Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive703

Block log of Mbz1

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.

The block log issue is resolved, and there are no current blocks or edit restrictions. If further dispute resolution for current issues is required, please use the usual mechanisms. Rd232 ^talk 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

---

The purpose of this post is to establish whether or not the two harassment blocks of Mbz1 (talk · contribs), dated 24 December 2010 by Rd232 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and 27 December 2010 by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), were proper. I am asking for this review now, over six months after the time of the blocks, because Mbz1 has complained that he has been subject to harsh treatment on the administrator enforcement noticeboards because his record is ostensibly bad. I maintain, for the reasons set down at User talk:Mbz1/special, that the two blocks, and the subsequent unblock, were improper because Mbz1 did not engage in the harassment that was alleged (although I have recognised elsewhere that Mbz1 has an unimpressive record).

Ten days ago, I placed an 'annotation note' in Mbz1's block log, noting the contested nature of the two blocks, in order to prevent his block log being used against him at arbitration enforcement. This was subsequently disputed by User:Unomi, at whose request I am opening this review. Were the blocks of Mbz1 invalid, and, if so, should the block log annotation stand? AGK [•] 11:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It was an unblock on 27 December, and apparently in effect only a single block by Gwen Gale. Rd232's block was only to lift talk page restrictions. The annotation is a bit unusual, but personally I don't see any point in adjusting the block log further. If anything it'll remind people to look at the substance of the block instead of the size of the log, in the future. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Block logs are very rarely examined to see what the block was really for, and this is an argument to allow for additional comments after the block by any admin stating that the block was contested by at least one admin, to indicate that the reasoning for the block might not have been sound, or that other factors existed. Too often we see "look at that person's block log! They must be really, really bad!" when the reasons for a given block may well show that they were behaving in full accord with WP policies in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, Collect: Fully agree. AGK [•] 12:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarifications:

1. This was not two blocks, but one; my reblock was to restore talkpage access, and wasn't an endorsement of the block (this isn't clear from the log, unfortunately, I should have noted what I was doing instead of echoing the original block).
2. The relevant ANI discussion is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive660#Mbz1_starting_up_a_dispute_that_was_6-months_gone_past.3B. My comment there was "I would suggest that whilst a week block might have been appropriate to allow the user to reflect on how they're going about things, an indef block of an established contributor really requires rather more discussion. I think Gwen Gale's indef block needs to be reviewed, and if there is a move to formally community ban Mbz1, record that appropriately." I closed the "block review" subthread with the remarks "I've asked the blocking admin to clarify issues some more - that's probably the necessary dialogue at this point since the intention was clearly not for the indefinite block to be permanent."
3. I don't think I can shed any more light on the circumstances beyond this; I don't remember any details. Rd232 ^talk 11:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• What this process reminds me of is a person challenging traffic tickets in court, seeking to have what they perceived to be wrongs stricken, or at least clarified, from their driving record so it will not appear unclean. I don't read everything at AN/I but I've poked around here enough so that I do not recall ever taking the time to quibble over anyone's block log entries that are long-expired. Shall we pore over, say, Malleus' block log and send the bad ones (i.e. many of them) down the memory hole? Tarc (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The block of Mbz seems to have been warranted. Saying "That user user:Daedalus969 will never drop the stick, and he wants to be an administrator!" is quite problematic, given the recently expired interaction ban with said user. (link: [1]). --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Commment:

• There are very few blocks that are not contested by someone at some point. I find the precedent of block log annotations based on limited community discussion an unfortunate one, in general.
• While I am not opposed to a review of circumstances regarding Mbz1's block, I do think that we should default to the 'non-annotated' block log until we have an outcome from it.
• 6 months is a long time, especially with the constraints that WP imposes. In this particular case there was voluminous discussion and a lot of activity on Mbz1's talk page which is not captured by the archives - sadly we lack a replay function. I think that we should ensure that this review discussion is brought to the attention of all editors who partook in the original one. un☯mi 13:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference list of pages believed to be of relevance, feel free to add more:

• 1. AE Report brought by Mbz1 just prior to being blocked
  2. ANI thread which includes Mbz1's blocking and the subsequent block review
  3. Mbz1's talkpage when she was unblocked.

Flicking through this my reading of events doesn't look too good for Mbz1 - she jumped into a conversation about Daedalus969, an editor with whom an interaction ban was imposed. Assuming good faith on her description of events (i.e. he was hounding her, leading to the interaction ban) surely it is not a sensible thing to do and is definitely baiting.

The AN/I thread seems to teeter on the edge of things, but then the SPI was failed. That was a rash and silly move that clearly swung things against her and seems to be the straw that broke the camels back. At that point 1 week seems sensible given that she had been advised to quit involvement with Daedalus969 failed to do so badly.

That's where it gets shaky; things went south fast, and I think the extension to indef was perhaps a little harsh (and certainly controversial). Rd232 seems to have acted well throughout (enabling talk page access, getting a review, working through it).

It was really that SPI that tipped it over the edge, assuming good faith that it was a mistake, it was a really silly one to make especially in light of mzb1's past interaction with Daedalus969. I think that a lot of that event was a mess; but mzb1 behaved inappropriately and the week block at least was warranted. She should have used common sense, dropped the stick and not provoked the incident. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

To add, after a more detailed read; the string of poor judgement decisions, and assumption of bad faith in filing the SPI, that lead up to the one week block make it seem appropriate and probably would have been my response too. The indef block is hard to string into context so I can't really comment on that, other than it seems to have been worked out. Discussions on Mzb1's talk page indicate, though, that she simply did not seem to "get" what the problem was and felt victimized, I am concerned that this new discussion is prompted because she *still* does not understand the problem. To cast it in a metaphor; can you see how this would be inappropriate - If you were whistling loudly in a train carriage and your ex (who happens to be in the same car) asked you to shut it, followed a few minutes later by someone you've never seen before sat further down the train.... would you ask the rest of the carriage whether they had seen the two of them scheming together before you got on the train? That is why the SPI was an assumption of bad faith.

For the purposes of clarity; I think the indef block was not intended as "the end of it all" nor the unblock a "very last chance", and using the indef block against Mzb1 would be inappropriate. The incident, however, stands for itself. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nod, that is how I remember the indefinite block - indefinite blocks are often used when behavior modification is deemed a pre-requisite for further participation, forcing the user to reflect rather than 'wait out'. Here is where the indef is imposed, this is the contribs for Mbz1 around that time. The talk page restriction is imposed here and seems to be a reaction to Mbz1 edit warring to insert a block template at the top of the page ( potentially misleading a reader to assume belligerency on the part of the imposing admin ). un☯mi 14:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Your review of my block, Errant, could have been right, if the initial comment made by user:Daedalus969 and a comment made 9 hours later by user:tarc were correct, but they were not. Daedalus969 alleged: "Mbz1 immediately jumped in in an issue they were not, by any stretch of the imagination, involved in", and tarc alleged "fresh off the interaction ban"... (in both cases highlighted by me)
• In reality my interaction ban with Daedalus969 ended more than 6 months before my December post. Six months interval hardly could be called "imitatively" and/or "fresh out". When I read an AN/I post about user:Daedalus969 harassing another user as he harassed me I felt I have to support this editor, so I did.
• So, assuming my interaction ban with the user ended over 6 months ago, assuming AN/I is the place, where most editors comment on the issues they are not involved in, assuming my intention was to help an editor who found themselves into similar situation, assuming I made no personal attacks, Daedalus969's post was highly inappropriate and frivolous.It should have been closed out with no action. Instead I was warned, which is fine, but the post was not either archived nor marked as "resolved", which was wrong because it allowed other users to make an elephant out of a fly 9! hours later. Should I have filed an AN/I request for every one of those users claiming that they are commenting on the thread that they "by any stretch of the imagination, involved in"?
• SPI request I filed was silly, was filed in a hurry, but it was not filed in a bad faith. I filed it because I felt as I am loosing ground, and because I could not imagine how any reasonable uninvolved user would comment on AN/I such frivolous AN/I request.
• This current AN/I thread was initiated by continues demands of the user that was asked by an editor, and by an admin "give Mbz1 some space" and in spite of Beeblebrox asking to end such demands
• I believe this current AN/I thread is absolutely unnecessary and should be closed. Please let's go back to building encyclopedia, and not a new and absolutely unnecessary drama . --Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You have to understand that it doesn't come across quite like that to the outside observer, so it is worth taking that on board and considering if you really are squeaky clean of blame. 3 Months is certainly not completely recent - but the fact you were on a mutual interaction ban should tell you something. Interaction bans are designed to disengage editors who simply cannot get away from each other - it's definitely not appropriate to then step back into that arena, even if you want to give moral support to someone else. It is simply re-involving yourself! The thing that kicked this off was unavoidably a bad mistake by you. I can understand you might have been upset and frustrated, hence the ill-informed SPI - but you should know people join in and comment on AN/I threads. There was nothing of substance to suggest that there was any sock-puppetry involved, and even as a mistake the filing of it reflects badly on your reaction. Had you simply ignored the issue and walked away from the (in your view) frivolous AN/I the block would probably not have happened. Both of the turns for the worse were a direct result of mistakes you made; so the take away should be - take responsibility and try to learn from that. We all make mistakes, the real test is whether we can learn from them. A block log is not an issue if you can express understanding of what those mistakes where and why you won't make them again :)

I agree closing this would be a good idea; you've been through this ad-infinitum and whether you agree or disagree with the comments little is gained by putting you through it all over again :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• The only thing this can do after so many months is create more drama. What good can come out of this? Certainly nothing remotely related to the goals of Wikipedia. - BorisG (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Boris, I've seen this response from you over and over again, whenever Mbz1 is scrutinized. I think you need to consider the possibility that it's not the scrutiny that creates the drama, but the actions being scrutinized.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

People seem to be missing the point here. The issue as I understand it is not whether Mbz's block was sound or not. As outlined by this thread, this is about whether or not administrators should be "annotating" block logs with their own opinions. I know that I for one disagree with many blocks that I see, but I don't make a habit of making entries in block logs to register my disapproval. Many blocks are also criticized by numerous users; that is not a reason to annotate a block log either. IMO, the only time a block log should be annotated in such a way is if there is community consensus that a block was inappropriate, and that doesn't appear to be the case in this instance. Asking for approval after the fact, as AGK is doing here, is inappropriate. He should have sought consensus first. Gatoclass (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Errant, thank you for your posts. I assure you I gave a full consideration to the thoughts you expressed. may I please ask you to understand me too? There were 4 users that made everything they could to provoke me and to make me blocked, in which they succeeded. My mistake was that I took the bite

I made a correction. At the time of my post in question it actually was 6 (not 3 months) after my interaction ban with the user expired.

I do take a full responsibility for filing SPI request. It was wrong of me, and I apologize for doing this. I did learn from the mistake, and will not file another SPI as this one,but I ask you to note this SPI was filed not to harass anybody, it was filed only because I could not understand how a reasonable user could react on the frivolous request the way he did.I mean this user tried to bring an absolutely uninvolved editor to the thread artificially. This editor, user:EdChem exercised decency, and ignored that improper notification.

But I cannot agree that my initial post on AN/I thread made in a thread started by some one else, was wrong and warranted such an inflammatory reaction.

Neither of my action warranted a week long block, and indefinite block, and removing my talk page access were highly inappropriate.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass: As I have explained at length previously, I made this annotation because Mbz1's ostensibly bad block log was being used against her to ask for more severe sanctions than would normally be considered for an editor with no record of disruption. I appreciate that this action normally would require community agreement and I was not wrong to pursue that route in the first instance. However, I am not seeking "approval after the fact", but a review of the blocks I noted as being wrong. If that is not forthcoming, then I will remove my annotation. This is a review of the two blocks, not of my actions, because I already accept that they were unfounded (and that I ought to have considered the wider implications of my action). To respond to your first three sentences, you misunderstand this thread. (Of course, I am as always open to a separate review of my actions, but in my view that is not necessary here.) AGK [•] 16:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

AGK, you wrote: "I appreciate that this action normally would require community agreement and I was not wrong to pursue that route in the first instance." I suppose you just transposed the order of the two words?  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What Gatoclass said. From what I understand of what I've read, this is not something AGK will be doing again. If so, that's about right. As for the question of redaction of the block log after the fact, I don't think there's a case to break that precedent either. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

zzuuzz, your understanding is absolutely right. AGK said he will not do it again. That is why I am asking one more time to close this thread.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think when a precedent is broken in such a way, there is every reason to reverse it. Leaving the entry there must inevitably leave the impression that there was a community consensus for the comment, when it's clear from this discussion there was none. What I find disagreeable about this entry is that AGK in effect took it upon himself to elevate his own personal opinion above that of the community. That is not appropriate and should not be allowed to stand in my opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree - let's revdelete AGK's comment under RD#6 ("..correction of clear and obvious unintended mistakes in previous redactions, changes to redaction based upon communal discussion and clear consensus"). I wonder though, if we couldn't have a means to specifically annotate block logs, to help interpret longer or more complex logs, correct errors etc (a bit like a person's credit reference file has a place for explanatory comments). It could be a protected user subpage of that user, which a bit of Javascript transcludes on the block log. Rd232 ^talk 16:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not care, if my block log is changed, but I disagree AKG annotation was a mistake. It was not. AGK reviewed my block, and definitely had more information (because I was able to provide this information in a peace) to make more intelligent decision than anybody who supported my block at the time of AN/I thread. An initial block was a mistake, AGK annotation was not.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The correctness of AGK's recent evaluation of your block is distinct from the correctness of annotating your block log without consensus to do so. Rd232 ^talk 16:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Simply as a point of order, according to Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Log redaction, log redactions may only be done under WP:RD2 or with "required consensus or Arbcom agreement". –xeno^talk 20:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What Gatoclass and Rd232 said. As Gato put it, "IMO, the only time a block log should be annotated in such a way is if there is community consensus that a block was inappropriate, and that doesn't appear to be the case in this instance. Asking for approval after the fact, as AGK is doing here, is inappropriate. He should have sought consensus first." Unilateral annotations to block logs, absent strong consensus to make them, is just after-the-fact wheel warring, and should not be allowed to stand.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we need to break this out to a !vote structure, now that Mbz has done so with her motion? Or are threaded comments enough?  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• We need to cut though a mess of general hyperbole and bellyaching all around here. Remember what the 1-second log actually says;
  • "Log note, by request of Mbz1) The two preceding blocks were subsequently disputed, and have the opposition of at least this administrator."
• AGK's addition to clarify what in his own opinion was extremely improper, there are no two ways about that aspect of this. What we are left with is a question of what to do NOW, either everyone drop it, or the 1-second log is revdeleted. Which is it? Tarc (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support revdel per Rd232 - lets sort out further details later / in a separate thread. un☯mi 17:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Comment First I would like to express respect and praise for AGK's decision to bring his public criticism of Mbz1's block here for open review by a wider community. The information Mbz1 provided to AGK is a very partial timeline of the events leading up to the initial one-week block. AGK is not disputing the original one-week block. He is disputing the final block, the decision by Gwen Gale to impose restrictions on Mbz1's posting to admin noticeboards such as ANI and AE. He is also disputing (I think) the decision to change the original one week block to indef. Most of the discussion here has centered on the SPI report that occasioned the one-week block, which was not the reason the one-week block got changed to indef. The SPI report was only a very small part of the reason for requiring Mbz1 to stay off admin boards for six months, later shortened by Gwen Gale to three months.betsythedevine (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support rev-deletion We shouldn't just leave it around just because he did it and won't be doing it again. That doesn't change the fact that such a note shouldn't be there whatsoever and rev-deleting it is the correct course of action in this case. I believe it is the only action necessary and then this thread can be closed, but I feel that it is expressly necessary and needs to be done. Silverseren^C 17:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I believe first we need to establish the purpose of this thread in particular: is this thread about annotation or is this thread about review of my block. AGK stated it is about review of my block.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Motion to close

• Support AGK was forced to start this topic by a very persistent demands made by user:unomi at AGK's talk page. This thread is unnecessary. Let's move on, please.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

AGK's action on your behalf caused a tremendous amount of controversy, across many pages. This is the right place to resolve the issues his action raised. As a deeply involved party, and the one who benefited by his action, and as one who obviously wants the log entry he made on your behalf to remain in place, I don't see that it's your place to keep suggesting that this thread be closed five hours after it was opened, and while it's very active. It needs to remain open.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a mess of your creation, mbz. Let's not forget that. Tarc (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ohiostandard, you would have a point have you not been an involved party too. So far this thread has attracted quite a number of Mbz1's, say, detractors. If they can expess an opinion, and even force this historical debate, she can certainly express an opinion. In my view, this is a waste of time, regardless of who is right and where it ends. As for your statement AGK's action on your behalf caused a tremendous amount of controversy, across many pages.. Yes. By her detractors. Not, as far as I recall, by any uninvolved people (sorry I could have missed something). This has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, and all with settling scores. - BorisG (talk)

Gee, Boris, it must be wonderful to be able to read minds. Nice of you to share that skill with us here. Maybe those of us who have a different opinion about this matter than you do could just let you post on our behalf, instead of taking the trouble ourselves? Since you understand our motives better than we do, with your "settling scores" comment, that would certainly be a more efficient process. Would you like to tell the community what I'm thinking now, too? ;-)

As for your suggestion that I'm an "involved party", I absolutely do think Mbz is a net negative to the project, and make no bones about it. If you think that makes me an involved party who thus has no right to express an opinion, then permit me to point out that you're one of her strongest supporters, so under your reasoning perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to express any opinion yourself.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

::Ohiostandard, you've got it backwards. It is not me who denied your right to express an opinion, it is you who sought to deny Mbz1's right to express her opinion. I just say if Unomi, tarc and you can express an opinion, certainly Mbz1, who this is about, can too. BTW I am not arguing anything about the merit of the blocks, or Mbz1's action, or AGK's action. I am arguing about this excessive wikilawyering effort, which has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. But you are right, I can't read minds, maybe people who started all this wanted to calm things down, but they should have known better that this will cause more drama, and it has, hasn't it? - BorisG (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible to be more involved than you are. And if Mbz is a net negative to the project, I'd like to hear arguments as to why you're a net positive. I doubt hanging around admin board stirring up shit counts as a positive for the project. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Let's see: I could mention that friends and strangers both seem to like giving me barnstars for my contributions, and in about equal numbers, too. But maybe to be concise I'll just resort to this argumentum ad Jimbonem. Some people, at least, don't seem to mind my participation at AN/I.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt Jimbo would be proud of your ongoing witch hunt. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support closing. @OhioStandard. AGK's action caused no controversy. No one should care about annotations of Mbz1 blocks except Mbz1 and uninvolved administrators. It was action by several other editors that "caused a tremendous amount of controversy, across many pages" including this one. Can you people just drop the stick please? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That is simply not true, perhaps you have not been following the discussions? See [2], [3], [4] and the comments of AGK here- he acknowledges that the move was controversial - how could you find otherwise? un☯mi 17:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It may or may not be controversial, but this can be decided by uninvolved administrators and does not require an aggressive pushing of the issue by the same group of people who continue their campaign at numerous pages. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment If we are seeking to limit this vote to uninvolved editors, then perhaps all votes so far should be erased? Uninvolved AFAIK editors who strongly objected to AGK's public critique of Mbz1's block log: Jehochman [5] and SilverSeren[6] betsythedevine (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

**OK good idea. I am strking out my comments and hope all other involved people will follow. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose until vote about rev-deletion above is given time to be voted on. Silverseren^C 17:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Motion to RevDel and then possibly move discussion to AN

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.

In the interests of minimising drama, I've gone ahead and done this on the basis of being a consensus here. Note that this consensus is about removing the annotation of the block log, which had been made without prior consensus to support the annotation; it is not a judgement on the validity or otherwise of the (quite old) block which was annotated. Rd232 ^talk 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Per discussion above, RevDelete AGK's annotation, and then move the discussion to WP:AN to review the block itself (it's not really an incident), assuming anyone has the stomach to expend further effort on examining thise. Rd232 ^talk 18:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Oh sure, the very same users user:Demiurge1000,user:betsythedevine, user:tarc, user:unomi, user:Dayewalker that made me blocked and/or supported my indefinite block last time will be happy to "examine" the review of my block. :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I had very little to do with your block as I remember - in fact I supported the review of the indef one, stating that you could be unblocked within the hour. Not everyone who isn't blindly supportive of you is against you Mbz1, a valuable lesson if there ever was one. un☯mi 18:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

unomi, you supported a review? let me please refresh you memory: "You do realize that she just came out of an interaction ban? and upon re-initiating interaction she was asked to refrain by prodego, yet she continued still? I don't think there is any good reason to set a time period on this", and there were a few more like this, but it was not enough for you, and as always you tried to explain the users who opposed my block that they were wrong. unomi, what is the point to make a statement that is really easy to verify as being absolutely false? --Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I would have to ask you the same thing. Anyone reading those diffs will see exactly what my concerns were, and are. un☯mi 18:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1, per WP:NOTTHEM, "You are (were) blocked because of what you did and not because of what others did". Nobody "made" you blocked - you are responsible for your own actions, and you were blocked as a result of them. You opened a meritless SPI case against me, that was your choice; I didn't open it against you. And now your latest round of forum shopping seems to be an attempt to make sure that people who disagree with you are no longer allowed to express their concerns about your behaviour. You really seem not to want to even try to edit in a collaborative manner. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support revdel, as noted above. un☯mi 18:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support revdel to return the matter to the correct starting point, per Gatoclass, Rd232, Silverseren, Unomi, Demiurge et. al. If the community chooses to pursue a discussion subsequently about whether to annotate Mbz1's block log, or anyone else's, we can have that discussion once we're starting from the right beginning. Would also support subsequent move to AN.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support revdel as above. Owain the 1st (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support RevDel, as above. I commend AGK for bringing this to the board for discussion. I support removing the annotation, although I see nothing productive about continuing this discussion of old blocks at AN or ANI. The only reason I feel the block log annotation should be deleted is that Mbz1 has a mindset of never having done anything to deserve any kind of preventative measures. Either the admin is involved or canvassed, or the information was biased, or some other perceived circumstance occurs that prevents her from fully understanding why she's been blocked so many times. Finding one admin who disagreed with a previous block further inflames that situation. Dayewalker (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

  I confirmed my points with the differences, while you simply screaming.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helping prove my point, Mbz1. "Screaming" is not something I've ever done at you, or any other Wikipedia editor. Dayewalker (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, but I still see no differences to prove any of your points.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment let's RevDel it and let's stop this circus please. Just RevDel it, and close the thread. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support revdel as inappropriate use of block-log. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 18:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support revdel. This would take us back to status quo ante and allow any further annotation to be the result of concensus rather than being unilateral. AGK has said that he should have sought wider feedback before making the annotation, and he has also said it would not be appropriate for him to revdel the annotation himself, for reasons of transparency. Revdel of the entry seems an obvious step forward to simply and easily resolve this aspect of the problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support RevDel – This seems to be an inappropriate use of the block log, and could allow further discussion on WP:AN, if needed. —mc10 (t/c) 19:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support revdel as per Dayewalker, Rd232 and others. Not sure what if anything should be done about the request by AGK for review of Mbz1's blocks. The indef block by Gwen Gale was already reviewed at the time, does he want people to re-review that? It seems he wants people to review the December 27 restrictions on admin board postings, but in that case it would make sense to explain more clearly why he thinks they were wrong. betsythedevine (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support revdel -- This sort of thing will allow disruptive users to suck up to likeminded admins who can write little notes for them to justify the behavior that got them blocked. If there is a problem with a block, it should be discussed by a large group of editors on a noticeboard, not "annotated" by a sysop who might happen to be biased in one way or another (perhaps holding similar political views as the blocked user, and feeling that the "other side" unfairly campaigned to get the user blocked). Mbz1's behavior is clearly what resulted in the blocks, but if Mbz1 really wants to argue that again, he should do it on a noticeboard, rather than finding a particular admin to favorably annotate things for him. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - remove the 1-second block, it was inappropriate. Question for rd232 though; what block of mbz1's is to be reviewed? Is this user under a current restriction? I had thought these had all expired by now. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess it would be Gwen Gale's various blocks and unblocks in December (perhaps AGK can clarify - he started the thread with the review request). The restriction noted in the 27 December unblock doesn't expire til end June. Rd232 ^talk 19:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Per this thread Gwen amended the sanction to expire on 27th of March. It is possible that this should be noted in the block log, subsequent discussion on AN or elsewhere could address that. un☯mi 19:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Egads, what a tangled pain in the ass. I'd say revdel the 1sec entry and just call the rest even, or time served, or whatever we need to do to stop talking about this person, and let's hope they do not reappear as a a subject in AN/I anytime soon. Tarc (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've not examined the merits of the blocks underlying this TLDR dramafest, but in general administrators should not misuse their admin tools to turn the block log into a discussion forum in which they can voice their opinion about the merits of a block. Just imagine, if this catches on, we can conduct whole ANI drama thread discussions entirely via one-second block log entries: "Note that I support the block." "Note that I oppose it and the previous admin is an idiot." Etc. Yes, this would sure make the block log useful and readable. Delete this silly one-second block if that is technically possible, trout the blocker and move on.  Sandstein  20:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree with some of what Sandstein says but not with trouting this particular blocker, who meant only good by annotating the block log. Even though I disagreed with his opinion, I think after all this hollering everybody should give AGK a barnstar for long-suffering in consequence of a conscientious attempt to be a good admin, not a trout. Oh lord, now I've made this whole horrid ANI thread even longer, forgive me! betsythedevine (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support revdel with the additional comment that if you're concerned with it being held against you, quietly leaving this account and stepping in to a new user account with more mature behavior would be the preferred way to do it. -- ۩ Mask 20:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • cf WP:CLEANSTART. Rd232 ^talk 20:57, 6 June 2011 (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.

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.

Tendentious editor returns

Resolved

 – No administrator action necessary.

In summer 2008, TopCat666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was engaged in editing the article Wandsworth Parks Police. He is a member of the parks police, but has apparently ignored WP:AVOIDCOI throughout. His editing pattern consisted largely of unexplained, or misleadingly explained reverts of valid changes, and comments on the talk page (now archived twice) that were disruptive, aggressive and unconstructive. He drove User:Dibble999 away from the article and nearly drove me away as well.

Over the course of the dispute, in addition to repeated talk page vandalism, he tried to out myself (using a name from an email I sent to the Council, and therefore breaking UK law) and another editor and ended up trying some form of legal threat ("My UNISON rep may yet report your action for official sanction", my wikilink, diff). In hindsight, his conduct then would have probably warranted administrator action then but I wasn't fully aware of this at the time. Eventually, we managed to leave it on a somewhat coherent version in autumn 2008.

He has now returned and has immediately taken up his previous editing style, using references that do not support the claims he is making (diff). Despite my warning him (diff), he reverted my edit 9 days later, and apparently found it rather amusing. I gave him what amounts to a final warning (diff), and the article was quiet again, until he again reverted it today (diff) with the edit summary "Removed POV revisions biased by failed applicant" (for the record, I'm not a failed applicant!) and left a fairly aggressive message on his talk page (diff).

At the very least, his actions this year amount to slow edit-warring, as he has showed no inclination to engage in discussion, which is all the more important as he has a clear conflict of interest. I frankly cannot see him adding anything constructive to the encyclopaedia; despite both myself and a host of other editors trying to guide him and alert him to our policies and guidelines for a considerable period of time. ninety:one 18:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The age of the initial activity, IMO, precludes administrator action, and reduces the issue to a content dispute that should be handled through the dispute resolution process. However, I do note that User:TopCat666 is edging toward fouling WP:3RR with (based on edit summary commentary) aggressive reversions. If TopCat666 does have a conflict of interest, he/she should definitely step back from the article. In the interest of looking at the "big picture", I also note another user has removed material that has been flagged with "Citation needed" since 2008, and I try to keep link rot in mind when I see citations being removed. Still, from an editorial standpoint, I'd prefer to see a citation replaced with a "dead link" tag rather than just chopped out of the article. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor asked politely to remain civil and collegial on talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well first of all I am not that good at adding links so if should have put some in along with this message you will have to let me off of that one. So what have we here? This is blatantly ninety-one showing you all his true colours. This guy has ridiculed and removed what I have written. pretended to discuss edits and when he could not win those discussion resorted to the above. Accusing me of what he is actually doing and doing it right now. How could I chase off other wiki users? Dibble999 edited the Wandsworth Parks Police article after a lull of 3 years placing on it a proposal, this was unecessary(lets remove it). To prevent an editing war I added what I beleive to be a balanced argument to why these proposals will not take place and used citations. These citations are every bit as credible as anyone else's. Ninety-One dismissed and removed these without discussion, I have put them back, leaving a friendly message to that fact. He has taken the message and tried to turn it into ammunition to obtain other wiki users to help him. Please by all means look into the allegations by ninety-one that he states that I accused him of using a sock puppet, that I broke the law etc, etc. Please use an open mind and consider why he has gone to such a great lengths to tailor the article to what he wants and how the status quo has exisited since early 2008. In his own words the article was acceptable to him (ninety-one). By the way if it makes any difference I do not work for the Parks Police (rtd), but maintain a keen interest. I certainly will find it strange if no one thinks ninety-one is is somewhat unreasonable, uncivil and just maybe having an axe to grind with me due to me knowing his past history. TopCat666 (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't work for them, you obviously work (or worked) close to them: in this 2008 edit, you state "Ninty:one I received your email; you failed to mention the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) anywhere in this email. However before you start with you do not have to mention it, I have authorised the standard reply you received as member of the public requesting such information.".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

RTD stands for retired if that helps TopCat666 (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, got it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to bite at any of that, but just to pick up on one bit there: I haven't said that you accused me of sock-puppetry - not sure where that's come from. ninety:one 20:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible Disruptive Editing Patterns by User: Hoops gza

Partially Re-Listed from a Previous Posting Now Archived

Can an administrator review the situation I outlined in this post [7] regarding User:Hoops gza? This is a tricky situation as the user has done nothing wrong on purpose, but the editing habits are heading in a bad direction. The most serious of which appears to be possible dozens of images uploaded with misleading or incorrect tags. I brought this matter up on the user's talk page with no response, so I am bringing it up here. I stress this is not an attack against the user, just concern for the behavior. -OberRanks (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like OCD or some other behavioral disorder. Might fall under WP:COMPETENCE, but less-drastic steps should be taken before admins step in (unless one wants to, of course). Since no admin commented, here are some suggestions. You might want to try a WP:WQA first for difficult communications regarding the edit summaries and see if that can poke the user in the right direction, or a WP:RFC/U. WP:CCI handles copyright problems with the image uploads and might wake up the editor. Sorry to put you off to other boards, but since it does not appear to be at an admin-intervention level yet, this might offer some help at least. --64.85.217.213 (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's leading to the editor into violating WP:3RR. We definitely need some admin intervention here. I agree with OberRanks that some mentoring needs to be offered to Hoops gza before something else happens. I definitely think it is an unfamiliarity issue considering some of the comments he made in response to the 3RR notice - The only reason that multiple reverts were made was because you made multiple edits. - this clearly points to a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia operates. I just want to get the article back to FA status, the topic is too important to let it languish - but the article isn't going to improve by itself. Ajh1492 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My main concern is that the user will eventually get a lengthy block through a misunderstanding of a key policy. Right now, we have edit summaries with no descriptions, page moves with no consensus, possible copyvios on several uploaded images, and the beginnings of edit war and 3RR violations. I think someone needs to step in and reign HG in before something happens which requires more serious action. -OberRanks (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I did put a post up on WikiProject_Poland to see if a volunteer mentor will step forward. Ajh1492 (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Has that user indicated a willingness to seek a mentor, or join a discussion? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor in question has not indicated any willingness as to being under a mentor; I do agree with OberRanks and Ajh1492 that some direction/guidance from a higher power may be in order. Kierzek (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be much interest by administrators so maybe that will help. I for one am amazed that the uploaded images with possible false licensing tags hasn't drawn a lot more attention. I guess at this stage, its all been reported and anything further would look like we are "picking on" HG or posting just to get him in trouble. That's not my motive here, so I will leave it at that. -OberRanks (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

problematic anonymous users at articles about Singapore politicians, possible conflicts of interest and government censorship

I am an involved editor, and cannot use my tools in the dispute; since this involves elements of a content dispute, incivility and sockpuppetry it is my greatest regret that I have to use AN/I. It is my every desire to promote discussion and avoid edit warring; however various anonymous users often repeatedly blank sections (even when they are referenced!) without explanation that are critical of Singapore government / PAP (ruling party) politicians. These same users often write glowing or promotional articles on government ministries or government programmes with hyped-up language without any hint of neutrality. Originally my response to these actions was to revert on sight (especially if the removal was poorly explained or not explained at all) as well as introduce more critical language into the targeted articles; it's been a long time since Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress (which I helped draft) but this I believe is an appropriate action to disincentivise conflict of interest editing by powerful parties.

