Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive614

AIV backlog

Resolved

Hi: AIV is a bit backed up. If some kind admin or two could pop over, that'd be helpful. Thanks, Ray^Talk 18:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Backlog's more or less cleared up. Thanks to all who helped. Ray^Talk 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat made in response to speedy deletion nomination at Uberto Gucci

Resolved

 – Page deleted, threat not serious enough to warrant action. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

By newbie user Mlgc57k1 at this diff. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: Moved to talk page. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any admin is going to be swayed by the threat, so I'm not inclined to see blocking this editor as a matter of urgency. If it were an AfD case, rather than CSD, I'd see it differently since it might influence others, but in this case it is up to an admin to decide whether to delete. This is more an embarassment than a legal problem, in my opinion (I Googled Uberto Gucci and the threat was the second hit... after his Facebook page). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm forgoing the normal immediate indef in favor of some AGF here - I left a warning on his talk page indicating that they needed to retract it, and explaining that such threats are not OK.

If belligerence escalates then the normal response should apply, etc. Hopefully they will cooperate and retract. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the article as in my view it did not credibly assert the notability of the subject. I agree that blocking the editor is not a high priority so long as the threat is not repeated. --John (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree: I don't disagree with any of the foregoing. I just believe that all threats — legal or otherwise — need to be reported for the record. What sysops do with those reports is entirely up to them. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Long Term Vandal at 72.37.171.52

Resolved

 – 72.37.171.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is blocked for one month. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Back in April, I noticed an editor from this IP 72.37.171.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been adding nonsense and deliberate misinformation while reverting attempts to undo his vandalism. While this IP has been tagged as an SharedIP, looking at the IP's edit history and look over diffs, its been made clear that a good majority of the edits dating back late 2009 are by the same user who continues to vandalize articles, ignore warnings, and stretch his edits between days or weeks to evade blocks.

Edits like these follow the same m.o. as the chronic vandal edits from all throughout April and last night and show a pattern of long term abuse by single user from this IP:

• [1] -adding deliberate misinformation
• [2] - undoing removal of vandalism

• [3] -adding deliberate misinformation
• [4] - adding deliberate misinformation
• [5] - undoing removal of vandalism

When this user was given a 4im warning on April 28, he resorted to using alternate IP addresses from a different host to evade a block and resume his vandalism. (See ANI report) When those alternate IPs were rangeblocked, he continued his vandalism again with the 72.37.171.52 address. (diffs:[[6], [7]) I reported this IP to the vandalism noticeboard a couple of times, but no action was taken.(the reports were just tidied up, and I was eventually recommended by an admin to file a report here.) --GD 6041 (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And the disruptive behavior from the same user continues... At this point, its obvious he's not going to stop. Can someone please block this guy already?--GD 6041 (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Blockage needed, indeed. --Elvey (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 01:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Block anonymous edits from student gateway

Resolved

 – 64.85.181.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is blocked for five years. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to request a block for all anonymous edits from my student gateway ip address (64.85.181.66). I'm trying to teach them to be good stewards of this resource, but for some it is just a joke and I'm tired of being partly responsible for adding to the workload of the folks trying keep the articles clean.

Thanks,

Splarfage (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This one? Only 3 edits, only one recent ("hi mom") it's hardly taxing our resources! :) SGGH ^ping! 20:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're responsible for the IP (i.e. a school authority), you can email info-en-swikimedia.org to progress this. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the information. While there are few incidents at this point, I'd like to nip this one in the bud before it gets out of hand. Keep up the great work. Splarfage (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Political soapboxing originating from 69.116.82.228

Resolved

 – 69.116.82.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is blocked for six months. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

69.116.82.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly adding the same two or three political essays to talk pages related to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Radovan Karadžić and a few others. They have been blocked twice but seem to have slowed down recently, last time keeping it to three edits presumably to avoid another block as a result of accumulated vandalism warnings. Since the same edits have also been carried out by blocked users Lpcyu (talk · contribs) and Lpcyusa (talk · contribs), and have been spammed across the internet (see this Google search, for example), could something a bit more permanent be done, a longer block or maybe something as simple as an edit filter. Many thanks. Astronaut (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Six month block applied to IP, and the accounts linked to the IP for sockpuppet tracking purposes.

If they come back, we can semiprotect the articles and talk pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Astronaut (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Indef block needed

Resolved

 – Uber Pula (talk · contribs) is blocked indefinitely. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Uber Pula is a username violation, meaning roughly "super dick". Like that wasn't enough, he added a libelous piece here [8]. The referenced article (in Romanian) doesn't even remotely support the paragraph. Can we have those flagged revision now? Pcap ping 05:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Whacked. No comment on FR1070. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Request block and/or pp

Resolved

 – Rangeblock applied as well

At Erich Honecker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an editor using multiple IPs has recently taken it upon themselves to turn the German reunification into an annexation. The editor has so far used the following IPs:

• 91.41.0.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.13.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.26.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.12.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Is it possible to block them given the various IPs? Otherwise, the article needs to be semi-protected. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: As from the contribs of the first IP address on the list, it is obvious that their previous target was Erich Mielke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where they were using yet other 91.41.xxx IPs, and which as a result is now semi-protected. So they turned to the Honecker article instead. The IPs used at the Mielke article were

• 91.41.4.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.3.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.2.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.0.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.0.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

PPS: From the contribs of those IPs, it is obvious that the Mielke article was also a substitute target for Stalinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which they had targeted before and which is now semi-protected. The IPs used there were

• 91.41.4.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.3.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.2.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.0.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.0.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Skäpperöd (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this editor and as such, protected Erich Honecker for a week. We could block their range which is 91.41.0.0/19. It affects 8192 IPs and it looks like there hasn't been any other recent contributions from others so it doesn't seem like such a bad option. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Just for the record: From the contribs of those IPs again, it is obvious that they were also the IP recently causing semi-protection of East Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The IPs used there were

• 89.108.110.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.8.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.9.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.26.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.6.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.25.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.6.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.4.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.3.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thank you for protecting the article. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• No one's mentioned Stalinism yet, so mentioning it here for completeness. The editor also seems to like Stalinism (as a target; no comment on their beliefs). TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • There's practically nothing useful from 91.41.0.0/19 in the last year either, so I've rangeblocked it for six months. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • For background: It's Father's Day in Germany today, and in East Germany this is traditionally celebrated with large amounts of alcohol. See Father's Day#Germany to get an idea of the vandals. Hans Adler 23:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I think "However, several fathers also spend the day with their families and refrain from getting drunk" may need to be re-written here, as it suggests the other 25-million-odd fathers in Germany are currently alcoholically disabled. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring and personal attacks by IP

Resolved

 – Blocked for a week

Can an admin please look through the history of Ashaari Mohammad? In my view, there is arguably a 3RR breach as well as a personal attack in an edit summary, by IP User talk:70.58.218.171. Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the IP's edit summaries:

• its circa date you dumb fuck.
• Undid revision 361393762 by Freshacconci (talk) wanna eat my pussy?
• Undid revision 361393262 by Crboyer (talk)well get off your lazy ass and find the god damn article

...there are some civility issues (however, these were the only three). You may want to follow the process here.

Regarding the article itself I'd suggest their talk page in the first instance (apologies if you have already, I only had a quick glance - incidentally, the IP has been warned several times for un-sourced content, disruption and attacks). If that fails, then maybe request semi-protection for the article. Don't use that as an opportunity to force through your preferred version; use it to attempt to engage with the IP. If that fails, persue other dispute resolution options.

Good luck! TFOWR^propaganda 22:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Who is not an admin, but this incident can most likely be solved without ANI.

This is disruptive editing and edit-warring (3RR breach), not a content dispute between two editors. We don't feed these trolls by trying to "resolve disputes" with them; we just block them.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We do indeed. Done. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Old SPI case needs closing

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guildenrich has been sitting unprocessed after an inconclusive CU result for more than 10 days. I recognise it's a difficult case to judge just on "DUCK" criteria, but I urge some fellow admin to take a good look and give it serious consideration. In my personal view (having first hand experience with the field, including interaction with both the sockmaster and the suspected sock) this is still a compelling case on behavioral grounds, and the sock account Stupidus Maximus (talk · contribs) is clearly disruptive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Truly an ugly case. I'll wait until this evening (about 12 hours), and close it out as unconfirmed if no-one blocks before then. If this were Vegas, I'd bet on a match, but I'm not convinced enough to indefinitely block an account. Other admins may well feel differently.—Kww(talk) 15:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There's been some new activity on the case, with a new checkuser pending.—Kww(talk) 05:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued disruption by User:Hm2k

Hm2k continues to disrupt the encyclopedia. He is disrupting it to prove a point. He is removing redolinks despite warnings not to and is now removing regular links as well. [[9]] I'm pretty sure removing content is not a good thingHell In A Bucket (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked 24h. I considered this yesterday but the user had been inactive for a few hours when I checked. It was possible that they had understood the issues then under discussion, of which they were aware. Recent edits show that this is not the case. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems the whole shebang is case of misdirection and wikilawyering. Something along the lines of "we don't have a content dispute because you haven't filed wikform 42 in triplicate", while he keeps changing articles exactly the way he wants despite protestation from multiple editors. Pcap ping 04:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm2k was indef blocked back in January, but unblocked with a promise to behave. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible attack page in user space?

Resolved

I came across an unusual image on Commons (File:Moderndandy.JPG) and tracked it back to it being in use on User:Atom smasher69/Tim hornybrook. Now reading the Tim hornybrook page through, it smells to me like an attack page, and if it weren't in user space, I'd PROD it on that basis at the least (maybe even speedy delete it). But as I said, it's in user space so I'm not 100% sure what the best course of action is here. Any advice?? Tabercil (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, attack pages are deleted regardless of name space--Jac16888^Talk 00:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. And since the image is not in use, I've killed that on Commons as well. Tabercil (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing by HairyWombat

I regret to see that HairyWombat (talk · contribs) has been selectively notifying people involved in a particular image deletion discussion about its deletion review. Specifically, different but equally strongly-worded messages (one identified me as "seeking to change the WP:DPR#FFD policy" – a false accusation) to EncycloPetey and J Greb (both editors who expressed opinions on the same 'side' as HaryWombat in the discussion) but to none of those who were on the opposing side. In my opinion, this is a clear case of votestacking and campaigning, both violations of the behavioural guideline WP:CANVASS—which has a convenient table at the top identifying the various factors.

HairyWombat has not been notified of this discussion because they have instructed me not to post on their talkpage. If someone else wouldn't mind? ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 18:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Notified. Deor (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made a note at the DRV. However, since I had already commented there, another admin should be the one to warn or sanction HairyWombat. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply. On reflection, I accept that I was guilty of canvassing. I will accept whatever sanctions administrators choose to impose. What else can I say; it was dumb and I should not have done it. As for User:TreasuryTag "seeking to change the WP:DPR#FFD policy", I stand by that and explained it here. It is not just User:TreasuryTag seeking this, but this user did initiate the Deletion Review. Finally, on my Talk page I request all users not to clutter it up. HairyWombat (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I had never ready WP:DPR#FFD until Mkativerata (talk · contribs) linked to it on the DRV. I had only read the (admittedly contradictory) sentence on WP:FFD which I quoted in my DRV statement. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 19:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As User:TreasuryTag had not read WP:DPR#FFD then the user was unaware that they were seeking to change it. But they were still seeking to change it. HairyWombat (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

But you agree that your statement accusing me of "seeking to change" the policy was false? ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 15:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:DPR#FFD states "If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the file is kept by default". In their Deletion Review, User:TreasuryTag wrote "The result of 'no consensus' should, therefore, be ... where there is no real consensus, the presumption is to delete the image."[10] That seems very clear. HairyWombat (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:FFD states, "Files that have been listed [...] for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them." That's all I read; I never knew that the other page existed and was contradictory. Your refusal to retract your false accusation is inappropriate and not conducive to collaborative editing. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 06:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The full line is:

"Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them or no objections to deletion have been raised."

The second bolded section - ommitted in TT's quote - is important. If there is debate, summary deletion is off the table until an admin moves to close the discusion.

While HairyWombat's actions pointing to the DVR are questionable, so are the actions that nominated the image. Once the nominator orphaned the image from use they started a 7 day clock. Whether or not the FFD had run its course at that time. The more I look at this, the more it looks like gaming the system - no matter the nobility or purity of the intent. Either

• Orhpan the image. Explain why and cite the appropriat NFC section(s) on the relavent article talk pages. Notify the uploader; or
• Tag the image for FFD. Tag the uses. Notify the uploader. Start the FFD debate.

Doing both sets up the FFD for an skewed close (based on "It isn't in use.") or fait accompli 'bot close cutting debate short.

- J Greb (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Review of actions

I have just protected Bishop Hill (blog) following my reverting of a merge redirect of the article to that of the blog's author. There is an ongoing merger discussion, which was formalised a couple of days ago by the creation of a RfC. This is the second time in 24 hours that consensus for the move has been "declared" by one of the proponents, and in this instance the action had the following edit summary "The RfC can keep running for 30 days. It does not override current consensus for a merger in any way". I have been attempting to admin this Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation related article these last couple of weeks, and had previously protected the article upon reviewing the editing history and determining that there was a slow edit war. I had lifted the protection upon request, and had then blocked three editors who then made major edits without apparent consensus. As well as protecting the article, I have also banned the editor who redirected the article last from editing the page until the RfC has concluded. I invite review of my actions, and suggestions on how to proceed further - I am assuming a redirect is the likely outcome of the RfC, and would appreciate pointers as to how to ensure the determination that there is consensus after a reasonable period (and how long should that period be). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
There is also related discussion at my talkpage, particularly Talk:LHvU#Blog again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are not permitted to edit a page back to your favoured version and then protect that - this is a clear abuse. Nor are you permitted to "ban" PG - he has as much right to "ban" you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not his favored version, his action was as an administrator not as an editor. He has also not banned User:Polargeo only temporarily restricted him to the talkpage of the article after Polargeo attempted to merge the article in what looks like an out of process edit. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

With any block under this regime a key question is about uninvolvement:

• ...an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions...

Nobody is commenting on this so I assume that LessHeard vanU qualifies. Another requirement is that the user be warned:

• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions;...

Was such a warning issued?  Will Beback  talk  21:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather busy just now, but would note that LHvU blocked me without warning after my only edit to the article, which I made in response to talk page discussion of content which in my opinion was (and, as now restored, is again) a coatrack based on a passing mentions in news reports, giving credence to blog claims involving a living person. While I did note my action on the talk page, giving reasons, the proposal that I follow 0RR on the article to be unblocked was no big deal, and I agreed accordingly. LHvU is evidently giving priority to stopping an edit war which I wasn't really part of, which is a judgement call. My concern about the paragraph remains, and I note that the current version as reverted by LHvU claims that the radio "interview was first posted on the Bishop Hill blog" – the "first" appears to be unsupported by the reference, which merely refers to "The interview, posted on the Bishop Hill blog" without saying that this was the first posting. Others may care to review that wording. . . dave souza, talk 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(resp to Will Beback) All editors are under a general warning, given when I noted the lifting of the previous indefinite protection on the article talkpage. I subsequently blocked 3 editors for making unilateral removals and redirects following the lifting of the protection, and then declined to do so when WMC again redirected the article in a merge attempt - citing consensus on an RfC he inappropriately closed - per AGF and also Cla68 for undoing same. I gave my rationale at my talkpage, of which PolarGeo was a participant. To consider that PolarGeo would not be aware of the consequences of reverting the undoing of the redirect would be a great stretch of imagination. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Since it's difficult keeping up with the levels of restrictions and precise state of all the articles, it doesn't seem to me to require any stretch of the imagination to accept that editors have good faith differences in being "aware of the consequences". However, I accept that LHvU was using his best judgement in taking actions to stop slow edit warring, and acting within policy. The preservation and restoration of dubious content seems to me to go against normal policies, but this remains a judgement call in unusual circumstances, and LHvU is entitled to hold a different opinion on that. . . dave souza, talk 14:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The revert was apparently to remove a page blanking that was improperly done. It's not like LHVD chose specific content; he simply restored the content that was previously there. I see no problem with his actions here. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The ban would appear to be out of process. Per the banning policy, "Users may be banned as an outcome of the dispute resolution process, or by uninvolved administrators enforcing Arbitration Committee rulings." Perhaps I've missed it -- I'll admit just doing a quick scan -- but I don't see any cases involving Polargeo and this article. Shimeru (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The general sanction is linked above, here it is again. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, can't imagine how I missed that. I'm not sure I'd agree it was a disruptive edit, but I won't fault LessHeard's judgement on the matter. Shimeru (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding LHvU's spin on the issue (which I find misleading), you don't revert and then protect. Sure, there are a few exceptions to the rule, like obvious BLP violations. But as an admin you have to choices - either revert or protect. You can't do both. Especially over something as trivial as whether an article should be split or merged. Guettarda (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not true. "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Arkon (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As people are pointing out elsewhere, it's standard practice to revert and protect when there's been an abuse of process or inappropriate editing. William Connolley and Polargeo have both tried to pre-empt the results of an RfC that was posted only a few days ago and where comments continue to arrive about whether to merge the pages, and if so in which direction. It's too early to close the RfC, and neither of them should be involved in doing that anyway. Therefore LhVU reverted their merge and protected the page so they can't do it again. It's unfortunate that he had to do that, but that was their fault not his. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The real abuse of process here (IMHO) is that a merge discussion that had started on April 21 and had pretty much reached consensus was unilaterally turned into an RfC at the last minute, and now certain editors insist that the RfC run a full 30 days before any action is taken. Some editors (myself included) consider this an unnecessary delay, perhaps even a deliberate stalling tactic. This is discussed at Talk:Bishop_Hill_(blog)#Slapping_an_RfC_on_top_of_a_merger_discussion and Talk:Bishop_Hill_(blog)#Done. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

An RfC is a formal, established, and accepted step in the content dispute resolution process. One important element in an RfC is that it invites participation by previously uninvolved editors because the RfC is listed on the "open RfCs" page. I think we should welcome input from previously uninvolved editors as they could very well provide new ideas or suggestions about the dispute or examine it with unprejudiced opinion. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That all sounds good in principal, and that's why I've initiated RfCs myself in the past, but is this case, for the reasons enumerated immediately above and in the linked takepage threads, the RfC was used improperly. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

YS, I started the RfC, and I've not been involved in the discussion for weeks, so your arguments don't apply. I started it because it looked as though a small number of editors were being unnecessarily aggressive about the issue, so I felt fresh input might help. That page has the appearance of having certain editors assume control of it, with any new person arriving at the article (who doesn't agree with them) being attacked and undermined, told they must read and adhere to previous discussions, told they're not allowed to open a new RfC because discussion is already taking place among the people who matter. That's exactly the atmosphere that calls for an RfC. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC does not override consensus. Also the RfC tag was slapped on to merge discussions that had been going on for weeks and had reached what I judged to be a fairly clear consensus (at least as clear as it is ever going to be). I didn't realise that peoples' comments could suddenly be made part of an RfC. I had not edited the article itself before this. I was simply trying to enforce consensus. LHvU has banned me from editing the article, when I had no previous warnings what so ever. I would like clarification on why he feels he can do this and whether it has any weight. I have no intention of reverting any of his edits myself and he could simply have asked me not to and I would have of course complied, he does not need to be heavy handed with me although I can see that he probably needs dealing with heavy handedly himself (because his view of others appears to be based on himself). Also I would keenly like to know what offwiki contact brought SlimVirgin into editing this because the conversations I have seen that she occasionally is mentioned in, or comments on, are very one sided rants indeed. Polargeo (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway LessHeard appears to be using his admin tools and powers in any way that he can to stagnate an article at his favoured version and against consensus and is using the fact that a belated RfC was slapped on the talkpage when those wishing to avoid a merge found they were losing the argument. RfC is an informal request for outside comment, it is not a policy that can be used to stagnate development of an article or wikipedia against consensus. Polargeo (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There is some remarkably poor behavior from all parties on this one. Reverting to a previous version and protecting is a red flag and should not be done lightly. Unprotecting an article one has edited is a red flag and should not be done lightly. Perhaps very long topic bans for lots of parties should be handed out liberally - but then, who am I to suggest that admins actually step up to solve the problems as opposed to just push them down the road. If any admin has the courage to step up and deal with this, please contact me and I can give you various sized balanced lists of people whose substantial absence from this topic area would help. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I unprotected the article but my only ever edit on the article was reverted and the article was then immediately protected by LessHeard. I did not undo his edit, only his protection, because he claimed that the protection was against me. There was no need for this as I would never undo his edit. When LessHeard then explained the protection was for other reasons I immediately reinstated it. I don't understand how Less Heard is acting as an admin when he is enforcing content decisions of a minority whilst I am simply trying to enforce consensus as an editor. Polargeo (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It does appear that Less heard is reverting the article to a POV he agrees with (which is against consensus) and then protecting it at his prefered version. This is based on the fact that someone started an RfC when there was already consensus to merge. He is then "banning" me from editing the article after I have made a single edit which I thought was enforcing consensus. He not only undoes my edit but bans me and protects the article. This appears to be based on nothing more than the fact that someone started an RfC. I have yet to find the rule that an RfC underway in any way prevents editors from following consensus. Polargeo (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I`m seeing a lot of "Reverted to his prefered version and locked it" here, Would someone bo so good as to explain how LHVU can have a prefered version of an article he has not actually edited? mark nutley (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a very silly question. But to explain the obvious: you (or I, or LHVU) can have a POV about many things. That POV may or may not be declared. Or LHVU may even have made unverifiable assertions about his POV. Whatever: the lack of edits to the article is irrelevant to the "having a preferred version". That LHVU *has* edited it back to a given version rather indicates that he prefers that version, for whatever reason William M. Connolley (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. Muddled thinking on your part. Preserving the status quo against disruptive editing does NOT indicate a preference either way on his part concerning the content thereof. I suppose you could argue that it shows a preference on his part for honoring the spirit of the underlying policies but that's another matter entirely from the content issue. --204.11.245.203 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a very silly statement. To explain the obvious to you, an uninvolved admin can take an action which he believes was taken in bad faith or which he believe subverts an ongoing process. This series of edits is certainly the latter, and likely the former too. Do you get it now, or do I need to explain it further? :-) ATren (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Very bad form. This gives a strong impression of the "Wikipedia Review cabal" tag-teaming against William "the Antichrist" Connolley and other common targets. That said, this is a most unusual lapse of judgement for LHvU so I don't think it needs to go any further than the chorus of tutting we see here, not unless it happens again anyway. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I back this. I think it was a lapse of judgement. I also had a laspe of judgement in my response to LHvU's actions. I am really trying to assume good faith in that LHvU is not trying to take sides (I have already stopped assuming good faith in the case of Lar) but I do find this AGF more and more difficult when incidents like this occur. Polargeo (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User:David1287 and Billboard charts

David1287 (talk · contribs) has a long history of updating and adding US Billboard charts for albums and their respective singles. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with altering these charts, the issue here is that David1287 prematurely updates said charts and without sources. When asked to provide a source, he posts the information into a forum and cites his own post. Billboard.com updates their charts every Thursday, and every Tuesday/Wednesday he updates charts across dozens of articles without providing a source. For charts such as Alternative Songs, it's not a major issue since Billboard.com will eventually update. It's still not great to have a source saying one thing and the article saying another. However, for charts no longer published by Billboard.com like Bubbling Under Hot 100 and Mainstream Rock, it's a larger issue because they're almost impossible to reliably source. His communicative abilities are also lacking. During an edit war between the two of us surrounding Diamond Eyes (song), he only left two short comments.[11][12] Despite receiving several warnings from various editors on article talk pages, [13][14] edit summaries [15][16] and both his account's and IP's talk pages [17][18] David1287 continues to contribute without verifying his contributions. Since my final warning last week, his editing behavior has not changed.[19][20][21][22][23][24]

According to WP:BLOCK "Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment." I would like to see that David1287 receive a temporary block for not being mindful of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS, and for not discussing and communicating with other editors. Based on his specific editing pattern, I think the block would be most effect if given on a Tuesday/Wednesday, or for a week in duration. Also, I'm sorry if this is too long of a request. I tried to keep this as short as possible without leaving out important details. Fezmar9 (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Similar edit areas to Sirius 128 (talk · contribs · logs) too... do the contribs align? From the user talk, it seems David1287 has received a large number of warnings. It appears he has been cut quite a bit of slack. SGGH ^ping! 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked until he agrees to restrict himself to charts and sources listed on WP:USCHARTS and WP:GOODCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've taken no action against Sirius128: if people think there's a link, I need to see a more convincing case, and WP:SPI is probably a better place for it.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Sirius128, but after looking into his edit history I'd say it's unlikely he's a sock of David1287. The majority of Sirius128's contributions are surrounding related articles for Bullet for My Valentine, Avenged Sevenfold and Three Days Grace. David1287's edit history includes a much wider variety of articles and almost exclusively edits chart positions. SGGH, do you have any direct evidence to support this? Fezmar9 (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so much for a sock, more a thought as to whether they both came from the same forum(s) mentioned in the report, largely from editing the same articles, sometimes one after the other, similar name etc. Not making any kind of sock or meat accusation it was just something to consider - but if someone has been able to look into it and is happy no connection that's fine by me. SGGH ^ping! 17:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks sock-y to me. Compare the files/FUR's for File:Your Betrayal - Bullet for My Valentine.jpg (uploaded by Sirius 128) to File:Your Betrayal.jpg (uploaded by David1287). Add that to the similarities in user names, the fact that neither acct uses edit summaries at all and that it looks from the timestamps that he logs out of one account and immediately starts editing with the other, and this completely fails the duck test. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Shall I run an SPI? SGGH ^ping! 21:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't hurt. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 22:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Link it here if and when you do. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David1287. The possible sockmaster has previous for IP hopping when blocked. SGGH ^ping! 08:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editor on Apple TV

Resolved

 – Blocked 24 hrs by Department of Redundancy Department (talk · contribs). –xeno^talk 19:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Awhile back, I answered a 3O on Apple TV. AshtonBenson (talk · contribs) was inserting text that used Apple forums, Apple FAQs and other sources to synthesize a section together, and the other editor disagreed with it. I sided with the latter, saying that it was inappropriate. A fourth editor came to the page and agreed with me and the other guy. AshtonBenson accused the three of us of meatpuppetry (side note - first time I've ever seen a 3O accused of meatpuppetry), and there were heated words. After several reversions, AshtonBenson was reported for a 3RR violation, but the page was fully protected. Benson then counter-reported the three of us for meatpuppetry, but that was declined.

Fast forward a week, and the page's protection expired. AshtonBenson is, once again, reinserting the text. I don't think this is an issue for dispute resolution; there's a fairly clear consensus that the text is wholly inappropriate, and it just seems that we have one particularly tendentious editor. As I'd rather not see this escalate any more, I've brought the issue here. It seems to me that AshtonBenson is particularly combative; he has reverted multiple warnings from his talk page, and he's repeatedly changedheaders on the talk page to reflect his beliefs about us being meatpuppets. Further, he created Digital Monitor Power Management, a one-line article about the same text that he's trying to add to the Apple TV, which seems to be a step towards WP:POVFORK. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The additional section is clearly WP:OR "sourced" to forum posts, so I have removed it. In addition, the accusation of meat puppetry is completely baseless, so I have warned the editor against making personal attacks. Whether admin intervention becomes necessary is entirely up to AshtonBenson. —DoRD (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DoRD, you seem to have mistaken the term "meat puppet" for an insult. It is not. It is a recognized Wikipedia techincal term. Thank you for your interest. AshtonBenson (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

DoRD is an administrator; I'd like to think they know what a meatpuppet is. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

HelloAnnoying, your version of events is quite strange. Could you please clarify which words were "heated"? Also, as I recall, you reported me, I reported you, and both reports were resolved via protection of the page. You somehow seem to imply that your report was officially verified and mine was not -- this is not the case. Although I may be tenacious, I must take issue with your use of the word "combative"; there is no evidence to substantiate this personal attack you have made. And, last of all, I fully admitted that creating a new article for DMPM was unnecessary and voted in support of merging it with DPMS, so I can't see how the contribution of that material is in any way relevant to this discussion. AshtonBenson (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with HellowAnnoyong: I had hoped the the temporary page protection would have provided a needed break and for the most part AshtonBenson seemed to be more cooperative. But with the recent reversion against what was, except from his efforts, a complete consensus that the material in question was not supported by reliable sources. Given the accusations of meatpuppety, as a good faith effort at dispute resolution I asked contributors on the reliable sources noticeboard here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_64#Apple_TV_and_discussion_about_Digital_Monitor_Power_Management where a participant on that board also agreed with the consensus. One would have through the weight of at least four independent editors would have convinced AshtonBenson to find a reliable source for the content (if available) or leave it alone, but instead he just went back to reverting. Mattnad (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus among meat puppets is not consensus, per WP:MEAT: "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity" AshtonBenson (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what a meatpuppet is, AshtonBenson. Furthermore, this does not justify your edit-warring. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. AshtonBenson, neutral third opinions have nothing to do with meatpuppetry, and repeatedly asserting that they do is disruptive, and could lead to a block, whether or not you continue edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. A meat puppet is (usually) someone the other puppet know in meatspace. It certainly isn't some random editor found via 3O. –xeno^talk 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as an update, the tendentious editing continues. Just now, AshtonBenson yet again changed the title of a thread from "AshtonBenson and Apple discussion forums" to "AlistairMcMillan's Meat Puppets and Apple discussion forums". This clearly isn't going to stop anytime soon, and it's just becoming increasingly disruptive. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And as I previously warned AshtonBenson against making unfounded accusations, they've been blocked for 24h for changing the section heading once again. —DoRD (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Update: I've deleted Digital Monitor Power Management per the deletion discussion (it has been merged). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Creation of WikiProjects by User:Kingjeff

In the last couple of weeks, I have noticed that User:Kingjeff has created two full-blown WikiProjects without the approval of the WikiProjects Council. As I understand it, consultation with the Council is required before the creation of a WikiProject. Is there anything that should be done about this? – PeeJay 17:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What are the two WikiProjects? The "council", as far as I can tell, doesn't have any actual authority, and is just there to help out new projects. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the council was there to decide whether a Project is a good idea or not. After all, if every Tom, Dick and Harry created a WikiProject whenever he felt like it, we'd have thousands! FWIW, the Projects that Kingjeff has created are Wikipedia:WikiProject Association Football competitions and Wikipedia:WikiProject Bavaria. It was later decided at WP:FOOTY that the football competitions Project should be redirected to WP:FOOTY's season article task force. – PeeJay 20:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

EVula is right in that the Council is more of a 'best practice'; it's not mandated. But it helps to ensure a project isn't already covered, or best covered as a task force of a parent topic. –xeno^talk 22:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I never created WikiProject Bavaria. I merely help upgrade the project to a position where they can formally use the project pages. So, I think we should keep WikiProject Bavaria out of this. From what I see from from the seasons task force, it doesn't have as broad of a scope as I intended. Kingjeff (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, it belongs to the bold. Kingjeff should be given a barnstar for his initiative, ANI threads. Association Football competition can be turned into a taskforce of the Association Football project, but ANI ain't the place to discuss this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, policy is quite clear that failure to adhere to the letter of a process or policy in the attempts to do something legitimate does not invalidated either a post, an action, an edit, or any manner of things an editor tries to do. A wikiproject being "good" or not depends on the actions of those involved in the wikiproject in increasing the number of articles, increasing the number of non-stub articles, fighting vandalism, helping newbies and others find information and each other for help, and a host of other REAL EDITING criteria; not any council's opinion on whether or not it technically meets any preset determinates that are subjective or meaningless anyways, like "how many editors can you get to join?" "is it a distinct topic?" "does it overlap another wikiproject?". The more wikiprojects we have the better, editor interaction and support is much needed. Everyone needs a friend and to know they arent alone in editing.Camelbinky (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

point is other WikiProjects don't have problems with decendant WikiProjects. Why is this an issue with WikiProject Football? I am willing to take WP:SEASONS into the WikiProject Association Football competitions.

1. WikiProject Association Football competitions looks like it fits a broader scope.
2. What WP:SEASONS are doing can easily be broken down into Task Forces making what they do more simple and more efficient. Kingjeff (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the trend lately has been to consolidate wikiprojects into single projects with task forces, which is what they are trying to tell you is already done. There is no point creating a new project when there is already a task force that does what you are trying to do. I don't edit soccer articles so I don't particularly care either way. But it seems to me like you are trying to prove a point, why would you want to alienate the editors that are going to help you achieve your goal? Wikiprojects usually work better when there are less talk pages to have to watch for discussions, spliting up a task force even further beyond what they have already done is not efficient and would probably actually lead to less progress on your subject matter.-DJSasso (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

But what I am telling you guys is that I'm still willing to make this a sub-Project. Yes, it would still be a seperate WikiProject, but it still would work with WikiProject Football. In fact, I already had links to some manuals of style of WikiProject Football. Kingjeff (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the scope of your Project overlaps that of the season article task force by quite a long way, and you have even tagged a few articles that don't seem to fit with the title of the project. – PeeJay 17:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Trolling and Inflammatory attack page

Resolved

 – Matt has agreed to stay away from Bali ultimate and Giano, thus I have unblocked. AniMate 03:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

{{resolved|User:Matt57 blocked for one week for edits, some highlighted by others during this discussion, that are simply not acceptable in a congenial environment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)}}

{{discussion top|Closing with an offer that if he agrees not to discuss or refer to Giano or Bali for the next six months he will be unblocked, otherwise the block will run the given length. MBisanz talk 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)}}

• Clearly this was a deeply misguided effort by MBisanz to stifle conversation that is evidnently ongoing and on the same subject. As his efforts, whilst in good faith, were clearly misguided and of poor judgement this is not archived. Pedro :  Chat  20:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

---

This editor, User:Matt57 with whom, before yesterday, (as far as I'm aware) I have had no previous interaction seems to be hell bent on antagonising me and attempting to cause trouble and disharmony. My attention was drawn to him yesterday on Jimbo's page when he felt the need to cite me in an argument while forbidding any other editor to respond; he has since been pursuing me on my page and elsewhere. He has now transformed his user page into an attack page. I have removed the inflammatory comment once and it has been re-instated [25]. I would like an admin to deal with this, preferably before I do. Coming here is the policy and action I am constantly being advised to do, so I will try it and see how effective it is - it seldom achieves anything, but one lives in hope. If not I am more than capable of dealing with this person myself.  Giano  12:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Appears to have been a little interpersonal spatt. You are better off just ignoring him, if you like I will ask him nicely to remove the box on his Userpage, as putting that up there is only helping to continue the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the two Giano diffs per WP:UP#POLEMIC, as there is no evidence of Matt57 having a dispute (aside from on his user page) with Giano. Hipocrite (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It should go- that's not what user pages are for- though I'm not sure removing like that is any less inflammatory than their presence in the first place. He should be politely encouraged to disengage and move on rather than make mountains out of molehills. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I kind of a agree that rather than remove them (which may cause more grievance), it would perhaps be better to allow him the chance to remove them, Hipocrites removal of two comments from Giano has left two similar comments from User Bali ultimate, one out all out would have been better imo, or as I say , allow him to remove the box himself. Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There are still two on there, are they related to this Bali thing above? SGGH ^ping! 12:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree as well, and I took the liberty of knocking the rest of the "naughty list" off the userpage. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I missed that but....This edit from Matt57 to Bali Ultimate yesterday clearly is actionable as a personal attack. ---Hey Bali, please stop fucking justifying abuse, alright. Go fucking read WP:NPA. Or leave Wikipedia if you cant talk to people here without using 4 letter words, for fucks sake. (note, 4 letter words were used to deliver a point). Thank you and sincerely and hey, dont fucking remove my comment too. HINT: you can say things in a polite mature rational way or you can start being emotional and use 4 letter words. Whats less abusive? If using 4 letter words isnt abusive, give me the telephone numbers of your loved ones and I'll call them all and air out some feelings about you using some nice choice words. Stop abusing people. --Matt57 3:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1) ...Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That comment is disgusting. I'm seriously tempted to block for it, the only thing that's stopping me is that it was 24 hours ago... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, given that this is clearly a pattern, I am going to block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week. I welcome review of the action here and any admin may feel free to alter, amend or lift the block without further consultation with me if there is consensus to do so here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree and fully support the action, mentioning someones loved ones and suggesting contacting them is bang out of order. Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw this issue starting to arise this morning (I have Giano's talk on my watchlist for no other reason than I'm to lazy to take it off) and noting the diff provided by Off2rioRob fully support the block. Pedro :  Chat  13:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a danger Matt57's comment is being taken out of context. It was pointy, but the language used was used for precisely that - to make a WP:POINT. So... I support a block if the reason is WP:POINTiness, but I'm hesitant to condemn the comment as "disgusting", given the context.

I'm certain that Bali wouldn't provide the contact details of their loved ones; I'm equally confident that Matt wouldn't actually "pull a Woss".

Matt's frustrated by what he sees as double standards regarding swearing. That's no justification for WP:POINTy behaviour (and, as I said above, I have no problem with a block for that) but I do feel the language used and the things said were purely to make a point.

(Disclaimer: I had a very public spat with Matt yesterday regarding language. I disagree with some of what he believes, but I do feel he has the best interests of the project at heart, in particularly the need for editors to converse in a civil manner without recourse to swearing).

