want to try and fix it? EInar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, the IP did two edits but only one was undone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Admins rock. Carptrash (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So do regular editors :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Resurrect a few articles for me?

Resolved

 – Articles userfied. Jafeluv (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea if this is the right place for this, so my apologies if it's not.

I'm working on a list and need a couple articles that were recently deleted moved to my user space so that I can get some info from them. So, could some kind admin please recover the articles for Cheryl Kubert, Judy Lee Tomerlin, Gloria Windsor, Jean Jani, and Linda Vargas and then move them to my user space? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 01:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since these were uncontested WP:PRODs, these could be restored in main space if you want. Wknight94 ^talk 02:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The proper venue is Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. You can request userfication if desired. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. I was unaware of WP:REFUND even though I checked both here and the more ambiguous Admin noticeboard. Dismas|^(talk) 03:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

COI

I need an Admin to check into this please, I can't think what else to point to. I did notify editor of my report.

• Rob Walker (journalist)
• User talk:Mlpearc#Rob Walker
• User talk:Mlpearc#Rob Walker entry
• Talk:Rob Walker (journalist)#COI

Mlpearc MESSAGE 03:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

A situation like this might be best addressed at a notice board such as WP:COIN. The contributor in question seems willing to discuss matters and proceed reasonably. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Eugène Terre'Blanche

Eugène Terre'Blanche has been killed, probably worth watchlisting for a week or so until the news passes from the front pages. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations for two years

Shokuwarrior (talk · contribs) has been warned tens of times [245] about uploading copyrighted images with inadequate fair-use rationales, and occasionally falsified licenses. As far as I'm aware, he has never engaged in any discussion about this.

Of the 29 images he has uploaded over the past couple of years, only 6 are still standing and not tagged for deletion, and all of these had to have correct copyright tagging done by other editors.

He has been particularly active in the last couple of days, uploading images which others have had to immediately tag for deletion. He is clearly disruptive, unresponsive and a liability, and I suggest that unless he accounts for himself properly and promises to watch out in future, he is blocked for a sustained period of time. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 11:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've moved the new DW Confidential logo into the article, deleted a couple more images that are never going to pass WP:NFCC, and warned the editor. Black Kite 11:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

User:71.77.21.198

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.

This discussion is going nowhere and achieving nothing. Let it go. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – Absolutely nothing for an admin to do here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2 April 2010