Originally these editors started out rather bumbling (deleting entire critical, referenced sections on Tin Pei Ling without any explanation) and reverting sourced criticisms (well-known criticisms, in fact). For a while (many Singaporean administrators are away and did not catch this) they could build such biased articles on government ministries without interference -- see this revision on MCYS for as an example.

I also suspect that these editors may be employed by the Singapore government. I do not make this accusation lightly. The first hint (outside of Wikipedia) was that during the elections, there was already a massive smear campaign online against the Opposition, sending trolls to make homophobic remarks or cast doubt on Opposition politicians and so forth; the trolls were deduced to be trolls because they came from accounts with virtually no friends, airbrushed or artificial / out of place profile pictures, and were created shortly before election campaign season, unlike commenters (both pro-government and pro-Opposition) who generally had some sign of a real life (and had friends, were not completely anonymous etc). Bloggers also caught the PAP astroturfing with fake accounts, the link given is just one example.

My first major conflict with these editors -- who I suspect to be coming from the same interested party -- started in Vivian Balakrishnan. Because of a discovered very old fundamental copyright violation (an unrelated issue) 330 revisions were deleted, but they can be seen here. Please note the range of different IPs and different usernames that attempt to remove reliably-referenced criticism, but behaviour (involving little discussion and little use of community tools) that makes it seem like they come from the same party. IP User:160.96.200.34 is a Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore address (also are addresses 160.96.200.35, 160.96.200.36, 160.96.200.37), all which have been involved in possible conflict of interest edits in Singaporean politics, often writing extensive promotional material for politicians and government ministries. Commercial ISPs are also used, especially IPs with a history of possibly COI editing -- see the anonymous editor which edited National Youth Council of Singapore in such an "official" and pompous way that makes me think these editors are from the government. The pattern of these editors have been to ignore warnings, avoid the use of talk pages, and try to battle it out through edit summaries, which is extremely frustrating. I used pending changes protection on that article in the middle of May for that reason, which I think was appropriate since the anonymous edits could still pass through, but other uninvolved editors could always look at the changes -- and generally they did not approve the unexplained reversions.

The latest conflict involves Teo Ser Luck, which I helped expand, and its talk page, over a section I added that discussed a video of a rally this politician spoke at, for which he was ridiculed online for, and made it to Yahoo! News Singapore. Despite the multitude of IPs reverting, I suspect they are one party and that sockpuppetry; government IPs were involved (User:160.96.200.36). When I posted my concern on the talk page about a) why I thought Yahoo! News was a reliable source b) that this was part of a pattern of whitewashing, an anonymous editor would constantly delete my comment off the talk page as "vandalism". It has now been moved out of BLP concerns by another user to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Teo_Ser_Luck, however I am puzzled because the talk page comment makes no problematic statement against Teo Ser Luck, since I try to discuss the editors involved, and the news source, not the politician himself. The removing user's awareness of previous history at Vivian Balakrishnan, despite the fact that the history has now been deleted (for unrelated copyvio reasons) and other articles at Tin Pei Ling strongly confirms my suspicions of sockpuppetry and common party COI editing.

I have made my case for the inclusion of the statement backed by a Yahoo! News Singapore source (which hires local journalists) on the BLP noticeboard, but I can further elaborate here if needed; my frustration is not with the content in fact, but rather the attitude of censor-with-impunity that possible government-hired editors seem to have. The editor(s) would rather delete entire talk page discussions rather than engage in discussion, and this alarms me. The user simply says "the source is unofficial" (essentially a one word argument) rather than referring to policy or how he or she disagrees with how I characterise the source. This is the most problematic part. I think I am complying with BLP policy as well.

I am glad to be proven wrong on any of my suspicions though. However, if I am not wrong, then I am frightened by the lack of action. If possible, can I have advice if a) CheckUser is an appropriate course of action, and if b) what administrative actions, if any, should be required. Except for pending changes protection I have refrained from using the tools in this issue. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would support a blanket ban/indef block on all IPs coming from government ministries (in Singapore and indeed just in general). On a related note, I have previously raised concerns with the OP at her talk page over her edits in the matter (which have often bordered on POV, even if admittedly to simply counter the pro-government, government-added POV). COI and POV editing is not new to Wikipedia, not even from government agencies, but they are a huge headache when they do occur and even more so when others try to add opposite POV to counter the existing POV. User_talk:La_goutte_de_pluie#TOC; User talk:La goutte de pluie#WP:RS / Vivian Balakrishnan and User_talk:Strange_Passerby#fair_use.3F are some relevant related links. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that government IP addresses seem to be mixed with a collection of commercial IP addresses; however the commercial IP addresses do not fluctuate that much. They seem to have the editing patterns of a single party. (see evidence above and below). I have refrained from blocking anyone at this point, or even using semi-protection, on the grounds of WP:INVOLVED. Admittedly I am more likely to make edits involving criticisms of the ruling party, but this is really out of the fear that for the past few years whitewashing and astroturfing has proceeded for Singaporean articles with near-impunity, with little administrative attention paid to them. I do not see patterns of Opposition members editing in a self-aggrandized way about their politicians and their plans; if I did I would also be similarly annoyed.Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi ho! Since my name has been brought up, guess it's fair I jump in? I've already replied on Strange Passerby's page about where I'm coming from. And yes, while there is a reason to be paranoid seeing the recent unexplained blanket deletions by unknown IPs, it's also a tad unfair to drag in others who do try and make articles more balanced. If the negative incident is referenced and cited properly, and not overly represented in a page (which may be a tactic to try and turn the article negative, excuse me if I'm wrong), I don't delete them. I've learning to be more fair and balanced in my article. Where La Goutte and I seem to "butt heads" is where I view he's being overly negative. While we don't want whitewashing, we also don't wanna sway to the other end of the spectrum and turn wiki pages into "smear" pages. Now pardon me if I'm wrong, and I don't mean to be rude or personal, but that's my rationale. If i'm wrong on intents, pls correct me. Thanks. Alverya (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. La goutte de pluie cannot stay civil and would keep repeating his dumb conspiracy theory that whoever disapproving of his words, is working for the government. Every Singaporean netizen has a right to edit and tell you when you are in the wrong. I was the one updating Teo Ser Luck's new ministrial posts after seeing nobody doing it, not you. So how are you considered the one expanding his section? And how is it considered pro-government when it's just an update of job titles? You are the one insisting your piece of irrelevant news be put up there, which is most insignificant. The way I see it, you just want whatever negativity you can find to be there. What's up with your hatred towards MCYS that you keep harping about it everything, even on talk pages? Apparently, it's more likely you seem to have a personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.247 (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Since you mentioned the earlier U.S. Congress problem, I would point out that part of the 'solution' to that problem was to use Template:CongLinks to provide reliable information about each person. That has a deterrent effect as it provides a check and balance against Wikipedians trying to spin and shade the facts. There's also Template:UK MP links. Perhaps you could find similar sources for Singapore politicians and create a similar template. Not a total solution of course, but it would probably help avoid the typical 'editing by newsbite' which causes undue emphasis on whatever makes the ooh!ooh! news reports. Here's an example of some sources I found. I don't know if they exist, but voting records and speeches in Parliament would be helpful. Flatterworld (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Further sockpuppetry suspicions

What especially strikes me as weird is that 218.186.16.10, a metastable IP involved in this dispute who kept removing my comments off Talk:Teo Ser Luck and in fact listed me as a vandal in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, was later blocked for being an open proxy; when this occurred, another IP Special:contributions/218.186.16.249 showed up to protest the block (a request that was declined). This to me lends more evidence towards my sockpuppetry suspicions. Both addresses are commercial StarHub addresses that are stable for weeks if not months; it's weird for one address to be detected as a proxy and for a customer to be able to switch freely between these addresses, unless the customer had some special privileges. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a block log entry for .16.10... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Check again. "The IP address 218.186.16.10 is blocked globally (full details)." i.e. the IP is blocked on all Wikipedias. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can see it on the global log, but not on the enwp block log. Must be admins-only. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Global blocks are separate from local blocks and are not visible on the local log. Nothing to do with admins. T. Canens (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I mean, I don't see the line quoted by Lgdp at all anywhere, that line could be the one visible only to admins. I can see the block entry on the global log. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. Yes, that line came from Special:Block, so it's admin-only. T. Canens (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The proxyip4 template, as in {{proxyip4 | 218.186.16.10}} should allow anyone (admin or not) to check whether rangeblocks or global blocks cover the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I just tried that interesting template. For it to work, the space before the parameter (the IP address) must be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• FYI guys, 1.) please bear in mind that its the mid-year school holidays in Singapore right now; 2.) Starhub ip addresses are rarely dynamic in nature, though one can still "connect and use" another person's household WIFI (stealing bandwidth, in other word), most likely due to an apparent lack of security setup (from my experience, it's a fairly common problem in some of Singapore's tightly arranged HDB flats and/or private apartments); 3.) from my professional/working experience, governmental organisations and linked companies/statutory boards are mostly served by SingNet/SingTel's network (which has always maintained and valued network stability and security). That is all. (PS: @Elle, if I were you, I would have just Semi-PP the articles, they'll move off once they find that they can't disrupt us anymore.) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dave for explaining. It is beyond my control how Starhub gives IP address. I am not stealing bw if that's what u mean. In fact, I am having problems doing edits as I'm blocked from editing when I'm on a certain IP address. I have tried appealing but for some reason, it brought me to another IP address's talk page. So La goutte de pluie, I do not appreciate that you go around smearing and insinuating that I'm part of govt board doing damage control. Like I said earlier, if you cannot stay civil, don't edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.247 (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems very "convenient". StarHub almost never has quickly-changing addresses. Can you explain why you are such a special "customer"? Why are you quick to revert but slow to come to discussion boards? Why do you sometimes edit from government ministry addresses? That is a really weird IP-switching system. It's hard to imagine a system that could be any more "accidental". Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin needed to block disruptive anon/IP user

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 31 hours. Horologium (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

At WQA, we are having a situation with a disruptive IP (24.177.120.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) who has engaged in edit-warring (in excess of 3RR), incivility, trolling, and other forms of problematic behavior which are exhausting practically everyone it appears to come into contact with. It has blanked all of the warnings and messages it has received on its talk page too. Accordingly, I am requesting an admin to block this IP from disrupting the project further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the correct place to report 3RR violations (which I contest, anyway.) It also would have been nice for User:Ncmvocalist to notify me at my talk page that he/she was requesting a block. I'd encourage reviewing admins to consider that I'm not obligated to keep warnings on my talk page, and there are no diffs provided for the allegations of "incivility" and "trolling". 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP for 31 hours. Some of the comments left by the IP indicate that we are not dealing with a newbie, and the overall effect of the edits was disruptive. Horologium (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have also revoked talk page access for the IP because of his insistent removal of relevant comments. He has threatened to take me to arbitration when his block expires; I suspect that the three blocks for disruptive editing since the IP's first edit in May of this year will result in ArbCom declining to hear the case. Horologium (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought the rule was that you could remove anything from your own talk page except for unblock notices while still under a block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

He was removing comments left in response to his unblock request.(More specifically, a detailed list of the edits which resulted in his block, which were highly relevant to his unblock request). Horologium (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation on Lorraine Williams

76.185.142.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a series of edits that introduced a massive WP:BLP violation to the article Lorraine Williams. I reverted the change with the explanation that this violated a policy, but the IP user reverted my change.[8] They posted an explanation for these edits to their user page, but I don't think this excuses this action. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it on the grounds of editorializing. If the IP persists, semi-protection of the article might also be called for. See WP:RFPP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Does the user talk page comment infringe on BLP at all? I have no idea what he's talking about so I can't judge. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There's something about scalps and trophies, which sounds like BLP editorializing. I've asked for semi-protection of the page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Err, who is 76.185.142.155 and why are they so upset?; Shared IP addresses can make things interesting, but the details seem useful to add to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.142.155 (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits that consist of undocumented accusations of destruction of property & an unflattering nickname, while "interesting," are not allowed on Wikipedia. We're not a smear rag. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The POG thing (which sounds like insider-gossip) is in the prevous version of the article, merely in a footnote and apparently sourced; but moving that to the lead, along with the unsourced stuff about trophies and such (which also sounds like insider-gossip) seems to be strictly POV-pushing and editorializing on the part of the IP. Once the article is protected and/or the IP is blocked, it should be safe to revert the IP's junk out of the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two weeks. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Much of this came up at presentations at a game convention where there was significant discussion about how the nickname POG did not have the connotations or denotations that it had picked up over the years. The material on trophy taking is something that Lorraine has exhibited a great deal of pride in, and her collection of trophies occupies a prominent place (or did) in her office.

The purging of TSR, both of artwork and of the detritus that was left behind is an historical incident, and one that has a great deal of discussion.

However, there are some good points made about the POV. From one perspective, trophy taking can be seen as negative, rather than a triumph. There are a number of people who would prefer that the nick name POG be kept, not as one more trophy, but instead as the other meanings it has picked up over the years.

The interaction between the purging, the material that was recovered, and the various auctions of historical memoriabilia that tie into it may be important for collectors, but may be very vulnerable to POV issues since some people see it as a clean sweep and others as vandalism. That could call for a more neutral approach and a rewrite.

As a result, much of this not insider gossip, but a response to industry gossip and the recent interest various historical events have drawn due to the attention they have been getting with the emergence over the past 5-6 years of a considerable market in D&D source documents and such.

Even responding to industry slang and terminology, and even discussions of the historical event, the artwork and other matters that were recovered, and how those ended up in auctions may (a) not belong in this part of the wiki and (b) if they do, would require edits for POV issues.

There is a massive amount of source material in the discussions at The Acaneum, along with the auction documents and authenticity issues.

Locking the topic for two weeks might well solve much of this, especially since the poster has stated that if there was disagreement, he was dropping out of providing content. Seems he would rather quit than object to what appears to be censorship and restrictions on knowledge, in spite of the well founded concerns. Perhaps he can not appreciate the difference.

A couple weeks and then it can be said what others have to say on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.202.222.1 (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverting to the BLP-violating version after two weeks does not sound like a good idea. You can discuss this on the article's talk page instead, if you prefer. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The above verges on violating BLP, and the BLP-violating information is still on the IP user's Talk page. Isn't anybody going to remove it? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

An admin should (1) remove all the editor's BLP violations; (2) semi-protect the user's talk page; (3) block the user for a suitable interval. UNLESS the IP voluntarily removes all his BLP-violations ASAP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I have no intent on reverting any page to any status after two weeks, as I said, I'm done with the topic. In addition, since the response to the allegation of BLP violations apparently is a violation, I've deleted my response to the notice that was on the user page. Is there a place that responding to the accusations is appropriate? Apparently not where the notice is posted, and not here, where there is a discussion, not by me, not by others I've discussed it with (who don't agree with me completely as noted in the comments above).

Otherwise, this was started by complaints from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:129.33.19.254 -- note the history there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.142.155 (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Simply put, you have to provide a reliable source for the statements to avoid the BLP violation. "I heard it at a convention presentation" isn't going to qualify. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Zurich

User:TomZH3030 is constantly edit warring using sockpuppets. mgeo talk 18:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I notice User:TomZH3030 has already been blocked by an admin. As to the possibility of sockpuppetry, that should be handled at WP:SPI. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone block 95.178.250.68, he is clearly a sockpuppet of TomZH3030, see [9] and [10]. He also edited with the IP adress 95.178.250.35 ([11]). Regards. mgeo talk 20:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If there's an admin lurking about, it looks like this is all coming from one /17 IP range. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't do rangeblocks but I've semi-protected for 2 weeks. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul Revere and Sarah Palin

Talk:Paul Revere currently has an edit notice stating that anyone discussing Sarah Palin will be warned and/or blocked. Was there a consensus for this anywhere? Kelly ^hi! 00:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we please leave the content discussion at the article page and stick to the meta-discussion and admin stuff here? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Better still, why are you removing sourced material from the Paul Revere page and making claims that "Sarah Palin was right" on the Talk page? The removal of sourced material(1,2,[12],4) is an obvious attempt to make it seem as if Revere was 'warning' the British, when in fact by every reliable source in the article he was "bluffing the British" and trying to direct them away from Lexington, and more precisely away from Whig leaders Hancock and Adams. Which was part of one of his missions. I quote from the source in this article. “ Paul Revere had a particular objection in mind.Everything, without exception, that he said and did to his captors was consistent with a single goal. He was trying to move there men away from Lexington - away from Hancock and Adams. Revere had reason to believe that the mission of the patrol was to arrest those two Whig leaders. He warned the British officers that if they remained in the vicinity of Lexington Green, they also would be in extreme danger, and he hinted that the expedition coming after them could start a war unless it was warned of the trouble that awaited them at Lexington center. In fact, trouble was gathering for them in many places that night, but Revere stressed only one place in particular-Lexington, where he had left Hancock. and Adams. It was a remarkable performance. The soldiers listened carefully to Paul Revere, increasingly quiet and pensive. Then they withdrew' a little way and began to talk among themselves. Suddenly they returned to Revere, and ordered him to mount. Another officer went to the captive Sanderson, who remembered that they "ordered me to untie my horse (which was tied to a little birch) and mount." ” There was absolutely no valid reason to remove the sourced material, other than it contradicting the version of events being currently propagated by those sympathetic to Sarah Palin. Dave Dial (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, God - here we go again, wikistalked. I'm not asking administrators to rule on any Sarah Palin-related content, I'm merely asking if there's a new consensus or policy about this particular article because I can't find it if there is. If there is, a note should probably be added to the Palin article probation. Kelly ^hi! 01:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note for Master of Puppets (who added the edit notice) about this ANI thread, and commented as well on his talk page that I think the edit notice goes beyond policy in what admins are allowed to do.

Blocking people for participating in a discussion, even an annoying discussion, would be very different than merely closing or archiving a particular discussion that got disruptive to the point of needing intervention.

The latter is well known, if fairly rare. The former is ... unique, or at least very unusual without significant warning and discussion about the problem posed.

I am temporarily disabling the edit notice until this discussion has a chance to percolate here a bit.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

People have been removing comments on that talk page too. It's all very WP:BITEy. :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what happens when politics gets involved...no matter the article topic. Pol•i•tics n. Etymology: Poli-, from the Latin for "many"; -tics, small bloodsucking parasites. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Jay Leno said that, and probably others as well. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC) (Restoring comment deleted probably due to an edit conflict.) --64.85.214.168 (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit warring has yet to even cause a 3RR violation, so it looks rather frivolous to bring to ANI. The edits being reverted aren't really of vandalism, but of POV issues, which aren't exemptions. Violations such as removal of content on the talk page can and should be reported and dealt with here, but this is pretty boring edit warring if the modern political figure were removed from the situation. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 02:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC) (Restoring comment deleted probably due to an edit conflict.) --64.85.214.168 (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite think this is an IAR case, George (mind if I call you George?). Excessive commentary on what is essentially a bunch of remarks made by a celebrity is pop-culture stuff that's more well-suited to a community that deals in that sort of stuff, and not an educational resource such as Wikipedia. In large amounts, it's disruption of normal proceedings. I mean, I'm aware that Paul Revere isn't the most hotly-debated topic and doesn't receive that much traffic normally, but the edit notice was meant to set a warning for those who come to the page with the intent of arguing or debating, not for people who just want to discuss Revere. That way, if they go ahead, we can take further steps to avoid disruption, instead of having to warn every single user.

I did speak with a few colleagues over the matter, and we thought it was an acceptable idea. Again, I don't intend to block everything that moves - I'd just like to set a little reminder that any ir-Revere-nt content (see what I did there? No? Tough crowd?) should not be placed on a talk page.

More on this on Kim Bruning's talk page. Cheers, m.o.p 03:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You can call me George, yes. That's my name, and I'm sticking with it.

I agree that it's a misuse of the talk page, and that it's appropriate to do something about it. But this sort of off topic thread is something that we routinely tolerate or deal with using much less drastic responses than threatening to block people. It's not the reaction that's troubling, but the overreaction.

At least we're all able to laugh about the situation - you should join my upcoming Vegas comedy tour. Now if only I had a hotel or comedy club booked to perform at... ;-)

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that "George" was once a common nickname for a train porter? As in, "Hey, George, carry this trunk for me." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This cash-deprived student finds it hard to commute ten minutes without breaking the bank, let alone to Vegas. Maybe next time! And I'll leave it up to consensus - though I find it appropriate to lay out a fair warning, if others see it as an overreaction I'll definitely defer to their judgment. m.o.p 05:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

“ The argument over whether Sarah Palin was misinformed about the historical facts of Paul Revere’s ride has moved to where bar bets go to be settled: Wikipedia.New York Times, June 6, 2011 ”

Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Good thing a lot of Wikipedia admins watch Colbert. XD —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate responses to socks

This ANI is being opened in order to call attention to recent responses to sockpuppetry in the A/I and I/P topic areas that are potentially disruptive or that run counter to the spirit of Wikipedia's policies. It's universally acknowledged that the A/I and I/P topic areas suffer more than any other topic area on Wikipedia from intense daily sockpuppet incursions into articles, discussion pages, and user talk pages. These socks vote at AfDs, edit war, provoke flame wars, and generally interfere with the healthy functioning of the Project. The problem, though, is that sometimes users' responses to sockpuppets can be nearly and even more disruptive. Below are some specific incidents:

Deleting Discussion page comments ([13])

It will sometimes happen that a sock will initiate a discussion parallel to a content dispute at an article. Another user will engage the sock under the impression that he's an innocent anonymous IP contributor. Later, though, certain clues will alert the registered user that the IP is a sock, whereupon he will delete all the comments, including his own. Meanwhile, though, the dialog will have attracted the involvement of other contributors such that deleting the preceding conversation interrupts the flow of the page.

A query at the Help Desk ([14]) suggested it may be best to simply leave the discussion intact.

Deleting or striking out Talk page comments ([15])

Other times the sock will be active at a user's Talk page – not necessarily posting vandalism in the strict sense, though WP:BAN does suggest that there's no difference. Ordinarily, users aren't supposed to edit each other's Talk pages beyond leaving comments on them. Can ordinary users edit the comments of socks at other users' Talk pages without the Talk page owner's consent?

Personally attacking socks ([16])

The worst problem is when a user will lash out at the sock with vituperative insults. In the case cited directly above, the attack was prior to the sock's formal conviction. Is it alright to personally attack a sock while an investigation into his identity is pending? Is it alright to personally attack a sock after his identity has been confirmed?—Biosketch (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's socks of blocked users you are talking about, they are of course not allowed to edit anywhere. I would remove threads started by such users also. In your example above, the only one to respond to the discussion started by the sock, was the person who ultimately removed the whole thread. I don't see a problem with that. Of course, when multiple people have answered, it is often better to not remove the thread.

As for the personal attacks, of course it's not alright to attack socks, per WP:NPA, whether it is before or after confirming their identity. I hardly consider calling someone compulsive and unethical an attack though. It's certainly not the nicest thing to say, but unless it was a completely baseless assertion, we generally don't have such a low threshold for invoking WP:NPA.--Atlan (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that I may need to move Biosketch to my naughty list of the many editors in the I-P conflict topic area who apparently seek to protect and facilitate the actions of sockpuppets that do so much damage to the proper functioning of the topic area through the use of deception. As I tried to explain on my talk page, there is in my view a rather important difference between objective evidence based statements of fact using terminology that conveys accurate information and evidence-less derogatory personal attacks. There is also a difference between the set of legitimate contributors here to build an encyclopedia based on policy and banned users who cannot be here and cannot do or say anything and a difference between legitimate editing and meatpuppeting for sockpuppets. It seems to me that Biosketch cannot recognise when I make personal attacks probably because I don't make them. They would look quite different from the entirely accurate comment I made on Nableezy's page. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking that the examples Biosketch gave are all about socks supporting one side of the I-P conflict? DeCausa (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@SH: Although I agree with what you are getting at, the tone of the comment was close enough to a middle finger that you shouldn't do it. It only served to foster the battlefield mentality and bait the guy. If another editor raised an eyebrow at it, it shows that it caused some unneeded waves. Consider ow much easier it would have been if you would have not made the comment at all. Getting a lecture on decorum from me. Yeah, that must be getting a snicker.Cptnono (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Unneeded waves indeed. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill and is way too much attention Ledenierhomme deserves.--Atlan (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@DeCausa, the particular sock (Ledenierhomme) that I made a comment about cannot be characterized as simply as supporting one side of the I-P conflict. They have broad areas of interest, part of which involves advocating on behalf of the State of Israel, but that is really neither here nor there. A sock is a sock. @Cptnono, a lecture on decorum from you is fine. I take your point but I disagree. What I do in the topic area can't depend on Biosketch's eyebrow movements. I considered simply deleting the sock's comment immediately since it was clearly cynically made to influence a discussion about the overturning of the unjustified indef blocking of an editor who had identified the sock and had them blocked on several occasions. I decided to leave it be, provide context and contact an admin to implement a range block. I've done it again for the same sock since then. This guy will not stop unless everyone helps to make him stop. I'm not fostering a battlefield mentality. Like many others in the topic area, he already has a battlefield mentality. I'm not a combatant in a battle, I'm an editor trying to stop sockpuppetry, one of the main catalysts for conflict and disruption in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

BioSketch; nothing there looks problematic, simply normal responses to socks. What specific administrative action are you requesting? (otherwise this should probably be closed for WP:DENY reasons, no need to give these socks another platform) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree - these are standard responses to sockpuppets. It's standard practice to remove material added by socks in order to discourage them from returning under a new account (as by removing the material it means they've wasted their time writing it). Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@ErrantX (talk · contribs), the lack of names in my original message was deliberate: no action is being sought against a particular editor. Perhaps I ought to have mentioned that a Talk page discussion preceded the filing of the ANI here. I felt that I and another contributor weren't seeing eye-to-eye vis-a-vis Wikipedia's policies and brought the matter to this noticeboard for Admin input to avoid unnecessary friction. (Appealing to RfC did occur to me, but that process is intended for resolving content disputes, not policy ones, and anyway the issue involved more than just a single incident or a single editor and seemed to me to have wider implications.) If the bottom line is that it's fine to delete or strike out comments made by socks, regardless of the circumstances, and that calling a sock "compulsive" and "unethical" doesn't constitute a derogatory comment, then I'll raise no objection to this ANI being closed.—Biosketch (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

@DeCausa (talk · contribs), I don't know the answer to your question. I've become somewhat familiar with the Drork sock owing to a number of articles and discussions he's contributed to lately where I was also involved, but I'm not acquainted with the one that left the comment on Nableezy's Talk page. If you're concerned that I'm pursuing this ANI because of bias on my part, even though I don't agree the concern is valid WP:COI may require that I disclose that, for reasons that are too complex to get into here, I do have certain sympathies toward Kurdish people and some of their separatist struggles against the Turks, Syrians and Iraqis. I only mention this because the sock at Nableezy's page edited from an IP in Kurdistan (or at least that's what I remember someone saying; the WHOIS places him in North America, so maybe I've gotten mixed up). But if this had been an anti-Israel sock, I think I'd be protesting with equal vigor. Understand, it isn't just the fact that it's a sock being called names and having his comments deleted from a user's Talk page. I think that personal attacks should have no place on Wikipedia no matter what the circumstances are. And if an anti-Israel sock were to leave a comment on my Talk page, then yes, I would like to be the one to decide how to address him and not have a random editor with a personal vendetta to settle come and make changes to my Talk page without consulting me first.—Biosketch (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

@Atlan (talk · contribs), thank you for the succinct reply. Actually, upon further contemplation, I can kind of see how calling a sock "compulsive" and "unethical" would not qualify as a personal attack (although those words do still meet my threshold for "Derogatory comments," a la WP:NPA): a sock is by definition unethical, and one who makes repeated and frequent appearances over an extended period is demonstrating compulsive behavior. That matter aside, however, I do have one other question. When you say you would remove threads started by socks of banned users, does that mean they must be removed? If one editor demands that comments by a sock be removed from a discussion but another editor insists that they remain, does policy favor the demand of the first editor?—Biosketch (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I said blocked users, not banned. There is difference. Anyway, just try to apply WP:DENY with some common sense and this should never be an issue.--Atlan (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), as the user who was instrumental in facilitating my transition from an IP editor to a registered account back in the Mairead Corrigan days, your perspective matters to me. You are the one who instilled in me the importance of deferring to what WP:RSes say even when one's own intuition instructs one otherwise. That's been a valuable principle that continues to guide my contributions to the Project. So when you say I'm in danger of slipping into your Naughty list, I don't dismiss that criticism lightly, even though sometimes it's a sentiment that's also worked the other way, I have to admit. But if you think that soliciting advice from Admins when there is reasonable fear that Wikipedia policies are being undermined is naughty, then perhaps you need to consider that your Naughty system is flawed. I don't think you're approaching this issue from the right angle. There's no question that socks shouldn't be editing or otherwise influencing the edits of other contributors. You seem to have formed the impression that I condone sockpuppetry, though I have been nothing but unequivocal in my condemnation of it. But look what happened at Majdal Shams. The sock made a comment on the Discussion page, another user replied to him assuming good faith, and the end result was that the Etymology section was changed by registered users in good standing – that is to say, the article was improved. In a case like that, why delete the conversation that started it all from the Discussion page? Wouldn't it make more sense to have it there for future reference? And like I asked User:DeCausa, if a sock leaves a comment on my Talk page, shouldn't I get to decide what becomes of it once it's already there? Lastly, on the matter of the personal attack, your explanation wasn't clear on your Talk page. It sounded more like it was issuing from a place of vindictiveness than from Wikipedia policy. Not every sock is compulsive. You can't expect me to have known the Nableezy sock's psychological profile like that. And regarding the "unethical" comment, you should have just said that socking is ipso facto unethical, in which case pointing out that it's unethical was merely stating the obvious.—Biosketch (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If an editor is actually banned (not merely blocked), then any edits made by that editor since the ban are subject to removal on-sight, as per this:[17] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Problems at Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

We have a persistent IP editor, User:24.187.8.149, at Talk:Ayn Rand who seems to be doing nothing but spewing personal insults and allegations of bad faith, and has failed to offer constructive suggestions despite repeated prodding from other editors, including myself. This has gone on for about two weeks now. I will also note that Objectivism related pages are also under an ArbCom ruling, WP:RANDARB, which specifically enjoins admins to help ensure a productive, civil editing environment there. As such, at this point I think a 24 hour block is in order. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The article in question is in fact Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Paul B (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, I'm a moron. Sorry :/ TallNapoleon (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a number of different 24.* IPs which are too far apart to rangeblock. (Different /16 ranges). They look to be the same person. In my opinion, the only admin action that would do any good would be semiprotection of the talk page for some period of time, say one month. If the IP wants to continue theorizing about Ayn Rand they should create an account. WP:NOTFORUM. EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

But this isn't theorizing about Ayn Rand, the IP is engaged in a content dispute about the article's tone. His/her own tone is careless and insulting, so a warning or block is fitting. There's no need (yet) to semi-protect the talk page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible vandalism to article: List of current National Basketball Association head coaches

Resolved

 – Mathematical error, assuming good faith on part of original inserter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone inserted an incorrect entry under the career win% column in the article List of current National Basketball Association head coaches - when I divided 272 into 410 I got .663 NOT .744 as is shown in the article. I couldn't find out who inserted it so I can't provide any links or diffs or notify anyone. Is that vandalism?

