Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727

Long-term disruption from IP

Resolved

 – Thanks Elen. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

108.65.1.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); user notified of this thread.

The above person has a long history of changing sourced figures in articles such that they no longer match the sources. Here are three examples from February, May, and November this year. I tried explaining referencing to this person back in April when I first noticed the problem, but I can't see that the behaviour has changed. It seems futile to try to help this user futher, as they do not communicate at all, having never edited a talk page or used an edit summary. Previous one- and three-month blocks haven't worked, as the same behaviour resumed almost immediately after the blocks ended. Although this person does make some constructive edits such as typo corrections and minor formatting fixes, I think the burden they place on the many, many others who have to waste time reverting them and checking their other edits makes them a net negative. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why an indefinite block isn't warranted. If editors repeatedly make intentionally disruptive edits, I don't much care if they occasionally make good edits. To use an extreme analogy, that's like saying it's okay to murder someone as long as you help a few old people across the street.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's always dangerous to indefblock IPs, because even static ones can be switched out to a new user if the account with the ISP ends. I have blocked for a year. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the block and the explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

User:DoDo Bird Brain

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.

Sockpuppet confirmed to be Yourname (talk · contribs) and the IPs blocked and sock puppet tags deleted due to IP hopping. This is over. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

---

The blocked user DoDo Bird Brain (talk · contribs) is back, this time using three different IPs. As of now, the user has used the IPs 174.127.124.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 216.97.239.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 137.132.250.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to attack me and leave threatening messages on my talk page, despite filing a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DoDo Bird Brain. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• One of the IPs actually vandalized the SPI page, adding a couple other users. I don't know if they're related or not. Calabe1992 05:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• I've semi-protected User talk:Sjones23 for 3 days; that's all that can be done. –MuZemike 06:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this is indefinitely blocked user Yourname (talk · contribs) (by admission), who recently has here as Troller101 (talk · contribs). He IP-hops literally all over the CIDR spectrum, so anything he touches will need to be semi-protected. –MuZemike 06:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, can we please re-tag DoDo Bird Brain's socks to match the sock master and confirm these socks if possible? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've already moved everything to the correct SPI pages. I've also deleted the tags on the IPs, as there is no purpose tagging them since they're so random. –MuZemike 06:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations

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.

Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, particularly Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations#topic ban?, per the request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations#Close please? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've read through the discussion and am prepared to close. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

History merge needed on Skeleton in the closet

Resolved

Skeleton in the cupboard was moved to Skeleton in the closest (mis-spelled) and then copied and pasted to Skeleton in the closet by user:Floppydog66 . Please could an admin do a history merge between these two pages? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skeleton_in_the_closest&curid=15185590&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skeleton_in_the_closet&action=history – Fayenatic (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Black Kite (t) 13:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing edit-warring and incivility by IP editor

Resolved

 – Suspected open proxy network sent on long hiatus. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at 188.227.160.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is causing trouble across a swathe of articles, including violating 3RR and incivility? The IP has also submitted a 3RR complaint against another editor at [1], which needs to be dealt with. The IP is clearly being used to evade a block or ban and is probably the banned editor Scibaby, judging by this comment. Prioryman (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Not scibaby, I said I would be reverted as scibaby, which is what happens to anyone who edits a CC related article. I would have thought removing blp violations was a good thing, was I wrong? 188.227.160.244 (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Next time apply a templated 3RR warning. If someone had done that earlier the IP would have been blocked already. Whoever this editor may be, fair warning is always helpful. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

However the editor reported by the IP is also clearly in violation of 3RR. They should both be blocked really, which suggests that protecting the article may be a better idea. Black Kite (t) 21:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's debatable since one revert came with the comment that they'll remove one of the objectionable references, which they did in the next edit, after which the IP continued anyway. In other words, one could argue that Thought's third revert combined with the following edit was actually only a partial revert. Anyway, it seems obvious to me that this IP has something else in mind altogether, and no doubt someone will push the CU button quickly. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And yet he still broke 3r so he could put a lie into a BLP, which is that the heartland institute distributed her book, her book is a free download, and no source was given which says what he kept putting into the article. And I see it has in fact been reverted back in, well done for the BLP violation Heironymous Rowe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.160.244 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. You're at 5R or something like that, for something that isn't remotely a BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? Using a blog is not a BLP violation? OR is not a BLP violation? whatever indeed 188.227.160.244 (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, really. Is a claim being made that is defamatory or libelous? No. Case closed. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What has that got to do with it? It is wrong, hence a lie, hence a blp violation, pull your head out of your arse and try using it. 188.227.160.244 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the dispute is about whether a particular organisation has distributed a book. That concerns a publication and a company, not a living person. Hence BLP doesn't apply and you can't claim any exemption from 3RR on that basis. Note that BLP applies only to content about a living person, as WP:BLP makes clear. And while I'm at it, you could try being a bit more civil. I'd support a block of you on that ground alone since you appear to have a persistent problem in that regard. Prioryman (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems this IP is User:Marknutley, who was banned from the topic area in WP:ARBCC and was subsequently caught sockpuppeting in the same topic area and is currently indefinitely blocked. See this comment. It is one of a number of edits from the same range, which clearly all come from the same person.[2] Note that it geolocates to the same region as Marknutley. Prioryman (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

(added) I've raised this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley. Prioryman (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

pull your head out of your arse and try using it is certainly MN "style" William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Zedshort

Zedshort (talk · contribs) Is using Wikipedia to promote a link to an external petition. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Funnyfarmofdoom (talk · contribs) and I have reverted Zedshort's edits that added the link. Goodvac (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Going through a list of the more enthusiastic supporters of the Energy Catalyzer to look for signatures. A new (or 'new') single-purpose account only here to promote a highly-questionable cause. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• I guess I'm a bit involved with this editor, so I won't push any buttons--but this is a kind of soapboxing that should not be allowed. They've stopped since the ANI posting, so maybe a block would be punitive. I welcome the input from other editors--really Andy and I should stay away. Especially Andy. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

So, I guess I fail to understand why I should not contact other users that have an interest in the subject of the Energy Catalyzer and offer them a chance to sign a petition to the White House to review the usefulness of the device. When is that wrong? How are my communications wrong as I had communications with those persons in the discussion of the device in the article? Under what conditions can I communicate with others and if the writing of the message is wrong please give me an example of what would make it ok to send the message to other users. Also, I would like to know who removed my previously place message here? Surely I have the right to respond. In addition to that the user AndyTheGrump may be stalking me and it should stop immediately. I placed a very polite welcome to another user and Andy responded with a message on my talk page that was not appropriate. Surely you have rules against stalking and harassing other users.Zedshort (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I could make a good argument that it is YOU that's stalking and harassing, by spamming users' pages with this petition stuff. Wikipedia is not a social network, and stuff like petitions and canvassing are not allowed. If you get an "F.U." kind of response to your spamming, that ought to convey the message to knock off the spamming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have received no "F.U." message from anyone I contacted. I guess I should insist that you make the case that I am stalking people and not just make the contention. It does not matter if it is in reference to a petition, it is a semi-private communication that was not sent to you and only to those I was rather sure would be interested. If I had placed the message within an article that might be considered inappropriate. Simply repeating the same message to those people does not make it spam. If I indiscriminately sent it to a great many people who had no input on the Energy Catalyzer article and discussion then it would be spam. You are indiscriminately using the term soapbox and stalking. If there is a relevant wp guideline then direct me to that. And again, I want to know who removed my first post. I consider that to be vandalism.Zedshort (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social network, and is not for advocacy. Contacting users to sign a petition about any subject (other than, perhaps, Wikipedia itself, on behalf of the Foundation) is completely outside the remit of Wikipedia. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to promote technological invention, in userspace or otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Zedshort is one of the new accounts that appeared in the AfD for Energy Catalyzer, accounts listed in the DRV. This petition and the accompanying activism make it even more likely that there was behind-the-scenes coordination (aka meatpuppetry) at the AfD. Personally I think editors like Zedshort should not be allowed to continue editing if they are not here to help build an encyclopedia, but just to use wikipedia as a cheap and effective means of mass online publicity. On the DRV another editor mentions an Italian patent, but there have been patents for the motionless electromagnetic generator, a device where no working model has ever been produced and where the underlying "theory" has been dismissed. Editors like Fedosin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been blocked quite recently for POV-pushing and advocacy in fringe science. Mathsci (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Even without looking at the circumstances surrounding the AFD discussion, the most recent edits prompted my report. This is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia as a forum for advocacy. Though contributors often use talk pages to post personal messages, it seems to require a suspension of guidelines, not to mention reality, to consider user talk pages 'semi-private'. To the contrary, a literate user would understand that any talk page message, especially from an account which has been previously engaged in a contentious or even interesting discussion, will be viewed by numerous parties--it's a public posting, and as such constitutes soapboxing and spamming. Rather than acknowledging this, the user is deflecting accountability, seeking to make the behavior of others the issue. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Also, what Bugs says. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

While taking in Drmies point, I feel I must respond to the claim that I have been 'stalking' Zedshort. Here is the message he/she left on User:Brian Josephson's talk page, 'welcoming' the professor to Wikipedia (and incidentally making less than polite comments about other editors). [3] My posting on Zedshort's talk page consisted in its entirety of a section I entitled "'Welcome to Wikipedia?'" which stated "Can I suggest that perhaps your welcoming of prof Josephson to Wikipedia is a little belated - he's been contributing since 2006... " [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hey Andy, just to make matters clear: by suggesting distance is good I do not mean to say that you are guilty of anything here. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations

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.

Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, particularly Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations#topic ban?, per the request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations#Close please? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've read through the discussion and am prepared to close. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

History merge needed on Skeleton in the closet

Resolved

Skeleton in the cupboard was moved to Skeleton in the closest (mis-spelled) and then copied and pasted to Skeleton in the closet by user:Floppydog66 . Please could an admin do a history merge between these two pages? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skeleton_in_the_closest&curid=15185590&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skeleton_in_the_closet&action=history – Fayenatic (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Black Kite (t) 13:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved: Seems OK now. Please keep an eye on it, if you get a spare moment. Thanks to the admins who pitched in. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

AIV is backlogged. If an admin or two could clean up the backlog, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Backlog remains and getting worse. AIV reports going back some 5 hours. Kinda pointless to have an AIV page with no one to check it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

We're working on it (I've already declined three). We don't get paid for this, you know, and the only beers I get are virtual. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ismail Ljekperic

Ffkks, though final warned, keeps deleting AfD tag. Probable recreation of autobio (compare with Ljekperic).— Racconish^Tk 16:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

24 hour block -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Racconish, I guess you knew this was going to happen. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Reporting Halaqah

Hi there.

Halaqah who is disrupting African related articles especially Serer related articles have been warned before. In one of their latest edits, they placed the wrong tag on the Isoko people article:[5] eventhough there are inline citations in the article and the article is marked as a stub.

Whilst patrolling, I removed the template and told them they used the wrong tag, placed it in the wrong section and the article itself is a stub [6]. They undid my edits and started to be uncivil again [7].

I undid their edit for the last time and gave them a warning on the edit summary [8].

I also followed it by giving them a warning on their talk page [9].

They undid my edit again [10] and removed the warning I had posted on their talk page and called me an idiot [11].

They have now started again attacking all Serer related articles that I have edited as well as articles I have been discussing as you can see for yourself on their contributions [12].

Tamsier (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot block him I am not an Administrator.

Tamsier (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why you are not an admin. User Tamsier has a Loooooooong history of problems here on wikipedia.[13] +[14] so i find it strange they are "Warning" me. LOL. One of them is using wikipedia for ethnic propaganda (they were warned by several editors and blocked). They clash with so many editors and have so much civil problems. Take for example the Stupid woman comment here [15] Strange that they would cite me for editing wikipedia on Serer topics. Is that what you call attacking- I call it editing. Are any of the edits vandalism? - no. Are any of the edits against policy?-no. Abusing Admin notice board to discuss edits you do not like is pointless. Such debates should happen in the correct places. I got angry at the posting on my page as have other editors [16]. They also have a history of using these spaces to complain see [17]. Please see some more of their rants against other editors. [18] and [19]. The list is longer. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This whole thing is stupid. An unreferenced tag is not appropriate, but a refimprove tag is, and I have added it. No admin action is needed here. LadyofShalott 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

Thanks for your decision, but is Halaqah going to be punished for what he is doing to all Serer related articles as well? For example placing inappropriate tags on Serer religion, etc. which has the least amount of excessing infor compared to other religious articles. He is also inviting other editors on the Almoravid dynasty talk page where I was discussing to Serer medieval history to present [20]Their contribution history I have pasted above. I think this problem is much bigger.

Thanks

Tamsier (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

At Wikipedia we do not punish people -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You are correct the problem is much bigger Tamsier. Cool down and look at your legacy. I am starting to worry about your health. Even when I show you the problem you spend all day on a talk page complaining about Islamic conspiracies.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOOMARANG, Tamsier's behavior here includes:

• Socking to weigh in AFDs about articles he created: investigation, sock username says it all, Refusing to admit that they've been caught red handed

• Slandering other editors, Battleground attitudes: "As a contributor to this article, you are partly responsible for the poor quality in it...rectify your poor input...this entire garbage you call an article" (excerpt from a long diatribe attacking another editor who, at the time, never contributed to the article in question, aside from one minor edit in August) attacking two other editors simply for giving their opinion on article talk page, You did that out of spite...I tried to educate you (again attacking the same editor)
• starting a pointless RFC to prove a point, the summary he gave implicitly accuses others of racism "Because for some they could not phantom how a Black African Animist tribe could defeat and killed Abu Bakr." (an example of bad faith as what he states in the RFC is completely false)
• Finally have a read at this article that he's recently created which gives an idea of the ethnic boasting motives of this editor. Also, take look at his block log --Tachfin (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if my comment was inapropirate and I have removed it. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Additional comment: Tamsier has even nominated the Islam article for speedy deletion [21] and edit warred over it! [22] He also nominated a user page for speedy [23]; attacked the admin in an unblock request calling them "people like you always cowar to the muslims" add that to socking and various PA. I've seen editors indefed for far less, we've been so far very indulgent with him and refrained from responding to his personal attacks and focused on discussing content...Frankly he should consider himself lucky. Tachfin (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Compliments to the Lady and the others who have attempted to make sense of the mess made by the plaintiff. Both editors, BTW, have a block log to be proud of, and them staying away from each other would be a good thing. It seems to me that especially Tamsier needs to be on a short leash given this, besides a host of edits that prove little more than that the editor has a POV and a slight competence issue in editing Wikipedia.Drmies (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You know Drmies, Every single thing I was blocked for i was vindicated for all those issues ultimately wikipedia got changed esp useless categories in living bios. This is not the case with this editor. Not to mention I was here since 2006. This editor I think would be best removed from wikipedia and if it continues I will have no shortage of supporters to do so. It must end. It is not just me vs. Him. It is him vs. Wikipedia editors. What really is silly is I warned him about drawing attention to himself (per that Boomerang thingie. If you want to push a racist pov on wikipedia best to do so quietly. Now people are crawling all over his edits and well i am vindicated again, cuz all the evidence is in his editing. Talk about an agenda. Even when you try to help him he/she isnt happy and turns on you the next day.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Be very careful how you present your case. Although the article may have developed in time through the efforts of other editors to match your expectation, it does not excuse your combative attitude. By suggesting you have supporters may violate WP:MEAT and if you drum up support, that violates WP:CANVASS. Just a word of warning. --Blackmane (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

IP abuse

The IPs 89.204.152.52, 82.113.103.164, and 82.113.122.167 have been blanking user (talk) pages, mainly targeting Ihardlythinkso, Nepenthes, and Cloveapple, at the rate of several a minute in the past hour; can something be done about this? Thanks. HurricaneFan25 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've blocked a couple of em. Someone smarter than me should figure out what's going on here and what should be done. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It may be related to a chess article dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.204.136.55 shows that that IP was editing a chess article and if I remember correctly chess is User:Ihardlythinkso's main editing area. I was only targeted after reverting vandalism to Ihardlythinkso's talk page. Cloveapple (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • A rangeblock would be easy, in my opinion, since we need only a /24 for the first IP, and a /23 for the second two.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    • It's not still going on, is it? Drmies (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
      • The vandalism stopped about 18:10 UTC from both ranges. I don't see any rangeblocks. Maybe the anons lost interest. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Let's wait a bit.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate block of Joe Circus

Jayjg has blocked Joe Circus for civility and harassment while in a debate with him on Circumcision. Whether the block was warranted or not Jayjg should not be the one blocking Joe per WP:INVOLVED. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree with imposing a hard and fast rule. Some cases are so obvious, I wouldn't want an admin to waste our time here. Rklawton (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'd say this particular case clearly warranted a short block [24][25] Rklawton (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'd say this comes under the "any reasonable admin would probably have done the same thing" exception.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not saying that a block wouldn't have been warranted, although I wasn't seeing anything major. It is disturbing that it was done by an involved admin. This could have been handled much better.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• There could have been a tidier way of implementing the block, but it was still warranted. Note that there is also an SPI case for Joe Circus too. From a general technical perspective, it seems quite likely that he's been abusing multiple accounts since the block. WilliamH (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Other admins who should have been called on to implement the block in such a case, so it does not have the appearance in any sense of an admin using the buttons to win in content disputes or other disagreements. Edison (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. WilliamH (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't a content dispute, that was extended trolling. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Sarek. Just to be clear, I didn't block him for "civility" (or incivility, for that matter), and I wasn't "in a debate with him on Circumcision". Gary, please make more accurate statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Good block. Obvious troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I haven't had any content disputes with that editor, and his actions are part of an off-wikipedia harrassment campaign against a longstanding Wikipedia editor. Those who wish to know more can e-mail me for the details. Since his block, he has socked in various ways. If he continues this harrassment if and when he returns, I intend to block him for a month. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable as a trolling block. The user is able to discuss and realize his issues on his talkpage - Checkuser although not conclusive , talks about proxies and possible/likely connections to multiple accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I've blocked California Mom, Aussie1947 and EditTalk indefinitely, check the SPI case for my comments. From my perspective, I'm willing to say: yep, Joe Circus is abusing multiple accounts. Off-wiki-gal is worth keeping an eye on too. WilliamH (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If the OP's posting here is what triggered the ISP, then the OP should be awarded an honorary boomerang. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If he's abusing multiple accounts, then we should extend his block. Rklawton (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The SPI was filed a day before this. Other than being punitive, I don't see what extending the block will do - if anything, it'd act as even more reason to continue socking. But if the disruptive behaviour (including socking) continues after the block expires, he will definitely be sanctioned accordingly. WilliamH (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I have made no objection to the block, only that Jayjg pulled the trigger. Anyone who glances at talk:circumcision can see Jayjg arguing with Joe all over the page and then the block. It looks bad and should have been handled by an uninvolved admin through normal channels. Jayjg is quite heavy handed with newcomers coming to the page and tends to wp:bite them if he disagrees with their viewpoint. I hope this moderates his behavior in the future. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Anyone who glances at talk:circumcision can see Jayjg arguing with Joe all over the page and then the block"? Seriously? Actually, anyone who glances at talk:circumcision can see me responding to exactly one post of his. That's it, nothing more. In the future, please make more truthful statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I stand behind what I have stated. Your perception of reality is incorrect. Whether you responded to Joe or his socks or he responded to you is still interaction and yes it is all over the page. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Garycompugeek, can you please provide WP:DIFFs of Jayjg arguing with Joe all over Talk:Circumcision? He addresses Joe once, while you constantly argue with him. If anyone is too involved, it's you. If you really approve of the block, why does it matter that it was Jayjg who made it, other than your content dispute with him? You are not here because you think Jayjg is too involved, but because you are. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Joe's socks after he was already blocked now retroactively makes me involved? Please don't be ridiculous. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the constant barrage of POV-pushing socks on that subject, it's not surprising that Jay has little patience with them. Viewed in isolation, it might have been better to hand it off to another admin. But how often does he need to go through that same process? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that someone who considers circumcision as somehow "mutilation" on the same order as so-called female "circumcision", and who honestly thinks that there's "nothing funny" about circumcision, is taking the subject way too seriously and personally, and would probably be best off to stay away from the topic altogether. FYI, here's a joke recorded by Leo Rosten, ca. 1960: "It is said that the rabbis get the salaries, and the mohels get the tips." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure Bugs, I remember you, and while you and I don't see eye to eye, you always make me laugh :) Garycompugeek (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Califoria-Mom (talk · contribs) earlier this evening, as well as the open proxy that was being used. It is my opinion that Joe Circus has been abusing open proxies to disrupt Talk:Circumcision (compare with California Mom (talk · contribs)). As such, I believe that the following accounts belong to Joe Circus:

• AmusedAussie (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 1947aussie (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Off-wiki-gal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Offwikigal2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• California Mom (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Califoria-Mom (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

As such, I support an indefinite block of Joe Circus due to the blatant disruption. –MuZemike 08:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. Drmies (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's probably safe to assume that 193.105.134.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the same user, per this edit. (Could someone deal with the image file on Commons, please?) Jakew (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hello. I am not an admin. As such, I hope I am allowed to comment here. Anyways, The way you all are discussing this would make pirates' toes curl and the Gestapo proud. If an involved admin enacts a block on an individual editor, they should immediately lose their admin status. Seriously. No questions asked. Has anyone ever considered why a police officer can not also be judge, jury and executioner? "Well, I am after all a cop, so I shot him because I was sure a judge would have sentenced him to death..." Certain folks in this discussion need to take a long look at themselves and ask "what has happened in my past to make me like this?"Turqoise127 05:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can post here. After all this is the wiki that anyone can edit! But seriously comparing this to the Gestapo is a little bit much. He blocked an obvious troll. He didn't try to kill all of the Jews.--Adam in MO Talk 07:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You should also review WP:INVOLVED. Even if I were involved with this editor (and I wasn't), this block was a straighforward action with which even the editor's most ardent defenders have no issue (they just have an issue with me, which in reality isn't related to this action). Moreover, the blocking offense was on-going personal attacks on a Wikipedia editor (not me), part of an off-Wikipedia campaign of harassment, and nothing else. And just to be very clear, and to repeat what I stated above, if Joe Circus continues these attacks on that editor when and if he returns, I will block him again for a month, if some other admin doesn't beat me to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Turqoise. Your missing the point Adam, there's absolutely no reason that another uninvolved admin could have implemented disciplinary action. Jayjg watches the page and frequently comments on talk:circumcision and for that reason alone should never exercise authority there unless no one else is able. You most certainly were involved Jayjg. Your continued denials only illustrate your inability to admit you were wrong and take responsibility for your actions. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, your claims about my involvement above have turned out to be false, and most experienced editors here disagree with you that the block was inappropriate (see, for example, this comment by Ian.thomson). In fact, as you've stated, you yourself don't object to the block, just to me. Your involvement here has everything to do with your WP:SPA advocacy on Circumcision-related topics, and nothing whatsoever to do with the appropriateness of this action. I am therefore going to give your opinions on this matter they weight they deserve, which is exactly none. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg,

You write >(they just have an issue with me, which in reality isn't related to this action).<

Please take these suggestions in the I hope friendly spirit with which they are offered:

1. Perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, the "issue" that these other Wikipedia editors have with you may not be unconnected to the perception of apparently going against the spirit, rather than the legal letter, of WP:INVOLVED, for example.
2. Another suggestion would be that as an Admin perhaps you should ease out of the habit of calling other users liars/untruthful/dishonest when they see things that are different from your view of things, as in the example of your perception of "untruthfulness" in Gary above. Having been invited to check the Talk:Circumcision page on ANI above, then yes one could at a pinch legally count only one direct incident of you with that particular now blocked user, however the overall picture is of you in the middle being sarcastic and waving the stick at other users left, right and centre. Particularly I'm wondering what to make of Now there's no way of backing down from your real motivation, no way of disguising your bad faith, and no way of avoiding sanctions if you continue. Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC) To my eyes, from any admin, that doesn't read like a model of a appropriate non-WP:INVOLVED threat of "sanction"
3. A third suggestion might be to just voluntarily take a holiday from admin tools for 3 months, and try to develop a more neutral participant attitude with other editors?

Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

PS having just seen the new line above "I am therefore going to give your opinions on this matter they weight they deserve, which is exactly none. Jayjg (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)" this kind of underlines the 3 suggestions above. Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi In ictu oculi. Just because you've had lengthy content disputes with me at various articles (e.g. Yeshu), that's no reason to consistently follow me around and insist that in any dispute I am doing something wrong, regardless of the details. Your more recent and clearly inappropriate interactions with me (e.g. Talk:Ger toshav#Ger toshav is not the same as ger v-toshav, Talk:Ger toshav#Re "stop playing games" please see version before half of article deleted, Talk:Messianic Judaism#Deleting reliably sourced accurate material again) indicate that you are simply unable to be neutral when it comes to me, and that your suggestions are not actually offered in a "friendly spirit". The last of those discussions makes it quite clear that whenever I have a dispute with another editor, you invariably ignore the facts of the case, and instead claim, imply, or insinuate that I am somehow to blame, despite the fact that (as you can see in the latter discussion) no other outside editor there agrees with you in any way. I think a far more helpful suggestion would be for you to just take a voluntary 3 month holiday from following me around and taking the side of whoever happens to disagree with me, and during that time try to develop a more neutral participant attitude towards me. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, well, I'm sorry but please note that you did invite "anyone". And also note that "follow me around" would require use of a time machine on my part to follow you to pages you have not been, to "follow you around" in advance of your appearances. Whatever, the above suggestions were offered in good faith, you are free to note other's views of what constitutes the spirit of WP:INVOLVED and the other points, or not. So be it. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I don't see Jayjg inviting "anyone" to do anything here. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I see a pattern where, almost any tim there is an AN/I discussion involving Jayjg, In icto oculy intrudes to make some sort of attack or threat against Jayjg, without actually contributing to the discussion. Is this stalking? Is it time for an RfC on In icto oculi's stalking obsession with Jayjg? As for this thread: given the unanimity that this user should have been blocked and blocked wuickly, and the lack of evidence that Jayjg meets the standard of an involved admin, it seems to me that this issue has been resolved and can be closed. WP is ten years old which means that by this pooint we have a great many sysops who have edited a wide variety of articles over many years. It is important that a sysop not use her tools in the course of an edit conflict with another user, but in this case it is clear that Jayjg was acting as anyo other sysop would have acted, and no question that this was part of an edit conflict with this user. Let's be cleare about what an actual abuse of sysop powers is, and lets not muddy the waters. Did Jayjg use sysob tools to resolve a personal dispute with another editor? No. That is precisely why everyone else agrees that the block was fully justified. So, end of discussion Slrubenstein | Talk 17:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein,

Well I don't know what to think now. I hadn't looked at the page. I saw this here, "anyone" was invited to look and comment, I did. More fool me. Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If someone cares enough to dig up some diffs illustrating what Slrubenstein says above, the above replies have convinced me to support any proposed interaction ban that prevents In ictu oculi (talk · contribs) from jumping into issues in order to score one off Jayjg. Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Johuniq, I ran into this behavior at Talk:Messianic Judaism. Jayjg started an RFC regarding another editor and material he kept deleting that had multiple reliable sources. In ictu oculi used the RFC not to respond to the issue, but instead to attack Jayjg and make vague accusations that Jayjg was probably to blame in some way. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If people really think the block was unjustified just because the wrong admin issued the block, then how about another uninvolved admin unblock and then immediately reblock Joe Circus, if that will make everybody happy? I'll even do that if necessary. –MuZemike 19:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As of a couple of hours ago, Joe Circus has been reblocked for 2 weeks by a patrolling admin at the SPI case. WilliamH (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• A gutsy and 100% justified block - when someone uses multiple accounts on a highly controversial topic in order to try to manipulate the debate ought to be blocked, perhaps a permablock is in order. To require some other admin other than the discoverer of the deceit to do the block is just a formality that wastes time and continues the circus. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Complaint about editing by Arcillaroja at Central Europe and Eastern Europe

Arcillaroja (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)
Central Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eastern Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Now a user's sentiments are his private affair, but if they happen to disrupt a set of articles, it's no longer private. This one's been going on for 3 years straight simply because it goes on in peripheral articles (Eastern Europe, Central Europe) few seem to care about. Both my requests for Third Opinion were ignored. I also put a series of warning templates on his talkpage over several weeks, which he ignored. Other editors (Montessquieu, ValenShephard etc.) were exhausted by this guy's tenacity, and they receded.

Background: so Arcillaroja grinds his axe for years; he engaged in bitter disputes with other editors long before I entered these articles. I have reason to believe that his editing is guided by racism against Central/Eastern Europeans. In some talk pages, he seems to justify this by implying that racism against ethnic Central/Eastern Europeans are present in certain groups in Western Europe. Which is an obvious fact, as the events of 1941-44 would tell you.

-- He deleted this info from the lede twice just today: [26]. Let's see what exactly he deleted: "A prevailing regional self-definition appears to draw the line between Eastern and Central Europe at the Eastern borders of Romania: those West of this border generally self-define as Central Europeans, while those East of this border as Eastern Europeans."
Who on earth would delete such a harmless but informative and relevant line? To put it another way, he deleted the self-definition of Central/Eastern Europeans while leaving some pointed and rather patronizing Western definitions in place. I'm just kinda waiting when he will delete this deadpan-neutral line from the article too (a matter of time): "Eastern Europe, home of the bulk of world Jewry until the 1940's, is the birthplace of Hasidic Judaism, Litvak Judaism and several Orthodox churches." Then we might be close to adding anti-semitism to his rap sheet as well.

-- Another line he deleted, this time from Central Europe, is [27]. Which is: "The historic term, denoting both a cultural area and a geopolitical region, came back into fashion by the end of the Cold War, which had divided Europe politically into East and West..." How is this line offensive or redundant to anyone in this particular article? Beats me.

-- He keeps placing the systemic bias tag on Central Europe ([28]), which is hysterical for 2 reasons.
1: That particular article is so far from being systematically biased as it can get. As already discussed on its talk page, the article presents 8 to 11 disparate points of views on the definition of Central Europe. Many of these definitions come from Western European historians and encyclopedias, the rest from Central European experts. Arcillaroja is, however, discontent. His "unbiased" dream article would appear to be the equivalent of a patronizing diatribe from a certain 1940's Western POV where actual Central/Eastern European voices of self-definition are totally absent (from their own article).
2: It is actually him who keeps introducing systemic bias to the Eastern and Central Europe articles. Again, he keeps deleting context-relevant self-definitions by the Central/Eastern European ethnic groups ([29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] etc. etc.), sometimes replacing them with pure nonsense ([35] [36]), or what could be described as judgmental Cold War-era Western opinions.

While his English is not good, still be prepared that he will want to manipulate you when he appears here: inevitably, he will cast me as some kinda die-hard local activist/vandal. Uh huh. I've been here for nearly 7 years, helping rewrite a bunch of articles from scratch. I've also been a member of WP:Subtle Vandalism Taskforce and WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias which is relevant here.

Anyway, in a perfect Wikipedia, an admin with a BA/MA in European History or International Relations would come and deal justice in minutes, as the case is clear to anyone with some grasp on the subject: a racist user is doctoring some ethnic articles under the guise of improving them. But seeing how Arcillaroja's tendentious activity has been ignored for years, I wonder if anything will happen at all. Imagine the collective admin uproar if he happened to be some far-right Canadian patriot who would target, say, the Illinois article, doctoring it systematically so that it makes Illinois folks appear to be degenerate pushovers with no voice of their own.
Thanks for reading. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 11:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing WP:RFC/U, based on the above ... (and Illinois folks are "degenerate pushovers with no voice of their own", signed, a far-right Canadian patriot :-) </sarcasm> (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not seeing WP:RFC/U at this time as the user in question will ignore it based on witnessing his conduct thus far. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 12:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

So what exactly are you asking for? I'd say dispute resolution is the venue for you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I can do that, but it seems to be a 'lite' approach, seeing this user's drive, anger, energy, beliefs etc... What I'm asking for is direct admin intervention, either by asking him to stop his ways, or whatever else. Thanks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 12:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note for Arcillaroja here telling him that the WP:DIGWUREN sanctions exist. But the above discussion is hardly complete enough to justify any admin action yet. This is the first time he's ever been mentioned at an admin board. All that your evidence shows is that he sometimes argues very tenaciously on talk pages and some of his reasoning is unusual. Over three years he has made 104 edits at Eastern Europe. If Gregorik believes that Arcillaroja's editing there is improper, give us some more persuasive diffs. If you can't find any blatant examples of ethnic bias, I suggest starting with the content issues. Consider opening a WP:Request for comment on one of the disputed items. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I lack the time and desire to dig through 3 years of his activity for additional diffs. I think I've presented hard evidence of ethnic bias. I mean he keeps deleting the very definitions and self-definitions of Central/Eastern European identity from the Central and Eastern Europe articles which are supposed to be the primary definitions in these cultural/ethnic articles. What remains is some skewed, secondary Cold War definitions that should only be mentioned in passing. Is there a way to protect these articles from this kind of tendentious disruption? ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 17:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The most you could argue is that he's illogical, not that he is biased. Please don't extrapolate so far from the evidence you presented. Blatant ethnic warriors usually make outlandish statements that can be quoted as diffs. If you don't have time to do more digging into the record, this may be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't close just yet, please. Waiting for additional remarks. In the meantime, imagine that what if in an article titled Definition of being American someone deletes all the primary definitions and replaces them with a paragraph called "Definition of being American according to unsympathetic non-Americans". That's what's going on in these 2 articles. Racism and bias is sometimes not in-your-face but it's still present. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 17:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Direct quotes from Arcillaroja would be more persuasive than your summaries of what you believe his thinking is. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously Arcillaroja is smarter and more subtle than that. But don't close yet. Thanks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 17:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to say some words in my defense. Firstly I want to make very clear that accusing me of being a racist is something that I personally take as offensive and a very serious accusation. I reject such accusations and would like to ask Gregorik to soothe the general tone on these boards. Eastern Europe and Central Europe are ongoing topics of debate. I think it is also very difficult to provide neutrality for such political articles. As I have explained before in the talk pages of these articles, there are different opinions on what these geopolitical terms refer to. These articles are very polemic, in that they include or exclude countries arbitrarily depending on who writes a certain paper. I personally don't have the knowledge to say conclusively what is the right definition and I doubt that there is someone that would take such a chance. But I do know this: Trying to change an article with unsupported claims is not what wikipedia is about. These are examples of what Greogorik edits:

"A prevailing regional self-definition appears to draw the line between Eastern and Central Europe at..." or "One Western definition describes Eastern Europe as a cultural..." A prevailing regional self-definition? From who? Where are the sources? is this presented in the article as a fact or as an opinion? Why is it in the lede?

These type of edits are rather constant in Gregorik's misbehavior. Sometimes, he adds an opinion, and then one or several online resources that do not support the claim made or that are very poor in regards to their neutrality. Gregorik thinks that trying to be as neutral as possible is the same thing as having a conservative agenda. And he thinks of himself as a very progressive editor. And not only thinks it, he simply adds it to the article. No sources, no discussion... He just does it because he is worth it. Example:

"The following countries are still being labeled Eastern European by "conservative" commentators (in the former geopolitical sense, due to their Communist past) and as Central European by "progressives" and..."

I think adding these words (conservative and progressive) to the lead is not very neutral either. And to finish, I would like to underline the fact that Gregorik is a Hungarian editor. And Hungary is a country which is directly discussed in these articles. In my opinion, the matter in itself is too close to the personal background of this editor and that affects his work on the topic.

Please, Gregorik, before making such accusations, bring hard evidence. That I'm a racist, and anti-semitic (!?!?), right winger, double your age (I certainly don't hope so!), with poor English (in that is not bookish and intricate enough, you mean?), ect, ect, ect is quite offensive... And requesting hard measures from admins against me because we don't agree is not very friendly either.

I hope that I have explained my position clearly. If I made any edit which was not in accordance with wikipedia's rules, then I more that willing to discuss them and I welcome any third opinions or other ideas. Arcillaroja (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm as friendly as they get, Arcillaroja. In this case, I'm not even pursuing this further (as I lack the time and desire as said earlier). So no worries, I won't take it to RFC/UserConduct. I've written ALL I wanted on this subject. And I stand corrected: you're not anti-semitic (though I never said that, please read it carefully), and your English is fine. I suggest that we leave this thread open for another 24 hours for additional admin comments, if any, and then close it. Cheers. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 18:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

OK Arcillaroja (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment There are not many of Arcillaroja's edits to look at. On the main article Europe, very occasionally we get disputes about the use of the terms Western Europe, Southern Europe, Northern Europe, Eastern Europe and Central Europe which have ambiguities depending on context. By contrast Europe is a stable article and most disruption has been from sockpuppets of returning banned users. This is not the case on the less watched articles just listed, which are much less stable. A superficial glance at the edits of Arcillaroja does not suggest POV-pushing; his editing has been in line with consensos on Europe. However, edits like these by Gregorik, who I understand self-identifies as Hungarian, are problematic. [37] (edit summary: "Give it up, you sad loser, sorry!") [38] (a revert: "My apologies to Arcillaroja") I can recognize quite disruptive edits on Western Europe by Rejedef (talk · contribs), who self-identifies as Polish, whose suggested changes to Europe have not been accepted by any other users. Similar edits on Western Europe were reverted by Arcillaroja and other users. On Eastern Europe it is also Gregorik's edit summaries that are problematic. Just recently with two reverts: [39] ("too funny!") [40] ("still the entertainer"). The edit summaries of Arcillaroja seem fine.[41] Arcillaroja has only made 314 article edits in his 3 1/2 years on wikipedia, which makes this request look a bit odd. I would not be surprised if a more detailed analysis revealed more problems with Gregorik's editing; but nothing probably that warrants anything more than a mild warning to avoid giving the appearance of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. The inflammatory phrasing of this request does not help. I have not looked at article talk page comments. Mathsci (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hanging the hangman, as it happens on ANI all the time. Thanks for the input, Mathsci. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 19:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's called WP:BOOMERANG. Mathsci (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing unexpected though. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 19:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now looked at Talk:Eastern Europe. Gregorik's editing there seems a little like POV-pushing. I don't see any problems with the edits of Arcillaroja. I also looked at Talk:Central Europe. There the extremly disruptive editors were Hammer of Habsburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), blocked three times under AE, and socks of Stubes99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There is also a recent content dispute between Gregorik and Arcillaroja about definitions and sources. Gregorik's last comment yesterday verges on a personal attack:[42] "When it all adds up, are you a valuable contributor to the Central Europe and Eastern Europe articles, or a troll with an axe to grind?" The rest of this edit by Gregorik seems confrontational and unhelpful. For the article Europe, the 1997 book of Lewis and Wigen, "The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography", was an invaluable source for questions of this type; it addresses this particular point on pages 60-62.[43] Mathsci (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Now there's a book I'll probably read, as the blurb says it "bravely exposes the ethnocentrism at the heart of geography". But your own sweeping judgments are unhelpful. Don't expect that 3 pages in a book (not even written by Central Europeans!) will cover the deep issue of Central/Eastern European identity. Anyway, I've already closed the case with Arcillaroja above. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 21:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you should be more careful what you write, particularly here. The diff above is a personal attack by you; and so far no evidence has been found of any "thinly disguised racism". The book I mentioned is published by University of California Press and is a WP:RS. If you are objecting to it because it is not written by authors from Eastern Europe or Central Europe, that could create problems for you under WP:DIGWUREN. Mathsci (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it cannot create problems for me. The cultlike system of WP rules creeps me out (so I remain a WikiSloth), but I'm in no real danger of gross violation. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 21:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