I came across edits from anon Ip user 71.77.21.198 , from his recent contribution log a lot of the previous edits involved blanking entire sections most of which were sourced, from the Ip user's talk page it seems other editors have complained about similar issues. the article in question is a House episode guide, I know the content might seem trivial but the anon user made a lot of edits to house episodes blanking entire sections, leaving miscellaneous tags, renaming sections etc., some of which have been reverted by other editors and re-reverted by the user again [246] . I left a message for the user and reverted the edit on a page in my watchlist and cited another source just to be sure [247] but now he renamed the section and left a miscellaneous tag on top warning me that it would be removed in a month. I am new to this, can someone more experienced please advise me on how to handle this. Thanks.--Theo10011 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed unsourced trivia. I titled the section appropriately. I placed a {{trivia}} tag on a list of miscellaneous information. I asked, per Wikipedia standards, that someone work on moving trivia out of a trivia section and into the remainder of the article. I fail to see how a policy has been violated. Theo10011's post is misleading. For example, "some of which have been reverted by other editors and re-reverted by the user again". That should be one of which was reverted by another editor, and none of which were re-reverted. Another example: "warning me that it would be removed" (italics added) suggests I gave Theo10011 a personal warning; I simply left an edit summary on my edit to the effect that trivia needs to be moved out of a trivia section. Theo10011 also left me a message that he did not like my "tone". I have never had a "tone" with Theo10011; in fact, I have never given Theo10011 a message. This seems to be Theo10011's personalizing the normal editing process and failing to realize that his edits "can and will be mercilessly edited". I would suggest that he discuss any content disputes on the article's talk page and wait for any consensus that might emerge rather than immediately running to the admin notice board. Thank you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Removing unsourced trivia from articles is never incorrect. If editors want to include such laundry lists of minutiae, they need to (a) source them, and (b) show how they're notable. Black Kite 20:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said I am new to this, thats why I asked, I didn't accuse you of anything or request any action against you and I think I was civil. If I recall correctly I left a message for the user first, he could have left a reply on my page or discussed his edit in the talk pages rather than simply committing a similar edit again. Anon user might be right that I took his edit personally, which might have been an oversight on my part for that I apologize, but just for the record black kite the trivia section had 2 cited sources(now 3) from other websites that deemed it notable, whether they were notable by some other standards should be more of a matter of general consensus by at least a few more people than the user above. Thanks Again.--Theo10011 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And as I said, you did, in fact, accuse me of having a "belligerent" tone. There's one thing you say with which I wholeheartedly agree: "whether they were notable by some other standards should be more of a matter of general consensus", which is why you should have raised the issue on the article's talk page rather than here as if I violated a policy. And please read WP:BRD regarding the process for challenging a revert; it was not necessary for me to raise the initial removal on the talk page. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at my post above and point out where I accused you of having a hostile tone on the admin noticeboard. However What I did say was on your talk page before I left a message here and for the record I called your actions and tone belligerent. There was no accusation here, only a query. None the less, I apologize for personalizing your statement and considering your actions hostile, I am not familiar with Wikipedia policies. --Theo10011 (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the accusation was made; you made the accusation: "I consider your action and tone as rather belligerent". You may not be familiar with Wikipedia policies, but you seemed to understand enough to stir things up on the admin notice board. Most newbies have never heard of WP:ANI. Apology accepted. Now please move on instead of dragging out this pointless section. Thank you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, "belligerent" looks like a reasonable characterization. Regarding "newbies", Theo has been editing longer than you have. So how did you find out about ANI? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, "arrogant" would be a reasonable characterization of your question. Have you ever heard of a dynamic IP? I've been around for years. Certainly long enough to know that you like to hang around ANI even though your RFA failed. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do find your tone, if not belligerent, a bit... brusque... even if you are right. I understand the frustration of trying to remove unsourced trivia from TV episodes put in by the unwashed masses, but you're likely to get better responses if you lighten up a little. Buddy431 (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Brusque or not, this matter never should have been brought here, and I find Theo10011's purported naivete more than a little hard to swallow. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well swallow it, it wasn't intentional. I would have moved on as you suggested but your reply above to Bugs is just rude, ad hominem attacks are uncalled for. I came upon the incident board originally getting some IP user blocked for vandalism. Also, Bugs argument is legitimate, how am I suppose to know that you are a seasoned editor, you didn't reply to the messages on your page. By the way Buddy, I would like to point out again for the record that the section in question wasnt some unsourced trivia entered randomly by the unwashed masses, it was there uncontested for the past few months with 2 sources and proper explanation. --Theo10011 (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, a false accusation. I was letting BBB know that I'm not a newbie by providing info he knows about that a newbie would not know about. And it doesn't matter whether or not I am a "seasoned editor". Your accusations are false (now two of them) and are uncalled for whether you are dealing with someone who has been editing for a week or a decade. And by the way, I could respond in kind to your "swallow it then" comment by referring to a different part of anatomy, but that would be an "ad hominem attack". So now for the second time, please move on so this ridiculous section can be archived. Thank you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Since you have no identity, I can only go by what your current IP shows. As far as the RfA is concerned, not being an admin is actually an advantage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all lets get something straight I "accused" you of being rude above and belligerent on your talk page I stand by both accusations, and from the comments above two user somewhat agree even if you consider them false. As for the swallow analogy, I would like to point out you used it originally questioning my intentions, I didn't. Regardless of what anatomical reference you think you can use as an "ad hominem" attack, I assure you I can be very crass as well, I am still assuming good faith and trying to remain civil. Second you might want to look up what ad hominem means, its characterized by personal attacks instead of answering the argument, calling Bugs arrogant and following it by mentioning his failed RFA constitutes as a personal attack regardless of what you think you were pointing out. Also, Dynamic Ip address usually change over time since they are randomly assigned by DHCP servers, you have been contributing with the same IP address for a while now, I think yours might be considered static, I might be wrong but thought I should point that out.--Theo10011 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. You and Bugs can call me "belligerent", but I'm not allowed to call anyone "arrogant". That fits in perfectly with your approach to Wikipedia that policies apply to everyone except you. And please, share with us your amazing technology to determine how my IP is static, or your insight into the fact that I can't detect whether my own IP has changed. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I called your action and tone - Belligerent, in fact still do, you called bugs arrogant. As for the amazing technology, its called user logs, if all your previous edits show up under a single IP address than you only have a single IP address and not a dynamic one, which changes every time you log in. --Theo10011 (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase myself: Bugs' "action and tone" were arrogant. Does that splitting a semantic hair satisfy you? So you know for a fact that my IP has never changed by looking at the log of my edits under my current IP? Let me make sure I understand that. So please confirm if that is what you mean, or (for the third time), please move on. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Your snippy comment about the RfA makes it clear you've been around awhile, in one guise or another. Since you don't want any identity, you're in no position to be criticizing others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Since you don't want any identity, you're in no position to be criticizing others.": Last time I checked, anonymous editing was allowed on Wikipedia. As for my "snippy" comment, you challenged my statement about Theo10011's knowledge of WP:ANI with your question "So how did you find out about ANI?". I provided a response to let you know I've been around a while. It worked. So either I was giving you what you were asking for, or your question was arrogant because it was intended as an accusation rather than a question. If you didn't want to know that I've been around a while, you should not have asked the question. If you didn't intend it as a question but as an accusation, it was an arrogant question. Only you know which is the case. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The basic problem with IP-hopping users is that they somehow think we should know who they are. Your claim that you've been around for awhile is nothing more than a claim, with no evidence to support it. Now, if you were to provide a list of the various IP's you've edited under, your claim would have some merit. Otherwise, your responses are a non-denial denial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, last time I checked it was acceptable to edit anonymously on Wikipedia. If you wish to have that policy changed, this is not the appropriate forum. Perhaps, on the other hand, you don't have a problem with anonymous editing in general, and instead your comments are a personal attack on me for "IP-hopping". You seem to be confused. First you say "makes it clear you've been around awhile", then you declare that is "nothing more than a claim". I'm finished with this inane bickering. This section was decided as resolved long ago by an admin who stated that it needed absolutely no admin involvement. Case closed. End of discussion. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have the right to edit anonymously. No, you don't have the right to exploit that fact to gain an advantage. And you continue with the non-denial denials. Case closed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Case closed; very good. No more utter confusion from a couple of very confused editors. Thank you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I was about to say, "You'll be watched," but oh, wait, you can't be watched because you're an admitted IP-hopper. Case closed for now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"An admitted IP-hopper". You're hilarious BB. "But your honor, I can't help that my IP changes. Please have mercy on me!!" 71.77.21.198 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You're exploiting the fact that IP-hoppers can't be watched as such. Someday the folks who run Wikipedia will get wise to the thousands of hours wasted in dealing with IP-abusers. But for now, it's status quo, and you have the benefit of Wikipedia's double-standard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Geez, I was just complimenting your sense of humor BB. Lighten up. This is uncharacteristic of you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 15:38, 4 April 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.