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 'nother disclaimer, though you all probably realise: I'm just a regular editor, commenting only because I've been involved with Matt57 recently)

I feel the same about things as TFOWR said above. I think that Matt57 was trying to make a point. For the record he is asking for an unblock here. Thanks,--CrohnieGal^Talk 14:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, i just quietly removed the comment on my talk page after having a small chuckle and was otherwise happy to forget it/ignore it. Have no idea why the fellow is so worked up about me. I'd never heard of him before yesterday.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I should certainly hope it was not a block for POINT violations, because Giano was skipping around making POINT edits only last week, with no block in sight, which would be a gross double standard, but harldy unexpected. As it is, the block was for 'repeated and egregious personal attacks'. I'm just dissapointed we didn't get to see how Giano intended to sort this out himself, if this block hadn't been made. MickMacNee (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Giano has nothing to do with this as far as I can see, his behaviour has no bearing on Matt's and there was no reason for matt to bring him into this. If you have an issue with Giano, this isn't the discussion to sort it out--Jac16888^Talk 15:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you think Matt57 randomly chose to involve Giano while he was being enveloped in the 'what is the difference between civility and personal attacks' / 'why does this policy apply to me but not to X' death spiral experienced by many new users? I very much doubt it. I rather think Giano is central to this discussion, whether by nefarious means on Matt's part, or simply by a hardwired institutional awareness dynamic. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Matt obviously chose Giano because of his past behaviour, not because of any interaction between the two. I'm not exactly a fan of giano but this is clearly a case of matt picking on an easy target--Jac16888^Talk 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The unrestrained edits on this page from such as MickMacNee are one of the chief reasons I come here so seldom. It is a great pity that so many lurk here only in the hope of having a snipe at me. No doubt a few of the others will be here sooner rather than later to form a convention of the peanut gallery.  Giano  15:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Giano, much as I am generally a fan of yours that persecution complex attitude (however much it may be deserved) is not helpful. You asked above "Coming here is the policy and action I am constantly being advised to do, so I will try it and see how effective it is ". Well, its got the guy a 1 week block and his request for unblock denied. One would think that concludes this? Pedro :  Chat  16:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that my belief that certain people stalk my edits in the hope of sanctioning for perceived incivility within seconds, is just a false perception on my part. Easy mistake. Anyway, as you say the matter is dealt with - odd though isn't it - how long it takes some things to be picked up and not others? Giano  17:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

True, regretfully, that maybe there seems like more holding off when your name is mentioned, (no slight on you Giano - more that perhaps there is a lack of courage or more accurately waiting to see what the crowd say) but I hope you don't mind me marking this resolved. Pedro :  Chat  18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have unmarked as resolved; I don't think it has been, because I think as dod some others here that the block length is excessive. Matt has made his point, and,given his frustration at what appears to be unfair treatment of different editors, I think it is a good idea to soon unblock him. I am not doing it myself, because I took his side in his original complaint, and suggest that the other party be blocked, for using that sort of language in the first place. I doubt the business about contacting was meant seriously, considering the prior discussions about proper language--Of course it was a very poor idea to suggest such things even as a joke, because it is , as it should be, one of the absolutely forbidden types of behavior.Perhaps the fair thing is to reduce the block to 24 hours. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the lack of basic common courtesy in notifying me DGG that you'd undone that. Cheers. Really nice. Pedro :  Chat  18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion if you are going to 'unresolved' something you should use tlx to nullify the template, rather than removing the comment altogether. –xeno^talk 18:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for this--it was my carelsss error; I should have done as Xeno says. And my apology also for not notifying, but I did assume you were still around & following the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The blocking admin is open to an unblock, subject to consensus here. That said, I believe a block is fair (I'd be happy with a 24 hour block, or even leaving the duration as is). Shortening the duration of the block would also be an opportunity to note in the block log that there a WP:POINT lay behind the civility issues, and that the block was as much for pointiness as it was for civility. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Per TFOWR. Shorter block where POINT and NPA/HARASS are recorded or longer block where only NPA/HARASS is recorded? Seems like a double-edged sword either way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support block — I pointed this diff out yesterday, to no effect. I would extend the block to indef pending a clear statement the no real-world harm was actually intended and an acknowledgment that the comment was quite inappropriate. Given that, a reset to a week would be fine. Whomever Matt57 is, is trolling and banging-on, and refuses to drop the fucking stick. Civility et al are not weapons, people. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  I think that what Jack Merridew is referring to above was Matt57 attempting to use a rhetorical device, which went wrong and came across as a creepy real-world threat of harassment. It should be obvious that such a statement is disruptive to a collegial editing environment (indeed, to any not shit environment). I don't think it would be very productive to require Matt57 to acknowledge that. It should be sufficient to simply point it out, given that Matt57 is obviously aware of the "block potential" of such comments. The usual caveats apply: this assumes some good faith and some constructive contributions elsewhere. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  Mebbe, but as I comment to TFOWR just below, I see the original parenthetical as applying only to the word 'fuck' and not really adhering to the phone numbers/loved ones comment. I'm unclear, beyond AGF, just what his constructive contributions elsewhere might be, but he's certainly climbed higher on folks' radar screens in the last day+ ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  Matt57 has indicated that no real-world harm was intended; I'll dig out a diff. I suspect Jack's second requirement may be harder to obtain, though... TFOWR^propaganda 18:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  This is the diff I was thinking of: "I had specifically said in that post that I was making a point and therefore you could have seen I did not literally mean that comment." TFOWR^propaganda 18:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  I've seen that, and his comment in the original diff. My take is, and was, that he was referring to his use of the word "fuck" as a deliberate point violation. He stated "(note, 4 letter words were used to deliver a point)". The comments about phone numbers and loved ones really stand apart from that. Anyway, he does appear to clarified that he's, uh, fucking around and is not serious about his real-world threats. There remains his long-term disruptive nature to consider, as I commented just below. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  Moar. I've been looking at Matt's history. His prior block, for a month, included the comment that next time it's indef (not a mere week). The issue was whatever exactly was occurring at AN/I571#User:Matt57 crossing several lines in smear campaign against CAIR. I also note the irony that his first block was, in part, for incivility. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to unblock, with the proviso that his user page does not go back up as it was, and that he accept that everyone is pretty much done with this particular incident, and we don't want to hear about Bali or Giano anymore from him. (If he doesn't agree to that, then I still think technically the block should be undone, but in that case I won't bother spending time arguing for it). His comment to Bali was certainly sub-optimal, but I saw that comment yesterday and didn't think it was the creepy harassment that people are making it out to be, and now he's confirmed it wasn't intended that way. Perhaps if we de-escalate, he'll reciprocate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so arbitrary break (Matt57)

• Y'know, I think it's just adorable how he gets offered 'get out of jail free' card with his explanation, but when it's me, you all jump up and down screaming 'You're a liar', despite the fact that I have neither a history or even a propensity towards lying. Just saying. HalfShadow 19:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)He still doesn't get the reason for the block and I therefore want it on record that I strongly oppose unblocking him at this point and until the penny drops that he was in the wrong. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• I take the minor unilateral action of resolving the thread and getting it undone - but a 'crat turns up and archives the whole damn thing without debate. Great. At least I know where I stand. What a piss poor shambles. Pedro :  Chat  19:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the 'Crat was sent from above. In my considerable experience they usually are!  Giano  20:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't look like he's going to accept the terms of the unblock in any case so it'll all be back here in a week anyway. – B.hotep •talk• 19:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• I also strongly oppose unblocking at this point, requesting the telephone numbers of the loved ones of other editors and suggesting you will telephone them is wrong wrong wrong, editor does not seem to understand this. I care less if he didn't mean it or he was trying to make some point, he should not have said it ever. User is on a last warning and should consider himself lucky to only be blocked for a week, he has yet through his comments failed to understand anything at all. Actually I support raising the block to indefinite. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Playing the Devil's Advocate, I cannot think that he truly expected the numbers to be provided. However, it's the reference to a person's "loved ones" (ghastly expression) that was a bit creepy - there's an invisible barrier between the Wiki personae and the real life personae - even a hint at invading the RL personea as a result of the Wiki needs to be stamped on mercilessly.  Giano  21:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was a rather odd unblock condition; either agree to not talk about certain people for 6 months, or wait 7 days and then talk about them again? Choosing the latter was a foregone conclusion. Tarc (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

An entirely unenforceable condition bound to end in tears, no doubt. – B.hotep •talk• 21:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Choosing the 7 day block over the 6 month ban is only a foregone conclusion for someone who values being able to make personal comments more highly than being able to edit Wikipedia in general. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh. I made no complaint. I'm a big boy (and i found the running around with hair on fire antics amusing). My advice is unblock him, if he goes about stirring up further trouble, deal with it then. I'm far more concerned with people who stand in the way of decent article content (who are rarely blocked for their behavior) than with people who are a pain in the ass here or on talk pages (who are often blocked for that).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

An unblock would serve to provide him with sufficient rope to properly sort this in about a week. The amusement value falls quickly once we're into so much pointedness and time-sucking disruption. We do need move on to all manner of other issues. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

+{{Cookie}} for SheffieldSteel, who's nailed it. It's a WP:BATTLEGROUND issue. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Bali sees it correctly as essentially a bad joke; it is so far beyond the line that it cannot have been meant be a serious threat, more in the line that if I threaten to murder someone and then chop then into little pieces and feed them to the geese, it rather detracts from the seriousness of the threat. (I picked my example from Thurber, a well known humorist.) Not that I think it was at all a good sort of joke to make in the rather humorless context of a WP dispute. Jack, unlike Bali, seems out to inflame the issue further. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Your bad faith re myself is well known. I've a question for you; had *I* made the comment re phone numbers and loved ones to an editor whom you support, would you be talking a mere 24h block? Jack Merridew 23:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

While Jack and I are in disagreement on how to handle the angry young fellow, I am in agreement with him on how DGG would have opined had the shoe been on Jack's foot. It would have looked like this [26].Bali ultimate (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think even Jack is entitled to an occasional joke that misfires. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to let this one go. Matt57 has indicated that he won't be discussing Bali or Giano anymore. I say unblock. AniMate 00:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That is imo a very poor decision, who cares whether he meant it or not, he should not have said it, he has not taken it back and there is no value to the project in reducing his block at all. Acting as if it is ok that he didn't mean it is equal to saying it is ok, it is not ok, and don't come running to me when someone else asks you when you are in a heated dispute with them, how are your loved ones today? Give us their numbers and i'll telephone them and have a word with them, about you. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding article markup tags to people's comments on the discussion page

User:Darkstar1st continues to place mark-up tags on peoples comments despite requests to stop. I remove this edit[27] with the notation: "Do not place templates on other editors comments"[28] Darkstar1st then tags another editor's comments.[29] Another editor removes this and tells him to stop.[30] Darkstar1st then tags the comment asking him to stop.[31] TFD (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st is correct that this list of templates contains no rules at all about when their use is appropriate. But adding them to other editors' posts causes confusion about what they said, since people expect a continuous post to be from the user whose signature appears at the end of it. Such confusion is clearly a Bad Thing (and is forbidden at WP:TALKNO if you want a policy citation). Darkstar1st, please stop introducing comments - whether templated or not - into the middle of others' posts; leave replies at the bottom as is customary. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That is an extremely disruptive and inappropriate use of templates that are clearly meant to call attention to article issues, not user's own words on a talk page. Tarc (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand the confusion. My tags were an attempt to draw attention to those claiming authority/expertise, yet cite no WP policy other than their own ideas. I will make my observations in the form of a comment, apologies. Tarc plz cite source, TFD, all of your last 5 "edit wars" with me, have all been decided in my favor. Why do you follow me to articles you have no interest in until I make an edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What is this about following you and "winning" 5 edit wars? What are you talking about? I went and removed tags from Talk:Libertarianism and Talk:Laozi, after reading about it here. Tarc (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"TFD" is the WP "the four deuces", apologies for the confusion, it appears to be my strong suit. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're admitting a battleground mentality? Frankly, this kind of stuff is disruptive, pure and simple. If you have a point to make, add a comment in response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st has replied on his talk page, "I have temporarily agreed to not use tags in discuss, although consensus confirms you are mistaken saying it is against WP:policy".[32] I said nothing about WP:Policy, which is clear from my initial posting here. And, Olaf Davis referred to WP:TALKNO, which clearly states, "Generally, do not alter others' comments...." TFD (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

@Ricky, "edit war" was TFD term, ergo the quotation marks. Thank you for your opinion, noted. @TFD, where did I accuse you of citing WP:Policy, in fact i did the opposite? Also, you appear to be dodging my earlier question, as you have in the past with other interrogatives; why do you follow me to articles you have no interest in until I make an edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How do your accusations against other editors explain placing templates on their comments? Do you intend to continue doing this? TFD (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have agreed to stop, see above. i am not making an accusation, rather stating the fact you undo my edits on pages you have never edited before, and have been over-ruled each time, i simply ask why? Darkstar1st (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to understand why I reversed your edits then please take it up in an appropriate place. TFD (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

But you did not reverse any of my edits? Each time you have been over-ruled. My question is not about the edits, but rather, what drew you to the pages you had never edited, within hours of me editing the new article? This has happened on several different unrelated articles, such as a page I created 5 years ago: "Immigration to Mexico", then undoing an edit of mine, without success, on the Libertarian page. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I find adding tags like that to the middle of peoples messages to be pretty rude, and to see "I have temporarily agreed to not use tags in discuss, although consensus confirms you are mistaken saying it is against WP:policy" makes me very much doubt that the user has had any change of heart as he snipes about it even when saying he won't do it. Temporarily? Why not permenantly? It's confusing, disruptive, and will put numerous people's backs up. SGGH ^ping! 10:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My original statement, on the talk page: Talk:Laozi Disagree, "I do feel it is appropriate, but have agreed to stop until a more elegant method of asking for a citation in discussion can be created." Your opinion that consensus has been formed is suspect, "Darkstar1st is correct that this list of templates contains no rules at all about when their use is appropriate.", but immaterial as well, as I agreed to stop before your comments, as well as TFD comments before you. You are correct my heart is true, but incorrect in your opinion I have sniped, which concerns me, as the larger issue, of editors following me to undo my edits has not been addressed. The best example is TFD undoing a deletion I made 3 times, then threatening me with a ban if I broke the 3 revert rule. The passage I deleted was by a 16 year old student, in a self-published blog: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism#DarkStar.27s_edits http://www.zcommunications.org/prospects-for-libertarian-socialism-by-david-baake. The reasons listed each time were "vandalism", even after I published the evidence in talk. My citations were in good faith, intended only to verify the WP:policy editors were citing as fact, when actually personal opinion proved to be the case each time. I do see it is confusing, but not disruptive, and if people are offended by truth, my days on WP, may be shorter than anyone could know. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"until a more elegant method of asking for a citation in discussion can be created." - There is a more elegant method: "User X your statement above does not appear to have basis in any of Wikipedia's Policies or Guidelines / runs counter to Policy Y. Can you explain on what basis you are making that claim?" Active Banana (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, be still crude/less effective according to me. I will continue to hold out for a better option, as the templates reduce WP size, an attribute we all support. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration requires communication, not just throwing templates at each other. Memory is cheap. Active Banana (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, this discussion thread is about placing template messages on other editors comments If you wish to mention the actions of other editors, then they should only be mentioned here to the extent that they justify your placing of said templates. If you want to set up another discussion thread about other issues, you are welcome to do so, but continuing to raise them here is disruptive. TFD (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

TFD, please cite the material I have posted that is not directly addressing my use of templates Darkstar1st (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You are well aware of what I am talking about. Incidentally, your statement that I "[undid] a deletion I made 3 times, then threatening me with a ban if I broke the 3 revert rule. The passage I deleted was by a 16 year old student" is false. I did not reverse your edit even once, and did not provide a 3rr warning to you for this edit. TFD (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies TFD, you are correct, it was another editor who was over-ruled in this case. However, I am not aware of what you are talking about, please cite your evidence. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How does your complaint about someone reversing your edits or issuing a 3rr warning have anything to do with your placing template messages on other editors' comments? TFD (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Long term factual vandalism IP

Resolved

 – IP blocked Shimeru (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User:67.174.134.116 has been changing sports articles, mostly athlete bio stats, for a while now, largely skating under the radar. Despite a block in April, after the block was up they were right back at it. Every edit after that point was a subtle factual error vandalism edit. All have (I think) since been undone, but here's the list: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. In addition, some edits changing "!" to "." which is right, but I recently dealt with another editor using regex, or something to change all "." to "!". Perhaps a coincidence. Shadowjams (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. It seems as if most or all of this IP's edits have been vandalism; if it continues after this block is up, it might be worth indef-blocking. Shimeru (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but even in my zeal I won't support indef of an IP. However, anything less than 2 years is probably ok, so long as there's basic review permitted if the IP dynamically allocates and the new editor has no idea. Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy lives

Tbsdy lives wishes to withdraw from the project. No further discussion is required. –xenotalk 22:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Can we stop this now please? Tsbdy is no longer posting on Giano's talk page, and that's good. The important criterion when deciding whether to block an editor is whether future disruption would be prevented. On that basis, it seems that it's this thread that ought to be blocked.SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Could someone please advise Tbsdy lives (talk · contribs) to back away from Giano before it gets uglier. I tried to advise him, but he doesn't want to listen to me. His continued use of his user page and Giano's talk page to taunt and bait him isn't going to do anyone any good.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC) No taunting - Giano makes inflammatory comments, I find them amusing and wish to record them for posterity on my user page. If Giano wants to stop making such comments, that's fine. In the meantime I find them funny, so I'm noting them. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 17:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC) So far this evening, at the last count I have now reverted this "Admin" from my page 12 times. While I understand that admins are a protected species, would someone please ban him for his own safety and good. Thank you.  Giano  17:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Giano, you have made some frankly ridiculous comments on Jimbo's talk page so far. You have been quite persistent, to the point of harassment. When I went to your talk page to see if anyone had noted this to you, I noticed a hilarious comment by someone who asked you to look after their elderly aunt's honour. Then you started to talk about how I misquoted you, to which I responded. If you did not want me to respond to you, then you should not have said I misquoted you. I merely showed you how ridiculous I thought you were being - so I laughed at you because it was funny! Had you not wanted to get into a conversation, you should not have accused me of something I've not done. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC) WP:UP#NOT item #10 should apply. Don't make records of other users' perceived misdeeds (or whatever you're calling them). And when you're continually reverted from someone's talk page, it's probably best to stop posting there. Equazcion (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Repeatedly posting unwanted comments on another user's talk page is close enough to harassment, in my book. I'm pretty sure tbsdy will stop now that it's been brought up here. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC) (e/c) Aye. Seriously?. Just leave each other alone. End of story. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Indeed I will! I thought that he wanted a conversation because he accused me of misquoting him. He noted my supposed actions on his talk page - if he didn't want me to respond then a. he could have said so, and b. he would not have made the comment! But as he's said he doesn't want any more responses to his baseless accusations, I'm willing to stop. There Giano... that wasn't hard was it? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I'd think that at least here you could stop the baiting.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I note that if this was a non-admin, he'd be getting warnings to stop harassing someone from all sides. It's cowardly to hide behind your adminship to do something you know others would get warned/blocked for. Indeed, if it continues I may block my first admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Good I see you are all admin too, can you explain what is the threshold for having to be reverted before a block for an admin, as opposed to an ordinary user such as myself. Obviously it is above 12. 13 - 23 - 33 - 103? It would be useful for us poor mortals to know the precise figure.  Giano  18:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC) For me, it's not so much a question of a number, as it is a matter of continuing when warned not to. If he does it one more time, I will block him. I'd treat a non-admin the same way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I have no idea what you are talking about. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC) For the record, I've lowered the protection on the page to semi-protection as it is not owned by Tbsdy and the history doesn't seem to warrant the full protection. Someone may wish to boldly edit the page now (according to user page policies or an emerging consensus), however this is not an invitation to edit war. If an edit war occurs, I have no issue if it goes back up to full protection (keeping in mind if that happened, it would not be appropriate for Tbsdy to continue editing it). –xenotalk 18:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Note that I have removed that quote gallery from Tbsdy's user page. I would be prepared to block if he continues his taunting campaign, on whatever page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I think 12 reverts is quite enough for anyone - is this expected standards for an admin? This user needs blocking and desysopping. Of course though it won't happen will it?  Giano  18:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Now that Jimbo has relinquished his super-tools, only ArbCom can desysop someone (or stewards, but only in emergencies), so you may wish to visit WP:RFAR –xenotalk 18:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)I'm considering it, Giano. But if I block one, I'm blocking both- you've both violated the 3RR by a long way.I stand corrected HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC) refactored at 20:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC) (ECx2) Giano, the comments are gone, and the user said above they would leave you alone. Let's put this issue to rest for now, and if it comes back, then lets discuss blocking. But for now, Tbsdy agreed to leave you alone. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Wait, what? 3RR where? I must be missing something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Another Admin who does not know the basic 3R rules on talk pages! You have all sat and watched one of your own be reverted from my page 12 times in a very short space. I have no more to say to any of you. Now one of you threatens to block me. As usual my assumptions are proven correct.  Giano  18:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Giano has exemption from 3RR because it's his talk page. –xenotalk 18:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Tbsdy lives blocked I would have blocked a non-admin for a 3RR vioaltion like that, so it seems only fair to block an admin. We shouldn;t be any different. thus, Tbsdy has been blocked for 12 hours. Any admin is welcome to alter or lift the block without further consultation with me if they deem it appropriate and i invite review here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Plus, I have now declared Tbsdy banned from interacting with Giano or commenting on him, seeing that after I removed that quote gallery from his page, he immediately replaced it with a link to an off-wiki version of the same collection. I regret it had to come to this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC) While I brought this here for it to be taken care of, it needs to be handled correctly, not by an admin who's only comment in the thread demonstrated understands a lack of understanding of policies. If a block is needed it at least neads a qualified endorsement.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I support the block though I would have suggested a tad longer. Edit warring on a user talk page is extremely poor form. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I didn't think that Tsbdy needed to be blocked - certainly not for 3RR, having reviewed the recent edit history of Giano's talk page - but that was a very provocative sequence of posts, and the provocation continued in the above discussion. I think FP@S may have the best approach. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, FPAS' approach is probably the best, but a short block is not exceptionable either - an admin should know better, frankly. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC) If the behavior stopped after a warning, I don't know that a block was needed. However, a desysop would have been appropriate. Still, moot point I guess. If he unretires, I may consider pursuing it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Might be good to make a record of the interaction ban at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. I know Tbsdy is "retired," but history has shown that to not necessarily be a permanent declaration. Equazcion (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)I'm not comfortable with FP@S' ban by fiat. Furthermore, if he's no longer interacting with Giano, there's no reason for a block. We don't block after 3RR violations 'cause "they shoulda gotten it". In any case, he appears to have stormed off in a huff. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Perhaps I am mistaken, but breaking the 3RR rule almost always leads to a block. The usual exception is if there is a presumption that an editor is unaware of the rule (hence the warnings). An admin should definitely be aware of the rule. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 3RR isn't even the crux of the issue. See Future Perfect at 18:06 [42], Tbsdy at 18:11 [43]. –xenotalk 18:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I agree that the outcome was likely correct. It would have been nice if it was done for the correct reason, so focus wasn't diverted.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I've been watching this thread for the last couple hours (and the related stuff), and I've been somewhat involved in trying to sort this dispute in the past (months) and know some of the ancient history (years). The 3rr was actionable, but is not the crux of it (per Xeno). The solution FPaS offered is the best route forward should Tbsdy unretire. This was pretty clearly a round of poking the bear. I'd also like to note the irony of the final word of each username. Broadly viewed, this is rather how I landed on a subsequent account. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I haven't gotten much into recent admin politics, but since when can someone place a ban on another user by fiat, even so far as someone suggesting it be recorded on WP:RESTRICT? Admins are not gods, and are expected to act within the rules, not by making new ones. There is of course a place for IAR, but seeing as how 3RR apparently (I have not delved too deeply into this) was sufficient, I don't know why a unilateral restriction had to be made. Even in my own dealings, I think the worst I've done is prevented both parties from communicating with each other, rather than a restriction on only one party. A one-sided restriction by its very nature opens the door to the possibility of abuse. Should Ta bu have taken a break and not continued the fight? Of course. We expect people to respect others' talk pages here. But this seems to have been handled with a very heavy hand. That said, when doing my occasional read of AN/ANI, I see a vastly disproportionate number of threads dealing with Giano. Is he that abrasive, or is it that loud people dislike him? --Golbez (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Probably a combination of both, but since TSBDY decided he was an authority on Baroque architecture I have given him a very wide birth. Indeed, my re-write remains largely ignored and unwritten ignore the spoof lead, that's to balance the page until its re-written and I know what I need to say), rather than give him his announced intention of "pouring over it with a fine tooth comb"[44]. I know the second it is finished he will cause trouble. These days, I only make reference to him when one of his comments on me needs to be redressed or he come in pursuit. This I did today, quietly and without comment. He can say what he likes on his page (it's not on my list), but not on mine. After reverting him 12 times on my page (yes, 12) someone brings it here, and even then there is a marked reluctance to block him. I find that astounding and something I shall certainly bear in mind when I see others blocked by the admins here for 3RR.  Giano  19:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC) A 3RR block was valid, I don't disagree on that. --Golbez (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Actually, now I'm not sure. Ta Bu didn't revert once, and you only reverted 9 times (I know, not much different), and edited his comments at least once. So it falls less under 3RR and more under edit warring, WP:POINT, perhaps harassment (Though you obviously weren't a helpless victim, demonstrated by your responding in kind). --Golbez (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC) No, not at all. He misrepresented a view I had express and I clarified it, without comment on him. I do not go to his page; I have no interest in it or him. I removed him from my page - how ever many times it was. Is this how an Admin is supposed to behave?  Giano  20:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC) A lot of community bans are imposed by a single admin, and then confirmed by the community. In this case, I'd have to say "Good block/ban."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC) In other words, a community ban can be a unilateral block where other admins are afraid to wheel-war over it. They may disagree with the block, but not enough to risk the backlash. In other words, a less-than-legitimate block can be a "community ban" even though the arguments against it, while sound, aren't quite enough to spur anyone to risk the backlash of unblocking. --Golbez (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Not that it invalidates the thrust of your argument, but the current definition of wheel war doesn't typically apply to the 2nd action, but to the 3rd. –xenotalk 19:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Oh? Well that's good, that fits better with the BRD philosophy. --Golbez (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I think at one point there was some discussion that suggested an admin could lay down a ban "in lieu" of an indefinite block. I'm not sure how that panned out though. –xenotalk 19:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I was involved in a discussion about admins declaring bans, and the outcome was actually that they can't. Fut. Perf. is the only admin I really ever see doing this (and he's done it alot); nevertheless in this case it looks like he speaks for almost everyone. Is there really anyone here who doesn't think Tbsdy and Giano should be interaction-banned? If not then let's not make purely bureaucratic objections. Equazcion (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC) There was an interaction ban between Ta Bu and giano? Where? I see it said by FPAS that Ta Bu should not communicate with Giano; I see no parallel restriction upon Giano communicating with Ta Bu, and without that reciprocation an interaction ban is worthless. If Ta Bu was being warned or blocked about harassment then that's fine, harassment is a universal bad and doesn't apply to interaction with a single person. But he was warned specifically from interacting with Giano, whereas Giano was not, so far as I see, told the same. It's one thing to be told to stop harassing; it's another to be told to stop interacting. And all of this is somewhat moot; wasn't a 3RR block sufficient, and then we could have moved on with our lives? --Golbez (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Actually, now that I look, there wasn't specifically any reverting going on by Ta Bu, just increasing levels of belligerence. It's not like Giano was hitting rollback; he was responding to what Ta Bu wrote. So perhaps even a 3RR block wasn't a valid avenue. --Golbez (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC) (ec)I think the interaction ban is probably fine, though it should go both ways of course. The block is fine too, though I'd caution a brand new admin against wading into the Giano quagmire until you have more seasoning. With the history of blocks, unblocks, retirements, and arbitration cases here, any block in regards to him needs to be right. AniMate 19:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I'm not a brand new admin, that's the thing. I just avoid most admin politics. Perhaps someone should write a Concise History of Giano to educate us. --Golbez (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I've done it too.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Maybe you all have seen this, but why is it that anyone who comes in contact with Giano is blocked/banned from communicating with him, but he can go on complete rant/rave sprees and practically spit on WP:CIVIL and be brought to AN or ANI many times and nothing done, but anyone who stands up to him is punished for doing so. Why are we protecting Giano? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC) One way to answer this question would be to actually review the contributions and actually see what occured here.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Tbsdy has been gunning for Giano since shortly after Tbsdy returned from his last "retirement". Tbsdy has been advised several times to avoid Giano, largely because of Tbsdy's taunting and goading behaviour towards Giano. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Timeline of the block At 13:17 my time, FPAS informed TBSDY that he was banned from interacting with or commenting on Giano. At 13:20, TBSDY responded with a comment on Giano, though it was on his own talk page and not on Giano's. At 13:16, TBSDY was already blocked, ostensibly for 3RR but I'm not sure that's a valid block at this point. Edit warring, perhaps, but then again, Giano was interacting with Ta Bu, not merely deleting his entries wholesale. So... I'm feeling more and more inclined to undo this block, with the proviso that Ta Bu and Giano cease interacting with each other for the time being. --Golbez (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Just one moment - quite how was I interatcing with him?  Giano  20:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I'm inclined to agree with you. AniMate 20:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Before considering an unblock, keep in mind that he continued to rant about Giano after the block; indeed, he would likely still be doing it if I hadn't reblocked with no talk page access. Also, as HJ Mitchell has said on his talk page, it's not too much of a stretch to consider replacing "hahahah" with "LOL" with "ROFL" to be edit warring. I wouldn't have done a 3RR block unless it continued after a warning, but it's not an obviously invalid block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Well, yes, that makes sense; once he was blocked and apparently considering retirement, what was the point of holding back? I'm not going to hold much of his comments after the block against him. And I didn't deny that it was edit warring, but it doesn't appear to be 3RR. The spirit isn't there; if it were true harassment that Giano didn't want there, he would have removed it wholesale rather than responding to or editing the comments. And perhaps herein lies the problem with Giano? (I'm still waiting for that concise history) --Golbez (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I am speechless, and that does not happen often. I did not in any way engage with that person.  Giano  20:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Except for where you didn't just remove his comments, you decided to post diffs trying to turn it around on him. ([45]) If you're being harassed, the only right thing to do is revert and report. The fundamental issue here is, he was posting to your talk page, you removed (or appeared to fight back a few times) but that was it. If you thought there was a problem, you should have brought it up with people who can end it. Instead, you waited until, for some reason, some one else whiteknighted you, and then chimed in on how horrible it was that you had to remove his comments nine times. (12 is exaggerating, based on my math) If it was really that bad, you should have reported him to ANI or AIV yourself. Seeing as how you did not, and seeing as how you were posting past diffs of TBSDY yourself, a disinterested observer like myself may infer that you didn't really see it as harassment or total annoyance. --Golbez (talk) Meatball:DefendEachOther has been cited in past arbcom cases here, and given the history I think it was better handled without Giano being the "complaintent. (No disrespect intended).--Cube lurker (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Not so disinterested I think. Following the Blenheim Palace episode I made it a rule never to approach or engage him, unless he commented me on me first. Mostly, even then, I choose to ignore him. Today he began misquoting me on JWales's page, so without comment on him, or disruption the thread on Wales' page, I posted on my page just the diffs to rebuff his claim. Which they succesfully did. I am not concerned with his page - his off site activities only his on-site activities on wikipedia. I always regard this page as a last resort, and having seem the false excuses and false prevarications made for him here, I feel quite justified in holding that view.  Giano  20:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC) He did start removing them wholesale and not responding (not even so much as an edit summary). [46] [47][48][49][50][51][52] –xenotalk 20:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I must admit to an error, I saw this edit and in my haste thought he was responding to Ta Bu. You're right, the last 8 or 9 edits by him pertaining to Ta Bu's comments were removals rather than interactions. --Golbez (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Tbsdy always "retires" when he finds himself in trouble. He'll be back. DuncanHill (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I hope this is a joke. Unblocking an admin after he created off-site harassment and linked to it? [53] 12 hours is supposed to be too much for that? Hans Adler 20:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Apart from that it was a pretty clear edit war against Giano on Giano's talk page, including a 3RR violation. I am working on a list of just the relevant diffs. Hans Adler 20:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Just for reference over an hour before I brought this here I tried to warn him. [54] and the conversation continued briefly on my talk page. I'm not saying I did the best job, or that I was the best person to try, but he had the option to back away then.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC) (out) Gosh! All the time, energy and attention to detail seen on this and other connected threads is impressive! If only we could harness all of that and put it to some useful purpose. If only there was some kind of project nearby that could convert that activity into something positive and good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 15:16 "LOL!!!" Giano responds. 16:19 "Double LOL!" Giano replaces it with different text. 16:22 "Triple LOL!!!!" Giano replaces it with different text. 16:24 "Quotes: Hope you don't mind, but I've started taking quotes. I find the world according to Giano quite interesting, and I'm sure others probably feel the same." Giano removes this new section without comment. 16:25 "You just can't make this stuff up - ROFL!" Giano removes it without comment (after an unrelated edit to the same page). 16:28 "I added your actual quote to my page. Like I say, I'm quite a fan!" Giano removes it without comment. 16:44 "ROFL!" Giano removes it without comment. 17:14 "Hahahahaha!!!!!" Giano removes it without comment. Giano removes the first (15:16) "LOL!" comment without comment, then responds to One Night in Hackney. 17:43 "Is this the same aunt who jumps out of her chair when you say the word "fuck"? I do hope that you didn't interrupt her knitting..." Giano removes this comment to his conversation with One Night in Hackney without comment. 17:45 "Oh, that is so quoted." Giano removes this renewed comment on his conversation with One Night in Hackney without comment. 17:49 "You will periodically blank this page, but my user page goes on, for the amusement of the wider community!" Giano removes this without comment. It appears to me that the 16:22, 16:25, 16:28, 16:44, 17:14, 17:43, 17:45 and 17:49 edits were reverts. In each case Giano had made it abundantly clear that he did not want this type of comment on his page, and yet more of the kind was added. 8 reverts against the owner of a user talk page is pretty bad and 12 hours seems on the lower end for that. Hans Adler 21:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC) That's pretty bad. I don't think anyone with this in their history would survive an RFA. Hint hint. Equazcion (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Fully protected user pages of admins Resolved  – moot point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, Xeno unprotected my user page. Is this now policy for all user pages for all admins now? It was perfectly acceptable until recently, if it's not can I please ask that User:Glen be semi-protected? I'm sure there are a lot more. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC) They try to keep them limited to semi-protection, as I recall, much in the same way that user talk pages should be protected for as little time as feasable. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC) For background, see above thread and [55]. I don't think comparing Tbsdy's Giano quote gallery to a simple redirect is apples-apples, but YMMV. See also Wikipedia:Protection policy –xenotalk 18:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Tbsdy is now blocked, I note, so this discussion may want to move to his talk page. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I think a better venue would be WT:Protection policy; however, I think policy is clear on this. Full protection should be used sparingly, and only when the situation warrants. –xenotalk 18:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Not that I'm aware of, but pages should only be protected for good reason. Have you let Xeno know about this thread? Aiken ♫ 18:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC) No need, I saw it. –xenotalk 18:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Incidently, as I read it, I see no reason why admin user pages should be fully protected, unless there's some obvious reason such as substantial vandalism from non-IPs. I would support downgrading any fully protected admin user pages to semi unless they have a reason for the protection, though it doesn't bother me hugely either way. Ale_Jrbtalk 18:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC) What reason would any user, besides the user himself or an admin, have for modifying another user's page? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC) That is my question also, I'm the only one who should be editing my user page, for example. I have the subpage where the header for my user and usertalk pages resides fully protected. SGGH ping! 21:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I also agree, mine is kept fully protected as no one has any reason to edit my user page. If they see a need for a change there, they can approach me on my talk page, which would be only courteous anyway, and if they meet no satisfaction from me but feel they are in the right, they have this page.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC) What valid reason do you have for protecting it? Keep in mind, "I want to because no one else should be editing it" doesn't count; we don't really do preemtive actions of any kind, and you don't own your user page. Our protection policy also states that user pages are protected if there evidence of vandalism or disruption. Like I said, I don't mind hugely, though I (and most admins AFAIK) don't feel the need to protect their pages except perhaps against moving, but I can see why it might cause problems and would therefore support an arbitrary future policy that prevented it more specifically. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC) What valid reason do you have for not protecting it if the user wants it protected? User pages are not articles. No user besides the user himself or an admin has any business modifying a user's page. I don't mean the user talk page, but the user page. There's no reason an admin shouldn't fully protect his page, or a normal editor shouldn't be granted a request to semi-protect his user page. (Obviously if it were fully protected, the user himself couldn't edit it.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC) User pages are owned by the community and subject to acceptable use guidelines just like every other page here. To take action in this particular instance (see parent thread), I could've 1) edited the problematic material out myself through full protection or 2) unprotected the page, allowing the community to review the page and allow consensus to form. I chose (2). –xenotalk 22:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC) And if an editor takes it upon himself to mess with another editor's user page, typically the matter comes here anyway, with the angered user complaining, and a big debate ensuing. Do you want more drama here? I say again, no user has any business messing with another user's talk page. They shouldn't be correcting typos, and if they don't like some content, they shouldn't unilaterally remove it, they should discuss it with the user, and if the answer is unacceptable then it could come here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Yes, you can turn any statement around and say the opposite. I didn't say anywhere that it was an article, as far as I can tell I linked to the user page sections of the policies. If I didn't, lemme know, or that point has no relevance. Maintenance is a valid reason for not protecting it - while you can pretty much do as you please with it, you don't own your page. In addition, we require reasons to perform actions - not to not perform them. Anyhows, I'm going to bed, and the entirely premature resolution as a moot point is nevertheless somewhat valid, so there we go. I shall agree, as they say, to disagree. Ale_Jrbtalk 22:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC) The only problem I can see is non-admins saying "Well admins can protect their pages, why do I have to put up with userpage vandalism" and a flood of RFUPP. SGGH ping! 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC) To fix a template or correct a spelling error. I've had a user once change all the endings of military units to standardize it even though we had come to a consensus against that somewhere. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC) If a user makes an apparent typo on his page, let him know about it and let him take care of it. Correcting other peoples' spelling (except in articles) is not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC) (multiple e/c) My user page was semi-protected following some particularly vile (and oversighted) vandalism. Some time later, an admin who I had annoyed decided to unprotect it on the grounds that I wasn't retired. Sauce for the goose... DuncanHill (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Why is Tbsdy's Userpage in 'red ink', when parts of it have info? GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Tbsdy's userpage has been speedy deleted at his request. DuncanHill (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Also his talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Talk page has been restored, as speedying usertalk pages is contrary to policy and practice. DuncanHill (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC) And again deleted, by yet another admin. Food fight! :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC) There's an Wikipedia:Editnotice (at User:Tbsdy lives/Editnotice). TFOWRpropaganda 22:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Kneževo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

I don't know if this is the right place to report this, but there seems a lot of dispute about the content of the article Kneževo, Bosnia and Herzegovina (see edit-history). I just passed by and noticed a problem, I have no intention to be part of the fuzz. I've reverted a POV version of the article twice and after this I will stay out of this issue. I'm looking for people who can get into this matter since I'm not a regular here. Thanks for helping out. Best regards, Spraakverwarring (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have worked a little bit on this. There are serious POV problems there, which are not surprising at all given the history of the town. In the Bosnian War it was renamed to a "Serbian" name, and a part of its area was split off and is now on the other side of an important political border. Now of course the local people only care about pushing their respective POV about who supposedly has always lived in the town and what is its correct name etc. I am sure it needs a few more neutral watchers. Hans Adler 22:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, what happened? (new features)

Resolved

 – Somewhat.