On a previous occasion in July 2008 another user objected to a book on Chechen culture written by Johanna Nichols from the University of California, Berkeley for the same reasons you gave. That was Log in, log out (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Mathsci (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Read my line again please. I was questioning your odd suggestion that 3 pages from any book would solve this century-old issue, not questioning the Holy RS. Please take it to my talkpage if there's anything else. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 22:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The book I referred to is written by experts; I selected three pages as an example. On the other hand, you have not been using any kind of comparable source: indeed your method of editing, using dictionaries etc, looks like classic WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, where you have a pre-formed point of view which you are going to "prove" by cherrypicking isolated statements from sources. You write here that this is "a century-old problem". Wikipedia, however, is about transferring and paraphrasing information from WP:RS into content in articles. Please do not use it as a WP:SOAPBOX or WP:FORUM for airing your own personal views on national identity in Hungary or anywhere else. Continuing to do so, for example by tendentiously pushing a point of view on article talk pages, could result in a report at WP:AE and a topic ban under WP:DIGWUREN. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Don't expect us casual WP:WikiSloths to observe other WP rules than WP:DGAF and WP:Ignore all dramas on the long run. We're still invaluable here, because we think outside the box. I for one have been here for almost 7 years without a single ban. If we're banned, we shrug. 2. Develop a sense of humour. Especially as an admin. Creepy admins == Bad for WP. 3. Close this thread please. Thank you, Mathsci. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 10:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Gregorik keeps POV-pushing [[44]] and acting childishly. It is disappointing. it seems that he only gives validity to the opinions that are favorably to his views. Arcillaroja (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Editwarring On Stanton.jpg

EEkster insists to delete File:Stanton.jpg, and continues to editwar on the picture, even though it is a U.S. Government picture. Please end this editwar before things get out of hand. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll presume you're referring to Eeekster, who is known for examining uploaded images and verifying their status and permissions for usability on Wikipedia. If so, I'd suggest you listen to any advice they offer, rather than repeatedly removing the correctly-placed notices regarding image licensing. Doing so just might let you avoid hoisting yourself on your own petard. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A CU on the filing editor would probably be the simplest path to resolving this problem. Looie496 (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To what end? There have only been two editors working with that file: BusyBlacksmith and Eeekster. Looking at Contribution histories, I don't see any indication of non-constructive editing. The WP:CHECKUSER tools can't be used for fishing. As to the issue at hand, it looks to me like a content dispute, one that's generating a bit more heat than needed. My 2p is that this should have been handled on the file Talk page, or on that of one of the users involved. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I already tossed it to PUF for discussion and with that I'm done with the file. Eeekster (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the image seems to have come from [45] where the attribution is to the subject. CIreland (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't "insist" on deleting anything. But I do insist on leaving the delete tag until the problems are resolved. That's standard procedure. Eeekster (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged for speedy under WP:CSD#F4, as of now the image has no license at all. Kelly ^hi! 01:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's unlikely to be a U.S. government photo, and as such, it fails the wikipedia "fair use" rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Initially the image had a PD-text license tag. As this is clearly invalid for a photograph I removed it and put up an F4. Eeekster (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually now that I think about it, WP:CSD#F11 is probably more appropriate, since the uploader does assert a US Government license. I'll change it. Kelly ^hi! 01:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would a city official have a photo taken by a U.S. government photographer? Not that it couldn't happen, but it seems odd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. It does seem to be the most appropriate speedy tag, though. Kelly ^hi! 04:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "no evidence of permission" seems to apply. The OP asserts it's a US government photo, but he presents no evidence to that effect. In fact, it appears to be a state photo, and as we recall from the Loughner situation, Arizona's state photos are not public domain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Second pair of eyes - The Safety Council of Northwest Ohio

Can another administrator please have a look at The Safety Council of Northwest Ohio and the cycle of reverts occurring there? I believe i am to involved right now to continue handling this one myself. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This is sounding like either puppetry or a flood of SPA's now - if you look at the page history, you'll see four new accounts, all repeatedly inserting the same information, and then exiting stage left. Here's a list:

• Rausperk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Jane.burichin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Coxel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Alschaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

Could somebody check into this please? Note: I will notify all the users shortly. Notified. WikiPuppies! (bark) 22:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Opened a WP:SPI case on it - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rausperk. I equally managed to wander into WP:3RR territory, as Sarek quite rightly pointed out. Won't happen again :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed - they are all socks. All now blocked, and any underlying IPs which were also being used for editing Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Request early termination of RfC

Having just proposed a rename of Bibliography of biology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and had the decision go against him, Curb Chain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has started a new one. The wording of this new request is unclear, but he seems to be trying to dial back the clock so as to undercut the recent decision. This RfC has no constructive purpose and I request an early termination. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

See also some of the background in this earlier ANI discussion. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The WP:RM issue is different from this one. As the RfC explains, List of important publications in biology was moved unilaterally to Bibliography of biology. I want to gather consensus in a procedural manner that List of important publications in biology should be redirected to Bibliography of biology as this is effectively deleting an article.

Note none of the other articles in this serisseries (List of important publications in science) are named in this way. For the sake of consistency, I believe all the articles should have a consistent name.Curb Chain (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. The wording of his RFC is unclear having confused myself and others(RockMagnetist and Jowa fan) as to exactly what he was proposing. According to User:Bduke at the RFC several editors have been attempting to slow down Curb's attempts to rename "List of" articles into "Bibliography of" articles without any support from any other editors for an RFC at this point.AerobicFox (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

For further context, this also came up at List of publications in physics a few days ago. Relevant threads that I was involved with are at WT:PHYS#Bibliography of physics, Talk:List of important publications in physics#Move, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bibliographies#Outside comment on page moves. Quite a number of "List of publications in.." pages were renamed to "Bibliography of.." without prior discussion. This appears to have been done in good faith, but it also appears to have been done more-or-less unilaterally (WikiProject Bibliographies is only a few weeks old, and had about three active participants at the time I was interacting with them). I'd suggested at the time that they start an RFC on changing the naming convention for such articles. I have not followed up to see whether or not they did that. Per my post on the WT:WikiProject Bibliographies page, I feel that "List of..." is more consistent with the guidelines given at WP:LIST, but if a project-wide RFC declares otherwise, it isn't worth arguing about. My concern is that no such RFC had been attempted at the time the mass-renaming took place. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The issues are getting a bit confused here. Curb Chain did rename a block of lists to bibliographies, without our knowledge or support, but the current RfC is an effort to undercut a consensus to keep Bibliography of biology as it is. The steps recommended by Christopher Thomas would be appropriate if we actually intended a block rename of articles, but no one besides Curb Chain ever contemplated that. Our main goal is to improve the lists. We think that "Bibliography of ..." is a better name for them, but we intended to make the change, with consensus, one article at a time. Finally, the decision for the previous RfC on the name of Bibliography of biology was labelled "no consensus", but really there was a consensus - among everyone but Curb Chain - to keep the name. However, that is all background and is already being discussed in a separate ANI. The purpose of this ANI is to terminate an inappropriate RfC. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment and chronology As regards WikiProject Bibliographies, User:Curb Chain was invited to be a participant by me on Oct 31 here. Since that invitation, he has not participated in the project, other than defending his actions re some unilateral moves on the project talk page. I personally don’t consider Curb Chain as having any productive association with the Bibliography project.

• On Sept 23, 2011, the article List of important publications in biology was nominated for deletion.
• On Sept 30, 2011, Curb Chain made the following deletion vote in that AfD: Delete I can't see how this we could ever define "important" as in the sense of "landmark". So many things fall within the continuum of important and unimportant.
• Sept 30, 2011 List of important publications in biology was deleted per discussion at the Afd
• On Oct 1, 2011, Curb Chain nominated List of Important publications in medicine for deletion based on the precedent set in the biology AfD. His arguments throughout this AfD were based on the contention that important could not be defined. Several other similar lists were nominated with the same rationale at the same time. Most of those AfDs resulted in a Keep decision.
• On Oct 4, 2011 I contributed to the AfD with a Keep position suggesting the List of be renamed Bibliography of This suggestion resulted in several other editors showing some interest in that convention.
• On Oct 7, 2011 I began drafting the project WikiProject Bibliographies to see if we could begin to bring some better advice and stability to these types of lists. That effort went on behind the scenes in collaboration with a few other editors, as the draft project page developed. User:RockMagnetist was one of those editors.
• On Oct 29, Admin User:King of Hearts moved the deleted List of important publications in biology out of the incubator into the mainspace [at the request of RockMagnetist?] for the expressed purpose of using the list as a test bed for the draft advice in the draft bibliography project.
• On Oct 31, RockMagnetist made an improper cut and paste move to Bibliography of biology. He asked me to fix the redirects and history, which I did on Oct 31.
• On Nov 2, in this discussion, Curb Chain began alluding to the need to move all such List of important … articles to Bibliography of …. At the time, no one within the Bibliography project that I can tell was ever contemplating that in the short term.
• On Nov 2, User:Curb Chain began making unilateral moves of these articles and brought down the criticism of several other editors on the Bibliography project, a project whose participants had nothing to do with Curb’s unilateral actions moves.
• On Nov 2, Curb Chain also unilaterally, and without any discussion with me or warning, moved the draft WikiProject Bibliographies out of my user space and into the Wikimedia space. I did not move it back as it was complete enough at that point to survive in the Wikipedia space.
• Over the next few days, several editors advised Curb Chain on his talk page and article talk page to slow down and stop making , unilateral and disruptive moves.
• On Nov 6, Curb initiated a WP:RM on Bibliography of biology to move it back to the List of title. That discussion was closed on Nov 13 with no consensus to move.
• On Nov 14, Curb removed redirects from the List of important publications in biology claiming those redirects amounted to deleting the article with that title and that deletion was done without consensus. (He was apparently ignoring the consensus at the RM and the AfD of the same name, or he does not understand the consequences of deletion and renaming on redirect as such)
• On Nov 15, Curb initiated the RFC under discussion here.

Desired outcome, as an editor and an Admin I’d like to see two outcomes here. 1) I trust someone will explain to Curb Chain why his actions between Sept 30 and today have been disruptive to the project. 2) That the RFC underdiscussion is closed as soon as practical. 3) I trust that whoever closes this discussion will not associate Curb’s actions with either the intentions of or actions of the WikiProject Bibliographies. There are currently over 450 articles in WP that can be classified as bibliographies. Their article titles are all over the map. The project has never promoted or even suggested wholesale renaming on any grounds, and I believe for the most part wants any renaming to be done when necessary through the measured RM process. The project's sole purpose is to improve the quality of this type of list within WP. Whether Curb’s actions are intentionally designed to bring discredit to the project and its participants can’t be determined, but I certainly would like to see his actions as outlined above disassociated with the intentions of the project. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether we are dealing with deliberate disruption or competence issues, but patience is wearing thin on my end, and I've had less direct dealings with Curb Chain than several other of the involved editors have. His actions are disruptive, whether intentionally so or not. LadyofShalott 15:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Abusive IP Edits: IP 190.46.108.141

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

[46] "You dopy little fuck", "just stop being a retard, and I'll stop treating you like one" not to mention the little diatribe entitle "Cunts". Has already been blocked a week for incivility and edit warring. [47] Is now edit warring to keep his "cunts" diatribe in place. Also such gems as "You were, and remain, a fucking idiot, You're a despicable liar.". Could someone please block this guy, does not make any attempt whatsoever to discuss, just responds with abuse. I have tried to discuss his edits but I don't believe I should have to put up with this anymore. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC) [48] Diff of AN/I notice as he habitually removes warnings. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. Possibly a dynamic IP, so we might need to consider other action if they continue -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Has previously edited from at least two other Chilean ranges. Probably best to semi the talk page as well if he continues. Black Kite (t) 13:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a range block is going to be necessary, he is already threatening to sock with a different IP address [49]. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Could this guy be related to User:Yourname? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusyBlacksmith (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for deleting my talkpage

I don't want to save my talk page, it is painful for me.When I am unwelcome here,and threatened by admins like User:EdJohnston there is no reason for existance of my talkings too, it is very painful for me.--Orartu (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Onm the subject of your talkpage, simply blank it yourself or place a speedy deletion tag on it. As for this user that you claim to have harrassed you, discussion will take place. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk pages do not get deleted. You can, however, take BusyBlacksmith's advice and simply blank it.--v/r - TP 19:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:DELTALK covers the deletion of a user talk page, as well as redaction. They are rarely deleted, but can be, or certain info can be redacted, particularly in cases of harassment. That would be a good place to start. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mention that because the circumstances don't apply to this user.--v/r - TP 20:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Resolved

Could another admin please review these diffs (note that another editor subsequently moved them from my user page to my talk page), along with the edit summary on this diff, and decide if it's a legal threat? I think the user is claiming that he has filed suit against me in the Supreme Court of India. There's a possibility that the user is actually referring to something in the content of Murder of Jessica Lall, where the disputed edit took place, though if that's what Mamtapolicedhody (talk · contribs) meant, then xe is claiming to be one of the litigants in the case itself, placing this under COI...in any event I'm involved on the article and in reverting this specific editor, so I'll decline to take action myself.

I'm kind of excited if the user really did file a lawsuit against me in India, given that I've never even been there. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is the second - it reads like he/she is a litigant, or somehow connected to the trial. The quoted date "25-2-2010" implies that they are not threatening you with legal action, or it would have some recent date. Syrthiss (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That's my view as well ... which means a whack of WP:OR and WP:COI ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is bored, try and edit that article - it's making my eyes bleed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't bored, but am fed up of seeing such poor stuff. The page ratings were ludicrously positive! So I've had a go at fixing it. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I just skimmed right past the date. That doesn't seem like a COI edit. Well, I still disagree with the edit, but that's a content dispute, which I'll take (tomorrow, when I'm sure I have all of my reading comp skills working) to the article or the editor's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The user went back in time and sued you :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a Doctor in the house? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Block joker

Patrick Dempsey (Holocaust) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Chesdovi (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

A little more info, please? Theres nothing we can do if theres no charges you have brought against him. I, for one, don't see anything wrong. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

[50] and [51]. Maybe a warning instead. I was worried with his Holocaust jokes, taking into account his username. Chesdovi (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think this editor is potentially a subject-matter expert (although he has written three titles with that publisher, which comprises half their catalogue, and the publisher's website is run by a Mr Dempsey so we're probably in WP:SELFPUB territory). It would be good to engage and embrace them rather than smothering them with warnings. For instance, this change might seem very odd at first glance but on closer examination it's an attempt to cite two books on the subject. bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I've put a welcome template on their talkpage; happy to watch and assist further... bobrayner (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Also to note, the most recent change which was interpreted as a joke is apparently a known and published anecdote.[52].--Cube lurker (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• What a strange username. I guess it's not against policy--I assume the intent is not that we are to think that Patrick Dempsey is to be exterminated or is a holocaust himself. I just don't like usernames that throw me off like that. What happened to the good old days of Can't Sleep Clowns Will Eat Me? Drmies (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The clowns ate them all, clearly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-static IP POV-warring on Strategy of tension and Arab Spring

Ok, this guy is getting me at wits end. He has been edit warring to keep tendentious material in the abovementioned articles. Namely the unsourced claim that the Arab Spring was a result of the so-called strategy of tension: 1, and conveniently adding unsourced claims to the definition of Strategy of tension so it fits with claim in the other article: 2.

I refer to Talk:Arab Spring#"Strategy of tension" for more details, where The Anome has done the leg-work and gotten the details about the long-time disruption of this editor down.

Attempts at getting this user to communicate: 1, 2 has failed. And the disruptive editor has now resorted to edit warring, applying differing IP-adresses with each edit (Strategy of tension editing history).

This needs to stop. --Saddhiyama (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Sitush

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.

It is clear that no action against Sitush is warranted or will be taken. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

---

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

I have requested User Sitush for many days that his edits on Ajmer Singh, Ballu, Dalel Singh, List of Ror have been very disruptive. I requested him to ask for citations and references instead of deleting stuff. He seems to operate as if he WP:OWN these pages and would not listen to any suggestion.

My requests on his talk page: [[53]]

[[54]]

[[55]]

[[56]]

Finally I gave up and reverted his edits. Just to give couple of examples of his opacity: This website [57] gives the total points scored by Ajmer Singh and all other Indian players. It also gives the total points scored by Indian team. This website is already sourced in the article. Yet he puts citation requests for who scored the second highest points from Indian team when the data is already available on the fiba website as I have pointed to him many times. [[58]]

Since he refuses to read the FIBA website I can conclude he just wants to act as a boss and put material that suits his POV. Similarly the FIBA website gives the score of Indian team in each game and one could add up the scores of all games and find the percentage points scored by Ajmer yet Sitush refuses to do that.

Then on Ballu page I wanted to add two sources: 1) the location of the stadium which was constructed in Ballu's honor in his native village Kaul Village. The second link (before I could add the second link Sitush had deleted the addition of my first reference. See here: [[59]]) I wanted to add was from [rorbhoomi.com] which lists all villages where rors live. Here the second link is also deleted by Sitush [[60]].

On Dalel Singh page I added a link from Indian Volley Ball Federation page (which is [61]). If you see the entry 17 it mentions that Dalel Singh Ror (notice the last name) won the Arjuna Award and Sitush deletes this here [[62]].

It is very difficult for Sitush to see reason. He behaves as if he WP:OWN these articles and has no patience to listen to what others are saying. Please advise what to do. Ror Is King (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I did ask for citations. I deleted POV, BLP vios and copyvios. I am astounded that someone who can find their way to ANI, come up with a load of diffs and knows about WP:OWN is not familiar with WP:BLP, WP:CITE, WP:COPYRIGHT etc. Anyway, I've fixed the copyvio myself now, though personally I am not keen on quotations in leads. The rest, I've just done pretty much the same as prior to the revert of my edits from a few days ago.

I had asked at User_talk:Drmies for someone to review what I have done, just before this report was posted. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you have citation requests for ajmer scored a third of India's points? Do you believe FIBA website is wrong or have you not read it? Why are you creating busy work for others when they have already provided citations? What is the reason for this edit of yours [[63]] Ror Is King (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've played basketball in my time, and at a quite reasonable level. The idea that someone scores that number of points without assistance from their team-mates is beyond my comprehension, but I am AGF'ing that it may be correct ... if a source can be found. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are you saying "if a source can be found"? Have you not found the data on the FIBA website that I gave a link to? What does your having played basketball "at a quite reasonable level" got anything to do with your ability to parse the FIBA website? Ror Is King (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

My point was that "single-handedly" seems dubious, writing as someone who has played against Alton Byrd etc in the UK (he ran rings round me, big oaf that I was). It doesn't matter now: I've removed the phrase, on the grounds of reasonableness, & jiggled the citation around etc. However, I do think that you may need to revisit the Five Pillars. If you can find a reliable source for the single-handed bit then feel free to reinstate it, but that is a content issue and not usually a matter for this forum. - Sitush (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well if single handedly is dubious by all means delete it. Why are you throwing out the baby with the bath tub? You are putting citation tags on : "who was the second best scorer of Indian team at the Moscow olympics" and "did Ajmer score a third of India's points" here [64]. What is the rationale for this since FIBA website (already linked in the article) does give both the data points. Ror Is King (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance tags are aids for improvement of articles. I know that you pretty much removed them all without addressing the issues raised by them, but subsequent to my reinstatement of the things I have been able to resolve some of the tagged issues & I think that Drmies has come up with some stuff also. In one case, it just entailed me jiggling the phrasing about & moving the citation; in another case, it meant getting the name from the source & linking it to the WP article about that person. Valid tagging is, erm, valid. Indeed, you explicitly asked me to tag. Something as simple as correctly positioning a citation, or usefully expanding content rather than requiring the reader to refer to the source, is always A Good Thing. You could have sorted the issues out, as I did when I got a moment, but instead chose blindly to revert even after asking me to tag the issues. You cannot have it both ways. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You are still not answering the question. When this FIBA website [65], which is already given as a reference in ajmer singh article, how are your tags "who was the second best scorer of Indian team at the Moscow olympics" and "did Ajmer score a third of India's points" here [66] valid? Ror Is King (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I have explained why. Now please drop this stick.- Sitush (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No. You have not. Either you

* did not read the citation provided [[67]

* or you chose to ignore what is given in the FIBA link since it gives the name of the second best scorer of Indian team and the total points India scored which can let you calculate Ajmer Singh's percentage. Since you put tags here [[68]] how is this adhering to wikipedia policy?