This looks like it could be the IP you were using just prior to your current one. Do these contribs look like yours?[248] Especially as both of them emanate from Wilson, NC. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptive indefinite semi-protection of John Laws

Hello,

I would like to draw your attention to a case of pre-emptive indefinite semi-protection that I find unjustified.

The protecting admin has been asked to reconsider. Only after the issue was reported to WP:RUP did they come up with an explanation, which was accepted by the investigating admin. The justification was in my opinion extremely flimsy, and anyway not supported by our policy: "there has been in the last varying degrees of speculation in tabloid press and elsewhere".

This issue has already been reported at WP:AN, but it's been archived unresolved. In that occasion the protecting admin opened an RFC that would retrospectively justify that protection.

I would appreciate your views on the matter. Thank you. 114.148.210.226 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's a biographical article on a controversial figure. If you would like to edit it you only need to register an account, that is free and hardly intrusive. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This IP editor has already indicated that he has an account. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am aware of my options for editing semi-protected articles, but that is not what I am asking. 114.148.210.226 (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on what I saw in the diff above, pointing to Casliber's talk page, and other locations linked from that discussion, I have no interest in honoring any unprotection requests. The whole point of these requests is a Wikilawyering game. There's no actual expressed desire to improve or otherwise participate in the article or other articles where semiprotection is questioned, and these requests have been made with multiple IPs and what seems to be at least one registered account. Frankly, I'm not interested in playing games and I don't think any other admin is either, which is why your inquiries have been rebuffed up until now. -- Atama頭 23:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, if you're actually looking to add to the article as well as pursuing this "rules" issue, feel free to put your proposed improvements forward at Talk:John Laws. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think my inquiries have been rebuffed. In fact, more than one admin has already labelled this protection as excessive. Although we all agree that it's about a controversial figure, pre-emptive protection is not justified by our policy, and judging by the current results of the RFC referenced above, they probably won't be for a while.

I really don't understand why my potential contributions are considered relevant by some. They could be if semi-protection prevented only me from editing.

You can label this request as wikilayering if you like, but that still does not justify this protection. 114.148.210.226 (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

People can keep pretending this issue is about this IP's campaigning all they want, and that if he isn't planning any improvements then there is no issue, but its irrelevant. The use of pre-emptive protection just because its a controversial BLP is not supported, as the RFC reinforced yet again. If, as Casliber says, his issue is with there not being enough watchers of that particular article, then the solution is pretty obvious, and it doesn't involve inventing new policies towards IP editing, or continuing the protection just to spite this IP 'campaigner'. MickMacNee (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay - (a) This is one of many BLPs I think are better preemptively semi'ed - I'd rather not go on public record as to why and I can email folks if they wish (b) yes this is not within protection policy as it stands currently, but I do feel this works in lieu of an absent flagged revision. (c) I don't own this article. If another admin wishes to take on the responsibility then I will not stop them, though I don't think it a good idea. I'd be much happier if there was a specific aim in mind rather than just fighting it out over policy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The responsibiilty falls on the community as a whole, not just "an admin". The RFC has revealed that there is no consensus support for this maneuvre, and the right thing for you to do would be to lift the protection yourself absent of a reason that is justifiable in current policy. Resolute 05:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

A credible reason exists, the reason will not be discussed openly due to valid concerns (and think WP:BEANS), no evidence is presented that unprotection would benefit the project more then the present semiprotection, the requesting editor can edit the article using his main account, WP:BLP articles on controversial figures are not in pressing need of editors avoiding links to their main account, the request for unprotection has been declined. Any further questions at this stage? Guy (Help!) 11:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just that pesky issue of, what backing in policy have you got for this unjustified pre-emptive protection, apart from a whole bunch of reasons that have been rejected ad-nauseum by the community? This can probably be more loosely translated into, 'since when did administrators change from being basic functionaries who are supposed to follow policy, (meaning all of them, not just the ones they think are more important than the others), to being the makers and breakers of those policies?'. I don't know where this idea of a 'credible reason' has come from, Casliber didn't say anything except he has predicted something might happen based on tabloid speculation. If there is anything more concrete than that, then lets have an OTRS ticket recording the justification in private, and employ full protection for a known and definite time period, because people are kidding themselves if they think BLP subjects cannot be harmed if they are semi-protected. MickMacNee (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection is in place to prevent disruption and abuse, due to concerns held by the protecting admin. Would you prefer the article to be subject to abuse? Guy (Help!) 15:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The current policy is funnily enough, also written to prevent disruption and abuse, and it does not sanction this kind of protection. But you already know that of course. MickMacNee (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's something I know: querulous agitation comes a very poor second to WP:BLP. I'm sure you really sincerely believe that what Wikipedia needs more than anything else is for someone who has an account to be able to make edits to a controversial biography without using that account. I disagree. Profoundly. Freedom to edit is paramount? My arse. If that were true we'd have no protection, no semi-protection and no blocking policy. Protecting the project is rather important, WP:BLP is extremely important and Wikilawyering about whether a semiprotection meets section 3 subsection 2 para 5a is of purely academic interest. But I'm sure you already knew that, just as I'm sure you already knew that being condescending is not a great way to achieve your goals. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