--ILikeWatchingFights (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily, could just be incorrect arithmetic. – ukexpat (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the diff that put the original info in. I've changed the win% to show the correct maths result. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

IP personal attacks

An IP, 82.41.92.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been attacking me (see [18] & [19]) in response to my reverting his vandalism. He also attacked Thecheesykid after he also reverted. ([20]) Would an admin please take appropriate action? WikiPuppies! (bark) 00:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiPuppies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) You have still failed to provide any evidence that this is vandalism. Your itchy edit finger has put you in the wrong, now you are attempting to abuse a biased disciplinary system to cover up your own mistake. These 'attacks' as you call them, were a request for such justification. Way to propagate the stereotype of totalitarian information control. "Wikipedia : The encyclopaedia any mindless puppet with no sense of individuality can edit" more like.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.92.182 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if you'd bothered providing a reference, a link, or something to show the actual team name, instead of just snapping out "you fascists" because your unreferenced edit got reverted, this conversation would be unnecessary. Dong ma? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read this page before 'requesting justification'. WikiPuppies! (bark) 00:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced edit got reverted to another UNREFERENCED EDIT. As I originally stated, if I had been asked for a citation instead of met with this arrogant wall of superiority, maybe this discussion would not be necessary. And do you even understand what an attack is? I've said nothing offensive or degrading, I have merely remarked upon your actions. If I was to say "hey, you're an idiot" That would be an attack. Observing that your uncompromising approach to a situation regarding information you have no grounding in is akin to that of a totalitarian government? That is just relaying an opinion. But hey, you guys obviously have no interest in considering evidence. Crying to administrative boards because you screwed up. And I no longer have any interest in attempting to contribute to a farce of a community that operates on a shoot-first-never-ask-questions policy. So I guess everyone wins here. Oh, apart from those wanting accurate information. But I guess no one really cares about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.92.182 (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

...Leaving a NPA warning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, attacks are more than what you gave as an example. Things like 'fascist' are enough to be considered attacks on Wikipedia. Again, please read this page before replying. WikiPuppies! (bark) 01:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipuppies - The IP editor does have somewhat of a point. WP:BITE applies here, in that several people including you seem to have assumed bad faith rather than ask them politely for a citation.

I agree that the contribution makes me skeptical, but unless it is clearly vandalism (and this one is not, imho), you're supposed to constructively try and engage first.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm on Dare 2011, there is no "Team Stupid Head" nor anyone developing games for the Atari Jaguar. I'll add the citation to the press release with the team details and if Captain BadEdit keeps at it I'll keep fixing his clearly deliberate attempts at trolling. Hyperspacey (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to make doubly clear, I think this editor needs to be singled out for particular special treatment for both making "bad faith" edits and trying to make a scene by claiming he's some poor, put-upon Wikipedia martyr. Hyperspacey (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Tofaan

This user is vandalizing the article Ghurid dynasty. He has absolutely no qualification in that topic, has an obvious nationalist agenda, and he has no idea what Wikipedia is. This is not constructive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.137.253 (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of posting the required ANI notice on Tofaan's User Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The user with the IP-address talk is the one with nationalistic agenda. He edit articles without discussion first on the discussion page. as follow edits have been made by this IP-address user.Here, Here, here, Here, Here, and this one HereTofaan (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The academic sources are absolutely clear on the subject. Authoritative standard reference works on the subject have been cited: Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, The Cambridge History of Iran, etc. And all of them totally disprove the nonsense by this user. He, on the other hand, is posting YouTube videos (!) as a "counter argument" and insults other Wikipedians. I can't believe that YouTube videos are being used as "arguments" against experts such as Clifford Edmund Bosworth. This gotta be a joke! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.137.253 (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to explain to User:Tofaan that unpublished websites do not care as much weight as published sources. Instead User:Tofaan responded with, "Whahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahaah, just get lost men. Get a life!!!!!!!!!!!! Your story smells to ignorants.."[21], hardly helpful to the discussion. This was not the last time User:Tofaan would use the term "ignorants".[22],[23]. Along with ignoring the current references in the article, Tofaan has insinuated I was lying about a previous discussion concerning the ethnicity of the Ghurids.[24] I also informed Tofaan if he/she could not remain civil that I would not be participating in the discussion.[25] --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I just declined an unblock request for Tofaan, they are blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring (I count at least 7 reverts to the article in 24 hours). I looked at their contributions before declining, and there's a serious problem here. I don't think this editor is capable of collaborating with others, their approach to anyone who disagrees is a constant attack. I offered a little advice when I declined the unblock but I just don't have a lot of hope. I think the statement, "he has no idea what Wikipedia is", is the truth. -- Atama頭 21:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

He (self-IDs as male) submitted another unsuccessful unblock request and continues to plead for an unblock, with no sign of understanding why I blocked him and why no one else is overturning that. He just doesn't seem to get it—why what he did was unacceptable, why he's been blocked, etc. If the block runs out and he continues as before, we might just have to block him indefinitely, or at least topic-ban him. I don't see him coming around. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 22:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Bizovne at it again....

I have a feeling (ok, it's more than a "feeling", but more on this later) that Bizovne doesn't seem to be bothered by WP rules and policies or thinks that they don't apply to him. If you check his block log you'll see that he's been unblocked 4 days ago and resumed his edits (and also his tactics & schemes) yesterday. He resumed his revert campaign of removing everything that's Hungarian from various articles, especially town names (especially at the Ányos Jedlik articles which seem to be one of his favorites: [26], [27] and [28]). Truth be told this time he's shown some willingness to discuss his reverts by adding some notes to various talk pages. He asserts in these notes that since Hungarian became official in Hungary only in 1867 (which's not true, because it happened way before than that, in 1844), essentially in any articles dealing with events before that date the Slovak term should be used instead (which has NEVER been used officially before 1919 at all). I've tried to explain to him that his asserts are wrong, but he hasn't replied (so far). Instead he just mobilized his good ol' IP socks, namely 195.28.75.114 and 193.87.75.82 to continue the reverts (today) as if nothing would've happened. Therefore I think that he's lacking any willingness of some calm discussion and it's apparent that he won't relent no matter what (after all it's considered to be a weakness by these types which they'd never let to happen). He also seems to use his socks when "necessary" in the "battles" against his "vicious enemies" on WP regardless of the fact that he shouldn't.
There's one more interesting thing about the way Bizovne behaves: when doing his "reverts" he's marked most of them as "minor edits" and stated that he's reverting vandalism, just like Iaaasi did. It's also apparent that at least two of Bizovne's edits ([29] and [30]) were reverts of one of Stubes99's socks, which's also Iaaasi's favorite "hobby" on WP. These two clues seem to point to meatpuppetry..... CoolKoon (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I've only added an ANI notice on Bizovne's talk page because the IPs are his confirmed sockpuppets so I didn't feel necessary to add the template on their talk pages as well.

Any possibility of a block? -- CoolKoon (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

REQUEST MOVES and PRIMARY TOPIC

There have been a number of lengthy debates recently (here, here and now here) sparked by (what I would suggest is) an over-zealous application of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline at WP:Disambiguation.
These are producing a fair amount of acrimony, and are seeing the usual suspects (and this includes myself, now) presenting the same tired arguments.
As The guideline itself is under discussion, here and elsewhere I suggest it is not appropriate to be starting new WP:RM processes, and I also suggest there should be a moratorium on such requests until the matter is resolved. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Policy is representative of community practices. It doesn't tell us what to do but instead describes how the community has handled situations before, and it can (and does) lag behind from time to time. It seems to me the results of RM's would help inform the debate around the policy rather then harm it in some way. -- ۩ Mask 06:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes; and move discussions based on the primary topic question are a regular everyday affair. Just because the precise wording of the rule may be under discussion doesn't mean we have to stop applying the principle, which in most cases is fairly uncontroversial (editors just have to pool their thoughts and experience to decide whether a particular topic qualifies as primary).--Kotniski (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The contributions of User:Anguilano.f

Hi. I noted a couple (here and here) of copyright violations by this user. As it turns out, he's also created a whole lot of other pages which appear to be the same. I cannot find the relevant text, which may well actually be in another language (does copyright still apply if directly translated?), however many all of these pages have a "Written by" section which can only really mean it's copied from elsewhere, I'd have thought. (See this, this, this, this too, and this one, and this, yup, more, etc etc etc. They're also very undersourced for the amount of information presented and I'd say need to be re-worked from ground up. Thanks! Nikthestoned 14:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User account is less than 24 hours old. I hear quacking in the distance... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The quack of a misguided but otherwise productive and well-intentioned duck. Let's keep it. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I just remembered, an AFLAC agent moved in next door last week... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a copyright issue, yes I saw the written by, but on each link it's exactly the same three authors, same order, and one shares the same name as the account. That looks more like three students working on an article than a copyright issue. KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 16:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Cowboys & Aliens redux

Resolved

 – User blocked one week for edit warring by Kuru. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive701 § Cowboys & Aliens

Altitude2010 (talk · contribs) was blocked for 48 hours for pushing his draft of the "Marketing" section at Cowboys & Aliens (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). After he was unblocked, he reverted the consensus-supported draft back to his own. He has been the dominant editor of the film article with over 330 edits. He has failed to comment on the article's talk page and denies that there is a consensus for the draft that I provided. His conduct makes it impossible to edit the article without his permission and goes against the notion that one should expect his contributions to be edited. [EDIT: He reverted another editor and still fails to engage in discussion. It's clear that he is content with edit warring.] Erik (talk | contribs) 14:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, on the face of it, but Altitude2010's conduct is troubling. Might not be a bad idea to limit him/her to 1RR for undiscussed edits, if only to force discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And he appears to be edit-warring again over his verson now. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Altitude's Contrib history and the article's edit history, I'd say Altitude has ownership issues, and doesn't want to consider consensus. Still, I'm wondering if this would be better handled at WP:ANEW, considering the back-and-forth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the back-and-forth sufficient for that? I wasn't sure if he was really in 3RR territory because his reverts are spread out. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, 3RR is the "bright line" limit, at which point an editor can be blocked with no questions or commentary required. What I'm seeing here is a "slow-burn" kind of edit war, one that never quite pushes up against 3RR, but is still an edit war by any other name. Maybe a bit more commentary or asking the editor to explain or justify themselves, but the end result may still be the same. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Mike and I pretty much submitted reports at the same time. I detailed mine a bit more with Altitude2010's conduct before the block. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I note that Altitude has been blocked for one week by Kuru. I almost boldly marked this thread as "Resolved", but given Altitude's history, I think UltraExactZZ may be onto something by proposing a 1RR. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I am able to support a 1RR restriction as an involved party, but I think it is a good idea. Some exchange on his talk page shows the possibility of discussion past the stubbornness. It would help for him to discuss with other editors on the talk page (and especially not just me). Erik (talk | contribs) 20:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and mark this report as "resolved", since Altitude has been blocked for a week for edit warring. If he starts editing tendentiously again, the 1RR proposal can be revisited, along with a (likely) longer outright block. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

James Thomas Aubrey, Jr.

There seems to be a slow-motion edit war going on in that article. I'm not sure why it's on my watch list. Maybe it's been here before? I have not notified anyone yet. I want to get the opinion of an admin or two as to whether something needs to be done administratively, or if it's strictly a content dispute and should be confined to the talk page. If there is an administrative issue, I'll notify them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 22:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Does not need admin tools but there's three paragraphs of uncited stuff that ought not be there seeing it's a featured article. 86.146.22.108 (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I recall now why it was on my watch list. It had to do with creating a link to another article. I'm not sure who's right in that content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now notified the 3 most recent editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed some fully unsourced material - a splendid example of why BLP should extend to recently deceased people for sure. Collect (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call 1994 "recent", but in addition to a lack of sourcing it seemed to be a bit too detailed, even if fully true. Thanks for retaining the important bit, about his death. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I rather figured that the death bit was not a problem <g>. Collect (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Quack quack

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

This user is adding multiple sockpuppet tags to random IP address and user talk pages. I think the sockpuppet-tagging vandal has returned. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about Editor XXV? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The WHOIS response is weird...the toolserver comes up with a /22 range, but drilling down from the geolocation server gives a different allocation, with a /29 range (a whole five addresses). I'm wondering if there's an open proxy involved somewhere. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I checked the ports on this IP address, and the following came up negative: 80, 2301, 3128, 6588, 8000, & 8080. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's an exit server for a secure proxy service. Technically it's a type of closed proxy, but since they allow a free trial, it could easily be abused..... No reason for it to be used on wikipedia though since logging in through the secure server serves a similar purpose. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I agree the whois records are confusing as it looks like that particular block has at least three different registrations. However, the narrowest one belongs to the service I refer to above. It's highly probable the 208.86.2.96/29 could be used as an open proxy. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't necessarily know who this is, but I have blocked two other accounts who were clearly up to no good. –MuZemike 07:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a reason for that. Open proxy which has been  Blocked along with a few others. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Block review

I have an open MfD for User:Squirtsdream5's user page. While monitoring the situation, I discovered that a few hours after the MfD was filed, the editor created the account User:Squirtsdream6 with the same content. I blocked both the User:Squirtsdream5 and User:Squirtsdream6 per a quacking duck. I deleted the Squirtsdream6 user page and tagged the user page per typical sockpuppet practice. Further investigation lead me to figure out that Squirtsdream5 was created by Squirtsdream4 (talk · contribs) after an MfD was closed for the same content. To avoid the perception of bias, I deferred on closing the MfD on User:Squirtsdream5 and/or tagging the user page as a sockpuppet. However, upon further reflection, I probably should have deferred on blocking both the Squirtsdream5 and Squirtsdream6 accounts for the same reasons. So I am asking for a review of my actions and for another admin to take what I think are reasonable additional actions:

• Review of the block of Squirtsdream5 and Squirtsdream6 and perhaps another admin reblocking the accounts to take "ownership" of them.
• Review of the deletion of the Squirtsdream6's user page and sockpuppet tagging.
• An early closure of the Squirtsdream5 MfD, deletion of the user page, and sockpuppet tagging.
• Determination on what to do with the Squirtsdream4 account. I did not block it as it has not edited recently, since it was probably abandoned after Squirtsdream5 account was created.

Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The obsession with tables reminds me of another blocked editor, but I cannot place the name. If I come up with it I'll post it here. Syrthiss (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There's also User:SquirtsDream, User:SquirtsDream1, User:SquirtsDream2, User:SquirtsDream3. This user has been at this for almost two fucking years. → ROUX ₪ 18:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several others. I didn't know about the four accounts above, but it certainly makes sense. I have two other MfD's open for Nationalfan (talk · contribs) and SurviveThis01 (talk · contribs). I just discovered Rockstar9108 (talk · contribs) and Mikester Pro (talk · contribs) and gave them an opportunity to delete their pages on their own before I take it to MfD. Overdrive82891 (talk · contribs) is related as Squirtsdream5's single non-user page edit was to Overdrive82891's deleted user talk page. Overdrive82891 also edited Nationalfan's page. 99.230.32.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is involved for the same reason. There was also Survivorgame (talk · contribs), who has been blocked. I'm sure there are others. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Check Overdrive82891's deleted contribs - it's much the same kind of stuff. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I smell the need for a Checkuser... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Already done. I've blocked everyone who came up. Mikester Pro appears unrelated. TNXMan 18:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to all involved! I deleted User:Rockstar9108 with a broad reading of WP:CSD#G5 and blanked out User talk:Overdrive82891 instead of taking it to an MfD. I left a friendly warning for 99.230.32.131. I will monitor Mikester Pro to see how he responds to my warning and deletion request. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Urgent page protection would be nice

Y ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

at FC Anzhi Makhachkala. Several hundred vandalism edits in last few hours. There's a request at RPP but no one's there at the moment. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu at Talk:Santorum (neologism)