The tabs are all rearranged, and worst of all, on my home PC the print is tiny. So what happened, and who do I talk to about getting it fixed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a "take me back" link at the top of the page? Click that to go back to your preferences. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I felt the same way about this change. Luckily we're not stuck with that terrible format.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Good thing, too; Vector busts the wikimedia+ addon. I tried it two weeks back and quickly switched back because of this. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

When I encountered the new format, I clicked on the "take me back" link and I got a database error message, but the "take me back" seems to have worked. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully that has been fixed. Prodego ^talk 06:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything's fine for my screen now. Seems like this all is an example of the old saying, "If it works, it's production; otherwise, it's a test." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The other old saying "nobody likes change" couldn't be more applicable here, and really we should embrace and adapt to such changes with a smile on our face. You can't stop progress! However, having said that, I gave up after 2 minutes when I noticed the scripts weren't working and the block/delete/protect buttons were hidden or missing. I don't like change... ;) – B.hotep •talk• 07:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind change, as long as it's an improvement. I like the search box on the left rather than at the top as the new version has it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Me too! - I fixed it by creating the css code at User:Begoon/vector.css - if you'd like to copy it, feel free, but I haven't tested it much, yet :) Begoon (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just a warning as to a change I've experienced. Used to be that when I went back and forward, it kept what I was working on. So, if I had a draft, and had previewed the draft, and then went to check my watchlist, and returned ... my draft was still there. Not in this new version (as it warns may be the case). Lost half an hour of edits. (though I think that will please a certain IP out there...). Caveat emptor. (btw, I was using Mozilla Firefox)--Epeefleche (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • • I've had that problem for years, on both home and office PCs, both of which use IE. I always do a swipe of whatever I've just been working on before hitting "save". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Try Chrome or Firefox -- they are much better than IE in preserving edits when you navigate away from a page. I use Chrome predominantly and I can almost always find my edit page in the history (even if I close the tab by mistake, Chrome has a "reopen closed tab" that has saved me) ATren (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Had this prob on Firefox 3.6 where it randomly refreshes and "forgets" what I have typed. You'd think they'd actually bother to test the thing before launch. Orderinchaos 16:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't have this problem at all (using Firefox). By the way, if the warning gets on your nerves you can turn it off in Preferences. Hans Adler 08:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Nor do I- I still do it all the time, and it's fine. Weird. I really like Vector, especially the dropdown menus. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 08:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also a little more trouble now to cancel what you were doing. And "watch" is hidden. Maurreen (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "watch" the star in the upper right corner? When it's an outline, the page is not watched, click on it and the star is colored in to indicate that the page is watched. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

←All I'd say is, if you do turn off the new features: fill in the feedback form! – B.hotep •talk• 08:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how much the new logo cost them... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the new, 3D, logo only available to those of us who didn't run away screaming from the new skin? I went back to monobook before I was aware of the new logo (not that it would have affected my decision, but I'd like to have something to complain about, and being denied the shiny new logo sounds like just the kind of thing I can whinge about ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 09:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Now I can't find any of the tools I had downloaded, for dates, dashes, unlink common words, and the like. Am I not looking someplace I should be looking?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Can anyone work out why twinkle isn't working in Vector? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, it's all scripts including something as basic as pop-ups, but I'm sure someone is working on these compatability issues... – B.hotep •talk• 08:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • @B.hotep: if your scripts are in a /monobook.js subpage, you need to make a new /vector.js subpage (lower-case V) and copy them into that. They should have put out a warning about that. JohnCD (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah, that'll do it, John! Cheers. Will give it a go. – B.hotep •talk• 10:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Horrible alterations. What I object to most is the creation of a "TB" (talkback) interface - that's only going to encourage the annoying spammy practice of people putting that annoying template on the page. An optional script for this is fine - but there should not be an alteration to the basic user interface without a consensus that this is good practice.--Scott Mac 09:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Where's that talkback thing? I didn't even see that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've gone back to the old interface too. The new one lost all the additional tags in the toolbox apart from anything else. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You would probably keep those tools if you copy over the contents of your "/monobook.js" to a new "/vector.js". The need to do this is apparently something that wasn't well enough advertised. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll try that. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I went back too. Now if only we could also choose to go back to the old logo. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait - I'm confused. I think I've got the old logo, but I'm guessing I'm an idiot I'm wrong. Are there examples of old and new logos anywhere so I can Get Clue Fast? TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

compare File:Wikipedia-logo.png (old) and File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg (new). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I think. The difference is too subtle for my poor old eyes - I guess I probably do have the shiny new logo after all. I'll just have to find something else to whinge about ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't be so hard on yourself. :) As for something else: well, the "watch/unwatch" button (as someone above pointed out) is just a graphic. I have the "load images automatically" option unchecked in FF3 (for reasons I won't go into unless someone asks!) so it is just a gap. – B.hotep •talk• 11:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I am embarrassed to say I went back also, I guess my feelings for now is if it's not broke don't fix it...Modernist (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Logos: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#New_logo Dragons flight (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Only to say so, I've gone back to Monobook. Also, the new logo is too blurry, as is the text below it. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So what happened to the trial with real live editors before unleashing it? Jeesh. And my first irritation is to have to click on the left to get the lowest level of buttons: it saves no space at all. Tony (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate to come back here for another gripe, but... having just come back from lunch where I invariably surf the internet on my old Sony Ericsson mobile phone, I can confirm that Wikipedia does not work on devices using OperaMini. That includes the Nintendo DSi as well! ... Why are you all laughing at me? :p – B.hotep •talk• 12:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, really, seriously – it doesn't work. The drop down navigation doesn't work, the search box has no button to either "GO" or "SEARCH" with. I had to go to Google and use that to get to pages on Wikipedia. :D – B.hotep •talk• 12:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been using it for a week or two and prefer it. I like the search window at the top, the * for watch. But then I don't use any weird tools, because the first thing you know about software upgrades is that they always break non-trivial user configurations. It works fine on the N900 :-) 78.32.170.90 (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you need a /vector.js? I don't have one and Twinkle works fine. My only problem is that the search button no longer has the option to search but just goes directly to the page. And Tony1 the "Try Beta" and the option to give feedback has been there for a while. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 13:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Some people activate Twinkle through the gadgets preference, but some still import it manually through their .js files (I, for instance, prefer it that way because I can pick and choose which parts of Twinkle I want.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's possible you've loaded Twinkle through gadgets (as well as having it in your monobook). I suspect most of your monobook scripts won't work, though. –xeno^talk 13:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah!. It's checked off in the preferences. Hmmm! Looking at the monobook.js I suspect that I'd have no idea what they did if it wasn't for the headers. It's a good job breathing is automatic or I would be in trouble. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 13:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• At least you can turn the new system on and off at will. That's pretty damn polite, actually. HalfShadow 16:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This always happens when we have change. I think a change was definately needed, I think it'll grow on people. I do think it is a little plain actually and the front page could also do with a makeoever but I think it is an improvement. At first I was unconvinced about the logo but if I see the one on German wikipedia now it just looks so dated.. I quite like the hidden columns actually, I'm glad now you can have the option to display languages or not as I like them to be listed. I still think though that the developers should allow people the option to shrink the side bar and have a full screen. I have this as coding but it might be a good idea to allow in in preferences options so if you are reading rather than editing you can hide the side bar. I do think though there should be the options for more page designs and the option to customise your own layout/graphics. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Blah. The new toolbar looks like something Microsoft designed in 1997. I spent about 2 minutes trying to figure out where they had moved all my stuff before I gave up and went back to my preferred, tried and true oldskool interface. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Now all of you know why I have stayed with the Classic skin: it provides me with everything I need online. All of the important stuff -- researching, writing, etc. -- I can do offline with the existing tools on my computer. Like vi. (:wq!) -- llywrch (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes the computers at my school load pages slowly. Makes me glad that I turned off the new features with my account. Plus, like CBW said, the search button was moved from the left to the top. Shotgun5559 (Talk) (Contrib) 16:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't do anything to help with the slow loading - but if the search box being on the left is a big thing for you, you may have missed my reply above where I mentioned that I have been able to use User:Begoon/vector.css to move it back for myself. Obviously that only works when I'm logged in. See also this discussion ... Begoon (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

How to import old settings into new skin

I believe this page should have been advertised more widely, at least during the switchover. A sitenotice of some kind (can we do it on just talk pages yet?) wouldn't be ridiculous, even now, for a few days or a week. How do I import my monobook settings. Rd232 ^talk 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I turned the darn thing off for that very reason. That took less effort than migrating all the scripts I'm using. Pcap ping 05:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User:ScottPAnderson

User making major uncited pov changes to Mau Mau Uprising, Hola massacre, Extermination camp. Attempts by other users to revert are themselves reverted by this user with claims of vandalism. Claims without foundation that changes are "based on wide research and consensus". Persists in changing articles despite attempts to discuss the issue. . . Galloping Moses (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you mean the "Mau Mau Freedom Movement" ;-)

At first glance I'm inclined to agree with you - several editors have reverted this editor, and the editor's response is simply to direct them to the talk pages. This should be discussed at the relevant talk pages; however, it does look to me like there is already a fairly clear consensus. And changing "Mau Mau Uprising" to "Mau Mau Freedom Movement" in an article called "Mau Mau Uprising" does seem... odd.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I've reported this at WP:AN3#User:ScottPAnderson_reported_by_User:Squiddy_.28Result:_.29, but there are other problems:

He has now started adding a single source for all his edits, but the numbers look suspicious to me: in this diff the number arrested has just had 2 digits added to the front of the number. In a later edit he has added a cite to a valid source, but it's kind of a coincidence that the new number is exactly 4,700,000 higher (ie the last 5 digits are from the previous version of the article.)

The extremely POV tone throughout - see diff here

A minor point, but carelessness with spelling and punctuation. The combined effect of his edits is a severe reduction in quality and reliability of the articles he's been involved with.

I have tried [56] offering advice, and using the talk pages. Hasn't worked.

Accusations of vandalism, avoidance of talk pages, ignoring advice. A stubborn and disruptive editor. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a brand-new editor (DrJenkinsPhd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has just popped up on Talk:Mau_Mau_Uprising to assure us that there is a 'general global consensus ... that Mau Mau "insurgents" were, in fact, Freedom Fighters', and that 'the article as it currently stands looks fair'.

Because of their credentials, I am terribly terribly impressed, and now wish the article to remain in its current god-awful state. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "freedom fighter", like "terrorist", one of those words phrases we should avoid? (I'm not entirely sure, this question isn't just rhetorical...)

Assuming good faith, it's entirely possible that these two editors simply may not be aware of WP:NPOV etc. I'll drop by and mention it.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, both 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' are mentioned as 'especially provocative' in WP:LABEL. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've invited DrJenkinsPhd, and left a note about WP:POV and "freedom fighter" for ScottPAnderson. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, I agree about the term "Freedom Fighter". I will change it to something neutral. I hope Scott will be ok with it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJenkinsPhd (talk • contribs) 17:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, DJP (may I call you that? I can - obviously! - call you whatever you'd prefer). I invited you here simply because you'd been mentioned; I think that Scott should still participate here, however, if you're in any position to give him a gentle nudge ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 20:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Dr. Jenkins please. Cheers.DrJenkinsPhd (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Dr. Jenkins, I have to question this edit. It appears to contradict your comment above about the use of the term "freedom fighter". It adds a non-neutral slant to the article, which is precisely what this thread seeks to address. To my mind it is very similar to edits made by ScottPAnderson (for example, this edit). Can I suggest you read - or re-read - the policy on neutral points of view? It may not apply, but on the basis that it is always good to familiarise oneself with policy, I would also like to suggest that you read this and this. TFOWR^propaganda 22:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR. I think Squiddy is "working the system". Please have a look at the article's history. Squiddy reverted the article and when I reverted back to the starting point - it probably flagged an alert somewhere. I haven't made edits similar to Scott. In fact I have corrected a lot of POV edits that he made - while keeping it neutral. Trust that clarifies. You are wrong if you think I am Scott pretending to be someone else. DrJenkinsPhd (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My apologies; for the record, these are the changes made by Dr, Jenkins prior to the revert. Squiddy, I'd suggest that there are better, less crude ways to remove the WP:POV elements. You may wish to (I believe you should) restore the edits from the prior diff. At this point I don't believe this is anything other that a content dispute - the subject of the original thread seems to be inactive - so I'd suggest you discuss further changes on the talk page. TFOWR^propaganda 23:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things; I came across the issue when I noticed an edit war while patrolling recent pages. Scotts actions would ordinarily have earnt a RRR ban, as he persisted on reverting multiple editors after being warned. As he is a newbie, I cut him some slack with that. Also in my experience, Squiddy is a reasonable co-operative editor, and the reversion of Dr Jenkins may have been a slip of the mouse. The final thing is content; the enormous changes (by factors of 10000) in numbers added by Scott appear to be based on a single reference (Elkins). This reference is strongly notable, though I have found some critisim of numerical methodology which may result in overstated estimates (I'll attach when I find it again). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted to a version I regard as a bad joke. Another success for POV-pushing, IAR and (I suspect) puppetry. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the Mau Mau article to the original, as I investigated the new reference, and found a number of large contradictions with published material by reference author (figures appear to have been overstated) between the source and the figures added by Scott. I have placed my source material on the talk page of the article. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. In defence of Scott - I think he made some good edits (albeit overzealously in some instances) and his work should not be dismissed wholesale. We could have *constructively* challenged specific material or Edited it directly to make it better.

Examples of what seems to be blatant flouting of wikipedia rules by the original author (i.e. things that Scott corrected):

1. Offensive highly POV material (forgive my use of bold - my editing javacript is not loading):

"...These oath rituals, which often included animal sacrifice or the ingestion of blood, were strange and unsettling to settlers who heard about them."

"They were particularly alarmed about rumors of cannibalism, ritual zoophilia with goats, sexual orgies, ritual places decorated with intestines and goat eyes, and that oaths included promises to kill, dismember and burn settlers."

"While the settlers' recounting of many of the stories were exaggerated by fear, they helped convince the British government to send assistance to the colonists."

Isn't this a major violation of Wikipedia policy? I find ScottPAnderson's version to be the lesser evil of the two.

2. Assertion that the result was "British military victory and eventual Kenyan independence".

Says Who? .. and What does Kenya say about it?

A citation from a good source *cannot* be one sided - because good sources make efforts to present balanced viewpoints (neutrality). Better sources further and evaluate the possiblity and extent of bias within them (data / source of information / political interests / power balances etc).

I want to assume good faith, but looking at the "edit war" history, all evidence seems to indicate that Squiddy and Galloping Moses were working as a pair to enforce a their preferred POV. Any neutral party would be hard pressed to see neutrality in the above uncited highly provocative paragraph extract.

Reverts: Wholesale reverts based on technicalities is merely punitive action and doesn't add much value as we saw from Squiddy's actions. Maybe that's why it triggers edit wars? Punitive action easily degenerates into a "power struggle" between two or more well-meaning editors. I suggest that such drastic or hasty action be retricted to only clear acts of vandalism. Otherwise the "Assume Good Faith" and "Be Bold" principle is trashed as editors engage in self-serving win/lose power trips.

Consensus: We are assuming the original version of the Mau Mau article is the "consensus version". This is far from reality. If you look at the talk page you will see that multiple parties had significant reservations about the Neutrality and Verifiabilty of the content and ScottPAnderson fixed that issue, in his own way, such that the material, while not up to standard, reflected a *general consensus* starting point.

The Principle behind Wikipedia rules: Is Wikipedia missing the forest for the trees? Just because a book or webpage exists doesn't mean it is a citeable source. Verifiability needs to go futher than just robotic citations. The current article contains very poor citations (e.g. highly dubious sources published by a *party to the conflict*).

Souce Credibility: Anyone can write a book; its existence doesn't make the author an authority on the subject matter. The *publication period* and *circumstances* around the publication should not be ignored. During the slavery and colonial era there were many "peer reviewed, scientific" or official publications that dehumanized Africans. Very similar to Nazi books and "scientific research" dehumanizing jews. Can such kind of "scientific research" (most are easily identifiable) be reasonably compared to current *independent* sources like Elkins for example? Are such material even worthy of debate - given their dubious motives? Recent sources should be preferred over past sources because they reflect changing times and advances in knowledge (with greater weight on scientific sources).

Common knowledge need not be cited:

1. Common knowledge is that Britain invaded Kenya and Europe invaded Africa. They didn't just "find" empty and abandoned patches of land. We could seek academic citations on whether the sun rises from the East but we know its ridiculous.

2. Common knowledge has it that "Insurgency" is assertive, POV baed and dubious connotations of "Terrorim". You don't see distinctions between Insurgents and terrorists in Iraq - because the two are synonymous. Neutral version would term it as "Mau Mau Movement v/s Colonial Britain".

<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurgency"> Insurgency: Webster Ditionary</ref>

The principle needs to take precendence.

Weighting of Verifiability: In a conflict between two sides, materials published by either side will always be suspect. Elkins work, for example becomes significant in this regard because it was an attempt, by a *disinterested party*, at a balanced scientific paper subjected to peer review.

May I propose please, that my last edited version (prior to the punitive reversals by Squiggy) be the starting point for this article and that going forward, we make constructive edits based on mutual respect and civility. If there are no major objections, I shall revert it on Sunday. Would appreciate your support on this please. Thank you!

DrJenkinsPhd (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Jenkins, I think this discussion - unless Scott's behaviour becomes a concern - should be continued at the article's talk page. I'd recommend - to all editors - avoiding further mass reverts. Discuss each point, and make the edit once there's a clear consensus. Regardless, the talk page is the place to be ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 23:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this is just wrong. I have been portrayed as a villain yet all i did was fix a vandalized article. Lets be serious please!ScottPAnderson (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am with you scott, I believed your edits were contructive and tried to undo the other edits made by Sh33pl0re (talk · contribs) because of the 3RR policy being broken. Sophie ^(Talk) 11:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Threatening/Inappropriate user and user talk page

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.

Nothing for admins to do here.--Jayron32 03:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

---

The Phantomnaut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a user and a user talk page that seems to be very inappropriate. As the user's contributions don't warrant for AIV, I felt that this is the only place I could bring this up. CHRONOSome 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing of concern on the talk page, it's an abridged version of what many people have there. The userpage "I edit stuff, bugger off" is a bit... anti-social I suppose. I saw that you notified the user, but have you actually brought the issue itself up with him or her? If so, what was there response? SGGH ^ping! 21:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No but I have looked at recent contributions and he/she is making good faith edits so it's probably for the best if we let the user off with a warning. Sorry for the timewasting. CHRONOSome 21:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just suggested to the user that they remove the contents of the user page to avoid any esculation. The latest edition of their user page is still...informal but at least it's not as anti-social. CHRONOSome 21:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So instead of discussing with the user, you just decided to run and tell on him for...what exactly? --Smashville^talk 21:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasting time for something totally unnecessary. I never intend that simple "bugger off" phrase as a threat, just meaning there is nothing more to look around here. The Phantomnaut (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Some do take that phrase harshly hence my report. CHRONOSome 21:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We've had admins defending the "F-word" on this very page, so "bugger off" is not a big deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. We even have an article on "fuck". And WP:DONTBEADICK. --Smashville^talk 00:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. We can always count on wikipedia to keep things at a lofty level. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This may be a bit off the track, but the user Chronosome was previously the user Dr. Loots, which is curiously similar to the banned user Dr. Roots. What's up with that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Can be just a coincidence but after all of this I might just retain my bugger off phrase after all of this unnecessary hoopla. Might be threatening to some people and I might go against WP guidelines but with my simple user page, it shouldn't really be taken seriously. I don't live in Europe or Australia or whatever where it's offensive but at least it's not the f-word. In serious terms, it's now different but really this shouldn't get to this stage. The Phantomnaut (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There is TV programme in the UK hosted by a man called Charlie Brooker – at the end of the show, he always says "That's the end of the show... now bugger off." I always tune in the following week though, that's all I'm saying :) – B.hotep •talk• 22:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that TP should keep or not keep the phrase, entirely at his option, and that all of us now bugger off.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Much ado about nothing

originally: User:Iridescent.

Moved from WP: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.

First, not a personal attack... not by any stretch of the imagination. Second, person started a WP:WQA case after this, so I'm closing this.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

---

I would like to report Irisdescent for personally attacking me. - Donald Duck (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not relevant here; take it to WP:WQA please. 02:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm You edit-warred incessantly over at Wikipedia:Huggle/Config and then went to his page to waggle your finger over it. Should be lucky to walk out of this with out a block on yourself, IMO. Tarc (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I never edit-warred. Do you see a fourth revert? - Donald Duck (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

3 reverts in not an entitlement. Tarc (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Donald Duck#Wikipedia:Huggle/Config and User talk:Iridescent for my take on this, which, rather than answer, Donald Duck has brought here and to WQA. Donald, this is the Administrators' noticeboard. What admin action are you requesting? Because, other than maybe a block on you for tendentious editing, I can't see what admin action is required. --John (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Tag team editing on History of the race and intelligence controversy

This entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/History of the race and intelligence controversy to centralize discussion and to save space on ANI.

• Point of information: 120 Volt monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who initiated several subthreads, was a returning sockpuppet of banned user Jagz (talk · contribs), and has now been indefinitely blocked by Nishkid64. Mathsci (talk)
• Timestamp as still active: 69.228.170.24 (talk)
• Timestamp as still active: 00:17, 10 May 2010 A.Prock (talk)
• Timestamp as still active: 05:03, 12 May 2010 A.Prock (talk)

MiszaBot keeps archiving this section despite the fact that the discussion is ongoing. Is there a standard way of dealing with this difficulty? A.Prock A.Prock (talk)

I've suppressed the timestamps so that the bot doesn't archive the section. [57] –MuZemike

See also User:DoNotArchiveUntil. –xeno^talk 19:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin closure needed

Could someone please close this. It is unlikely that any resolution is possible and the thread is heading off in unhelpful directions. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that topic bans are unlikely for the "tag team", but the possibility of Arbcom or an RfC/U on the OP is still on the cards, so I request it remains open while a few unanswered questions remain. mikemikev (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we're done here. mikemikev (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not so sure. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Malamanteau cleanup

Can we get a neutral admin to cleanup the two remaining malamanteau threads:

• Talk:Malamanteau
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 12‎‎#Malamanteau

Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Cleanup"? Meaning what, exactly? Fences&Windows 13:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he's asking for a delete/close, but as discussion is still active in both areas, I think that is a bit premature. Also, coverage in Slashdot and the [Long Island Press have at least given this a shot at retention in some form. Tarc (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Premature closing as delete would not serve the encyclopedia, since no speedy criteria are met, the discussions are still evolving, and more RS articles are taking note of the controversy. I can't see a great justification for a speedy close as keep, either, but allowing the discussion to continue seems to be favor the keep side. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Noting I did vote, but I think "no consensus" would be a more accurate summary of the actual result. Orderinchaos 17:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Only if you're counting heads. But I suppose that's for whoever is brave enough to close the thing to figure out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Try removing the meatpuppets and xkcd drive-by followers from the discussion and you'll find a different story. Remember that consensus isn't a majority. There is a bigger consensus in the policies and guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking literally for cleanup. Not a close, not a count. Just a cleanup. The talk and the RfD are both a mess. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Thespacecowboy

Resolved

Thespacecowboy (talk · contribs) has received three final warnings for vandalism over the last two years; how many do they get? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go with "three." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

One final warning is amply sufficient in my book. Mjroots (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Three final warnings? Thespacecowboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had far too many chances. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Block review

I suppose this is inconsequential but I figured I would post this for review anyway. I recently blocked User talk:71.107.130.239 for disruptive editing. After declining the posted unblock request my decline was instantly reverted, twice, with an abusive edit summary. I then revoked talk page access. Posting here for a review of that removal of talk page access, as I wasn't entirely uninvolved at that point. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who immediately responds that way is deserving of whatever block they got. Besides, this doesn't seem like someone unfamiliar with the process. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the talk page access was well justified considering the summaries, although generally its better not to review unblock requests when you blocked them, two eyes and all that--Jac16888^Talk 00:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That I can learn from, thanks --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to extend the block, for that edit summary, but there's no sign if the IP is fixed or reassigned regularly so it's probably not worth doing at this time.

If they come back, and it's the same IP, and they abuse again.... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I find removal of talk page access perfectly acceptable in this case, as the IP was abusing his/her talk page rights. I also agree with Jac16888 as well—a neutral, third party admin would be better, but not necessary. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Panthera germanicus

Panthera germanicus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user persists in posting long entries to article talk page in the mode of forum discussion (e.g. here for the most recent). Several editors have politely requested him to stop, and my own message on his talk page was ignored. This is not a content dispute -- he does not edit the article in question at all. A minor complaint in the grand scheme of things, but it does mean the article talk page gets filled up with stuff that has nothing to do with editing the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is problematic. All of the user's edits in this month consist of WP:SOAP-type general discussion on the talk page of George Alan Rekers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with no edits to the article. Indeed, Panthera germanicus has never made a single edit to the article namespace. This mode of editing is disruptive, as it constitutes the misuse of Wikipedia as a discussion forum. I am blocking Panthera germanicus for 24 hours, with a warning that he may end up infinitely blocked if he does not stop bloviating and start working on the encyclopedia.  Sandstein  13:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

He requested to be unblocked. I gave him some advice and denied the unblock. 24 hours is a short time. He could make good use of it, or not. It's up to him now. -

Difficulty with editor on USAA

Over a content dispute with an editor on the article USAA, the editor has been uncivil on more than one occasion and has been warned by at least one other editor who noticed the exchange. I have not responded in kind. The editor is also using several unregistered IP addresses, perhaps unwittingly being a "sockpuppet." So investigation into one IP may show little, collectively it is one editor and is on several occasions. Not sure how to proceed here. I don't think I will answer him on discussion anymore. This could lead to an edit war which I have successfully avoided for many years. See particularly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.152.104.158, and a series of sometimes reasoned, sometimes hostile responses at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:USAA#Geico_envy.3F. Student7 (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Editwarring, personal attack and automatic deliberate move on House of Bucchia (and several others)

I created few days ago the article House of Bucchia, about an ancient family from the Republic of Ragusa. Today, adding some sources and fixing last edits, I saw it was deliberately moved and changed (with no discussion explaining any reason on talk page) by User:DIREKTOR.
This user has already tried to move-and-change another similar article, House of Cerva, but a requested move and admin intervention solved the question. It already reverted my edit more than three times, and moved it to the titlo he prefers. This is at least unfair, but also very in contrast with wikipedia guidelines. I formally requests formally request article restoration under the previous title.
I also ask a penalty for the user for breaking the three revert rule, and above all for his not careing at all about basilar wiki guidelines, he had never look for the consensus, ignorating my messages. --Theirrulez (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is a subject that's known by more than one spelling. The article should have the title of the spelling most likely to be searched for by English-speaking readers, with redirects from the other spellings. Have you tried talking with him about it? It looks like you're engaging in an edit-war instead of simply discussing the disagreement you're having. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No sir, the name of the family is unique. It can be changed in one nation literature, slavicized, but remained that one. Moreover sir, I can say for sure User:DIREKTOR should have been the one to ask a requested move for the article I wrote. The sources I added are clear.

You can also see he did the same on another article, House of Bobali, like he's actting sistematically. --Theirrulez (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for more information about his background sir, you can take a look on House of Cerva page history, or at Fausto Veranzio requested move, after another move-and-change by him. He's always and obsessively try to change titles of article page related to secondary Dalmatian contents pushing croatian names: see for example this, about the article Franco Sacchetti and see how it was resolved in Talk:Franco Sacchetti. --Theirrulez (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The account User:Theirrulez was created two weeks ago [58] having been blocked on itWiki [59] and has apparently decided to "kill time" by engaging in WP:EW on multiple articles against several established users [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65], attacking other editors, blanking articles [66] and has attempted to CANVASS editors and form his own CLIQUE directed against users that oppose his edits [67] [68] [69] [70] (mainly in Italian to boot), and has managed to edit and censor my posts at least five times.

The Dalmatian issues was quiet and settled via user agreements and have been so for months and, years even. This user managed to completely destroy whatever cooperation there existed within a few days. He's been moving articles contrary to WP:COMMONNAME, avoiding WP:MOVE and the consensus on naming Dubrovnik nobility articles by simply creating new ones in the name he prefers and using exclusively Italian language terminology in Croatian history topics. The extent of the disruption is quite amazing, actually, considering he's only been here a number of days.

To be frank, it looks like User:Giovanni Giove finally got back here by the side-door. At the very least, let me say that in my experience this is one of the most disruptive accounts ever to get dumped here by another project. :( --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, i think is necessary User:DIREKTOR will offer me his apologies for what he stated above, which I consider one of worst personal attack I ever received.

Sirs, every admin can perform a CU on me, (i suppose already done) and all cited pages history can confirm what User:DIREKTOR said is false. I'm active on it.wiki since 2006 and if you take a look on my user page you can find what's DIREKTOR behaviour with me: he first accuse me to be a sock or a meat, then offer his best apologies, then he accuse me again or use against me an intimidatory tone. Many users are in troubles with him: he already accused for the same reasons User:Piero Montesacro and User:Crisarco, banned for DIREKTOR claims, but then reveiled innocent.

What he stated above it's mostly false and single-purpose: he cited House of Cerva and accused me to have blanked pages or to have moved them deliberately? Well, here at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/House_of_Cerva ther is the proof it's exactly the contrary. The article was created ex novo by me. How can he accuse me to have started an edit war and to have blanked the page? Please, ask User:Ev, how he solved the dispute about the quick and POV move-and-change of House of Cerva (DIREKTOR deliberately moved in the same way other brand new articles created by me like House of Bucchia, House of Bobali and House of Giorgi) or take a look here[71].

Moreover in the same way he was the one who deliberately cancelled several edits from my user talk page as shown in talk history. I warned him here but he kept on doing it: as shown in my talk history.

Also for this reason I feel compelled to report him here, as per repeated violation of WP:TPOC, and considering as aggravation he was already officially warnend by admin LessHeard vanU: [72].

I tried to offer him more and more invitation to a dialogue (watch his talk page), but he simply refused it and he perseveres on reverting and rollbacking me. I'm not a reverter, I'm an editor and above all not a censor.. look what I wrote to User:DIREKTOR's talk, after one of his many disruptive rollback: User talk:DIREKTOR#NIHIL_DIFFICILE_VOLENTI.

Anyways, this User is literally haunted by the presence of names that somehow sound "Italian" within headings Istrian and Dalmatian: [73], [74], [75], [76], or in biography: [77] [78]. When he approach this topics he seems to don't care about consensus or worse to refuse it: in Talk:Pula/Archive_1#Official_bilingual_name its clearly shown how his war against Italian words it's well known all over the project since long time ago.

In this very interesting edit on User talk:Ivan Štambuk, DIREKTOR is openly canvassing, but more openly explained his point of view about users (Sir Floyd in that case) who show oppsite positions or seem somehow Italianny. One of first DIREKTOR's edit on the project shows exactly what's his approach: he deliberately blanked the article Istrian exodus stating: "Italians", in the 20th century! Slavs!!.

Exactly in the same obsessed way he seems deeply busy in creating personal Croatian neologism (without any trace of historical basis or any supporting sources) for long-time attested Italian name, like Franco Sacchetti (here funny transformed by him in Fran Sačetić, without any justifing Talk:Franco_Sacchetti) or like Bartolomeo Vivarini, Bernardo Strozzi, Luigi Quarena, Franceso Hayez and Francesco del Cossa here: [79].

He also clearly stated he don't care about consensus he deliberately performed a quick move of Fausto Veranzio→to→Faust Vrancic while the article talk page already hosted a clear consensus about the right title. After this, and despites a consequent requested move for restoring the right title, he tried to push his pov on the renamed article: this can show how this user deliberately uses to remove all he doesn't like: category, adjectives, quotes, reliable sources! There he put a strange requested move tag "Fausto Veranzio→to→Fausto Veranzio", just in order to confuse the correct requested move discussion. On the same article he just started another edit war with User:Gun Powder Ma, reverting Gun Powder Ma edits several times and imposing his own pov (as usual without any discussion, without careing about consensus): [80]

He had a dispute on Giacomo Micaglia talk page with another wikipedian, User:Salvio giuliano in which Salvio giuliano underlined his POV edits and asked him to discuss. I asked him the same, and the result is this (note exactly which categories were cancelled).

I would underline that in all the discussions he charged with threatening and violent language, accusing whoever to be other users sock, or be part of a clique, or even of being meatpuppet or to stalking, canvassing or anything. This User accused me to Canvass? Take a look on Talk:Fausto Veranzio what he's doing (votestacking, canvassing, claimed by many users). In conclusion, he seems obsessed by socks and meatpuppet, and for this reason he feels himself authorized to make an enormous number of revert per day; It also seems that he recognizes as socks only those users who don't agree with his positions. I'm obviously not a sock or not a meat, but he's accusing me above as his last defense.

I would also like to underline at this moment he is involved in several edit wars, started together with a group of authors who are always in agreement with him (for example the below cited voting on Fausto Veranzio requested move). Here is a brief list of major edit wars in which he is still involved: [81] and # Yugoslavia_flags_separation.

Despites what's shown above, my report it's not related at all to any dispute about article's content, especially those regarding Dalmatia issue; my report is instead and definitely related to this User's method, clearly disruptive.

Just few minutes ago, the reported user reverted my last edit on the Foibe Killings article (one of the most delicate articles of the entire Wikipedia): I added some new images and some quotes from a very reliable source (official website of Italian Republic Presidency), adding the source also in the article talk. He rollbacked me instantly (more than three times) [82], and try to intimidate me on talk page writing: Let me just say this: you can forget about your "Ode to the Glorious Speech" right here and now.(!)

This user is dangerously recidivous, was blocked six times, three times in the last three months.

I don't want to judge his position about content of articles (I use talk page for that, hopefully still waiting for a dialogue, [83], [84]), but his disruptive approach, his sistematic method of action: imho (and in others many users opinion) it doesn't match with basilar wikipedia guidelines and basilar respect principles.

Will I have to convince myself that I am wrong? Have I to abandon the idea to have the right to contribute serenely, having a healthy debate even on those articles this user consider as his own property? I strongly hope not. Maybe I'm wrong, but he had a persecutory threaten to me since my first edit on each article among those he is interested in. He had the same intimidating behaviour to the users I said above (e.g. User:Crisarco), who now are scared to edit on en.wiki. I ask if this users customs are in line with our principles, I ask if wikipedia can accept this way to act. --Theirrulez (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Today user:AjaxSmack espressed his support to the requested move of the above cited article about Fausto Veranzio. After reading that, User:DIREKTOR, not careing about consequences and about any policy wrote on AjaxSmack talk page this attonishing and violent personal attack against me, in order to convince AjaxSmack I'm a nationalist, I'm a sockpuppet of three different banned users. Accusing me of course to be an ultra-fascist or to try to italianize title of article. I now asking not just for an admin intervention. I'm asking for an admin help against this persecutory, intimidating, hidden and disruptive way of act against me.--Theirrulez (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

River Phoenix

Some moron deleted cultural references to this man and his death. Can it be retrieved? B-Machine (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A diff or two would help identify the edit(s) that concern you. Looking through your contributions I see you have edited talk pages before. That might be an avenue you could explore. Another option is that you make the changes yourself. Also, while using "moron" might be a convenient way to avoid leaving an editor the proper notice that they're being discussed here, I would advise that you not employ this characterization when referring to fellow editors. The costs could outweigh the benefits. Regards Tiderolls 16:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Pyrrhus16 noted here and here that the quotes are unsourced are better for Wikiquote and the cultural references as trivia. I've informed him but this is just a content dispute and too soon for here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did remove those sections. The article is in a bad enough state as it is. It doesn't need more unsourced trivial junk. Pyrrhus16 19:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments at Criticism of Judaism

The Criticism of Judaism page is one that has been under a lot of conflict lately, with a recent edit war ending in the page being protected. The edit war began when users Chesdovi, Bus stop, and Avi disagreed with what information was included in the old version of the article. Thus, they shortened it to its current state, a third the size of the previous article and with, thus, a third of the references. User Noleander, who had been working on the article for a while, tried his best to incorporate their viewpoints and change sections a bit to fit with what they wanted, but the three users seemed to wish to only dismantle the article further, with Bus stop advocating outright deletion of the article, saying it violated NPOV. An IP then, suspiciously if I may say so myself, opened an AfD on the page, which ended in a somewhat clear Keep decision, since the Delete voters were discussing more about content than notability. Since that AfD, Noleander, AzureFury, and myself have been trying to come to some sort of consensus about what sections should be added and that are covered by the scope of the article.

The other three, Chesdovi, Bus stop, and Avi, have continued to disagree with every proposed suggestion so far (without offering any of their own) and Bus stop has still continued to advocate deletion, as most recently shown here.

But, with the background context out the way, the main reason why I am filing this AfD is because of a very recent comment made by Camelbinky on Avi's talk page. As I stated on the article talk page, this comment seems very indicative of a BATTLEGROUND mentality and can even be said to be a personal attack on those of us that disagree with him and whichever user he is referring to in his comment.

PS. Please note that Camelbinky has stated that he will bring up a comment I made on Jimbo's talk page about a completely separate discussion, of which I already apologized for making. Thank you. Silverseren^C 00:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that I have now informed all mentioned users of this ANI discussion. Silverseren^C 00:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

So after being fierce proponents of the article's deletion at AFD, upon its failure the same group of users removed most of its content? Or am I reading this wrong... Equazcion ^(talk) 00:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I forget if they removed the content before or after the AfD...I think it was before. Silverseren^C 00:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

One- I never removed anything..

Two- my COI is I'm a Jew? And possibly Avi and others have a COI because they too are Jewish... (I'm going out on a limb and say Avraham is in fact a Jew! Hope I'm not spilling a secret Avi...) Um.... do I really have to address that accusation seriously or can I start my own AN/I thread against Silver for that comment?Camelbinky (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I was once told I shouldn't write about a geographical feature in America which happens to be called Duncan Hill. DuncanHill (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Or for that matter, Bunker Hill or the Duncan Yo-Yo, just to cover all bases. Presumably, any editor is either a Jew or a non-Jew. Hence, no one is allowed to edit the article. That should keep it short. Speaking of which, even at full size, the article was only about half the size of Criticism of Islam. That fact could be interpreted a number of ways. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not stating that it is because you are a Jew. I am stating that your immovable position in the article, tied in with the fact that you are a Jew, along with considering the fact that you do not believe the article to be positive about Judaism, pertains to having a conflict of interest. I am basically saying that, considering your viewpoint and actions so far, I am not sure if you can be neutral in terms of the subject matter. Silverseren^C 01:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Also the fact that you have not been going to the other Criticism of articles and trying to get them removed or their scope more restricted, while only focusing on the Criticism of article about Judaism seems to suggest that there is some sort of POV issue to address. If you have been going to the other Criticism of articles, please link me so I can see and I shall retract the argument. Silverseren^C 01:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin delete Warinus de la Strode for me then? I'm a direct decendent (on my non-Jewish side of course) of this British nobility and am the one that created and contributed all content to it. Therefor my COI which I fully disclosed at the time is quite enough I think to ban me from all Strode related articles. Oh, and I am from the Capital District and have been to the actual places which I have created articles/contributed greatly too, you can find them on my user page, please delete all my contributions to those as well, and I'm the co-founder of the NYCD wikiproject, so I have a COI there and should stop working on that as well.