More unsupported irrelevance. The current protection and blocking policies are already written to resolve the freedom to edit with the 'paramount importance' of BLP. Your statements of interpretation are mere invention, and if you actually have any evidence that this protection is now also based on a fear of socking, let's have the evidence of actual socking, or is that just another of these pesky rules you have no time for? MickMacNee (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Endorse semi-protection in this case. Casliber has cited BLP concerns, and given he's a trustworthy person, and given there's no argument being made as to how semi-protection of this one article actually harms content, this is a perfectly legitimate use of IAR and admim discretion on BLP issues.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please show evidence of disruption and abuse on this article. Frankly, the only abuse I am seeing at this point is abuse of admin tools. Resolute 16:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Also fully support the attempt to protect the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Endorse semiprotection as well. Anyone who doesn't get this can spend five minutes (took me thirty seconds) using some sort of internet search engine to find out what's up. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

IAR is not for this, not in the slightest. This is basic stuff, which really should not have to be repeated time and again. It is high time NOBIGDEAL was deleted, as being a complete work of fiction. MickMacNee (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There are rules about what IAR is "for"? You can't see the irony of that?--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:PIAR. It's well established throughout the entire community, bar a few maverick admins, precisely what IAR is and isn't for. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I signed that petition. But this is not IAR abuse - it's a legitimate (and arbcom sanctioned) use.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I call bullshit. If you can get arbcom to come and collectively declare here and now that pre-emptive semi-protection is now policy whenever any admins just 'calls BLP', then please do so. Otherwise, this is just another of your unique and unsupported interpretations of site policy to support your pushing of the BLP envelope beyond what consensus supports. If you think that BLP motion gives your freedom to do what you like, I urge you to read the dissenting opinions again, of which there were many, which correctly foresaw what that would lead to. Given another case highlighting what actually goes on, this time they would surely accept, to examine the actions and statements of all involved compared to actual policy and actual site-wide consensus, which you repeatedly and flagrantly distort. MickMacNee (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Call it bullshit if you want. It is what we do. We don't need arbcom to declare "pre-emptive semi-protection is now policy". Pre-emptive semi-protection ISN'T policy - what is policy is admins using their discretion to protect BLPs on a case-by-case basis. That's been endorsed by Jimbo and arbcom on a number of occasions. You seem to want a written process for everything - wikipedia has never worked that way (IAR IS policy - "process is important" isn't.). Look, you can argue here, but actually you're just flogging a dead horse. You simply are wrong about how we do things. Now, maybe your way might be better (no doubt others will agree with you) but it isn't the way it has ever worked here. If you think I'm wrong, take the case to arbcom - and I think you'll find they'll disagree with you too. Otherwise, we move on (with or without your agreement.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