You don't read the sources provided, you delete ad nausuem when others try to edit and you bully others. I am afraid you will have to answer this question about your lack of reading (deliberately?) the FIBA link since it clearly smacks of WP:OWN as only what you deem fit, even if it is bogus citations, will remain on the Ajmer Singh Page. And no one dare take these bogus citations out because if they do then you and perhaps your friends can shoot them down. Are you fostering healthy editing atmosphere at Wikipedia or do you have some kind of agenda which lets you ignore valid references? Ror Is King (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sitush did indeed drop me a line. I decided to look at Balwant Singh Sagwal before seeing what the complaint was this time. The plaintiff's work on that article consists of [Balwant Singh Sagwal this], which is a really bad edit of course (POV, praise, no sources, etc.); this, which adds an unreliable source; and this, which is even worse--and the reference in the edit summary to "Sitush's childish edits" is, besides an insult, downright silly (I'm trying to phrase it nicely) since it reintroduced such redundancies as "Ballu was a tall, ungainly youth from the beginning" and his "hands and feet were enormous in size" (my italics). Now, terrible writing is not by itself damning, unfortunately, but if you combine that with the combative attitude and the speed with which they found their way to ANI, one wonders--who was this editor before they were this editor? Perhaps the editor can have a look at WP:BOOMERANG. In the meantime, let's move on and leave this disruptive complaint and its author be. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Few clarifications. I did not create any of these pages in question. Second I am surprised to see that you are not seeing that Sitush is not letting anyone edit these pages. If he has a problem with some evidence does he point out the problem and discuss on the talk page? Thus far I see blind reverts of citation. See the FIBA example on Ajmer Singh wikipage. Can he be requested to discuss the edits on the talk page and not be disruptive because it just feels he owns these pages.

Regarding Ballu have you thought about why would Kaul Village name a stadium after Ballu (the location of which is shown here [69]) and why would Kaul Village which is populated by rors name this stadium after Ballu if he was not of their own? BTW here is another reference which I wanted to add but could not because Sitush would delete all my edits. This is the website of rors. Here are their office bearers: [70]. On this website they list their sportsmen here: [71]. You will notice all sportsmen under discussion are listed here: Ajmer SIngh, Ballu, Dalel Singh, Manoj Kumar the boxer. Ror Is King (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not thought about that. Why should I? What I've been doing is going through the newspapers (mainly The Hindu) to see where Ballu's name pops up and what I can add to the article. What you bring to the table is nothing but some websites that simply don't count as reliable sources. As for Sitush not letting you edit--well, it's pretty clear that your edits are not improving the article. That's not ownership, that's just following the guidelines and improving articles. You're free to do whatever you like on your own website, but this is an encyclopedia, which regards WP:RS as pretty important. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please point out what is wrong with this [72] as a reference? Did you understand the argument about Dalel SIngh? His caste is listed on the Indian Volleyball federation page and yet Sitush deletes it. Are you a friend of his that you only find a fault in me? Ror Is King (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• For real? Well, it's a website called "Rorraja" which proclaims the greatness of the Ror community and is run by the "ROR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION", whatever that may be. The section you're pointing to is called "Our Outstanding Sportsmen". In other words, there is nothing here to suggest that there is anything reliable or independent about this website. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a registered organization with Govt of India. You can read about it here:

• [[73]].
• The office bearers are professors from reputed institutions, scientists and professionals.

If you feel or are isinuating that the sole purpose of this website is to obfuscate the workings of wikipedia by giving wrong caste information for Dalel Singh, Ajmer Singh, Ballu and Manoj Kumar then I guess you know something that I don't.

Lastly do look at this [[74]] the list of rors before Sitush's hackjob. On this page if you see the list of politicians [[75]] and compare [[76]] you will see there is an overlap but not a match. Similar thing you will see on the sportsmen page. Caste is not recorded in Indian hospitals on the birth certificates so those will be useless for you. The way I see it you have to defend your friend Sitush at any cost and accept his bullying behavior towards other editors. Whether he exhibits WP:OWN on these articles is of no concern to you. Ror Is King (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps my eyesight is going, but what that page (the volleyball assoc. one) appears to list is his home village. This is not sufficient to verify his caste, as you have been told before. In any event, this is a content dispute and should be dealt with on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Your claims that it is a behavioural issue are clearly misguided. But I would say that, wouldn't I? - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are reading. I have repeated earlier that his name is given on line 17 as Dalel Singh Ror. Though you keep deleting his being a ror from the page. It is a behavioral issue as you have not even answered the question on the FIBA article posted above. Ror Is King (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Ha! "This time". Indeed. Sitush/ANI, night/day. I am doing something wrong. - Sitush (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. My penny's worth – I've been active on a number of India-related articles as part of the November Guild of Copy Editor's drive, and a lot of them have many of the issues highlighted in the link Drmies posted above. These articles often contain a truly diabolical standard of writing. Perhaps RiK would do well to concentrate on fixing his own issues instead of dragging other editors before ANI. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Problem User: IP 190.46.108.141

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

This user intentionally removes content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining why such changes were made. I reverted the edits a few times (along with others that spotted his unconstructive changes), and warned him/her after the fact happened. (S)he continues to remove content, to the point where it's getting out of hand. Originally, (s)he added false/misleading info (11/5/2011 @16:30).

November 15, 2011 @ 02:20 [77]

November 15, 2011 @ 02:17 [78]

November 13, 2011 @ 00:06 [79]

November 12, 2011 @ 23:51 [80]

November 12, 2011 @ 23:45 [81]

November 11, 2011 @ 00:08 [82]

November 10, 2011 @ 02:26 [83]

November 5, 2011 @ 23:43 [84]

November 5, 2011 @ 16:37 [85]

November 5, 2011 @ 16:30 [86]

Platinum Star (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC) (I forgot to sign...)

(Good Faith) Any Reason why this person is doing this? BusyBlacksmith (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have notified the editor. Why are you bringing this to ANI? This appears to be a simple case of vandalism, and since the IP was warned, I will block temporarily. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

@Busyblacksmith: No idea. I mainly edit Univision/Telefutura pages and programming they air, and I can assure you that I provide valid sources whenever they're available (after all, Univision.com is a valid source as the articles do mention when a tv program is slated to start and end). This person simply removes it, not knowing that said programs are airing/used to air in Univision/Telefutura.

Take a look at the latest edit (11/15/2011 @02:20)... The weekday morning and weekend telenovelas ARE still airing in Telefutura, and various tv listings (even the Univision schedule on their website!) will mention the same.

@Drmies: I read the rules for reporting vandalism, and it said that I had to give a problem user "sufficient recent warnings". It never mentioned a specific number of warnings, and I thought that 4/5 warnings weren't enough, which is why I reported here. Next time, I'll report it as vandalism.

Platinum Star (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Platinum Star, no worries. But this user already had a couple of serious warnings, if I remember correctly. But here's the thing: I did not see that it was you that posted this and I thought this Blacksmith had done that--did you not sign your report? And next time, please do notify the editor: there is a template on top of this page, somewhere. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to sign my comment. And yes, I will notify the editor next time. Platinum Star (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Sitush

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.

It is clear that no action against Sitush is warranted or will be taken. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

---

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

I have requested User Sitush for many days that his edits on Ajmer Singh, Ballu, Dalel Singh, List of Ror have been very disruptive. I requested him to ask for citations and references instead of deleting stuff. He seems to operate as if he WP:OWN these pages and would not listen to any suggestion.

My requests on his talk page: [[87]]

[[88]]

[[89]]

[[90]]

Finally I gave up and reverted his edits. Just to give couple of examples of his opacity: This website [91] gives the total points scored by Ajmer Singh and all other Indian players. It also gives the total points scored by Indian team. This website is already sourced in the article. Yet he puts citation requests for who scored the second highest points from Indian team when the data is already available on the fiba website as I have pointed to him many times. [[92]]

Since he refuses to read the FIBA website I can conclude he just wants to act as a boss and put material that suits his POV. Similarly the FIBA website gives the score of Indian team in each game and one could add up the scores of all games and find the percentage points scored by Ajmer yet Sitush refuses to do that.

Then on Ballu page I wanted to add two sources: 1) the location of the stadium which was constructed in Ballu's honor in his native village Kaul Village. The second link (before I could add the second link Sitush had deleted the addition of my first reference. See here: [[93]]) I wanted to add was from [rorbhoomi.com] which lists all villages where rors live. Here the second link is also deleted by Sitush [[94]].

On Dalel Singh page I added a link from Indian Volley Ball Federation page (which is [95]). If you see the entry 17 it mentions that Dalel Singh Ror (notice the last name) won the Arjuna Award and Sitush deletes this here [[96]].

It is very difficult for Sitush to see reason. He behaves as if he WP:OWN these articles and has no patience to listen to what others are saying. Please advise what to do. Ror Is King (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I did ask for citations. I deleted POV, BLP vios and copyvios. I am astounded that someone who can find their way to ANI, come up with a load of diffs and knows about WP:OWN is not familiar with WP:BLP, WP:CITE, WP:COPYRIGHT etc. Anyway, I've fixed the copyvio myself now, though personally I am not keen on quotations in leads. The rest, I've just done pretty much the same as prior to the revert of my edits from a few days ago.

I had asked at User_talk:Drmies for someone to review what I have done, just before this report was posted. - Sitush (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you have citation requests for ajmer scored a third of India's points? Do you believe FIBA website is wrong or have you not read it? Why are you creating busy work for others when they have already provided citations? What is the reason for this edit of yours [[97]] Ror Is King (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've played basketball in my time, and at a quite reasonable level. The idea that someone scores that number of points without assistance from their team-mates is beyond my comprehension, but I am AGF'ing that it may be correct ... if a source can be found. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are you saying "if a source can be found"? Have you not found the data on the FIBA website that I gave a link to? What does your having played basketball "at a quite reasonable level" got anything to do with your ability to parse the FIBA website? Ror Is King (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

My point was that "single-handedly" seems dubious, writing as someone who has played against Alton Byrd etc in the UK (he ran rings round me, big oaf that I was). It doesn't matter now: I've removed the phrase, on the grounds of reasonableness, & jiggled the citation around etc. However, I do think that you may need to revisit the Five Pillars. If you can find a reliable source for the single-handed bit then feel free to reinstate it, but that is a content issue and not usually a matter for this forum. - Sitush (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well if single handedly is dubious by all means delete it. Why are you throwing out the baby with the bath tub? You are putting citation tags on : "who was the second best scorer of Indian team at the Moscow olympics" and "did Ajmer score a third of India's points" here [98]. What is the rationale for this since FIBA website (already linked in the article) does give both the data points. Ror Is King (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance tags are aids for improvement of articles. I know that you pretty much removed them all without addressing the issues raised by them, but subsequent to my reinstatement of the things I have been able to resolve some of the tagged issues & I think that Drmies has come up with some stuff also. In one case, it just entailed me jiggling the phrasing about & moving the citation; in another case, it meant getting the name from the source & linking it to the WP article about that person. Valid tagging is, erm, valid. Indeed, you explicitly asked me to tag. Something as simple as correctly positioning a citation, or usefully expanding content rather than requiring the reader to refer to the source, is always A Good Thing. You could have sorted the issues out, as I did when I got a moment, but instead chose blindly to revert even after asking me to tag the issues. You cannot have it both ways. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You are still not answering the question. When this FIBA website [99], which is already given as a reference in ajmer singh article, how are your tags "who was the second best scorer of Indian team at the Moscow olympics" and "did Ajmer score a third of India's points" here [100] valid? Ror Is King (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I have explained why. Now please drop this stick.- Sitush (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No. You have not. Either you

* did not read the citation provided [[101]

* or you chose to ignore what is given in the FIBA link since it gives the name of the second best scorer of Indian team and the total points India scored which can let you calculate Ajmer Singh's percentage. Since you put tags here [[102]] how is this adhering to wikipedia policy?

You don't read the sources provided, you delete ad nausuem when others try to edit and you bully others. I am afraid you will have to answer this question about your lack of reading (deliberately?) the FIBA link since it clearly smacks of WP:OWN as only what you deem fit, even if it is bogus citations, will remain on the Ajmer Singh Page. And no one dare take these bogus citations out because if they do then you and perhaps your friends can shoot them down. Are you fostering healthy editing atmosphere at Wikipedia or do you have some kind of agenda which lets you ignore valid references? Ror Is King (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sitush did indeed drop me a line. I decided to look at Balwant Singh Sagwal before seeing what the complaint was this time. The plaintiff's work on that article consists of [Balwant Singh Sagwal this], which is a really bad edit of course (POV, praise, no sources, etc.); this, which adds an unreliable source; and this, which is even worse--and the reference in the edit summary to "Sitush's childish edits" is, besides an insult, downright silly (I'm trying to phrase it nicely) since it reintroduced such redundancies as "Ballu was a tall, ungainly youth from the beginning" and his "hands and feet were enormous in size" (my italics). Now, terrible writing is not by itself damning, unfortunately, but if you combine that with the combative attitude and the speed with which they found their way to ANI, one wonders--who was this editor before they were this editor? Perhaps the editor can have a look at WP:BOOMERANG. In the meantime, let's move on and leave this disruptive complaint and its author be. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Few clarifications. I did not create any of these pages in question. Second I am surprised to see that you are not seeing that Sitush is not letting anyone edit these pages. If he has a problem with some evidence does he point out the problem and discuss on the talk page? Thus far I see blind reverts of citation. See the FIBA example on Ajmer Singh wikipage. Can he be requested to discuss the edits on the talk page and not be disruptive because it just feels he owns these pages.

Regarding Ballu have you thought about why would Kaul Village name a stadium after Ballu (the location of which is shown here [103]) and why would Kaul Village which is populated by rors name this stadium after Ballu if he was not of their own? BTW here is another reference which I wanted to add but could not because Sitush would delete all my edits. This is the website of rors. Here are their office bearers: [104]. On this website they list their sportsmen here: [105]. You will notice all sportsmen under discussion are listed here: Ajmer SIngh, Ballu, Dalel Singh, Manoj Kumar the boxer. Ror Is King (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not thought about that. Why should I? What I've been doing is going through the newspapers (mainly The Hindu) to see where Ballu's name pops up and what I can add to the article. What you bring to the table is nothing but some websites that simply don't count as reliable sources. As for Sitush not letting you edit--well, it's pretty clear that your edits are not improving the article. That's not ownership, that's just following the guidelines and improving articles. You're free to do whatever you like on your own website, but this is an encyclopedia, which regards WP:RS as pretty important. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please point out what is wrong with this [106] as a reference? Did you understand the argument about Dalel SIngh? His caste is listed on the Indian Volleyball federation page and yet Sitush deletes it. Are you a friend of his that you only find a fault in me? Ror Is King (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• For real? Well, it's a website called "Rorraja" which proclaims the greatness of the Ror community and is run by the "ROR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION", whatever that may be. The section you're pointing to is called "Our Outstanding Sportsmen". In other words, there is nothing here to suggest that there is anything reliable or independent about this website. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a registered organization with Govt of India. You can read about it here:

• [[107]].
• The office bearers are professors from reputed institutions, scientists and professionals.

If you feel or are isinuating that the sole purpose of this website is to obfuscate the workings of wikipedia by giving wrong caste information for Dalel Singh, Ajmer Singh, Ballu and Manoj Kumar then I guess you know something that I don't.

Lastly do look at this [[108]] the list of rors before Sitush's hackjob. On this page if you see the list of politicians [[109]] and compare [[110]] you will see there is an overlap but not a match. Similar thing you will see on the sportsmen page. Caste is not recorded in Indian hospitals on the birth certificates so those will be useless for you. The way I see it you have to defend your friend Sitush at any cost and accept his bullying behavior towards other editors. Whether he exhibits WP:OWN on these articles is of no concern to you. Ror Is King (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps my eyesight is going, but what that page (the volleyball assoc. one) appears to list is his home village. This is not sufficient to verify his caste, as you have been told before. In any event, this is a content dispute and should be dealt with on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Your claims that it is a behavioural issue are clearly misguided. But I would say that, wouldn't I? - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are reading. I have repeated earlier that his name is given on line 17 as Dalel Singh Ror. Though you keep deleting his being a ror from the page. It is a behavioral issue as you have not even answered the question on the FIBA article posted above. Ror Is King (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• • Ha! "This time". Indeed. Sitush/ANI, night/day. I am doing something wrong. - Sitush (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. My penny's worth – I've been active on a number of India-related articles as part of the November Guild of Copy Editor's drive, and a lot of them have many of the issues highlighted in the link Drmies posted above. These articles often contain a truly diabolical standard of writing. Perhaps RiK would do well to concentrate on fixing his own issues instead of dragging other editors before ANI. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Problem User: IP 190.46.108.141

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

This user intentionally removes content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining why such changes were made. I reverted the edits a few times (along with others that spotted his unconstructive changes), and warned him/her after the fact happened. (S)he continues to remove content, to the point where it's getting out of hand. Originally, (s)he added false/misleading info (11/5/2011 @16:30).

November 15, 2011 @ 02:20 [111]

November 15, 2011 @ 02:17 [112]

November 13, 2011 @ 00:06 [113]

November 12, 2011 @ 23:51 [114]

November 12, 2011 @ 23:45 [115]

November 11, 2011 @ 00:08 [116]

November 10, 2011 @ 02:26 [117]

November 5, 2011 @ 23:43 [118]

November 5, 2011 @ 16:37 [119]

November 5, 2011 @ 16:30 [120]

Platinum Star (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC) (I forgot to sign...)

(Good Faith) Any Reason why this person is doing this? BusyBlacksmith (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have notified the editor. Why are you bringing this to ANI? This appears to be a simple case of vandalism, and since the IP was warned, I will block temporarily. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

@Busyblacksmith: No idea. I mainly edit Univision/Telefutura pages and programming they air, and I can assure you that I provide valid sources whenever they're available (after all, Univision.com is a valid source as the articles do mention when a tv program is slated to start and end). This person simply removes it, not knowing that said programs are airing/used to air in Univision/Telefutura.

Take a look at the latest edit (11/15/2011 @02:20)... The weekday morning and weekend telenovelas ARE still airing in Telefutura, and various tv listings (even the Univision schedule on their website!) will mention the same.

@Drmies: I read the rules for reporting vandalism, and it said that I had to give a problem user "sufficient recent warnings". It never mentioned a specific number of warnings, and I thought that 4/5 warnings weren't enough, which is why I reported here. Next time, I'll report it as vandalism.

Platinum Star (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Platinum Star, no worries. But this user already had a couple of serious warnings, if I remember correctly. But here's the thing: I did not see that it was you that posted this and I thought this Blacksmith had done that--did you not sign your report? And next time, please do notify the editor: there is a template on top of this page, somewhere. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to sign my comment. And yes, I will notify the editor next time. Platinum Star (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Requesting a block on User:Curb Chain for intentional disruption.

Resolved

 – Withdrawn by proposer (see comment at bottom). RockMagnetist (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Curb Chain has removed redirects from List of important publications in biology claiming there has been no consensus to rename the article Bibliography of biology which just went through a proper RM [121] which was closed in favor of the move. This unilateral action on Curb Chain’s part is intentionally designed to cause disruption and contention with other editors interested in moving on with this project. He has no interest in improving or contributing to these articles. This is not the first time Curb Chain has unilaterally and without discussion moved articles to cause disruption. [122]. In addition, and a primary reason that I am definitely not uninvolved in this is his unilateral and un-discussed move of a draft project page from my user space into the mainspace without consulting me. [123] Although the project survived the move, it was disruptive to a group of editors attempting to build consensus in a measured way.