Editor has struck through the comment, the source of the original complaint. Closing to avoid further drama. -- ۩ Mask 22:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this comment left at Talk:Santorum (neologism), seemingly in some kind of battlefield tactic or way to make his point. User has been asked to retract or strike through [31], [32], and [33], but so far doesn't seem to want to. Suggestions? Heiro 05:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Heiro, I have asked you to explain where Macwhiz is offended and civility is breached. YOU and I might find the term offensive, and in point of fact, I find it to be a reprehensible and grossly insulting term, but our fellow editor clearly believes it is fine. You may not understand that sometimes we can use examples as ways to demonstrate exactly how offensive something is. I have no personal animosity toward Macwhiz, and my following comment makes that clear, but when an editor tells us in the Talk page: One editor made the assertion that it was "an offensive slang term"; the assertion was challenged in the next reply, and that's the only mention of "slang term" in the discussion. Nothing in that discussion appears to set any precedent for santorum being "an offensive slang term" by administrator mandate, or even consensus; you can't have a consensus from a minority of one. For that matter, is it even kosher to assert that administrators have the authority to declare a word "an offensive slang term" and therefore forbidden in any context? Even if it were "an offensive slang term" in some official capacity, that's no bar to it being an article title: see WP:CENSOR. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Its hard to understand why someone would or could claim that calling another human being "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" is not insulting, but Macwhiz seems to believe that. As such, I'm trying to determine how honest Macwhiz is on that point. -- Avanu (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC) This isn't about the sourced content of that article, or breaching civility conventions, its about you and WP:NPA. Heiro 06:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC) This is the same exact word as the last name of Rick Santorum right? What. The. Hell? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Heiro, since you aren't seeing the reasoning here, I'll invite you to look at the more complete explanation I have added for your benefit at the Talk page (diff) -- Avanu (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Oh, I see your reasoning, I just think you've been treading that line between what constitutes a civility breach and a personal attack for so long, you no longer realize calling someone "a piece of fecal material" and "an anal excrement waiting for being wiped off a butt" while making a point to be on the wrong side of the line. If no one else agrees with me, so be it, I'll drop it and back away. Heiro 06:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Bingo. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Frankly, if people were trying to state that the descriptor could not be offensive and Avanu turned around and used that descriptor against someone on the talk page and people were offended, I'd invoke WP:IAR here. It sounds like Avanu is trying to make sure that we adhere to WP:BLP, and those who pretend that such a term isn't offensive are being far more disruptive to the project than a person making a tongue-in-cheek insult. -- Atama頭 06:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC) (By the way, I'm not taking a stand on whether or not the article's inclusion, title, or content has merit or not. I'm just saying that if people aren't being honest about an article with serious BLP ramifications, that's not something that should be overlooked in the name of civility.) -- Atama頭 06:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC) How do you mean "for so long"? It was one comment, specifically directed at an editor who believes the wording is not an offensive term. Its not a pattern, nor do I have personal (or any) animosity for him. I really hope you can see the difference. -- Avanu (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC) (ecx2) Doesn't matter. WP:IAR wants us to keep the article, WP:BLP be damned. No one is trying to state that the descriptor isn't offensive to Rick Santorum; just that Wikipedia can report on offense given to otherwise notable public figures without running afoul of WP:BLP. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Incidentally, I don't think the language is offensive *just* to Rick Santorum, but as I am trying to show, I believe ANYONE would find it offensive if applied to them. -- Avanu (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) This is the first I have ever heard of this, and I wish I had not. I actually feel pitty for Ricky for the first time in my life. I think the problem here is that this is one of those times when yuu cannot accurately convey tone all that well and so the subtlties of face-to-face interaction that distinguish something harmless from something meant to be gravely insulting are lost. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC) MANY editors, including Jimbo Wales, have weighed in saying that the article (as written currently) violates many Wikipedia policies. Regardless of one's personal politics, it isn't Wikipedia's job to become a political tool. WP:BLP, WP:NEO, and simply common sense ought to tell us that this article needs improvement. When reliable sources start giving credence to this term by saying "Even Wikipedia defines it that way", this should be a clue we have a problem. -- Avanu (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Doesn't matter. You compare someone to a piece of shit on Talk, you violate WP:CIVIL. This isn't an issue with shades of gray, and you can't turn this into a content dispute. Time to put down the stick and apologize. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Whether or not calling someone fecal matter is a NPA is divorced from the issue of whether or not the topic is encyclopedic. The phrase nigger is offensive, or chink, and when used in a way this was they're both a personal attack. However, those same topics are perfectly acceptable to cover as an encyclopedia. Realize the difference please, because the statement on the talkpage is out of line. -- ۩ Mask 06:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC) First off, dont edit my comments, I was replying to the original post with a general rule of thumb, not the post above me you indented my comment to appear to refer to. Second, if you're saying you're pretending this is ok as some giant eye opening experiment to show him he's wrong, I can only point you to Dont disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, a page you appear to have missed reading. -- ۩ Mask 06:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC) If I am to literally believe Macwhiz, such words are not a personal attack. If Mac doesn't feel personally attacked and if I also say, "I'm not personally attacking him, I'm just helping him see a point", then maybe you can show where a personal attack took place? -- Avanu (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Even if Mac doesn't feel personally attacked (and that's a big if), whether or not something is a personal attack is a matter of objective truth, not opinion. You personally attacked him. It's inappropriate. You may need a 12-hour block to reflect on that, since you're clearly not taking the point. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC) WP:POINT: Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.   Will Beback  talk  06:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Indeed. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Actually it is a matter of subjective truth, since one cannot objectively tell the hearts and minds of others. Feel free to characterize it as an attack, but that is your subjective truth. Back on point however, I actually do hope Mac could feel some degree of discomfort from the words so that we can move forward in a collaborative effort to improve the article. On the same note, I feel like this whole thread is a bit unnecessary and thin-skinned since the main object of my 'attack' has yet to say one word about it. -- Avanu (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC) No, it's not. A remark is judged by the community, not the person it's directed at. Administrators and/or community discussion make a determination. And since when is the other person required to persue something? Whether or not you committed a violation has nothing to do with him. Or can we put up penis pictures all over pages whose editors dont mind? -- ۩ Mask 06:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC) I would hope community means that people would actually look at intent instead of just repeatedly quoting "pointy pointy!!" -- Avanu (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC) So many of my fellow editors keep quoting WP:POINT, yet in this diff we see so many editors who clearly very cavalier about how its not a big deal and we shouldn't have to censor Wikipedia, etc. The problem is that these editors are saying its fine to perpetuate an attack, but it apparently is a big double standard because of the voices we're seeing here that seem to be saying "its ok to promote an attack on Santorum, but just don't attack me". I, for one, am not calling for censoring the article in question, but as myself and many others have pointed out, as written, it simply uses Wikipedia as an attack ad. -- Avanu (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Santorum's not an editor on Wikipedia, so WP:NPA doesn't apply. Next point? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC) People keep calling out point because, by your own admission above, you violated a policy to prove a point. It's the very PURPOSE of WP:POINT. Want the drama to go away? Strike the comment and state that you understand why it's not ok. -- ۩ Mask 07:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC) I asked him to do that before coming to ANI, and as for the WP:POINT discussion, had that with him at my talk. Heiro 07:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Please go thoroughly read WP:POINT. It *isn't* a catch all. It *isn't* about making points in debate, it is about targeting Wikipedia rules in disruptive ways (in order to make a point). If you want to make a point about my conduct, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are in place for a reason, but please can we try and stay on track? -- Avanu (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC) You violated WP:CIVIL to make a point, and it was disruptive (as evidenced by this thread). I'm thinking it's time for an admin to use their admin magic and make this issue go away for a while. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC) You engaged in personal attacks, an activity blanket recognized as disruptive so universally that we enacted policies about them most of a decade ago, in order to make a point about a perceived issue with another on an article discussion. How is this not WP:POINT, or indeed on topic considering its the edit raised in the initial post? -- ۩ Mask 07:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Sadly, the original point of the whole exercise is being lost by people who simply can't tell the difference between an actual personal attack and a provocative comment intended to stir insight and debate. Clearly some of my fellow editors get what the point was. You can lead a horse to water, but that's all. If you feel that this is actually a personal attack, then you have failed to read my explanations not only here, but on the article Talk page as well. On that note, I have to say good night and best wishes on resolving this issue. -- Avanu (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Buck up, we can tell the difference. The former violates WP:NPA, the latter also runs afoul of WP:POINT. I'm reiterating my call for a cool-off block, because dude either is unrepentant, or simply doesn't get it. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC) At this point, it might be a WP:COMPETENCE issue to be honest. There's been patient explanation, but your responses and actions demonstrate a complete failure to understand some of our core culture. -- ۩ Mask 07:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Quoting: "Give editors a few chances, and some good advice, certainly -- but if these things don't lead to reasonably competent editing within a reasonable timeframe, it's best to wash your hands of the situation. Not every person belongs at Wikipedia, because some people are not sufficiently competent." Time to block. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Whoa there, I said issue, not indef for incompetence. For one it says 'a few times', and for two I would much rather see the comment struck. -- ۩ Mask 07:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC) My last comment for tonight. It appears the incivility bug might be catching. WP:COMPETENCE is an essay (not a policy) and not a terribly flattering thing to say about someone. I've taken the time to personally address Macwhiz and let him know about the discussion here. Several of you seem to be trying so hard to defend Mac, when it has been made abundantly to other editors what the actual point was. Feel free to continue discussing, but as for me, unless we can see more editors who can compentently understand the difference between a true personal attack and a simple debate point, it doesn't seem like we're going to get far. -- Avanu (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC) No one is defending some other editor. We have an actor in the system who has illustrated that he will disrupt it to make a point and given no indication that he would not do so in the future. As you comment on my citing of the essay, look at what I did. I commented on your actions and behaviors, not on you personally. This is the advice given on WP:NPA, and is the opposite of calling someone human fecal matter, as the diff in the original post shows. -- ۩ Mask 07:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC) (EC)You are far from incompetent, you just have a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This isn't about defending Macwhiz, this is about your disruptive editing and personal attacks to make a point. Not one editor so far has agreed with your interpretation of WP:POINT, take a hint from that and realize that any future repeats of this kind of pointy behavior probably wont bode well. I haven't once asked for a block in this discussion and dont feel its called for, but I would like to ask you again to retract or strike through your statement at Talk:Santorum (neologism). Heiro 07:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC) If sanctions aren't what are being requested, why is this not at WQA? Perhaps it ought to be moved there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC) How about a formal warning from an admin that such behavior will not be tolerated if it is repeated and we just close this? Heiro 07:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC) As I said in the explanation below my comments on the Santorum (neologism) Talk page, it wasn't a personal attack, but trying to demonstrate the negativity of the words we're discussing. I don't think Discussion is being killed or disrupted, we have a LOT of editors who are trucking along with comments and input, but I don't want people to fool themselves by thinking this term is not offensive and negative. We have a responsibility to do our best on an article like the Santorum one, we affect real lives here, not like the article about Twinkies where no one gets hurt, we can potentially do incredible damage. We're not simply talking about one man's life anymore, but his children and anyone else who happens to have the same last name. The way we frame the article here at Wikipedia has a lot to do with how this is perceived in the world. People turn to Wikipedia for reliable information and look at Wikipedia as a reliable source itself. Simply playing fast and loose and without regard for how our actions work in the larger society is irresponsible and reckless. Again, its not a personal attack, just working to help others understand this more deeply. -- Avanu (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Avanu, you realize this defense is 'I violated WP:POINT but it's ok because my point was really good?'. How else do we read 'Trying to demonstrate the negativity' and then a list of why its important we get what you say? -- ۩ Mask 08:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC) What I'm trying to get across is that we 'get it right' as the WP:BLP page says. We have editors who are barely acknowledging these terms as offensive, or in this case, saying it wasn't offensive at all. This is baffling to me. Clearly by the reaction, we *all* feel it is bad. So my question for Macwhiz is, ok, you believe this... please explain how you can, sincerely, even if it is applied to you personally. If he says "yeah I don't mind at all", well, we're done with that discussion. If he instead says "wow, I didn't realize how it feels", then we've made progress, and any reasonable person can recognize the intention of one thing versus another. You guys keep insisting that I attacked Macwhiz, but heck, point out to me where I was angry in tone. Its easy to see that I was just saying it in an effort for him to have empathy, even more so after it was explained further. If you want to keep telling me I'm awful go ahead, but if nothing else, we can all agree that the entire exercise has become moot at this point. -- Avanu (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC) It's not clear to me where the WP:POINT violation happened, if there even was one. When someone makes an outrageous claim it's only natural to take the claim literally and turn it against the person who made it. This is not automatically disruptive. It can be an efficient technique to settle a case in which another editor is insisting on repeating an obviously invalid point. The disruption happened with the overreaction. Since the overreaction was predictable, one could say that Avanu carries part of the fault here. But only part of it. Otherwise we would open ourselves up to gaming: A determined core of editor could get normal practices such as citation from non-English sources outlawed by routinely overreacting to them in grotesque ways. This is the kind of situation where a face-saving retraction is reasonable to expect, but complete submission of the "offender" and an apology is not. Hans Adler 08:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC) To quote fro WP:POINT: "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, enforcing it consistently." Avanu believes the application of our rules on personal attacks disallows the santorum page, and that those who see santorum as acceptable therefor shouldnt have problems with him calling them human excrement. He's said this a few times. -- ۩ Mask 08:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Well part of the "personal attack" really does involve having some personal effect on you; if the editor doesn't feel affected by it, then I don't understand why we are here. The remaining concern may be that the discussion doesn't appear collegial; assume good faith requires you to assume someone is not going to make outrageously invalid point, and sometimes a wake up call is worthwhile. So I do agree with Atama and Hans Adler. That said, Avanu should certainly take this as a "be careful...the line can become very blurred, and if you cross over the line, admin action probably won't err on the side of caution," but I don't see how any formal warning or sanction will be appropriate in this context. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Not sure why you are quoting WP:POINT unless it is to remind me that overreacting to something for wiki-political reasons does not technically fall under it. WP:NPA has nothing to do with article space, of course. The analogous principle for article subjects follows from common sense, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I am not particularly interested in Avanu's background in this discussion; ad hominem arguments aren't completely invalid, but usually not the most illuminating. Here, I am interested in Avanu's specific reaction to a specific ludicrous claim. (By the way, I have no problem with the article in question. I find extreme hypocrisy more disgusting than excrements, although I prefer not to be exposed to either.) Hans Adler 08:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC) (@Ncmvocalist) Yes, to address the collegiality of the conversation, I wouldn't want that ruined. That said, it seems like many people are far too comfortable disregarding the negativity of these words when they see them in this abstract fashion applied to Rick Santorum. Sometimes in order to understand the gravity and seriousness of a situation, we have to personally experience it. That was my goal here. I wasn't literally trying attack my brother saying 'raca', but in fact said, brother, how does it feel to be called 'raca'? So many editors have a comfort zone setting that is so high when it applies to others, but I think we need to be taking these things seriously and although there may be better ways to convey this, to me, personal experience is simply superior. -- Avanu (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC ) Ncm, thats a fair point. Im here because I commented on the last proposal on that page, and have been somewhat alarmed at the battlefield mentality going on. That said, I certainly agree its not something we should be charging after, as I've said a few times I think Avanu striking the comment is the ideal solution. The rest of it has been walking him through why the edits are an issue, and some hand-wringing over a block proposal an IP put forward. Hans, I quote it out of habit, primarily. I don't view it as all that bad together, but his inability to say 'you know, that wasn't the best thing. Let me strike that and move on' or something of the vein is something I'm trying to dig him out of. -- ۩ Mask 08:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC) IMHO, Macwhiz was making an absolutely invalid claim, and Avanu called in his bullshit. You have to wonder why Macwhiz isn't being warned for making such lame argument in BLP pages. Also, what Atama and Flinders Petrie say. Also, this discussion is being dominated by the editors who want to punish Avanu and rigidly enforce WP:CIVIL, ignoring all the context of the discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Avanu left out macwhiz's full comment. Gacurr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC). Did I leave out something actualy relevant? I'll put the whole bit in for our edification if you like. In case there was any remaining doubt, ANI has already weighed in that Santorum is "an offensive slang term",link as evidenced by the block demanding rename of User:Santorummm in 2006. Wnt (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC) I can't say I get that out of the linked ANI discussion. It looks to me like the name was challenged under WP:REALNAME, specifically, "Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable living person unless it is your real name." One editor made the assertion that it was "an offensive slang term"; the assertion was challenged in the next reply, and that's the only mention of "slang term" in the discussion. Nothing in that discussion appears to set any precedent for santorum being "an offensive slang term" by administrator mandate, or even consensus; you can't have a consensus from a minority of one. For that matter, is it even kosher to assert that administrators have the authority to declare a word "an offensive slang term" and therefore forbidden in any context? Even if it were "an offensive slang term" in some official capacity, that's no bar to it being an article title: see WP:CENSOR. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Incidentally, the user they are talking about was blocked with the following comment "Your name is an offensive slang term derived from the senator's name. Please change it. pschemp | talk 20:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)" (link) So, according to macwhiz, "santorum" is not an offensive slang term? And he stated this opinion in Talk:Santorum_(neologism)? Macwhiz didn't realize it, but this is practically begging to be called "santorum" just to see how offended you become at getting called an offensive slang term. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Begging for it or not, policy here is "comment on the content not the contributor" and no personal attacks, even when making a point. Heiro 09:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, this avoids messy disruptions to talk pages when someone mistakenly believes someone said something they did not. Gacurr (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC) We have plenty of articles on words it would be unacceptable to call a fellow editor. I linked two examples of racial slurs earlier, but I'll decline to do so again out of politeness. There is a difference between content held to be encyclopedic as to its existence, and acceptable discourse with fellow editors. -- ۩ Mask 09:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Interesting report showing how mainstream Wikipedia is, and hopefully demonstrates how important it is we 'get it right'. "The online encyclopedia has become the chief arbiter of the watercooler dispute." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/vp/43318270#43318270 You do realize this thread has nothing to do with the actual article content of santorum or the need to "get it right"? This thread is solely to deal with your behavior. You don't get to break the rules here to win in a content dispute/merge or delete discussion. Have you decided yet on whether or not you wish to strike the comment or do you still intend on leaving it in place until its intended target weighs in to tell you if they find it offensive or not?Heiro 09:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC) I favor stronger enforcement of WP:CIVIL in general, but this report is a gigantic case of missing the point. Yes, anyone can see that Avanu was being uncivil to make a POINT, but the action that would benefit the encyclopedia would be to take the time to get engaged in the absurd discussion at Talk:Santorum (neologism) where people are earnestly claiming that the article is worth saving, and that Wikipedia should be used to permanently define a politician's name as "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". Of course such prurient nonsense attracts a lot of attention so WP:N gets a tick. However, if ANI is to be involved, it should be to work out how to conduct a central discussion so the community can decide whether Wikipedia should be available for use as a weapon. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Ok, so let's tread back a few years when I actually found Dan Savage's column to be entertaining, even though it really had little application to my day to day life. Senator Rick made some pretty boneheaded comments. Dan Savage held a little competition to come up with a definition of "Santorum" (seeing as it sounded Latin anyway). The final was picked. Now, that was like what, 5 or 6 years ago? The neologism has stuck for a long, long time (that's 4 generations of PC processors). The article itself therefore has value and clear notability, and is not a political attack against the Senator anymore (even though it might have started sorta in that way), but to refer to another editor as Santorum would be waaaaaaaayyyyy beyond WP:NPA. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC) To those editors who keep saying this word is no longer a political attack, when it was primarily promoted over these years by one man, Dan Savage, who as recently as February (according to Politico) had declared his intention to renew efforts regarding the santorum phenomenon, due to the former Senator stating to Roll Call that Savage is "someone who obviously has some issues". I just have to question what reality are you seeing, because it seems incredibly clear that this is not just someone getting a new word created, but a sustained back door attempt at taking out political opposition. -- Avanu (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC) In this case, Avenu referred to another editor as: a piece of fecal material an anal excrement waiting for being wiped off a butt a lubed up bit of poo I have to say, I am at a loss how making a point like this at the expense of another editor is acceptable under any circumstance. Gacurr (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Generally, I could completely agree with you, but this is specifically an exchange with an editor who made it seem clear that he felt the word was not offensive. So while your argument would be generally a good one, and I would agree with it in those cases, it doesn't quite cover the situation here. -- Avanu (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC) The comment was used as rhetoric - if I said "you don't mind boxing, so I guess it's ok if I punch you in the face", it is a rather similar use of rhetoric. The point that you seem to be missing, Avanu, is that in this case, the rhetoric you used was a bad idea. You tried to convince someone (almost using reverse psychology) that the term was bad. Bad, bad, bad, bad. Recognize that - take responsibility that you made a bad choice in this case, because you took the use of rhetoric too far. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Net result per sauce:goose :: sauce:gander is that the term is grossly offensive, and that no one reasonably can deny that fact. It was designed specificaly to be grossly offensive, and there is a real issue as to whether is is a reasonable use of Wikipedia to promote such a term. Collect (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Being offended by what someone else says should not be used by editors on ANI to justify personally attacking other editors. Gacurr (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Okay, before this turns into the latest forum-shop of the Santorum (neologism) issue, let's correct one mistaken assumption that's being perpetuated here. In the comment I made that Avanu replied to, nowhere in the comment did I make any statement about my personal opinion of the term. It is being characterized by Avanu and others here incorrectly. I challenge anyone to take that comment and show exactly and precisely where it says that I do not find the term offensive. What it does say is that, contrary to the assertion of the previous commenter, I do not see anyplace in the cited link that "ANI found the term to be an offensive slang term". One person on ANI called it an "offensive slang term", and then another person disagreed. So, to point to that discussion as proof that it is an "offensive slang term"... well, if it were in article space, instant , no? Whether I agree with the assertion that the term is offensive is beside the point; the fact is, the assertion "ANI says the term is offensive" is not supported by the citation. Plus, for the purposes of the discussion in context, it's unlikely to be germane, either. I'm not going to weigh in on whether or not Avanu's comment was WP:POINTy or not. I'm an interested party, and it's better for disinterested parties to decide that. Obviously, he was trying to make a point. Personally, I think the bigger issue is that the point missed the point of the discussion. As I replied at Talk:Santorum (neologism), frankly, if Avanu's comment generated widespread media coverage now, and was still generating widespread media coverage over a decade later, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a Macwhiz's talk page problem with Avanu controversy article, and while I might not be thrilled by it, I probably couldn't argue against its right to exist, either. There's a difference between calling someone a name, and having the event of your calling someone a name gain widespread and long-lasting notability. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the thoughtful and intelligent reply, Macwhiz. As I said above, I wanted your two cents on this (not every Tom, Dick, and Santorum). Thanks again, see you on the Talk page. -- Avanu (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Um, did you really just refer to every person besides Macwhiz who commented in this thread as "Santorum"? ...wanna reconsider? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC) I expect he was referring to the Republican presidential hopeful. It didn't have quotes. Syrthiss (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Why is this thread so long? [Avanu] This isn't rocket science. (1) Calling someone "fecal matter" or anything similar is a personal attack. (2) Making personal attacks in order to make a point about Wikipedia policies and/or practices violates WP:POINT. (3) On-wiki behavioural allegations don't affect notability in any way at all. And that's all there is to it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 12:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Oh, quit whining, not every sharp criticism or comment around here necessitates a screaming run for the cover of WP:POINT. If people are going to take a stand in support of a controversial faux neologism that slanders a living person, then they deserve whatever (pun unintended) shit that happens to be flung their way. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Didn't we have to remove a link to WP:BOOMERANG that was related to a specific football player? Still, the article is not about the politician, it was kinda like Douglas Adams/John Lloyd's "The Meaning of Liff", where they made definitions of town names. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, I wrote the original essay, and it went through 2 different MfDs. Both times it was asked to be deleted as a BLP violation. It survived the first discussion, but in the second one I agreed to reword it so that it didn't refer to a particular person but rather a general concept. The reason I wrote that essay in the first place was because people were invoking the name constantly, even linking to a non-existent essay, so I thought that an essay could explain the point that folks were making. I just turned those redlinks into bluelinks (and I actually tried to make the essay as neutral as I could by showing that the person had a great career and only made one mistake, and everything that was written was sourced, even the use of the term outside of Wikipedia). The MfDs showed that the community felt that using a person's name as a pejorative was a gross BLP violation (and it convinced me as well) and now that term is verboten on Wikipedia. Maybe Santorum will eventually have a similar fate. -- Atama頭 22:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC) The above type of comment from an editor is the reason I felt compelled to make a strong case in this situation. Against all odds, they say "the article is not about the politician." Yet, when you read the article 98% of it is not about fecal material, but about political stuff. Go figure. -- Avanu (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Should we consider your belated-strikeout of the NPA-violating comment at the talk page as an acknowledgement that your conduct was wrong? Gacurr (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Tarc, that is how Wikipedia works? Editors who hold a different opinion than other editors get personally attacked? Really? Gacurr (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Those who perpetuate something like this don't get to hide behind the "well golly gee, it is just my opinion" fluffery. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Really? Engaging in civil debate over an article is grounds for libel in the name of "how do you like it?" On further reflection, logically, Avanu's statement should have one of two outcomes: Either he was well over the line in using phraseology that he has been arguing is unpardonable when used to refer to a living person, and some form of reprimand needs to attach to that; or speaking like that of a living person is acceptable in at least some circumstances, and therefore there's a valid debate over whether or not the "it's unpardonable" argument carries any water regarding santorum. You can't have it both ways. Perhaps it was an act of civil disobedience, but as I recall, Henry David Thoreau spent quite some time in jail in the process of making his point. Avanu did not bother even wrapping his statements in a hypothetical "How would you feel if"; they were bald assertions, followed by talk-page backpedalling. At a minimum, it was a serious lapse in judgement. Further, Tarc, I would like an apology from you, because you seem to be willfully misrepresenting my statements. As I said before, at no time have I claimed that the term santorum is morally proper. However, moral judgements are not an overriding factor in this case. There are other factors, and on the balance, it seems to me that the other factors say there's no grounds to scuttle the article, no matter how distasteful it may be. In the case of my comment that precipitated Avanu's outburst, I was specifically commenting on a prior statement that was not backed up by the given reference. You may disagree with me, and I welcome any reasoned arguments to persuade me to change my mind, in the appropriate forum. However, saying I "deserve whatever shit happens to be flung [my] way"? Well, why couldn't one make that same ridiculous argument about Rick Santorum? It's not a defensible position, it's not civil, and it's hypocritical. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC) You will get no apology from me, for any thing at any time. I don't like Santorum's politics, but I find it even more distasteful that a journalist made up a fake word describing a non-existent sexual jargon, riffing on the former senator's name to purposefully hijack his google searches. I find it even more deplorable that like-minded Wikipedia editors have devoted reams of text to a non-existent neologism, which essentially duplicates the original google bomb attack. You aren't writing or supporting this article simply because "it is reliably sourced!", the tired wiki-trope that saves a million shitty wiki articles from deletion. You are doing this because, like Dan Savage, you do not like the target. Again, I do not like the target either, but that dislike does not color my on-wiki actions. Tarc (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC) I'm compelled to ask how you can be so certain of my motives that you can state as a fact that I do not like Rick Santorum, and that my supposed dislike of him is so strong that it overrides any other consideration in regards to the santorum article. That seems to be an accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence. My reasoning for opposing the current proposal is on the article's talk page, but I don't recall you participating in discussing the points; instead, there's this, here. Heck, I didn't even file this report, but it disturbs me that further attacks against me seem to be going without comment by the admins present. I'm beginning to understand why there's an editor turnover problem on Wikipedia... // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Agreed. The ends do not justify the means. Most editors disagree with others, sometimes vehemently, without resorting to blatant personal attacks and disruption. It's disgusting that people are defending these actions merely because they agree with the editor's opinion regarding the article. ElKevbo (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC) I agree with TreasuryTag and (most) others: it's a clear class of a personal attack to make a point. Just because you feel you have a really really good point doesn't justify disrupting things to make that point. At this point I don't think there is much to do other than trout the user in question and those few defending the action. If things continue, I'd hope more serious action would be taken. Hobit (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Nerd (disambiguation)

Please see the contributions of Econglos14 (talk · contribs), Econglos15 (talk · contribs), and Econglos16 (talk · contribs). 14 and 15 are two months old already; I've placed a 4im warning on 16's user page and will notify them. What to do about this odd vandalism? I'd hate to ask for protection for a dab page. Can such users, obvious socks/jokers, be blocked on sight? Drmies (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

LMAO (despite the misogyny). ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 19:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

On a seriouser note, just keep an eye on it, and see whether it still becomes a problem. It seems like the Econglos accounts are all one hit wonders, and it's been going on since 2009 [34] (look at contribs) probably one bored user. Maybe it's worth it to make a username filter. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 19:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but to what end? He's been at this since Econglos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Econglos2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) back in 2009, and the pattern is the same: he adds the nonsense content, then immediately reverts it, then never uses the account again. When he comes back it's with a new account (and with enough delay that had one account been blocked the autoblock would have worn off). Semiprotection would work, but it'd have to be very long term, given the persistence of the individual. With such a low level of disruption a lengthy protection would seem inappropriate. If I were to guess at what he's doing, he's inserting his nonsense, reverting it, and then advertising a link to the revision. WP:REVDEL would fix that, and would probably discourage him, but this isn't at all what REVDEL is for. A bit of Google-foo may find the permalinks... -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Do they come back after enough delay to make the previous account un-checkuser-able? ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 20:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We know the accounts are the same person, so we don't need checkuser to tell us that. He creates the accounts just before using them, and they have obvious names, so a checkuser won't help us find sleepers. No IP is implicated, and there's no evidence that another user, in otherwise good standing, us behind him. So there's nothing for a checkuser to do. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A checkuser could block the underlying IP directly for a longer time than the autoblock resulting from an account-block. DMacks (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also, if we semi protect, they're probably just going to create an account and let it sit for a few days, and make a couple innocuous edits, to get autoconfirmed. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 20:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So there's nothing we can do except have Alison make a house call, to hit this person over the head with a dead chicken? Drmies (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked all "Econglos" accounts, including Redtwenty (talk · contribs). Furthermore, I have RevDeleted all such edits from the dab page per WP:RD3 (as the user is just trying to get the crap into the revision history and is hence patently disruptive). –MuZemike 21:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Can an edit filter be created to stop the creation of Users with similar names? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Or MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. In either case, I'm wary of filtering out, as it would make detecting such disruptive accounts harder to detect (especially given the one outlier there). Also, if this is only confined to one article, and a dab page at that, not much harm would be done if we had to semi-protect for a good while. –MuZemike 21:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bill Slavicsek

Resolved

 – blocked account and IP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

New account user MisterRPGnow (talk · contribs · logs) made an unusual edit on a BLP article, Bill Slavicsek. [35] The addition goes on about some sort of criticism of playing styles of Dungeons & Dragons and a fued with Sean Hannity, but the citations provided do not even seem to support any of this information. I reverted the changes on these grounds, but the user reverted them back. Could someone look into this? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please review the links if you doubt this controversy's accuracy. However if you actually listen to the broadcast from the link, you will see it is accurate.MisterRPGnow (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

For a "well known fued", nothing particularly interesting comes up when you cross-reference them at Google. [36] 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

<ec>I'm going to call BS on the claim. A) I'm pretty sure I'd have heard about it. B) the cites provided don't clearly address this (though one is a 3 hour podcast). It looks very much like a (silly) hoax. At the very least the reverting back to this claim needs to be stopped until actual evidence of the event is provided. Hobit (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit warring on the article appears to have ceased, so the discussion no longer belongs here; if disruptive editing resumes, feel free to come back. MisterRPGnow appears to created a section on the article's talk page for further discussion. Please keep in mind WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. You may want to solicit third-party input at a relevant WikiProject or at WP:RFC. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 21:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe this may be the same editor who as an IP made a similar edit to a different conservative talk show host. I'd mentioned it here: Wikipedia:BLPN#Michael_Graham. Note the similar dubious claim.[37].--Cube lurker (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• MisterRPGnow blocked indef as a vandalism only account, for intentionally adding a hoax to an article, and edit warirng to keep it in. His (or his friend's, I don't care which) IP blocked for 31 hours for the same thing (because it might be dynamic). --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Slap Bet edit war

Resolved

 – Let me know if problems continue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello admins.

Dayewalker sent me an email early this morning about Tjprochazka's edits on the page regarding a supposed fifth slap by Marshall but it hasn't yet happened on the show. Apparently, the edits have gone a bit out of hand, with Tj being rather arrogant on his own talk page, the article talk page, and even asking Dayewalker to just "walk away." TJ's conduct is unacceptable and is right up there with other editors who have tried railroading their own edits but flame back when put down (Cliche Online on MGS 4 comes to mind). Please assist. Thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Err, what article is this about? NW (Talk) 02:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not an admin issue. Eaglestorm, please stop editing the article, and take up a discussion at the talk page to reach consensus. If the discussion has not yet been fruitful, seek help from WP:3O or another process listed at WP:DR. There's nothing for any adminisrator to do to solve this situation, and we'd all like to keep it that way. --Jayron32 02:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I brought this up on the WP:WQA board earlier after getting nothing but insults from the editor [38]. After another editor reverted him, he appears to have stopped, but with a promise to use his talk page as a blog [39]. The current page as now consists of a list of enemies, including a couple of insults and slurs against me. While I feel the WQA situation is settled and doesn't need any further attention, I would appreciate it if someone would take a look at the user page. Thanks in advance for your attention. Dayewalker (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an enemies list on the current page. I agree, after further review, that things need extra help. I don't agree, however, that that help needs to come in the form of a block, a protection, or a deletion. Since no one is being blocked today, no article needs to be protected today, and no article needs to be deleted today, I still want to know what administrator tools you need used? Yes, it is a problem. No, it is not an administrator problem. --Jayron32 02:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Portion of user page that was being used for an enemies list and personal attacks blanked, and warning left on their talk page. Dayewalker, I've told him to disengage from you. I assume you'll reciprocate, so he won't have an excuse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism at Kurt Freund. Assistance requested.

User:AMuscatelli has added these unconstructive edits to Kurt Freund and its talkpage: [40], [41] That user's talkpage suggests an on-going problem.
I am personally associated with what is now the Kurt Freund Laboratory, so I have not reverted the edits. Any attention from outside eyes would be appreciated.
— James Cantor (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted and warning given[42]. Heiro 05:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Heiro.— James Cantor (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome, although in an instance such as this, I'm sure no one would have minded if you reverted and warned them. I've just finished reverting every edit they have made today as vandalism, now going to AIV as they seem to be a vandalism only acct.Heiro 05:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Final reminder: Arbitration policy update and ratification

The current written arbitration policy dates from 2004 and much has evolved since then. The policy has been extensively reviewed over the last two years, with a series of wide-ranging community consultations, to bring the written document up to date. The proposed update is posted and is undergoing community ratification, which is due to close on 13 June 2011. All editors are cordially invited to participate in the ratification process.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Please, help!

I don't know is this the right place, but here it is. I have a problem with user Nedim Ardoğa regarding the List of campaigns of Suleiman the Magnificent. Now, this problem can be seen as a "Content dispute", but it isn't. IMO, we are talking here about WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPTPOINT. Now, all of mine 'good faith' is now 'gone with the wind', and I need professional help from Administrators. From the first day when I started editing this article (I left him a message on his talk page and the article didn't have any inline citations), I was constantly "sabotaged", although I informed user of any significant changes (edits, Peer review, changes and submission to FL). I have removed almost everything from the article which he has asked me on the talk page. I also left the article some time without any edits from my side (I only used talk page for discussion). On the talk page, his answer was this, and he left me editing. After I have informed user of submission to FL, he started edit war, IMO only to disrupt possible FL status of this article. Now, I am frustrated! What should I do? I can't solve this even with the quality sources, per his reply on the talk page "...But we should be careful with the sources. They are not always reliable..." Please, can somebody look the talk page of this article, and give me some solution to this problem. All my talk has no effect, and while I am trying to improve the article the best I can, he is acting like an administrator who approves some of mine edits, and deleting unacceptable ones (per his opinion, not per sources). He is acting as the owner of this particular article, and he disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (I guess that I should have asked for his permission to start editing, since just notifying him wasn't sufficient). Now, I am long on Wikipedia, but this is mine first encounter with 'Administrators' noticeboard', so please excuse me if I have made any procedural errors while doing this complaint. Thanks. --Kebeta (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

First thing, no, you have not made any procedural errors when bringing this issue here. Secondly, without reviewing the various histories of the article(s) or the user talkpage, it appears that you have not exhausted Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes; you may suggest Wikipedia:Mediation in the dispute, or request a Wikipedia:Third opinion, both to try and initiate a resolution between the two of you editors, or you might try a Wikipedia:Request for comment at the article talkpage to try and get further third party opinion on the validity of your edits and the removal of same by the other party. Only when dispute resolution is either exhausted or when one party does not follow the consensus arrived at during the dispute resolution process should Admin intervention be considered - because admins cannot act to resolve content disputes, but only conduct concerns. Until it becomes apparent to other, uninvolved, parties that there are WP:OWNership issues, or other possible policy and guideline violations, there is little admins can do (except where such actions are obvious abuse). I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks LessHeard for your reply, but the user showed all "Signs of disruptive editing" per WP:DE. I acted exactly per instructions on WP:DDE.

• 1. First unencyclopedic entry by what appears to be a disruptive editor - I assumed good faith and I didn't attack the author.
• 2. If editor unreverts - none sourced information did appear from his side, yet he reverted. I ensured that a clear explanation for the difference in opinion is posted at the article talkpage.
• 3. If the reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information - he continues reverting the article with only his opinion as a tool (with no sourced information whatsoever), nevertheless I suggested a compromises at the talkpage and showed will for discussion. BTW, he openly speaks of this article as his own and. After I stoped editing, and only tryed to solve the problem, he refused. After I start editing and made the submission to FL, he started again. Per this final point, I reverted and requested an administrator help via this ANI.--Kebeta (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If this was a content dispute, I am sure that he would discuss the problem thru the end, as that is in his interest. Also it's interesting that he mostly engaged in slow edit war at two occasions: when I made a request at peer review, and when I made submission to FL. Now, if he continues, I guess he will get what he want - to disrupt progress toward improving an article (FL in this case) and maybe drive me away from this (his) article. Thanks anyway for your time!--Kebeta (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I have not reviewed the article history in depth so I do not know if the page is habitually edited by other contributors. What I am suggesting is that you ensure that this is not an issue between two editors, but a question of compliance with editing guidelines by bringing in other viewpoints. Requesting a RfC is an obvious way of garnering more opinions and, if this then stops being a struggle between two people, may lead to an agreement on how future editing may be conducted. Only when this or a similar approach has failed to resolve the issue should the matter be brought here, because the only think an admin can do that other editors cannot is block an account or protect the article - and doing so as a first resort may aggravate a party to a degree that they evade the block to continue their behaviours. It is unfortunate that good faith editors are required to exhaust such options before a possible bad faith account can be dealt with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks LessHeard, I will request a RfC if he continues (which may be tomorrow or in a month). I do hope that he will present some sources than, instead of his opinion only. Anyway, I do not wish you to block this editor or to protect the article, I only wish to continue normal editing. Thanks for help!--Kebeta (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I am accused of sabotaging an article. This accusation is clearly a defamation. I have created about 400 articles and my total no of edits is over 16000. I was involved in many discussions and up to now absolutely nobody accused me of sabataging. Just the reverse, in most cases whenever I feel someting is wrong with an article I prefer to warn the editor instead of editing myself. And now what makes this editor calling me a saboteur ? Maybe I should point out that I started the article The basic idea, design, the table as well as the images of the opponents and the duration table were created by me. Kebeta contributed by adding some sources, campaign routes and symbolic images in the table. I thanked Kebeta for these. And than Kebeta began adding some opinions (by coloring) which clearly contridict with the historical facts. I reverted these incorrect information and I explained the reason. But still Kebeta keeps adding these opinions. I am sorry to see the issue is brought here. But I want to see an article created by me is free of incorrect opinions. Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out to Kebeta, when two editors dispute the validity of content or the source then there are steps that can be taken - all of which involve getting other, outside, opinions. It is as wrong for one editor to refuse to allow content from another contributor as it is wrong for a contributor to insist that their content is included; consensus must prevail. Further, and this also relates to the other point raised by Kebeta, there is no allowance for the fact that one editor may be the major or only previous contributor to an article - all edits that are policy complaint are allowable and only reference to policy and guideline may be the grounds for rejection or acceptance. Preferences in style, layout and anything else must all ultimately come second to consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as I understand with Nedim's some edits like 1, 2, 3 Nedim believed in the invincibleness and unbeatableness of Suleiman I. I think that my many Ottomanphile friends find the term defeats something difficult (I don't know whether Nedim is Ottomanphile or not.) and changed Suleiman's military defeat to Sulaiman's military failures with using reliable soruces (Even with Turkish sources. I can also give sources for "Suleiman's military defeats". For example Mehmet Ali Kılıçbay, Feodalite ve Klasik Dönem Osmanlı Üretim Tarzı, p. 358..... As long as I know, no scholar claims Suleiman's military victory at these battles/seiges. But Nedim insistently continued his edits without showing any sources and moreover he removed reliable sources 3. I recommend Nedim to edit with showing sources. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly my point - this is what Nedim Ardoğa wrote above and on talk pages (Maybe I should point out that I started the article The basic idea, design, the table as well as the images of the opponents and the duration table were created by me...but I want to see an article created by me is free of incorrect opinions) or Now, I planned and created List of campaigns of Suleiman I. But you made hundreds of changes without consulting me. or I created the article and I never thought to classify the campaigns as Victory or defeat. That was Kebata's doing. Now, just to show how the article looked before I started editing, and we are talking here of a period from creation the article on 14 December 2009 to 3 March 2011 when I started editing. Despite everything that he has done to "sabotage" me and the article by doing that, I managed to improve the article up to FL quality. And that is the point, he repulse this, since this is his article which he created. Although, I have invited him numerous times to join me in this improvement. A very nice Wiki job. --Kebeta (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess that discussion prevailed and slow edit-warring has finished. Thank you LessHeard for your time spent on this subject. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Delta and Nicaraguan córdoba

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.

Closed with a wet fish, given the user talk discussion at User_talk:Δ which preceded this. This is a content dispute, and the disagreement over this issue is not specific to Delta. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Non-free content enforcement. Rd232 ^talk 12:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

---

I would like the community's view as to whether this edit by Delta (talk · contribs) on Nicaraguan córdoba was appropriate.