IAR does not give an editor the right to do whatever they want. You have yet to demonstrate how the indefinite semi-protection of an article with very little history of vandalism, thus denying a large portion readers the opportunity to work on the article improves the project. Semi-protection is meant to be implemented after vandalism for a very good reason. And until you convince either the community or the Foundation (ArbCom has no right to write law) that pre-emptive semi-protection is beneficial or that unregistered users should not be allowed to edit, I find your invocation of IAR to be misguided, and exactly the kind of abuse that led to the creation of that petition in the first place. Resolute 15:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"That's been endorsed by Jimbo and arbcom on a number of occasions." - where? when? And why, if this the actual practice, is this not mentioned in the actual policy? Whether you are of the view that policy follows practice or practice follows policy, that is clearly an error, if the situation is how you say it is. When there is a tendency for so many admins to currently bend what rules we do have documented, to further a particular agenda, then 'its just what happens' is not going to suffice as a response, in a community of hundreds of thousands of editors, most of whom are busy writing articles, and do not care to follow the daily activities of admins to keep abreast of what currently is and isn't 'practice', and when they will and when they won't get ignored when rightfully questioning admin actions. MickMacNee (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection is reactive, freedom to edit is paramount. The harm to the content is obvious, if you are here to do anything more than just push the BLP envelope. This is a Foundation principle, pure and simple. Don't like it? Then try and change it the proper way, and not by 'endorsing' the bending of administrator roles. MickMacNee (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The harm to content in this instance is not obvious to me. Please explain it?--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Pick any of the hundred pages that you already know exist that explain at great lengths what the harm is done to the project of blocking IPs from making constructive edits without having to beg for permission from others, or be pre-emptively labled as libellers. Granted, these are written from a different perspective of the primary purpose of Wikipedia than you hold, but I'm sure you can manage it if you try. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Good protection. Ignore the people who want policy followed ZOMG AT ALL TIMES. I missed the WikiConstitution that says there is Freedom for Anyone to Edit Any Article At All Times, especially when said person can simply get an account. High time NOBIGDEAL was deleted? I completely agree. Also high time that everyone understands that registering for an account is not a violation of any rights, and the only benefit editors get from it is that other editors can't track an individual's contrib history. If you want to crusade on a forum about that, we should head to another club. Tan | 39 14:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a fair position, held by many. It's not site policy though, not by a long shot, although credit to you for at least being open about your beliefs, and how that affects the legitimacy of your endorsement/rejection of this protection. MickMacNee (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy allows for the prevention of disruption and abuse. Good old policy. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Read it again, you missed a few crucial details. MickMacNee (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There is resounding support for the protection, so I suggest you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. –Turian (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The evidence of this resounding support of the abuse of admin tools can be found where, exactly? Resolute 16:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a great loaded question, isn't it? Bravo. Tan | 39 16:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I assume you can read, so read this section. Simple really. [Also, it's not abuse, especially since it is BLP.] And as Tan has said, nice question... –Turian (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you have the capability to read yourself, you can take a look at the RfC referenced above. A couple of users on this noticeboard don't have the right to overrule a larger consensus (or lack thereof). Especially given that it is well established that arguments from policy trump. "I dont like it" arguments every time. Resolute 17:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yay, comment splicer... I find this an issue of making something out of nothing. He did not protect it to solidify his version of the article. He did it in good faith, which is something you are forgetting rather quickly. –Turian (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt the intention was good. It is, however, not supported by policy and has been challenged by several users. At this point, failure to accept that his actions are not supported either by current policy or by the community displays a wilfull disregard of Wikipedia's principles. More over, per Casliber's own suggested re-wording of the protection policy, he should have lifted the protection the moment he was asked to do so. Resolute 17:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just no. There is no overwhelming support for this action whatsoever. A couple of comments here from admins who freely admit they don't agree with whole rafts of policy, cannot and will not change that fact. Ever. Read what Casliber has written, he even knows himself : "If you want to unprotect John Laws then I won't stop you, as you are technically acting more within policy than I am". MickMacNee (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're firmly in the right and we're in the wrong, I'm sure that either a) an ArbCom case will clear things up by identifying the admin abuse, egregious disregard for policy, etc, or b) I'll read bitter complaints about this on WR and/or IRC and that's about how far it will go. If I was a betting man (and I am), I'd go with B for 1000, Alex. Tan | 39 17:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's high time for an arbcom case on this creeping and insidious redefinition of the role of admins, where the same few people turn up to say the same few things, yet policies remain unchanged. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You really have no sense of irony at all, do you? Guy (Help!) 06:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Another pointless comment from someone who clearly has no interest in justifying this protection in policy. An arbcom case is well overdue, as is the mandatory reconfirmation of admins like yourself who long ago dropped the pretence that they are mere functionaries and in discussions like this just generally do all they can to divert and disrupt. MickMacNee (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He has a right to ignore all the rules, especially when he is acting in good faith. Remember? Assuming good faith? So take your little petition, "condemn" him for it, and be on your way. –Turian (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

He has no right to do anything, and if he had the gumption to stand for re-confirmation, he would sharp find that out. Admin rights indeed. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably, as would most current admin RfAs because at some point or another in the course of using the tools, you piss someone off who is part of a major minority. I'd be willing to wager that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MickMackNee would sharp crash and burn as well, point being that you don't necessarily enjoy higher community confidence. Your little poke with the "gumption" is noted; why don't you change that redlink to blue and see just how much the community agrees with your views. Tan | 39 17:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, the only edits to this article since it was protected were the addition of vandalism and the removal of it. That one instance of vandalism in the five weeks since protection is one more than existed in the five months prior to protection. Resolute 17:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that this vast crowd has gathered to discuss the administration of the article on John Laws, how about we all also have a go at expanding the actual content? It's pretty thin for what was probably Australia's highest-rating radio host. Euryalus (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your views. I have a few comments and questions.

1. What are these endorsements based on? Is it purely on trust? Because all we have from Casliber so far (after various indefinite semi-protections recently demonstrated inappropriate in his talk page and red herrings that did not stick, like "If you are specifically looking to improve the article then I will unprotect", lamenting not enough references(?), and various others) is "speculation in tabloid press and elsewhere" and "I'd rather not go on public record as to why". Why the mystery? If this current speculation is public, and it can be found with 30 seconds of research (I couldn't) what harm can it do to refer to it neutrally in a talk page? 123.218.149.112 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
2. In fact, I hesitate to ask for more details about this alleged current high-risk controversy, because even if there is one (and I'm sure that this was done in good faith and there is one), it's actually irrelevant. As some have stated, this remains a pre-emptive protection, and as such the community has rejected it. Unless of course (point 3)... 123.218.149.112 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
3. Is it a truly exceptional circumstance, like, Casliber has insider information about a matter of life and death? In this case, full protection would seem more appropriate. Even so, is Casliber suggesting that the same intriguing rationale applies to other pre-emptive indefinite semi-protections (search for "potential" and "vulnerable")? I'm happy to analyse and possibly challenge each of them separately, but it may be more efficient to settle this in bulk. 123.218.149.112 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone asked for evidence that unprotection would benefit the project more then the present semiprotection. I think that it should rather work the other way around, i.e. the normal state is unprotected and the burden is on the protecting admin to make a case for the protection (and sorry to reiterate, but even where there is, pre-emptive protection is still against consensus). In any case, for what it's worth, SilkTork has done a pretty impressive analysis during the RFC. 123.218.149.112 (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Resolute on this. Preemptive semi-protection is more than justified in many cases (for instance, I'm of the mind that potential presidential candidates should be semi'd), I'm somewhat troubled by the unwillingness to provide evidence for such a drastic step. While I'm willing to change my opinion on this, what I'm seeing at this point might amount to using a pile driver to swat a fly. I say this as someone who has frequently salted the userspaces of vandal-only accounts whose usernames appear to be impersonating those of well-known people. Blueboy96 04:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I should note, however, that I find it hard to assume good faith on the part of the IP who has been leading the charge on this, and have had to suppress my inclination to block for disruption. That alone would militate against lifting this particular semi-protection on my part. Blueboy96 04:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