I believe this most recent unilateral move on Curb Chain’s part is intentionally designed to cause disruption to editors and the project because he has lost AfDs and other discussions related to these types of articles. I believe he should be blocked for at least 7 days based on this latest action and the action reverted by an Admin to prevent the inevitable edit warring and endless, unproductive discussion that will ensue if this latest unilateral action is ignored. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The move discussion as you discussed was a move back of the bibliography to [[]].

I replaced the version of List of important publications in biology before it was redirect without discussion. These are two separate matters. Redirecting the article without discussion when it was moved from the article incubator is effectively deleting the article.

The above claims of moving pages to cause disruption is unfounded.

Moving your userpage when you invited me to join the project was because I felt that it was ready to go public and it's a minor point; if you felt that it was not ready to go public you could have engaged in dialogue instead of retaliating with this report.Curb Chain (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The removal of the redirect was actually a copy-and-paste move. I have undone it. That's all I'll do at this point, as I am also completely involved here. LadyofShalott 13:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Talk:List of important publications in biology should be reverted as well.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, any report that from the start says "person X needs to be blocked" is typically not going to lead to one :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that User:Curb Chain deserves a block, but he certainly needs to recognize that he is curbing attempts to build consensus in a measured way, as Mike Cline put it. There is no difference between a list of publications and a bibliography, except title. Only one should exist and that has been determined for now. There is no need for consistency while consensus develops. Curb should slow down, and I suggest leave discussion on these lists for a while to people who understand the science literature. His actions are certainly bordering on disruption, but I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt as long as he recognizes the consensus that has developed. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I too have tried to give Curb the benefit of the doubt - but having just lost one RfC for Bibliography of biology, he has now begun [[124]] that is both confusing and seems to be trying to undercut the decision. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

He's now opened an RfC at that page that does not sound to me at all neutrally worded and seems to be conflating multiple things. LadyofShalott 03:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Sorry, it wasn't quite an edit conflict, but I realized that RM had said almost the same thing I did right after I clicked save. LadyofShalott 03:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Unless I missed it, no one notified CC of this discussion until now - I just did. LadyofShalott 03:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• CC has initiated related discussion at my talk page. LadyofShalott 03:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have made a separate request for termination of this new RfC. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't think that Curb Chain intends to cause disruption. For a while he was actually contributing to some of the science bibliographies, although many of his contributions were misguided. For example, in this edit he removed Origin of Species from Bibliography of biology on the grounds that it was "unreferenced material"! The List of publications in sociology also met a strange fate in his hands, ending up as a stub in incubator space (see also RHaworth's "fleshing out" comment). As for his administrative efforts like the spate of AfD's he initiated and the recent mess over article names, they seem to be the actions of someone who gets an idea in his head about what is right and cannot understand the nuances of the issue. More than one editor has tried to steer him in a more constructive direction (here is my effort), but our suggestions fall on deaf ears. All of this, plus his increasingly incoherent statements in response to all the objections, adds up to a pattern of incompetence, not malice. I don't support a block on him, but I do wish that there was some way of getting through to him. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Withdraw request. I am confident the behavior above will be addressed as necessary in the Request for RFC closure below --Mike Cline (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No admin action necessary. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – Tovalu has opted to retire from editing under that account. Doc talk 07:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User Bwilkins made a couple of statements which I believe to be untrue. So I asked him a couple of times to give me a link to a diff that proves what he says is right. Again and again he refuses to back up his claims, but instead he claims something even more unlikely to be true. This is becoming a pattern, and I want it to stop now.

I met BWilkins for the first time while I was explaining another admin he was making a mistake. BWilkins showed up out of the blue at his talkpage with some (bad) advice for that admin. A WP:ANI thread was opened, and BWilkins commented there too.

The full WP:ANI thread can be read here. In this thread BWilkins...:

• ...claims I declined to follow a policy (even though no one asked me to follow a policy, no such policy exists, WP:ES does not state that the editsummary should contain nothing but info about the edit and I did not even decline to follow standard practice)
• ...acts like WP:SIG and WP:ES are policies (in reality WP:ES is an information page and WP:SIG is a guideline)
• ...acts like WP:SIG requires me to put my signature after my post scriptum. (He makes up a new rule that defies all logic, claims it is a policy, and says that if I decline to follow that rule that it needs to be "escalated" which means yet another useless discussion at WP:ANI)
• ...is very condescending "As adults, we accept constructive criticism, adjust our behaviour, and move on with life...don't lash out at people who try to help you." (Nota bene: Of course I did not lash out at "people who tried to help me"; I did not lash out and the only person who tried to actually help me was Nigel and I had not yet responded to him. At that point the other 2 people were just wasting my time because they lacked knowledge about Wikipedia)
• ...used the editsummary: "are we being trolled?" (violating WP:NPA)

The WP:ANI thread was demotivating and a waste of time, but in the end the admin who started it sort of understood the situation and apologized to me.

I left BWilkins a message on his talkpage.

---

He reverts the message on his talkpage using the editsummary: "Personally, I never accused anyone of WP:SOCK...this kind of childishness is not permitted." (violating WP:NPA for the second time).

---

As a response to his editsummary I edit my message. I strikethrough the part about WP:SOCK and inform him he is violating WP:NPA. Unfortunatly user Tide rolls reverts me, I am not sure if he noticed the message had changed but whatever.

---

I wait a bit and then ask BWilkins: "Unfortunatly we still have some unfinished business. What do you propose we do about this situation?"

---

He replies: "I'm not sure what you're talking about. You continue to claim that I accused you of being a WP:SOCK, which I have never done. Now you're threatening me. Do not continue down this route."

---

I respond: "What??? You wrote: "Now you're threatening me". Are you serious? Can you please link me to the edit where I've threatened you? Did you make it up again? I live thousands of kilometers away, how can I possibly be a threat to you? Intercontinental ballistic missiles?

About the sock thing, well, I think we found something we can agree on, you did not accuse me of being a sock. But now you claim that I continue to claim that you accused me of being a WP:SOCK. Maybe my memory is failing me, but as far as I know I never said you accused me of being a sock. You wrote: "On the subject of his possible sockpuppetry ... additionally problematic.". Can you please link me to the edit(s) where I said you accused me of being a sock?"

---

He removes our conversation from his talkpage again and uses "now becoming WP:HARASS ... like a school bully waiting around my locker." as an editsummary (violating WP:NPA for the third time).

---

I want BWilkins to provide proof for his claims or (preferably) stop typing this kind of nonsense. Tovalu (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's natural to feel stung by the words of others from time to time. Key issue: Is he stopping you from editing what you want to edit? If so, what edits of yours is he interfering with? If not, then just drop it and focus on your own editing contributions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: I am quite sure that if I made similar claims about an admin without proof I would be blocked. I used to be a very active editor (80k+ edits), but I lost all motivation, and now I've returned I get this kind of treatment. Maybe I need to try again at some point in the future, and hope to have more luck, or quit Wikipedia for good. Tovalu (talk) 07:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, this one's going to end well. (munching popcorn) Doc talk 07:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My sarcasm-detector almost exploded while reading your comment. I replied on my talkpage too BTW. Tovalu (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

For your first post to his talk page, you can't very well trout him, repeatedly ask "Did you make it up?", and advise him to STFU in a really pointy way. Do you actually expect rational dialogue with this approach? Doc talk 07:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I expected a rational dialogue in the beginning, but after a bit of getting to know him I had to ask "Did you make it up?" over and over again. The STFU is not my, but his advice. Its a quote from his userpage, hence the quotation marks. Tovalu (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would he make... "it" up? What would he have to gain? And what do you specifically want to happen as a result of this report? Doc talk 08:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not know what anyone would have to gain from, for example, forcing me to put my signature after my post scriptum. Maybe he can explain that to us. I wish Bwilkins took the time to read it, and maybe reply to my questions, because I do not understand his POV. I actually did check my contribs to see if I could find what he was talking about, with no luck. Tovalu (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

He'll respond here, I'm positive. Please do not lose your faith in humanity in the meantime - I'm sure this can all be worked out. Doc talk 08:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If he wants to, we can probably work this out in a couple of minutes. If you do not believe me, read how I communicated with the other admin at that last WP:ANI. Tovalu (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Who, Boing? Maybe you eventually communicated well with him: but not at first... Doc talk 08:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

True. Having an admin interfere with your work because they do not know or understand the rules while you are trying to do some actual work to improve the encyclopaedia is extremely annoying. My initial reaction was {{retired}}. Until now BWilkins communicated very badly, maybe it will improve drastically when he realizes he made a couple mistakes. Tovalu (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

So, Bwilkins does not know/understand the rules and has bad communication skills to boot. This is a problem indeed. Doc talk 09:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Bwilkins does lack knowledge/understanding of at least some of the rules. Do you want me to provide a proof? I did not say he has bad communication skills, I think he is skilled enough to work this out in a couple of minutes if he wants to. But I do think he communicated very badly until now. Tovalu (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but remember: he doesn't have to even respond here, technically. If he wants to give you the "cold shoulder", completely ignore you and not interfere with your editing whatsoever, you'd be best advised to just drop this. You cannot force him to talk to you even for a "few minutes". Judging by how long you've dragged this out, a few minutes wouldn't be good enough if you didn't hear what you wanted. JMHO Doc talk 09:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I know he does not have to respond here, there is no way anyone could force him to respond obviously. But maybe he realizes I really don't understand him. One day I tell him about a policy and a guideline and a information page, hoping he learns something. The next day he talks about the guideline WP:ES. Tovalu (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC) p.s. If he promises to never interfere with my editing again, that would be great. But understanding each other is even better of course.

@Tovalu: Wikipedia is not the place to achieve vindication for some possible slight—please drop it. I had a quick look at the archived ANI discussion and it seems that there are examples where silly edit summaries have been used (please do not do that). The discussion shows that BWilkins mentioned "possible sockpuppetry" in relation to this post where you said "I have used more than one account and in total I have done well over 80k edits on Wikipedia"—given that, the comment of "possible sockpuppetry" is completely in accord with normal practice here, and the correct response would be to provide a brief and unemotional explanation. Further, what BWilkins said about signatures going at the end of comments is (obviously) correct, and claiming that it's only a guideline is a misunderstanding of how things work at Wikipedia. I won't go on with the other points you raised because it is clear that the whole report is completely misguided. As a favor to you, someone might close this discussion before people start considering whether continuing a long debate about ephemera is sufficiently disruptive to warrant action. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit disappointing to see all that ABF and tl;dr misinformedness in one comment. If you are unwilling to spend some time reading, why write a comment? If what BWilkins said about signatures going at the end of comments is (obviously) correct why don't you edit the article Postscript? The debate about P.S. has nothing to do with its status as a information page, not a guideline, it has to do with the fact post scriptum is Latin and translates to "written after". Do I have to repeat everything here because you are unwilling to read it elsewhere? Tovalu (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC) P.S. And of course no one ever claimed there were never any silly editsummaries, but you would have to actually put the effort in to read if you wanted to understand the situation. P.P.S. If you wanted to understand the part of the conversation about sockpuppets that would require reading too. Feel free to comment again when you are done reading.

I've seen enough. Draw your own conclusions, folks :> Doc talk 10:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Faith in humanity lost. Thanks Johnuniq, you've just saved me a lot of work. Tovalu (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Folks, hope you don't mind a comment from me, the "other admin". I think all we have seen here is a series of over-reactions, which admittedly started with mine. My comments on Tovalu's Talk page and my taking it to ANI were heavy-handed, after I'd misunderstood a response - I'd read it as a refusal to consider my request, which I later came to see it wasn't. And I think it is very easy for misunderstandings to build upon misunderstandings and lead to things escalating in ways that would not usually happen with any of the participants. I do still think those edit summaries were inappropriate, and we have arrived at an amicable outcome that could have been achieved better - there were some ABF mistakes (including mine), but I think they were simply that, mistakes, and nobody meant any harm. I don't see any possibility of any admin action coming from this, and I really think the best thing to do now is for all participants to just let this drop. (PS: I'm also not offended by the WP:DICK comment, btw - with hindsight, it wasn't entirely inaccurate ;-) ) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  Oh, and if I may be forgiven for misquoting Monty Python...

  "How do you plead?"

  "Guilty, your honour, but humanity is to blame"

  "That's OK, we'll be charging them as well"

  -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  "Wink wink! Nudge nudge! Say no more! Say no more!" Doc talk 10:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  Always Look On The Bright Side of Life. Tovalu out. Tovalu (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Problems at Khazar

Khazars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Turmerick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been making some very POV edits [125] [126] without sources to the page. The most recent edit is this alarming post to the talk page, advocating the killing of some people. (It's possible I'm misreading this). More eyes would be desirable. The Interior (Talk) 22:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I also see it as an incitement to murder. A pointless incitement, perhaps, but I don't think you're misreading it. --NellieBly (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Calling it "an incitement to murder" might be stretching it just a bit, but it is clearly hate speech at an extreme level and can't be tolerated. At the very least, he needs a long cooling off period. For what it is worth, I believe a permanent block may be justified. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• While it may be his use of English rather than his intention that is the problem, his last couple of edits to Talk:Khazars are extremely problematic. I have therefore blocked him until such time as he provide a satisfactory explanation. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a WP:COMPETENCE issue more than anything else. Having gone through some of the editor's contributions, I don't think [s]he actually wants to kill anyone. Looks more like a young and impressionable Greek person who has spent way too much time in conspiracy theory forums and is trying to comment on ultranationalist/antisemitic comments to which [s]he became exposed there. In any case it seems unlikely that the editor will make any kind of useful contribution in the near future. Hans Adler 10:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Louis Bacon

Louis Bacon has been edited by a new account User:Lbninternational. The user seems to be trying to insert material critical of Mr. Bacon. This appears to be a username violation. However, the situation is complicated by the fact that Mr. Bacon, a very wealthy man, won a judgment a few months back in a London court that calls on the Wikimedia Foundation, the Denver Post and WordPress to reveal the identities of anonymous persons who attacked him online. Given the legal and public relations implications, I think that administrative attention is called for here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

In this case, legal action may be taken here. We would need someone to trace whoever this is and arrest them. Should we call the FBI? BusyBlacksmith (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Let's pay no attention to this comment. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but:

• The article's sources suggest that the Foundation doesn't feel it must comply with a court order from another country.
• Also, I have no idea what that court order said, but it's possible that it was about discovering the identities of previous pseudonymous editors of the article, rather than disclosing the identity of every future editor.

So, I don't think we have a legal storm on our hands just yet, although all BLPs deserve sensitive treatment. Anyway, the new editor is persistently adding a relatively solid source - and any text they're adding doesn't seem particularly ranty - so I think this is a new editor keen to work within wikipedia's rules, so it's possible for us to turn this round into something positive. bobrayner (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to imply that the FBI ought to be called or that anyone should be arrested, BusyBlacksmith, or that we have a "legal storm" on our hands, Bobrayner. I don't know why my report was taken that way. If the new editor goes on to be a productive user, then that is all well and good. But I think that the username is problematic, and that it is worthy of note that the subject of the article has sued our parent organization. If administrators don't feel that this is worthy of passing on to the Wikimedia legal team, then so be it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone in the jurisdiction of the court order (the UK} should be very careful what they add to that article. Also as there is a legal judgment on the article , returning to to semi protection would be a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I would protect it, but a. I just trimmed some of the fat from the article and b. I am personally invested in the topic since I am a member of WP:BACON. I haven't looked at the history yet, I will in a moment, but semi-protection would not be a bad idea. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Must... have ...MOORE BACON! --Blackmane (talk) 10:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

London courts have about as much jurisdiction over the U.S. as they have over the moon. Or less. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Refer to WP:OFFICE and let them decide now much protection/watching the article needs. Hasteur (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Junebea1's edits in Bad Girls Club-related articles

• Junebea1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a history of vandalizing Bad Girls Club-related articles. The user was first blocked by User:Master of Puppets on 27 September 2011 for adding a last name to a living person without a source for verification, multiple times after I and User:Master of Puppets had removed them. After he was lifted from his ban, he engaged in a WP:3RR edit warring with User:Alexgx [127]. Within 15 days, Junebea1 began showing signs of WP:OWN when he believed that the "notes" section of the article should appear to readers, his edit summary was "These will not be hidden because these instances have already occurred. Keep it how it is, or you will be blocked." which "Stop reverting my edits. We need to maintain consistency with the past seasons' pages, and this is how it is suppose to be. Stop or be blocked." followed [128]. The discussion on the Bad Girls Club (season 6) talk page was to hide the notes (though now I am more towards on having them appear to readers). I told the user about the discussion but never undid his edits, which I left alone, though my reply was to bring admin attention. After the user ignored many (many) warnings on his talk page and had been removing or adding content without consensus, I brought up a discussion on the talk page to help bring stability to the article. Junebea1's responses were "There is no "the" in the title of the Bad Girls Club though, so that will remain left out" and "I'm currently experimenting to the find the best color that works" which I addressed that changes like those should be made by the community (consensus) and not on what he thinks or feels is right. (Other WP:OWN comments "DO NOT remove any references ever, or you will be blocked. And Shannon is not Shelly or Cheyenne's name so stop vandalizing it or you will be blocked.", "Stop hiding them because it makes no sense. You will be blocked for vandalism. You have to follow the past seasons' pages. Don't hide nothing, it will confuse the readers. Also, Cheyenne was forcefully removed by Tiara, so it's called a removal.") On 25 October 2011, the user gave me a warning for no pair reason. He was subsequently warned by User:Calabe1992. When I had created Bad Girls Club (season 8) article on 14 November 2011, it soon caught the eyes of vandalizing IPs and was semi-protected several hours later. The next day, Junebea1 redirected the article to its new name and added unsourced content, fancruft and removed statements that were sourced by a WP:RS. I reverted his additions and removals however, he undid my edit and decided to remove all sourced information except the cast members first names on the article. After Juneabea1 had undid my edit he gave me another warning. I'm done with giving this user "last warnings" when they really do nothing to prevent Junebea1 from making contributions without consensus from the community. I think a temporary ban from editing Bad Girls Club-related articles is best, however, I'm not an admin so I'll leave this to you guys :) Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I found this diff where the user made a bad report to AIV. The report was modified by the bot and I then removed it, subsequently warning the user for a bad report. Aside from that, I don't recall that I've had any involvement here. Calabe1992 21:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Junebea made an incorrectly formatted report to AIV, the bot messed up the formatting even more, and Calabe deleted Junebeas report (without an edit summary), leaving a template (not a warning) on Junebeas talkpage. Is Calabe an administrator now that they are deciding which entries meet AIVs standards? Weakopedia (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Weakopedia, please read WP:HOUND. Calabe1992 01:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Bad Girls Club (season 8) page: I changed the title because the official title for the television show does not include "the". Also, I never added fancruft because all of the information that I added informs the reader about the previous locations of the show, which help differentiate the show's current location from the past ones. Also, I only removed the sourced information because there were discrepancies in the article regarding the hometown's of the girls'. For instance, the article lists Gia as being from Delaware, but then in her summary, it says she is a Jersey girl. That is unreliable information. I just think we should wait until the actual epiodes air before we add information that may be false. I would also like to apologize for any hasty decisions I made, and it won't happen again. Thank you--Junebea1 (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Calabe, please read WP:WATCH - my contributions to this page considerably predate any involvement I may have had with you, and you are not on my watchlist, unlike ANI, so you might like to read WP:AGF also. Weakopedia (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Aside from this growing WP:DRAMA, Junebea1 since you said that you are sorry I'm willing to let go of any admin attention, however, "won't happen again", what do you mean by this? Are you wiling to work as a team and not make controversial edits without consensus? Fancruft is the additional information, OR statements, that you added in the lead of the article. Saying that season 8 is the third or fourth season to be filmed out of LA, is orish (WP:OR) and itself is not verified. Of course your argument is that "since all the other seasons' have this, its ok to add this" WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument, I had told you that not everyone will have time to maintain articles that are not in shape, or will ever be, for any higher recognition. Furthermore, the articles are prime targets for IP vandalism, as you can see I've nominate most of the articles for semi-protection, though it only prevents IPs and not autoconfirmed users. By removing a statement that is source is not really a good thing here. If you had felt that the source (or author in this case) made a slight error, then tagging then statement as {{dubious}} is more suitable and discussing the reasoning behind this is more better then just removing it because you felt that the author made a mistake. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 13:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yourname, again

Yourname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back again, this time as 168.144.159.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). As of now, the IP has placed a personal attack on the talk page of Sjones2 (talk · contribs). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk page privs need to be removed from this IP. Doc talk 22:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Note - The IP is continually inserting a bogus threat and being reverted by multiple editors. Please semi the page now. Doc talk 22:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I second this.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Inserted a second edit in between in order to make it harder for reverts to occur.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Now we have 209.141.61.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).Jasper Deng (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of that, seems I reverted just as the user was reblocked with talk page access disabled. :D LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 23:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected User talk:Sjones2 and deleted all of the IPs' talk pages. He does not want to kill himself; he is just doing that to get attention. For other admins in the future, immediately revoke talk page access upon blocking. –MuZemike 23:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And another IP has appeared: 74.117.208.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Oh, dear! Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I put them on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yourname--1966batfan (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What a horror show. Please do the same for this IP: revoke talk page and delete the talkpage - it's the same thing. Doc talk 00:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• And now 68.233.235.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).Jasper Deng (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems this guy's going everywhere just disrupt our beloved Wikipedia. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No, he's just being childish. Kids these days just have to prove their ignorance. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like we'll be throwing out a couple of range blocks: 66.85.173.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).Jasper Deng (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Also looks like there may be some open proxies involved. One of the blocks is registered to NOC4Hosts, which IIRC got tagged as a botnet farm a couple of years ago. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposing community ban of Yourname

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.