• So this is my interpretation of what you just said "You are a Jew and you have an opposing view of mine and you wont change your opinion based on what I've said, so you must have a COI and I must get you forcibly removed from the discussion". I'm saying this- I'm a Jew, proud of it; I dont believe any article should be an entire article about negative aspects of any topic and a BLP written in this manner even unintentionally wouldve been deleted long ago (and I know that for a fact, ask Jimbo, I disagreed with him and fought hard to keep a BLP he wanted gone for that reason); I dont see the merit of the article being around and I have yet to see one argument from you as to any merit of it staying other than "other things exist"; I do have an open mind, I just dont find your views persuasive.Camelbinky (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Religion must not be considered in evaluating a COI, nor any other factor mentioned in the Foundation's anti-discrimination policies.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section. Silverseren^C 01:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What? Ok... like that's not confusing... Cant get me on one thing let's change the subject till one sticks? I'd say that sounds like grasping at straws to do what it takes to get me out of the conversation, or a witch-hunt (but I'm not wiccan, I'm Jewish, we have a different word for what your doing). I really am insulted, much more than can be calmed by you simply "removing the section" about you basically saying I'm a Jew, Avi and others "might" be Jews, therefore there's a COI. That and your other lack of AGF towards me at Jimbo's talk page which was intimately tied to this very subject of this article shows disrespect towards me and belittling me ("I dont like editors trying to go over my head", going to Jimbo isnt going over your head, you are NOT better or higher than me!). This isnt the first veiled Jewish remark you and others made at the AfD ("there's an Israel bias on Wikipedia" was one remark by another editor when this has nothing to do with Israel and therefor it was code for "Jews have a COI"). You've admitted you have a problem with Jews not agreeing with you. Dont delete your posts, I want everyone to see your words. Put them back please.Camelbinky (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

We have Criticism of Judaism, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Hinduism, even a Criticism of Buddhism. (Knowing how calm and measured Buddhists are, they probably took it well.) Is there a reason for any of these articles to exist? Well, one reason might be that too much information accumulated in the main article, as with Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. But aren't they POV forks / undue weight? Do we have a Praise for Judaism or a Praise for Islam? Noooo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This subject has already been discussed numerous times. This ANI discussion is not about the notability of the article. Please stay on topic. Silverseren^C 01:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

So everyone agrees that the presence of the article is OK? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, look at the AfD. Silverseren^C 02:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Silver- "stay on topic"? How can we, you keep changing what it is. The only thing constant is that you dont want me around to have an opposing voice, or for Avi and others as well. Anyone Jewish and disagrees with you apparently is not welcomed. Baseball- you better let him know what religion you are!Camelbinky (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• The Church of Baseball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No editing baseball-related articles for you! (tone of the soup-nazi, hey how appropriate!) And especially no Jewish baseball players, you know Jews actually were quite dominant in early baseball (and basketball)... I wonder if that can be put in the criticism article... I'm sure someone somewhere was very upset about that and wrote a book about Jews taking over things like sports...Camelbinky (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

And similarly, you'd be restricted from editing articles about camels, don'cha know. By the way, did you know we have our own yarmulkes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sandy Koufax, I would say was the best Jewish baseball player. Maybe even best Jewish athlete.Camelbinky (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Moe Berg, perhaps the best catcher-cum-spy in baseball and espionage history. PhGustaf (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hank Greenberg was certainly an impact player. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Do your congregations entail playing a game every Sunday? :P Regardless, we should get back on the topic, which I clearly defined in my original edit. Silverseren^C 02:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Sometimes even doubleheaders! Bottom line on this section, though, and I do think this is on-topic: Is there agreement that the article should stay? Was it only the IP's that pushed for deletion? Or is this still at issue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The AfD that ended just a few days ago closed in Keep after an extensive amount of discussion, what else do you need? And the reason I made this ANI discussion was because of the comment Camelbinky made that I linked to. Silverseren^C 02:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is still an issue and this is an editing conflict not something for AN/I. I cant be brought here because I'm a Jew and I disagree with someone and refuse to change my mind. Silver cant decide to shut me up and keep me from posting because I dont share his view. His initial post makes it clear he wants only those with like mind to work with, Noleander et al. Noleander was brought to AN/I and MANY asked him to stay away from these types of articles but nothing was ever done, so I should get the same consideration as he recieved.Camelbinky (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not still an issue. This ANI discussion is about this comment that you made. Saying "I truly believe this is in our best interest to show once and for all what kind of a POV-pushing article it is when left with those that have an unhealthy obsession with working on it and other negative-aspects Jewish articles" is the problem. Silverseren^C 02:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is still an issue for at least me and Bus stop and an AfD can be made at anytime in the future. If this thread is about that one comment made at Avi's talk page why bring up the whole thing about working with Noleander and others and about Avi and Bus stop doing things that "arent productive". Why does your story keep changing on how you want me kicked out of the discussion? Yes, in my opinion it is a POV-pushing article, and the work by certain editors on it have been trying to make it more POVish; am I not allowed to have my opinion and share it with other editors? Oh, wait, I'm Jewish so no I cant have that opinion and voice it on Wikipedia.Camelbinky (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention attempting to tag-team with Avi in order to, as you said, "pull the wikiproject Judaism banner from the said article and pull any support of fixing it." Does that ring a bell? Silverseren^C 02:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I never tag-teamed with him, since he never responded. Secondly- It is up to the consensus of the wikiproject whether or not an article should carry its banner or not, I put the issue out there, I never removed the banner. I support the idea of those of us who want to see the article go to just walk away from it and allow the supporters of keeping the article to edit it. Ironic since you are trying to shut me and others up you are trying to accomplish the same thing! And your comment "does that ring a bell?" is rude, watch it please. Bugs hit the nail on the head with his following comment, this is a content dispute no matter what slime you try to sling my way, I'm Ronald Reagan and I got his teflon suit on. We're done here. Someone has something to say, wait till tomorrow, but its useless, this is over.Camelbinky (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I said "attempting", not that you were tag-teaming as of this moment. I am not tryingto "shut you up", I am trying to address inappropriate comments you have made. I did not start this discussion for it to be about a content dispute, but, just like on the NPOV talk page, others seem to be continually taking it back to that when i'm not even discussing it. Silverseren^C 02:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The mere presence of the article clearly is an issue, as there were many "deletes" in the AfD as well as many what I would call very "qualified" "keep" comments. The trouble with "Criticism of [religion]" is that it's inevitably going to end up in nitpicking about aspects of the religion that someone else thinks are "wrong", or the actions of politicians who practice those religions and then somehow it becomes a criticism of the religion itself. Near the end, Jay has a long list of valid points about items that aren't appropriate to be criticisms of Judaism by itself. And if you really want to get to the bottom line, the typical atheist could confine each article to just this single sentence: "It's a bogus belief based on a collection of fairy tales." It's one thing to criticize Bill O'Reilly when he verifiably contradicts himself. It's another to say "my religion is better than yours", which is the kind of attention these kinds of articles are apparently attracting, hence the major content dispute, which is what this really seems to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The article should include only information on sections that can have reliable sources that verify the information. It does not matter if the information is true or not or whether people object to what it is about or not. If it is presented in a neutral manner with reliable sources, then that is all Wikipedia needs. This is getting off-topic. If you wish to discuss this, please do so on the article talk page. Silverseren^C 02:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability is a minimum requirement, not a ticket for inclusion. You not only have to verify the given fact ("make it true", for our purposes), you also have to verify that it passes other standards (notability, neutrality, etc.), before it can be taken as appropriate, especially for a contentious article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

But not if your Jewish and you disagree with SilverCamelbinky (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to suggest any additions to the article. What has there been to disagree with with you about in you adding stuff? Silverseren^C 02:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

CamelBinky's comment isn't all that different from other comments I've seen, where some anti-something agenda is supposedly being recognized, with the demand that something be done about it. Someone who works on an article making sure it's complete is going to be seen as POV pushing, perhaps even having "an unhealthy obsession", when that article basically exists to describe a single POV; whereas if the editor had focused their attention on a less contentious article, no one would be making any accusations. As BB put nicely, this is going to come up often with these types of articles, and does. My personal pipe dream regarding COI is basically that anyone who gets angry over inaccuracies in the "Criticism of" article on their religion shouldn't be allowed to edit it; which is not to say that there aren't objective people who can be connected to a topic yet remain emotionally disconnected, but those who don't have already shown that their judgment in this area is slanted, and they should keep away. This is of course not going to happen, so we have to deal with these flair ups on a regular basis. It'll die down when everyone gets tired, and then come back again when everyone's refreshed, perhaps in a couple weeks. Que sera sera. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the older version is better at first glance, but I'm losing track through all of the back and forth as a newer observer. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

And I would agree with you. But, off-topic. This isn't to discuss versions either. Silverseren^C 03:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I've lost track of who's who here, so i'm just looking at the content. Sometimes I think the encyclopedia, and indeed the world, would be better if we didn't talk about people and just talked about ideas and other abstract concepts we face. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sanity pause

Maybe its just because I am uninvolved, but it would appear to me that we need articles of differing opinions, so as to remain both neutral and encyclopedic. That means we get articles on Judaism and Criticisms of Judaism. Everyone gets equal time, so long as sources are notable and reliable. Period. The moment some person claims another's COI based on ethnicity or religion, they have already lost the argument. We allow capitalists and communists here. We allow Christians and Satanists. We allow Democrats and Republicans. It is because of this balance that we create better, more-balanced articles. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether you are a Jew, a non-Jew or someone with a beef with Jews. We accept it all.

Only by illumination do we ever learn to see. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I applaud what Jack just said here. I came here because I began paying attention to the article after taking part in the AfD (supporting keep). I really do not see anything in this thread that requires administrator intervention, although I have a hunch that this will eventually lead to some topic bans from ArbCom. It's sad to read the talk page for the article. There appear to be some editors (not all, of course) who have become so emotional over their disagreements about content that they have lost interest in even discussing content in any reasonable way, and are just looking for ways to pick fights with one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

Not much to do. Just informing for the records about the legal threat on my talk page. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Ruslik_Zero 18:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Pedant17 disruption, after two RFCs

• Pedant17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pedant17 has engaged in a pattern of disruption at the WP:GA-quality rated article Outrageous Betrayal, repeatedly reverting to a poor-quality version of the page pushing out his POV for E-Prime - despite not one but two WP:RFCs which do not support his changes.

This has gone on long enough. There were two attempts at dispute resolution, and ample talk page discussion. Consensus did not support the changes by Pedant17.

At this point in time, a block would be appropriate.

I have been involved in quality improvement on the article, and so would appreciate it if another admin could act here.

---

Dispute resolution

1. RfC: Recent wording edits to article -- August 2009
2. RfC: Removal of words Is and Was -- February 2010

Disruption by Pedant17

Here are prior edits on the same article by Pedant17 that are not supported by the consensus of the two prior RfCs.

The edit summaries given by Pedant17 are noted as well.

• 01:06, 13 May 2010 -- "update, especially in the light of talk-page discussions"
• 04:58, 13 December 2009 -- "revert in the light of archived talk-page discussion"
• 02:11, 9 November 2009 -- "copyedit; especially in the light of archived talk-page discussions"
• 04:07, 12 March 2009 -- "copyediting"
• 01:40, 24 April 2009 -- "copyedits"
• 08:24, 4 June 2009 -- "improve style"

Prior admin comment

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive577#Pattern_of_disruptive_editing_by_Pedant17 -- An admin commented at this prior ANI thread, and advised Pedant17 that the edit pattern was not constructive, and to address individual changes on the article's talk page.

---

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Cirt asked me to take a look at this offline; having reviewed the edit history, article talk page, RFCs, and ANI archive, I have a preliminary opinion that Pedant17's edits are disruptive in the sense that they are repetitive and against consensus on the RFCs, article talk page, and the prior ANI thread from six-ish months ago. I don't think they're vandalism, but they are controversial (stylistic changes that many editors object to and which have been consistently undone by other editors).

Pedant17, It's not considered acceptable behavior to keep trying to end-run consensus by coming back every few months and re-doing something that others have concluded should not be done. I understand that you feel that this improves the article, but Wikipedia is not a project anyone can edit, it's a project that everyone edits, and everyone must be able to edit together and in cooperation. Continuing to try to sneak changes back in, after this degree of controversy and criticism, is disrespectful to the idea of consensus and to the other editors who have objected to your changes.

I don't believe that an instant block or other immediate sanction is called for; however, I agree with Cirt that this has gone beyond talk page and RFC and is now something meriting administrator attention. Pedant17, I invite you to respond here and engage with us on the topic of editing cooperatively and how consensus works on Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If you see my edits as stylistically controversial, you'll have noted that while I have given reasoned justifications for individual proposed changes (see especially the talk-page archives), the opposing viewpoints tend to come in peremptory declarations without explanation: even when I ask for details. -- I don't know that I fully understand your reference to "end-run[ning] consensus by coming back every few months. A glance at the talk-page history demonstrates my ongoing involvement in debate on the points involved - attempting to work out a consensus before I (occasionally) edit the article. But consensus-building does become difficult and protracted when other involved editors ignore points made and when they keep appealing to (artificially-defined) RfC break-points. Wikipedic consensus may tolerate such behavior, but the WP:CONSENSUS policy does state that "Discussions should always be attempts to persuade others, using reasons" and "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on" and "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion [...]". -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I was also asked to comment. I'd be interested to hear what Pedant is hoping to achieve. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to improve the article in accordance with the discussion which has unfolded on the talk-page. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest putting the editor under probation. I recall a similar concern about this editor's conduct which was raised in March 2008. I wasn't receptive to the concerns at the time and favoured content dispute resolution, but given that content dispute resolution has been tried and the concerns still exist, I'm more receptive to the idea of community imposing a sanction (perhaps in lieu of an administrator imposing a block). What do others think? Cirt, do you think that would help? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, I'd agree that a sanction is warranted but how would you define this probation you suggest? I'm not certain that would be adequate or sufficient in this case. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd word it as "Pedant17 is subject to the following terms of probation. Should he make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page, set of pages or topic(s). The ban will take effect once the administrator has posted a notice to his talk page and logged it at User:Pedant17/Community sanction." The way I see it, a block might be overkill, but if the concern deviates from this one article, then it'd be pointless to just ban him from this single page. This conduct concern affects pretty much the editing of any page on Wikipedia (the concern in 2008 was over the Friedrich Nietzsche article IIRC), yet sanctions might assist him in understanding how Wikipedia (and wiki consensus) work in practice, even if it might take a while. Administrators would have broad discretion in deeming whether Pedant has made an edit which is disruptive, particularly with respect to sneaking changes against consensus. And of course, should he not comply with the ban(s), enforcement would occur via blocking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nod, that sounds agreeable, but the issue is that he has exhibited similar behavior at other articles, including [85], [86], [87]. (Repeatedly revisiting the same sets of articles, using deceptive edit-summaries to cause disruption, etc. etc.) However, the remedy you propose might be a good start to an appropriate solution. -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Before we discuss sanctions, perhaps ((if only as a matter of natural justice) we should determine whether any disruption has taken place and (if so) who was perpetrated such alleged disruption. I'd like to see some examples of any alleged "sneaking changes against consensus" before I get the opportunity to defend myself in detail.And what appeal procedures would one have against the proposed powers granted to Administrators? -- Note that the issue is NOT "that [I] have exhibited similar behavior at other articles" (allegedly), but (in terms of this incident-report, what to do about the editing of the Outrageous Betrayal article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is a very relevant issue if you have exhibited such behavior at other articles too. SlimVirgin very gently tried to steer you in the right direction, and Cirt has been extremely patient, but there comes a point where disruptive edits, even when driven by good intentions, are still disruptive to the project. That has brought about the need to consider putting you under probation. Where special appeal procedures are unspecified, standard appeal procedures apply - you can appeal to the admin who imposes the page ban, and if that fails, to the community, and if that fails, to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I can accept the examination of other edits (I've nothing to hide) as an issue, if deemed appropriate. But we can hardly make it the issue (as claimed) in a discussion about the editing of the article on Outrageous Betrayal. -- Insofar as my edits to the article under discussion reflect the state of discussion on the talk-page, I don't regard them as disruptive. -- Pedant17 (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In response to the original incident-report:

Describing my edits to the Outrageous Betrayal article as "disruption" misrepresents the facts. Ever since becoming aware that some disapproval of my edits existed, I have edited the article in line with the flow of discussion on the talk-page.

Characterizing my edits as "repeatedly reverting" misrepresents the facts.I have enhanced the article in different ways in the light of discussion, reverting only (as on 2009-12-13) when other editors disreguard that discussion. "Repeated reversions" of the article have occurred only at the hands of other Wikipedians: see 2009-12-13, 2009-11-09, and 2009-06-04.

Calling the outcome of any of my edits "a poor-quality version of the page" mischaracterizes my work. I have repeatedly justified and defended my edits of the talk-page, explaining their advantages. In response I generally get vague assertions about poor quality and "non -constructive" contributions.

To characterize my edits as "pushing out" something misrepresents my efforts. My isolated attempts at increasing accuracy and improving style in various sections of the article (all explained individually on the talk-page whenever disputed) have met with dogged and unreasoning resistance.

Representing my work as my "POV for E-Prime" mis-characterizes my editing. I strive to improve all aspects of style and presentation, and sometimes this involves re-casting existing material in a better form - and sometimes that results in sentences conformant with E-Prime. Wikipedia policy encourages accuracy and eschews ambiguity in encyclopedic style - yet some fellow-editors even seem to regard anything which one might label "E-Prime" as inherently undesirable!

Claiming that "not one but two WP:RFCs do not support" my edits misrepresents the facts. Discussion (as opposed to assertion) in the two RFCs resulted not in condemn my edits, but in the emergence of improved wordings which I have attempted to implement accordingly.

Characterizing the talk-page discussion as "ample" misrepresents the situation. The talk-page contains repeated examples of pleas of explanation and questions as to justification. I've asked for such, and seldom received it. Only in their absence (after months of waiting) have I returned to editing the article.

Claiming that "an admin" advised at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive577#Pattern_of_disruptive_editing_by_Pedant17 that "the edit pattern was not constructive" mis-construes the discussion there, where User:SlimVirgin and I dealt with what he called "a few other changes [...], where it's not clear that the writing is being improved" and which I then proceeded to explain in context.

All in all, I stand firmly by my edits and the lengthy point-by-point discussions made on the talk-page and its archive (to which User:Cirt has kindly provided somewhat restrictively-targeted links: compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal/Archive_1#Lead and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal . I have tried to follow procedures, to promote debate and to move towards a better article. I invite (as ever) comments addressing individual edits on the article talk-page, where we can see clearly that consensus can change - even despite some evidence of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. In the meantime I still await what I asked for in summary on the talk-page on 2010-03-03: 'Who established the alleged consensus over lack of support for changes by User:Pedant17? and where? and when? Who established any consensus that changes proposed by User:Pedant17 "push out E-Prime" from the article? and where? and when? Who dreamed up the WP:OR that changes proposed by User:Pedant17 appear "seemingly [...] disruptive"? and where? and when? Who proposes an alleged consensus based negatively on the lack of "support for these issues" when some such issues received no or little discussion, let alone reasoned discussion, in one or more of the two RfCs on this article called on specific (and other) topics? Would some evidence - precise, verifiable and quotable evidence - prove more useful than unsupported (even though repeated) assertions?' -

-- Pedant17 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cirt has quoted evidence at length. Multiple uninvolved admins here have reviewed and agreed.

You're arguing generalities; Cirt provided specifics, and we've concurred. You can rebut specifics, if you chose to.

It's not original research for admins to make conclusions in behavior cases. It's our job. Cirt argued that case, we reviewed evidence, we've discussed our conclusions which concur with those claims.

This type of argument you are making is not aligned well with Wikipedia's process, or appropriate discussion or debate tactics. The issue is quite simple: your changes are controversial, many other editors (a clear consensus of those participating in those articles) revert them when you make them, and you keep making them over and over again. You can't keep doing that. It's not ok.

If you actually want to talk to us, that's fine. Please do so. The particular arguments you used here were not useful discussion and were in their own way disruptive.

Even if you mean the best for the encyclopedia, if you keep doing disruptive things and you cannot work with other editors here in a constructive way, and cannot discuss things with other editors here in a constructive way, then you are a problem editor and you may be warned, sanctioned, or blocked to prevent more problems. I would prefer that this be resolved by discussion, but your responses so far do not appear to be good faith discussion on point.

Please come to the point and discuss in good faith. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Cirt has kindly provided multiple links, and I've gratefully built on them. But those links do not support the generalities of his case: rather the opposite, as I have attempted to point out claim by claim. I can slice and dice the talk-page contributions individually if required, but the talk-page and its archive make the matter pretty plain in context. There, I've treated the specifics, usually only to find generalities in response.

My quoted mention of WP:OR meant no disrespect to Admins, but formed part of a despairing attempt to bring about meaningful discussion on the talk-page in the face of dismissive refusal to engage.

I note that this ANI issue has drifted into a "behavior case", as opposed to an alleged problem on a specific page. Should we re-frame?

You raise an important point by mentioning that "[t]he issue is quite simple: your changes are controversial". Some of my edits do indeed merit discussion, but it seems implausible to tar all my changes with (say) an E-Prime brush (previous brushes of this sort included: "awkward wording" (as on 2009-04-24) and "the writing quality of the article" (as on 2009-06-04)). In a recent example, while editing the article this week (for the first time this year) I came across a dead link, which I replaced with an archived link and augmented with relevant snippet quotations, changing the article text where necessary to align with the source. A fellow-Wikipedian has now, I note, reverted my work with the sweeping edit-summary "Undid revision 361793412 by Pedant17 (talk) rv extreme disruption in violation of RFC by Pedant17". I ask: what makes my edits so "controversial"?

Accusations of disruption and lack of constructive discussion sadden me as I have attempted to counter disruptive behavior on the part of others and to encourage discussion on the basis of facts and of style. I'll happily respond to specific queries about any of my actions or intentions.

-- Pedant17 (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult for people not involved in editing the article to judge what's going on, but you seem to be making extensive edits [88] after not taking part in talk-page discussion or any editing of that article for some time. Given that you've been asked before not to do that, it really would be in your interests in future to post your suggestions on talk before adding them, and to try to gain agreement or suggest some kind of compromise. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged. -- According to the talk-page history (as referenced earlier), between my referenced edit of 2010-05-13 and my previous edit of the article on 2009-12-13 I made 18 contributions to the article talk-page:

1. on 2009-12-15 (with the comment "re-opening discussion")
2. on 2009-12-26 (with the comment "response")
3. on 2010-01-01 (with the comment "comment")
4. on 2010-01-02 (with the comment "response")
5. on 2010-02-01 (with the comment "responses")
6. on 2010-02-03 (with the comment "responding")
7. on 2010-02-07 (with the comment "more progress")
8. on 2010-02-15 (with the comment "further refinement of issues")
9. on 2010-02-16 (with the comment "refutations and challenges")
10. on 2010-02-24 (with the comment "comments general and specific")
11. on 2010-03-01 (with the comment "comments")
12. on 2010-03-03 (with the comment "reactions")
13. on 2010-03-10 (with the comment "comments and responses")
14. on 2010-03-18 (with the comment "suggestion")
15. on 2010-03-20 (with the comment "replies and responses")
16. on 2010-03-24 (with the comment "replies")
17. on 2010-04-01 (with the comment "responses")
18. and on 2010-04-02 (with the comment 'companies as a front for "business"').

That makes a ratio of 18 discussion interactions to one edit. Where did I go wrong? Did I wait too long for further comment before WP:BOLDly implementing (2010-05-13) the outcomes of the discussion? -- Pedant17 (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The reverted edit where you say you only fixed a "dead link, which I replaced with an archived link and augmented with relevant snippet quotations, changing the article text where necessary to align with the source" included rewriting several unrelated paragraphs back into E-Prime (in all you removed two instances of the word "is", two of the word "been", one "were" and five instances of the word "was"). Given that two of these sentences had been specifically singled out in an RfC you were involved in, with three other editors stating that the text was clearer when not written in E-Prime, your edit summary of "update, especially in the light of talk-page discussions" seems misleading, and a straight revert doesn't seem an inappropriate reaction to it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi McGeddon -- fancy encountering you here in a discussion which touches(allegedly) on E-Prime. -- If I had indeed said that I "only fixed a dead link ...", then you might have had a case for portraying me as "misleading". But since I wrote quite precisely that "while editing the article this week (for the first time this year) I came across a dead link, which I replaced ...", then my edit-summary appears in a more accurate light, and a total reversion less justified. -- Your claim of "three other editors stating that the text was clearer when not written in E-Prime" also lacks accuracy. Can you quote the exact words of the three who said that? Even if you can, the discussion moved on and proposed different versions of the sentences under discussion, which I have subsequently tried to incorporate into the article. -- You raise a significant point, though: the counting of heads ("three other editors") as opposed to the Wikipedia published policy on WP:CONSENSUS, which (as I quoted previously) mandates: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion [...]". I trust that this puts your so-called "rewriting [...] back into E-Prime" in context. Can we discuss style on its merits, rather than in regard to the strictures of E-Prime? You'll recall the wise words of User:Martin Hogbin on the article talk-page on [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal&diff=prev&oldid=346097098 2010-02-24]: "Nobody should be pushing E-Prime in or out of this article. If you think another editor's style is bad then improve the bits that need it. An argument about style dogma is unproductive." -- As for your statistics of the word-changes (possibly concomitant to improving style), you'll note that I left in the clause '[...] Werner Erhard was "threatening a libel suit" against Pressman and St. Martin's Press' without doctrinairely converting it to E-Prime. -- Pedant17 (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme and problematic edit summaries (again)

• JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Accompanying 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (death threat to previous editor), 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: continued problematic edit summaries. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive531#User:JBsupreme_and_problematic_edit_summaries for background.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• I guess I missed something. Regarding the 2 edits in the article show, the edits were fine. It was a deleted article, so why the need for a redlink to it? Or really even the need for the entry at all? But profanity in and of itself isn't a reason for admin action. As for the third article....That discussion should have been removed before it got that far. It wasn't really about the article, it was just a soapbox. What exactly needs admin action? (Didn;t look at the edits past #3. The edit conflict thing as you add these one at a time was starting to annoy me)Niteshift36 (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at the one on Wright....he said what I often am thinking when I revert blatant stupidity like that. Frankly, I don't care if vandals get their feelings hurt. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Could definitely be said more politely in those specific examples, but exasperation at the issues he's fixing is understandable. Looking at his overall set of recent summaries, most are milder. Why would you re-add a redlink to for an article that was AfD-deleted? DMacks (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the re-add, he neglected to mention the redlink. I am particularly concerned about 9 (death threat to previous editor).   — Jeff G. ツ 06:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW Jeff, 2 of us have expressed an interest in why you thought that a redlink to a deleted article needed to be re-added. Enquiring minds want to know. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You consider this is a death-threat? Oh dear... ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 06:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So not a death threat. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 06:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Yes, I do. "some people need to stop breathing", when coupled with "Undid revision 355093054 by The Danimal1993 (talk)" means to me that The Danimal1993 and similar vandals need to die. And this is not this user's first death threat, either - see this one as well.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Well then you and I have vastly different definitions of what a threat is. Even wishing someone would die isn't a threat to kill someone. "I wish you were dead" and "I'm going to kill you" are way different statements. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I had closed this, but if you want to insist on months old unactionable stuff on ANI, you've picked the wrong venue, except for drama and hilarity generation purposes. Open an user RfC or ArbCom case instead. Pcap ping 07:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Someone needs to give JBsupreme a barnstar for the best edit summaries in awhile. I had quite a good laugh at all of them. Going to mark this as resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Did someone repeal WP:CIVIL while I wasn't looking?   — Jeff G. ツ 07:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This guy clearly needs a civilty reprimand.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope, but sometimes when you are fed up (we all have) with the damned trolls and stupid kids on lunch break screwing around with the Wiki, you lose your temper. Does it actually mean he wants someone to stop breathing, I highly doubt it. Move on Dude, no good is going to come from this. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

JBsupreme was warned by the ArbCom as recently as January about the exact behaviors he's repeated recently. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

• 5.1) JBSupreme has occasionally been uncivil: typing edit summaries in all capital letters [89], using profanity or attacks in edit summaries [90], making edits to form inappropriate "contribution sentences" [91], and refusing to respond to good-faith criticism [92] [93].
• JBsupreme is warned to refrain from incivility and personal attacks.

He seems to have ignored those warnings along with all of the other warnings and requests. Even trout slapping hasn't worked. Can anyone suggest an alternative to blocking him that will get him to comply with the site's policies?   Will Beback  talk  08:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The banner on top of his talk page says "Why follow the rules when you can ignore them" and further suggest that when he persistently ignores warnings it is wilfull disruption. Unless he has something to say to his defense I would support a block.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's an arbcom issue, refer it back to them. I agree that he needs to tone down the edit summaries, but I don't think these ANI posts are effective for these issues. Shadowjams (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. WP:AE or WP:RFAR would be the best places to pursue this.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

when you are fed up (we all have) with the damned trolls and stupid kids on lunch break screwing around with the Wiki, you lose your temper. Then you need to stop editing. Or maybe you can show me where in WP:CIVIL it says that is a justifiable reason to insult people? "I was burnt out" doesn't cut it. if that's the reason then the offender should be blocked until such a time that the community feels they are no longer burnt out.--Crossmr (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Related issue

By the way, you've warned him for "vandalism" for edits such as [94] [95], which are not wp:vandalism. That's inappropriate. WP:BATTLE much or sour grapes? Pcap ping 07:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pohta ce-am pohtit has a good point. You can't warn someone for vandalism when there isn't any vandalism. I have gotten up to my ass in trouble for that before. When issuing ANY warning, you must make sure that what you are warning for has actually occured. The "vandalism" you warned about, he was reverting a deadlink. Not vandalism and a misuse of the vandalism templates by you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As such, I have removed the vandalism template to JBsupreme's page with apologizes to him for it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

...although there is still WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE, both of which have been the subject of previous warnings regarding his choice of edit summaries. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Folks, we may have another problem. Jeff G. not only misused the vandalism templates, mismarked vandalism, but also took this lack of vandalism to AIV, before being directed here. First, why wasn't this misuse and lack of vandalism caught at AIV, but second (and the bigger question) what should be done about Jeff G. who has taken this lack of vandalism all over Wikipedia tonight winding up here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have told Jeff G at his talk oage that his use of warning templates and of the word "vandalism" is incorrect.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's not backlash on this either. This isn't the same as blanking a page and adding "your mom", but Jeff's point's already amply made, and I don't see any harm in the language he used. Worst of all you can blame him for templating the regulars (did he even do that?). Let's not be pedantic about this. Shadowjams (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the {{resolved}} template. JBsupreme's misuse of edit summaries has been a serious problem and has been going on for ages. Many people find these types of edit summaries offensive and when previously warned by editors and administrators he simply removes the warnings from his talk page.
11 September 2008 - Reversions by user JBSupreme
21 April 2009 - User:JBsupreme and problematic edit summaries
25 April 2009 - User:JBSupreme's continued inappropriateness
11 May 2009 - JBsupreme edit summaries again
There seems to be a common pattern here. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It was previously marked as resolved by Pohta ce-am pohtit, but delete by Jeff G., hence my readding of the resolved template. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I missed that. I've refactored this section slightly. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Swearing is not per se uncivil and some comical exacerbation is a good thing. Can someone provide some context as to how often there are summaries like this, and is this it? It seems odd that summaries, the one thing that are forever archived and almost impossible to get rid of, are where he chooses to fly that flag. Like I said, some context? Shadowjams (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing this out -- this is completely ridiculous. If the above is a "death threat" then apparently I had no idea that the word "threat" meant "to wish" in addition to, you know, "to threaten". I love how one person can express his frustrations via an innocuous edit summary while another person can crucify him by expressing their frustrations via an overblown ANI post that people then need to respond to, resolve, etc. One of these things is a bit more disruptive than the other. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree that there's nothing "threatening" about that edit summary. Shadowjams (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not a threat, but it certainly also isn't civil or in line with WP:BITE. Also profanity isn't problematic when it merely expresses the speakers own stress- but when it is directed at other as in many of these cases it is clearly not civil and borders on personal attacks. Humour in edit summaries may be a good thing but not when it is made at others expense.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Even a casual glance at JBSupreme's edit history shows that he's chronically incivil. Either WP:CIVIL is a policy, which means he should be blocked for at least 24 hours - or it isn't, which means that template at the top of the page is a lie. Seth Kellerman (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I smell a sock here: new user with a dozen edits, practically all his article-space edits are at Tucker Max, and somehow found this thread rather quickly. Pcap ping 09:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I should probably disclose my Taylor Swift edit history. Shadowjams (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Anything else you wanna 'fess up? wp:Spas or PBML/John254-type socks would be fun; please make it epic like Altenmann ... Pcap ping 10:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't hate on my love.... Shadowjams (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I just take the opportunity to say again that I could care less if a blatant vandal gets his feelings hurt. When a guy does the extensive vandalism that he did to the Jeremiah Wright article that was shown above, there is not AGF or BITE problem. That's just being a dick and I don't care if someone uses profanity in their edit summary with them. So why is that even an "example" of anything? That edit summary is more likely to get a barnstar from me for just saying what I'm thinking than to send me to complain about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. If you see a dick, then you call him a dick, there si nothing wrong with that. And vandals are dicks by definition, so I see very little merit to Jeff G's complaining here. Mountains and molehills and all that. Tarc (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I just say that this case looks very much like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Prestonmcconkie? And while I don't think that JB has done anything really problematic, it's sort of startling to see the similarities between Preston and JB's featured edit summaries, and then to see how Preston got an RFC while JB is being defended pretty heavily here. I even think JB's edit summaries were a little harsher than Preston's. To clarify, I don't think action should be taken against JB, but I'm seeing a significant difference between how Preston was dealt with versus how JB is being dealt with. ALI ^{nom nom} 16:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "got an RfC": What's stopping you from starting one? You don't need administrators' permission for that. Among the editors above, there appear to be some that would gladly ratify it. Pcap ping 16:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard of Preston and don't even plan to look at the old RfC. I'm commenting on the case at hand. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The two issues are not directly comparable. Preston used abusive summaries even when people were acting in good faith, basically belittling them for using imperfect spelling and grammar. Such is not the case with JB where he is dealing with individuals purposefully defacing article space. They both use <ahem> "colourful" edit summaries, but the target audience differs substantially. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of the edit summaries here were to people editing in good faith, who just made somewhat foolish errors. That doesn't necessarily mean them might not have been able to become adequate contributors in the future--but they're not very likely to if they are dealt with in such a manner. I consider edit summaries like this blockable conduct in anyone, and especially an arb. The matter does not involve the use of admin functions, but arb com has made it clear that admins are expected to be at least as sensible in such matters as other editors. Using this language in edit summaries is worse than in content--edit summaries can only be removed by deleting the entire edit, not just by reverting. JV and I have had some previous disputes, so I can;t say I'm wholly unbiased, but if it were anybody I had never interacted with and brought to my attention I would block. Given the number of them, I;d suggest a week, with a warning that it will be increased if it ever happens again. More generally, perhaps we need an edit filter that would focus on edit summaries, from which admins would not be exempt. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone should demote WP:CIVIL because incivility is obviously allowed per two long discussions that I read on here. Joe Chill (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent RfC proving your point, perhaps. A policy for which there is no consensus to enforce is what exactly in wikiland? Don't say paraconsistent... Pcap ping 02:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more helpful to figure out how to bring the issue before arbcom, at least when whether of not it's by an admin. I'd like to figure out how to do it without being too personal about an individual , since there are a number of people doing this sort o fthing. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Since he's repeating the exact behavior that the ArbCom warned him about just four months ago, this should be an easy matter for the ArbCom to handle. It could go to WP:AE except that they failed to add an applicable remedy to that case.   Will Beback  talk  04:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That should be an epic WP:AE request: "ArbCom, you failed! Please reconsider." Pcap ping 12:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I determined WP:AE to be an inappropriate venue because there is no ruling to enforce; instead I have filed an amendment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Tothwolf.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism of on user pages.

An annon account [96] has made this edits ([97] and [98]) on two different user pages. I reverted it, but I´m not sure what else needs to be donne in this cases, so I decided to report it here. Regards for all, FkpCascais (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

AIV is this-a-way. That'll be the place you're looking for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. FkpCascais (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Runtshit-vandal. Please block ASAP!

Resolved

 – Blocked, Thanks User:zzuuzz! --- Huldra (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello admins, are you all sleeping this morning? Could you please block 67.231.246.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ASAP? It is the User:Runtshit-vandal. And yes; I have reported it on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, where there is a backlog...and I am tired of running around cleaning up after him, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oooo, five years! SGGH ^ping! 10:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You gotta love it when you see the AIV helperbots remove blocks like that. Runtshit + static IP + server hosting + open web proxy = 5 years. A tiresome formula. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN3

Admin eyes are required over here, seems some reports from yesterday have still not been dealt with. Mo ainm~Talk 11:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

First Flight High School

Resolved

 – Tide rolls has warned two users, and the fiesta appears to be over. TFOWR^propaganda 19:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone wave cluesticks appropriately on the fiesta of stupid currently taking place at First Flight High School and Talk:First Flight High School? – iridescent 16:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Tide rolls (talk · contribs) has done that already. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Irvine22 socks

Resolved

 – All of the accounts listed are blocked indefinitely, and most likely sockpuppets of Irvine22 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at User:Willy Haupt-Stauner, User:Helmut Stauner and User:Max Stauner who are currently vandalising articles associated with User:Snowded. The users are highly likely to be sock puppets of indef banned User:Irvine22. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• All blocked indef as vandalism-only accounts; I agree they almost certainly are Irvine22 though. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Andewz111's signature

Resolved

 – Nice when it works out this fast --Jayron32 06:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Andewz111 (talk · contribs)

How I found this user isn't important. What is important, is that they are using a template in their signature. Given how numerous signatures are, this is now a large cleanup issue. I don't know if they are going to take my warning to heart or not, but I would feel better if an admin echos my words at their talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User notified.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that this template is already transcluded on 71139 (exact count as of 1 minute ago) different pages, I don't see what the issue is. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 05:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So, Daedalus969, tell us, what were the results of the previous discussion you had with this user over their signature? --Jayron32 05:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I can change the signature to the standard. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 06:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sig changed. Inform me of any more problems before this gets resolved. Andrewz111 (typo intended) (let me know) 06:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, this discussion is not about this user changing their signature, it is about the cleanup issue involving what it previously was.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The important thing is that the sig is changed to prevent the problem in the future. Andrewz111 (typo intended) (let me know) 06:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

U.U

I am sorry for not notifying you. I notified myself. I just realized. :/ — Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, that's a mistake anyone can make. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection from new editors?

Resolved

 – Protected by Toddst1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hackforums be protected from editing by editors that signed up only to comment on the AfD? Joe Chill (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Not commenting on the question, but in the meantime the Single Purpose Account tag will at least highlight the problem to other !voters and to the closer. TFOWR^propaganda 14:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Users seem to get quite worse in AfD when that is used. Joe Chill (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been protected. Please mark as resolved. Joe Chill (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Michael Winner

Copied from WP:BLPN because this has potential PR implications (consider Michael Winner's reputation for acerbic comment in his newspaper column). I can't do the necessary line-by-line fact check due to jetlag, having just this morning returned from a week in the States on business.

There have been exchanges of email which I have merged together under VRTS ticket # 2010041710014178. This includes an official biography which I copy by permission at Talk:Michael Winner/Bio. This is, of course, not presented with inline sources and the style is not compatible with our manual of style, but I would appreciate it if people could cross-check for factual inaccuracies since Mr. Winner's office is (perhaps understandably) unwilling to spoon-feed us with specifics. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparent Edit War on What They Died For

I have come across what appears to be an edit war on What They Died For (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), involving inclusion of a plot summary. The arguments appear to be that: the episode has aired to a select number of fans, however, other users are deleting the plot summary as either unverified, or as spoilers. The spoiler argument is obviously invalid per WP:SPOILER, but I feel some sort of administrator may be needed, as it appears some editors may have broken the 3RR rule. Brambleclawx 16:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it to an earlier, much shorter, & obviously incorrect version, then semi-protected it for 52 hours. (That's an off-the-cuff calculation for when the episode will actually be first broadcast to a sizable audience; another Admin with better math skills is welcome to modify the time.) Whether or not they are spoilers (& the producers have been known to leak misleading information about future episodes), this is clearly unverifiable information at this writing. Now let's all get back to something more important -- like worrying about unfounded allegations of child pornography on commons. -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandal came back

Resolved

 – Reported. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 18:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:173.162.255.177 vandalized the page of Robert_de_Sorbon after his temporary block expired. Evenfiel (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the place to go next time, by the way! ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 18:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of image link in Christian denomination

I want to start by saying I'm not used to these noticeboards and ask for forgiveness for any hiccups resulting from that. Would appreciate feedback regarding how to better handle these situations.

User:BreadBran and anonymous IPs 173.206.236.231 and 173.206.236.24 have been persistently editing Christian denomination to replace the image Image:ChristianityBranches.svg with BreadBran's image File:ChristianBranches.png. The PNG version appears to be a simple conversion from the SVG version with the removal of "Early Christianity" text from the leftmost branch. Consensus on Talk:Christian denomination (and from what I've been told, on Wikipedia) is that SVG is preferred over PNG for non-photographic content, so these edits are against this consensus. Furthermore, have attempted to notify BreadBran and IP through User_talk:BreadBran, User_talk:173.206.236.24, User_talk:173.206.236.231 and through the article's Talk:Christian denomination, as well as through edit summaries asking for discussion. Neither user has replied on any talk page; I went on a brief Wikibreak, came back and discovered these edits have been continuing, and are being reverted.

Sample diffs:

• BreadBran
  • [99]
  • [100]
• IP
  • [101]
  • [102]

Would also appreciate guidance on whether/how to deal with the graphic itself; BreadBran originally claimed ownership, when it is clearly a port from the SVG; I edited the description on File:ChristianBranches.png to reflect this. Not sure what Commons policy is on image duplication/derivation; I'm not familiar with the Commons, unfortunately.

It doesn't seem to meet vandalism (AGF that the user genuinely believes PNG is better for some reason), but it doesn't seem to meet edit-warring either since we've repeatedly asked for participation in discussion and haven't gotten any. 3RR isn't being violated, since the edits are being made over a longer period of time actually, IP did violate 3RR; see: [103]. For these reasons, I was not sure which noticeboard to use; this seems to meet the definition of "tendentious editing" to me; e.g. WP:POINT meant to say WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors. Also, for what it's worth thus far BreadBran seems to be a single-use account. Would ask for an administrator's judgment on this matter as to whether/what action is necessary. Thanks,

-- Joren (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the IP didn't violate 3RR -- the last four edits were over four days. It's clearly edit warring, though: if the IP/BreadBran aren't willing to discuss, they should back off. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not important, but just wanted to clarify the diff I'd posted [104] was in fact the fourth revision in the previous 24 hours for that IP address from 11:01, 11 May 2010 to 09:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC+9). Just felt the need to be clear in case anyone wondered if I was just making up stuff :) Thanks!