SPA disruptive, baiting

Account Geekiep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be a hoax/ SPA account that shows no evidence of making useful contributions to Wikipedia. They have created multiple articles that are either totally non-notable or hoaxes. e.g. Chris Edgecombe. Good faith discussions with the user have been replied to with baiting -- for an example please see [[249]].

While ignoring the editor works for me, they continue to return approximately once a day trying to provoke some reaction -- there are currently posts on WQA. e.g. [[250]]. Gerardw (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Just ignore him/her. Don't waste your time on trolls!.--Karljoos (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

User:AdyRock88 genre-warring

User:AdyRock88 contribs has been changing genres to music infoboxes with every single edit since he registered, removing them without an edit summary and adding inappropriate genres. He used a reference for some edits which did not sufficiently back up his claim, and when I challenged this editor and reverted him, he simply reverted back to his version. An IP editor, User:109.166.141.153 contribs then appeared (with no edit history) and edited in exactly the same way, and I believe this is the same person logging out to avoid 3RR. I am now close to breaking 3RR myself and I don't know what else to do.

The articles in question are Deep Purple album articles, mainly The Book of Taliesyn [251], [252], [253] and Shades of Deep Purple (basically the same diffs), with another issue of genre removal at Deep Purple [254], [255], [256].

Can someone offer some advice, please? Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• What, so now the idea that Deep Purple is a heavy metal band is somehow contentious? Guy (Help!) 15:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually yes, they were a heavy metal band at various points in their career, but not in the 1960s, they weren't. These articles concern individual albums, not the band as a whole. The main article does list heavy metal in the genres, but these albums are far from heavy metal. If it's not contentious, then a decent source should be very easy to find. There is a long history of single-issue editors adding "heavy metal" to the genres of hard rock bands, with no consensus or proper sourcing at all, and this is a prime example. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Another IP has joined in [257] - both of these IPs are from Bucharest, so it's clearly the same person in my view. Any further input from anyone? Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• And another Bucharest IP contribs. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

likely hoax

Resolved

To me, Bruark seems to be a hoax article. Article creator has reverted speedy-tags and hoax-tags by me and others. --Túrelio (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's gone. :) SGGH ^ping! 14:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumarbarathi

Resolved

• Deleted article whose AfD page is still open. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done. postdlf (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement

Administrators involved in Arbitration Enforcement, or interested in participating, are encouraged to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement to better streamline and coordinate enforcement actions. NW (Talk) 20:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Violation of BLP on Talk:Johnny Weir

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

This discussion does not belong here. Please take it to the appropriate dispute resolution location (perhaps the WP:BLPN?). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The BLP of this skater - who has declined to be labelled by his sexuality has been continually abused over an insistence that he be tagged as part of the "LGBT" wikiproject. This "LGBT tagging" discussion was removed from the talk page several months ago (by me), and moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people.

Unfortunately, a number of editors have inappropriately taken this in-house process discussion back to the article's talk page - and even started a poll over the project tag. I have removed this and directed parties to make comments on tagging on the RfC rather than on a BLP talk page.

There's obviously an agenda of a wikiproject here - but it is not appropriate that this be pushed on the talk page of a living person who's declined to be associated with any sexuality or relevant community. We need to have more respect for our subjects than to use them for agenda-related trivial in-house disputes.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Scott, the LGBT tag still appears to be there. Aiken ♫ 23:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If this person is known in the media for "declining to be labeled by his sexuality" then I think the interest of the article to the LGBT project is pretty obvious. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, BLPs tagged by this project gives an outside reader the idea that the subject may be gay, which is precisely what Weir wishes to avoid. BLP concerns trump the whims of a wiki-project. Tarc (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, the tag gives no such impression. DuncanHill (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid it does. Tarc (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That the article is of interest to the LGBT project is not what is in dispute; what is in dispute is whether that justifies the addition of an essentially administrative tag that carries (whether we wish it to or not) connotations beyond its administrative purpose. CIreland (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It carries no such connotations. DuncanHill (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not - that is the dispute. The dispute is not whether it is of interest to the wikiproject; that's just a rather obvious strawman. CIreland (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just reading through the RFC (in which I did not participate) and there seems to be a lot of agreement that the tag is acceptable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