In essence: is it appropriate to strip all the image content from an article, far beyond the content balance one would be led to by any policy-based assessment?

Details

Per WP:NFCC #8 and #3a, my understanding is that the community expects images to be kept which "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". That test is to be asked of each item of NFC, by asking what further understanding it provides beyond that provided by other images.

Before 6 June Nicaraguan córdoba contained quite a large number of images. But a case can be made that they were of value. (See old version of the article). The 2009 bills, for example, are hard to describe in terms of any pattern of consistent design -- so the reader genuinely does get a much better idea of what they look like by actually seeing them. Even with the 2002 bills, which are more consistent, the images are useful to show the variety and range within that pattern. It is also, I suggest, clearly informative to show what the coins look like.

Furthermore, it is worth recognising that there is no realistic likelihood of copyright action against us or a reuser over the use of these images in this way; nor that such clearly educational use, clearly not harming the original purpose of use by the copyright holder, would ever be held infringing by a U.S. court.

There is a discussion currently underway at WT:NFC as to the proper extent it is appropriate to illustrate articles on currencies for our readers (see especially counter-propositions two and three); and this is not the proper place for a content dispute. I accept that Delta had concerns about the extent of use on the article at that time, though I don't necessarily agree with his assessment.

But what I want to bring up here is whether how he acted on those concerns was appropriate: namely to strip every single image apart from the (free) flag of Nicaragua out of the article, in the knowledge that if they remained out of the article for more than a week they were likely to be deleted as orphans.

One can compare the before and after. There is no way that that "after" page preserves the same understanding that our readers were getting of the topic. It is a quite inappropriate way to leave the article.

In my view, the appropriate action would have been for Delta to have identified on the talk page which particular images he believes fail to increase reader understanding; and in the mean time to restore the page to the state it was in before 6 June, to allow informed discussion. I appreciate that he may fear that insufficient attention may be paid simply to such talk-page interventions; but even in the worst case, if he feels there is a legitimate case for deletion, and that his concerns are not receiving proper attention, he can always refer them to WP:FFD and allow the community to decide.

I have put these concerns to Delta on his talk page, and in particular the point that to remove content far in excess of what is required by policy, so that reader understanding is compromised to this degree, is completely unacceptable. However, Delta appears to to view his actions simply as Standard Operating Procedure, and dismisses any concerns. In this view he has also had cheerleading support from Hammersoft (talk · contribs) and Beetstra (talk · contribs).

I therefore bring the issue here, to ask whether this kind of blanket scorched-earth stripping of an article, regardless of any thoughts of what may be informative for our readers, can be considered remotely appropriate. And whether anyone who thinks that it is ought to be allowed anywhere near such content issues. Jheald (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• The hyperbole of "cheerleading support", "scorhed-earth stripping", etc. adds nothing but heat JHeald. That aside, you were told by myself and Beetstra that immediately threatening to take Δ to WP:AN/I over this, even before Δ had a chance to say word one to you about it, was wholly out of line and inappropriate. Δ deserves an apology from you for the threat alone, much less following through on your threat. To the issue at hand; why are you going after Δ over this and not many other editors who are doing effectively identical edits, including myself, User:ESkog, User:Beetstra and several others. Why are you singling Δ out? Let's be clear here; isn't your issue your disagreement with WP:NFCC policy and not Δ? --Hammersoft (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• • I have come here after Delta because I came across Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_June_6#File:Nicar-currency-inflated.jpg at FFD and was shocked by what he had done to the page. If this is how other editors, including yourself, are also behaving then it is high time the community was asked whether this is an appropriate way to go about things. Jheald (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Then close this thread, and start a new one regarding non-free overuse, as your issue isn't with Δ. But, you should also be aware this sort of work is rather routine. Note the presence of Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files, which is a tool used by many precisely for this sort of work. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• OK, as I said there, this is a total lack of good faith towards Delta, as is often performed by editors when they disagree with edits Delta has been performing. The first line of comment in a remark to Delta will include threats of blocks, threats of bringing it to AN/I. JHeald, again, you assume bad faith on Delta, chilling any form of discussion by a threat - the only outcome you find appropriate is reverting the edit to the overuse state, any form of discussion is hence useless. You are way out of line. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• • What I want to see is rational discussion about what content adds to user understanding, which is a lot easier when people can see what is the content that is being discussed, in the context of the overall page. As I have said, if you can't get an outcome to your satisfaction out of such a discussion, the appropriate place to take it is then a community process like WP:FFD, so the community can decide. Jheald (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    • You can always refer to an earlier diff in a discussion. Also, a frequent response to the removals is that we should have a discussion before removing. This has never succeeded as an argument. The sheer enormity of having to have a discussion every single time a set of images is removed is prohibitive. Further, the arguements are almost always highly repetitive. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • No, this is often not a case for FFD, this is not about deletion. There are many images which are in use somewhere under a proper fair-use rationale, and somewhere else where it is not. Deleting those would also delete the fair-use display.
    • Rational discussion, Jheald, with hyperboles as 'cheerleading', 'scorhed-earth stripping' - and remarks on talkpages which give no other option than following your suggestion (the latter in total contrast with your 'if you can't get an outcome to your satisfaction out of such a discussion, the appropriate place to take it is then a community process ... so the community can decide' - it is just the treatment that you gave Delta (with the difference, that attempts were undertaken to discuss the issues way before Delta, Hammersoft and others actually started doing something about it)). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:06, 9 June 2011 (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.

Conflict of interest

We seem to have attracted the subject of the article Marjan Bojadziev with User:Marjan Bojadziev. Can people put this article on their watchlist/warn him as he seems keen on adding his CV and making the article more promotional by removing content like this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Nation of Gods and Earths

I don't really know whether this is the best forum for this problem, but here goes anyway. We have had discussions on the The Nation of Gods and Earths talk page with an editor called user:Bornking7 who says he is the editor of the Five Percenter, the journal of this group, which is an offshoot of the Nation of Islam. I should say that Bornking7 is clearly trying to engage with Wikipedia through the talk page and that he has accepted the reversion of his own earlier highly POV edits, no doubt made in good faith. However, myself and other editors are finding it very difficult to communicate with this editor who still seems to believe that Wikipedia's article is part of some concerted campaign or plot against the group he represents. I have tried to incorporate content he has proposed, within an appropriate format but he still adopts an "aggrieved" position which I'm afraid might again erupt into POV edits. If anyone can bear to read through the walls of text there, I would be grateful of some help in communicating with this editor, who has so far restrained himself, but does not seem to fully understand how the encyclopedia should work. Paul B (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've notified Bornking7 of this discussion and had to change many mis-formatted ref tags on his talk page to get it to show up. Hobit (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Peace this is Born King and I do represent the NOGE professionally through the National Office Of Cultural Affairs (NOCA) and personally. I am and have been a a part of the Nation of Gods and Earths for many many years. It is my asseration that wikipedia through no fault of its own has been supplied with information that met its format but had no basis in truth. As Paul B has so boldly stated in the edit above "an offshoot of the Nation Of Islam" that is simply not true. The other edit which i give Wikipedia credit for removing was the one on the NOI page that stated the NOGE is the subsidary of the NOI. Both statements are wrong, however if i were not telling you this now, you still wouldn't know. More importantly the world is connected on the world wide web. Google and wikipedia are online resource centers used by people all over the planet. Right now those people have access to demeaning and defamatory information about the NOGE supplied as verified information by wikipedia. So when i became aware of these mistruths on your site,I went about the business of correcting them. I am not the expert on wikipedia use, policy procedures, editing techniques, and the like, but I am an objective expert on the NOGE. The editor who submitted the introduction to the NOGE that wikipedia is fighting so hard to keep intact needs to be revealed. He needs to be held to the same standard I am being held too. Furthermore with someone like myself now aware of what is going on in this site, it wont be as easy to fool me like they fooled those of you who knew nothing about the NOGE before., I want to see the sources wikipedia accepted to validate that editors misstatements--Bornking7 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

All users are of course held to the same standard (though I think admins are held to a slightly higher one), but I'm afraid that you yourself, in the context of this article and related ones, must be held to a slightly different one. The reason for that is that your occupation and involvement with NOGE represents a conflict of interest. This means that you should read through that guideline and edit and contribute accordingly. The fact is that if there is information about something that is notable, relevant and well-sourced to a reliable source, it should be included in the article regardless of whether it is negative. There is a great deal of negative stuff about many other faiths. Some of it might be considered lies, heck it could be completely false, but if it is a widely held view, then it must be represented in some way. The way it is represented must of course be in-line with the reliable sources. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Now while i keep hearing that from you all that if there are negative things written about the NOGE they have to be included . But why would they have to be included in the introduction to the NOGE? Personally i dont see that standard applied across the board on wikipedia. I checked every religous definition on wikipedia and they did not at all reflect negative facts or opinions or widely held views written or otherwise. They merely informed the reader as to the basics of that religion. Are the palenstitian writers allowed to describe Judaism as a religion that supports a modern day aparathied system? Is Catholicism somehow attached to pedophlia because of the many priests that have molested children as a matter of record. Is christianity described as the sanctioning body for the enslavement of millions of blacks during the slave trade? No! Even though there is plethora of information that could be used to support all of those claims wikipedia does not include those things in those religions descriptive pages. Now if you have another page that discusses those issues thats different. Judaism, Catholicism, and Christianity are described most favorably on wikipedias pages dedicated to them. However when it comes to the God Centered Culture of the Nation of Gods and Earth's any negative opinion ever offered must be included in the basic introduction or it is somehow not objective. We are a living breathing people not an inanimate object that one can have a false, widely held view of thats ok. Widely held false views led to the Jewish Holocaust right? I thought you all said never again. Or is what you meant never again to you, but its okay to subject the NOGE to the same thing that led to the Jewish Holocaust. Widely held views led to the horror cost of 400 years of chattel slavery for Black people in America. It was widely held that Black people were 3/5's of a human. I am appalled! This is the standard for wikipedia? If it is then it needs to be changed. You know that words have power this is not an editing game. People are attacked in word first then targeted for physical destruction later. I speak for a people who have been voiceless in the face of this litery attack. I speak for a Nation of Men , women and children who walk around with bullseyes above thier forehead because of some false definition of them supported by wikipedia. Nobody owns us, we are not anybodys offshoot, subsidary, organization or gang. Please read my definition of who and what we are again, I have proved that my definiton is the correct one tht can be backed up by outside sources.--Bornking7 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• • I also offered to help him. Hobit (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I dropped a comment on his page which will give him a headsup as to being a bit more concise as well. Reading through his walls of text, well intentioned and informative that they are, is quite a strain on the poor grey matter. --Blackmane (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments as well. As a writer my thoughts run faster then my fingers and so it is reflected in thoughts that I save without editing. They tend to run on but I have went back over them and edited them somewhat. I trust that they are now more understandable.--Bornking7 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Moved from the James Thomas Aubrey, Jr. section below

Although I am not sure what is meant by a slow motion edit war, i do know that the information currently accepted as the introduction to the NOGE is unacceptable. It is not accurate and is negatively biased, when it does not have to be. While I understand other editors cannot see being called an offshoot, subsidary, gang and an organization as demeaning and defamatory, the NOGE does. The NOGE has its own voice and can prove who and what it is, in its own words. Those are not the words we use. The NOGE defines itself as God Centered Culture thats recieves the same constitiutional protection granted to religions. We are not an American orgaization. We are a legitmate path to God. We refuse to be defined by others and claim our inalienable right to speak for ourselves. Furthermore we have entered into the courts of this great country and proved it. Please accept us for who we are and remove the edit that does us and wikipedia a great disservice.--Bornking7 (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)--Bornking7 (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sir, please understand that there are certain policies in place and that while organisations, religious groups, etc are of course welcome to describe themselves, they need to also have the descriptions of them by other reliable sources put in for the sake of keeping things balanced. The same is true for Christianity, Judaism, you name it, any faith. If this was not done then people would be given information with a great deal of bias that might not represent the majority view or views. This is covered in WP:WEIGHT. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Now while i keep hearing that from you all that if there are negative things written about the NOGE they have to be included . But why would they have to be included in the introduction to the NOGE? Personally i dont see that standard applied across the board on wikipedia. I checked every religous definition on wikipedia and they did not at all reflect negative facts or opinions or widely held views written or otherwise. They merely informed the reader as to the basics of that religion. Are the palenstitian writers allowed to describe Judaism as a religion that supports a modern day aparathied system? Is Catholicism somehow attached to pedophlia because of the many priests that have molested children as a matter of record. Is christianity described as the sanctioning body for the enslavement of millions of blacks during the slave trade? No! Even though there is plethora of information that could be used to support all of those claims wikipedia does not include those things in those religions descriptive pages. Now if you have another page that discusses those issues thats different. Judaism, Catholicism, and Christianity are described most favorably on wikipedias pages dedicated to them. However when it comes to the God Centered Culture of the Nation of Gods and Earth's any negative opinion ever offered must be included in the basic introduction or it is somehow not objective. We are a living breathing people not an inanimate object that one can have a false, widely held view of thats ok. Widely held false views led to the Jewish Holocaust right? I thought you all said never again. Or is what you meant never again to you, but its okay to subject the NOGE to the same thing that led to the Jewish Holocaust. Widely held views led to the horror cost of 400 years of chattel slavery for Black people in America. It was widely held that Black people were 3/5's of a human. I am appalled! This is the standard for wikipedia? If it is then it needs to be changed. You know that words have power this is not an editing game. People are attacked in word first then targeted for physical destruction later. I speak for a people who have been voiceless in the face of this litery attack. I speak for a Nation of Men , women and children who walk around with bullseyes above thier forehead because of some false definition of them supported by wikipedia. Nobody owns us, we are not anybodys offshoot, subsidary, organization or gang. Please read my definition of who and what we are again, I have proved that my definiton is the correct one tht can be backed up by outside sources.--Bornking7 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornking7 (talk • contribs)

The lede as it is called, should bewritten in such a way to attract the reader. In some cases, the subject is known for controversies (as in the case of some BLPs) or conflicts between two opposing POVs. Placing some of both into a lede is aimed at giving the reader a snippet of what the article is about. The religions that you mentioned are generally known throughout the english speaking world and the actions and misdemeanours of some of their adherents are also known. In the case of the NOGE, I for one know little about it so for me reading something of both positive and negative views would interest me to further read about the NOGE. Reading the lede paragraph, I don't see anything too negative about it, unless you mean the reference that the NOGE is "...an organization, an institution, a religion, or even a gang...". I think the lede is fairly balanced, there does not seem to be undue emphasis on one aspect or another of the NOGE. To help you understand the requirements of a lede section, please refer here WP:LEDE. Also of help would be WP:UNDUE.

Once you have read those and you still have misgivings about it, opening a discussion on the talk page would be the next step.

Also, please use sign your posts using four tildes as is required. Although SINEBOT will do it for you, it is more usual to sign ourselves.

At this stage, I think it is digressing into a discussion about content. If there is consensus for this view, would an admin close this thread and the discussion either taken up on Bornking's talk page or on the article talk page? --Blackmane (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

twosteps.com

I have noticed two editors, Twostepsjobs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 77.107.87.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding spam links to twosteps.com (the later was blocked for 31 hrs for doing it), is it appropriate to add that site to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and if so can someone do it ?

Mtking (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Also see User talk:LawJobs. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Problematic Edits with Santorum (neologism) Article, violations of WP:BLP, WP:NEO

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.

Closed. This is a content dispute, and no admin action is reauested. Please don't bring this issue here again, but follow the appropriate dispute resolution. Fram (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

---

We have several editors who are continually reverting changes in the Santorum (neologism) where they are introducing significant bias into this already contentious article. Discussion was requested by one of these editors and I agreed with that suggestion, with BLP being something to strongly err in favor of, however, it seems that the biased editing is going to continue unabated.

This article likens a certain former US Senator to "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". Several editors seem intent on saying this is a sourced article and therefore feel that they can ignore BLP concerns, but many editors including Mr. Wales have expressed severe misgiving with this attitude. A request for rename is in progress, as are several other proposals, and it seems all one can do to keep some degree of balance in the article. Please help. -- Avanu (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What I see so far is you at 3RR against 3 other editors, while a discussion has not been started yet at the talk page. Heiro 06:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The language was in the article and it was removed without discussion. It was serving to provide balance and working to make the article neutral and in line with WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, etc. I would ask you to focus on the encyclopedic/content concerns, rather than simply making this into a personal attack on me, Heiro. -- Avanu (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I might also mention that the Talk page at that article is VERY full at the moment and there is a discussion thread that covers this part of the article already ongoing. (Talk:Santorum (neologism)#The first line of the lead) -- Avanu (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? What personal attack? Look at the article history, you reverted 3 other editors 3 times while telling them to take it to the talk page, having not once started that discussion yourself. Lets keep it civil and avoid the rhetoric. Heiro 07:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Besides being inaccurate... (I *have* been discussing in that very section mentioned above), it was Anthonyhcole who most recently requested discussion and I agreed. Now, Heiro, if you're going to continue to ignore the actual concerns I've brought up, it might be more helpful to the discussion if you let it go and allowed someone with an interest in helping take this situation on. -- Avanu (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu - you appear to be edit warring here, and attempting to forum shop the content dispute here to ANI. Neither of these things is a good thing. BLP - when it's unambiguously applicable - is an excuse for 3RR violations. But there is no consensus that the aspect you're edit warring over is BLP. Lacking a consensus, under serious dispute (less than 50% support on the RFC for a change), continuing in the manner you have been will result in you being blocked. Please stop pushing. Go back to the talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What hopefully is more apparent is the need for a balance in tone at the article. We *do* have a large number of editors who feel there is a lack of proper accounting for BLP concerns and a large number of others who feel there is no need, primarily saying "its sourced, so its OK". Bias is still bias, and we have a responsibility. Sadly, I'm already seeing the very typical outcome of so many AN/I's where it becomes more of a personal "why did you have the gall to ask for help here, loser?" instead of focusing on the issues raised. Personally, if editors here can't focus on the issues raised, then why is this here? -- Avanu (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Those are all perfectly fine concerns to raise, on the article talk page. You aren't raising issues that require uninvolved administrator intervention. If you are dissapointed at being told to go back and continue working with the people actively participating in that discussion and consensus, that's unfortunate, but that's how Wikipedia works. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If Avanu is claiming the BLP exemption from 3RR, then he cannot be blocked for violating 3RR. Perhaps it's not a good loophole in the rule to have, but we need to be consistent in our application of it as long as it reads the way it currently does. Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If an admin finds that his claim is specious and inaccurate, then certainly he can be blocked for breaking 3RR. The BLP exemption only applies if it is correct, it's not a "Get out of jail free no matter what you do" card, that would be ridiculous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree Ken. My impression is that quite a few people are somewhat cavalier and dismissive of potential BLP concerns in this case. It is clearly stated by the major promoter of the term, Dan Savage, that its primary purpose is to attack Rick Santorum. He has gamed Google to get this term more widely spread, and many editors have expressed a concern that Wikipedia is inadvertently becoming a tool for simply furthering the cause of Dan Savage. While I can't say for sure who is right or not, I feel that there is clearly a BLP issue present, and I feel that we have a duty to maintain an article that strictly complies with BLP. -- Avanu (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Policy and precedent do not support you here, Avanu. You have been told, and warned.

It especially does not apply in the case of an active disputed consensus, as with the current one. The exemption is not a valid defensive shield in these types of situation.

You're attempting to wikilawyer your way out of being told to go back and work on consensus. If you keep editing claiming some exception or the other, you're disrupting Wikipedia, and you've been warned on that. Please go back to the article talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree GWH. As the policy states, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." So, while the community is in the process of determining whether this article is one big BLP violation, I think it behooves any admins not to block anyone for 3RR until then. Any admin who does so, I recommend that their admin privileges be suspended until they have successfully NPOV'd the Intelligent Design article and resolved via mediation any and all content disputes in the Irish Troubles and Palestine/Israel topic areas. Cla68 (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This has come up before. People were warned not to or to stop. When they did not, they were blocked. The blocks were upheld. Policy and precedent are not what you feel that they should be.

You are free to argue for a policy change. But we will enforce as written and as precedent stands. Warnings have been issued. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So now that you have given me warnings and due diligence has prevailed, would you mind also taking a look at the concerns I actually raised in the initial opening? Thank you for any help you can give. -- Avanu (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been addressed. What you are trying to do with this request is improper. We are not going to override the consensus discussion on the talk page, short circuit it's discussions, or allow you to violate 3RR on the article while that discussion has yet to find consensus. Please stop trying to insist that we act upon your improper request. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(@GWH) Again, not the point at all. I *have* gone back to the Talk page, and also was there. If you've missed my requests above, I can repeat them, but THIS ISN'T ABOUT ME. I realize the 3RR rule, received and understood. If you would like to start a separate Wikiquette or AN/I about me, feel free to do so, but my patience for AN/I threads that can't stay on topic is a little thin. -- Avanu (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, what you're trying to do is to find another way to get something done that you have failed to do so during good faith discussions on the article talk page, which are still ongoing.

This is known as forum shopping. It is not ok behavior. It's frowned upon. ANI does not exist to override content discussions and content consensus issues on article talk pages. There are a large number of admins participating in the discussion on the talk page already. Most admins are probably aware of the issue. There's not much an uninvolved admin can do other than let the discussions continue there, because our admin powers / rights / responsibilities do not extend as far as short-circuiting legitimate community policy discussion activity. Again: We cannot help you. It's not in our powers to do so. Please go back to the article talk page and work there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

Well, that was the first clear and concise answer I have seen. I don't know who is and is not an admin in a discussion with many editors, but it wasn't apparent to me that they were doing enough to preserve the neutrality of the article. The answer you just gave provides helpful insight and a concrete answer to my request, thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, how does BLP require the article to include that un-sourced parenthetical statement ([43])? Also, could you show me on the talk page where you discussed it? Gacurr (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Does one editor not agreeing with three other editors really necessitate locking the article for three days? Gacurr (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu sincerely believes his edit is mitigating a BLP issue and so shouldn't be sanctioned for 3RR. I don't agree but, while it's discussed on the talk page, having his (rather clunky) edit locked in place is not really harming an already awful article. You might reconsider the page protection. There's the odd skirmish but things are pretty civil, considering, and most of the action is on the talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Does Avanu discuss this particular edit (the one he reverted three times today) anywhere on the talk page? I looked and could not find any comments by him today until after his last edit to the article. None of his comments explain why he needs to add the un-sourced parenthetical to the first sentence of the article. Or am I missing something? Gacurr (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's not very clear, but he's making the distinction between Santorum, the person, and santorum, the substance. I, and others, believe it's already very clear, but he's not convinced. I haven't been to the talk page for an hour or so, so don't know what's happening there. But, I'm pretty sure he'll abide by consensus once it's discussed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I find it strange that he would revert the edits of three other editors and then not start a section on the talk page to discuss but instead come to ANI and get the article locked. Gacurr (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Which I pointed out to him right after his initial post, I thought it went without saying then that he should go back and discuss it there. Others have since pointed out to him that that is the only option here. Since the article is now protected and a conversation is now ongoing at the talkpage, maybe its time to close this? Heiro 09:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is he has not started a discussion (or I can't find it) on why he did the edits he used to justify coming here to ANI. Gacurr (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Start a section there specifically dealing with it then, I'm sure he'll be right over to argue discuss it with you. Heiro 09:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So if he continues to see it as a BLP issue, but other editors agree the parenthetical comment he wants included in the article is unnecessary, how can we proceed? It seems like from tonight's experience he can just keep saying it is a BLP issue, even when other editors actively editing the article disagree, and then his choice of edit is retained. Gacurr (talk) 10:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If such a consensus were reached and the material removed, he would face sanctions for continuing to edit war against consensus if he re-inserts it. Heiro 10:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Admin Observation To all editors who have a specific horse in this article's disposition (renaming, content, merging,etc.)

Plip!

Seriously, if this article is going to be brought to some discussion page multiple times a day, let's open a ArbCom case and be done with it. I'm tired of being solicited for opinions regarding merging, renaming, and seeing this article show up on non-content noticeboards. Hasteur (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu seems intent on it, from his disruptive comment prior to this, to coming to ANI and initiating this because he did not agree with three other editors' consensus. Gacurr (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Gacurr, that is a fairly misleading interpretation of my position on all this. Especially since we covered at length the intent behind that comment was not a personal attack, but to demonstrate the offensiveness of the term being discussed in the article. Let's debate things honestly if we are to do so. My concerns for BLP and neutrality in presentation are the only motivators in a new thread at AN/I. -- Avanu (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Without wishing to further inflame things, perhaps someone could give a stern warning to User:24.177.120.138 for the edit summary "There's no way the opinions expressed in that source are due more weight than those expressed by Mr. Frothy Mixture himself". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2011 (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.

Talk:Jasonstackhouse.com legal threat

Threat to sue editors here and here by Divinhighbird. Article currently CSD'd and the creator made several blatant personal attacks on the talk as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I blocked them indefinitely. That was some foul language. That article, I deleted it before as a hoax, borderline vandalism. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I found his grammar and spelling to be entirely amusing, with interesting rhythmic devices that seemed to counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor...so there were at least a couple of redeeming features. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Bwilkins, that is a very astute reading. It's original research and as such we can't allow it in article space, but you have a future as an English major. I'm going to give you a sticker, on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess there is some good to everything. The creator even made their own blog entry with the text, citing "Wilipedia" in the title as the reason they were making it; to disprove a hoax.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Good block - and a hilarious read. Their only other edit, a deleted item on Deion Sanders, makes clear their intentions on the project. I think we're done here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I love "deformation of character" - obviously a flexible chap -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, the full quote, "delete the post, and have your non profit company get ready for a deformation of character/minority subjective, and racially specific law suite filed. Please delete this, I dare, you." No one has dared yet. But I just have to ask this: Is it technically a legal threat if the guy doesn't speak English and might just be reading from the Hungarian Phrase Book? "law suite" sounds like something they might put on sale at the furniture store. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a law suite is, but I hope the documents will be made public and include many grafts and statistices for our edifaction. I like visual AIDS. Doniago (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

These suites look pretty nice. This character looks fairly deformated. Meanwhile, somewhere, Norm Crosby's ears are burning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of how he was the CEO of his blog. Can I be the Senior Executive Vice President in Charge of Canadian Operations for Wikipedia? Resolute 20:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You've got my vote, eh! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I hereby appoint myself to the office of Minister of Special Projects and Second Liege of the Wikipedia Shadow Council. Doniago (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that title is taken. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC) (First liege of the Shadow council)

Well, at least I'm finally getting the attention I deserve. How about Viceroy, or perhaps ArchDuke? Doniago (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

On an off-note, BWilkins, 1 for the Hitchhiker's Guide reference. - SudoGhost™ 01:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the editor made a video documenting this experience with Wikipedia. It appears alcohol was a contributor and I think had an editor left him a welcome template, this situation would not have occured. Also for the record, I don't have World of Warcraft and porn open when I am editing. Any chance we can use this as an RS for the Wikipedia article?--NortyNort (Holla) 07:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we can avoid giving any blame whatsoever to other editors. This was entirely on the editor that got blocked. I don't know if it was your intention, but to suggest that this could (or even should) have been avoided if another editor had welcomed him? That's assuming good faith where no reason to exists. It's still fundamentally his responsibility to know what he's doing. --Golbez (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

An IP getting into the act

Should the lone drive-by comment by 141.117.77.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be also treated as a "legal threat", or should it be treated as typical vandalism, and simply deleted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

An admin zapped it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Troit Trolls

A few minutes ago, Troit1 (talk · contribs) created an article called Troit Trolls that says, in part, Troit trolls is a trolling group on Wikipedia and other outlets started on 17:20 GMT on the 8th of July 2011. The group has hacked numerous pages since its foundation. Troit Trolls' goal is to wreak havoc on Wikipedia. Let's disregard the obvious typo of "July" for "June". I'm not sure how credible a threat this is, or if it's just a lone kiddie looking for attention, but I thought I would bring it up here. Elizium23 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Should be deleted as notability isn't established, for starters. The rest is pretty obvious ofc. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently these guys have an agenda, they are upset over US activities in Libya and the rest of the Middle East. They're not very good trolls if they're angry over something as appears to be the case here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Troit1 indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think these guys realised that thanks to Watchlists and the Recent Changes section, people will notice such changes very easily and quickly. That's especially the case on such high-profile pages. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What does 'hacked numerous pages' mean? They found the edit button?--v/r - TP 18:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It means they don't check to see if their edits were reverted two minutes after (ignorance is bliss and all that). I think they were trying to copy Anon in some way, not realising how that whole setup works. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone should remind them that Anon also consistently fails at destroying WP. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That is because most anon are script kiddies and wannabes who have no idea what they are doing. The real ones usually don't get involved in such stuff afaik. =p These guys were like the myopic fellow who walks into the bank to rob it, only to discover it's actually a police station (After the Fox). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 21:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats by an IP (Dr. Larsen)

An IP has made a legal threat against me personally on my talk page, concerning a mfd discussion I initiated. --Anthem 15:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like they're upset that they might lose their free web hosting space. (If that CV is legitimate, why do they need free web hosting?) In any case, it's clearly a WP:NLT violation, no matter what the outcome of the MfD nom. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked long-term, and VictoriaRILarsen (talk · contribs) blocked indef.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I really doubt that that's the actual person. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Who would actually take the time to read such a ridiculously long thing? Who even signs something with their whole CV? I highly doubt, based on the poor English, that they are an Australian citizen and have that degree of education. So as Drmies said, probably not a real person. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I think they are a real person, see [44] and the comments at [45]. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No no, I'm sure they are a real person--but I don't believe that the IP is Victoria Larsen ('the actual person'). A person of some education 'signing' a message with a copy of a resume? Drmies (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I was wondering if they were a hoax. And I'm not sure we should be discussing the identify of the IP, but the websites are extremely odd. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying for a fishing expedition, really. I'm just a bit baffled at the weirdness of it all, including those websites. [time ticking away] OK, I've done some more browsing and cannot come up with anything reliable whatsoever regarding the claims made in the 'resume'. You, Doug, had marked in an edit summary that this might be a hoax, and I am going to delete it as such: I do not believe these claims made about degrees and positions all over the world held by this supposed person since 1982, and I don't believe the project will benefit from having this around as long as the MfD runs (which is going down like a snowball anyway). If there is disagreement, if I'm stepping on anyone's toes, or if I destroy some policy in the process, I apologize: feel free to revert me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily a hoax, but there appear to be language/cultural issues in the way. It would be disruptive for me to revert your deletion, but I would have waited for the MfD to finish. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(@ "Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie") They appear to be of Russian background, possibly explaining the poor english. Concur with Dougweller, rather odd. Perhaps someone should contact 'Dr Larsen' to let them know someone may be impersonating them? ;) (I seriously doubt the Department of Defence uses Bigpond email addresses!) - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, in part it's the issue that 220 brings up that made me want to delete this. I don't believe the claims, they are bizarre, and I am also wary that there is some kind of impersonation going on here. I mean, the bizarroworld and the claims of being accredited all over the world and working for the UN just don't jive--and even though I may be completely wrong, I prefer to err on the side of BLP caution here, and to remove it given the possibility of impersonation. Sarek, it would not be improper or disruptive of you to revert me--after all, you have the stripes, and I gave you permission explicitly; still, I hope you see why I chose disrupting (i.e., pre-empting) the MfD process. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jim Chapman (Canadian)

Resolved

 – Request for review of good-faith speedy deletion should be taken to WP:DRV. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 18:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm sorry if this is the wrong area for this. I wrote the article Jim Chapman (Canadian) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in October. It was deleted because of a lack of secondary sources and notability. The original deletion was fair, and I have spent the intervening time finding the necessary sources. I reposted the article, slightly modified, but with all of the sources added. It was subsequently speedy deleted by bearcat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for being duplicate content. I contacted Bearcat through his user talk page three weeks ago, and have not yet received a reply. As I explained to him, the majority of the new sources are newspaper articles, and I have hard copies of all of them, but I cannot find them online. If possible, I would like to either have the article reinstated, or at least a full deletion review done. Thank you for your time. (I am unsure how to do the ANI-notice for Bearcat, so if someone could do that I would really appreciate it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodbucket (talk • contribs)

I've notified Bearcat for you. Are you asking for userfication or reinstatment of the article? Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer reinstatement, but if that is not possible for some reason, I'd take userfication over nothing. Thanks. Goodbucket (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If Bearcat has been acting in good faith and doing things correctly (policy-wise), we can't do much for you here in terms of reviewing the deletion. If you believe your article didn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion and can't sort it out with Bearcat, create a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. If that doesn't work out for you, ask an admin to userfy the deleted page so you can try improving it further. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 17:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Have the copyright problems notified to you on your talk page been addressed? - David Biddulph (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the majority of the problem came from coincidental phrasing, such as the name of his band and television show. There were two sentences that still needed to be changed, and I have changed them on my end, and will change them in the article as soon as it's up somewhere. The whole copyright discussion is here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodbucket (talk • contribs) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I keep forgetting to sign my posts. As for Larry V's suggestion, should I continue to wait for Bearcat to respond before creating a request for deletion review? Goodbucket (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Give them a little while; a day at least. Judging from the deleted edits, it looks like you changed the article enough to at least warrant a new AfD discussion. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 17:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, do you mean a day from when I contacted them? Or a day from today? As I mentioned earlier, it's been 3 weeks now. Goodbucket (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bearcat appears to be on a wikibreak: They haven't edited for a month now.