-- Joren (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the IP has now violated 3RR. These four reversions: [105], [106], [107], and [108] took place over a period of 18 hours and 18 minutes. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 48 hours and left a note at User:BreadBran's talk page. Also reverted the article back to the .svg version of the image. Shimeru (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

BreadBran has made the same edit again: [109]. As of yet, no statements from either BreadBran or IP address on any of the talk pages.

-- Joren (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked him for 48 hours too. Hopefully he'll get the message. Shimeru (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations for four weeks

Claireea9 (talk · contribs) has uploaded 27 copyrighted images, all of them without any tags, FURs or what-have-you, since April 18th. They have, for the most part, been deleted or nominated for deletion; a few have dealt with by kindly editors.

Given that the user has received plenty of warnings and information, has presumably read the material at Wikipedia:Upload (impossible to avoid seeing it, certainly!) and for some reason ignored all this. Their mainspace editing also leaves significant room for improvement, to say the least. I propose that this clearly disruptive editor is blocked. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 17:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left the editor a note also. I will block this editor in an hour or so if I get no response, anyone else can block earlier and I won't cry. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I already blocked (Doug, you hadn't commented here before I started the process, I would have held off if I'd seen it). I suggest keeping blocked until they acknowledge their problems, and address them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks—I think it's for the best! ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 17:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for saving me the trouble, Floquenbeam. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Almico

Resolved

 – spamusername blocked Toddst1 (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am uncertain if this requires the attention of admins, but I recently found a page about the software SpeedFan. After noticing the username of the author, and the producer of the software (both User:Almico), I decided to report it here. Also, all of the user's contribs are about their own products. Again, I am not sure if this is a problem, but I do remember hearing something about no companies making their own articles, so I just put it here.  A p3rson ‽ 19:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

Resolved

 – Reported to AIV by User:PrincessofLlyr

User:Cashismom was opened today, making edits related to Cashis. Only edits have been vandalism or adding unsourced promotional material. [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117]. Was given warnings [118], [119]. "Her" response on her talk page was "You don't know Ca$his, so why are you purposely attempting at sabotaging his information? Seems like a hater at work. I'm going to contine to make changes and have the rest of his family and label, make the correct revisions daily. Until you get it right." [120] and on my talk page: "Why are you putting up non accurate information regarding Ca$his? I'm making changes to prevent you from looking like a fraud. You must not know him at all. I'm his mom. We can keep making changs all day, if you'd like."[121]. Has been reverted by at least 3 different editors. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Has blanked the page again, replacing it with the artists website: [122]. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Go to WP:AIV. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, user is already reported. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 20:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• AIV was backlogged and the editor was active, so I chose here.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

BKWSU again

Resolved

 – Taking stock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and The Same Every 5000 Years (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are blocked indefinitely for being socks of Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Judging from my watchlist, Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University‎, an article on ArbCom probation, has recently gone "live" again. Could someone take a look? Orderinchaos 12:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris adherent owning all Brahma Kumari related topics

Yes, thank you, Orderinchaos.

A Brahma Kumaris cult adherent is owning all Brahma Kumari related topics. This has been going on, with extensive edit warring for years. It does not seem right. See: Special:Contributions/Bksimonb.

In light of similar decisions made about the Scientology topic, can someone tell me how long this has to go on for?

The Brahma Kumaris are a passionately evangelistic 'End of the World' cult engaged in fairly heavy PR and media control. Their adherents are motivated a forthcoming Nuclear Holocaust that will "purify" the world, destroying all other religions, so that they alone can inherit the world. Their persistent efforts are inspired by earning a high status in the Golden Age which their god spirit predicts will following "Destruction".

It would not seem to be the most rational basis for contributing to an encyclopedia.

Thank you. --Taking stock (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is another obvious sock of User:Lucyintheskywithdada. SPI report already filed. Bksimonb (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to add "thanks" for the very rapid response. Looks like he's blocked and the page protected already. Much appreciated. Bksimonb (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is still going on. Bksimonb very much seems to be a single purpose account here, controlling any topics relating to his cult or its financiers and seeking to subtly modify them over a period of time to match the current corporate PR.

What can one do? --The Same Every 5000 Years (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Bksimonb doesn't seem to have edited since yesterday, and in any event was not the user who was sanctioned here. Since you're a very new user, do you mind if I ask how you come to be involved in this issue? TFOWR^propaganda 20:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's another sock. I've filed another SPI report. Bksimonb (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations for four weeks

Claireea9 (talk · contribs) has uploaded 27 copyrighted images, all of them without any tags, FURs or what-have-you, since April 18th. They have, for the most part, been deleted or nominated for deletion; a few have dealt with by kindly editors.

Given that the user has received plenty of warnings and information, has presumably read the material at Wikipedia:Upload (impossible to avoid seeing it, certainly!) and for some reason ignored all this. Their mainspace editing also leaves significant room for improvement, to say the least. I propose that this clearly disruptive editor is blocked. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 17:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left the editor a note also. I will block this editor in an hour or so if I get no response, anyone else can block earlier and I won't cry. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I already blocked (Doug, you hadn't commented here before I started the process, I would have held off if I'd seen it). I suggest keeping blocked until they acknowledge their problems, and address them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks—I think it's for the best! ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 17:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for saving me the trouble, Floquenbeam. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Almico

Resolved

 – spamusername blocked Toddst1 (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I am uncertain if this requires the attention of admins, but I recently found a page about the software SpeedFan. After noticing the username of the author, and the producer of the software (both User:Almico), I decided to report it here. Also, all of the user's contribs are about their own products. Again, I am not sure if this is a problem, but I do remember hearing something about no companies making their own articles, so I just put it here.  A p3rson ‽ 19:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

Resolved

 – Reported to AIV by User:PrincessofLlyr

User:Cashismom was opened today, making edits related to Cashis. Only edits have been vandalism or adding unsourced promotional material. [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130]. Was given warnings [131], [132]. "Her" response on her talk page was "You don't know Ca$his, so why are you purposely attempting at sabotaging his information? Seems like a hater at work. I'm going to contine to make changes and have the rest of his family and label, make the correct revisions daily. Until you get it right." [133] and on my talk page: "Why are you putting up non accurate information regarding Ca$his? I'm making changes to prevent you from looking like a fraud. You must not know him at all. I'm his mom. We can keep making changs all day, if you'd like."[134]. Has been reverted by at least 3 different editors. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Has blanked the page again, replacing it with the artists website: [135]. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Go to WP:AIV. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, user is already reported. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 20:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• AIV was backlogged and the editor was active, so I chose here.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

IP-hopping user making trouble

• 174.217.56.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 70.208.92.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 174.217.186.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 69.138.165.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 65.114.157.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Trouble is occurring at The Game (U.S. TV series). I originally thought it was a simple case of edit warring (see the edit-warring noticeboard discussion here), but this user appears to be hopping IPs rapidly to restore their version of the article (which contains multiple grammar, spelling, and style errors). Above are just the IPs they've shown up at in the past few hours, but I'm told by the article's regular editors that this has been a long-term problem, and they suspect a banned user, but I haven't been able to determine which one they suspect yet. As the edits are rapid I thought I'd report this here anyway for now. I would've opened an SPI, but I have no idea who the sockmaster might be (so I had no username to put in the SPI page title :) ) If I'm still in the wrong venue let me know... I don't deal with this sort of thing very often. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Pinkadelica just told me she suspects User:Lilkunta, if that helps. Equazcion a^(talk) 21:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) :As I said on the article talk page and on my talk page, User:Wildhartlivie and I have been dealing with this user (who is probably User:Lilkunta but I could very well be wrong) for some time now. They're bound and determined to restore the article to their preferred version (poorly written content be damned) and only start communicating when the page is locked. If they can't get the page unlocked, they cry to the admin who locked the page or anyone who will take the time to listen to them. The best route is to probably just to protect the page which I have already asked for. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I endorse everything that Pinkadelica and Equazcion have said here. Most of the IPs traceroute back to the same myvzw.com links. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I am not ip hopping. I am not lilkunta. I feel wildhartlivie is bound and determiend to restore their version. That which I have added is soucred and truthful. wildhartlivie's version is past tense. I have updated tenses, information, directors, and showrunners, cast, and more. Why not integrate the infrmation we both have 69.138.165.244 (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That is factually untrue. Many of the IP numbers listed go back to the same address. This is about your use of unacceptable sources and edit warring. The article history page and the identical edits made by those same IPs are the issue. And this is not about me, it is about your conduct and violations of policies. Don't try and obfuscate what is going on here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Is blocked editor RyanG222 continuing to edit?

Interestingly there is a lot of overal between 87.209.107.24 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and
RyanG222 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). There editing patterns and some of the articles including those related to Esmée Denters match up. I'm wondering if in line with the recent AVI i took against him here (which led to his ban) if the IP and RyanG222 are one in the same? Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should submit your information at WP:SPI.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As a pre-caution i've gone ahead and done that. I just thought since it was admins here who blocked him they might like to know about it.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There are admins over there too. Never fear.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Account renamed and now editing under two guises

Resolved

 – A930913 account blocked by Toddst1 [136] — Gavia immer (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

930913 (talk · contribs) used to be known as A930913 (talk · contribs) until they were renamed a over a week ago. Being a relatively new user (and also a single-purpose account, though that's another story...) they made the understandable mistake of still logging into their old username and editing with it.

They were warned to stop this just minutes after being renamed (May 6th) – but they're still editing with their old username, having ignored the warning from the bureaucrat Nihonjoe (talk · contribs).

I'll notify to both talkpages; could someone please give them a final warning? It's confusing and inappropriate for them to continue as they are, and especially when they've already been clearly told. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 17:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, they are claiming they can't login to the 930913 because they don't know the password. This doesn't really make sense, though, as the same password have transferred over to the new username. Not sure if this might be a bug which doesn't allow usernames with all numbers login, or something else. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user

Extended content

Threatened by Bugs, I withdraw any complaint. After all, I don't give a F about some vandal fighter, if they are wrongly block, life is a bitch. Assorg (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Nothing to see here. –MuZemike 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Could somebody please review the User:White Trillium Case. I believe it is a mistake. 76.114.33.30 (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Quit forum-shopping. One post is enough already. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC) The checkuser did not make a decision. Either the blocking is wrong or the blocking admin, Tim Song, is such a poor writer who cannot communicate valid reasons for blocking. Reviewing the past 6 edits for White Triullium (just reviewing the non-minor edits), all are constructive and some are vandal fighting. Therefore, Tim Song (administrator) is guilty of supporting vandalism in Wikipedia. Once again, the blocking admin needs to be more clear and less sloppy. Either Tim Song is block happy or is unable to communicate sufficiently. Both are bad traits for an administrator. Assorg (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC) The above has been here less than 4 weeks, and is lecturing admins on their behavior. Good idea. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Based on that, all college students should shut up and not become involved in politics or political protests since they are young. All I ask for is transparency. A simple explanation on White's user page is sufficient for this matter to be closed. Assorg (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC) If that user is concerned about it, he could defend himself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC) He also posted an unblock request for WT while logged in as himself.[137] I sense a 'Plaxico' in the making. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC) I don't know who the fuck Plaxico is but it sounds derogatory. All I am asking for is a detailed or even one paragraph explanation especially since there is no reason given. Yesterday, an innocent child was killed by the police in Detroit. Where's the outrage - actually there is. When someone is killed in Wikipedia (blocked) and there is no explanation, there should be outrage at least until a suitable explanation is given. I am outraged because someone tried to hide the ANI post by collapsing it. There seems to be a 2 editor conspiracy to cover up. The solution is just either unblock or a simple explanation. If someone is an administrator, they should have sufficient writing skills to offer an explanation and not act like the Detroit Police. Assorg (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC) There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. And I guess you never heard of Plaxico Buress, who took a gun to defend himself, ended up shooting himself, and now sits in prison. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)|} Moved from WP:AN Hello, I am here to complain about User: Tim Song and his unjustified blocks. Please help me? 76.114.33.30 (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC) and who are you? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Taken from AN/I and written by them: "Could somebody please review the User:White Trillium Case. I believe it is a mistake." Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Let's see here, User:White Trillium has been CU confirmed to be editing from a residential IP in the West Coast. The IP geolocates to the West Coast and looks residential. The IP is also complaining about White Trillium's block. Quack anyone? Elockid (Talk) 23:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)  IP blocked 24 hours for block evasion. NW (Talk) 00:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Latham & Watkins

Resolved

 – Things seem to have calmed down for now.

The period edit war on this page has flared up again. I have no clue which side is "right", but one keeps adding some stuff and another keeps deleting. Probably several 3RR violations by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 15:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Per tradition, can I suggest that you may have protected it at The Wrong Version? It looks to me like several editors were reverting one Special:Contributions/Lawgazer SPA. No objection to protection, but I suspect right now one editor is thinking "brilliant!" - and it's possibly that editor that should be encouraged to talk... TFOWR^propaganda 15:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The subject now is the same as it was a year ago - some dispute over that firm having laid some people off. There's someone with an axe to grind, and someone else who doesn't like it. But I don't know which one is "right". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed some of the links in your post, TFOWR. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries! TFOWR^propaganda 16:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, we've got dueling SPA's. A one-shot redlink added this stuff on April 7, then today another SPA redlink started deleting it, while some bluelinks kept restoring it. But who's "right"? My recollection is that the stuff about layoffs was considered POV-pushing a year ago, so leaving it out (as it stands right now) could be the "right" version after all. But I'm not 100 percent certain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This does indeed go back to a feud that was running through much of last year, particularly through the summer months, as one can tell from the history. It centered on the now-indef'd user Lathaminfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s efforts to make the article a coatrack about layoffs (it would be reasonable to assume he was personally affected by those layoffs). There were various apparent socks and other redlinks that got their mitts into it. It quieted down fairly much, once Lathaminfo was sent to the Phantom Zone, but it was apparently still simmering and has now boiled over again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Judith Reisman

Resolved

 – referred to the Foundation. Those blokes get paid to deal with this. Toddst1 (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

While on Huggle this morning, I noticed somone blanked this page, simply leaving a message saying 'Please delete this page'. I reverted it, and then a couple of minutes later, an account called Judithreisman done the same, only this time said that the page should be deleted due to 'deflamatory and libel content'. I reverted it again, but left a note on the user's talk page informing them I had e-mailed Wikipeida. I have had no response. A couple of minutes ago, I received this message on my talk page:

FROM JUDITH REISMAN TO WIKIPEDIA

Gentlemen: I am in another country right now and was informed that Wikipedia was again using people who are long time pornography and pedophile lobbyists to defame me. Jimmy Wales had to correct all this a few years ago and now its back. This site ridicules my scholarship and undermines my professional reputation (legally this is interference with advantageous relations). For example, the representative from the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco who you pose as a credible source to assault my pristine child sexual abuse research, has sold its own home made child pornography to Hustler magazine while Wardell Pomeroy, their former "dean" is on record as soliciting funds from the Adult Video Association to film child pornography at the IASHS. Their BOOK, Meditations on the Gift of Sexuality is a picture book of students, faculty, staff and friends engaged in illegal sexual orgies (circa 1977) including what is clearly understood today as child pornography, and my research has exposed their "institute" as a bogus "scientific" establishment in great detail. The same facts apply to your other critic. I could go through your entire entry for the slanted coverage, libelous and trivialization of my findings but I simply demand that you remove my entry from your site. It is wholly untrustworthy. Thank you for your immediate attention to this issue, Judith A Reisman, PhD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judithreisman (talk • contribs) 15:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that this requires urgent attention, I have posted relevant riffs below: The message on my talk page Presumably her IP Different account Her account

Thanks, and if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Acather96 (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left her instructions on her talk page on how to address this with the foundation and semi protected Judith Reisman given the multiple sock issue. Toddst1 (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPSELF may be of some interest to Judithreisman (talk · contribs). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• The claims invoke Jimbo and have also been made via OTRS. I have emailed him to ask what additional info I need in order to handle the ticket properly. I would suggest that the tone of the complaint makes it unlikely we can easily handle it through normal Wikipedia processes, involving as it does the implication that anybody who edits the article in an unsympathetic way is tied to the commission of dreadful crimes. This is not really very collegial. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'd also like to point out that gross BLP violations do NOT automatically become acceptable because they're being committed by a complainant, and the above claims (including the assertion that a respected sexual researcher like Wardell Pomeroy--a co-author of the Kinsey Reports--"film[ed] child pornography") fall squarely under its remit, so Wikipedia should not be publicising these border-line libellous claims. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• This New Yorker article may provide some necessary background. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User:LUCPOL engaging POV-pushing

I'm having a few difficulties with the user LUPCOL who I feel is trying to engage in POV edits. On the List of fighter aircraft, he has repeatedly tried to add the Su-35 as 4.5th gen fighter aircraft despite the fact that other editors have reverted his edits to this effect. A citation in the article provides a list of criteria that qualify a plane as a 4.5 gen aircraft. The citation is from an official US Government document by which ALL other 4.5 gen aircraft on that article are specified as adhering to. I've tried to explain my rationale for reverting his edits but I don't feel that LUCPOL is interested in the citation.

Thanks, Vedant (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

MiG-35 and Su-35BM have the same designation "4++ generation jet fighter" (equivalent to international standardization - 4.5th generation)" source for MiG-35 and Su-35BM.

1. Why remove only Su-35BM?
2. Where is written about Mig-35 in United States government [138]?
3. "...other editors"? No - Only you me reverting.
4. US GOVERNMENT specifications? What it - the king of the world? This is Russian fighter, is considered to be 4.5th generation by Russia.

LUCPOL (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

1. All other aircraft on that list do meet the 4.5 Gen standard including the MiG-35. The Su-35 on the other hand does not, as it has a PESA radar instead of the required AESA radar.
2. User:Ao333 seems to have an issue with its inclusion as well.
3. I never said they were kings of the world, what I did state is that ever other aircraft on that list meets those standards. The Su-35 does not does not belong on that list. The specifications provided by the US Government are recognized to be a standard on the article (one which you have not provided). Using your logic; I could create a company and start manufacturing paper airplanes while calling them 10th generation stealth-bombers with an ultra-low radar cross section and internal weapons bay (capable of dropping paper chunks) along with the ability to cruise without engines.

Vedant (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Su-35 on the other hand does not, as it has a PESA radar instead of the required AESA radar."? Su-35 have radar AESA.

"The Su-35 does not does not belong on that list." - you show that list and MiG-35 inscribed on it.

LUCPOL (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

1. The Su-35BM is equipped with the N035 Irbis-E passive electronically scanned array radar, it is not an active electronically scanned array radar. See [139][140][141]
2. I don't follow you. I already said that the MiG-35 was a 4.5 Gen aircraft because it's equipped with the Zhuk A/AE AESA.

Vedant (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

LUCPOL, please note that "4.5th generation" is neither a standard nor is it international. For example, The People's Republic of China labels what both the United States and Russia call "5th generation" as "4th" and what the US calls "4.5th" as "3.5th." It is merely a marketing term coined by American aircraft manufactureres, which was later officially adopted and defined by the US government. The contentious issue is that you think the Russian 4++ equates to the American 4.5th, which is erroneous. The list has always followed US conventions. As such, if you wish to contend, you have to provide the article with a stringent definition from a non-commercial (eg, government level) source that exempts the Russian 4++ from the US 4.5 definition, or convince the public by establishing your claim through Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) (with a stringent non-commercial, English source) that there should indeed be 2 standards. SU-35BM's absense in the Indian MRCA competition should be plenty of food for thought.Ao333 (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Administrators, please ignore this complaint. It appears that LUCPOL and I have reached an agreement regarding this and there are no further issues. In the future I will take this to a DR forum should similar issues occur.

Thanks, Vedant (talk) 12:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI Helperbot editing while logged out

Resolved

 – Back up now, carry on.--SKATER ^Speak. 03:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

91.198.174.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) The ANI helper bot is editing while logged out, not sure if this is the right place to report this.--SKATER ^Speak. 02:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See also discussion above. Pcap ping 07:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Eric144

Eric144 (talk · contribs · block log) is adding defamatory content from a tabloid's opinion piece to the article of a politician elected today. It was removed. A short while later, he simply undid the removal.

He'd already tried inserting it in March, but it was removed by another editor. He readded it today with "[author] reminds us of the dark legacy of the Goldsmith family", which says it all.

I've reluctantly brought it here as a large proportion of the user's edits have been to pages on members of this environmentalist/politician's family:

1. He creates a section titled "Nazism" on the talkpage of one linking to a homepage.ntlworld.com webspace page [142]
2. Later he added a further unsubstantiated related allegation [143] (even though AN/I isn't indexed, I'm not even going to repeat what he said in his last paragraph).
3. Again he restores removed content about it saying "I put the ... information back where it belongs in the middle of what looks like a hagiography to me. Any attempt to remove it will see its immediate return." [--Eric144 (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Goldsmith&diff=prev&oldid=310206554] Again in a subsequent month [144] saying "It reads like a nazi hagiography", with remark "would help if you were to reveal your identity" [145]. The edits to the accompanying article mirror the talkpage edits.

He's long made personal attacks against specific editors. [146] His past block history is for "making personal attacks and for reverting against consensus" with multiple unblock declines due to WP:NOTTHEM.[147]

Despite the edit summary explaining his addition was reverted because it was pov pushing and pointing him to the undue weight NPOV policy, as the article already covered the matter from all points of view using reliable sources including The Times, he simply undid it saying "vandalism".

It seems clear from their editing history the user is not here to collaborate, is unwilling to listen, and for whatever reason is especially focused on members of a particular family making non reliably sourced allegations they are nazis or "human chocolate bars".

I removed the poorly sourced pov material again [148], and placed a warning template on their talkpage. They responded with this screed referring to a completely different statement as "pathetic, laughable, and execrable"—the statement's sourced to The Observer and has been present in the article since 2008. They restored their defamatory material saying "vandalism" as before. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

some of the article on Edward Goldsmith at present does read like a hagiography: altogether too many adjectives of praise and an inappropriate separate list of links to "associates" and influences" . DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've not edited that article myself nor even read it all, so you may be right; glancing, I do see a few peacock terms in its lead. What I am saying is that the unsupported nazi allegations and defamatory tabloid namecalling insertions about the living politician are inappropriate. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

While that could be true (did not take the time to investigate), the IP editor who began this thread is also correct. I have notified Eric1444 about the inappropriateness of his edits, and I have left a reminder for him to reread the BLP and NPOV policies. NW (Talk) 05:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DGG, that is a true text. I have removed some laundry lists from the article and would encourage better copyeditors than I to "edit mercilessly". Guy (Help!) 15:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't have the patience to deal with wikipedia troublemakers like 92.30.111.99 who don't even have a Wikipedia account. No one has addressed the pathetic and utterly crass "Young, gifted and Zac" article which remains untouched as "Goldsmith is described by his mother and reporters to be of a gentle disposition" in the article. That is an obvious bias by 92.30.111.99 . The Edward Goldsmith article was a very slimy hagiography by someone almost certainly connected to the family. The Goldsmith family are well known to everyone with the tiniest historical knowledge as being on the very extreme right of British politics. According to a Guardian article, they initiated a fascist coup against Harold Wilson, who subsequently resigned (see BBC documentary The Plot Against Harold Wilson ). It is relevant that a Guardian and NYT journalist uses Nazi symbolism against him. George Monbiot wrote an article called 'Black Shirts in Green Trousers' about Zac's favourite Uncle Edward. Could both of you please stop threatening me. It really isn't nice.

--Eric144 (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, this idiot seems to think the Guardian is a tabloid. He is no more than semi literate. Why are you backing him up ?

--Eric144 (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't help your case with Personal attacks. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As the diffs show, they've been warned for personal attacks before. They've been blocked for different ones and disruption.
After being warned by NW their actions related to the article were 'completely inappropriate', their very next edit was to comment here without accepting why their article/talkpages actions were unacceptable (as before), with bad faith accusations and claims both of us are "threatening him". His next edit removed longstanding RS-cited content from the article he disliked by misrepresenting the full length newspaper interview article as a "daft opinion piece" article. The edit after that was to make further personal attacks here on ANI as you can see.

The unsourced alleging of implication of a living person in what're among the worst crimes against humanity in history, in the 2nd diff, are exactly the sort of blp violation we don't need. The namecalling insertions on the article from a pov/attack piece are also unacceptable, as are the personal attacks. It's hard to see much else in order but a block. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the whole history, but on one thing at least Eric is certainly right. The IP and other editors have repeatedly insisted on the inclusion of an assertion that Goldsmith "is described by his mother and reporters to be of a gentle disposition", Eric has removed this. Even if the statement were in the source cited (it isn't), this would be a ridiculous piece of puffery. Some of the claims against Goldsmith may be inappropriate (I haven't yet checked), but this sort of statement has no place in any WP biography. RolandR (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's somewhat incorrect, RolandR. No editors myself included have "repeatedly insisted" on anything regarding that statement. It was inserted by a registered user in August 2008 during their partial rewrite, copyedited as part of the article by others since then, and unchallenged. The only time I've done anything related to it directly was to correct it to adhere to the reliable-source yesterday (per verifiability), removing the words 'his mother and', as the original user had confused it. Eric most certainly did not remove it as you say. He removed the fixed version while misrepresenting the full-length interview article source as an opinion piece. The statement is in the source: <quote>There is nothing flash or aggressive about the editor of The Ecologist. The first thing you notice is how gentle he seems.</unquote>. For whatever reason many interviews describe him as 'genteel', 'soft spoken' etc. That's probably why it remained. I've never suggested it Has to stay. If I had to guess (OR) it might be because he speaks in RP or similar; regardless, even if it sounds silly to us it's what reliable sources say. The claims and names the user's tried to insert are inappropriate, as is their conduct, and the user's been told by multiple people they're unsuitable in any WP biography. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The user has just posted the following WP:NOTTHEM/MPOV-style conspiracy tirade, acting exactly like they did in their previous declined unblock requests:

"the Goldsmith family are multi billionaires who can afford many servants ... all it takes is for one or two servants to gang up on a human being ... These people are well versed in Wiki robo language and can bully their way to success ... subterfuge"

including yet more smoke and mirrors talking about the wholly different Edward Goldsmith article, failing to accept -- choosing instead to talk about a statement a registered user added in Aug 2008 -- why adding "human chocolate bar" sourced to a pov/attack piece into the Zac Goldsmith article having made wholly unsourced accusations suggesting that person (of Jewish ancestry no less) is a nazi on a talkpage is unacceptable. They continue their personal attacks. This has to stop. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

^{Timestamp as still active: 92.30.111.99 (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)}

unrelated WP:PEREN policy discussion

By the way, Eric144 (talk · contribs), you shouldn't treat IPs differently from users. Some people have their reasons not to register for an account, and they should be given the same amount of trust and politeness as someone with an account. After all, it's not only IPs that vandalize—many users do as well. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Some people have their reasons not to register for an account What reasons could those be? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Probably no one's reading because this thread has pretty much ended, but my question is serious -- what reasons can people have not to make an account? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC) This thread and probably the board generally isn't the venue for your meta/philosophical question. If you wish to discuss such things you may like to discuss it on each other's talkpages, on meta, or the village pumps. But please don't hijack this thread. The thread is about a user's violations of the living persons content policy, personal attacks and disruptive editing. It is unresolved / unactioned, and there is a 'blp victim'. Thanks. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Why thank you for the advice, IP editor who has only edited under this address for the last week, but who has clearly edited before and who might be the same person as the other 92.xxx IP editors who have dominated that article for quite a while but I can't really tell because of the way their IP address changes with frequency (maybe, if that's the same person). I surely understand now that there's no reason to treat IP editors, who with great frequency it is difficult to hold accountable for their editing history, any differently from editors who register an account and can have their history checked relatively easily, unless of course they use sockpuppets, which is to say another account, a concept very similar to, but apparently much more frowned upon, than hopping (deliberately or not) from one IP address to another. I'm glad to have had you answer my simple and straight-forward question – in which I asked for a legitimate motivation for people to edit with an IP address rather than an account – with the royal blow off. I'm sure there's no reason for Wikipedia to ever consider banning IP editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Restoring from archive as instructed at top of page. This remains unactioned after sitting for more than 7 days, which I think is explained by this board's talkpage that says sometimes threads get forgotten. I recognise it's a difficult case compared with some here, but I urge an admin to take a look and give it consideration.
The user's blp violations are important; the personal attacks and disruptive editing, including ignoring any concerns (instead commenting on an unrelated issue in the article or different article entirely) when raised, directed to unregistered and registered users alike were the basis of their past block and are clearly a pattern. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that the reason why comment trailed off is because Eric144 appears to have stopped editing soon after this matter was raised. Looking into their editing history, this account appears to be fairly infrequent and now orientated toward one topic. Should they reappear and make similar edits, put up another post and link to the archived version of this one - or nudge me on my talkpage. Otherwise let this matter be for the time being, the article is in fair shape now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That could be it. The various activity was repeating each time they logged in, inc. here, though like you say editing appears to have stopped. Thanks for taking a look, appreciate the response. Taking all considerations into account, what you suggest is probably best. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The so called unsourced document was by Guardian and NYT journalist Jonathan Friedland in the Guardian which 92.30.111.99 seems to think is a tabloid. The other one (posted by 92.30.111.99) was ridiculous nonsense about Zac being a gentle person accoding to his mother. It was removed with scorn by an intelligent user. The same user also removed another very biased edit by 92.30.111.99 by commenting He didn't "refute" the claims, he denied them". This is someone with an agenda. I am not happy at all with the attacks made on me. I have no idea how to do advanced wiki editing and never will.

--Eric144 (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Jonathan Friedland is a very clever man. He writes for the Guardian and New York Times and he is Jewish himself. Not likely to be antisemitic then.

--Eric144 (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This all started when 92.30.111.99 sent me a warning saying the article was unsourced, then said it was from a tabloid. Why was I sent a warning from a total stranger on preposterous grounds ? It is actually from a distinguished international journalist in the Guardian. If any one of you people wants to know the editing history, it is all recorded. Why don't any of you you do that ?

--Eric144 (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please also note that RolandR has come to my defence and called out my accuser on his deception.

--Eric144 (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The contributions of 92.30.111.99 have consisted almost entirely of highly biased edits of Zac Goldsmith's page and an obsessive vendetta against me, contacting various adminstrators.

--Eric144 (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, this all started when you added content stating a living a was a "human chocolate bar" sourced to a pov/attack piece into the article.
It continued when you persistently reverted it back in, referring to well-explained policy-grounded removals of the defamatory content as 'vandalism'.
It grew worse as you made personal attacks on article and user talkpages. Or, perhaps it started when you made wholly unsourced accusations on another discussion page a while back stating the same living person was a nazi.

No matter how many times you say it, your unrelated claim I inserted any such statement about the subject's nature is untrue. As has repeatedly been detailed above, it was inserted 2 years ago by a registered user as anybody can see. I do not make biased edits to any articles, and contribute in a collegial collaborative fashion with others.

I've never sent any warning the article was unsourced. The underlying points of the notice about the poorly sourced biographical content you were adding and pattern of editing surrounding it, that led to this thread, were repeated to you by User:NuclearWarfare on your talkpage here along with explaining about the pov/attack piece here. Multiple people have courteously explained the problem, which you apparently refuse to accept referring to it as centred on "preposterous grounds".

The various allegations of clear malicious bias and vendettas combined with the preference for bringing up unrelated article issues similarly occurred in your earlier interactions with different editors on a different topic. 92.30.62.150 (talk)^{(dynamic IP; earlier allocated 92.30.111.99)} 00:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ronnie James Dio

Resolved

 – No action required - UtherSRG (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Went to update Ronnie James Dio on the untimely passing of the rock singer (and creator of the Devil Horns) and the page is locked down due to vandalism. Could an admin add the passing and this reference? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't need to come here. Use {{editprotected}} on the article's talk page with the change you wish to make. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And he's not dead. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct....OK, so I went with the immediately release of information. Oh well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So you were going to add news of someone's death to a BLP based on a post on a rumours website? Top marks to whatever clever admin protected the page to prevent that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was the first story I came across. Admittedly not the best link I could have picked, but the only one available according to Google. Oh well, didn't happen, so all's well that ends well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, looks like you were right after all, as his death is now being reported everywhere. It is good to make sure that being right takes precedence over being early. Tarc (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the first instance was just "jumping the gun" to pardon the pun, but the second time is the real deal. Still sucks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• People have been vandalizing the page stating he's dead since at least May 4th, even as he's posted to his own website that day. HalfShadow 19:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Samofi vandalism, personal attacks

Just need a quick intervention against this user, the situation needs urgent admin action. The user is out of control with personal attacks coupled with vandalism of an article currently under afd. Some personal attacks (edit summary): [149] [150] [151] Also see the contribution history of the user. [152] And a large number of vandal reverts on the same article ([153] [154] [155] [156] all within 1 hour) All this most recent outburst seem to be connected to an attempt to post his personal essay as a wikipedia article which was deleted [157]. I will not go into deep detail here as this needs fast reaction, but there are some other issues as well. Hobartimus (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Once already blocked for disruptive editing for 48 hours, this seemingly had no effect at all. The danger here as if these actions continue unhindered he might try to influence other editors as well such as [158]. Hobartimus (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No personal attack, in my opinion is Hobartimus paranoid and anti-slovakian, its my POV and not personal attack (i did not use bad words and word "fascist" as is in wikipedias rules). Check what he does. In article about Slovakization is not definition of Slovakization, no reliable sources about this topic. Its about Czechoslovak-Hungarian population exchange and about Slovak-Hungarian relations and re-Slovakization (its not Slovakization). Article is considered for deletion second time, from different editors but its here lot of Magyar nationalist so they keep article. I tried to save article and hold the substance of article. But he and other Magyar editors are not able to undestand that. I made lot of new articles and Iam here almost from the begin of Wikipedia and I had problems only with Hungarian nationalist. I made lot of articles in Russian, English, Slovak wikipedia. Some changes in Polish and Czech. Please check Horbatimus activities against my person. He from the "his principle" delete all my contribution even if I put relevant sources or arguments. He should be blocked. --Samofi (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The above is a good example of how this user operates. He writes "I tried to save article" and yet he has TWO separate delete votes in the afd debate of the article [159] [160]. It is also notable that this user was warned as early as 2006 [161] by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry refrain from changing "articles to insert your own pro-Slovak/anti-Hungarian point of view." Even though most of the time since then was spent as a "sleeper account" now In my estimation it is clear that this user is not here to contribute positively to the encyclopedia. Hobartimus (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Unlogic, how I can vote 2x from one account??? I wrote 2x delete in my speech, but vote only 1x. Its defame. Its my personal thing what I did 4 years. I was active but less. I was study to not be stupid and I was active at russian and slovak wikipedian. You put not verifiable sources to article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Černová_tragedy its vandalism. Slovakization was not defined, so all article has not theoretical background - so no legitimity for article. Again manipulation with my words, admin should look all discussion in afd - I wanted delete article in form as it is now, or rename to re-Slovakization, or completely change content. Now its synthesis with sense of antislovakian propaganda. Its here more Magyar editors who tries to hold monopol about Magyar/Slovak history and relations. Its lot of old and new books from English, Czech, Slovak, Romanian authors about falsification of history from the side of Hungarians, here is neutral one: http://books.google.com/books?id=ih_muDscIY8C&pg=PA300&dq=hungarian+falsification+history&hl=sk&cd=2#v=onepage&q=hungarian%20falsification%20history&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?ei=o3HwS_ymA9KkOPW3qKEI&ct=result&hl=sk&q=hungarian+falsification+history&btnG=Vyh%C4%BEad%C3%A1vanie+kn%C3%ADh http://books.google.com/books?id=R7phyBbqZDoC&pg=PA23&dq=hungarian+history+falsification&hl=sk&cd=2#v=onepage&q=hungarian%20history%20falsification&f=false Its problem of education in Hungary and problem of clima in Hungarian society (crisis, false of history, bad relations with neighbours, poorness, chauvinism, nationalism) that Hungarians are not able to accept that true can be somewhere else. Or it can be 2 or more trues. --Samofi (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this as Samofi is not the only one with issues at Slovakization, or its AFD, but I cannot stand by and be called something I am not. I have voted to keep the page (and thus have been called by Samofi Magyar editor and nationalist) which is a typical assumption by this edd, I am not Hungarian and have never even been to the country (i have never even eaten Goolash). He claims to be trying to save the articel, but it was his PROD that had the page nominated for deleteion (and hye has in fact voted for deletion) (twice)). He has asscused me of not understanding what the page is about [[162]] after I provided sources using the term in the context of the page.Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

1. I wrote it before you voted for keep, so its irelevant - nothing against you. I was not too much active here, but in russian wikipedia and in slovak wikipedia yes and I had no problems. I study this topic so I know more than you about this, you know almost nothing about this topic according to your sources about slovakization, I will cite you: " *Comment The term certianly exsists, and is even contested as a theory [[163]] [[164]] now the only question is how notable is this as a concept?Slatersteven (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC) "

You mixed articles about history of Slovak language who was based on Czech with article about re-Slovakization. Nobody from you guys in the page gave me clear definition of Slovakization. Its fact, so I dont see legitimity of this article. I did not voice twice, my account is only one - from one user is one vote so I can write delete 100x with one sign and it will one delete and one vote. --Samofi (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just doing a word search to determine if the word actualy exsists (I would argue the first set in an AFD is to see if whatever it is might exsist, if i had found no referance at all then delete). As I said more work was not needed to determine actual notabilit. I have now provided a number of sources that talk about the subject using the term (Hungarian and non-Hungarian (not that nationality matters)). By the way you said (on this page here) more then an hour after I voted that you wrote 'but its here lot of Magyar nationalist so they keep article' and 'But he and other Magyar editors are not able to undestand that' as well as 'I had problems only with Hungarian nationalist' So do you see why I thought you were saying I was some kind of Hungarian Nationalist?Slatersteven (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I told in global, persons to who I wrote it knows it and they are silent about it. Only you noticed this, hungarian nationalists not. --Samofi (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Are any admins reading the above posts of Samofi? And also [165]? If it weren't such broken English it would be more, evident, but I think it's a safe guess that he is under the impression, he can continue making attacks while writing in general (global in his word). "I told in global, persons to who I wrote it knows it", a block is really needed here. Hobartimus (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Its your problem you dont understand my english, its not against rules. I was warned with admin Dougweller, from that time I told nothing personal to you. So calm down. And dont put to my mouth something I did not say. Hobartimus has good fantasy. Please admis check my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samofi. Hobartimus gave me warning against the rules of wikipedia according to article about [Tokoli]. I put there information about Slovak King. He was called Slovak King, I put sources and other Hungarian editor (Baxter9) adjusted it and confirmed. Its bullying from the side of Hobartimus to my person. --Samofi (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There never was a "Slovak King" any time anywhere during history as there was no "Kingdom of Slovakia" ever, trying to push these types of radical fantasies in any manner shape or form only confirms that your presence is a net negative for Wikipedia. Also this user's comment that others don't understand English is certainly an interesting observation to say the least. There is another reason to check Samofi's contributions, as significant damage can be done to quality of text by editing articles with such a level of English as he displayed above and elsewhere. Hobartimus (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It was according to Dangl, based on corespondention between Hungarian noblemans. Baxter agreed its on the talk page. It was not Kingdom of Slovakia, but it was Slovak land from 16th century as geo-ethnical area according to Heltai Gáspár encyclopedy. You try to delete all conections of Hungarian Kingdom with Slovaks.--Samofi (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Since Doug has some minimal involvement, I've asked him for any input. Samofi, while poor English isn't necessary a problem, it becomes questionable when I see someone with such poor English arguing about English language sources in such volume, I have questions as to what's going on. Honestly, it seems that assuming good faith is not clear to you. Nonsense like "Hungarian users are not neutral." is going to get you blocked from here and for a long time I'm afraid. There exists article talk pages for a reason but right now I need some indication that you aren't just trying to ram this topic here because of an improper motive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Iam able to read english. I have not academic knowledge of english, but I was in England few months and I read english books. Its not improper motive. In a both AFD of Slovakization the all Hungarian editors had completely opposite oppinion as Slovaks. They are not neutral, same like Slovaks are not neutral. Its bigger problem as to block me. 2 different understandings of history. I will not block, If somebody say about my topic to which I put 20 sources that its in my head such Hobartimus did I have right for defence. --Samofi (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite my warning and his statement above, in the same paragraph he manages to attack Hobartimus. Combined with his apparently using Wikipedia as a battleground for his pov, and the fact that his level of English combined with his prolific editing are, I agree, a detriment to our articles, I'd support a block now. I came within a hairsbreadth of issuing one last night. Dougweller (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I must do it. I put neutral english sources to Černová tragedy. In rules in Wikipedia its written that: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material." Why he can use Hungarian sources from Jew-Magyar internet magazine written by Manager, with name "Hitler Hlinka"? Its 3 scholar english books supported my theory - written by not slovak authors. He deleted one my book. I only comment his activity with right words. Its here equal and more equal? I was writing about this slovak/hungarian topic with Joe Daly from Wikipadia info center before I started more actively edid, I put sources and he wrote that I can improve wikipedia. If I would blocked I will mail him and I will refer about: using of magyar non-english and not neutral sources in slovak/hungarian issues supporting hungarian right, I will report about deltion of relevant english sources from articles by magyar wikipedians, I will refer about bullying from Hobartimus who nominates article for deleteing few seconds after it was done, or he deleted my changes few seconds after it was done, he had not chance to read sources what I have used to support facts, few seconds after I nominated Slovakization for delete he was for speedy keep. Dont you see who is bullying to who? Its still no definition of Slovakization from relevant source and article is still exist. I did not start battelfield with deleteing of Hungarian sources (after 2010). It was Hobartimus who did delete connections of Slovaks with Hungarian Kingdom. What is his role in Wikipedia? Use magyar sources and support hungarian POV of history? --Samofi (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had "some" difficulties with Samofi.:) Although sometimes it's really hard to understand him, the main problem is that he doesn't want to adopt the wiki rules and he continues contributing as he thinks. I asked him several times to read WP:RS, WP:OR or do not add a fascist (please note that according to him that site is only "patriotic") webpage as a "reliable source", but his answer was "Fuck of u mutherfufker! Do you think Stefanik was fashist? Fuck your muther you shithole" Note that he still keeps adding unreliable homemade webpages or blogs as sources to support his pro-Slovak POV.([166], [167], [168], [169], [170]) I also tried to understand him (see his talkpage) and his views, but it was a complete waste of time. He never showed reliable sources (but he thinks that Encyclopedia Britannica is unreliable: "but you make citation with stupid encyclopedia britannica") just his extreme opinions, like Slovakia ["Slovakia exist older than 1993, but with different names: Principality of Nitra, Dominium of Matthew Csak, Upper Hungary"](i.e. an independent European country which exists since 1993) existed before under different names (he also tried to add this into article Slovakia). He insulted me several times when I removed his unsourced nationalst edits: "you are hungarian jingo", "Hungarian chauvinist", "antislovak Baxter" or other Hungarians, and even Hungarian political parties like FIDESZ ("maybe FIDESZ are more close to fascizm"). Samofi's another favorit issue is the ethnicity of "famous people from Hungary"). The best example is, perhaps Tivadar Csontváry Kosztka who's Polish ethnicity is well referenced, but since Samofi thinks that he was Slovak he turned the talkpage of the article into a forum where he tried to push his pro-Slovak POV, regarding the issue of the article and others like (the ethnogenesis of the Slovaks, the ethnic composition of the Kingdom of Hungary, and the old "Slovakia existed b4 1993 etc). The best example is this.--B@xter⁹ 10:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Given that these articles already fall under WP:ARBMAC, I'm actually surprised this editor lasted this long. Are we really down to nobody dealing with these ethnic warriors? Normally, once bit of language like that and we have post after post on ANI from every direction wanting to ban each other. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Good block. Good riddance. Pcap ping 15:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that it falls more under WP:DIGWUREN than under WP:ARBMAC. The Balkans are a big place, but Hungary isn't part of them. Other than that, no objection against blocking, obviously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested to the editor that they look a good look at WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:NPA to get some idea of how to edit here. They've agreed, but we'll see what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Archiving bot misconfiguration?