But don't you know? Only Scott is allowed to decide if the LGBT wikiproject is allowed to find an article of interest. DuncanHill (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I find the strawpoll proposed there to be pointy, but the threat to block anybody who brings up a specific WikiProject seems unacceptably heavyhanded. jæs (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

First, basing your actions based on the possible assumptions and ignorance of the masses is a bad thing to do. Second, the threat to block is way out of line. –Turian (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that anyone adding the tag back to the talk page has pretty much demonstrated that they have a different priority set than the priority set of "creating an encyclopedia." I further suggest that a technacal restriction to prevent disr}ption is the appropriate solution to deal with people who are using this website to do something that is not "creating an encyclopedia." Hipocrite (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. The tag simply says that the project believes the article to be within their topic area, as would articles about sexuality researchers or articles about people who object vehemently to homosexuality. Their subject area is broad enough that the project tag doesn't imply anything whatsoever about the article's subject, it implies something about the member's interests. If the project was WikiProject Homosexual People, your suggestion would have some merit, but it's not, and the idea that a project member tagging an article as being of interest to the project should be the cause of some kind of punishment is simply an astonishing example of not assuming good faith. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Hefner is a famous heterosexual. I don't see an LGBT tag on his article, despite his efforts to promote sexual freedom in general. Yet he's not tagged. Why would that be? The answer is in my first sentence. The gay community suspects Johnny Weir is a closet case and would dearly like to "out" him. Adding an LGBT tag would assist in that process. Assisting with promoting special interests is not wikipedia's purpose. The argument is being made that because Weir has been asked about his private life, that that somehow makes him a "person of interest". Suppose someone were to ask Hugh Hefner if he were secretly gay. Would that suddenly also make him a "person of interest" to the LGBT project? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet the family jewels on it. Also, consider Scott Hamilton (figure skater), who is demonstrably heterosexual. He has said that in his early years, he tried to project a masculine image, to help counter the male-skater stereotype. In more recent years, he has considerably softened his attitude on the matter. Arguably, he has had more to say about the subject than Weir has. Yet I don't see an LGBT tag on his article either, so he's apparently not a "person of interest" to the project either. Yet Weir somehow is. Now, why would that be? For the same reason Hefner is not tagged: They are neither gay nor "suspected" of being gay. So what's with the Weir tag? The justification can only be that either he's gay himself (which cannot be determined, so it's irrelevant) or because he's a "gay icon" like a Judy Garland or a Bette Midler. Is there any evidence he's any more of a "gay icon" than any other skater who's silent about his private life? No. The tag is not needed, and is a BLP violation. Its sole purpose is POV-pushing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

You're way out of line here. Weir is of interest to the Wikiproject for two reasons. First, his flamboyant style has caused sports commentators to discuss his gender to the point that sparked international news. Even NPR discussed gender, sexuality, and Weir's playing with those stereotypes. There were also allegations that Weir was denied a place in "Stars on Ice" due to perceived sexuality. Second, while Weir has "declined to comment" on his sexuality, it's been brought up in dozens of reliable sources: New Zealand Herald, USA Today, a segment on HBO's Real Sports, The New York Times - the question is present in almost every interview. That's not a "WikiProject with an Agenda" - that's international media asking the question, and the WikiProject wants to make sure the article presents issues with a neutral point of view. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You're out of line calling me out of line. So why are Hefner and Hamilton not tagged? The answer is, because they are neither gay nor "suspected" of being gay. Tabloid-style media violating wikipedia's BLP rules are not our concern. Wikipedians violating wikipedia's BLP rules are our concern. If and when he "comes out", or is caught on camera, then you've got him. Otherwise, you're just POV-pushing and BLP-violating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

BB: I sincerely doubt that any WikiProject has tagged each and every article in the encyclopedia that falls into its interest area, so I don't see the argument that X article isn't tagged as being spectacularly useful – it rather falls into the "other things (don't) exist" category. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Has Hefner had dozens of reliable sources (not tabloid-style media - we're talking NPR and the New York Times, here) ask him if he's gay? No. While Hamilton may be a wonderful skater, no one has said on national media that he should take a gender test. There are specific reasons, that have been outlined ad-nauseum, and none of them are because anyone is trying to out Weir. Furthermore, your lack of good faith in the WikiProject editors is what is way out of line here. The project has dozens of wonderful editors, 43 FAs, 14 FLs, and works hard to make a better encyclopedia - we are not a cabal. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Your project team has been told time and time again that it's a BLP violation and that it puts wikipedia in the position of labeling him gay; and the answer typically has been essentially, "We don't care". Tell me how that demonstrates good faith? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we have done everything we can to answer that issue - there's an explanation= parameter in the WP:LGBT banner. The wording of the banner has been changed to say "of interest to" rather than "within the scope of". We've done everything we can to assuage concerns about that the fraction of users that might assume something when they see the project banner. Yes, we care - and yet editors like you still assume some sort of agenda. Show me the good faith in that, eh?