And since the article was previously deleted based upon the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Chapman (Canadian), I would definitely go ahead and sumbit it to WP:Deletion review. — Satori Son 18:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you were looking at; I last edited Wikipedia yesterday. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake. Sorry. — Satori Son 18:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help everyone Goodbucket (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The new article was almost literally unchanged from the original version; as I note below, the only substantive change in the new version was the inclusion of mostly unreliable new "sources" — and the few new sources that were actually reliable still failed to really support the idea that he belongs in an encyclopedia any better than the first version's sources did. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Before I begin, I have to apologize, but I never saw your original talk page request in the first place. The thing about talk pages is that if two or three people post to your talk page between logins, it's possible to miss some of the comments. But I digress.

Now, on to the issue: it's a basic principle of Wikipedia, established both by WP:NMEDIA and by past AFDs on a variety of similar topics, that a radio or television personality of exclusively local notability, who cannot credibly claim some kind of fame or significance outside of a single market, is not notable enough to be included here, especially in a non-metropolitan midsize market — even if you can add sources demonstrating that they've been written about in the local newspaper, they're still not notable enough for inclusion here if you can't demonstrate that their notability extends in a meaningful way beyond that one local market.

Your new version of the article, for the record, did not make a stronger claim of notability than the original version did: by your own admission, the text was virtually identical to the previous version, with the only substantive difference being the "references" — and it's not true that "the majority of the new sources are newspaper articles", at least not the ones you actually cited. A few of them were newspaper articles, granted, but many more of them were YouTube videos, blog entries, WikiNews articles, CDUniverse and iTunes profiles and, I kid you not, "Letters from Anthony Wilson-Smith(Editor of Maclean's Magazine) and others, available upon request" — none of which are acceptable sources at all. There's no requirement that our sources be web-accessible, but there is a requirement that they've been actually published by real media — meaning that many of the sources were junk that I had to discount when evaluating whether the article was properly sourced or not. And when I evaluated the valid sources (i.e. the newspaper articles), they failed right across the board to demonstrate that he's actually notable for anything more than being a media personality in one single media market. The claim that he's a bestselling author is still entirely unsourced, and his "notability" as a musician boils down to "he was once in a non-notable band with some other guys who went on to form a new, notable band without him". There's still nothing that would make him encyclopedically notable besides hosting a local radio talk show in a minor media market.

So, in a nutshell, Version 2.0 did not make a more credible case for notability than Version 1.0 did, and did not genuinely resolve any of the original concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Chapman (Canadian) — in fact, to be perfectly frank, the article was dancing perilously close to the edge of being an outright advertisement. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bearcat deleted the second article using their honest judgment. Goodbucket can challenge the deletion at WP:DRV if they wish, but no policy violation or disruptive editing is going on, so we're done here. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 18:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Off-wiki insulting

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

---

I warned User:TPIRFanSteve about adding original research to The Price Is Right (US game show). Not 30 seconds later, he shot me an IM calling me an "idiot" and adding "but we already knew that" — this stems from my sometimes erratic behavior on a game show related forum. I've already reported him to AIM for insults; should anything else be done? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I was once blocked 5 days for calling people "idiots". Hint. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

User notified per ANI policy. DMacks (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's dandy. However, this is an opinion shared by most people in the game show community with whom TenPoundHammer has interacted, and I find it hard to believe he wasn't already aware of it. (And I didn't "shoot him an IM calling him an idiot;" I called him that after he gave me a ridiculous explanation for why he'd reverted something.) That said, I also find any further interaction between the two of us unlikely unless he decides to reply to me on Golden-Road.net. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Still, you called me an idiot off-wiki. That was completely uncalled for. And I hardly find "I looked all over and couldn't find a source" a "ridiculous explanation". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, you're right...that was mean. Maybe we can get it headed somewhere worthwhile now, though. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ball's in YOUR court, Steve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.138.203.181 (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What an idiotic discussion!--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is that most people on Wikipedia aren't members of this other forum, and can only judge the dispute on the grounds of what happens here. Like it or not, TPH is correct on policy grounds that we require a real source which explicitly confirms the disputed information — our core requirement here is verifiability in reliable sources. As well, we also have a principle on here of assuming good faith as much as possible, so it's not really helpful to personalize this by insulting an editor you disagree with, regardless of your personal interactions with them elsewhere, if their edits aren't in violation of our policies. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

But what does any of that (some game forum) have to do with this (our own game forum)? TPH, you will get no admin action here, and you know it. All of you, get back to gaming. Or something. William S. Saturn, you may have hurt the discussion's feelings: I suggest you send them a nice IM. Bearcat, you have a really cool user name. Now let's archive this. Tally-ho! Drmies (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Steve has calmed down, so I agree, let's close this up. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:35, 9 June 2011 (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.

Re: Memon_people

This article is about the Memon people, as part of the article, there is a section on Notable Memons, amongst whom are two terrorists Yakub Memon and Tiger Memon. They are listed because they satisfy WP:Notability, User talk:Kshitij85 has added the brothers and sisters of the terrorists even though they are not notable themselves and notability is not gained by being a sibling of a notable person. They were accessories but not protagonists.

Please take a look at Memon_people

--Tovojolo (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at Memon_people

Here are my references for adding Memon family members on the list. User:Tovojolo knows nothing about the 1993 Bombay bombings case and is arguing unecessarily.

Few references:

• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-02-06/india/28130673_1_bomb-blasts-tada-court-tiger-memon
• http://www.mostwantedhoes.com/asia/indian-terrorists.php
• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2002-05-07/india/27111296_1_tiger-memon-hanifa-memon-medical-grounds
• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/keyword/memon/featured/4
  

(Kshitij85 (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

I do know a lot about it, actually, I said that they were accessories not protagonists, look up. User talk:Kshitij85 can add the details of the Memon family to the article on the actual incident, which is 1993 Bombay bombings or he can start an article on the Memon family but adding all the names, (even though the names of the two notable terrorists are already added) distorts the article as a whole, WP:Undue. The brothers, sisters and wives of the terrorists are not notable by themselves. Notability is not gained by coattail hanging.

He also freely admits that he has multiple accounts, which is sockpuppetry.

--Tovojolo (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Its not my fault, if you don't see the links i provided. Your argument is baseless and you know nothing about the 1993 Bombay bombings case. You don't even know the recent developments and you say you know alot. The whole memon family are criminals as declared by Central Bureau of Investigation. You are going to be banned for vandalism if you continue to revert. (Kshitij85 (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Do either of you understand WP:UNDUE? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You're making threats on an Administrator's board? Your behaviour will be noted by all.--Tovojolo (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You started making threats first if you forgot. (Kshitij85 (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

"S/he started it!" is not a valid defense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I told you not to violate WP:3RR and the consequences that would occur if you did. --Tovojolo (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Memon_people article is about the totality of the history and culture of the Memon people. Within the article, there is a section on Notable Memons, two notable terrorists who are Memons (Tiger Memon, Yakub Memon) are already noted in the article. Other editors have also reverted User talk:Kshitij85's edit as they too realise that the brothers, sisters and wives of the terrorists are not notable in themselves [46].

Any such mention of that family belongs in 1993 Bombay bombings.

It is not a Memon vanity article neither is it a Memon bashing article. It should always be neutral in tone. Skewing the whole article around the behaviour of one family detracts from the Memon people as a whole and is undue.

--Tovojolo (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You cannot read the links i posted here? Click on those links and you will realise. Four of the main accused are absconding Fugitives i.e Tiger, Ayub, Reshma and Shabana Memon. Four have been convicted by the Court i.e. Yakub, Essa, Yusuf Memon have got death sentence and Rubina Memon has got Life Imprisonment. If according to you apart from Tiger, Yakub rest all are "INNOCENT" then how come they have been convicted? They have been convicted because they are Criminals/Terrorists. Apart from that the entire family except for the 4 absconding fugitives have served a sentence in the prison. Just because you have made many edits on the article does'nt make you the owner of the article. And the other editors are supporting you because they are not reading the links. (Kshitij85 (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Emotional outbursts have no place on Wikipedia. Stick to a discussion of Wikipedia's precepts. Do not personalise the debate and remain civil WP:NPA and WP:Civil. Never for one moment have I said that they are innocent, that is a gross distortion. The issue hangs on whether they are notable, the two terrorists (Tiger Memon and Yakub Memon) have their own articles on Wikipedia and indeed are duly noted as terrorists in the Memon_people article, the others, the brothers, sisters, wives even the mother and father lack notability as they were accessories not protagonists. The other editors, who are Wikipedia Admins, disagree with you because they too recognise that those people do not have notability. You do not understand that if you wish to refer to those people then you must do so on 1993 Bombay bombings.

For someone who claims 10,000 edits since 2004 and multiple accounts, you show a lack of understanding of Wikipedia precepts. What are your other sockpuppet account names? --Tovojolo (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The continued addition of non-notable (although possibly convicted/wanted) persons of the family have been removed. The page is right now fully protected (probably the wrong version, of course). Adding non-notable persons certainly adds undue weight to an unfortunate branch of the group, thus skewing the entire article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe the issue is now resolved. Thanks --Tovojolo (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would not go that far: full protection is only for 10 days. Kshitij has also been blocked, but I believe it's temporary, especially considering he admits to having another account. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that Kshitij85 already admits to having a sockpuppet account on their talk page, with intention to use it to circumvent blocks, should we open a sockpuppet investigation? The only reason I haven't done so already is that I have no evidence other than their admission and no idea what the puppet accounts are. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 19:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been told (at SPI, by a checkuser) that as long as there is good reason to believe that a person has sockpuppet accounts, checkusers will consider an investigation even if you don't know what the sock accounts actually are. I think that a disruptive editor who admits to having socks is worth reporting. -- Atama頭 16:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually did open an WP:SPI investigation, but nothing really came of it: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kshitij85. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 02:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User OSX repeatedly removal of content in disregard of Wiki policies and procedures

User OSX has repeatedly made bold blanking, merging or moving of content with complete disregard of Wikipedia policies and recommended procedures even when such bold actions are contested and I seek some disciplinary actions and/or restrictions so this abuse on his part stops for good.

• Fact 1. On June 5, 2011, OSX moved the article Ford Focus BEV despite the "no consensus keep article" result of a discussion closed by me two months ago which was not contested by anybody (see here, and to which OSX actually thank me in my talk (see here). OSX was adviced several times before and after he did the move that the proper thing to do was to open a new discussion. After looking for advice with an admin on how to restore the article without destroying the content of the new article Ford Focus (third generation) (see here), the article was restored by me under Ford Focus Electric, and then OSX engaged in edit waring and blanked it three times [47] [48] [49].
• Fact 2. Also on June 5, 2011, OSX blanked and merge the article Ford Focus RS WRC without first posting any tag or openning a specific discussion for such action. (see here) After this merge was contested and the article restored (see here), OSX engaged in edit waring ([50]) ([51]) ([52]) until the user contesting the merge open a formal merge discussion here which is still open here.
• Context for the two previous facts: Initially, OSX justified these bold actions based on this discussion at the WP:AUTOS talk page here, which actually dealt with re-organizing the family of Ford Focus articles, and I explicity warn about merging the Ford Focus BEV without opening a new merge discussion. As User:Johnfos said overthere: "The re-organization of the Focus articles is fine, except that we have got rid of the Focus Electric article, against the result of the merge discussion. The whole reorganization could have been done without touching the BEV article" A criteria that also applies to the Ford Focus RS WRC. Thereafter, OSX turned the discussion into questioning the results of the two-month old merge discussion, deciding several votes against the merge do not count, establishing a new tally, and concluding that the real result was merge. You can see more at ANI here Why OSX accepted the opening of a merge discussion the Ford Focus RS WRC and why he did not simply open a fresh new discussion about merging the Ford Focus BEV/Electric (as recommended to him several times) just puzzles me?
• Fact 3. This is not the first time he engages in such behavior. On June 12, 2010 merged the Toyota Camry Hybrid (see here) without following a proper specific discussion, and when contested by me, OSX justified such action based on a discussion that took place in another page ([53]) As usual, he engaged in a short edit war ([54]) ([55]) before a formal merge discussion began.
• Fact 4. On December 19, 2010, during a discussion that took place at the WP:AUTOS talk for the mass merger of hybrid/electric and other cars here, I presented this motion to extend the discussion because I was on vacation. OSX blatantly blanked such request as shown here, fortunately, it was restored by an admin.
• Other, OSX has been consistent in having a very aggressive and uncivil attitude against me since the Camry merge discussion, including unsuccessful acussations of canvassing ([56]) and suckpuppetering (here and here), and endless discussion about alleged canvassing, and his wild approach of declaring votes against his position void, but I do not want to detail those for the time being.
• OSX, with the support of a small group of editors at WP:AUTOS have been trying to imposed decisions taking at the project (behind curtains?) to individual articles with disregard of Wiki policies and particularly, notability, and also without proper open discussion in the corresponding article pages that give an opportunity to the editors of those pages to participate. I request the remedy that admins considers best for a case like this, but I would suggest OSX is restricted for a short time to move, merge, rename or blank any article, and particularly those relating to green cars, such as hybrid, plug-in hybrids, and electric cars, where his misconduct and abuses seem to be concentrated. See this example as illustrative of how WP:AUTOS imposes their pre-established conventions as opposed to WP:CONLIMITED, and the difficulties in trying to reach a consensus with this group despite the quality of the arguments, indeed a good example of the tyrany of the majority.--Mariordo (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

without mentioning any specific editors, I have noticed the project does seem to have its private consensus that electric & hybrid models are not separately notable; I think they have gotten a little out of step with the RW, and a broader discussion somewhere might be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC) longer work in the area, for I found a dissenting view was not welcome. I suggest broader discussion is needed.

Re: Memon_people

This article is about the Memon people, as part of the article, there is a section on Notable Memons, amongst whom are two terrorists Yakub Memon and Tiger Memon. They are listed because they satisfy WP:Notability, User talk:Kshitij85 has added the brothers and sisters of the terrorists even though they are not notable themselves and notability is not gained by being a sibling of a notable person. They were accessories but not protagonists.

Please take a look at Memon_people

--Tovojolo (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at Memon_people

Here are my references for adding Memon family members on the list. User:Tovojolo knows nothing about the 1993 Bombay bombings case and is arguing unecessarily.

Few references:

• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-02-06/india/28130673_1_bomb-blasts-tada-court-tiger-memon
• http://www.mostwantedhoes.com/asia/indian-terrorists.php
• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2002-05-07/india/27111296_1_tiger-memon-hanifa-memon-medical-grounds
• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/keyword/memon/featured/4
  

(Kshitij85 (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

I do know a lot about it, actually, I said that they were accessories not protagonists, look up. User talk:Kshitij85 can add the details of the Memon family to the article on the actual incident, which is 1993 Bombay bombings or he can start an article on the Memon family but adding all the names, (even though the names of the two notable terrorists are already added) distorts the article as a whole, WP:Undue. The brothers, sisters and wives of the terrorists are not notable by themselves. Notability is not gained by coattail hanging.

He also freely admits that he has multiple accounts, which is sockpuppetry.

--Tovojolo (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Its not my fault, if you don't see the links i provided. Your argument is baseless and you know nothing about the 1993 Bombay bombings case. You don't even know the recent developments and you say you know alot. The whole memon family are criminals as declared by Central Bureau of Investigation. You are going to be banned for vandalism if you continue to revert. (Kshitij85 (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Do either of you understand WP:UNDUE? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You're making threats on an Administrator's board? Your behaviour will be noted by all.--Tovojolo (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You started making threats first if you forgot. (Kshitij85 (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

"S/he started it!" is not a valid defense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I told you not to violate WP:3RR and the consequences that would occur if you did. --Tovojolo (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Memon_people article is about the totality of the history and culture of the Memon people. Within the article, there is a section on Notable Memons, two notable terrorists who are Memons (Tiger Memon, Yakub Memon) are already noted in the article. Other editors have also reverted User talk:Kshitij85's edit as they too realise that the brothers, sisters and wives of the terrorists are not notable in themselves [57].

Any such mention of that family belongs in 1993 Bombay bombings.

It is not a Memon vanity article neither is it a Memon bashing article. It should always be neutral in tone. Skewing the whole article around the behaviour of one family detracts from the Memon people as a whole and is undue.

--Tovojolo (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You cannot read the links i posted here? Click on those links and you will realise. Four of the main accused are absconding Fugitives i.e Tiger, Ayub, Reshma and Shabana Memon. Four have been convicted by the Court i.e. Yakub, Essa, Yusuf Memon have got death sentence and Rubina Memon has got Life Imprisonment. If according to you apart from Tiger, Yakub rest all are "INNOCENT" then how come they have been convicted? They have been convicted because they are Criminals/Terrorists. Apart from that the entire family except for the 4 absconding fugitives have served a sentence in the prison. Just because you have made many edits on the article does'nt make you the owner of the article. And the other editors are supporting you because they are not reading the links. (Kshitij85 (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

Emotional outbursts have no place on Wikipedia. Stick to a discussion of Wikipedia's precepts. Do not personalise the debate and remain civil WP:NPA and WP:Civil. Never for one moment have I said that they are innocent, that is a gross distortion. The issue hangs on whether they are notable, the two terrorists (Tiger Memon and Yakub Memon) have their own articles on Wikipedia and indeed are duly noted as terrorists in the Memon_people article, the others, the brothers, sisters, wives even the mother and father lack notability as they were accessories not protagonists. The other editors, who are Wikipedia Admins, disagree with you because they too recognise that those people do not have notability. You do not understand that if you wish to refer to those people then you must do so on 1993 Bombay bombings.

For someone who claims 10,000 edits since 2004 and multiple accounts, you show a lack of understanding of Wikipedia precepts. What are your other sockpuppet account names? --Tovojolo (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The continued addition of non-notable (although possibly convicted/wanted) persons of the family have been removed. The page is right now fully protected (probably the wrong version, of course). Adding non-notable persons certainly adds undue weight to an unfortunate branch of the group, thus skewing the entire article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe the issue is now resolved. Thanks --Tovojolo (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would not go that far: full protection is only for 10 days. Kshitij has also been blocked, but I believe it's temporary, especially considering he admits to having another account. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that Kshitij85 already admits to having a sockpuppet account on their talk page, with intention to use it to circumvent blocks, should we open a sockpuppet investigation? The only reason I haven't done so already is that I have no evidence other than their admission and no idea what the puppet accounts are. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 19:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been told (at SPI, by a checkuser) that as long as there is good reason to believe that a person has sockpuppet accounts, checkusers will consider an investigation even if you don't know what the sock accounts actually are. I think that a disruptive editor who admits to having socks is worth reporting. -- Atama頭 16:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually did open an WP:SPI investigation, but nothing really came of it: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kshitij85. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 02:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User OSX repeatedly removal of content in disregard of Wiki policies and procedures

User OSX has repeatedly made bold blanking, merging or moving of content with complete disregard of Wikipedia policies and recommended procedures even when such bold actions are contested and I seek some disciplinary actions and/or restrictions so this abuse on his part stops for good.

• Fact 1. On June 5, 2011, OSX moved the article Ford Focus BEV despite the "no consensus keep article" result of a discussion closed by me two months ago which was not contested by anybody (see here, and to which OSX actually thank me in my talk (see here). OSX was adviced several times before and after he did the move that the proper thing to do was to open a new discussion. After looking for advice with an admin on how to restore the article without destroying the content of the new article Ford Focus (third generation) (see here), the article was restored by me under Ford Focus Electric, and then OSX engaged in edit waring and blanked it three times [58] [59] [60].
• Fact 2. Also on June 5, 2011, OSX blanked and merge the article Ford Focus RS WRC without first posting any tag or openning a specific discussion for such action. (see here) After this merge was contested and the article restored (see here), OSX engaged in edit waring ([61]) ([62]) ([63]) until the user contesting the merge open a formal merge discussion here which is still open here.
• Context for the two previous facts: Initially, OSX justified these bold actions based on this discussion at the WP:AUTOS talk page here, which actually dealt with re-organizing the family of Ford Focus articles, and I explicity warn about merging the Ford Focus BEV without opening a new merge discussion. As User:Johnfos said overthere: "The re-organization of the Focus articles is fine, except that we have got rid of the Focus Electric article, against the result of the merge discussion. The whole reorganization could have been done without touching the BEV article" A criteria that also applies to the Ford Focus RS WRC. Thereafter, OSX turned the discussion into questioning the results of the two-month old merge discussion, deciding several votes against the merge do not count, establishing a new tally, and concluding that the real result was merge. You can see more at ANI here Why OSX accepted the opening of a merge discussion the Ford Focus RS WRC and why he did not simply open a fresh new discussion about merging the Ford Focus BEV/Electric (as recommended to him several times) just puzzles me?
• Fact 3. This is not the first time he engages in such behavior. On June 12, 2010 merged the Toyota Camry Hybrid (see here) without following a proper specific discussion, and when contested by me, OSX justified such action based on a discussion that took place in another page ([64]) As usual, he engaged in a short edit war ([65]) ([66]) before a formal merge discussion began.
• Fact 4. On December 19, 2010, during a discussion that took place at the WP:AUTOS talk for the mass merger of hybrid/electric and other cars here, I presented this motion to extend the discussion because I was on vacation. OSX blatantly blanked such request as shown here, fortunately, it was restored by an admin.
• Other, OSX has been consistent in having a very aggressive and uncivil attitude against me since the Camry merge discussion, including unsuccessful acussations of canvassing ([67]) and suckpuppetering (here and here), and endless discussion about alleged canvassing, and his wild approach of declaring votes against his position void, but I do not want to detail those for the time being.
• OSX, with the support of a small group of editors at WP:AUTOS have been trying to imposed decisions taking at the project (behind curtains?) to individual articles with disregard of Wiki policies and particularly, notability, and also without proper open discussion in the corresponding article pages that give an opportunity to the editors of those pages to participate. I request the remedy that admins considers best for a case like this, but I would suggest OSX is restricted for a short time to move, merge, rename or blank any article, and particularly those relating to green cars, such as hybrid, plug-in hybrids, and electric cars, where his misconduct and abuses seem to be concentrated. See this example as illustrative of how WP:AUTOS imposes their pre-established conventions as opposed to WP:CONLIMITED, and the difficulties in trying to reach a consensus with this group despite the quality of the arguments, indeed a good example of the tyrany of the majority.--Mariordo (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

without mentioning any specific editors, I have noticed the project does seem to have its private consensus that electric & hybrid models are not separately notable; I think they have gotten a little out of step with the RW, and a broader discussion somewhere might be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC) longer work in the area, for I found a dissenting view was not welcome. I suggest broader discussion is needed.

Blatant political disruption and vandalism

Blatant political disruption and vandalism on Josip Broz Tito by a guy warned and bloked in past for a lot of political edit wars! He does not like sources by Tomislav Sunic but even after these sources removing he persists in edit warring! After these:

• [68]
• [69]
• [70]

this is last vandalism

• [71] without souces of Sunic and he removed 14 new valid sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoo7 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• As is rquired when you make a report here - I notified User:DIREKTOR. This looks more like a content dispute or a WP:3RRNB report. Although the edit summary from Direktor in diff89 of "Tomislav Sunić is a neo-fascist" seems a bit opinionated and not a reason for removal of content and on Tomislav Sunić's biography there is no mention of neo fascist. Off2riorob (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

indeed I removed sources of Sunic despite he is not fascist surely! Is DIREKTOR political agitprop?--Lord Sbur (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, non-scholarly authors who do not think black people are members of their own species are excellent sources.

As was explained, the user has completely altered the text of the article in opposition to previous consensus without even a semblance of discussion. Furhermore, his "sources" are a collection of previously rejected political publications and non-scholarly publications - or are entirely misquoted. Its an amazing collection, really, but that is not why the man was being reverted, he was being reverted because he refused to discuss his edits.

The user has now created a sockpuppet, User:Thoo7, apparently to help him edit-war. The user is also very likely a sockpuppet of a banned user himself. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

your fakes are obvious funny! You were reported and blocked in last months for same reasons: political topics! Sunic is not a neo-fascist and

• Merrill
• Dilas
• Dedijer
• Karapandzic
• Bousfield
• Portmann

and N.Y.Times and South Slav journal are not fine sources? You don't have consensus in related discussion too! I inserted only a minor part of accusations!--Lord Sbur (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster that we have vandalism and sockpuppetry going on; however, the identity of the sockmaster/vandal is different from the one suggested by the original poster. I suggest that the original poster read WP:BOOMERANG. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he turned out to be spaghetti sauce. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I also 100% agree with the original poster, most of the sources are from the well-respected authors or influential journals. The user DIREKTOR is pretty politically aligned with South Slav unionists/communists (nothing bad intended about the user, or saying that he actually is a communist, he only sees them in a good light) and I can understand that Tito is a man of a great significance to him, but he shouldn't try to privatize the article about him. He also tries to dismiss valid sources for being "nationalistic", "fascist" or "pro-Ustasha" (Croatian fascist aligned movement) or simply that user tries to show "right wing PoV" , without actually discussing the matter in a kind manner. HeadlessMaster (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring at Columbia University‎

Can an uninvolved admin please look into the recent editing history of Columbia University‎? Multiple editors are edit-warring despite (a) editors recently being blocked for edit-warring and (b) the article recently coming off of semi-protection. It also seems certain that one or more of them are sockpuppets but I'm not quite sure who. I'm also lightly involved in the article so more neutral parties should independently view the history and make judgments as to appropriate action(s). ElKevbo (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi'd for a week, for now. The rest needs a checkuser. T. Canens (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What constitutes a consensus?

Myself and others are having an issue with a group of users going against an overwhelming consensus of seven to two here. The discussion pertains to the Ford Focus (third generation) article and the placement of the electric version's content.

The issue started in January 2011 when an original merger discussion was sabotaged by the opposers of the merger, who emailed editors of pro-electric car websites to canvass additional votes. The websites and articles that I have been able to track down are: this Autoblog Green article and this one at Miss Electric, which urge readers to come to Wikipedia and vote down the proposal. There could be many more of these articles, but I could only locate two.

The original merger discussion can be found here. It resulted in four opposers to the merge and seven supports when the votes suddenly gained on January 19 by IPs are removed for reasons of fairness and maintaining the credibility on the consensus-building process (January 19 was the same day the external articles were published). For the Ford Focus, three IP editors and one single purpose account opposed the mergers and were never to be seen again after that. Now for small scale merger discussions that usually result in less than ten editors participating, a 7:4 result would usually result in an outcome favouring the majority. However, one of the opposers of the merger closed the discussion with a "no consensus" because he included the canvassed votes. To me, it is only logical to exclude such votes as they were deviously recruited to sway the result of the discussion. The opposers seem to think otherwise.

So in addition to the original 7:4 discussion in January, the current discussion has resulted in 7:2 in favour of the merger. The two opposers were the same people that opposed last time, yet we have gained four additional supporters pushing the consensus up to eleven to four.