As the ban proposal has been open for over 24 hours and has unanimous support, I am closing this as enacted, and will update the list of banned users accordingly. 28bytes (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

---

I'm surprised that this guy has not been banned yet. Let's just formalize it here. The abuse is just unacceptable and will give us more justification for rolling back (right now the only one is the elastic clause that says it can be used to prevent widespread disruption, as is here).Jasper Deng (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This should be forwarded to WP:LTA--1966batfan (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This would be a great compliment to that.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Clearly a disruptive editor with no intention of benefiting Wikipedia. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support full site ban to reduce the disruption by that user. I've been involved in this mess ever since I tried to stop him and has been persistently uncooperative. He has been vandalizing my pages as revenge for the SPI, and has caused more than enough trouble. I think an WP:LTA report should be filled out per the concerns by 1966batfan. Also, if those attacks are not called harassment, what else would it be called? With that said, it's really game over for this user. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • If that isn't enough, we may give him a global ban, which has been applied to only one other user before (this one).Jasper Deng (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Somebody needs to get over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yourname and approve CU for 6 sock reports I filed. This user should be kicked off the numero uno online encyclopedia.--1966batfan (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like an implicit support !vote.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Where are ban reports filed?--1966batfan (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Here or WP:AN.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per above comments and the fact that this is a troll. Doc talk 02:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  But... are we 100% positive that these IPs are Yourname? Doc talk 02:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  If they aren't they must be very good impersonators.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Very obviously needs to be banned. Calabe1992 02:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oh and I forgot this customary !vote. Support ban as proposer.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support given the history here, yes. Necessary; especially with the proxy-hopping. There is a very strong indication it is all the same people, if you look at DoDo Bird Brain (talk · contribs) who is blocked as a sock of Yourname - and the IP edits are clearly the same person as that. I hope people will note what MuZemike wrote, above: other admins in the future, immediately revoke talk page access upon blocking.  Chzz  ►  03:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Lots of heat, no light, and socks. Bad. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support unfortunately the socks are all factory seconds (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Nothing productive will ever come out of this editor. HurricaneFan25 13:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support a worthless waste of time. Night Ranger (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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

General discussion

Any new dirt on Yourname?--1966batfan (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The CU requests are still pending. Calabe1992 03:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the SPI, there is nothing else CU can do. –MuZemike 03:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think that there's a real possibility of global blockage and rangeblocks of those IPs because they're part of a known botnet.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh sheesh... 216.24.206.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Next 66.85.173.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Doc talk 04:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Please read CIDR notation if you don't understand. –MuZemike 04:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(I know CIDR notation by heart). The ranges don't have to include more than one of these IPs.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• 209.141.60.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ... and another on batfan's page. --McDoobAU93 04:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

When we use the term range blocks we mean blocks that cover more than 1 IP (I mean yes you probably can go for a /32 block but it would be pretty pointless). The term for single ip blocks tends to be just an ip block.©Geni 04:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is that at least some of these IPs are in known botnet ranges. Blocking those ranges might be helpful.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If they weren't so spread out, that wouldn't be much of a problem, but that is not the case. On a more positive note, I do have one /23 range locked down (though I don't know if that will do any good). –MuZemike 04:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Who says we need to do it in one range? I admit though that the ranges of each are large (the last one mentioned would required a /19 for full coverage). All we can do is wait and see.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, no talk page access should be allowed in the /23 you blocked.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not possible in the current MediaWiki software. However, we won't post any on that range, and I assure that. –MuZemike 14:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• In any case though, I think we have enough consensus to declare this guy officially banned from editing Wikipedia.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We can't declare consensus for a community ban yet, but I doubt it will change. Effective rangeblocks look unfeasible. So: revert the vandalism and trolling ASAP. Block, with talk page access removed. Rinse, lather, repeat. Hopefully they will get tired. Doc talk 05:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• One more: 66.23.233.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). HurricaneFan25 18:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There have been other ip problems as well. As well as this guy infesting wikipedia, we could have a Meat problem as well. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• And 91.118.93.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). HurricaneFan25 18:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like an edit filter addition would be most effective here, giving the large page range and IP hopping.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • If we need an edit filter, please file a request at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Botnet and bot

Botnets usually are organized in one DNS hierarchy. Perhaps, by a reverse-DNS lookup, we can use a bot to automatically block botnet IPs, since I've heard that at least some of these IPs belong to a botnet.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The term botnet is not helpful here. I've only ever seen one botnet on Wikipedia in all my time here. These are all common open web proxies. Admins if they are only editing their own talk page please check for existing rangeblocks before reblocking. Consider talk page protection instead. Others please list them at WP:OP where we can normally throw down some rangeblocks. The blocks will not prevent this user editing, but it all helps reduce the disruption from open proxies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Meghan.reilly

Resolved

 – User blocked and asked to contact committee Phearson (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, this is in regards to Chicago2011, a paid editor. A couple of days ago, Administrator Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry detected that Chicago was socking from multiple accounts and blocked him. The master is determined to be user:Meghan.reilly. Chicago/Meghan had made a appeal saying that he wasn't aware of the rules regarding multiple accounts, however, it was denied by reviewing Administrator JamesBWatson citing that Chicago/Meghan knew about the policy.

Later, User:SquarePotato approaches me on my talk page and claims to be User:Chicago2011, stating that his privilege to edit his talk page has been removed, and that he would no longer be making edits from that account anymore, and wanted clarification on the rules of Wikipedia. Another editor has asked him to not discuss his problem with me, but with the blocking administrator. There is a discussion currently active on chase's page, however nothing has been addressed in the last 5 days, and SquarePotato this morning has began to engage in normal editing on one of his target pages Vector Marketing on the talk page.

I am currently at a loss and conflicted on how to proceed at this point with this user. User:Meghan.reilly is not blocked or banned at this time, and is currently free to edit. However, the user claims that he/she has no access to this account, and it is unclear if this account belongs to a co-worker at the user's company. The user has not made an attempt to appeal his/her block again from User:Chicago2011 and has elected to use the account User:SquarePotato. I have an issue with this because of transparency issues and possibly that this is another socking violation. So... what to do? He has been very cooperative thus far, but the issues brought up need addressed. Phearson (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If Square Potato is claiming they're a sock of Chicago2011 (who in turn was claimed to be a sock of Meghan.reilly), you block them. The proper way for the editor is to use the Ban Appeals Subcommittee that is provided by ArbCom. The answer to being blocked from editing for socking is not to create annother sock. Hasteur (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Right then, could someone please block him and explain what he needs to do? I have reported this sock to WP:SPI. Phearson (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked SquarePotato and left a note on the SPI page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please also block user:Meghan.reilly as the sockmaster? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything terrible there, actually, so I'm not sure what the point would be. It never did anything but edit its own user page and hasn't made a single edit in a couple of months. I don't see how a block there would prevent any disruption. lifebaka++ 18:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Zippogeek, BFU

Resolved

Zippogeek (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added back information on a spurious fantasy-football group, "Bills Fans United" - including an apparently joking/vandalism link to Führer, and comments such as "up yours if you don't like it" [129] [130] [131] [132] The edits were interspersed with some more routine vandalism [133]

The user had been cautioned for it before, but yesterday/today I reverted some, and issued what I hope were appropriate warnings [134] [135]

After that final warning, the user re-inserted the info one more time, saying Oh no, you're going to ban me?! Well go ahead, jag-off...I have more logins and IP addresses than you've got brain cells [136]

I didn't request a block at that time (maybe I should have?) - instead, I tried to honestly ask why they were doing it [137]

However, subsequently the user has re-appeared (WP:DUCK) as Yourgoodbuddy (talk · contribs) [138] and Vandilsaurus (talk · contribs) [139]

I believe all three of those accounts should be blocked, I think it'd be worth a {{redflag|checkuser}} taking a look too, and/or possibly temp semi-prot of BFU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

I'm genuinely sorry if you think I should have reported it sooner, instead of attempting dialogue - but I don't think it really made much difference. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  05:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• User:Zippogeek blocked for a week, other 2 accounts indeffed, it may be worth starting an SPI just in case. Black Kite (t) 07:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Concur - SPI opened. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the (ongoing) help.  Chzz  ►  12:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Killed the {{redflag}} for checkuser attention, because I've processed the SPI. AGK [•] 12:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• I've just reverted again, indef blocked the latest sock, and semi-protected the page for 24 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't an edit like this result in something more than a two week block? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Blackkite extended the block to a month; I hadn't noticed that at the time I went digging through his contributions, but based on them I extended the block to an indef, and still would have regardless. Stuff like this, this and this, combined with the current disruption, vandalism and socking, clearly indicates he's WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Small sock army

Resolved

Can an admin block this small army of socks? They seem to have been created to do disrupt the Pregnancy article, which has been a hot bed of debate lately about nudity in articles.

• • User:Tsukasa Konata
  • User:Kagamin Hiraaagi
  • User:Sojiro Izumi

A master may be looming somewhere, as these are all SPAs so far.Heiro 20:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, being handled. Heiro 20:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Seeing the section title made me wonder if it was a army of small socks, or an army small in number. ;) Rockfang (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• SPI case here. WilliamH (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

History merge of Rometty articles is needed

I'm not sure if I am in the right place;according to WP:RFAA, since this is about a "redirect or page move issue" I should take it to WP:ANB. When I went there, the page notice says "If your post is about a specific problem you have..." and points me here. I don't know if my predicament is an "incident", but I'll assume this is the right place.

My issue is this: Eustress (t · c · b · p · d · m · r), after creating Ginni Rometty a few weeks ago, realized that I and others had been editing Virginia M. Rometty since 2008. Since he felt the article should be called Ginni Rometty, he (apologies in advance if I am guessing wrong about the gender) should have set aside the Ginni Rometty he had just created, moved Virginia M. Rometty to Ginni Rometty, then apply any changes he wanted after that. Instead, he turned three years of edit history into a single edit, and turned Virginia M. Rometty, the original article, into a redirect. Setting aside the open question (discussed here) as to whether the WP:COMMONNAME in this case should be Ginni Rometty, I feel it is incumbent upon Eustress to either do the history merge, or if as he says WP:INVOLVED is a issue, should help another admin do the merge. I used {{db-histmerge}} to request that the situation be rectified, but Anthony Appleyard declined, due to the intervening changes. I asked at Talk:Ginni Rometty if he would be willing to help with the merge, waited a week then asked him again to reply; I learned he thinks I've been disruptive (see User talk:Eustress and/or User talk:Eustress/Archive 2) and has chosen not to indicate whether he would help with the history merge.

I contend that given the minor number and limited scope of the intervening changes that editors other than Eustress have made to Ginni Rometty even at this point (see [140] & [141] and [142]), and given that Eustress, an admin confronted with this version of Ginni Rometty and this version of Virginia M. Rometty, should not have turned three years of edit history into a single edit, the right thing is for Eustress to do or help with the history merge. Thanks. 67.101.5.149 (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, ANI volunteers. Here are the facts:

• I created Ginni Rometty and, with the help of others, significantly expanded it.
• When we learned Virginia M. Rometty existed, I merged it into Ginni Rometty per WP:COMMONNAME. (It was my editorial mistake for not having spotted the Virginia article at the outset -- for that I have already apologized (diff).)
• Anon requested the histories of the two articles be merged, and an uninvolved admin (User:Anthony Appleyard) declined the request (diff) per WP:Parallel histories.
• Anon has been pushing me to overturn Anthony's decision (WP:Wheel war), when I am also an involved editor in the article (WP:INVOLVED)
• I instructed anon twice (diff 1, diff 2) to reach out to uninvolved admin Anthony for clarification regarding the decision, which he has failed to do

Hence, since anon has failed to seek understanding from the uninvolved admin and continues to insist that I take administrative action when I am involved, I feel anon is being disruptive and that this issue has been inappropriately escalated to ANI. Even so, it's here, and I trust the community's judgment on the matter. Cheers! —Eustress ^talk 13:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Page Ginni Rometty started at "21:52, 25 October 2011‎ Eustress (talk | contribs | block)‎ (1,005 bytes) (Create as stub)"; after that Virginia M. Rometty was edited 4 more times. User:Eustress seems to have cut-and-pasted the text of page Virginia M. Rometty into page Ginni Rometty gradually over 7 edits of page Ginni Rometty around 05:00, 26 October 2011, not a total tidy single cut-and-paste that could have been histmerged easily. Regrettably, this is one of those untidy cases where all we can do it to put a history note in its talk page explaining what happened. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• I believe all my interactions on talk pages have been civil and appropriate. I also think they were not disruptive, but Eustress' parenthetical reference to WP:Wheel war at least helps me understand why he suddenly started using the term. To be clear, I brought this up here as a step toward a "clear discussion leading to a consensus decision" (WP:WW) and in no way should this be considered a criticism of Anthony Appleyard.

As Ginni Rometty's revision history makes clear, the use of "we" by Eustress in his summary of the facts should be consider as the author's plural, and not literally. It was he (not "they") who noticed Virginia M. Rometty already existed, and he (not "they") chose to merge content instead of preserving the history by moving Virginia M. Rometty first. It is that culpability, combined with the limited number and scope of the non-Eustress changes to Ginni Rometty, that make me think Eustress should do (or help do) the nitty-gritty work of producing a combined version of the two Rometty articles that better reflects, however imperfectly, the history of the article since 2008. 67.101.5.123 (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• The history of these articles is that: Article A = Virginia M. Rometty existed for a long time. Then someone started a parallel article B = Ginni Rometty. Then around 05:00, 26 October 2011‎ someone text-merged A into B and not vice-versa. History-merge after text-merge is not a good idea: see WP:Parallel histories. Shuffling lengths of edit history about here would serve largely to obscure the history of these two articles. Also, I would have to cut one article's history at the text-merge point to relink the other history, as when two articles are text-merged, their histories run together and become one history after that. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• I added {{Copied}}s to Talk:Virginia M. Rometty and Talk:Ginni Rometty. After the duplication had been discovered, using G7 on Ginni Rometty and contributing directly to Virginia M. Rometty instead of merging would have been much cleaner. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

user:Daccono

Resolved

Can someone look at the contributions of this account? In 16 months, this account amassed 93 edits. His content editing is very light, other than John Hunyadi article where he is one of the top contributors. But recently the only activity of this account is restoring the edits of the site banned user:Iaaasi who is also under Wp:RFAR sanctions on top of his site ban. For example one of the latest sockpuppet of Iaaasi was Berchea Who only made very few edits merged for convenience here the Daccono account made the following edits [143] [144]. Also compare user:Alexeyev (Iaaasi sock) [145] and Daccono [146] Alexeyev again [147]and Daccono. user:Keeeeper (Iaaasi sock) [148] and Daccono This account was also blocked even though it made very few edits [149]. Does anyone have any thoughts or advice for this case? Please review the full contributions of this account and share your thoughts. Does these contributions look like that of a regular wikipedia editor's? Hobartimus (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have requested an SPI. We'll see what that brings. Calabe1992 21:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Other activities include various complaints and reports and reverts against people who are enforcing / supported Iaaasi's site BAN. I believe the best example is this in which among other things this account is accusing me that my aim is the "complete neutralization of Iaaasi 's sockpuppets". Now mind you he is talking about the sockpuppets of a site banned user, not just any sockpuppets. So not only WP:SOCK applies, WP:BAN, and arbitration enforcement applies as well (AE regarding Iaaasi). So against so many policies being violated at the same time isn't his "admiration" for Iaaasi a bit over the top? So what should be done here? Please note also that Iaaasi being an extremely experienced sockpuppeter and one who have already demonstrated usage of both proxies and meatpuppets (accounts created to post to wikipedia what he writes) CheckUser is not relevant to this case and instead the contributions should be examined and compared to that of Iaaasi and sockpuppets. Hobartimus (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Take your comments to the SPI page also and leave them there. Calabe1992 21:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did, however, Daccono's edits are problematic even if he were not a meatpuppet of Iaaasi. Therefore I ask any admins looking at this, to really look at Daccono's contributions for a good while and analyze them. Please take the time it's not that many edits only 93 in more than a year. Please look through the contribs whether there is anything there that would be a net positive for the project. Hobartimus (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. Almost certainly a sockpuppet. Calabe1992 02:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblocks Requested

Per this ANI thread, I am requesting further rangeblocks on the 95.31.124.46 and 78.106.46.173 ranges. They appear to be also associated with the indef blocked User:Ron Halls and is on the same ISP, "Ojsc Vimpelcom" located in Moscow, Russia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• See also (at least) 176.15.89.46 and 2.92.80.62 ranges - the same person? ("Ojsc Vimpelcom" - "Corbina" has several wide ip ranges, so it's always uneasy to block users from this provider in ruwiki) OneLittleMouse (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• I blocked your two IPs, Homer, though it's useless, more than likely--some smarter person should figure out what should be done in what range. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Again with the range blocks. Why are we so quick with the range blocks all the time? Range blocks should absolutely the last resort.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, being that the person has passed the DUCK test as being the indef blocked User:Ron Halls (I think I posted this above), then rangeblocks are perfectly reasonable. Also, in the ANI thread (linked above), it is discussed that the user has a history of posting annoying threads and taking up community time trying to get copyrighted Beatles sound files uploaded to Wikipedia. So, again, yeah, the rangeblocks are perfectly reasonable at this point. I really wish people would clink on those neat little links in the threads.
    • OneLittleMouse: Pretty much anything from "Ojsc Vimpelcom" could be used by Ron Halls, so I would rangeblock it all for at least a month.
    • Drmies: Hey, at least that stops him for a couple until rangeblocks are in place. Thanks. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Request interaction ban between User:SergeWoodzing and User:Pieter Kuiper

A dispute has popped up at the dispute resolution noticeboard (thread link) involving SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs) and Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs), among other users. The disputes themselves can be found here and here. As part of the DRN post, Serge Woodzing requested an interaction ban between himself and Pieter Kuiper. I have been involved in informal mediation between these two users before on Talk:Throne of a Thousand Years, and so I am familiar with the issues involved; I thought that Serge's request was reasonable, and so I have forwarded it here. The disputes between these two users have appeared on ANI many times before, as can be seen from these ANI threads: [150][151][152] (also see that last link for links to six more). Recently, Pieter has also voluntarily agreed to an interaction ban with Serge on commons.[153]

At the previous ANI discussions there wasn't any consensus for an interaction ban, and it was felt that there were also problems with Serge's edits that Pieter was legitimately correcting. I think that the issues this time round are much the same, and that there are legitimate concerns with the content involved. However, both users are also showing well-worn patterns of behaviour with respect to each other, with Pieter being pointy/abrasive regarding Serge's edits, and Serge being defensive and asking Pieter to leave him alone, coupled with pleas to outside editors. I see no changes in these interaction patterns despite various reasoned attempts to get them to cooperate with each other over the years, and I don't think either editor is capable of being neutral in interactions with the other. Because of this, I think some sort of interaction ban is warranted just to prevent further drama. I would like opinions from the community about whether, and what kind, of restrictions may be necessary. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

They've clashed at Commons also.[154] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've commented on some earlier SW-PK disputes.[155][156] My suggestion is that SW branch out for a while into topics that PK hasn't shown interest in. 1RR for each of them towards the other's edits might help, with encouragement to discuss issues civilly. Some informal mentoring for SW might also help. I'm not sure I can get behind an interaction since SW has done some rather poor editing in areas where not many editors other than PK have the knowledge to notice the errors. We might instead have to consider a topic restriction against SW, if lesser approaches don't decrease the hostilities. However, that view is based on diffs that I looked at almost a year ago, so maybe things have changed since then. 69.111.194.36 (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have never actually needed to "branch out for a while into topics that PK hasn't shown interest in" (though I appreciate the idea in principle), simply because I never seek him out, stalk him, check on what he's up to or edit anything that he is involved in without my being there first. Never. Ever.