I checked the WP:ANEW noticeboard to see the status of my recent report and noticed that it had been archived with no action taken! diff Is this a misconfiguration of User:MiszaBot II? Shouldn't it stay on the noticeboard until some action is taken? If the configuration is correct, why wasn't an {{Admin backlog}} placed by a bot when it reached a certain point? Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Check the above diff more carefully. Sweetpoet was blocked 24 hours by Dougweller for edit warring. There is no dedicated bot for the 3RR board; it uses conventional archiving by MiszaBot. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I reported User:Mysteryman557, which is farther down. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's been there for 48 hours without action, chances are action won't be taken. You said yourself it's not a 3RR violation. –xeno^talk 19:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Mk5384 / Pink Floyd

Mk5384 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)

A rather unpalatable edit war has occurred lately, across two Pink Floyd albums; The Final Cut (album), and The Wall. I've already reported this matter on the edit warring noticeboard, but so far no action has been taken.

I'd appreciate further comment on this, and some action if necessary (a word in his ear perhaps). While any editor is quite right to ask questions, highlight problems, and make bold edits, this user seem only to believe that he is right, and that everybody else (well, me) is wrong. He seems to be no stranger to edit warring; I've noticed several reports on this very page concerning this user's behaviour, and I believe he's also been blocked for it. I have had to stop interacting with this user, in case I begin to comment on him, and not his edits.

While I don't hold with Wikipedia's civility policy, I must say its quite difficult to remain calm when faced with this. His latest edits, just now, are to remove perfectly valid cited text from The Wall, in the mistaken belief that the citation does not back up the claim made—it does. I've asked him to re-read the source provided, but he refuses to do so. This is a blatant violation of WP:3RR, his second in less than 24 hours.

Is anyone going to do anything? I'm not inclined to continue reverting his changes, for fear of being blocked myself. This editor has no such regard. Parrot of Doom 14:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I protected The Wall a bit before you posted this. Discuss it on the talk page, and perhaps someone could actually quote the cited source to back up an argument?—Kww(talk) 14:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you mind reverting to this version please? If you can read it, this is the source which claims that The Wall is a rock opera. The revision linked is the version of the article with this citation, and is the version which MK5384 has been reverting. Parrot of Doom 15:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked Mk5384 for 2 weeks. –xeno^talk 15:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Two weeks seems a little harsh to me, I'd have thought a day or two only, just to let him calm down? Parrot of Doom 15:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
    • This is part of a repeating and apparently escalating pattern from this user, unfortunately. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Well I'm no expert, and while I'm not his biggest fan its only his methodology I have a problem with, not his willingness to contribute and improve these articles. Perhaps he might benefit from being mentored? Parrot of Doom 15:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Indeed, the block length is intended to prevent further disharmonious editing. I note that has been twice indefinitely blocked. (After ec) @POD: Is there a willing mentor available? I am willing to consider reducing the block with conditions. –xeno^talk 15:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, when it comes to working with this editor, I think I'm out of the picture... Parrot of Doom 15:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Based on a further review of the history of The Wall, it looks like you (Parrot of Doom) also broke 3RR at and didn't discuss at Talk:The_Wall/Archive2#changes. At this late stage, I'm not going to block you, but keep in mind that edit warring of this nature is not acceptable and you should discuss at the talk page before continuing to participate in an edit war. –xeno^talk 16:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
            • Well its a good job you didn't, because I don't think I exceeded the 3RR rule. I made a change, Mk5384 immediately reverted it, I examined my edit and corrected it. Mk5384 then presumed I'd not made any corrections, and immediately reverted. I then made three reversions before posting here. Parrot of Doom 16:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

← Here's my count:

1. 18:36, 16 May 2010 [171]
2. 22:10/19, 16 May 2010 [172]
3. 06:58/07:28, 17 May 2010 [173]
4. 14:07/10, 17 May 2010 [174]
5. 14:17, 17 May 2010 [175]
6. 14:31, 17 May 2010 [176]
7. 14:43, 17 May 2010 [177]

Looks like a violation of 3RR to me? –xeno^talk 16:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The first is not a reversion per se, as evidenced by my edit summary. The second is. The third is a new edit with a fresh citation in an attempt to stop the edit warring. Mk5384 claimed that this citation didn't warrant claiming that The Wall was a rock opera. Now I'll admit to making a mistake there, because I inadvertently copied in the wrong citation, and it doesn't, as he said, back it up (although it does in that book's index oddly enough). Mk5384 reverted me, so I looked again and corrected the citation (4th edit), which does indeed say that the album is essentially a Rock Opera. The fifth is a reversion, because Mk5384 didn't notice that I'd changed the citation, and reverted me immediately. The sixth and seventh edits are also reversions. At that point, being able to go no further, I came here.

Perhaps my maths is faulty, and perhaps I misunderstand the 3RR rule, but I count only three reversions of the same text in there. If I'm wrong I'd like to know now, so as to avoid any problems in future. Parrot of Doom 18:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"The four or more reverts that constitute a violation of the rule may involve the same or different material each time." And I'm not sure there is really any distinction as to whether you add a fresh citation; if you're still reverting the previous editor (i.e. changing concept album to rock opera), I think it still counts as a revert. –xeno^talk 18:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't think that applies in this case, since I was adding material to the article, and not simply reverting this bit, and then that bit, etc. I'll take more care in future to avoid such discussions, however, so thanks for the advice. Parrot of Doom 19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

To chime in here, given that this is the fourth time that MK has shown up on the Admin Noticeboard in as many months, also given that MK continuously claims he is doing nothing wrong and every report or sanction is a "lie" or a "conspiracy", I would say at this point WP:RFC/UC would be warranted. I could get the page started up if need be. I'm sure MK will state this is a further stalking action against him on my part, a lie and a conspiracy, and no doubt bring up five year old items I did under the handle Husnock but this has to stop. And, as unbelievable as it may sound to MK, everyone is trying to HELP him. Noone wants to see him indef blocked and good contributions are always welcome. But edit warring, personal attacks, and refusing to work with others is getting us nowhere. -OberRanks (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Danielgreen1970

User talk:Danielgreen1970 has been making wholesale changes to the Celtic F.C. article, including adding players names to the squad without any referencing. I have asked him to do so without any reply. They have also just come off a block. I believe he has been making changes also at other football articles though I have not had a close look at them. I would appreciate it if someone could have a look. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

reverted the Celtic FC ones, I checked a couple of the players he added to other articles and their own stats pages and offical pages confirm that they are not new signings. It's ill-informed vandalism as far as I can see. Final Warning given. Editing is curret so a block might be coming soon. SGGH ^ping! 20:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Jack forbes (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Darn, he stopped! :) SGGH ^ping! 20:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully he won't start up again in a day or two. Jack forbes (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well in the end he tried to kill the beloved President so I dispatched him for a week. SGGH ^ping! 20:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

He must have thought moving on to non football articles would have protected him. Strange! Jack forbes (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikinger disruption

I just blocked an apparent fake bot account, Malarz pl BOT (talk · contribs), an apparent sock of banned user Wikinger (talk · contribs) posing as a legitimate bot (allegedly operated by a legitimate and entirely unrelated user in good standing, Malarz pl (talk · contribs)). Wikinger has tried such stunts before. I would appreciate if people could help keeping an eye on all pages that the fake bot edited, or where it is discussed: any IP or new account turning up to mess with the same edits (including reverting them, reinstating them, demanding their reinstatement, or fiddling with the postings of people discussing any of this) is with 100% certainty also the banned user, and should be blocked on sight, without warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Should all the fake-bot contribs be reverted as well? I see you did a couple but not all of them... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(From the 6 edits I checked) It seems like they just replaced Template:Table Greekletters with Template:Greek Alphabet, which is fine, since one is a redirect to the other anyways. No reason to undo them that I see. ^Avicenna_sis @ 20:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a good reason for making those edits? Maybe if you think it might get around someone's watchlist, or page protection... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about those cases where he replaced actual transclusions. The nonsense edits were those where he replaced links in talk space and the like. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of image link in Christian denomination

I want to start by saying I'm not used to these noticeboards and ask for forgiveness for any hiccups resulting from that. Would appreciate feedback regarding how to better handle these situations.

User:BreadBran and anonymous IPs 173.206.236.231 and 173.206.236.24 have been persistently editing Christian denomination to replace the image Image:ChristianityBranches.svg with BreadBran's image File:ChristianBranches.png. The PNG version appears to be a simple conversion from the SVG version with the removal of "Early Christianity" text from the leftmost branch. Consensus on Talk:Christian denomination (and from what I've been told, on Wikipedia) is that SVG is preferred over PNG for non-photographic content, so these edits are against this consensus. Furthermore, have attempted to notify BreadBran and IP through User_talk:BreadBran, User_talk:173.206.236.24, User_talk:173.206.236.231 and through the article's Talk:Christian denomination, as well as through edit summaries asking for discussion. Neither user has replied on any talk page; I went on a brief Wikibreak, came back and discovered these edits have been continuing, and are being reverted.

Sample diffs:

• BreadBran
  • [178]
  • [179]
• IP
  • [180]
  • [181]

Would also appreciate guidance on whether/how to deal with the graphic itself; BreadBran originally claimed ownership, when it is clearly a port from the SVG; I edited the description on File:ChristianBranches.png to reflect this. Not sure what Commons policy is on image duplication/derivation; I'm not familiar with the Commons, unfortunately.

It doesn't seem to meet vandalism (AGF that the user genuinely believes PNG is better for some reason), but it doesn't seem to meet edit-warring either since we've repeatedly asked for participation in discussion and haven't gotten any. 3RR isn't being violated, since the edits are being made over a longer period of time actually, IP did violate 3RR; see: [182]. For these reasons, I was not sure which noticeboard to use; this seems to meet the definition of "tendentious editing" to me; e.g. WP:POINT meant to say WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors. Also, for what it's worth thus far BreadBran seems to be a single-use account. Would ask for an administrator's judgment on this matter as to whether/what action is necessary. Thanks,

-- Joren (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the IP didn't violate 3RR -- the last four edits were over four days. It's clearly edit warring, though: if the IP/BreadBran aren't willing to discuss, they should back off. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not important, but just wanted to clarify the diff I'd posted [183] was in fact the fourth revision in the previous 24 hours for that IP address from 11:01, 11 May 2010 to 09:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC+9). Just felt the need to be clear in case anyone wondered if I was just making up stuff :) Thanks!

-- Joren (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the IP has now violated 3RR. These four reversions: [184], [185], [186], and [187] took place over a period of 18 hours and 18 minutes. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 48 hours and left a note at User:BreadBran's talk page. Also reverted the article back to the .svg version of the image. Shimeru (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

BreadBran has made the same edit again: [188]. As of yet, no statements from either BreadBran or IP address on any of the talk pages.

-- Joren (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked him for 48 hours too. Hopefully he'll get the message. Shimeru (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

IP kept it up after the block. I've reblocked the IP for a year. Shimeru (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it time for Kyle262 to be blocked/banned for multiple copyright violations?

Earlier today Maczilla97 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was indef blocked for multiple copyright violations (around 6 warnings). However user Kyle262 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has recieved 29 copyright violation warnings but is still active. is it not disproportionate that Kyle262 has not been blocked too i wonder? I pose the question in the title of this thread... should he not be blocked also? (p.s. neither editor has any involvement with the other nor have i to my knowledge other than reverting Maczilla97 edits when incorrect) Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like he learned his lesson: no problems in three weeks.—Kww(talk) 01:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair play. Just wondered if there's a number of warnings before further action should be taken? While i'm here i pose the same question about final warnings. how many should someone recieve before administrators are brought in? Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

For petty stuff (like vandalism), rule of thumb is four. That's the time it takes to progress to a final warning if you are using standard templates. For complicated cases, judgment is more important than counting: if you think you are making progress in getting the editor to understand that his editing is disruptive, there's no need for an admin. If progress comes to a halt, admin help may be useful.—Kww(talk) 01:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Maczilla97 has been blocked indef for uploading copyvios. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

HoundsOfSpring, again

In late February, I brought this user to the attention of this board. As of today he is still performing these problematic edits, and has been since I last discussed him here. The {{whom?}} and other tags such as those in the following diffs are still unnecessary but he still edits in this way despite both my attempts and EyeSerene's: [189] [190] [191] [192]. He's not changing his ways. What do we do?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything objectionable about the 1st diff (adding a {{fact}} tag). I could have added it myself had I read that article. Did not check the other ones. Pcap ping 07:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked them. He does seem to be a little overzealous with the 'whom' tag, but they look like good-faith edits to me... except that he's been asked about this before. Hrm. I'll drop him a note. Shimeru (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've also let him know that he's being discussed here again. Apparently, he wasn't notified this time around. Pcap ping 07:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahem.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

He can't say he didn't see it (in triplicate) now... Pcap ping 10:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that HoundsOfSpring is too educated for the articles he's editing, and insists too much that other editors rise to his standards of sourcing and English (or too "anal", if you prefer). This discussion is a good example. Pcap ping 11:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason why he tags various articles with seems to be that he dislikes passive voice without an agent like "shit is done to editors". All his edits to Wikipedia (using this account, anyway) are only of the copyedit/grammar fixes variety, but are by no means limited to Anime articles. Pcap ping 12:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pcap pinged me at my talk page for "MoS" advice (but it's more a case of collaborative mechanics than MoS, AFAICS—I can appreciate the irritation, but words such as "anal" and "too educated" will do no good). Some of Hound's edits are improvements, others are not. "A second convention is planned to take place from August 27 to 29, 2010, in Los Angeles". Reasonable point, but the "whom" template is unnecessary. In other places Hound is applying a too-strict rule about avoiding the passive voice, for example "an episode (or two) were dedicated to a ..."—that is fine in the passive without specified agent, to my eyes. "in certain areas"—yep, it's vague. "In many series, a Ranger is also given additional Zords or weapons."—no agent is fine in a vid games context for this meaning, I think. "which has gained much media-coverage."—I agree, this definitely needs citation.

It's a mixed bag. My solution would be to implore Hounds and the other editors to print their proposed copy-edits and inline queries first on the talk page for a while, so that trust can be regained. It's the practical way of doing business. Tony (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion. It seems that differences of opinion exist on how (and how frequently) one should use standard Wikipedia "whom"-tags. Perhaps we should have some sort of other tag to ask for more detail - or do we have such a tag already? -- HoundsOfSpring (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As it has ben discussed here and in the old thread, your obsession with the "weasel factor" of the phrasing across the project is not what is expected by other editors. These plot points or other aspects that you request elaboration on are not necessary. That is what I have been telling you for 3 months.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As the Wikipedia project in its wisdom has granted us a "whom"-tag, fellow-editors can expect to encounter it from time to time. That said, I tend to interpret it literally as "by whom" and overlook the "weasel-wording" associations. Should we invent/adopt a new/different tag to ask for more information when some Wikipedians want an encyclopedia to give detail and not just to assume that "things happen" somehow? -- HoundsOfSpring (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Those type of issues you just bring up on the talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should lobby to make the documentation of the "whom"-tag more general. That would seem to accord with tag culture on Wikipedia. -- HoundsOfSpring (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So, is you effort an exercise in WP:POINT? I do have the feeling we're being trolled here. Pcap ping 07:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to suggest generic solutions to an general issue here. -- HoundsOfSpring (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:91.198.174.202 (toolserver IP / AIV bot blocked)

Is 91.198.174.202 (talk · contribs) a logged-out bot? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems that way. I have blocked it. Crum375 (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the consensus against blocking AIV bots, even logged out? They run from the toolserver IPs [193]. Pcap ping 05:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that was the consensus, so I've unblocked it. —DoRD (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

After you've unblocked it, it has made more logged out edits. I had notified User:ST47 of this, but he doesn't have access to the tool server now. Is the bot maintained by someone else now? Pcap ping 06:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, a pair of proposals stemming from this discussion have begun at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Anomie⚔ 04:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil and unwiki post by talk

Moved from WP:AN

Here user User talk:Breein1007 dropped something on my Talk-page. He could & should use the article's talk instead, of course, and has no need to use "what the hell". Just a notification for now. Of course I will flush the stuff from the talk shortly. Whatever happens from here. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What is it exactly you want people to do? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

isn't it obvious? He's trying to use AN/I as a weapon, treating WP as a battleground, to get an ideologically opposed editor sanctioned. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I know that, I'm just wondering what they want people to do about it. You don't normally complain and then suggest no action to better the situation. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"What the hell" is not going to arouse the "shock horror factor" in anyone; least of all the seasoned readers of this page. I suggest you answer his question politely and move on.  Giacomo  17:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: I have seen the posts after spotting this exchange. I hardly find them overly offensive, or rising to such a level as to be sanctionable in any way. Momma makes the most cogent point of all. The two involved editors must learn to deal with each other, and this is not the way to do it. Countering views and questions should not be met with a jump to bad faith, and I think that is what has happened here. On that basis, this matter should be closed. We must assume good faith.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is considerable debate on this project as to what level of civility is demandable from the participants. What is desirable, however, is enough civility to avoid having people feel offended and come running to ANI.

While I agree that this case was not an admin-actionable breach of WP:CIVIL as a policy, it's clear that Breein could have engaged in a more respectful and less confrontational manner which would have focused on content rather than initiating a dramatic incident.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also clear that you should never have made those libelous comments accusing me of being a sock puppet without offering any evidence to support that statement, but what can we do? What's done is done. I'd appreciate if you disclosed your previous history in the future when commenting on issues concerning me. Thanks. Breein1007 (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And it would be nice of someone to inform me about this post, so that I can have a chance to see what people are saying about me and respond if I so see fit. Since DePiep clearly isn't a novice, I expect that he knows better. Breein1007 (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Avargas2001 Edit Warring, Vandalism and personal attacks

Resolved

 – Avargas2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked for 24 hours for vandalism and violating NPOV. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

[194] Sole contribution is to insert false information on Falklands topics, tied with extreme POV edits, has ignored numerous warnings and is now making personal attacks alleging racism and bias. [195]. Please could an admin intervene, and would someone clean up his latest rant. [196] Justin talk 22:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

24 hour block for passing final warning (several times) inserting POV (and factually inaccurate and unsubstantiated) information. SGGH ^ping! 23:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Long term abuse/repeated insertions

Resolved

 – Page protection requested. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

There is an anonymous user that has inserted unhelpful external links in the page The Shack. Diffs (small set of offending edits): [197] [198] [199] [200]

The user has been using these IP addresses: Special:Contributions/41.56.199.24, Special:Contributions/41.56.194.253, Special:Contributions/41.56.198.52, Special:Contributions/41.208.234.0 and some others.

I have been reverting these insertions.

Another user has agreed with me that a ban may be appropriate. [201]

What is the next step to place a ban on the anonymous user doing these insertions?

Thank you peterl (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You should request page protection which I did for you. Puffy (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. peterl (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Requesting the brief assistance of an admin

An editor with whom I am having content disagreements has resorted to making personal attacks against editors on the article talk page.

Typically, when Xenophrenic sees a valid edit (by wiki policy) that he disapproves of (for whatever reason), he seeks to get others to remove it. This strategy is quite effective as he says the edit needs balance, or needs the proper context, or isn't the full story, etc. There are many different reasons used, but the end result is him adding so much trivial nonsense ( > 2 to 1 ratio in his POV) that average editors cringe when they see it. Xenophrenic then declares that the original unbalanced POV version can ONLY stay if his even more unbalanced additions are there to provide proper context. This leads to edit warring over days and even weeks, articles often get locked down. Some reasonable and responsible editors step in and remove it all in the name of peace and to move forward in improving the article. Xenophrenic gets what he wanted all along, and boosts his edit count with the disruptive edit warring. Some call this tactic a form of wiki-terrorism, I say it shows that Xenophrenic is quite calculated and intelligent, even though he is mostly obtuse during discussions. †TE†Talk 19:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC) [202]

The above comment not only grossly misrepresents my intentions and my editing, equating it to "wiki-terrorism", but also calls my contributions "trivial nonsense" and brands me as "obtuse". He is welcome to his opinions of me, but he is not welcome to billboard them on article talk pages in clear violation of No Personal Attacks, WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK policies.

I tried to refactor the attacks from the article talk page. He reverted me.
I requested on his talk page that he please not post the uncivil commentary about editors on the article talk page, and I even offered to continue discussion of his issues with me on his user talk page. He reposted the attacks again anyway.
He seems to think an article talk page is a forum for discussing editors, as his recent edit summary suggests:

(Undid revision 362703846 by Xenophrenic (talk) It's a collapsed thread that is quite civil and also educational. Trying to understand what drives an editor to act out is a good way to en) diff

I'm requesting that an admin remove the personal attacks from the article talk page and advise the editor that article talk pages are not the appropriate venue for "educating" people about your opinions of other editors. Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Editor User:ThinkEnemies notified of this thread. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• This was posted 9 minutes after ThinkEnemies declared that his participation on this page was contingent on solicitation from an administrator, instead of the angry party. †TE†Talk 05:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I left a basic personal attacks warning. I haven't had time to review the complete wider talk page series of events yet, however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to the matter, GHW. The editor agrees with your assessment that he violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, but appears unwilling to remove the inappropriate personal attacks from the article talk page. In fact, he has reverted any and all attempts by myself and other editors to remove, refactor, or comment out the violation since you contacted him. A related incident report was opened by another editor, two reports below this one, at header: Edit warring over personal attacks. May I specifically request that you remove the offensive commentary, GHW? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring over personal attacks

As background, the Tea Party movement page is a pretty contentious mess, and recent events have led it to be fully protected for three days to try and get everyone to the talk page.

Today, ThinkEnemies (talk · contribs) posted this edit to the talk page [203] under the edit summary WP:XENODONTLIKEIT, in reference to an opposing editor Xenophrenic (talk · contribs). Xenophrenic took offense to the comment, and struck it. ThinkEnemies reverted, which began an edit war [204] [205] which paused when ThinkEnemies collapse the thread [206]. His close comment and title was again WP:XENODONTLIKEIT (which he has also invoked on other edits). Xenophrenic tried to change the section title, which resulted in more back and forth [207].

Xenophrenic came to ANI which resulted in the thread above [208], and a personal attacks warning issued to TE [209] by admin GeorgeWilliamHerbert (who appears to be offline right now). TE's response [210] indicated he had "no problem" with GWH's assessment, and he saw it as "an opportunity" to show Xenophrenic the errors of his behavior.

Following the admin discussion, he added the WP:XENODONTLIKEIT title again [211] with the edit summary "Sorry, take it to ANI...Oh Wait...". I then changed the title to a neutral "off-topic discussion" in hopes of ending the entire mess. TE changed it back [212].

While I was willing earlier to overlook the personal attacks if they were collapsed, it seems now that ThinkEnemies is purposefully trying to antagonize Xenophrenic, on a talk page where there's already far too much bad blood. I would request an admin take a quick look at this situation, so this page will calm down. Thanks in advance for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User notified here [213], acknowledged here [214] where he says he'd feel better about coming to the ANI page if he were "invited by an administrator." In the meanwhile, he's reverted to the XENODONTLIKEIT title again [215]. Dayewalker (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be very clear, the admin did not ask me to remove the collapsed thread, he certainly didn't refactor it by changing the name. So when the above editor says: "Following the admin discussion, he (TE) added the WP:XENODONTLIKEIT title again [216] with the edit summary "Sorry, take it to ANI...Oh Wait...," we must ignore the mention of my discussion with the George (the sysop that commented on my page). He was not part of any edit warring on Talk:Tea Party movements. That is all †TE†Talk 06:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't wikilawyer. GWH's second paragraph to you clearly states [217] "your comments and behavior in this situation clearly violate our policy against making personal attacks and our policy about editing in a civil and collaborative manner." Dayewalker (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't put words into his mouth. He did not explicitly ask me to rename or remove the collapsed thread. It doesn't take a wikilawyer to see that your mention of George has nothing to do with my preserving of the title, which I used in creating the collapsed thread, which I voluntarily closed. After that sentence of I and me, I know you're thinking narcissist. I had a good chuckle crafting it. There I go again. III †TE†Talk 07:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies, I've removed the offensive header. If you restore it I'll block you for being disruptive. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 07:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As he repeatedly put the content back after acknowledging my warning, and made further pushes here, I believe he intentionally and knowingly was continuing the personal attacks. There's not much to do other than block when someone's that persistent about keeping up a personal attack after warning. I've blocked for 24 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sexism in India

I'm wondering if I can get a few more eyes on this article. An IP in the 59.178.* range has been adding material that advances the fringe theory that men are the victims of sex discrimination in India. At first glance, this section appears to be well cited and supported, but upon closer examination the citations don't support the core theory, where they exist they simply discuss programmes aimed at empowering women, they don't even touch on the theory that the IP is peddling.

Note that this is not the first time that this article has been identified as problematic, it was initially located at Sexism against men in India before being moved on the grounds that the title was inherently POV. A few users have attempted to sort out the issues with the article but the IP has persistently and patiently re-added the information.

I reverted these additions on the grounds that they constitute original research, breach NPOV, and that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. However, the IP simply re-inserted the information citing my "large content removal". Ideally, I'd like to revert the article to the version without this and semiprotect it, but as I'm now involved that's probably not a great idea. I hope that someone neutral can take a look at the situation and take appropriate actions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC).

I see that's been going on for quite a while. I've semi-protected it but maybe a range block would be more appropriate if there wouldn't be too much collateral damage. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

64.65.220.26 warrants long-term blocking

Resolved

 – No administrative action required at this time. – B.hotep •talk• 14:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, user 64.65.220.26 has a history of vandalism, as can be seen by most of the contributions listed under [218].

Isn't there some way for a permanent block? The IP addressed was blocked 3 times but only temporarily.

We don't indef block Ip's. The block just gets longer and longer the more they continue.--SKATER ^Speak. 12:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

We do sometimes if it is obviously a static IP and continuously vandalism. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Canterbury Tail talk 12:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirming the above: next up would be a one week block, but only if they have been warned enough and the vandalism is current. – B.hotep •talk• 12:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Also, there were only four vandalism edits in the last month or so, and zero talk-page notifications. How is anyone to even know there might be consequences to their vandalism?  Frank  |  talk  12:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Skookum1

Resolved

 – User had unfortunately retired from the project--SKATER ^Speak. 14:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. Just received a personal attack from User:Skookum1 on my talk: User talk:Fastily#You're got some kind of problem, dude. It would seem that this attack is on the basis of my routine file copyright tagging and deletion work. Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've interacted with Skookum and his work over the years, based on common geographic interests. He has contributed a lot to the project; while that certainly doesn't excuse the recent issues, it should be taken into account when assessing recent behaviour. I've left a friendly note on his talk page asking if everything is OK. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know him, but AGFing that this is not his usual behavior I left an as friendly as possible warning.

The attacks are not appropriate, but for a user without a history of attacks or other abuse it's not something we need to immediately block for or anything.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

He's got a habit of crying "censorship" or "POV" when it comes to content decisions he disagrees with, and I've had a couple rounds with him, but like Ckatz, I do believe Skookum does some very good work overall. Hopefully he will understand in this case that we can't just assume an image is PD when we have no source info and ensure that this is not an issue into the future. Resolute 03:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

He's just attacked users who are trying to reason with him: [219]. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now that's just going a bit too far. No attacks, period. I might AGF if he stops attacking other editors. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not excusing the PAs, Skookum1's complaint seems to be that Fastily nominated files for deletion without notifying Skookum1 that the files had been nominated. Skookum1 was therefore denied the chance to comment on the proposed deletion and assert that the files were either in the Public Domain or Crown Copyright Expired. Failure to notify the uploader may be excuseable where that uploader is inactive/retired/banned etc, but an active editor should be notified of such nominations. Failure to notify is in violation of Section 3 of the instructions at WP:FFD. Mjroots (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That was a mistake, yes, but one that could easily have been corrected if he chose to be civil about the matter. Alas, it appears Skookum has chosen to to retire rather than engage everyone in a positive solution. Resolute 14:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

More so then the attack on me by telling him about the image policy, I find his edit summary to be more offensive.--SKATER ^Speak. 11:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

We lost another great writer (someone that actually contributes content to articles) ...Very sad to see this .. :( Moxy (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It is very unfortunate to lose an editor of his quality, but his actions were incivil and bordering disruptive, from what I've seen it seems this was just the final straw to push him over the edge. This thread can no longer assist in anything but beating a dead horse (Not that I'm accusing anyone here of doing it), marking as resolved--SKATER ^Speak. 14:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How strict are we interpreting the new (April) BLP unreferenced policy?

Resolved

 – Editor indef'd. All articles WP:BLPPRODed. Welcome to WP:BLPedia. Pcap ping 16:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hoping for some honest feedback here. User:Anthonythecameraguy has created many new unreferenced BLPs. None appear to contain controversial info (although they are a bit close to IMDB content for my sixth (copyvio) sense). I've mentioned the BLP policy to the user on their talk page multiple times, but they continue to create them without reply. The patroller in me says they should all be tagged BLPProd (if I don't have the time to reference them myself). The non-biting welcomer in me says to let it slide. The best path, as always, must be somewhere in between. Any admin guidance appreciated.  7  06:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit late for me to be digging around on this, but it seems to me that Thewinnermon (talk · contribs) is related with their same style of editing and focus on The Penguins of Madagascar. It might be a sockpuppet of the blocked AnthonyA99 (talk · contribs). I'm not familiar with this particular editor. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The second one I looked at was a blatant copyvio, so I've deleted it. The ones about minor actors who've only played extras that are lifted straight from IMDB can be speedy nuked, as well. There do look to be some that are worth expanding (but not many). I've got to go to work now, unfortunately. I would suggest that someone blocks him if he carries on creating them, just to save people work later. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User continues to create them, and has now lapped his way around his list and has started re-creating some of the other ones deleted over the last few hours. Can someone please block him.  7  09:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of the point of the new policy on unreferenced BLPs was that it was more important to avoid having articles containing unverified information on living persons than it was not to hurt people's feelings. If a user who has patiently been pointed to the current policy and informed of what it means continues to ignore it then we're given no choice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Bubba got him. In addition to the BLP issue there is the SPI issue mentioned by Gogo Dodo mentioned above.  7  09:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, AnthonyA99 (talk · contribs) is suspected sock of Onelifefreak2007 (talk · contribs) who, in turn, has a list of suspected/confirmed socks as long as your arm. A tangled web, indeed. – B.hotep •talk• 09:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Worth a CU or not even needed at this point?  7  09:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What with Thewinnermon (talk · contribs) as well, I reckon so. Although it is strange that they would be editing on the same day when neither were blocked (although one is now!) – B.hotep •talk• 09:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Big sweaty Mark

Resolved

 – User blocked, disruptive FfDs closed. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I recently reverted some edits by User:Big sweaty Mark which had added unsourced claims about the relationship between race and crime, such as these. I also nominated File:Negro Stab.jpg, which the editor had uploaded, for deletion. Having tried to remove the file's entry from Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 May 17, the editor then seems to have started to nominate files that I have uploaded myself for deletion in retaliation. Two have been nominated - see File:Ascot railway station layout.JPG and File:Asylumapplicants.jpg. Finally, the user threatened me on my user talk page. I would appreciate if someone could investigate this incident and take appropriate action if deemed necessary. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your report. The user has been blocked. – B.hotep •talk• 07:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Both the FfDs have been speedy-closed, too. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for your prompt help. Could I just ask someone to clarify the block? The block log suggests it's permanent whereas the notice on the user's talk page suggests it's temporary. It doesn't bother me which it is, but they should presumably be consistent! Cordless Larry (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. I have changed the block message to a generic indefinite one. There were many reasons he could have been blocked; the "One of these days I'm going to get you!" remark was the thing that stuck out for me. The harrassment block template doesn't cater for indefinite blocking, but generally disruptive editing (which he carried out previous to this) does. – B.hotep •talk• 10:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again. My main problem was with the possibility of more retaliatory deletion nominations, which would have caused a bit of a headache. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine that if he were to be unblocked (for whatever reason) that if he took up the same behaviour as before, he would end up blocked again much sooner rather than later. If you have any more problems of this nature, come back here, or you're more than welcome to drop me a line on my talk page if I'm around. :) – B.hotep •talk• 10:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine him being unblocked considering the message on his userpage bluntly stating why he's here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, as reasons to block go, I'm most convinced by "rape and theft are common antics of the sub-saharan negro." This is not a contributor we want, frankly. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was working in reverse chronological order, and, to be honest, had seen enough in the final five contributions before his timely demise to make an informed decision. :) – B.hotep •talk• 15:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV...

...could use an admin or two. Gracias. APK whisper in my ear 17:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Fram

Resolved

 – BerndGalama reblocked by SGGH. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Mrlob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BerndGalama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Fram has made my life miserable for quite some time. He just today blocked me indefinetely. Luckily User:Prodego lifted the block and talked to Fram. Still, he has abused his admin rights and he has done it in the past. They should be taken away from him. Kind regards, BerndGalama (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Good block by Fram, very bad unblock by Prodego. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See User_talk:Prodego#Block for a bit more background. This is the sock of an indef blocked user, User:Mrlob. FYI. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Who, per that very fact, should be reblocked by the next available admin and Prodego blocked himself for clear misuse of admin tools (unblocking a sock, what are you thinking Prodego?). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So what? Fram blocked me for no reason. He made a mistake here, a big one. I am a good user and after all the trouble he put me trough in the past, I just wanted a fresh start. BerndGalama (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are a sock of an indef blocked user, per the rules and policies of Wikipedia, you get no "fresh start". You lost that chance when you were indef blocked. Want the chance? Convince an admin with an {{unblock}} request on your main account (that being User:Mrlob) and let them decide. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

@BerndGalama: Gloat much? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fram just made a mistake and has to accept that. BerndGalama (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No dude, you made the mistake and you are trying to pawn off the consequences onto someone else. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, he did. He has to apologize for his action and then maybe I'll consider accepting them. BerndGalama (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Apology. –xeno^talk 20:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Next admin available, could they please block this troll of a gloating sock? This has gone on far enough. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  That would be wheel-warring; apparently Prodego has unblocked (well, created a new account for this person) after an unblock-en-l or IRC unblock request. (Unless you hang the block on their actions in this thread) –xeno^talk 20:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  Whatever Prodego's reasons for thinking this person deserved to be unblocked via a new account, based on one of their first actions being to come to ANI like this to complain about an admin action that's at the very least understandable, I would say Prodego's reasons are now moot. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Well, BerndGalama has already two controversial edits, which were reverted by Prodego, and ran to another admin. This is a "fresh start"? Seems like trouble making. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  Clean start or not, this guy should at least get a temporary block now just for having an attitude, especially right after being unblocked on shaky ground.Love, →Nekami 20:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  Or just re-indeffed, considering it took him all of 15 edits to get back into troll mode. --Smashville^talk 20:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Support reblock-Unblocking this indefinitely blocked sock master account is in my opinion after looking at the sock account history is not something I would support and the accounts comments here do nothing to allay my issues. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Reblock - With Prodego seemly offline, there is "no one watching the store" and BerndGalama is left to do whatever he wants seemly with the "no wheel warring" in place thanks to Prodego. Prodego has screwed the pooch on this one and leaving us to clean up the mess. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
    • If the block is for net-new behaviour it won't be wheel-warring. I don't really think the user's actions in this thread rise to the level of deserving a block, but they certainly don't reflect favourably upon them. –xeno^talk 20:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• BerndGalama has admitted he is a sock of User:Mrlob, can someone block him now? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Please review the history; this was a known item when Prodego created the new account in lieu of unblocking the user. Prodego has taken a leap-of-faith here and this classic boomerang moment is certainly not the first, nor will it be the last time, an admin will have egg on their face shortly after they've taken a chance and issued an unblock. –xeno^talk 20:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
    • User was blocked as the sock he was by User:SGGH, give SGGH a barnstar. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the user a) to prevent disruption, b) sockpuppetry and c) so he can't edit himself into a ban with some silly comments. I don't suspect he will be too happy about that. however it may save him a permanent blocking if he cools off for a bit before coming back. Feel free to review. SGGH ^ping! 21:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That BerndGalma used to edit as User:Mrlob was never in dispute. If you all think I'm assuming too much good faith and reblock him, it doesn't really matter to me. But the worst case is we reblock him, and the best case is we get a productive editor. There really is no 'lose' option here. I've always been willing to unblock anyone who comes to me with a (seemingly) legitimate request to make positive edits, and reblock them if that turns out not to be the case. Its not that difficult. Prodego ^talk 21:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that, so soon after getting a chance to make a fresh start, this editor was making unsourced additions to a BLP, reverting those changes back in despite being asked for sources, and baiting an admin. Not surprised by the block. Don't think Prodego should feel bad about extending good faith either. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block based on insufficent explanation of block by the blocking admin on the user's talk page. Blocks should have an explanation for others to see. It's ok if the user removes it but at least the courtesy of a ruling/reason should be made. Otherwise, that would be like sending a man to prison with no charges. That is what they do in dictatorships. The lady or man is mad. That's bad. Support seeing if editor is willing to work with a mentor and, if so, to set a time to begin (later this week?). The mentor can report to Wikipedia if this doesn't work. This is the way that sex offenders are sometimes treated. If no mentors volunteer, then indef is a possibility. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Answered all of these on two talk pages. :) SGGH ^ping! 21:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I also have to support the indefinite reblock in this case. You have clear disruption, trolling, harassment, and sock puppetry to boot. This is what happens when someone AGFs (like we're supposed to), and it ends up getting shoved back up his/her back-door. –MuZemike 22:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Prodego seems to be repeatedly doing the same brazen actions.... --MZMcBride (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If the user wasn't community banned, or arbcom or jimbo banned, any admin can within their discretion unblock indef admin blocks.