Finally, you're missing the entire point of this ANI thread. This whole discussion (of whether or not the banner is appropriate) belongs on the article's talk page - that's what talk pages are for. One admin, Scott MacDonald, refuses to let that discussion take place. He cites BLP as his concern, but wont participate in discussion, even threatening to block editors. His actions are disruptive at best, and an abuse of admin privileges at worst.-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You've "done verything you can" except to accept the truth of the matter, which is that the tag is a BLP violation. Mac is right to bring the hammer down, because not only is the tag a BLP violation, but the open speculation about Weir's private life, both here and on that page, can also be considered a BLP vioaltion. The conservative application of BLP, which is an important wikipedia policy, trumps nearly everything else, certainly including a project team's desire to label someone in such a way that many readers would conclude that we've determined he's gay. The credibility of wikipedia to the public is more important than the desires of a given project team to tag somebody. And certainly Weir is well-known enough that such a tag is not needed. Anyone on the LGBT team that wants to improve his article can certainly do so, and without that tag in place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Bugs: To accept that putting a LGBT Project tag on an article's talk page is a BLP violation would mean accepting that the tag labels the subject as being a lesbian, gay man, bisexual or transgendered person, but the project firmly denies that, and has presented the arguments which support their case. Since they don't accept the underlying assumption, they don't accept the conclusion which flows from that assumption, and I've seen nothing that indicates that community consensus is that they should be forced to accept it. In fact, as far as I can see, the consensus has gone just the other way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not just that they deny it's based from an agenda. It's that they claim that they have no responsility for how the average reader might interpret it. That's contemptuous, it's wrong, and it risks undermining wikipedia's credibility with the public. All of that stuff is way more important than a project team's wish to put a tag on an article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Bugs: Since they seem amicable to adjusting the tag in ways that might help "soften" its potential impact, do you think a statement on the tag to the effect that no one should draw any conclusions about the subject of the article based on the presence of the tag would help? If they use of the tag is agenda-driven as you think, this would have the effect of undercutting that agenda, wouldn't it? The notice could be boxed and highlighted, whatever is necessary to bring the reader's attention to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, I refer you to the RFC on the issue: "[C]onsensus was that a WikiProject tag identified that an article was within the interest of a group of editors rather than categorizing the article as belonging to a topic field. .. Legitimate concerns were raised about potential association discomfort for people connected with the subject of a BLP article, and sensible suggestions were put forward for wording or presenting WikiProject tags in such a manner to clarify to all readers the purpose of WikiProject tags." An RFC that dozens of editors participated in doesn't agree that a WikiProject banner is a BLP concern. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that such an extraordinary effort has been expended to label the article with the LGBT project shows that it is important (the stuff about the usefulness of the tag for this and that housekeeping reason is clearly spurious). The fact that the tag is so important merely illustrates the fact that it is being used as a political statement – accordingly it is not appropriate and should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The accusation that other editors are using WikiProject tags "as a political statement" is such a ridiculous assumption of bad faith that I'm not even sure how to take it seriously. jæs (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Scott_MacDonald

An admin has placed a block threat on the talk page of an article warning that he will block users for discussing whether or not a WikiProject banner can be placed on the talk page. I believe that this is simply disruptive and does nothing to help the encyclopedia or the article involved. And if he were to actually block someone for discussing how to better the article on it's talk page (which is what talk pages are for), I believe this would be abuse of admin powers. The article in question is Talk:Johnny Weir. User:Scott MacDonald seems to think that a discussion about the WP:LGBT banner somehow goes against BLP, though the discussion has not, in any way, said anything about Weir's sexuality - it has focused simply on whether or not the article is "of interest to" the WikiProject. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Scott really needs to stop his disruptive behaviour, there was an RfC about this issue, but as it didn't give Scott the result he wanted he has clearly decided to impose his own views and exercise ownership of the talk page, and to bully editors who disagree with him. He's a disgrace. DuncanHill (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than saying these comments about Scott, you really ought to say them to him. If you think he is abusing his position, there are ways to go about sorting it out. The first one is trying to talk to him. Aiken ♫ 00:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Where do you suggest I say them? He is ignoring the RfC (which he started and where I have commented), he blanks my comments on his talk page, and he has threatened to block anyone raising the issue on the article talkpage. Get your facts right before accusing me of not trying to talk to him. DuncanHill (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with Scott on the inappropriateness of the article talk p., and possibly even on the inappropriateness of the banner, but suggesting "trying to talk with him" after the dispute has reached this point seems rather inadequate. This seems an proper place for discussion of his action. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm not even involved, I don't know where the stage is up to, but I feel making comments like "He's a disgrace" don't really help. I would suggest an RFC actually, would be more appropriate, so the discussion is more structured. Aiken ♫ 00:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI is not part of dispute resolution. Any part of dispute resolution would work. Hipocrite (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right - dispute resolution should work. But the first step would be discussing the issue on the article talk page - a move Scott deemed block-worthy. The next step would be taking it to an RFC, which was done. Scott seems to think the RFC hasn't been completed, though the closing admin *did* close it. And another resolution would be to discuss things with Scott. That was attempted, and he has actively shrugged and continued with his disruptive behavior. Thus this notice. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Several people have missed this point, so let me repeat it: There already was an RfC. You can read the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people. Literally dozens of editors commented. The overall result was that editors were in favor of the flag, motherhood, apple pie, being nice to BLPs, and letting any WikiProject work on whatever they wanted (which is to say: Scott "lost" the RfC). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, you might like to read WP:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging, if you're unfamiliar with how project banners are used and what the standard rules are for placing them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 5 April 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.