He has very often gotten involved in topics that I already have shown interest in. Kuiper's history on enWP shows that one of his his main interests is trying to police me, and the way he has stalked me to try to do so shows the same abrasive, vindictive behavior he has shown on Commons. He is the one that is usually found wrong here (as statistics will show) and his main objective is to bug me and start fights, not to contribute in a valuable manner to enWP.

Accusations against me of "rather poor editing" cannot be substantiated in fact, and Kuiper has no expertise whatsoever in the areas where I usually work, such as Swedish history. I do. If enWP doesn't want to appreciate that, it would be sad for me and for WP. Please note that I am the one requesting this, not Kuiper, just like the one that was negotiated with him on Commons, where it was documemnted how he stalks and bugs other editors too. He always has a personal, not a helpfully informational, agenda.

I make a lot of mistakes, like we all do, and as I said at Commons, I am always very interested in all civil, constructrive help in correcting them. I am not interested, though, in being hounded by Kuiper for several more years, or in agreeing to his being given free reign to add more things like the huge penis image to articles about people like Queen Sophia Magdalena of Sweden to slur her reputation posthumously, as I see it, in an article where the image isn't that relevant to her life story.

I try very hard to edit in a neutral and balanced manner and to add valuable info, but I have added a few personal-name exonyms at times which I knew of as factual, but in a very few caess was not able to source properly. If it can be shown that I have done any other "poor editing" than that, or that I have ever stalked anyone or been sarcastic and rude to anyone who has been civil to me, please show me those errors, so that I may mend my ways!

The ban on Commons had the prerequisite that Kuiper, if he sees that I have made any mistakes that need correcting, could inform another neutral editor to deal with that rather than acting on it himself. Excellent solution. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

PS I would love to have a mentor. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I also like the mentoring + 1RR suggestion. This might be too much to ask, but I don't suppose we have any Swedish-speaking mentors willing to take this on? I don't think speaking Swedish is essential to the task by any means, but it would help in a few areas such as sourcing, and in the two editors' dealings on the Swedish Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What is "1RR"? And could we please have a natural English-speaking mentor rather than a Swede, as the questions are more often about the English language than about matters Swedish? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I found "1RR". Since PK always reverts me first, whereas I never revert him first, it seems he'd be free to bug me, but I'd be hampered in trying to correct it. Am I wrong? SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify: of course it can be important at times that an English editor understand a short passus of Swedish in order to be able to decide something. I always try to provide computer generated translations when necessary, through websites generally available, and have never found them too unclear or faulty. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)1RR means that you are only allowed to revert the other's edits once in every 24-hour period on a given article. Adding content is not a revert - unless it is content that the other editor has removed at some point in the past. So if you added some new content, then Pieter could revert you one time (he then reaches 1RR), then you could revert his reversion (you then reach 1RR), but neither of you could revert any more until 24 hours is up. Of course, it would be better to just take it to the talk page without reverting, and find a consensus there; but 1RR allows you the freedom to revert when you absolutely have to, while still keeping things tightly controlled. With consensus here we could also change the time period for any 1RR rule, from one revert every 24 hours to, say, one revert every week. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! 24 hrs fine with me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

A note: SergeWoodzing claims to have expertise in Swedish history. He feels that enwp should appreciate him and his expertise. But he does not offer any credentials. Just rhetoric. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Kuiper does not disclose here that long ago he received a list of 500+ valuable and rare historical biographies and other books, the vast majority being academic work, a private collection that I have daily access to when needed to try to provide reliable sources. Shall I post it here again? I also usually have access to Sweden's National Library as I stay only a few blocks from there when in Stockholm, where I usually am, and I have done quite bit of research there to find good references for WP. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the Jacob Truedson Demitz collection! But there are more people with a few meters worth of books on history. Access to books does not imply expertise. As an example: Demitz is a retired hotel manager, with Swedish royalty as a hobby. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that the so-called "huge penis image" is a cartoon that was drawn in 1770,[157] it apparently has at least some historical notability, and it's still in the article. According to the talk page there was a big debate on Swedish Wikipedia about whether to include it in the sv.wp article, and consensus was to include it. I don't have an opinion on that point, other than that its inclusion or non-inclusion is a legitimate editorial question (i.e. its original inclusion wasn't vandalism or anything like that). I'm not aware of PK having had much involvement in that particular decision (he got into the en.wp talkpage discussion later), though I made no attempt to check on sv.wp and may have missed stuff elsewhere. By my examination here (Dec 2010), SW had at that time concentrated in a fairly narrow range of topics (almost all related to European royals), thus my suggestion that he explore some other areas for a while. 69.111.194.36 (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

How about if I just quit, rather than "explore some other areas for a while" where I have less knowledge and less ready access to reliable sources, not to mention less interest? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, I think the voluntary interaction ban solution found on commons might work well for us here as well. We could have a similar stipulation that if Pieter finds anything wrong with Serge's edits he can make those issues known to a third party, who can then bring up the issue with Serge. So, Pieter, would you be willing to submit to a voluntary restriction like this? I would be willing to act as the go-between if you want, but if you would rather it be someone else then I quite understand. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^♫ 06:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not see why I should. Woodzing has developed an allergy against me. But I have done nothing wrong. I have now caught him misrepresenting the position of Svanberg. Woodzing does not like to be exposed like that. He should not escape scrutiny. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The rationale for for restricting interactions between you and Serge has little, if anything, to do with the actual content involved. It is to do with the interactions themselves, which tend to become very hostile, and turn into time sinks for other editors who have to deal with them. This is not about letting Serge "escape scrutiny", which is why both I and the IP above have proposed restrictions where you would still be able to voice your concerns indirectly. This is about keeping Wikipedia a cooperative and collegial environment so that people can get on with building an encyclopaedia.

You may not think there is anything wrong with comments like this one which Serge pointed out above, but in my opinion this kind of comment only sours the atmosphere and prevents people from getting real work done. I am guessing that there is a constructive message somewhere behind that edit that could be used to benefit the encyclopaedia; however, I'm afraid that that message got lost, because your comment comes across as accusatory and inflammatory. Ideally, the way we would deal with this is for you to simply point out any problems with Serge's edits in a nice way, to keep the conversation calm and avoid making him defensive. However, at this stage, I think any interaction between you would probably be taken in bad faith by the other, hence the suggestion of restricting your interactions somehow. It would be great to have your cooperation so that we can settle this in the most amicable way possible. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In my world, words like these are inflammatory when they are done a minute after edit warring. Look, I show restraint. I could use words that are a lot stronger than what I did about Woodzing misrepresenting the position of Svanberg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone get Kuiper to refrain from making false, insulting accusations like that here too? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Woodzing has now withdrawn some of his claims because there was no support for that in the reference to Svanberg's book; see also Talk:Duchies in Sweden#Svanberg's opinions. That was after I had borrowed to book from the town library. Before that, Woodzing stated repeatedly and very emphatically that his claims were supported by Svanberg. He could not accept a scholarly review as a reason to reconsider his reading of Svanberg, and he called my objections "insulting accusations", etcetera. This kind of behaviour makes collaborative editing difficult. Not everybody has access to the sources that Woodzing refers to. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

These commenst are obsolete by now. Everything has now been properly sourced in that paragraph, and there are many more references available if needed. The only thing that has not been referenced is Kuiper's misquote of the article text about the first duke, where it says one of the first dukes. I never cite anything that has not been properly published and is available through public libraries. The arguing goes on and on to take up our time over and over and over, , merely out of spite towardc me, and Kuiper keeps ending up wrong at every turn. When we began this latest spat Dr Kuiper (Physics, not History) he didn't even know of Svanberg's famous photo of Birger Jarl wearing his ducal coronet. So tedious! SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal voluntary mandatory interaction ban as otherwise specified as per by Mr. Stradivarius above. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support some kind of interaction ban. Either these two get a room, or they are made to stop bitching up the drama boards. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• After briefly looking over this thread, I would support an interaction ban between the two. It seems that they cannot work together without arguing - an interaction ban would probably benefit both of them, as well as Wikipedia. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support a mandatory interaction ban, as the user that forwarded the request here. I also recommend that the users be allowed to communicate via a trusted third party/third parties as happened on commons, with the proviso that this privilege be taken away if it is abused. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  Leaving a time stamp to prevent automatic archiving today, as it would be nice to have more input on this from neutral editors first. If anyone thinks this should be archived today instead, feel free to remove this comment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• I guess there's not really much choice about the interaction ban. Mr. Stradivarius's suggestion seems ok to me. I wish PK would tone down his hostility, as I've said several times before. There is all kinds of unspeakably bad and often evilly motivated editing on Wikipedia, but that's not what we're dealing with here. SW's editing is just a bit unskillful some of the time. In dispute resolution I think it's best to treat bad editing as a scientific phenomenon that one can observe and describe neutrally instead of personalizing it. I wish PK would consider that approach.

  To SW regarding switching topics for a while: yes, editing areas that you find interesting but don't have much knowledge in is often better than editing areas were you know a lot but are also deeply invested. 67.119.3.194 (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC) [address changed from 69.111.194.36]

I respect your opinion, IP 67.119.3.194, and assume it's based on good experience you've had, but I am not able to understand such advice. To me that's like telling someone interested in certain topics, and able to provide valuable info and reliable references on those topics to quit. Sort of like work on something you find boring, dearie! - WP will love you for that, and we really don't care if you're bored. Contribute, that's the only thing we care about. Or go away!. That's pretty exactly how it feels, to me.

Perhaps, with all due respect, you should consider for a moment that that advice probably often can be taken as a polite and artfully considerate exhortation to quit? It certainly isn't inspiring to me, for me to try to continue to contribute valuably, in areas where I am able to do so.

I'd much rather be questioned constructively in the work I feel like doing, in case I've made more mistakes, but not attacked over and over and over in such a vindictinve, spiteful manner as what is being discussed here. I respond quite well to constructive criticism of my work, but it's rather sad to be limited to clearly boring assignments when you are taking up your time doing charity work. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

PS perhaps I should have clarified that interested and qualified go together like a horse and carriage for many people when they choose to do work they really do not need to do. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• I can only support this interaction ban as long as the problem doesn't simply transfer to whomever is next to address the issues with Serge's edits. This thread, in which Pieter Kuiper plays no part, does not bode well.--Atlan (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would it "transfer to whomever is next to address the issues with Serge's edits"? Is the any evidence to suggest that? I have never complained to anyone about User:OpenFuture have I? We had a lively discussion and finally agreed. Don't we all do that? Is every lively discussion supposed to be held against me here, where the case actually is about years of stalking with all kind of ridicule and insults? Are intercation bans only approved if requested by editors who never have had lively discussions (that ended up in agreement)? I think I can guarantee, after all these years, that that would not happen, anywhere as serious as here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

PS OK, yes, I have questioned the qualifications of User:Andejons at times when I feel he has gone overboard in posing as a (1) history expert and (2) expert on the English language. I have also reacted poorly to his sarcasm at times. I don't like sarcasm. Even so, he and I have managed, often with difficulty, to cooperate in adjusting several texts beneficially. I don't see any major problem between him and me in the future, unless (as I have suspected on occasion) his fellow academic Physics friend Kuiper calls upon him to do some of his dirty work. Andejons is not all ego. Neither am I. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

PS2 And Andejons makes many very valuable contributions to historical articles here and at svWP, so it's worthwhile to try to work with him. After all these years, I cannot honestly say the same about Kuiper. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

SW (re above): no I'm not trying to get you to quit and I don't want you to quit. If I did, I'd have opposed the interaction ban so PK could keep hassling you until you couldn't stand it any more. I supported the ban in the end because I don't want for us to lose you. But as encyclopedists, we usually consider it a healthy thing to edit in multiple areas. Someone who edits exclusively in a narrow topic and gets in friction with other editors in it is called an SPA (single-purpose account) and it is often (not always) associated with editors causing problems due to being wrapped up in their subject enough that they can't edit neutrally in it without first acquiring the skills some other way. So I'm not suggesting doing stuff you find boring, but rather, that you take an opportunity to explore new and interesting things. Wikipedia is full of fascinating corners that generally don't require much specialized knowledge to edit, and visiting them can be very enjoyable.[158] 67.119.3.194 (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, 67.119.3.194! I do at times, and it is. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Curious multiple account attack on CueCat

Over the past couple of months, there has been a round of attempts to whitewash the marketing disaster that was the CueCat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), featuring a series of WP:SPAs editing it and a couple of related articles. My impression is that this is all related to some real-world project of one J. Hutton Pulitzer, who, as J. Jovan Philyaw, was the inventor of the device. He was also he host of Net Talk Live!, which is being edited by some of the same people editing CueCat and which is presently at AFD here. All of these edits appear aimed at rehabilitating his reputation.

(Fixed bad link to AfD in above text. --John Nagle (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

The cast of characters is as follows:

• Ran kurosawa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited CueCat, created Net Talk Live!, and made both attempts to create an article on Pulitzer
• Proofplus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) eventually blocked for spamming
• Factiod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also blocked, first for edit warring and then for talk page abuse
• Technoratti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about to hit that WP:3RR wall

While there is some difference of style among them it is hard not to conclude that they are all either sockpuppets or in some sort of collusion. There is a counterinsurgency effort on the part of several editors (I'm only somewhat peripherally involved, having caught this in the articles for creation phase) who are expending a great deal of what ought to be unnecessary effort keeping these articles in order. Possibly this should have been taken to one of the other noticeboards, but in particular the connection between User:Ran kurosawa and the others only shows up in the editing targets, not in style. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just requested full protection for the article to see if that gets everything moved to the talk page, as well as giving editors the chance to investigate the possibility of sockpuppetry. --McDoobAU93 18:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like this is worth a trip to WP:SPI.  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me, and more are likely to show up. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As one of the participants in the "counterinsurgency effort", I think that Mangoe has it pretty much right. An earlier sockpuppet investigation of two of these editors found no evidence, but checkuser WilliamH put forward meatpuppetry as the best theory. Proofplus and Technoratti have the interesting quirk of calling Wikipedia articles "records" (unusual) and use of CAPS for emphasis (more common, of course). All are SPAs and repeatedly try to use unreliable blogs and the like as references. It seems pretty clear to me that all these accounts are "on assignment", as it were, to enhance the reputation of J. Jovan Philyaw AKA J. Hutton Pulitzer, and his inventions and other ventures. Just yesterday, two of these editors tried to use a Baja California tourism blog as a "reliable source" regarding technology and patent rights. The source that blog cited? Another blog controlled by Philyaw/Pulitzer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that an SPI case needs to happen but I've also semi-protected the page since it appears to be mostly new user accounts. I doubt a SPI will stop them, but it will shed light on whether or not this is an organized effort or a single person.--v/r - TP 19:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The semi-protection will help, thanks. I reopened the SPI report of Ran kurosawa ([159]). Mangoe has since commented on it. I originally opened it with Ran kurosawa because of the timing of Technoratti's edit, but I added a note about Proofplus because Technoratti's style is much closer to Proofplus's. I might add that Proofplus was indeffed for more than just "spamming". It was a case of escalating blocks with more and more privileges being removed because of her incredibly disruptive behavior before and after the block. There's no doubt in my mind that this is an orchestrated effort. Whether it's sock puppetry, meat puppetry, or some combination of the two, I don't know.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Factoid claimed to be some sort of [160] [161] patent examiner updating stuff for accuracy. Proofplus was some sort of 'researcher' interested in patents [162]. Ran kurosawa was some sort of 'research expert' [163]. I don't know what's going on here but all of these 'experts' suddenly showed up to try and correct the record. As has been mentioned, last check suggested they weren't related. As a note, Ran kurosawa also tried to start a copyvio article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/J. Hutton Pulitzer copied from what appears to be the official site for JHP and later said (in the now deleted page) that they had permission to use the content in wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing recent promotional efforts for ScanCommerce (bit of an unfortunate name I would have to say, one typo and...) and JHP on the wider internet [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169], so I guess it's not surprising we're at risk of some sort of related promotional activity. Nil Einne (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

scancommerce.org is the second blog I mentioned above. These folks seem to have a grudge against Mark Cuban for a passing remark about the CueCat he made 11 years ago. No activity from them on Cuban's page yet, but I've put it on my watch list just in case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If they're going after Cuban, Dallas Mavericks might be worth watching too assmuing we aren't giving them ideas of course! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Counterinsurgency" makes it sound like I've had a flag flying from my mop. :) I agree with the earlier assessment that there are probably multiple people involved with this editing campaign, due to the differences in editing style. The other commonality in style has been that the editors all seem to feel they're the authoritative source on CueCat, even though they aren't providing reliable sources (and in many cases are going against the sourced information in the article). In my experience, it's the kind of things that's down the path to ownership: when I've seen users editing on behalf of a subject, they tend to feel that they have an exclusive right to edit because they're working on behalf of the subject, even though that's almost the polar opposite of the COI guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think some of the styles are quite smilar (illiterate and phrases like "on the record" or something like that). That's why I think it's a combination of different kinds of puppetry. No matter what it is, it's absolutely disruptive, and, in my view, the only question is how to most efficiently stop it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Having been somewhat involved in the 'counterinsurgency' myself (largely by accident - a single revert of mine led to major drama), I'm inclined to think that the solution lies with constraining the article to its topic (an obsolete bar-code reader) rather strictly, and making it clear that the broader issues of vaguely-connected intellectual property rights are of no interest to Wikipedia. The CueCat is interesting in its way as an example of internet-bubble-era technology, but the minutiae of patent disputes etc are about as encyclopaedic as a bus timetable, unless and until independent sources say otherwise - which seems unlikely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. People looking for an encyclopedia article about the CueCat want to know about the CueCat, not about the actions of its promotor's crack team of law-ninja. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• The SPI case for this can be found here. As I said, I find it  Possible to  Likely that Proofplus is evading their block under the account Technoratti. WilliamH (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations of fraud and criminal activity

Can a few experienced editors please take a look at the histories of Talk:Trident University and Talk:Northcentral University? One or more unregistered editors are using these Talk pages to wave vague accusations of criminal activity and fraud at these universities. If there were anything substantiating these accusations then it might be worth discussing how or if to incorporate that material into the articles. But the editors have provided no evidence and I believe that unfounded accusations of criminal behavior and fraud are completely out of bounds for Wikipedia Talk pages. I have removed the discussions a few times but have been reverted each time. I'm completely comfortable with my actions but outside input and - if necessary - additional help is welcome. ElKevbo (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