That said - I think that in this case, a reblock and leaving it there seems appropriate.

If Prodego does this every day or every week then it's a problem. I don't recall that much of a problem pattern. It would be good to get this sort of thing self-disclosed on ANI in the future perhaps, just to get discussion going before it's seen as a crisis. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the sock being unblocked (temporarily) doesn't put egg on Prodego's face (unless it gets to be a habit), it puts it on the face of the sock itself, who took a rare opportunity for a fresh start and screwed it. The sockmaster has nearly 2 dozen confirmed socks and a dozen suspected socks. He apparently just can't help himself. (To put it in as "good faith" terms as can be, under the circumstances.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have the unilateral deletion of the goatse image, the Tanthalas fiasco, now this. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a pattern. Sooner or later, Prodego will do something that'll trip what I'll term the Trusilver Bright Line], and then it will be out of our hands. And all for the better, as no one seems here seems to want to do much about it. Tarc (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As I stated at his talk page, I'm also not big on comments like this, specifically, "You are absolutely not to block him again without speaking to me." (in this case said to another admin). That comment wasn't even directed at me, but it really bothered me. I'm not normally one of those users whose compulsion is to say that admins are on power trips, but in this case, there's been some repeated evidence of this from where I'm standing. Nothing will likely come of this at this point in time, but I wanted to point it out, for the future. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

One admin telling another admin to "absolutely not" do something is a bit out of line. But I've said before that admins shouldn't unilaterally undo the work of others without consulting first. Maybe they have the authority to, but they shouldn't do it, because it makes admins look bad when they get into a public food-fight. These kind of disputes should be conducted behind the scenes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support reblocking – Way too big of a problem already, has numerous socks. We've already AGF'd enough times; we don't need to do it again after this user has lost the community's trust. I am not, however, criticizing Prodego in any way—he's just being bold. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I would not have had a problem with a new start for this user is they acknowledged that their earlier behaviour was blockable, and if the unblocking admin would follow some basic policies, like contacting me before the unblock (or new account), and clearly indicating that the new user is the same as a bunch of old ones, instead of after-the-fact incorrect applications of WP:CLEANSTART. Considering however that this user was given this chance after complaining to Prodego of my incorrect blocks, and that he claims on my talk page: "Fram I never have been a vandal. I always edited in good faith [...]", I fail to see how he will not continue editing like he used to do. To give just one example of many, creating a redirect from Maphia Italya to Touch the Clouds is not a good faith edit, but pure, simple and blatant vandalism. His last IP block I'm aware of dates from January 2010.[220] Fram (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Block review

I blocked HelloFloreda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for serial WP:BLP violations.

My block message:

I ran across your editing history today. You have caused disruption in several ways over the last five months: this edit summary attacks the article subject, as does this one this rant, though you removed it yourself, was nothing more than a series of personal attacks aimed at the article subject this edit (admin only) was an unconstructive attack this edit and these edits were clearly inappropriate edits on a BLP. Earlier edits and your former userpage are similarly unconstructive... Since you have blanked all previous warnings, I'll assume that you've read them. Given that the bulk of your contributions have been attacks on living persons, I think it's likely that you will continue to be disruptive. Therefore, I am blocking this account indefinitely as a preventative measure. Should you wish to regain your editing privelages, please state your intentions to follow Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines in an unblock message.

I do think this block is preventative, as the WP:BLP-violating behavior has been ongoing for several months and the user has made no acknowledgement of these problems beyond blanking usertalk warnings. I would, however, like to be sure and ask for your feedback. Thanks, — Scientizzle 14:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If this had been 3 days ago, I would have said it was a good block, no question. Since they haven't edited since the warnings were placed on their talk page, though, I'm a bit iffy about it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking back, I see they got a warning about Jon Voight in April, blanked it, and then left the most recent edit summary anyway. Good block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hence why I always push to archive instead of blank. Imagine someone with a busier talk page trying to hide warnings like that. If proper edit summaries aren't left it could be a nightmare of trying to piece together a talk page diff by diff to figure out what happened there.--Crossmr (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with it. They seem to have developed a dislike of John Voight around the beginning of April and then gone away for a month to think about it, but found that this disliking has not abated. They can always appeal the block when/if they come back – with assurances that they will stay away from the article. – B.hotep •talk• 14:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the contribution history I'm not seeing anything that isn't at least borderline axe grinding. If it was an editor that also did good work elsewhere I might suggest a different approach, but I'm not seing any evidence that this account is here to do something for the encyclopedia.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that this was a good block. If they wish to come back, they can appeal the block, if they don't make more unconstructive edits. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Mark Aldred

Mark Aldred back as 70.127.204.44. Prime Blue (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked and article semi-protected. — Satori Son 16:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And back again as 69.22.184.10 (talk · contribs · block log). Prime Blue (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bagged and tagged. — Satori Son 19:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change probation

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.

---

Admins acting in good faith, content issue is up for RfC, arbitration clarification may or may not be warranted. There is nothing this board can fix right now, I'd say, and left to its own devices this will simply devolve into another attack on The Antichrist. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

---

2/0

Requesting review of 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

2/0 has unblocked William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with no attempt to contact the blocking admin, Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). 2/0 claims Lar is involved with respect to WMC, but 2/0 is at least as involved with WMC as Lar, having previously defended WMC's actions at the Climate Change probation page. In any case, 2/0 should have at least discussed with Lar before proceeding. Requesting review of 2/0's actions here. ATren (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In which case, you're requesting review of the action, not 2/0 himself? Your post should make that clear, imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I hope you don't mind my editing your post, but I changed your templates to ones with better links. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh. The first version was transcluding 2/0 and my user pages right here on AN/I. Honored, I'm sure, but no :) ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a review of the action might well be in order. WMC was disruptively edit warring by reinserting material into the uninvolved administrators section of an enforcement request and got a one hour (!) block to stop the disruption. 2/0 in his unblock characterized that as a "cool down block", which shows that perhaps he wasn't clear on why exactly the block was placed. Cool down blocks don't work and I don't place them. As to the involvement thing, I think a case could be made that 2/0 is indeed far more involved than I. But I prefer not to make that case. I'd like the block sustained, although we can forego reimposing it. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I won't pretend to be informed enough on the history here to judge, but maybe a stern warning might have been in order before a block? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hundreds of warnings have been issued to this user in the past. But maybe. ++Lar: t/c 20:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm no admin, but looking over this situation I think that A) the blocking admin removed material inserted by WMC in the wrong place rather than moved it (which is what the section header said should happen) B) blocked over a revert of that removal C) is editing the same section the edit war happened over in a way that is at the least a technical violation of the rules stated for that section (said violation is also being discussed on the same page). I think the original block was wrong. No opinion on the unblock itself (said admin also seems to be involved). Hobit (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting review of a block and unblock, below. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Review of Lar's block

Note that this is related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#2.2F0 above.

Lar is one of the administrators in the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Largely as a result of his actions there, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar was created and certified by William M. Connolley and Polargeo. The RfC has attracted fairly wide participation by both involved and uninvolved editors, with predictably mixed results. The most widely supported opinion is critical of Lar, and it seems obvious to me that the RfC is not a mere nuisance request, but has fairly wide support and has a useful and legitimate purpose. The RfC, certified by William M. Connolley, is still open. Despite this, Lar still maintains that he is uninvolved with respect to William M. Connolley, has argued for sanctions against him in the role as an uninvolved administrator, and has today blocked William M. Connolley after he replied to such an argument in what Lar considers the wrong section of the probation page. Given the open RfC and the history of bad blood, the claim that Lar is uninvolved enough to block WMC seems unsupportable to me. I request independent opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the RfC.. my first impression is that I do not see a problem with the block. One cannot take an uninvolved administrator who makes decisions you do not like, drag him into dispute resolution, and then claim that automagically makes him involved. SirFozzie (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The core of the issue is that this whole probation system for the climate change related articles has degenerated into a Kindergarten level brawl. It has little to do with seriously editing articles. Count Iblis (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with Count here. I'm disappointed in just about everyone here (for various reasons), and considering if the Community General Sanctions need to have some real steel put into them. SirFozzie (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to steal any thunder but there are folks (led by 2/0, who I happen to disagree with on this particular matter, but who I respect for trying hard) pulling an RfC together to ask for input from the community on how this enforcement has been going so far. Most admins participating in the enforcement use a lot of discussion first and a very light touch. Maybe we're doing it wrong and firmer, faster action is needed. So please wait a bit for the RfC and opine there. (I've also considered asking ArbCom for more clarification directly) ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The probation system has clearly failed to solve the problems with our climate change articles. In fact, the sanctions are being used as weapon to win content disputes against one's ideological opponents. To compound matters, the probation system has no real teeth, so the same editors who were causing all the problems to begin with are still around and still editing disruptively. As best as I can tell, our climate change articles have been a battleground for years. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it has teeth. Many many people have been removed. It's just that some people are harder to chew than others. Arkon (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Count Iblis. SirFozzie, I believe that ArbCom intervention in this matter would help, ideally resulting in discretionary sanctions and possibly the topic ban of some of the more hyperactive editors on both sides. I originally participated in the enforcement of the community sanction, but that venue has become so much of a battleground - involving admins on both sides - that I feel that it's not possible to do much as long as compelling arbitral sanctions are not available. I see that involved editors now seem to be using lengthy threads on an enforcement board to bicker about who gets to post what in which section... that sort of nonsense should not be tolerated.  Sandstein  20:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the door to WP:RfArb is open, needless to say, if folks want to bring it there. However, needless to say, I will be recusing in any such case. (Promised I would a while back, with regards to at least one side of this issue) SirFozzie (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's too bad. Recusal or not, your advice and thoughts on this matter would be great. I hope you choose to participate in the RfC (I mean the upcoming one on the CC itself, but you're welcome in the one started on me as well of course) or the talk pages. ++Lar: t/c 21:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I have never seen a clearer example than WMC of someone who repeatedly attacks the admins who address his behavior. It's hardly just Lar; you can see on his talk page how he responds to being blocked by another admin, LessHeardvanU: "Good grief you're a biased bozo."[221] Another time his response can be seen here. This is, in short, an editor who actively cultivates "bad blood" with other editors. This is not something others should encourage. Mackan79 (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting review of a block and unblock, below. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• The most supported view in the RfC Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lar#Outside_view_by_Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris is that of Short Brigade Harvester Boris, which provides evidence of commentary by Lar showing he is no long uninvolved in the area. To me, this shows that Lar can no longer be considered an uninvolved administrator in the topic area, certainly not with regards to William M. Connolley who certified the RfC. If the RfC was totally frivolous, then Lar could take action against William M. Connolley, but it clearly isn't given the most widely supported view. I haven't looked at the merits of the block, but to uphold procedural fairness and to avoid suggestions of impropriety, Lar seriously needs to take a step back from this area and not use his administrator tools again to enforce the probation. In my opinion, Lar has overstepped the mark with this block. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • 22 endorsed that view, 17 endorsed Lars response. Seems fairly close to a wash to me.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm unsure of the dynamics to the subset of editors involved in this fiasco, but from what I gather a number of the RFC's participants have a record of voting in support of one another in various discussions. That the view by Short Brigade is the most widely supported may not be as significant as it at first seems. AGK 20:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Both sides have a number of supporters with well-known and shared opinions. If you subtract them, SBHB's comment still comes out ahead. But that misses the point a bit. It's clear that serious concerns about Lar's level of involvement are shared by a number of both involved and uninvolved editors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed, but I would urge Lar to respect the fact there are various users who believe his administrative conduct in the area is no longer neutral and take a step back. Certainly not everyone endorsing that statement are involved in the climate change topic area - quite a number of uninvolved and respected editors also endorse that view. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Seems to me though that before you used that small sample size math to declare the block an oversteping, you would have taken the time to look at the merits of the block, which you say you haven't done. There are only a couple of diffs. Shouldn't take you long.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• With respect, it is not an accurate reading of the RfC. Boris' view is extremely hedged, and even states that Lar is not involved. It then presents vague concerns with Lar's actions. The statement is much weaker than the RfC statement itself, which was not endorsed by anyone. There is certainly not independent support for the very odd idea that Lar is involved in this area (though if involvement in an area were an accepted concept this would be an obvious bar to other admins who have been participating, though still not to Lar). You have to realize also that every admin in the area is widely considered biased; if this were a bar we would not have any. Incidentally this situation has resulted in a fairly noticeable "noise machine," in which people continually try to ensure that their accusations of bias are the loudest, which I doubt I'm the only one to notice. Mackan79 (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the sequence:

• WMC inserts section in wrong place: [222] with edit summary "mudflinfing"
• (intermediate edit)
• Lar removes section rather than move it: [223] with edit summary "Remove comment by WMC in the uninvolved admin section. It's in the history, he can put it in the correct location."
• WMC reverts, re-inserting it in the wrong place: [224] with edit summary "Undid revision 362853810 by Lar (talk) don't be lazy"
• Lar re-removes and blocks: [225] with edit summary "Reinserting is disruptive. Blocked for one hour"

Inserting in the wrong place was incorrect, clearly. However, not clearly malign.

Removing rather than moving is possibly technically correct. However, it's a drama increasing rather than decreasing move. Admins' jobs are to solve situations and calm them down, not butt heads with people for no good reason. This was clearly suboptimal.

Reinserting without moving was disruptive. Blockably disruptive? IMHO - Not by itself, not without warnings. A single revert - even a somewhat disruptive revert - is hard to justify as actionable disruption.

Re-removing and blocking was thus excessive.

I haven't followed the history of WMC and Lar in depth other than as a couple of incidents perked up here on ANI - but this was not good behavior by WMC, and not good use of the tools by Lar.

William, you certainly have nothing to be proud of here. You had clear explanations of what to do right and chose to do it wrong.

Lar, a drama reducing rather than increasing approach seems to have been a more appropriate response here.

I don't think further admin action is necessary. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Requesting review of a block and unblock

The Climate change sanctions discussion page is going a bit off the rails at the moment. I would like to request that a few uninvolved editors review the situation. Particularly, User:Lar just blocked User:William M. Connolley for one hour for disruption, and I have unblocked pending review here. I think that Lar is too WP:INVOLVED to make this block, and it looks like a cool-down block. I will reblock myself if there forms a solid consensus that he acted correctly. Disclosure: I did not discuss with Lar before unblocking due to the short duration of the block, but did request that William M. Connolley not edit that page for the duration of the block.

The edits in question are: William M. Connolley comments in a section reserved for discussion of possible sanctions by uninvolved administrators, Lar reverts without moving the comment to the appropriate section, William M. Connolley reverts, Lar reverts and blocks. Another user has moved the comment to the appropriate section now, and I consider that matter closed. There is also a discussion at that page regarding whether there should be an "uninvolved admins only" discussion section, as that page is something of a hybrid between WP:AE and WP:AN3.

There is currently a Request for comment where several editors have asserted in good faith that Lar is too involved to be acting as an uninvolved administrator in this area. Disclosure: I have commented on that RfC, opining that he has been doing a good job at a thankless task for the most part but requesting that he avoid acting as an administrator in that topic area for the duration of the RfC. I stress that Lar has stated that he bears William M. Connolley no animus, and I think it would be very bad for the project if it is given to editors to choose WP:INVOLVED status merely by accusation. Nevertheless, I present recent comments by Lar leading me to believe that he is not WP:UNINVOLVED for the purposes of making this block: advises another editor to "keep trying" to sanction WMC, snarkiness, pure snarkiness, advises another editor to "compile a chart of WMC-to-polite speak", bickering (note that this is not connected with the reverts leading to this block.

Please, please let us handle this simply and civilly with an eye to de-escalation. I would also like to note that, clearly, I am involved in this situation and have been since before my unblock. If possible, I would like to focus on the narrow question of whether Lar was correct to block and whether I was correct to unblock. Obviously, I will be taking no further action in this arena until this thread resolves. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

FFS guys. That's 3 sections on pretty much the same thing, somebody wanna do some merging? Arkon (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nearly every other Admin who touches WMC is called off for review. Let's get to the root cause of the disruption please. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've yet to see anything to suggest that WMC wasn't posting disruptively. He has enough edits on that page to know his comments don't go in the uninvolved admin section. He certainly knew that putting them back there the second time was disruptive. An unblock based on WMC agreeing to play nice is fine. That said i'm not seeing anything wrong with the block to prevent the initial disruption.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• WMC was unblocked 16 minutes early - I think it would have caused less drama to let the block run its course. PhilKnight (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Draganparis, GK1973

Resolved

_{DP retired... again}

• Draganparis (talk · contribs · logs)
• GK1973 (talk · contribs · logs)

...and GK1972 (talk · contribs · logs) and 95.89.18.134 (talk · contribs · logs), 87.202.19.91 (talk · contribs · logs) and 87.202.48.23 (talk · contribs · logs) (I think all Draganparis, many make posts with his name) have been fighting and battling in their various incarnations across my talk page, several ANI threads and Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius, as well as edit warring at Saints Cyril and Methodius. Draganparis had a NLT block which has been removed but I haven't issued anything more than warnings and words of advice to both parties - largely to Draganparis at this time. The discussion is all over my talk archive and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive212 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive595 and most recently here. I'm posting here, again, because I'm tired of having to deal with this myself - it is beyond my meagre skills and I plead for another admin(s) to take a look.

I proposed an interaction ban a while back but consensus showed that to be too harsh. However, the users and their various IPs have turned all sorts of places into a pointy battleground, and despite a number of attempts to make both parties step back, have tea, drop the stick, desist, RBI, words of advice and so on, (see [226] [227] [228] [229] [230]). This sniping has got to stop, I'm having my username thrown about the discussion pages in reciprocated accusations of "he did this against me but nothing against you" etc. Neither of them are innocent, and I need another body to assist! SGGH ^ping! 23:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

All above users notified. SGGH ^ping! 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what the problem here is. What have I done that is deemed incivil in any way? If this is about my removing the following comment [[231]], I think that anybody who reads it will agree that the "discussion" initiated was off topic bordering on incivility. My explanation for removing it was : "removing senseless potential battleground" which was exactly what it was. Some IP that has nothing to do with me engaging in a senseless uncivilized discussion with another IP (presumably Draganparis). I did not say anything about anyone having to be blamed or something, I just protected the discussion. If SGGH is suspecting that I have anything to do with any IPs, I encourage him to check me out, although there is no statement about any socks here and I clearly state that I have not made even ONE contribution as an IP, so I do not know nything about any "sniping". I also did not occupy myself or any other user with my unresolved case against DP considering it obsolete, especially after DP (again presumably) retired. Someone (an IP, DP?) wrote on SGGH's discussion page that "The editor GK removed another Draganparis’ civility appeal edit in spite of your warning. Is he mocking at you now?" What civility appeal and what does this have to do with anything? I guess that every concerned user's duty would be to check this fight before it escalated. Is there anyone among you here who would not consider this particular exchange of words "a potential battleground"? Well... whatever... just check it out, check me out, check anything out and let's formulate some, I don't know, charges for me to know exactly what to answer...

Oh... and it seems funny, how DP uses third person first in his "complaint", as though he is some neutral editor (albeit IP) and then proceeds to make a second comment in which he claims he is DP... GK (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

..And GK 1972 (plus all the other Greek IPs) is also NOT me but someone mimicking my name. The slight difference in the number used should be a clue, but if there is any doubt, again, please check me out. GK (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

GK1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef for username violation. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed GK1972. As for GK1973, I don't suspect you having anything to do with the IPs, I know they are Draganparis. Secondly, I am not bringing any "charges against you", I am bringing the situation in its entirety here because I have too much else going on to deal with it satisfactorily on my own, and I am tired of DP throwing my name about in the continuing arguments between all parties. I don't know how the proportion of responsibility for this continuation of battling lies, I brought all parties here equally so another admin can decide. SGGH ^ping! 09:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK SGGH, I understand. There is no problem on my side. If there is anything I can help or anything that any admin would like to ask me, I will be happy to answer. As far as I am concerned, this is another disrupting effort on the part of "retired" user Draganparis to attack me (presumably because of my removal of his "discussion" above, in which actually the other part was the problem) and yet another admin (that is you) of impartiality etc... I stopped giving his accusations any credit or importance long ago, and refrained from answering him as you already know and anybody can check. If there is anything I can do to help, please message me. GK (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If the rule is that one should let be insulted on these pages and should not complain - I admit I acted against such concept and would admit of an error of opposing to such a rule. However, I do not think this to be the spirit of Wikipedia. A small effort by the administrators to warn for uncivilized tone would have, I believe, beneficial effects on these pages.

BACKGROUND. This is a sequel of the dispute that I have let go. here is just a short comment, for the administrators to understand the motives. The disputes on Cyril and Methodius pages and on the number of pages on Ancient Macedonia are politically biased. In fact on the C&M the current dispute about Greekness of the missionaries (just about one word!) lasts already for over 4 years. One group of the editors, a group of the same editors I presume, constant for many years now, have been changing their user names, collaborating permanently in various not verifiable ways, all this with the intention to maintain one concept, a concept that they, missionaries, were Greeks, that the Alexander the Great was “Greek king”, that the ancient Macedonians were “more Greeks then the Greeks themselves” – something that is actually claimed! The user’s name change serves a trivial purpose: to misled the new-comer administratiors I would think (Xenovatis-Anothroskon, Miskin to may be GK1973 and to GK, and may be some other names). This missionaries problem is of course of little relevance for the others who are not Greeks or may be not “modern Macedonians”, the modern Macedonians who are also quite eager to call them, the missionaries, not Greek but, for example “Macedonian”. But the mention group is a Greek group and is particularly effective, although small. Every “intrusion” if more serious, they try to remove. I pushed the issue of strict evaluation of the sources and this broke down the concept of the group, incited them to start insulting me and made the entire issue hard to resolve. Now I practically accepted not to change the term “Greek” (although not documented but somehow natural) for term “Byzantine” (what is more neutral expression and I think better). However, even after the end of the discussion, they continued with the insults and I rebelled. This what we find now here is a sequel of the mentioned dispute. The sequel being just a problem of the civility on these pages. This is important because the method that the group uses against some successful contra argument is, between others, intimidation and personal insults. If the user would then react with more intensity, the group would, acting in concert, try to remove him. This case is therefore a sequel of a successful removal of one “intruder” – me.

Therefore, the issue is simple. Some editors have been insulting me, I called for civility. This did not stop them, they intensified the insults and my edits have been PARTIALLY removed by the same user - I presume with the intention to remove some expression of my goodwill and make the administrators judge in their favor. The administrator(s) permitted this all and have been warning only me for “disruptive editing” (which, these editing, were my calls for civility!) and were not warning the party that produced EXPLICIT insults.

More specifically to the above problem raised by SGGH:

I ISSUED THE WARNING that GK1972 address may be a misuse, so there is no point discussing it here. The mentioned IPs belong as follows: 95.89.18.134 - is my lab computer; the IP 87.202.19.91 is in Athens; the IP 87.202.48.23 is also in Athens.

GK (alias GK1973) and Simanos have been insulting me for months (at least 10 times they called me a “layer” and used other insulting names without even showing where the untruthfulness was. This was at various placed, talk pages, mentioned administrator talk page, ANI investigation page… I just complained against incivility. My complaints were interpreted by them as disrupting editing and new insults and incivility mockery continued. I disclosed my personality hoping that this would make them behave in more civilized way. The insults continued. No administrator EVER reacted. To denigrate me, I presume, GK1973 started removing parts of my friendly calls for civility!! I know for three occasions, there could have been more, it is hard to follow all of this. I retired then from Wikipedia. The insults unfortunately continued even in my absence. Since my personality has been known now I could act as an UNREGISTERED known user. I complained again. GK removed my call for civility again. The Administrator(s) were permanently warning ME instead of the SIDE that was permanently, over 3 months, insulting me in spite of my not being anonymous any more.

The cause of this situation: In my opinion the administrator(s) missed to warn the editors for incivility and this made them confident to continue, what produced then that the entire issue exploded. Solution is also simple and logical: The uncivilized party should be prevented from insulting me, and I will not have reason to complaint on Wikipedia discussion pages. The problem will then disappear. (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.139.223 (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand... Does DP claim that this edit as well as these were made by someone else and not him? If so, then this IP should immediately be banned for disruption and usurpation of the identity of another editor, posing as DP all the time... GK (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My mistake.The 95.89.18.134 is my lab computer. Sorry for the confusion. I now corrected MY OWN edit above and corrected some English also which was quite bad, since I wrote it in hurry. (Draganparis)

Excuse me, to the administrator: did GK1972 use MY LAB COMPUTER (IP: 95.89.18.134)? This is almost impossible and if this was the case, his comment was trivial, but this may amount to a very serious personal privacy affair. I am entitled to know this, please. Thank you. Although... our computers are set to acquire the IP number from the server and it is theoretically possible to acquire some number that some other computer previously had... Yes, this will be no proof, but I am just curious. (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.18.134 (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The above evidences the problem, can someone step in to assist? SGGH ^ping! 20:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish I had more time to look into this. DraganParis, if you're going to contribute, please log in. That will make this a lot easier for everyone. SGGH, don't doubt your sanity. You know the players here and if you think a block is merited, make one. Everyone, stop making personal attacks, stop making allegations unless you post a diff so that it's clear what you're talking about. If you can't agree on what should go in the article, follow our dispute resolution guidelines. Can't you just neutrally report what reliable sources say on the subject? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with the article. Proper procedures were followed, an admin was called in to judge the arguments presented sometime in February and he ruled that "Greek" was the word to use Here admin Tom Harrison clearly states his opinion. After this ruling, there were minor disputes which of course did not change the ruling and there was no more formal dispute by any proponent of the other POVs. User DP thinks he has made his point, as most times is the case with those who disagree, yet other users seriously doubt that he has. He has never properly called for outside neutral input, as far as I am aware, nor has he followed any other proper channels. He chose to resort to blame some organized pro-Greek cabala, hurling attacks and innuendos against a number of editors and admins and especially against me, who, in his mind, along with 3-4 other users represent some kind of uebernationalistic gang. He chose to parade through various discussion pages posting self-made warning notices against us until I brought the case to ANI. There he even blatantly used legal threats, which resulted in his getting banned (for a third time in a matter of a few months, after getting banned once for disruption and once for sockpuppetry - three confirmed socks). Then he retracted and days after he dramatically retired. Since then he edits from 2 IPs, again mainly to criticize me and other editors/admins (this one is good), one such critique being the reason (as I understand) why SGGH has again opened this ANI case. I do not know what the real point here is, I have long now stopped to interact with user Draganparis as well as giving any heed to his endless whining (to him this is a really serious personal attack, to me it is the politest way to describe his contributions). Of course ex-user Draganparis continually complains how I and other users insulted him, called him a liar, replied with "blah blah blah" to his usual allegations, my feeling is that I have been more than patient and as civil as humanly possible regarding his trolling and his spamming. Anyone is welcome to look into this case, should anyone really think this story worth looking into... GK (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you need a better proof from this sincere text above that we have two very different concepts of civility? (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.139.223 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Banning DP from Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius might be a start, it is his IPs that are continually posting there. GK hasn't edited the page since May 7th apart from reverting one WP:BATTLEesque edits. DP needs to go elsewhere in the 'pedia or I shall start issuing blocks. Likewise, is GK1973 starts appearing to take liberties and go after DP then the same may occur. Both parties must stop editing anywhere near Saints Cyril and Methodius or related topics. Don't go around reporting each other either, because that will very much count as not letting it go. SGGH ^ping! 15:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I had an email stating I had violated some logical principle of Socrates in my resolution of this incident. To be honest I am tired these appeals to humanity. This is Wikipedia, not humanity. Email stated the use has left, so that's a resolution. SGGH ^ping! 22:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess from DP... I have never seen a retired user being so active before... You have my sympathies... GK (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll mark this resolved then. But I will take User:SheffieldSteels advice should it come up again. Happy editing. SGGH ^ping! 14:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Superiorname23 - good cop needed

Superiorname23 (talk · contribs) is a new editor who doesn't seem to understand copyright, or notability, or verifiability, or (possibly) COI. They've created a couple of articles, had them deleted (one by me) and re-created them both. They haven't communicated with anyone or responded to the messages/templates on their user page. If an experienced editor or admin is willing to play good cop, assuming good faith, Superiorname23 might become a good contributor. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bah... Good cop, bad cop is no fun. I prefer bad cop, worse cop. –xeno^talk 18:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that there's an arbcom decision that "threatening to set annoying user on fire" and "setting annoying user on fire" are excessively WP:BITEey admin responses even in extreme cases. Even if you bring marshmallows. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the user is having problems and you've been cleaning up after them, but is it necessary to revert an unsourced change when nothing in the article has ever been sourced? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced numerical alterations are a common form of vandalism and, as such, are revertable without making a commitment to improving the article as a whole. Otherwise many admins - and most RC patrollers - would never get anything done. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated WP:COPYVIO issue

I've just deleted yet more WP:COPYVIO from www.muslimheritage.com on the Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti page. I've previously deleted a large amount of such COPYVIO from various pages that has been taken from that website and a few others (for example, Al-Muqtadir, Ahmad ibn Fadlan, Al-Andalus etc.). This particular material was added by an anonymous editor but I believe that it is the same person that edits as Kaka Mughal (talk · contribs). There is one copyvio notice on their talk page now and I have asked them about this on an IP talk page also (while they was actively editing from that IP address). I'm unclear what is the best thing to do at this point, as (assuming it is this editor) they have never responded to any thing I've put on their talk pages (or the talk pages of articles they have been editing).
I don't understand at this point quite what to do. I'm reluctant to put another COPYVIO notice on this user's talk page, since the edits were done anonymously. On that basis I have not put a {{ANI-notice}} on that editor's talk page either, as this is more a request for advice than a complaint against them.
All the best and thanks in advance. –Syncategoremata (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It might not be them but it's a reasonable presumption at this point; I recommend putting the ANI notice on both pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Have done so (User talk:Kaka Mughal#Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti) — the anon. edits were from a wide range of IP address (all from the same ISP) so I've not notified them, as I doubt the original editor would ever see that. Many thanks. –Syncategoremata (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Draganparis, GK1973

Resolved

_{DP retired... again}

• Draganparis (talk · contribs · logs)
• GK1973 (talk · contribs · logs)

...and GK1972 (talk · contribs · logs) and 95.89.18.134 (talk · contribs · logs), 87.202.19.91 (talk · contribs · logs) and 87.202.48.23 (talk · contribs · logs) (I think all Draganparis, many make posts with his name) have been fighting and battling in their various incarnations across my talk page, several ANI threads and Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius, as well as edit warring at Saints Cyril and Methodius. Draganparis had a NLT block which has been removed but I haven't issued anything more than warnings and words of advice to both parties - largely to Draganparis at this time. The discussion is all over my talk archive and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive212 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive595 and most recently here. I'm posting here, again, because I'm tired of having to deal with this myself - it is beyond my meagre skills and I plead for another admin(s) to take a look.

I proposed an interaction ban a while back but consensus showed that to be too harsh. However, the users and their various IPs have turned all sorts of places into a pointy battleground, and despite a number of attempts to make both parties step back, have tea, drop the stick, desist, RBI, words of advice and so on, (see [232] [233] [234] [235] [236]). This sniping has got to stop, I'm having my username thrown about the discussion pages in reciprocated accusations of "he did this against me but nothing against you" etc. Neither of them are innocent, and I need another body to assist! SGGH ^ping! 23:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

All above users notified. SGGH ^ping! 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what the problem here is. What have I done that is deemed incivil in any way? If this is about my removing the following comment [[237]], I think that anybody who reads it will agree that the "discussion" initiated was off topic bordering on incivility. My explanation for removing it was : "removing senseless potential battleground" which was exactly what it was. Some IP that has nothing to do with me engaging in a senseless uncivilized discussion with another IP (presumably Draganparis). I did not say anything about anyone having to be blamed or something, I just protected the discussion. If SGGH is suspecting that I have anything to do with any IPs, I encourage him to check me out, although there is no statement about any socks here and I clearly state that I have not made even ONE contribution as an IP, so I do not know nything about any "sniping". I also did not occupy myself or any other user with my unresolved case against DP considering it obsolete, especially after DP (again presumably) retired. Someone (an IP, DP?) wrote on SGGH's discussion page that "The editor GK removed another Draganparis’ civility appeal edit in spite of your warning. Is he mocking at you now?" What civility appeal and what does this have to do with anything? I guess that every concerned user's duty would be to check this fight before it escalated. Is there anyone among you here who would not consider this particular exchange of words "a potential battleground"? Well... whatever... just check it out, check me out, check anything out and let's formulate some, I don't know, charges for me to know exactly what to answer...

Oh... and it seems funny, how DP uses third person first in his "complaint", as though he is some neutral editor (albeit IP) and then proceeds to make a second comment in which he claims he is DP... GK (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

..And GK 1972 (plus all the other Greek IPs) is also NOT me but someone mimicking my name. The slight difference in the number used should be a clue, but if there is any doubt, again, please check me out. GK (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

GK1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef for username violation. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed GK1972. As for GK1973, I don't suspect you having anything to do with the IPs, I know they are Draganparis. Secondly, I am not bringing any "charges against you", I am bringing the situation in its entirety here because I have too much else going on to deal with it satisfactorily on my own, and I am tired of DP throwing my name about in the continuing arguments between all parties. I don't know how the proportion of responsibility for this continuation of battling lies, I brought all parties here equally so another admin can decide. SGGH ^ping! 09:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK SGGH, I understand. There is no problem on my side. If there is anything I can help or anything that any admin would like to ask me, I will be happy to answer. As far as I am concerned, this is another disrupting effort on the part of "retired" user Draganparis to attack me (presumably because of my removal of his "discussion" above, in which actually the other part was the problem) and yet another admin (that is you) of impartiality etc... I stopped giving his accusations any credit or importance long ago, and refrained from answering him as you already know and anybody can check. If there is anything I can do to help, please message me. GK (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If the rule is that one should let be insulted on these pages and should not complain - I admit I acted against such concept and would admit of an error of opposing to such a rule. However, I do not think this to be the spirit of Wikipedia. A small effort by the administrators to warn for uncivilized tone would have, I believe, beneficial effects on these pages.

BACKGROUND. This is a sequel of the dispute that I have let go. here is just a short comment, for the administrators to understand the motives. The disputes on Cyril and Methodius pages and on the number of pages on Ancient Macedonia are politically biased. In fact on the C&M the current dispute about Greekness of the missionaries (just about one word!) lasts already for over 4 years. One group of the editors, a group of the same editors I presume, constant for many years now, have been changing their user names, collaborating permanently in various not verifiable ways, all this with the intention to maintain one concept, a concept that they, missionaries, were Greeks, that the Alexander the Great was “Greek king”, that the ancient Macedonians were “more Greeks then the Greeks themselves” – something that is actually claimed! The user’s name change serves a trivial purpose: to misled the new-comer administratiors I would think (Xenovatis-Anothroskon, Miskin to may be GK1973 and to GK, and may be some other names). This missionaries problem is of course of little relevance for the others who are not Greeks or may be not “modern Macedonians”, the modern Macedonians who are also quite eager to call them, the missionaries, not Greek but, for example “Macedonian”. But the mention group is a Greek group and is particularly effective, although small. Every “intrusion” if more serious, they try to remove. I pushed the issue of strict evaluation of the sources and this broke down the concept of the group, incited them to start insulting me and made the entire issue hard to resolve. Now I practically accepted not to change the term “Greek” (although not documented but somehow natural) for term “Byzantine” (what is more neutral expression and I think better). However, even after the end of the discussion, they continued with the insults and I rebelled. This what we find now here is a sequel of the mentioned dispute. The sequel being just a problem of the civility on these pages. This is important because the method that the group uses against some successful contra argument is, between others, intimidation and personal insults. If the user would then react with more intensity, the group would, acting in concert, try to remove him. This case is therefore a sequel of a successful removal of one “intruder” – me.

Therefore, the issue is simple. Some editors have been insulting me, I called for civility. This did not stop them, they intensified the insults and my edits have been PARTIALLY removed by the same user - I presume with the intention to remove some expression of my goodwill and make the administrators judge in their favor. The administrator(s) permitted this all and have been warning only me for “disruptive editing” (which, these editing, were my calls for civility!) and were not warning the party that produced EXPLICIT insults.

More specifically to the above problem raised by SGGH:

I ISSUED THE WARNING that GK1972 address may be a misuse, so there is no point discussing it here. The mentioned IPs belong as follows: 95.89.18.134 - is my lab computer; the IP 87.202.19.91 is in Athens; the IP 87.202.48.23 is also in Athens.

GK (alias GK1973) and Simanos have been insulting me for months (at least 10 times they called me a “layer” and used other insulting names without even showing where the untruthfulness was. This was at various placed, talk pages, mentioned administrator talk page, ANI investigation page… I just complained against incivility. My complaints were interpreted by them as disrupting editing and new insults and incivility mockery continued. I disclosed my personality hoping that this would make them behave in more civilized way. The insults continued. No administrator EVER reacted. To denigrate me, I presume, GK1973 started removing parts of my friendly calls for civility!! I know for three occasions, there could have been more, it is hard to follow all of this. I retired then from Wikipedia. The insults unfortunately continued even in my absence. Since my personality has been known now I could act as an UNREGISTERED known user. I complained again. GK removed my call for civility again. The Administrator(s) were permanently warning ME instead of the SIDE that was permanently, over 3 months, insulting me in spite of my not being anonymous any more.