The help of an administrator to set things straight would be much appreciated. Kind regards, and thanks in advance. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds more like a WP:CANVASS problem than anything else. See also WP:False consensus for what ArbCom has said - an admin should likely restart the dsussion barring anyone who was non-neutrally CANVASSed. Collect (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. As the new discussion has fortunately not been subject to external canvassing, may its result be used? The current dialogue can be viewed here and currently has two users opposed and seven in support. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I will expand later today, but OSX is misleading this discussion. The merge discussion was formally discussed here and the result was keep so moving/merging the Ford Focus BEV article is disrespectful of that decision. I explained several times now to OSX that new discussion needs to be opened first and follow the rules of such discussion. Furthermore, OSX complaint is really weird, because he could have contested my closing, which he did not, and actually he thank me for closing the merging discussions in my talk here. Anyway, once a formal discussion is closed you can always question the result but you need to open a new discussion, which he refuses to do and instead went on voiding votes from the closed discussion and interpreting that the discussion result was merge (as he explains above). I would expand later and provide diffs to show that based on these facts OSX went on a rampage moving and blanking articles, engaged in edit waring and this is not the first time he does so in complete disregard of wikipedia policies and proper procedures, and I will request disciplinary measures against him.--Mariordo (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Mariordo is correct. OSX acknowledged the "Keep" result of the formal discussion on the Ford Focus Electric article. He then tried to create a "stealth" discussion, without posting a notice of this discussion on the Ford Focus Electric article, at a Wikilocation that he knew to be frequented by those who support his position, Wikiproject Automobiles. If anyone is guilty of canvassing here, it is OSX. His approach seems to be to keep holding discussions on a matter, without notifying opponents of his position that such discussions are occurring, until one such discussion goes in his favor. He then uses the results of that solitary discussion as an excuse to remove content that consensus has deemed should be kept. It is also clear that he opened this ANI in response to Mariordo's statements that he planned to open an ANI on OSX in response to his deleting Ford Focus Electric. Note that OSX has started an edit war on this article at this point. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Both discussions appear to have taken place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, but you say that the second one was somehow "stealthy". Was the first one more widely advertised than the second? Can you demonstrate where this happened? Otherwise elaborate on what you mean by "stealthy". Larry V (talk | e-mail) 17:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You ask, "Was the first one more widely advertised than the second?" Yes, absolutely. There was a notice posted at the Ford Focus Electric page pointing editors to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Unfortunately, when OSX moved the Focus Electric article, the article history was deleted, so I cannot show you a diff. Also, keep in mind that the official discussion was left open for months before the "Keep" decision was rendered and posted. Thanks for your help in this matter. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is misleadingly titled, as it started off when someone else brought up the datedness of the Focus articles and morphed into the argument in question, which OSX seems to take as gospel consensus. For such a contentious topic, I would suggest a new proper poll, notifying as many people as possible first. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 18:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, and it is important. Keep in mind that the discussion that OSX points to as justification for deleting the Focus Electric article did not include Focus Electric in its original scope. It was about the Focus article in general. OSX's assertion that it constitutes a definitive judgment on whether or not to merge the Focus Electric article is underhanded, to put it kindly. However, I am concerned by the suggestion that we should simply start a new poll, when a well-publicized poll that was open for several months and involved 14 separate editors resulted in a "Keep" decision when it was closed two months ago. The results of that decision are still "brand new" and there is no compelling reason to debate that matter all over again so soon. This is especially true given OSX's historical tendency to keep holding polls on issues until one of them goes his way. We should let the "Keep" judgment stand until there is a valid reason to revisit the matter to see if editor consensus has changed. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• People seem to be ignoring the fact that there was clear canvassing involved in the two blogs linked by OSX above. So, who was this anonymous tipster involved? Mariordo or Ebikeguy, perhaps? Or maybe someone else? Either way, it is quite clear that canvassing was involved and the extra votes in the polls that seemed to result from this canvassing should obviously be thrown out. Silverseren^C 20:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

All such concerns were addressed in the discussion before it was closed with a judgment to "Keep." OSX acknowledged the keep verdict and thanked Mariordo for closing the discussion on Mariordo's talk page. The issue was debated for months before the "Keep" decision was rendered. There is no reason to reopen the debate here. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So, if they were addressed, then clearly the blogs were brought up and canvassing votes were crossed out in this past discussion, correct? Link, please. Silverseren^C 22:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note that OSX is just muddling the discussion. The alledged canvassing and GreenAutoblog affair already had ANI discussions,here and[72], and this discussions took place with participation of several admins and well before the closing of the merger discussion. Also, OSX had previously accused me of canvassing, since he has a particular interpretation of what canvassing is and is not (See[73] this unsuccessful attempt and his disrespect to the admin because the conclusion was not what he expected).

Again, the merge discussion was formally discussed[74] and the result was keep so moving/merging the Ford Focus BEV article was disrespectful of that decision. I explained several times now to OSX that new discussion needs to be opened first and follow the rules of such discussion. Furthermore, OSX complaint is really weird, because he could have contested my closing, which he did not, and actually he thank me for closing the merging discussions in my talkhere. Also note that[75] he tries to justify his mistake in moving the Focus BEV article, and reopens the closed discussion, selecting which votes to discard and making a brand new tally. And after I told him why he was doing so if he has agreed with the closed discussion, this is his reply. So this discussion it is not about canvassing at all. I will open a separate ANI regarding OSX misbehavior, which is the real issue he is trying to hide, and as I will show, this is not the first time he goes around blanking, merging or moving articles without following the proper steps and then engaging in edit waring.--Mariordo (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that ANI discussion. I remember being involved in that. Both in that discussion and at the SPI, multiple users stated that the canvassing was an extreme problem. I'm a bit sad that it seems that it wasn't taken into account when the merge discussions were closed.

However, I think those old discussions and this one has shown that OSX, Ebikeguy, and yourself have a few behavioral problems between each other that you need to work out and all of you have been acting inappropriately. Silverseren^C 23:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing another, proper discussion as to whether or not the Focus Electric should be on a page all its own. Hopefully we can avoid the troublesome canvassing this time around.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A look at the old discussion (and new)

Here is the old vote about whether the BEV should be merged or not. If you look at the votes, you'll quickly see a number of red-linked names and IP addresses that were clearly canvassed votes due to the blogs mentioned up above. With those thrown out, it easy to see that the ball falls on the support merge side, if ever so slightly. Then, Mariordo cut short the discussion, saying that a new discussion should be had along the lines of the organizational method that OSX proposed. He seems to have done this unilaterally, but since it was to have a more common consensus, I suppose that is alright.

Jump forward to the current discussion. Mariordo first supported the organization that OSX was proposing, but quickly back-pedaled once it was explained that this would involved merging the Ford Focus BEV. He then stated that a new merge discussion would have to be opened in order to merge it, since otherwise one would be "blatantly bypassing the result of a formal discussion that resulted in keeping the article". This is in regards to the old discussion in the first paragraph that included canvassed users and was closed by Mariordo himself in support of OSX's proposal.

The majority of the users in the new discussion then supported the proposal of OSX's and the merging of the BEV article into the "third generation" article. Mariordo then unilaterally re-created the BEV article on his own, against consensus, stating that there was no merge consensus.

I think you can all see the issue here and the issue is not with OSX. Silverseren^C 09:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Silver, you have dramatically misrepresented the chain of events in at least two instances:

1. Your write, "Mariordo cut short the discussion..." The discussion was opened from January through most of April. How is closing it at that point "cutting it short?"

2. You write, "...the old discussion in the first paragraph that included canvassed users and was closed by Mariordo himself in support of OSX's proposal." OSX and his proposals had NOTHING to do with Mariordo's closing of the original discussion. Mariordo closed it in response to the input of the editors who participated in the voting.

Also, even if you discount the votes that you and OSX feel are not up to your standards, you still admit "the ball falls on the support merge side, if ever so slightly." Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. Even if you choose not to count the votes of newer editors, which is an invalid decision on your part, an "ever so slight" majority of editors who favor you position does not constitute a consensus. Mariordo closed the discussion as "Keep - No Consensus," which was the right call.

Finally, your unsupported references to the "personal problems" of various editors constitute personal attacks and are not appropriate. Please redact them immediately.

Please stop misrepresenting the facts of this case and obscuring what actually happened. Also, cease engaging in personal attacks. Resorting to these tactics may support your position in the short term, but doing so will weaken your credibility in the long haul. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Silverseren, you are getting the facts all wrong, please read carefully the diffs provided in chronological order. The discussion was open for months (actually 3 months ) and an admin was requested to close it, but nobody showed up. When I closed nobody contested it, and OSX decided to change his mind two months later. Also regarding the reorganization, please show the diffs demonstrating that the BEV merge or the Ford Focus RS WRC were explicitly included in the reorganization, there is none. And I actually and always supported the re-organization always making the caveat that the BEV needed a new merge discussion. After he did the move/merge and I contested it, a couple of editors said they supported the merge, and another (not me) said the merge was not included. This after talk can not be considered a discussion for a merger that already took place. I did not reverse OSX immediately, but 3 days after before I look for an admin to do it, and he recommended the copy and paste approach. Check the diffs. Also see the ongoing discussion in the Ford Focus Electric talk here. As for the real context, see [76], which is not related to any specific article. You tell me why OSX did not chose to just open a new merge discussion, as has been suggested several times, it just puzzles me, and why after he agreed, he is contesting a two-month old closed discussion, I just don't know.--Mariordo (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note that Silver's opening of this subsection comes as a direct result of OSX's inappropriate canvassing with regards to this discussion. After Silver expressed initial support for OSX's position, OSX posted this clearly biased note on Silver's talk page. Within minutes, Silver opened this subsection. This canvassing is especially ironic in light of OSX's repeated allegations that Mariordo engages in inappropriate canvassing. Note that each time such accusations have come to ANI, they have been dismissed and Mariordo has been found blameless. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's assume the old discussion was tainted by canvassed votes. When Mariordo closed it after several months, no one objected, including OSX. It was perfectly reasonable to assume that everyone was (for the most part) happy with it. Fast forward to today, in which OSX unilaterally decided that that old discussion was invalid and took a straw poll of opinions in the new discussion that, at first glance, has very little to do with moving the BEV article. Even if OSX is completely correct in saying that the old decision was tainted and should be redone, talking about it in an unrelated discussion is a pretty sneaky way of rectifying the situation. If they've really come around to think that the old discussion was tainted (which is not unreasonable; it's okay to change your mind), they should redo it properly by holding a discussion that is clearly about the move and by posting a notice on Talk:Ford Focus Electric and other appropriate talk pages to inform people who might be interested. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 18:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

DeborahsSong

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

Could an admin please have a look at this user's edits to the Michael Scheuer BLP. This is typical. It's been going on for a while and it's puzzling. I tried to make contact with them on their talk page at the end of May but they didn't respond. Not quite sure what to make of it all but I think some kind of admin action is required given that it's a BLP and there appear to be all sorts of BLP violations, oddly not of the article's subject. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've left a warning on their talk page; if they continue to disruptively edit the article, they're probably eligible for a block. They might even be eligible right now. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 19:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

..or possibly a TV mini-series, hard to tell. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Perpetual Mediation freezing an article in place for 14 months

This nonsense has imo gone far enough. I'd like to bring up the issue of the perpetual RfM on the Draža Mihailović article. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic was started on 6 April 2010, exactly 14 months ago. While I will not here go into the reasons behind the length of the mediation, its failure is, in my opinion - self-evident. The mediation is incapable of drawing any conclusions or of any dispute resolution. Its only product was an article draft written by one user - unfortunately since no agreement whatsoever has been reached on the actual dispute, this draft has virtually nothing to do with mediation, and will certainly not solve any disagreement (which is already all too obvious). While I am sure users will claim that the mediation is "nearing its end", I must point out that this is what was repeatedly claimed several times months ago. And indeed, even were the mediation closed right now perforce, it still would not solve anything, and will have failed anyway.
It is hard to express how utterly useless and pointless the mediation really is: the actual dispute is not even being discussed, and actively avoiding the main issues (the "difficult areas") is the actual policy of the mediator(!)

Realizing that I might well finish medical school before the mediation makes even the most insignificant progress, I withdrew months ago, did the research, gathered the sources, and expanded the article lead with a carefully referenced lead paragraph (see the second paragraph in the lead and its sources, here). I must emphasize that every word of the text in question has been referenced with secondary sources of the highest quality (university publications), and its veracity is essentially beyond any serious dispute. Now, however, the paragraph is being continuously removed by the admin User:Sunray, solely on the grounds of "No major changes until the mediation is completed." [77].

Now, reading WP:M I struggle to find where exactly is it explained how an RfM and its mediator, are empowered to edit-war and remove any changes at will, without any coherent explanation, sources, or even a talkpage post? And even if this is the mediator's perrogative (which I am certain it is not), since the mediation started the article in question has been edited beyond recognition - and only the recent edit, the addition of a single paragraph, is being subjected to double standards and apparantly constitutes "major changes". The edit is now essentially being edit-warred out of the article by the mediator.

Could it be that an RfM has the authority to effectively freeze an article in place for no less that 14 months, and is it possible that the mediator gets to pick and choose which edits (by non-involved editors) are "allowed" in the article. This feels to me like I'm being bullied. In any case, more admin attention is undoubtedly required on the recent happenings in that damnable article.

(P.S. Bear in mind User:FkpCascais, my "arch-nemesis", is likely to stalk me over here and attempt to disrupt this discussion.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• First, the mediation has found much difficulties, correct, however every offer of discussion assistance has been provided to you by the mediator (User:Sunray) who has been more patient with you than with anyone else. Even so, you rejected participating further in the mediation. The mediation is actually coming to a closure. Is that the reson of some aprehension on your side? Anyway, I don´t see any reason whatsoever for you to proclaim unilateraly the mediation as a failure.
• Second, it is important to remind all here that the version "frouzen" was actually the one that you mostly edited, and that was so much disputed by the side against you (should we go to the edit history to check it?). Is all this recent panic actually because you are about to see "your" version replaced by the mediated one?
• Third, all mediation participants (including you) agreed that during the time of the mediation duration, no major changes were to be done on the articles in place. As I remember you so enthusistically reverted every single user on that article that made edits you disliked (even sourced and correct). Now, for some strange reason you find yourself with the unique right to edit it. Wrong. Clear WP:OWN.
• Fourth, you actually edit warred on the main mediated article the mediator itself!
• Fifth, you got me sanctioned recently [78], without a notice about the report (something you often do), and where you manipulated so much the administrator that he didn´t even noteced that you broked the 3RR: [[79]]. I really hope someone corrects this situation.
• Sixth, you give up mediation, and you try to push the precise diputed edits which you refuse to discuss under mediation. Either you discuss them under mediation, either they are disruption and POV pushing. Other users refrained to edit the articles until the discussion is complete, so should you. You even tryied to convence me (!?) to leave the mediation [80]
• Seventh, it is incredible to notece how you are even unaware that you fail under BRD on the edit war you are doing against the mediator. You push the dit, you are revrted, and you edit war and ask Sunray to discuss?

Here is just another exemple of your recent behavior: revert with prejurative edit summary, and the discussion afterwords. Similar or identical pattern is seen everywhere DIREKTOR has a dispute, however he just slowed down in this case because he is counting on Timbouctou for support in some other edits, so he just backed down. However, this is a tipical exemple of blatant disruption where, without that users intervention, DIREKTOR would have created nonsensical eternal discussions making all possible (and impossible) claims, allways reverting to his version.

Resumingly, he leaves mediation that actually started because of his edits, he edit wars everyone who oposes him including the mediator, he blatantly missinforms admins on reports including failing to provide noteces (me and Sunray previous reports are clear exemples), and he refuses to put his edits trough mediation, beside the fact that he clearly disrupts the mediation. I mean, what else? FkpCascais (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hm, well the "No major changes until the mediation is completed" edit summary was a bit of a joke (not the funny kind), as I quite frankly don't see much mediating going on. A 14-month mediation would be kind of absurd even it was an active discussion, but it appears that that page has only seen minor fits and starts in the time period. 3 of the 8 parties are inactive, a 4th has withdrawn, IMO it is time to mark the mediation as failed and move on. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • To be clear, this is not a complaint against User:Sunray specifically. In my opinion the mediation was focusing too much on user agreement and too little on the facts and sources, as I pointed out several times: one cannot solve a factual dispute without promoting a careful adherence to references. I do not doubt, however, that Sunray's actions were in good faith, and his commitment to this issue is beyond admiration. I guess it is possible to be "too good" of a Wikipedian to solve a dispute, however. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• The Mediation Committee is considering this complaint, and will respond when we reach a consensus. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 14:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the admin User:Sunray is still edit-warring to remove the paragraph [81], this time with no stated reason (as opposed to "no major changes until the mediation is completed"). The text in question is sourced completely and in detail. It is the result of literally months of work on my part: I researched the matter, found the sources, and inserted the information quoted almost verbatim from high-quality references. Now it is being removed for no reason; I cannot imagine what has posessed Sunray. I invite anyone to check the sources (the second lead paragraph). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, missinforming. The main problem is not your source (you repetitively use just 2 sources that favour your POV and ignore all the others), but it is a matter of WP:UNDUE. You are refusing to go trough a mediated discussion where that can be solved. A non-mediated discussion with you has been prooven as useless every time in the past. Only a mediated discussion can solve this. The situation is crystal clear. FkpCascais (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I am using two sources, among the best ones available, which is more than enough. One source is enough. There are no "other sources" I am ignoring, because most other sources agree with the two, and NO other sources disagree. Your acting as though there are these mysterious "other sources" which support you is getting rather ridiculous. You have been asked time and time again to post anything, anything at all. You just keep acting. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't usually comment at ANI during a mediation, but since DIREKTOR left the mediation following his topic ban and is now making many accusations, I will clarify one point: I do not edit war. I did restore the stable version of the article (reverting DIREKTOR's major addition). The tags on the article clearly caution editors as follows: "Before making substantial changes, please verify on the case page that your edit does not relate to the dispute being mediated." DIREKTOR'S addition did relate to the issues under mediation and he did not discuss it. An edit war seemed to be brewing over this, so the article has now been locked. Sunray (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you must certainly be aware that such a moratorium has no basis in policy, and there is no way you can enforce it from on high if it's not kept voluntarily. You were edit-warring, and went right to 3R. One more, and 3RR would have been held against you, just like with any other editor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As a personal comment, I have to agree with Future Perfect that it was unseemly for Sunray to try to enforce the parameters of a formal mediation case by reversion. Formal mediation is never binding, and members of the Mediation Committee have almost no authority to force the parties to a case to respect any consensus, or even to abstain from editing the article pending discussion or an agreement. I do understand why Sunray reverted Direktor today. The edits by Direktor were grossly disruptive, because consensus for or against his view is very plainly still being formed, and to jump the gun by revert-warring is unprofessional. But I cannot condone the actions of anybody concerned here, and confess myself somewhat disappointed. On a practical note, I have protected the article indefinitely, pending some kind of consensus being reached, because I do not imagine that this kind of behaviour will not be repeated. I think the best way forward now would be for the mediator and all the parties to return, calmly, to the mediation page and pick up where they left off. AGK [•] 18:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• This comment, unlike my own one immediately above, is made in my capacity as the Chairman and representative of the Mediation Committee. We are disappointed that Direktor has vacated the mediation proceedings, and is re-entering the disputed material into the article. The purpose of mediation is to resolve disputes about article content, where discussion and other dispute resolution has failed. We remind Direktor that, although he is not obliged to participate in mediation, he is required by site policy to discuss all contested changes. Mediation is an effective form of dispute resolution if the parties engage in the proceedings with professionalism and an openness to compromise, and Direktor is invited to resume his participation in the case. But if Direktor is opposed to mediation, then he invariably must find some other way to establish a consensus in support of his changes.

  In relation to Direktor's complaint about the mediation proceedings being unsatisfactory, the Committee has examined the progress of the mediation proceedings, and finds that it is satisfactory. Progress on the case has admittedly been slow, but that is to be expected with a dispute as complex as the one in question. We note that, thanks to the professional approach of most of the involved parties and the patient, structured approach of Sunray, the mediator, there has been a substantial degree of progress made so far. A re-write of the article is being finalised on the case talk page, which is an enormous achievement in itself. Furthermore, the re-write will be put to the community in a request for comments in the near future, which would be a still greater achievement. It would be more helpful if Direktor were to engage in those commendable efforts, than unilaterally continuing to edit war, but it is ultimately his choice. On behalf of the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 19:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Having read the entire mediation I would agree. Although it is irritating that it is taking so long to post the mediated article, we are all volunteers and the pparticipants have indeed accomplished a great deal in this vexed and difficult area. After the mediated version is posted - ongoing issues can be discussed on the talkpage - hopefully in a structured way and to some purpose. It was entirely DIREKTORS choice not to continue to participate in the mediation.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In this case, mediation has failed; the only other option is Arbitration, at which point, given the evidence presented by all parties, it would then be up to the Arbitration Committee to take the necessary actions, usually in the form of sanctions, topic bans, and even sitebans. –MuZemike 20:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As an involved party, and new to mediation procedures (although I appear to have picked a doozy for my first time out), would it be appropriate once we can return to the article to farm out some of the issues to other noticeboards, such as RSN and WQA, rather than pursuing the matter with ARBCOM? I confess I'm not hopeful regardless of venue, and simply curious about the best course to follow here. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Tricky. I would hope that once the new article is posted - those involved will take part in talkpage discussions rather than avoiding it as has been the case for a long time now. There are already ARBMAC discretionary sanctions available for disruptive behaviour. Certainly RSN can be used but the problem is often not so much RS but WP:UNDUE and a fair representation of sourced material.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll make my closing comments, if I may.

• Firstly, this is not a complaint against the mediation itself. And not that I disapprove nesessarily, but I myself was very much surprised when the mediation page was blanked. The purpose of this thread was (originally) to inquire as to whether it is a mediator's perrogative to freeze the article and revert article edits of his own choice during the course of an RfM.
• Secondly, even though the article draft is often being cited as some sort of "progress", I must once again point out that it does absolutely nothing to solve any of the disputes the mediation attempted to solve, and as is already the case - nobody opposes the draft, and yet the disputes still continue strong as ever. This is simply because no agreements of any sort have been reached, and the only thing the draft may in fact do, is improve the quality of the non-controversial segments of the article. With that in mind, I fail to see how the draft could not have been written (by essentially one user, as was the case) - without an RfM altogether. Its an admirable piece of work, to be sure, but it does not do anything at all towards settling the conflict. I have frequently appealed to the mediator to center on the very simple question that is the core dispute here.
• Thirdly, the reasoning behind my departure from the RfM was not that it was making slow progress, it is simply that no progress was being made. At all. And this as a result, partly, of the policies of the mediator. As I said, upon my urging to concentrate on solving the actual dispute, the mediator simply urged me to join in writing the article, while avoiding the "difficult areas". Understanding that the draft is not really helping, and that it is impossible to start a real discussion on the main issue, I left. Having invested a year of effort into this, I assure you AGK, I feel no lesser disappointment that you fine gentlemen.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Take this to arbcom

AN/I is ill suited to the resolution of this sort of deadlock. Since there's already been a mediation, for 14 months, and the article is under indefinite full protection, the case is ripe for examination by arbcom. Please post a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, and discontinue this thread. Thank you. Chester Markel (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a lot of faith in mediation (I'm listed among the mediators emeriti after all) but sometimes it doesn't work, and it should go to arbitration. I think this is one of those cases. -- Atama頭 18:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup this is ripe for WP:ARBCOM. Ship it over there and let's see if the application of some concentrated power can grease the wheels. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold on folks. This mediation is not deadlocked. Participants have been working on a draft re-write of the article. It has been slow going and there were many disruptions. However, the task is 95% completed. The plan is to move the new draft into the article and discuss it on the article talk page. This has been agreed to by participants. There is nothing to take to arbitration right now, although it may have seemed that way from come of the comments above. (That is sometimes the case when mediation participants bring things to ANI). Sunray (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the mediation can succeed in stabilizing the article (I'm a participant), but right now we're stuck until this discussion here is closed. My feeling is the best way forward is to close this, restore the mediation pages (assuming that is appropriate), and see how it goes. If things go badly, I'm willing to write up an arbcom proposal, I figure in for a penny....--Nuujinn (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"Prince Joel"

Numerous admins' efforts have so far failed to stop the endless recreation of the "Prince Joel I of Leogane" articles, under a variety of titles (see, for example, Prince Joél I, Prince Joél I of Léogâne, Prince Joél I of Leogane, and many, many more), from a wide range of different accounts. I've now added three regexps to the title blacklist in an attempt to reduce this editor's room for maneuver. If this is not enough, it will probably be time to create an edit filter entry, and/or to start considering rangeblocks of the underlying IPs. -- The Anome (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This guy's still at it? Sigh... See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FloridaFinest/Archive for a recent related SPI investigation. Besides the articles, there were a number of related files and categories that had to be deleted as well. Singularity42 (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And still maintaining a collection of flag images, etc. for these articles on Wikimedia Commons, too. See commons:File:Prince-au-Léogâne (FLAG).JPG, and commons:File:Executive Government Council (Flag).JPG. -- The Anome (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Holy moly. The torture never stops. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty much all coming from 76.109.44.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It was blocked for 72 hours due to the above sockpuppetry. It's back at it again. The new socks are getting blocked, but the IP won't stop. Singularity42 (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And it looks like Cirt has blocked identified a whole nest of socks with this one. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince-au-Léogâne, the other case page should get merged into that one. I left a note at WT:SPI about the merge request. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: All socks were  Confirmed, no new ones uncovered. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Targeting/Hounding

Since Feb. of 2010 I have been contributing to the various US presidents and American history pages. Often times I add images of U.S. postage to president's articles, usually in a legacy or memorial section near the end of the page, as all U.S. presidents are honored on U.S. postage after they pass away. Most of the time the images are well received and, other than concerns for image size or location, very rarely garner any complaints -- until just recently. On the Abraham Lincoln page I had several Lincoln stamp images, placed in various sections. When the Lincoln page was submitted for a FA review there was a concern for 'too many' stamp images. A couple were removed accordingly but one editor User:Carmarg4 later decided to remove every one of them, right in the midst of discussion. I restored the image and it was removed again. When I attempted to restore it again, it was again removed. To avoid an edit war I of course did not restore the stamp image for a third time in a row (3 Revert rule) and instead attempted to discuss the matter, but to no avail. I made a call for consensus to see if others wanted the stamp included. Many did however many did not, usually out of concern for space/crowding. In the process of discussion and gathering consensus I was subjected to ridicule and jeering (... As ole' Roy would say, Happy Trails... by this editor on the Lincoln discussion page. Since then User:Carmarg4 has been seeking out my edits/contributions and removing them, with no discussion. After making deletions on the Lincoln page he went to the Franklin D. Roosevelt page and removed my contribution there. Just recently he went to three different presidents pages (James A. Garfield, James Buchanan, John F. Kennedy) and inside a ten minute period, singled out my contributions and removed them with the same explanation in the edit summary -- for all three. "image removed - lacks noteworthiness" which is an opinion at best. When a president is honored on U.S. postage, especially for the first time, it is indeed a noteworthy and often a historical event, involving the Postmaster General (a presidential cabinet member) and Congressional debate. This editor is clearly acting out of personal bias and is now hounding/targeting my contributions. His activity is exceptional and peculiar, which I fail to understand, as this only involves image placement/inclusion and my tone and approach was always civil. All I ask is that the matter be brought to his attention and that he stop the systematic deletion of the contributions I have been making for the last year and a half. As I said, I have made many attempts at discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

Please note that Gwillhickers is the subject of an RfC, which may be a more appropriate forum for discussing this dispute. --Coemgenus 12:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this issue concerns another user and his disruptive activity. Coemgenus is attempting to infer some sort of guilt simply by mentioning the issue on RfC page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

When you bring up an issue here, your behavior also comes under scrutiny. You don't get to drive the agenda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Imply", not "infer". And I was just trying to keep the discussion in one place. --Coemgenus 20:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the rules have changed, but it was my understanding that US postage stamps are copyrighted and cannot be used freely like most other works of the U.S. government can. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

See above referenced RfC on Gwillhickers. The removal of the images has been made in a good faith effort to improve these important articles, where inherent space limitations impose a degree of noteworthiness. There is no extant consensus in any of the articles in favor of the use of these images, which accurately reflects the nonuse of these images by the vast majority of the reliable presidents' biographical sources. A consensus has long ago been reached at Lincoln against the use of the images in question. My focus on the inappropriate use of these images has been limited to those articles to which I am a major contributor. Carmarg4 (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Space limitations may have been a concern in one or two of the sections on the Abraham Lincoln page but does not explain Carmarg4's recent activity where he/she is clearly targeting stamp images out of personal scorn, as is evidenced by his/her unprovoked harassment and jeering on the Abraham Lincoln discussion page and by his/her systematic removal of 'my' contributions., i.e.images that have existed on the given pages for a long time with no issues. Carmarg4's last three deletions occurred inside a ten minute period, on three different pages, (James A. Garfield, James Buchanan, John F. Kennedy) and did not involve space limitations. His/her 'reason' for removal was "image removed - lacks noteworthiness". Now he/she comes to this page with a different story. This is just a sample of the less than ethical treatment I have been subjected to over the last couple of weeks -- all over an image placed near the end of the page. There is also an Ownership of articles issue emerging here as user Carmarg has routinely made many changes with no discussion. While we appreciate Carmarg's large contributions he/she seems to think this allows one to treat the page as their own personal sketch pad. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Latest development -- User:Carmarg4 has just repeated the three reverts he made on June 8th offering no more than an opinion "trivial" for the removal of three good faith contributions. While Carmarg4 makes vague reference to WP guidelines for this second revert he/she failed to cite any actual guidelines or policy that justifies the removal of the images in question. Given his/her harassment and personal jeering on the Lincoln discussion page, and the fact that this user is singling out my edits in such a systematic fashion, for the second time, it should be clear that this editor is acting out of personal scorn, with no regard for WP policy, and is now in the process of trying to provoke an edit war. Carmarg4 is again in violation of WP guidelines by resorting to such tactics.

i.e.Wikipedia:Reverting: -- If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change.

Also, and again, there is an Ownership of articles issue, as this editor is obviously behaving in a manner that suggests he/she owns the pages in question. Discussion has failed with this editor and now I am trying to resolve this through proper channels, yet Carmarg4 continues to make these highly provocative reverts regardless without citing any policy violations. Administrative intervention is urgently needed here. Please help to resolve this calamity asap. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Carmarg's above statement -- "My focus on the inappropriate use of these images has been limited to those articles to which I am a major contributor." -- is not at all true. Carmarg4 is not the major (or even a big) contributor on the Kennedy, Buchanan and Garfield pages and is apparently trying to disguise his/her real motivations, which have become clearly personal. This time Carmarg4 says he/she removed the images because they are "trivial", yet Carmarg4 did not remove the image of the Buchanan coin on that page. On the Garfield page there is an image of a stone marker, donated in 1955, located at Garfield's Lawnfield estate. This is most certainly a trivial item, not even made/authorized by the US Gov. Again, Carmarg4 has targeted only my contributions on these pages and elsewhere. That he could make such a patently false statement more than suggests he has little regard for honesty in this matter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What about the copyright issue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, U.S. stamps prior to 1978 are public domain, as per Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Which then raises a different question: If the images are free, what's the issue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

18 USC 504 applies. As long as anti-counterfeiting laws are followed, designs can be reproduced. From PublicDomainSherpa.com: "Black and white reproductions of uncanceled US postage stamps are permissible in any size. Color reproductions of uncanceled US postage stamps must be less than 75% smaller or more than 150% larger than the size of the original stamp. Canceled US postage stamps may be of any size, whether the reproduction is in color or black and white."