The cause of this situation: In my opinion the administrator(s) missed to warn the editors for incivility and this made them confident to continue, what produced then that the entire issue exploded. Solution is also simple and logical: The uncivilized party should be prevented from insulting me, and I will not have reason to complaint on Wikipedia discussion pages. The problem will then disappear. (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.139.223 (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand... Does DP claim that this edit as well as these were made by someone else and not him? If so, then this IP should immediately be banned for disruption and usurpation of the identity of another editor, posing as DP all the time... GK (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My mistake.The 95.89.18.134 is my lab computer. Sorry for the confusion. I now corrected MY OWN edit above and corrected some English also which was quite bad, since I wrote it in hurry. (Draganparis)

Excuse me, to the administrator: did GK1972 use MY LAB COMPUTER (IP: 95.89.18.134)? This is almost impossible and if this was the case, his comment was trivial, but this may amount to a very serious personal privacy affair. I am entitled to know this, please. Thank you. Although... our computers are set to acquire the IP number from the server and it is theoretically possible to acquire some number that some other computer previously had... Yes, this will be no proof, but I am just curious. (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.18.134 (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The above evidences the problem, can someone step in to assist? SGGH ^ping! 20:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish I had more time to look into this. DraganParis, if you're going to contribute, please log in. That will make this a lot easier for everyone. SGGH, don't doubt your sanity. You know the players here and if you think a block is merited, make one. Everyone, stop making personal attacks, stop making allegations unless you post a diff so that it's clear what you're talking about. If you can't agree on what should go in the article, follow our dispute resolution guidelines. Can't you just neutrally report what reliable sources say on the subject? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with the article. Proper procedures were followed, an admin was called in to judge the arguments presented sometime in February and he ruled that "Greek" was the word to use Here admin Tom Harrison clearly states his opinion. After this ruling, there were minor disputes which of course did not change the ruling and there was no more formal dispute by any proponent of the other POVs. User DP thinks he has made his point, as most times is the case with those who disagree, yet other users seriously doubt that he has. He has never properly called for outside neutral input, as far as I am aware, nor has he followed any other proper channels. He chose to resort to blame some organized pro-Greek cabala, hurling attacks and innuendos against a number of editors and admins and especially against me, who, in his mind, along with 3-4 other users represent some kind of uebernationalistic gang. He chose to parade through various discussion pages posting self-made warning notices against us until I brought the case to ANI. There he even blatantly used legal threats, which resulted in his getting banned (for a third time in a matter of a few months, after getting banned once for disruption and once for sockpuppetry - three confirmed socks). Then he retracted and days after he dramatically retired. Since then he edits from 2 IPs, again mainly to criticize me and other editors/admins (this one is good), one such critique being the reason (as I understand) why SGGH has again opened this ANI case. I do not know what the real point here is, I have long now stopped to interact with user Draganparis as well as giving any heed to his endless whining (to him this is a really serious personal attack, to me it is the politest way to describe his contributions). Of course ex-user Draganparis continually complains how I and other users insulted him, called him a liar, replied with "blah blah blah" to his usual allegations, my feeling is that I have been more than patient and as civil as humanly possible regarding his trolling and his spamming. Anyone is welcome to look into this case, should anyone really think this story worth looking into... GK (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you need a better proof from this sincere text above that we have two very different concepts of civility? (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.139.223 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Banning DP from Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius might be a start, it is his IPs that are continually posting there. GK hasn't edited the page since May 7th apart from reverting one WP:BATTLEesque edits. DP needs to go elsewhere in the 'pedia or I shall start issuing blocks. Likewise, is GK1973 starts appearing to take liberties and go after DP then the same may occur. Both parties must stop editing anywhere near Saints Cyril and Methodius or related topics. Don't go around reporting each other either, because that will very much count as not letting it go. SGGH ^ping! 15:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I had an email stating I had violated some logical principle of Socrates in my resolution of this incident. To be honest I am tired these appeals to humanity. This is Wikipedia, not humanity. Email stated the use has left, so that's a resolution. SGGH ^ping! 22:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess from DP... I have never seen a retired user being so active before... You have my sympathies... GK (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll mark this resolved then. But I will take User:SheffieldSteels advice should it come up again. Happy editing. SGGH ^ping! 14:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Slovaks in Hungary

Could an admin take a look at this please. Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) unilaterally decided to userify it (it's now at User:Samofi/Slovaks in Hungary), and this to my mind amounts to an out of process speedy deletion and as far as I can see it meets no speedy delete criteria anyway. I notice that the page creater (Samofi (talk · contribs) has now been blocked but given the input by Baxter9 (talk · contribs) I'd suggest the page needs to moved back to main space and proper deletion procedures followed if someone wants to go down that route - the mess with speedy deletions and moving the page more than once means I can't revert things. Dpmuk (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• It's a monograph with sourcing and WP:SYN issues (plus the user's English is not great), userfying is the best way of helping the user to develop the article while avoiding an otherwise inevitable deletion debate. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you point me to a policy or guideline on userfication? While I accept that userfication may be the way to go this should not be done without the user's permission as otherwise it's a speedy delete in all but name and a user should have the option of following the normal deletion process if they so desire. It is my opinion that involuntary userfication should only occur in lieu of a proper deletion (either by speedy or AfD) and then done by an admin. I am also of the view that this is the only course of action in keeping with current policy. In this case the page was not a speedy candidate, nor had an AfD been completed and the userfication was not done by an admin. This case is also complicated by the fact that another editor has edited this page and they may wish it to be kept. Dpmuk (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How about WP:BRD?

Loook, I don't see the problem here. The article was a mess, clearly not ready for prime time. There were empty sections, poor writing, lots of bad formatting, eerything about it said "work in progress." I could have deleted everything in it that was wrong, or spent an inordinate amount of time trying to fix it up, but instead I went with B and userfied it. If people think that's a mistake, they should R my action and the D can begin -- I'm certainly not going to edit war to put it back in userspace. I do think that the creator should be aware, though, that if it's moved back into mainspace, there's every probability that it will be AfDed and deleted. (That's not a threat, I wouldn't nominate it, but given the condition of the article, it's almost a certainty that someone will.)

I think the only real question here is whether the article, as is, is an improvement and benefit to the encyclopedia. I think the answer is clear that it is not. It certainly can be, with some amount of work. If it's not beneficial, it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, and I don't believe it takes an admin to make that determination. In general, we don't insist on process for the sake of process, so if (as you seem to agree) userfication is the best course of action, it's rather irrelevant how it was arrived at. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I feel your actions were wrong as they amounted to a speedy deletion and speedy deletions which don't fall under any of the criteria are generally frowned upon and additionally I've never heard of BRD being applied to deletions. In the case of deletions I do think we should insist on process. It's also clear precedence at AfD that the bad state of an article is not a reason to delete. That said that's just my personal view - as there is currently no policy on userfication I am happy to accept others will have a different point of view. I would not have brought this here if it wasn't for the fact that I couldn't revert myself. (As an aside I've now started a RfC on whether the current userfication essay should become a policy or guideline). Dpmuk (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a deletion, it's right there in userspace, in exactly the same condition it was, ready and available to be worked on. If the creator wishes other editors to help in developing it, a note dropped on the appropriate WikiProject's talk page will surely bring some. As I said, if you disagree strongly, get an admin to move it back. (You could have moved it back yourself if you hadn't prevented the speedy deletion of the cross-namespace redirect I requested.) I don't think that's in the best interests of the article or the encyclopedia, but YMMV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless I've missed understood WP:MOR I could not revert as your addition of the speedy delete tag meant there was more than one line in the page history. I generally take very complex deletion requests (such as this) here rather than speedy delete tag them so that I can explain things properly and discuss if need be. As I say it was not meant to be a complaint about your conduct as at the moment there is no policy or guideline on this so we're all free to do what we think best.

(As an aside it is my view that userfication should be treated the same as deletion as it removes the page from the view of normal readers although I accept views may differ on this. Although only (currently) an essay WP:Userification states "Userfication of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article" so I'm not the only person that holds that view. I may have been more willing to let this one slip by if it wasn't for the fact that two editors appeared to be working on it.) Dpmuk (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to state the obvious, userfication is not the same as deletion because with deletion the article is no longer available to anyone except administrators, while with userfication it's off the beaten path, but it's still around and available for development. It is, in fact, no more "deleted" than any category, template or image, which all exist outside of mainspace in their own namespaces. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken is correct; this isn't a deletion, so there's no problem with BRD. I've deleted the cross-namespace redirect; if you want to move it back to mainspace, go for it. If someone wants to nom it for speedy/PROD/AFD, they can. This userfication was a polite way to try to fix things, IMHO; BMK should realize by now that no good deed goes unpunished. (struck by request) --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Most certainly. (Nothing to respond to.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I disagree that it shouldn't be treated the same as a deletion and from the essay I am not the only one, so I don't like the tone of Floquenbeam final comment, we obviously disagree but that's no need to accuse me of "punishing" Beyong My Ken. As I've said I brought this here to get the move reversed not to attack a user's conduct - we may disagree on the correctness of his move but I understand their point of view and can't fault them for doing it. Dpmuk (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Move reversed and AfD started here. Dpmuk (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is pure process wonkery. Have fun. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you've AfDed an article while the creator is indeffed and will not be able to speak for it. The only real reason to insist on the strict application of process is in the interest of fairness to all parties -- In what way is that fair? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, so I haven't got round to notifying people a whole five minutes after I started the AfD, give me a chance! Now notified along with the other user that had made significant contributions. Given the creator's banned status I'll keep an eye on his talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That was a badly misjudged action. The article fails core policies (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V since the sources are mainly unacceptable) and against the weight of those policies you are erecting some pettifogging objection about process. The result is that the user gets a WP:BITE for his pains, since the article cannot possibly remain as it is in mainspace. Instead of allowing a period for the user to fix the several issues, you have placed a thoroughly non-compliant article back in main space where an AfD is an inevitability. I really cannot see how that is a good result for the user or the project. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well sorry, although I respect your view and can understand it, I completely disagree with it for two reasons. The first is I think new users would find it more bitey if an article is userified without any discussion or indeed explanation on their talk page. I also think it would make them wonder how wikipedia is run if a single editor, who doesn't even have to be, and in this case isn't, an admin, can unilaterally removed their article from the encylopedia. Personally I think newbies would prefer to see an article end up at AfD where there can be some feedback and they can properly understand the process. If delete and userification is the result of the AfD at least they'll know why and understand that it's been done by WP:CONSENSUS, another one of wikipedia's core policies. Secondly I think we would be setting a dangerous precedent if we allowed anyone to userify page just because they want to. There is currently no consensus on userfication and so I think it should only happen when a page would otherwise be deleted (i.e. after an AfD or if it's eligible for speedy). Dpmuk (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, it really doesn't aid any editor to have their work removed from the encyclopedia without informing them of how they might make it better. At least a deletion review will have participants, discussion, points and suggestions and things. Allowing users to get around the deletion process and establish a consensus all on their own to userfy, but at the same time not help with the improvement of the article, is just wrong. No-one has mentioned the third option that someone might come across the article in mainspace, if it were there, and decide to help make it encyclopedic, if possible. Not everyone rushes to delete. Userfying without discussion gives no room for improvement, allowing random people to userfy things they don't like just gives them free reign to bypass normal procedures of improvement or deletion. Weakopedia (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(out)So let's sum up here: 12 hours after I userfied it, an obviously deletable article is again userfied, at the cost of the time and energy of a number of editors. I'd call that a complete waste of resources, and exactly the kind of thing that WP:IAR – a frequently miscited policy – was designed to prevent. Sure, we've had Process (with a bold capital "P"), all the eyes are crossed and the tees are spotted, and a fun time was had by all as we walked our big Circle of Liff right back to our starting point ... and I guess that's what's most important, right? (sheesh) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It was userfied to someone else (User:Nuujinn/Slovaks_in_Hungary), and after the consensus for that formed at the AfD. Had it been userified to its creator, it would not have improved, regardless whether its creator were indeff'd or not. The article might have gotten longer in Samofi's unser space, but that's about it. So, the AfD did have an positive effect. Pcap ping 21:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The same people - meaning everybody - who can edit it now in the userspace it's currently in could have edited it in the userspace I put it in, so that's pretty irrelevant. Instead of dancing around 360 degrees, we danced 359.999 degrees. It was still a waste of time, and process for the sake of process, which I see went on even more, as the same editor took the AfD result to DRV. Damned if I know what's going on here, because it seems someone's going through a lot of bother for the sake of ... what? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Except User:Nuujinn might have never found it, or dared to work on it in somebody else's user space. Pcap ping 10:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It seems that some people are being process wonks and asserting that userfication equals deletion therefore this is out of process deletion. It's not. I really cannot see how leaving a grossly noncompliant article in article space for a week and then deleting it is better by any objective measure than moving it to user space to be made compliant and potentially moved back. If the subject is good then userfication will yield a compliant article rather than a week with a noncompliant article followed by deletion. If the subject is not good then userfication is a speedy removal from article space of an obviously biased treatment of it. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

See below for an explanation of how none of that actually happened - the article wasn't left for a week or deleted, it was moved to somewhere where it might get improved, along with suggestions, comments and the like, none of which was accomplished by BMKs taking process into his own hands. Weakopedia (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually your summing up is not quite as comprehensive as it could be.

An editor created an article, which over the space of three days was edited several dozen times by up to four different editors. On the fourth day you removed that article from mainspace to the creators talk, and left a note telling them "it is not yet in good enough shape to be in the encyclopedia proper. Please work on it here, and when it is ready, move it back into mainspace."

In short, you didn't attempt to improve the article, nor express any specific concerns you may have had about the article. You didn't assist the creator in understanding what they had done wrong, you didn't attempt to show the creator how they might improve the article.

Wikipedia:Userfication says "Userfication of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article, as in general, the redirect left behind will be speedily deleted. Userfication should not be used as a substitute for regular deletion processes. Except for self-userfying and obvious non articles such as accidentally-created user pages in the main namespace, it generally is inappropriate to userfy an article without a deletion process.".

Since this page was worked on my several editors, was not created by accident, and simply didn't meet your quality standards, you had no basis for userfication. The deletion process is there to stop editors from making out-of-process deletions based on views they have which are incompatible with the views of Wikipedia.

Note that Wiki policy says that there are alternatives to deletion. Specifically about userfication it says "Articles which have potential, but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, should be moved to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, where they can continue to be collaboratively edited before either "graduating" to mainspace or ultimately being deleted. The incubator provides several benefits over the previous practice of moving such articles into user space. Primarily, the incubator makes these proto-articles easier to find and edit."

The "easier to find and edit" bit is important. By userfying you placed the article in a hard-to-find place, and at the same time left no indication about your concerns or what the creator could do to address them. You placed responsibility for improving the encyclopedia squarely on the article creator, in violation of Ownership.

The founding principles state that we should use "discussion with other editors as the final decision-making mechanism by consensus for all content.". IAR wasn't designed to overcome the founding principles. Userfication without discussion is not helpful to the encyclopedia, it does not promote discussion, it does not aid article improvement. Userfication is not reccommended by policy, and in fact is discouraged.

The deletion process is there to stop editors moving content out of mainspace that they simply don't like and don't wish to assist in improving. In this case the deletion process resulted in a discussion and eventually an editor agreeing to work on the article in their talkspace, an editor with a fair idea of how to improve articles. That is an example of consensus, an example of collaboration in improving the encyclopedia. By undertaking the deletion the process the articles problems have been partially identified and are being worked on. Your method of deletion/userfication did none of these things, and put the article in the place least likely to aid in it's improvement.

Reccommend reminding BMK that the deletion process is there for a reason, that userfication is specifically discouraged, and that IAR does not extend to acting on a personal consensus that the community had no say in, nor ultimately felt able to uphold. Weakopedia (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Recommend reminding Weakopedia that non-neutral articles by people banned for tendentious editing are not really an asset to the project and placing them somewhere out of the article space while they are remediated is better than waiting a week and then deleting them. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You were the closing admin for that deletion review, and your close was not to wait a week and delete it. After discussion about what was wrong with the article you closed with "Moved to User:Nuujinn/Slovaks in Hungary for rework.". Discussion, consensus, suggestion, improvement. That is in stark contrast to a non-admin userfying content they don't like without discussion, consensus, or suggestion, and with little hope of improvement. You seem to be arguing that the end justifies the means, and no discussion was necessary, but firstly that creates an awful precedent for everyone to randomly remove from the encyclopedia what they don't like, and secondly is against the principles of Wikipedia, in this case both in letter and in spirit. Weakopedia (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not close the deletion review. The article fails core policies. It is now placed in user space for rework. This may result in an article which, unlike the current one, is compliant. End of. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't close it?

"The result was Moved to User:Nuujinn/Slovaks in Hungary for rework. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)"

Then someone is impersonating you, and they have the sourgrapes bit perfect. Weakopedia (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Guy closed the AfD, not the DRV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To everyone involved - I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My first response is that it would have been better to move it to the Article Incubator. What sort of articles should be placed in userspace rather than the Incubator? Too many articles in userspace still show up in Google, which is not a good thing IMHO. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free, I won't object. I have no real opinion on the merit of the subject, only the content. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

174.140.102.231

Over a period of ten days, this person (i.e. static IP) has blanked and/or repeatedly inserted unsourced material. Requests for reliable sourcing via discussion, revision history page and user talk page have mostly, if not all, been ignored. Differences: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Akerans (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

user (talk) has insisted on stating that this man is alive, when he has clearly passed on. His company's own website announced his death: http://yellowmanblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/peter-mui-founder-of-yellowman-1953—2009/ and footage of his memorial service is easily available through a simple google search. Respect the man, and either delete or fix his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.102.231 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you insist on deleting most of the article whether than just change the tense? raseaC^{talk to me} 21:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They've insisted on retaining the current text until a source is provided so that readers and other editors can confirm what you claim. You need to discuss sourcing with them until you've found a good source.

You need to continue the discussions this editor has attempted to have with you in the past, specifically at the article's talk page.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 21:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Simply removing material is considered vandalism. You need to use a reliable source to cite your changes/edits, instead of just making the change. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Appears the page has been edited again, without sources.([238]) Even after attempts for further discussion. Akerans (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If they do it again, I'd suggest (by which I mean: I will request) semi-protection. If that doesn't work we can try full protection. Hopefully, one or other of those approaches will drive the IP to discuss first. TFOWR^propaganda 14:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm a little concerned about the article and WP:BLP. I've been googling for "Tungtex" and "Yellow river": Tungtex doesn't mention Mr. Mui at all, though he's supposed to be a co-founder. finance.google.com returns nothing relevant for "Yellow river". I'm becoming increasingly sceptical about the accuracy of the article. TFOWR^propaganda 15:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I did find information about that here. I'm guessing that Peter Kan Mui is his full name, as there is also a redirect page here on WP. I'm not sure who are Investor Relations Asia Pacific, or if the information is reliable. Akerans (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Another chance?

A new account, STAND-UP-2-P (talk · contribs) has come to my talk page and apologized and is taking responsibility for their past actions. They have self admitted that they are a sock of a blocked user Force101 (talk · contribs) and I don't have any doubts that they are lying. He is asking for another chance and I would like to know what everyone else thinks. As a note, the main account Force101 is currently blocked with talk page privileges disabled and the account hasn't been directed to alternatives of getting unblocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a wee bit concerned that Force101 was last blocked only 8 days ago, but they appear to be open, honest, and genuine. Worse case scenario is an unblock, trouble, re-block (and remember this event if the editor requests a fresh start in the future). Best case scenario is that they're genuine, and we gain a good editor. TFOWR^propaganda 12:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I'm not an admin, yada yada.

Force 101 is indeffed for block evasion, presumable there is another account behind this. Per TFOWR, it may be worth entering dialogue with the editor. It may also be worth restoring talk page access to Force 101 to allow an unblock request. The editor should be under no doubt that should they be granted an appeal, their editing will be under scrutiny and further problems will lead to a block being reimposed. If the editor wishes to become a constructive contributor, that is to be encouraged. Mjroots (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I would unblock talk page access and begin a dialogue. Easy enough to reblock talk if needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Force101 granted talk page access, STAND-UP-2-P requested not to use that account for time being. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a good indicator of their intentions… VernoWhitney (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, that comment on the end on the diff does not look like constructive editor material. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Chance given, chance blown. Mjroots (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at this briefly yesterday, but I didn't have enough time to comment. Ever since he's been allowed to his talk page, I haven't seen a slight indication of competence. He maintains that he will make constructive edits, but I have not seen him demonstrate that anywhere in his past accounts. As Mjroots mentioned above, the user is not using this opportunity wisely. I'll keep watch on the further development on his talk page, and if his attitude changes, I may reconsider. Goodvac (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering he did that in his request to be unblockled, I think I'm more likely to find pirate gold buried in my garden. Troll account is trolling; wash your hands of him and continue. HalfShadow 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Latham & Watkins

The periodic edit war on this page has flared up again. I have no clue which side is "right", but one keeps adding some stuff and another keeps deleting. Probably several 3RR violations by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 15:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Per tradition, can I suggest that you may have protected it at The Wrong Version? It looks to me like several editors were reverting one Special:Contributions/Lawgazer SPA. No objection to protection, but I suspect right now one editor is thinking "brilliant!" - and it's possibly that editor that should be encouraged to talk... TFOWR^propaganda 15:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The subject now is the same as it was a year ago - some dispute over that firm having laid some people off. There's someone with an axe to grind, and someone else who doesn't like it. But I don't know which one is "right". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed some of the links in your post, TFOWR. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries! TFOWR^propaganda 16:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, we've got dueling SPA's. A one-shot redlink added this stuff on April 7, then today another SPA redlink started deleting it, while some bluelinks kept restoring it. But who's "right"? My recollection is that the stuff about layoffs was considered POV-pushing a year ago, so leaving it out (as it stands right now) could be the "right" version after all. But I'm not 100 percent certain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This does indeed go back to a feud that was running through much of last year, particularly through the summer months, as one can tell from the history. It centered on the now-indef'd user Lathaminfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s efforts to make the article a coatrack about layoffs (it would be reasonable to assume he was personally affected by those layoffs). There were various apparent socks and other redlinks that got their mitts into it. It quieted down fairly much, once Lathaminfo was sent to the Phantom Zone, but it was apparently still simmering and has now boiled over again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued

I restored this from archives as I spoke too soon - the edit war has resumed, with a redlink posting the layoff stuff again, coatracking the article to be mostly about that particular event. That stuff needs to be deleted and the page protected again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nycbl1y (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on some sort of crusade regarding law firm layoffs. I've informed him to come here and talk about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The edits made are both noteworthy (largest law firm layoff in US history) and well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycbl1y (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, not everyone agrees, so you need to take it to the article talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

173.16.14.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently the IP that user was working under before creating his user ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the admin has put the article on ice for 3 days. My guess is that the guy will wait out the protection and start up again. We'll see on Friday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have been chuckling at the contents of WP:ROUGE and felt duly inclined to thwack it with the icy hammer. I'll have a look at some of the contributions in the mean time. SGGH ^ping! 16:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Do the rouge admins watch cabal TV? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Their favorite film is Moulin Rouge!. –MuZemike 17:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And,of course, their favorite videgame is Red Dead Redemption. Booyah, bitches HalfShadow 18:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

All the TV programs in fact feature them. I have taken a look. This seems to have gone on at least as far back as September 2009, with User talk:Masslayoffs. There's clearly a lot of SPAs being created, and some meaty socks I have no doubt. I have, as a first measure, ramped up the protection to 2 weeks in the hope that they will have a change in life circumstances between now and then. SGGH ^ping! 16:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude. "Meaty socks"? That needs to be on WP:PLEASEDONTEVERSAYTHATAGAIN. Barf-o-rama. GJC 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact I have been even rougier, if you try to edit the page... SGGH ^ping! 16:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw. Good job. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The user in question is now discussing on the article talk page, so hopefully this will all work out well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Another editor

LedRush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has come into this discussion from out of the blue, and instead of taking it to talk as I advised him, he reverted and accused me of "edit warring". I advised him to come here and give his side of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I made one edit based on a consensus of the talk page. Baseball reverted. I looked to see what his previous edits were, and he seems to revert a lot of edits which were sourced. So I reverted and put a note on the talk page. I don't see how this rises to the need to be discussed here. And this certainly doesn't make me an "edit warrior".LedRush (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. (Bugs, would you consider striking or renaming this section?) I reverted LedRush and we've been discussing over at the article's talk page. TFOWR^propaganda 19:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Superiorname23 - good cop needed

Superiorname23 (talk · contribs) is a new editor who doesn't seem to understand copyright, or notability, or verifiability, or (possibly) COI. They've created a couple of articles, had them deleted (one by me) and re-created them both. They haven't communicated with anyone or responded to the messages/templates on their user page. If an experienced editor or admin is willing to play good cop, assuming good faith, Superiorname23 might become a good contributor. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bah... Good cop, bad cop is no fun. I prefer bad cop, worse cop. –xeno^talk 18:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that there's an arbcom decision that "threatening to set annoying user on fire" and "setting annoying user on fire" are excessively WP:BITEey admin responses even in extreme cases. Even if you bring marshmallows. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the user is having problems and you've been cleaning up after them, but is it necessary to revert an unsourced change when nothing in the article has ever been sourced? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced numerical alterations are a common form of vandalism and, as such, are revertable without making a commitment to improving the article as a whole. Otherwise many admins - and most RC patrollers - would never get anything done. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

admin responsibility blocking and warning vandals

Resolved

 – Several helpful comments were added. Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Would a few admins weigh in at the discussion at WT:VANDAL#.22Welcome_to_Wikipedia.....22? Someone wrote that they are uncomfortable with admins witnessing vandalism and directly blocking vandals. He or she expects instead a witnessing admin to make an entry at WP:AIV, presumably so another admin will issue the block. If that's true, I've completely misunderstood one of my admin responsibilities (and probably need corrective action). —EncMstr (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Xeno and NW state it well. Basically it's a case-by-case situation. When in doubt, be cautious. When certain, be bold. If it's clearly a sock, they don't need any more warnings, as their previous incarnation has already been warned in some way or another. Vandals inherently violate policy, so they have no grounds to be holding admins hostage by demanding a "reset" of their warnings-count. The admins' primary duty is to serve the best interests of wikipedia, not the best interests of a vandal or troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated WP:COPYVIO issue

I've just deleted yet more WP:COPYVIO from www.muslimheritage.com on the Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti page. I've previously deleted a large amount of such COPYVIO from various pages that has been taken from that website and a few others (for example, Al-Muqtadir, Ahmad ibn Fadlan, Al-Andalus etc.). This particular material was added by an anonymous editor but I believe that it is the same person that edits as Kaka Mughal (talk · contribs). There is one copyvio notice on their talk page now and I have asked them about this on an IP talk page also (while they was actively editing from that IP address). I'm unclear what is the best thing to do at this point, as (assuming it is this editor) they have never responded to any thing I've put on their talk pages (or the talk pages of articles they have been editing).
I don't understand at this point quite what to do. I'm reluctant to put another COPYVIO notice on this user's talk page, since the edits were done anonymously. On that basis I have not put a {{ANI-notice}} on that editor's talk page either, as this is more a request for advice than a complaint against them.
All the best and thanks in advance. –Syncategoremata (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It might not be them but it's a reasonable presumption at this point; I recommend putting the ANI notice on both pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Have done so (User talk:Kaka Mughal#Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti) — the anon. edits were from a wide range of IP address (all from the same ISP) so I've not notified them, as I doubt the original editor would ever see that. Many thanks. –Syncategoremata (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WildBot going haywire.

Resolved

 – Bot operator notified, bot temporarily blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody please block WildBot again if possible? It's currently making edits like this on Mariah Carey in which I highly doubt that it is constructive in any way. After the administrator Kww reverted its edit, WildBot came up with the same edit here too. Minimac (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's just correcting links to other article section titles that have been vandalized. I'm betting if you undue the vandalism at the target page, WildBot will correct itself. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 18:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea for WildBot to delay updating section links for half an hour or so, so this kind of thing doesn't happen. –xeno^talk 18:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea which would probably cut the occurrence of this type of mistake down drastically. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 19:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• And in this episode of 'Bots Gone Wild...Theeeeeee WildBot!: OH...YEAH...BABY. COME...GET...SOME...OF...THIS. HalfShadow 19:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • HalfShadow is a technosexual - this explains so much. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That's why they call it a hard drive. HalfShadow 20:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Why am I having King Missile flashbacks? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WildBot's operator has been notified of this thread. Personally, I would rather keep it unblocked unless it is leaving the vandalized versions up permanently. WP:BAG might be a better place to discuss putting in a time delay. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I blocked and halted the bot before seeing this thread. It was a case of reflected vandalism. I undid the vandalism in the song article and reverted WildBot. It didn't recognize the change in the other article, and continued to edit-war at Mariah Carey to reinsert the vandalism from the other article.—Kww(talk) 20:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a cache refresh issue. Ah well, thanks Kww. I am marking this resolved unless there is anything further. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Draganparis, GK1973

Resolved

_{DP retired... again}

• Draganparis (talk · contribs · logs)
• GK1973 (talk · contribs · logs)

...and GK1972 (talk · contribs · logs) and 95.89.18.134 (talk · contribs · logs), 87.202.19.91 (talk · contribs · logs) and 87.202.48.23 (talk · contribs · logs) (I think all Draganparis, many make posts with his name) have been fighting and battling in their various incarnations across my talk page, several ANI threads and Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius, as well as edit warring at Saints Cyril and Methodius. Draganparis had a NLT block which has been removed but I haven't issued anything more than warnings and words of advice to both parties - largely to Draganparis at this time. The discussion is all over my talk archive and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive212 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive595 and most recently here. I'm posting here, again, because I'm tired of having to deal with this myself - it is beyond my meagre skills and I plead for another admin(s) to take a look.

I proposed an interaction ban a while back but consensus showed that to be too harsh. However, the users and their various IPs have turned all sorts of places into a pointy battleground, and despite a number of attempts to make both parties step back, have tea, drop the stick, desist, RBI, words of advice and so on, (see [239] [240] [241] [242] [243]). This sniping has got to stop, I'm having my username thrown about the discussion pages in reciprocated accusations of "he did this against me but nothing against you" etc. Neither of them are innocent, and I need another body to assist! SGGH ^ping! 23:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

All above users notified. SGGH ^ping! 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what the problem here is. What have I done that is deemed incivil in any way? If this is about my removing the following comment [[244]], I think that anybody who reads it will agree that the "discussion" initiated was off topic bordering on incivility. My explanation for removing it was : "removing senseless potential battleground" which was exactly what it was. Some IP that has nothing to do with me engaging in a senseless uncivilized discussion with another IP (presumably Draganparis). I did not say anything about anyone having to be blamed or something, I just protected the discussion. If SGGH is suspecting that I have anything to do with any IPs, I encourage him to check me out, although there is no statement about any socks here and I clearly state that I have not made even ONE contribution as an IP, so I do not know nything about any "sniping". I also did not occupy myself or any other user with my unresolved case against DP considering it obsolete, especially after DP (again presumably) retired. Someone (an IP, DP?) wrote on SGGH's discussion page that "The editor GK removed another Draganparis’ civility appeal edit in spite of your warning. Is he mocking at you now?" What civility appeal and what does this have to do with anything? I guess that every concerned user's duty would be to check this fight before it escalated. Is there anyone among you here who would not consider this particular exchange of words "a potential battleground"? Well... whatever... just check it out, check me out, check anything out and let's formulate some, I don't know, charges for me to know exactly what to answer...

Oh... and it seems funny, how DP uses third person first in his "complaint", as though he is some neutral editor (albeit IP) and then proceeds to make a second comment in which he claims he is DP... GK (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

..And GK 1972 (plus all the other Greek IPs) is also NOT me but someone mimicking my name. The slight difference in the number used should be a clue, but if there is any doubt, again, please check me out. GK (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

GK1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef for username violation. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed GK1972. As for GK1973, I don't suspect you having anything to do with the IPs, I know they are Draganparis. Secondly, I am not bringing any "charges against you", I am bringing the situation in its entirety here because I have too much else going on to deal with it satisfactorily on my own, and I am tired of DP throwing my name about in the continuing arguments between all parties. I don't know how the proportion of responsibility for this continuation of battling lies, I brought all parties here equally so another admin can decide. SGGH ^ping! 09:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK SGGH, I understand. There is no problem on my side. If there is anything I can help or anything that any admin would like to ask me, I will be happy to answer. As far as I am concerned, this is another disrupting effort on the part of "retired" user Draganparis to attack me (presumably because of my removal of his "discussion" above, in which actually the other part was the problem) and yet another admin (that is you) of impartiality etc... I stopped giving his accusations any credit or importance long ago, and refrained from answering him as you already know and anybody can check. If there is anything I can do to help, please message me. GK (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If the rule is that one should let be insulted on these pages and should not complain - I admit I acted against such concept and would admit of an error of opposing to such a rule. However, I do not think this to be the spirit of Wikipedia. A small effort by the administrators to warn for uncivilized tone would have, I believe, beneficial effects on these pages.

BACKGROUND. This is a sequel of the dispute that I have let go. here is just a short comment, for the administrators to understand the motives. The disputes on Cyril and Methodius pages and on the number of pages on Ancient Macedonia are politically biased. In fact on the C&M the current dispute about Greekness of the missionaries (just about one word!) lasts already for over 4 years. One group of the editors, a group of the same editors I presume, constant for many years now, have been changing their user names, collaborating permanently in various not verifiable ways, all this with the intention to maintain one concept, a concept that they, missionaries, were Greeks, that the Alexander the Great was “Greek king”, that the ancient Macedonians were “more Greeks then the Greeks themselves” – something that is actually claimed! The user’s name change serves a trivial purpose: to misled the new-comer administratiors I would think (Xenovatis-Anothroskon, Miskin to may be GK1973 and to GK, and may be some other names). This missionaries problem is of course of little relevance for the others who are not Greeks or may be not “modern Macedonians”, the modern Macedonians who are also quite eager to call them, the missionaries, not Greek but, for example “Macedonian”. But the mention group is a Greek group and is particularly effective, although small. Every “intrusion” if more serious, they try to remove. I pushed the issue of strict evaluation of the sources and this broke down the concept of the group, incited them to start insulting me and made the entire issue hard to resolve. Now I practically accepted not to change the term “Greek” (although not documented but somehow natural) for term “Byzantine” (what is more neutral expression and I think better). However, even after the end of the discussion, they continued with the insults and I rebelled. This what we find now here is a sequel of the mentioned dispute. The sequel being just a problem of the civility on these pages. This is important because the method that the group uses against some successful contra argument is, between others, intimidation and personal insults. If the user would then react with more intensity, the group would, acting in concert, try to remove him. This case is therefore a sequel of a successful removal of one “intruder” – me.

Therefore, the issue is simple. Some editors have been insulting me, I called for civility. This did not stop them, they intensified the insults and my edits have been PARTIALLY removed by the same user - I presume with the intention to remove some expression of my goodwill and make the administrators judge in their favor. The administrator(s) permitted this all and have been warning only me for “disruptive editing” (which, these editing, were my calls for civility!) and were not warning the party that produced EXPLICIT insults.

More specifically to the above problem raised by SGGH:

I ISSUED THE WARNING that GK1972 address may be a misuse, so there is no point discussing it here. The mentioned IPs belong as follows: 95.89.18.134 - is my lab computer; the IP 87.202.19.91 is in Athens; the IP 87.202.48.23 is also in Athens.

GK (alias GK1973) and Simanos have been insulting me for months (at least 10 times they called me a “layer” and used other insulting names without even showing where the untruthfulness was. This was at various placed, talk pages, mentioned administrator talk page, ANI investigation page… I just complained against incivility. My complaints were interpreted by them as disrupting editing and new insults and incivility mockery continued. I disclosed my personality hoping that this would make them behave in more civilized way. The insults continued. No administrator EVER reacted. To denigrate me, I presume, GK1973 started removing parts of my friendly calls for civility!! I know for three occasions, there could have been more, it is hard to follow all of this. I retired then from Wikipedia. The insults unfortunately continued even in my absence. Since my personality has been known now I could act as an UNREGISTERED known user. I complained again. GK removed my call for civility again. The Administrator(s) were permanently warning ME instead of the SIDE that was permanently, over 3 months, insulting me in spite of my not being anonymous any more.

The cause of this situation: In my opinion the administrator(s) missed to warn the editors for incivility and this made them confident to continue, what produced then that the entire issue exploded. Solution is also simple and logical: The uncivilized party should be prevented from insulting me, and I will not have reason to complaint on Wikipedia discussion pages. The problem will then disappear. (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.139.223 (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand... Does DP claim that this edit as well as these were made by someone else and not him? If so, then this IP should immediately be banned for disruption and usurpation of the identity of another editor, posing as DP all the time... GK (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My mistake.The 95.89.18.134 is my lab computer. Sorry for the confusion. I now corrected MY OWN edit above and corrected some English also which was quite bad, since I wrote it in hurry. (Draganparis)

Excuse me, to the administrator: did GK1972 use MY LAB COMPUTER (IP: 95.89.18.134)? This is almost impossible and if this was the case, his comment was trivial, but this may amount to a very serious personal privacy affair. I am entitled to know this, please. Thank you. Although... our computers are set to acquire the IP number from the server and it is theoretically possible to acquire some number that some other computer previously had... Yes, this will be no proof, but I am just curious. (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.18.134 (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The above evidences the problem, can someone step in to assist? SGGH ^ping! 20:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish I had more time to look into this. DraganParis, if you're going to contribute, please log in. That will make this a lot easier for everyone. SGGH, don't doubt your sanity. You know the players here and if you think a block is merited, make one. Everyone, stop making personal attacks, stop making allegations unless you post a diff so that it's clear what you're talking about. If you can't agree on what should go in the article, follow our dispute resolution guidelines. Can't you just neutrally report what reliable sources say on the subject? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with the article. Proper procedures were followed, an admin was called in to judge the arguments presented sometime in February and he ruled that "Greek" was the word to use Here admin Tom Harrison clearly states his opinion. After this ruling, there were minor disputes which of course did not change the ruling and there was no more formal dispute by any proponent of the other POVs. User DP thinks he has made his point, as most times is the case with those who disagree, yet other users seriously doubt that he has. He has never properly called for outside neutral input, as far as I am aware, nor has he followed any other proper channels. He chose to resort to blame some organized pro-Greek cabala, hurling attacks and innuendos against a number of editors and admins and especially against me, who, in his mind, along with 3-4 other users represent some kind of uebernationalistic gang. He chose to parade through various discussion pages posting self-made warning notices against us until I brought the case to ANI. There he even blatantly used legal threats, which resulted in his getting banned (for a third time in a matter of a few months, after getting banned once for disruption and once for sockpuppetry - three confirmed socks). Then he retracted and days after he dramatically retired. Since then he edits from 2 IPs, again mainly to criticize me and other editors/admins (this one is good), one such critique being the reason (as I understand) why SGGH has again opened this ANI case. I do not know what the real point here is, I have long now stopped to interact with user Draganparis as well as giving any heed to his endless whining (to him this is a really serious personal attack, to me it is the politest way to describe his contributions). Of course ex-user Draganparis continually complains how I and other users insulted him, called him a liar, replied with "blah blah blah" to his usual allegations, my feeling is that I have been more than patient and as civil as humanly possible regarding his trolling and his spamming. Anyone is welcome to look into this case, should anyone really think this story worth looking into... GK (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you need a better proof from this sincere text above that we have two very different concepts of civility? (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.139.223 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Banning DP from Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius might be a start, it is his IPs that are continually posting there. GK hasn't edited the page since May 7th apart from reverting one WP:BATTLEesque edits. DP needs to go elsewhere in the 'pedia or I shall start issuing blocks. Likewise, is GK1973 starts appearing to take liberties and go after DP then the same may occur. Both parties must stop editing anywhere near Saints Cyril and Methodius or related topics. Don't go around reporting each other either, because that will very much count as not letting it go. SGGH ^ping! 15:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I had an email stating I had violated some logical principle of Socrates in my resolution of this incident. To be honest I am tired these appeals to humanity. This is Wikipedia, not humanity. Email stated the use has left, so that's a resolution. SGGH ^ping! 22:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess from DP... I have never seen a retired user being so active before... You have my sympathies... GK (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll mark this resolved then. But I will take User:SheffieldSteels advice should it come up again. Happy editing. SGGH ^ping! 14:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)