How do I see this as applying to the topic at hand? If it were up to me, I'd restrict use of images of uncanceled stamps on Wikipedia, since images can be enlarged or shrunk on browsers at the whim of the user. That leaves using images of canceled stamps, which in this particular usage would be counterproductive. So my summary impression is that pictures of stamps should NOT be used for Presidential portraits. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a different issue entirely. Images of uncancelled stamps have existed on Wikipedia long before I came along, and as far as I know, there have been no issues involving images of uncancelled postage stamps. It seems if this were indeed an issue, Wikipedia would have forbidden the use of such images a long time ago. I appreciate the concern, but this issue is complicated enough without introducing ideas that Wikipedia has fully endorsed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Other-stuff-exists is not a valid defense. Now, what's this stuff about "illegal" deletions?[82] How do you figure that the law comes into play here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Would they be acceptable for a separate article that's specifically about U.S. Presidents appearing on postage stamps? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In that instance, I'd say to allow images of canceled stamps. I see nothing in 18 USC 504 that would preclude such use. Disclaimer: IANAA. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You Are Not An Alan? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks better than IANAL, and has less chance of triggering the edit filters. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The USPS does not generally object to low def images - indeed they use them on their own site. Some countries use a perfunctory "diagonal line" in one corner to meet their own copyright rules. This meets all the requirements, though, in point of fact, I know of no images which the USPS has objected to which were on the order of 200dpi scans. Current stamps (that is, after the formation of USPS) are copyrighted, and should be noted as such if shown uncancelled. Collect (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In my view, Gwillhicker is exhibiting the same type of behavior here which is the focus in part of the RfC referenced above. The fact that my focus is upon articles I have worked on (and not a personal focus on Gwillhickers) is now used to assert my acting as an "owner" of the articles. There is no record of my ever having taken this perspective and the fact is I have not. A consensus was reached and reaffirmed on the Lincoln page concerning the indiscriminate use of the images at issue. I have raised the issue on each of the talk pages where I have removed the images, if that ground needs to be covered again for each article. (Note also that Gwillhicker's statement that I have not been a significant contributor at Kennedy, Garfield and Buchanan is contradicted by the data. This is symptomatic of Gwillhicker's methods.) Carmarg4 (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

User adds repetedly false information

Hi, I am not sure if this is the correct message board to post my question. I have already asked the question at the help desk / page, but I did not receive a satisfactory answer.

The user / editor 71.172.40.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adds unverifiable and false information to articles. He or she adds lines related to fairy tales that do not exist to articles. The edits are somewhat disruptive.

Examples of false information that does not exist in televison series: [83] [84] [85] [86]

Where do I go to report this behavior? I don't think the edits are vandalism though. I might be wrong. Some other editors and I did post some warning templates on the user's talk page. It has been a while since I have reported vandalism and disruptive editors, so please forgive me. Bye Starionwolf (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: it is clear that this IP address has been held by the same person for over two months, in spite of a template on the talk page that suggests that it is highly dynamic. Looie496 (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Deliberate misinformation certainly is vandalism, of a type so malicious as to deserve an immediate block without warning, in my opinion. Chester Markel (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the IP has been warned. Chester Markel (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the informatiion. I wasn't ssure if the edits constitute vandalism or not. I will report the user if he or she introduces misinformation into another article again via WP:AIV. Bye Starionwolf (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Steven Fabian -- heavily vandalized, virtually unsourced BLP

This article has been steadily plagued with all sorts of vandalism, sometime quite offensive, almost since its creation. Some of it seems to have been directed by students at classmates, who are private persons and typically minors. The subject is a program host on "Channel One," a daily news show that is inflicted on directed at in-school audiences of middle and high school students, and the vandalism here is an indication of how much they appreciate it. The article has never included any substantial content, just a skimpy paragraph about the subject's college broadcasting experience, nor a significant assertion of notability, and the only sourcing has been to the subject's promotional bio on the channel's website; it might even be a borderline speedy case.
Anyway, given the insubstantial nature of the little legitimate content, I've redirected the page to the Channel One article; I don't think there's any likelihood of establishing notability, with only seven pretty trivial GNews hits. Would it be appropriate to 1) protect the redirect page and 2) either delete the underlying article or at least RevDel the worst of the vandalism? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What a gosh awful mess. Perhaps a little IAR, but, I've thrown the entire history in the trash except the redirect. The amount of garbage in the history there was surprising. Courcelles 04:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism from IP, similar to SuperblySpiffingPerson

62.42.144.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Either SSP has found an open proxy to hook into a Spanish ISP, or there's a copycat running around. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism on Auburn Tigers football

The page Auburn Tigers football has been repeatedly vandalised by user:98.127.64.150 and I'm unable to issue a warning on his talk page and won't be able to revert his edits again if he does them because of that 3rr thing so could comeone please do something to ensure that he desists from this vandalism? Oh and by the way it is vandalism, just look at the rest of the article and the sources. Reichsfürst (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like deliberate misinformation on part of the IP, see Auburn Tigers homepage for statistics. But why can't you edit their talk page and warn them? De728631 (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I've tried using Twinkle to warn them but it says I'm too new...Reichsfürst (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Then you can do it manually: {{subst:uw-vandalism|<article>}} and all other templates can be placed without Twinkle. De728631 (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Reichsfürst (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

1RR enforcement requested

For the second day in a row now, Tillman (talk · contribs) is in violation of the 1RR editing restriction per the probation sanctions on Climatic Research Unit email controversy.[87] To his credit, he self-reverted his violation yesterday,[88] but is continuing the same edit warring behavior.

Today, Tillman made a total of three reverts to Climatic Research Unit email controversy, which I will only count as two total reverts as two of the three reverts were consecutive. However, the diffs show him reverting three times in 24 hours, which is a violation of the spirit and intent of the 1RR, as well an explicit violation of the 1RR altogether.

• 01:04, 8 June 2011 Tillman (Please don't add contentious material without first seeking consensus. See head of talk page. You know not to do this.[89])
  • Revert of 00:50, 8 June 2011 version by Viriditas.[90]
• 00:58, 8 June 2011 Tillman (talk | contribs) (116,104 bytes) (Undid revision 433119267, stable text, prior discussion at talk. Please don't edit-war.)[91]
  • Revert of 23:45, 7 June 2011 version by Viriditas.[92]
• 22:37, 7 June 2011 Tillman (talk | contribs) (116,185 bytes) (Restore Boston Herald & WSJ reactions. These aren't "fringe" publications!)[93]
  • Revert of 16:15, 6 June 2011 version by Tarc.[94]

Disclosure: I have made one revert to this article in the last 24 hours, at 23:16, 7 June 2011.[95] Could someone please enforce this 1RR and help Tillman understand the concept of a revert? I've tried on the talk page, but he doesn't get it. Recently, Tillman even said "I'm easily confused about 1RR".[96] However, Tillman unambiguously reversed the edits of another editor three times today (two consecutive), and I would like for this behavior to stop. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

User notified about this discussion on their talk page. I have asked Tillman to self-revert to avoid sanctions. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I'm not entirely sure this is a 1rr violation. His first 'revert' was replacing content that had been removed a couple of days ago - not within the same period. It seems to me that it would make sense if to count as a revert in the context of the xRR rules it would have to be a revert of material that had been adjusted in that same period - otherwise, everyone would be in violation of the 3rr most of the time that they edited a long existing page more than three times in a day - since whenever you remove content that has been added to a page it's reverting a historical edit. Obviously that's kind of an extreme example, but it definitely makes sense to me to think that for a revert to count as a revert, the thing you're reverting would have to be in the covered period - before his first "revert" there had been no edits to the page in more than 24 hours. Kevin (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The first revert was a revert and was the same revert he self-reverted at 17:24 24 hours ago to avoid the 1RR the previous day:

• 22:37, 7 June 2011 Tillman (Restore Boston Herald & WSJ reactions. These aren't "fringe" publications!)[97]
• 17:24, 6 June 2011 Tillman (Reverted edits by Tillman (talk) to last version by Tarc)[98]
• 16:39, 6 June 2011 Tillman (Undid revision 432870459 by Tarc (talk)[99]

Everyone is not in violation of the 3rr most of the time that they edit. Tillman was in violation because he reverted Tarc, self-reverted to avoid the 1RR, then returned after 24 hours expired to make the same revert. Then, he made another revert at 23:45/00:50. It is clear and unambiguous. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please note, policy re this situation is as follows: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. Thus I don't think I've violated 1RR, and I pointed this out to Viriditas here, before he filed this report.

I'm sorry to say that this appears to be a part of a program of harassment that this user has been carrying out. Please see this report, which is only a sample. A sad situation, Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

He's referring to your 22:37 and 00:58 edits as two different reverts. Your last two edits certainly count as one revert, but if reverts under the xRR's do not have to be reverting material that was added within the same period, you would have two reverts in 24 hours and be in violation of 1rr. Of course if that's the case, it sure looks to me like he was in violation of 1rr himself on the 5th/6th. Kevin (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Diffs please. Viriditas (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

1. 23:49, 5 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Books */ Non-notable, self-published book removed")
2. 00:36, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "Rv Tillman's misundersanding of the concept of "undue". This is fully supported, summarizes the mainstream opinion, and is considered an expert source on PR campaigns")
3. 13:51, 6 June 2011 (edit summary: "/* Media reception */ Remove meaningless, unencyclopedic climate change denial statements per talk")

I did notice it myself initially, but since EdJ subsequently brought it up on your talk page, I just copied his diffs here instead of grabbing them myself. You removed content twice, and performed a direct reversion once. Contrary to how you understand policy, removal of content does count as a reversion, and can be every bit as editwarry as hitting the rollback button. They are consistently enforced in the same manner, and the commonsense reading of WP:3rr supports that. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. " Emphasis mine - removing text someone else has added to a page is partially undoing their edit, and is a revert. Kevin (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Removal of content is not considered a revert unless one is undoing the actions of another editor that implicitly restores the previous version of a page. The word revert means to "return to (a previous state, condition, practice, etc.)" In other words, I can remove content and never perform a revert, as I did at 23:49 and 13:51. This does not conflict with Wikipedia policies. Do you understand that one can make unique edits that add, delete, and modify content without ever performing a revert? In fact, there is no policy or guideline that says otherwise. My edits at 23:49 and 13:51 are not reverts by any accepted definition of the word "revert" nor by Wikipedia's use of the word. Removing content does not mean reverting content. A common misunderstanding, but it is wrong. Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Kevin posted the exact wording of the policy above, and it doesn't say what you say it says. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It says exactly what I said it says, namely that 1) undoing another editor's work is considered a revert. It does not say that a revert is defined as removing content. It isn't, and never has been. One has to, according to policy, specifically undo another editor's work, which implies restoring a previous version of the page. One does not "revert" simply by removing or deleting content, and the policy has never said that. I can add, remove, or modify content, none of which constitutes a revert by itself. The entire concept of edit warring and reversion only has meaning in terms of two or more editors. My edits at 23:49 and 13:51 did not revert any editor or restore a previous version by another editor. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, "undo" does not imply "restore". Read the section where it says "or in part".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"Or in part" refers to the work of the editor you are reverting. IIRC, historically this was added because editors would deliberately alter the revert (known as a "partial revert") in an attempt to evade the 3RR. To my knowledge, no editor has ever been blocked for violating the 3RR simply for removing material. They have, OTOH, been blocked/banned for blanking and edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

In a technical sense, any removal of content could be considered a revert, since at one time whatever text you're removing didn't exist, so removing content means reverting to a state before that content was added. But I don't believe anyone ever treats such a thing as a revert, especially for xRR situations. An edit war involves someone actively getting into a conflict with another person by directly trying to hinder their development of the article by undoing their actions. If I add a fact to an article and 2 years later someone deletes it, I don't consider that a conflict. But it's situational. Reverts can sometimes happen with weeks in-between edits and if it's an ongoing thing, it becomes a slow-motion edit war that is just as disruptive, if not more so, than people reverting each other every 5 seconds (the former could last months or years, while the latter might end in a day). -- Atama頭 06:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and stop posting to this thread before I wind up getting a WP:Civil block. Have fun. Kevin (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh. You're getting a good taste of what dealing with Viriditas is really like. A unique experience. Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You violated the 1RR, refuse to self-rv, and are now using the NB to attack me? Strange. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

He did violate 1RR, but, in context, you (V) did so first, and one of his reverts was reverting your second revert of the series the previous day. And it is completely untrue that (for 3RR violations) the revert needs to be of a recent change. An outright removal usually isn't called a revert, but, in case of known edit warriors, such as yourself, it may be considered so.

And, finally, WP:AN3 is the proper venue for this complaint. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I made no such 1RR violation, and nobody ever claimed that a revert needed to be recent. The facts, Arthur, show that I did not revert anyone except for my edit at 00:36, 6 June 2011. The other two edits were unique deletions of content, neither reversions of another editor nor to a particular version. A revert is only a revert when it involves undoing another editor's work which implicitly restores a previous version of a page. SarekOfVulcan (and others) take issue with this particular wording, but it is in fact the very definition of the word "revert". To give you an example, Arthur, let's say I click the "random article" link over and over again until I find a page needing copyedits, cleanup, and removal of content. Let's also say that this particular article just so happens to be active, meaning the likelihood of consecutive edits (one edit after another with no edits by another editor) is low. Consider this: I make a series of four edits to this hypothetical active page involving the removal of content, whole or in part, for reasons of maintenance, accuracy, neutrality, etc. Due to activity (and for the sake of this example) the edit history shows my four contributions spaced out over four hours, one every hour. Have I just made 4 reverts? Am I in violation of the 3RR? Yes or no? For the sake of this example, assume that each one of my edits is unique and has not removed any material added by another editor or added material removed by any other editor on the page, and the result of each one of my edits is a new, unique version of the page. If you say "yes", then you are saying that no editor may remove any material from any page no more than three times a day, which is not supported by any policy or guideline. The policy on reversion refers only to undoing edits by other editors in the context of edit warring, not to the addition, subtraction, or modification of content alone. The facts show that I can delete material from an article four times in one day, and I can delete 35 different types of material 35 times from one article if I want without ever making a single revert. I cannot, however, repeatedly add or delete 1 item if another editor has deleted or added that 1 item within 24 hours. Also, I cannot undo different items from another editor more than three times in 24 hours. The two edits I made involve no reversion of any editor, and no restoration of any previous version by another editor. Deletions of content, like additions and modifications, are never considered reverts unless the edit undoes the edits of another editor. Who is the editor I have reverted in the two diffs above? Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. As usual. Deletion of material is considered a revert for the purpose of 3RR, and reverting an edit (in whole or in part), no matter how long ago it was made, may be considered a revert. Specialized 1RR/0RR restrictions may have different definitions. At at least one article, a 0RR restriction means only that you may not revert a reversion of your own edit, or that you may not revert an edit without first commenting on the talk page. In your specific hypothetical: If you remove material, it must have been added by another editor, so your hypothetical is logically impossible. Even ignoring that, it would be a 3RR violation unless you put an {{inuse}} tag on the article, and had reason to make it stick, even if it were ignored by other editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong about what I've said, and you can't answer the questions I asked in the affirmative because the deletion and removal of content is not considered a revert unless some editor is being reverted. Good copyediting, for example, may require many edits consisting of deletions, none of which are ever considered reverts. I can provide example after example showing that you are wrong. Editors who remove and delete material over the course of a day are never in danger of violating the 3RR unless they are reversing the edits of a specific editor or editors, Anyone who claims otherwise is misinterpretating the concept of a revert and what it means. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that V's reverts were in the same section, while Pete's weren't.

However, none this makes this notice board appropriate, either WP:AN3, or possibly, WP:AE, if the 1RR is part of an arbitration ruling. It appears not, but it says the 1RR has been superseded by discretionary sanctions which are subject to WP:AE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It does not need to be noted since they were not reverts nor did the edits undo the work of another editor. One can safely edit Wikipedia and remove material without ever worrying about the 3RR. Whether these edits were in the same or different sections is irrelevant. There was no edit war over the material and no editor was reverted. This discussion was brought here because the 1RR probation warning on the the talk page says to bring discussions about the remedy here. Whether that applies to 1RR violations is unclear. Are 1RR probation incidents usually reported at AN3? Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 1RR (and the occassional 0RR) violations are reported at AN3. And I believe you'll find that deleting a section is considered a revert, whether or not it brings the page to a previous version or reverts a particular editor, recent or not. This page is for discussion of revising the sanction, as the sanction, itself, is an adminstrative action. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and modified the talk page header requesting that editors take their concerns to WP:AN3.[100] Unfortunately, Tillman is continuing to violate the 1RR on a daily basis now, even during this discussion, which tells me this noticeboard is the correct place for this discussion, since a pattern of disruptive editing has been demonstrated. Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A revert and self-revert = net zero. Sorry - no violation that I can see. Decidedly not violating the 1RR rule, and not violating any other reasonable interpretation of any rule. Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you did miss one. Pete had at least two reverts since the self-revert, and those were within 24 hours of each other. I don't want to add heat, but V did get something right, for a change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, I reverted two different editors. I reverted 09:15, 6 June 2011 Tarc (by undoing my prev self-revert), at 15:37, 7 June 2011 Tillman, about 30 hours after Tarc had reverted someone else. See here. So, that one should be OK, right?

Then, two consecutive reverts of Viriditas, with no intervening 3rd party edits, as already discussed. One a restoration of stable consensus text improperly removed, as discussed upthread, might not be an actual, official "revert." Ah, this stuff makes my head hurt. Anyway, Arthur, if you ID the one you think is still a 1RR vio, I'll self-revert just to be cautious and cooperative. I do try to follow the rules (ex-military, we get that pounded into us early!), but the rules are confusing. As we've seen here. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

---

• Editor Kevin just pointed out that this really does violate 1RR, and I'm pretty sure he's right . I guess I'll never get this stuff straight. Confused by the "Undoing another editor's work—" business, I guess? Or just dumb. I'll self-revert one in a moment. My sincere apologies -- I simply misunderstood the rule. Doh, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, here;s the source of my confusion. From the 1RR flag at the "edit article" page:

• Do not make any edit to the article that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part more than once in any 24 hour period.

So, this notice might best be revised, to make clear that only one revert/day total is permitted. I read it as one per editor, but I now see the notice is ambiguous. (Or I'm dyslexic, and/or dumb?)

I've tried to Self-Rv 3x now, but it won't take. I'll log off & try again later -- business first. Drat, Pete Tillman (talk)

It's per article. Think about it this way, let's say that yourself and 3 other people have a 1RR at an article. You want to insert information and the other 3 disagree. So you add it, editor A reverts that, you revert editor A. Editor A can't revert you again without violating 1RR, so editor B makes the revert. You revert editor B. So then editor C reverts you, and you revert editor C. If the restriction was once per editor, it would favor you as the person that is going against consensus, which wouldn't make sense. As it is, 3RR or any xRR acts in part to prevent a single person from owning an article. -- Atama頭 21:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I seldom revert, and just misread the thing. Won't happen again! (I hope)

Now for the MYSTERY SOLVED! I couldn't self-revert Tillman 15:37, 7 June 2011, because VIRIDITAS had again removed this stable text, against established consensus, at 16:16, 7 June 2011! diff. And then had the nerve to file a 1RR violation complaint. Remarkable brass, I'd say. I'll be interested to see what 3rd parties think of this, especially those who have wasted time on this frivolous report of a "violation" that endured for 45 minutes, and was re-reverted by the complainant, in classic edit-war behavior. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am very sorry to report that Tillman has just now violated the 1RR for the third day in a row at 17:41, 8 June 2011 with the re-addition of the {{syn}} tag, a tag that he has personally added to the statement "global warming conspiracy" at least three times: once at 04:15, 15 May[101], twice at 05:20, 15 May 2011[102], and now for a third time at 17:41, 8 June.[103] Considering that he is already in violation of the 1RR at this moment (his two reverts at 01:04 8 June and 22:37 7 June ) he has once again violated the 1RR by restoring this tag. Previously, the tag was removed by Short Brigade Harvester Boris at 04:58, 15 May[104] and myself at 06:49, 15 May[105].

Please note that the reason Tillman did not add the {{syn}} tag back into the article after it was removed between May 15 and June 1st by myself and SBHB, is because he volunteered (as did I and others) to take two weeks off from the article. It should be noted, that Tillman was the first editor to return to the article after the break, making a revert in his very first edit[106] and continuing to engage in deceptive violations of the 1RR on a daily basis. More to the point, there are open threads on the talk page that Tillman refuses to respond to, and these discussions directly pertain to his contributions.

What we have here, is documented evidence of an editor who takes two weeks off to cool down, returns to the article just after the voluntary break expires, only to make reverts and multiple violations of the 1RR, all the while avoiding discussing their edits on the talk pge. I can provide further diffs if they are needed, but today's 1RR violation after this entire discussion should be evidence that something needs to be done immediately. I am continuing to request probationary 1RR enforcement at this time. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Your reasoning appears tortured to me, but if 3rd parties agree, I will be happy to self-revert.

I notice you make no comment regarding your apparent "setup" for your original 1RR claim here. What is your reponse to that? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Tillman, one does not require "reasoning" to simply observe that you have made three reverts in a little over the last 24 hours to an article that is on 1RR probation. These reverts occurred (as listed above) at 17:41, 8 June, 01:04 8 June, and 22:37 7 June. Since you've already admitted that you understand that your edits at 01:04 8 June and 22:37 7 June were reverts, your confusion appears to involve your most recent edit at 17:41, 8 June. In this edit, you restored a {{syn}} maintenance tag that had been removed by two previous editors. The page history shows that you have added this tag a total of three times. The pattern here, is that you are incrementally reverting to your chosen version of the article before you took your two week break, which is a violation of the 1RR. Is this making sense to you, Tillman? Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Drahmaz at CRUec? Ohz noz. Even though they probably already know about them, several users need to be reminded of arbcom restrictions. -Atmoz (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Honorable Viriditas: may we see your wikilawyer license, please? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Problematic behavior

This doesn't quite fit AN/I, but since there was already a thread going here I thought it might be best to just add on to this thread, instead of posting at WQA. I had been monitoring this whole chain of threads, and made a couple posts earlier in this thread. I noticed an ongoing thread at User_talk:Tillman#June_2011 and posted in it pointing out to Viriditas that his behavior was being unnecessarily inflammatory. I could probably have phrased my post there more politely, but I suspect it wouldn't have helped. He brought the discussion to my talk page - User_talk:Kgorman-ucb#Viriditas_1RR_complaint. This thread on his talk page is another pretty good example of problematic behavior from him.

I would ask outside editors to review those links/Viriditas's behavior and comment on it. I feel like he's exhibited a pattern of disruptive behavior throughout those links/diffs, and I really cannot imagine that the underlying content/behavioral disputes that he is involved in can be successfully resolved unless he modifies his behavior. I'm hopeful that a few more people chiming in about this will convince him to modify his behavior.

To be clear, I'm not trying to claim that my behavior throughout this was perfect - I just think that his behavior is problematic enough that it needs to be addressed. I am not going to post in direct response to any of Viriditas's future posts, but will answer any third party questions as necessary. Kevin (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid Virditias' behavior is odd. He has "unique" interpretations of some of the guidelines:

1. That using his name in a talk page section heading is "addressing" him and/or a personal attack.
2. That deleting content is not a "revert" (at least for the purpose of the 1RR restriction on the article in question).
3. That reverting an edit made a long time ago is not a "revert" (ditto).
4. That posting a wall of sources on a talk page, some of which may be reliable, and some of which may support his edit, is the documentation required in order to support his edit to the lede of article covering material not contained in the body.

I agree that he is unnecessarily inflammatory, but my attempts at sarcasm have also been interpreted as being unnecessarily imflammatory, so I really am not in a position to comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to thank Kevin for starting this new discussion about me[107] and for personally inviting Arthur Rubin to contribute to it.[108] Arthur Rubin has been tag team reverting along with Tillman during this time,[109] and Arthur's behavior should be examined in the same vein as Tillman's. I would also encourage others to examine the talk page, where both Arthur Rubin and Tillman have been active. My behavior has been solely focused on improving the CRU article, whereas Tillman and Arthur have chosen to ignore responses on multiple discussion threads and to continue disruptive behavior such as tag team reversions and personal attacks. Here is a more detailed response to the concerns raised above by Keven and Arthur in the order they were made:

1. Kevin claims that my use of the {{Uw-npa1}} template was "unnecessarily inflammatory" because the default template begins with "Welcome to Wikipedia". The template was added to Tillman's talk page[110] after he begin attacking me on the CRU talk page during this discussion.[111][112]
2. Kevin claims that the thread pointing out Tillman's poor behavior is a "pretty good example of problematic behavior" from me. While I don't agree with his assessment, I do agree with Keven's request for outside editors to look at that discussion. Kevin claims that he's found a "pattern of disruptive behavior throughout those links/diffs". Perhaps Kevin could be kind enough to share those diffs.
3. Arthur claims that my behavior is "odd" and that I have "unique" interpretations of some of the guidelines. However, we will see that I have quoted the policies and guidelines in each instance rather than interpreting them. If one is truly interested in reviewing what appears to be "odd" behavior, take some time to read Arthur Rubin's comments throughout Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. In my opinion, it cannot get any stranger than that.
4. Arthur claims that using the name of an editor in a talk page section heading is not a personal attack. Arthur has been repeatedly pointed to WP:NPA and WP:TALKNEW with no change in his view.
5. Arthur (and Kevin) have both claimed that deleting content is a revert for the purpose of a 1RR restriction. Clearly, it is not, because if it were, Tillman would have violated the 1RR for the fourth straight day in a row.[113] The fact is, unless you are reverting the changes of another editor or restoring a previous version (usually a version under dispute) we don't consider adding, deleting, or modifying content a "revert". A revert is clearly defined as that which undoes the edits of another editor and implicitly restores a previous version. Others have disagreed, never bothering to actually look up the definition of the word "revert" and how it is used in multiple policies and guidelines. Any editor can add, delete and modify content without ever being worried about breaking the 1RR or the 3RR. The problem only arises when the change in content results in undoing the edits of another editor. This may, in some instances involve addition, subtraction, or modification of content. However, when one is not undoing the edits of another editor, the addition, subtraction, or modification of content is called editing, not reverting.
6. Arthur claims that I don't believe that an edit "made a long time ago" is a revert. This is clearly false, as I've provided an example above (see 10:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC) in this thread) of Tillman restoring the {{syn}} three times, twice two weeks ago, and a third time yesterday. Clearly, this is a revert, and I've pointed it out. Why Arthur would claim otherwise is a mystery.
7. Arthur claims that there is a problem with my presentation of sources. I would be happy to present my sources in a way that Arthur prefers; all he has to do is present me with his chosen format. This particular point appears to be related to a content dispute on the talk page, rather than actual behavior. Arthur's behavior in that regard, is to focus more on edit warring and reverting rather than improving the article. I've asked Arthur to participate in the article writing process rather than simply edit warring over what he likes and doesn't like. Even Nigelj asked him to help. Arthur's response? "...I still think the article is horribly biased, and find it difficult to "write for the enemy"."[114] This is a surprising statement from an admin, who should already be fluent in writing for the enemy— we should strive to become virtuosi of NPOV.

With that said, I am not perfect, and I have my faults, and I've made many mistakes and errors, some of which Arthur and Tillman have helped me fix. In order for the editing environment to improve, it will require good faith and participation on all sides. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Specific comments re V's current "wall of text", which may not be obvious to outside observers:

2. I, too support outside observers studying those threads. I don't see any understanding of (for example) 1RR in any of those threads; I, too, made some serious mistakes.

3,4,5. (But for different reasons) V can quote policies, but can't seem to actually understand them (see his reading of "address" as "name").

7. Listing one source (for each of your additions) which is reliable, secondary, and actually supports the entire sentence, would be a start. As your lists do not distinguish those sources which are reliable from those which are not, do not distinguish those sources which support the entire phrase added from those which (even in your opinion) support one or two words, and do not distinguish primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, it would require more work to verify your additions as being sources from your lists than from google. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Arthur Rubin in the order of his comments above:

1. I don't know what your statement "I don't see any understanding of (for example) 1RR in any of those threads" is supposed to mean. As I was not in violation of the 1RR, and Tillman was (and continues to be for the fourth day if we use your definition of a revert).
2. I've already responded to this by pointing you to NPA and TALKNEW. You appear to think that is appropriate to "address" and/or "name" editors in article talk page headings. It is not, especially when I've asked you to stop.
3. We've had extensive discussions on the use of sources on the talk page. You appear to be returning to your nothing but objections line of questioning. Feel free to use the article talk page to discuss your concerns and I'll directly respond to them. If you can't personally evaluate a source as reliable or not, or PS or T, I'm not sure what that has to do with me.

Although I appreciate Arthur Rubin's continuing concerns, they have been previously addressed on the article talk page. Unfortunately, Arthur has a funny habit of making claims about his own behavior and blaming it on others. For example, when Arthur has been asked to provide a source demonstrating a particular point, he never provides one. He has been repeatedly criticized by other editors for arguing from his personal recollection of the event rather from the sources themselves. His criticism of my use of sources, therefore, is most ironic. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• As an involved(!) editor, I'm not going to contribute further here (and I'll stipulate that my reactions to his attacks has sometimes been excessive), but I will note that I have found dealing with Viriditas to be exceptionally difficult. He seems to be a remarkably pugnacious editor, and a glance at his Block log suggests this has gotten him in trouble before. Respectfully, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as talk page threads go, it's common knowledge that putting an editor's name in a heading is unhelpful. Discussions should be about content, not editors. To the argument that the discussion was about the content added by that editor, it's still not necessary to use the editor's name to refer to the content. Doing so unnecessarily personalizes material. Adding it in the first place is a minor mistake, but edit warring to retain the name in the heading after it's been removed is inappropriate.   Will Beback  talk  16:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's usually not helpful to put an editor's name in a heading, but there's no specific policy or guideline which — addresses — that issue. It's not in WP:TALKNEW or WP:NPA. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly there is, and you've been pointed to it many times. Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is, you linked to it yourself Arthur. WP:TALKNEW states, "While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history." -- Atama頭 17:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

@Viriditas. I've asked, many times, for him to provide sources which would be suitable for an actual reference. He has always replied with a long list, most of which are not suitable even as an external link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Care to provide some diffs, Arthur? Of course you can't, because you just made that little fantasy up. Ever try writing fiction? Oh, you just did, nice work. Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Calm down, fellows.

V's name is gone from the title, I've apologized over there, and I agree it wasn't a good idea. Can we move on? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)