IP addresses are all from AT&T, geolocate to California (mostly San Jose) and seem fairly similar. Wouldn't be surprised if this is one person trying to cause trouble by using dynamic IP's to argue with himself. Ravensfire (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This was archived but I've pulled it out in hopes of getting a substantive response from someone. If this editor(s) continues to edit war and make these accusations then I will continue to remove them unless an editor in good standing objects. ElKevbo (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I threw a {{notforum}} template on there. I'll throw warnings on their pages too.--v/r - TP 13:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Cyrrhus, etc

I am here as I wish to make a complaint about a page move, Cyrrhus, Syria to Cyrrhus, and the manner in which it was carried out ( I'm not sure the best place to make it).
This page had been the subject of a request move (Cyrrhus, Turkey to Cyrrhus, Syria); this was resolved on 12th November (See discussion, now here).
On 14th November the page was moved again, without discussion or agreement, to Cyrrhus: this would have involved the deletion of the existing Cyrrhus page (a dab page), which was also done without discussion. One of the pages involved was labelled for a speedy deletion; when I queried this, it was ignored, and the page deleted anyway. I have contacted the editors involved but got no reply, and requested discussion without result, so now am bringing it here in the hope of getting an answer. Moonraker12 (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The requested move that I see here resulted in a third option, simply renaming to Cyrrhus to remove the geographical conflict ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The other place that was originally included on the disambig page is actually called Kyrros. Cyrrhus is clearly the primary topic and doesn't seem to need any disambiguation to me, and it seems in keeping with naming standards to just call it Cyrrhus and use hatnotes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the DAB in accordance with WP:TWODABS. There is no question that this location is in fact in Syria territory. But as you can see here, other historic locations in Syria do not usually have a "comma-Syria" in their Wiki titles. IMO, it is anachronistic to attach the name of a modern state to a Roman military HQ. Kauffner (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There were several options floated in the discussion but the request was to move to Cyrrhus, Syria, and that’s how the matter resolved itself. I asked if it was OK to close it, and no-one demurred.
Then (Kauffner) you took it upon yourself to move it somewhere else, without the courtesy of floating the idea first. And you presumably didn’t delete the Cyrrhus dab page yourself, but tagged it for CSD, labelling the deletion “uncontroversial”, which seems a little economical with the truth. And when I raised an objection with you, which ought to stop a CSD process, you ignored that and carried on, which I’d say is pretty high-handed.
Also, there are at least six places listed in category you’ve linked that use that format, so there’s nothing cut-and-dried about the move you advocated at all. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

All the others using that formula have multiple locations with the same name. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Not that it should matter, but I was not the editor who moved the talk page, as you can see here. Kauffner (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The article had been moved as described from Cyrrhus, Syria to Cyrrhus, Syria along with the talk page on January 5 by Nedim Ardoğa[170], who reversed the moved on November 11 after it was found to be in error. On November 14, Anthony Bradbury moved the page from Cyrrhus, Syria to Cyrrhus where it currently resides. However the talk page was not moved. On November 15, Nyttend mistakenly moved the redirect at Cyrrhus, Syria to Talk:Cyrrhus with the edit summary Move title of talk page to match that of corresponding article page.[171] Later the same day I moved the actual talk page from Talk:Cyrrhus, Syria to Talk:Cyrrhus. [172] I don't think there is much more to discuss other than perhaps a lack of communication. older ≠ wiser 12:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Kauffner:To be clear, Cyrrhus (the dab page) was tagged (presumably by you: "I deleted the DAB") for an “uncontroversial” deletion and move, which was done by an uninvolved admin. You also (presumably) tagged the talk page, which was picked up by another admin; when I queried that with you and him it was deleted and moved anyway (and as it was done in a hurry, and botched, it had to be done again (by a third admin (your link).

So, this “well, it wasn’t me” line is a bit disingenuous, don’t you think?

Elen:My complaint isn’t that K had no grounds for his opinion on the matter, it's in the way he went about it. There were five others in the discussion, none of whom took him up on his proposal the first time round, but he never bothered to check; he assumed he was right, and played the system to get what he wanted.

So this “all’s well that ends well” approach doesn’t really cut it; an acknowledgement that this should have been done better probably would. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally, an "It all worked out fine, but wasn't done as well as it could have been" situation does not require admin attention or intervention. Specifically, an editor being Bold and implementing a solution that is more in keeping with Wikiedia's naming conventions, MOS, etc than the initially proposed one, is fine. On both counts, complaining about it here is just wasting everyone's time - it really is time to drop the stick now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you don't see it, you don't see it; fair enough, it's dropped. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Besides, if you really want to bring the 'shouldn't have done that' in to the discussion, as an involved user you shouldn't have closed the move discussion. There were 2 users in the move discussion supporting a move to Cyrrhus and the fact it was not the original suggested move does not stop a consensus being formed on a move to Cyrrhus. I'm not an admin and I don't close moves but while more discussion would have been ideal I would suggest a close as a move to Cyrrhus was a fair call although a better idea would probably have been relist for more discussion and as a move to Cyrrhus. The only argument against such a move seems to have come from you and to be frank 'either move involves a deletion, and it makes more sense to go back to the original title than to delete the dab page' is not a great policy based argument as there's no reason why deleting an unnecessary disambiguation is wrong or undesirable. The only thing is perhaps the original title would be the default option if there is no consensus, but saying there's no consensus doesn't really influence any consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay….I was advised to drop it, and that’s fine by me; what I don’t need is a parting kick.

The page had already been moved back when I suggested closing, and no-one said “hang on, what about another options” though Kauffner (at least) visited the discussion after I did. So I don’t see what was improper about rounding the discussion off; it’s what the RM tag was saying to so.

And it would have been “a better idea ...to relist for more discussion”? that’s what I’m saying should have been done. So I’m not only being criticized for what I did, but for what the other guy didn’t do as well? Bloody hell! Moonraker12 (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an ANI issue any more so I'll reply on your talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Mughal Lohar

I'm about to take a real Wikibreak, I hope (if I can control myself), and would like eyes on this editor if not action now. Besides the sock puppetry and copyvio (including copying material today from other articles without attribution) they do not seem very interested in communicating and continue to refuse to use edit summaries despite frequent requests. Thanks. I'll notify them and see if they will communicate here. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

For reference: Mughal Lohar (talk · contribs). Curious as to the response we're going to get. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I'd done that, careless of me. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is actually what action do we take about this editor, seeing the latest comments at Talk:Aurangzeb#Copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got that article watched now too. I think all we can do if he carries on making such changes to it, under a serious suspicion of copyvio, is block him until we get some response from him. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, can someone check if the references he's using actually match what he wants to say in the article Muhammad Shah, please? Latest edits used Google Books search snippet view (which I converted from bare URLs to cite book, but lacking page numbers), and prior to that someone accused him of using fakery. Still not using edit summaries. WP:Gaming the system? See User talk:Mughal Lohar. Many thanks, Esowteric+Talk 19:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Persistent spammers on DarkEden article

Several IPs, and several usernames all apparently linked to the fansites/private server pages they're trying to insert into the article. Eik Corell (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 24 hours; if the spamming resumes after that, WP:RFPP can protect it for longer. 28bytes (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Send up the links to blacklist - sorts things out with minimal drama. Rklawton (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Arab Spring

Resolved

A request for semi-protection was made for the Arab Spring article some time ago that hasn't been addressed yet. The editor causing the disruption has hopped IPs a few times and is still persistently trying to force an edit through. Could someone look into semi-protection for this page, please? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess the request for semi was only an hour ago, got my UTC times mixed up. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Courcelles has handled this, much appreciated. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Occupy Las Vegas

Already a report at WP:3RRNB, but nothing is happening there. Dr. JTT (talk · contribs) has been deleting sourced information and replacing it with unsourced information, refuses all discussion, and he is up to 9RR (yep, nine RR). Multiple users have asked him to stop. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Not counting his first edit, I think that was eight...but geez. Blocked 24 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Unnessecary deletion of redirects

Drmies(talk, contribs), has deleted two redirects that I have created, "Etlon John" and "Niktia Kruschev", stating that they are implausible. I believe that they iplausible typos, and request that they be recreated. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for notifying me. You're awfully involved on the drama board for such a new editor. Is there no more work left in the smithy? Drmies (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• BusyBlacksmith, just a note - it is interesting to me how you created your userpage with a single userbox/image at first, just like these two socks of Spotfixer, and then built on it later. You're also quite active on this board right off the bat, just like some of his socks were. Coincidence? Calabe1992 22:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah that's the nice thing about ANI. There's always someone who knows more. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Isn't that the blacksmith who wanted to call the FBI a while ago, and have somebody arrested? This is all as implausible as those redirects. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Taken to SPI. Calabe1992 22:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I assure you, I am not a sockpuppet. It's funny, I just watched Being John Malkovich too. I have no idea who Spotfixer is. I just like discussing issues here, nothing special. Susupicion is suspicion, I take no offense. A check will do no harm. BusyBlacksmith (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we need a redirect from Susupicion to Suspicion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Bling Crosby? Seriously?--Shirt58 (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Who won the Acadmey Award for his role in the 1994 film Giong My Way. –MuZemike 03:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed sock of User:Shakinglord. Fun Boomerang. Calabe1992 03:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia law #42: the person who believes everything is socking...is socking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything, Wikipedia-style? LadyofShalott 04:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Vell, he's just zis sock, y'know? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It must be a Tuedsay. I never could get the hang of Tuedsays. LadyofShalott 05:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Given recent developments, are we still AGFing on the User:ChocolateWolf account, or do we need to reconsider that one too? 28bytes (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as it hasn't edited recently. Calabe1992 06:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Back at his talkpage

Shakinglord is now back at his talkpage, asking for us to unblock Kaishu Tachibana, claiming it is his friend. I think this is way beyond us assuming good faith again, and I'm continuing to lean toward the ban I proposed below last evening. Calabe1992 17:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Also admitted to two other socks, and claiming a fourth account is another "friend." I've requested the three new ones to be added at SPI for now. Calabe1992 17:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

To any administrator who reads this, please consider revoking talk page access. See the posts at the bottom of the page. Calabe1992 19:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we're suppose to AGF. But he/she basically lost the community's trust of AGF by socking and denying socking. It also appears that he/she faked being a bot. I think the statement on his talk page, Yes. We often edit wikipedia toghether., is kind of funny because it doesn't appear true/appears to be another lie. When I performed two separate checks, the IPs that Shakinglord have been editing from have little to no edits, the one IP that did edit vandalized. If they really do often edit together, then there should be more edits. The other accounts present that did edit are basically VoAs, purely disruption accounts or have little to no constructive edits. Based on what I said, I'm not inclined to believe whatever he/she's saying. Furthermore, the group of people here, there are doubts they're even a group, do not seem to be interested in contributing constructively. Competency is also required to edit. I don't see that here either. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So the current SPI has been closed, and the "new" admissions have not been blocked as none of them have recently edited (one never has). But User:ChocolateWolf has a confirmed connection to the user and I do not believe at this point that what the user has said (about this being his friend) is true. Should we just be leaving this user alone also unless it edits again, or should the plug be pulled on this one as well? Calabe1992 14:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Shakinglord

Per this user's continued sockpuppet abuse and constant denial of it, I'm hereby proposing an indefinite ban. Calabe1992 03:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support per proposal. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It's better to make this official because that makes it easier for other editors to revert them and deny them attention. Hans Adler 18:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Nothing really productive (e.g. article creation > vandalism-reversion) has ever came out of him. HurricaneFan25 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Reluctant support - but the frankly bizzare behavior of this editor leads to the conclusion he's WP:NOTHERE and that Wikipedia is better off without him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Claims not to be a sock, but then admits. Curious statement about sharing a sock account with another user. Nothing sounds right here. Glrx (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support; they seem to be a net negative to wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support: the less attention we give these individuals the better it is for everyone, including them. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• A little hasty methinks. Shakinglord only seems to have discovered the joy of drama relatively recently (pretty much a month ago today he started hanging around ANI), and up until then basically behaved himself. Leave it at indef and explain exactly what Shakinglord needs to do to get back into the community. As an aside, some of the above comments are pretty nasty, and people should remember that just because an editor is blocked that doesn't make him fair game for abuse. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Issues concerning capitalization of some music articles.

Resolved

 – this is neither the place to resolve content disputes nor discuss changes to the MoS. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing dispute involving multiple editors concerning capitalization rules. While six users, at various times in the discussions, have been championing the WP:ALBUMCAPS, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music), and MOS:MUSIC standards and similar standards, one user (and at one point two users) wants to make "exceptions" to those rules. User:Ryulong disagrees with some of the standards, and thinks that pages such as Journey Through the Decade and My Best of My Life should be alternately capitalized from what's displayed here, in favor of "Journey through the Decade" and "My Best Of My Life"; reason being is that sources and media print the titles with the latter capitalizations. These capitalizations, however, conflict with said guidelines of ALBUMCAPS and such, as has been pointed out by other users involved. It's not so much Ryulong's disagreements in themselves that are disruptive, but the style in which they have been delivered. Ryulong has been routinely told to drop the stick about this, but has refused to do so and has refused to take "no" for an answer, or so to speak. Ryulong has started way-too-long discussions in two different WikiProjects about this: one in WikiProject Albums and an RFC in Manual of Style/Japan-related articles; those two links can be viewed for a lot of the important information. Although I donated input in both discussions supporting the guidelines, I decided that enough was enough, and I don't want to donate any further to them, because I had said all that I wanted to. Also, see this exchange on the Journey Through the Decade history log, as well as the talk page of that article, which detail two unsuccessful move requests for recapitalization purposes. These discussions are overly dramatic arguments about something as trivial as capital and lowercase words in titles. That's really all there is to it. The reason I'm reporting this here is because these discussions concerning such triviality and absurdity should be reasonably put to an end, and I don't believe that I alone have the power to do that. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 01:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This general topic, unfortunately, is where wikipedia finds itself in defiance of its own rules against original research / original synthesis. Rather than going with a title of something the way it actually is, wikipedia insists on imposing a "manual of style" to override the actual title if the two versions conflict. If a song is officially titled "Everybody Works But Father", it gets changed to "Everybody Works but Father" based on MOS - despite the lack of any valid source that says the actual title of the song has a lower-case "b". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

MOS recommends a lowercase b in "but"??? --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Koavf (talk · contribs) it does,[173] and he wouldn't budge from that position. I'll ask him I've asked him to come here and talk about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate the heads-up. It's my understanding that the capitalization of "but" is contingent on the type of speech in which it is used and I have to admit that I get a little confused on grammar myself... In the case of something like the hypothetical Happy but Stupid, "but" should be lowercase, although it's uppercase in Age Ain't Nothin But a Number (note that "a" is lowercase.)See below It's really irrelevant how an artist/record label/etc. styles or capitalizes their own titles--that's the entire point of a style guide: to enforce consistency within our own publication. Note that all kinds of media routinely use all caps for their titles or spellings with symbols in the place of letters (e.g. Ke$ha/Kesha) and we ignore them. Should we also use the same fonts and colors as other publications? Where does it end? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay It looks like that Aaliyah song has been moved since the last time I moved it. Anyway... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be an attempt for Backtable to get me to shut up about something that I feel should be changed, because he and a few other editors disagree with my preferred outcome for an RFC I started for which there has been no prior input until he decided to sling the mud from our pit onto ANI. My goal for the discussion has been to eliminate the strictness of ALBUMCAPS when there is a clearly evident and universal capitalization scheme for a song and/or album title that does not match the current rules described at ALBUMCAPS. If I can provide reliable primary, secondary, and/or tertiary sources that show that Gackt's thirtieth single's title is parsed as "Journey through the Decade" (as I have done), why should the article be at Journey Through the Decade (aside from the fact that ALBUMCAPS says using "through" is incorrect)? To me, it seems entirely way too bureaucratic to say I cannot change a guideline because the guideline says I'm wrong. And once, again, Backtable, the move requests on Talk:Journey Through the Decade were not "unsuccessful". A "no consensus" close does not mean "one side has lost the argument".—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough I honestly don't know anything about some interpersonal conflict between you two users, but yes, that's exactly why you shouldn't move it to Journey through the Decade. It's frequently the case that titles are written with any variety in spelling (including deliberate misspelling), capitalization, font, typography, color, etc. Which of these arbitrary aesthetic choices should we honor and which should we not? What's wrong with imposing a consistent guideline so that readers can expect the same thing from article to article rather than varying wildly? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

But if I have sources that consistently show that the accepted form in the media is inconsistent with our internal guidelines, why should the article be located at a title that is inconsistent with reliable sources? The uncapitalization of the word "through" on Journey Through the Decade or the capitalization of the word "Of" on My Best of My Life should be allowable exceptions, in my opinion. And what is wrong with developing case-by-case exceptions (other than the fact that editors will fight to the tooth to keep things consistent internally, even if it is highly inconsistent with external sources)?—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a case here of using special symbols or non-standard search terms for an article title nor is it the case that we are proposing to rely on the primary source or those affiliated with it (such as the publisher, band, etc)., but rather what interdependent secondary sources use. We allow (outside titles) special symbols and grammar to be used for other items such as episode titles assuming the unicode can render it. This includes official naming schemes. For article titles, we primarily try to go with WP:COMMONNAME whenever possible which except for special circumstances like all caps or uNuSuAl CaSiNg, we do that because it is dijaring to the reader (or that's the primary reason that I've seen argued). That is not the case here. Capitalizing a word in the similar manner as the rest cannot said be dijaring to the reader. Finally, there is the issue of titles that are actually sentences. We would have the MOS directly contradict itself in this regard for titles that form sentences. I can't cite specific cases offhand, but I've worked with a number of such titles before.∞陣内Jinnai 02:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Except for extreme cases, or situation where graphic art consideration have overwhelmed typographical ones, we should always be prejudiced in favor of the titles used by the creators of an artistic work. Titles are, generally speaking, phrases not sentences, and should not be subject to the rules of grammar the way normal text should be, and certainly shouldn't be overridden by our own MoS, which is an accumulation of guidelines, not mandatory, and subject to changing consensus. If Sly and the Family Stone want to call a song "Thank You (Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin)" we have no business correcting their grammar. WP:COMMONNAME is also not always a good guide in these case, because people are as likely to call the song "Thank You For Lettin' Me Be Myself Again", which is correct in terms of its sense and phonetics, but is not the name of the song. Artistic creations are different, and we need to respect the artists' choices as much as it is possible to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been silently following the RFC at Manual of Style/Japan-related articles but remained silent due to being torn both ways on the issue at hand, however I must say that the "Except for extreme cases, or situation where graphic art consideration have overwhelmed typographical ones, we should always be prejudiced in favor of the titles used by the creators of an artistic work," comment above has swayed me to the "Journey through the Decade" and "My Best Of My Life" side. I've always viewed Wikipedia's policies of standardization of Japan's frequent use of absurd typography to be so that it's less jarring to English-language readers and fits in with the overall style of the English language, however after reading the arguments back and forth in this (and the previous) discussion, I feel that this should only be applied to more extreme examples. Or looking at it the other way, it should be fine to ignore the capitalization policies for very minor changes such as the ones that Ryulong is suggesting. As long as the typography doesn't go too far outside of reasonable bounds (admittedly subjective), I agree that titles should err on the side of the artist. -- purplepumpkins (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Those who believe the MOS is not serving us well in these areas should campaign to change the MOS rather than ignore it and carve out exceptions that may not actually be approved by the larger Wikipedia community. ElKevbo (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The MOS DOES serve us well, in general. But trying to impose our MOS on the titles of things is not appropriate. It would be like requiring Kleenex to be rendered as Cleanex, on the grounds that there's no such word as "kleen". Or to render iPhone as Iphone on the grounds that a proper title has to start with a capital letter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Do remember that Ignore all rules is the fifth pillar of Wikipedia. Yes, the MOS should be changed - but until then... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is indeed the point of the MoS being descriptive rather than prescriptive. WP:IAR gives editors the opportunity to improve Wikipedia by attempting new and (hopefully) advantageous things, and, if they catch on, eventually the MoS will be updated to reflect the change. The tension between MoS and IAR is part of a deliberately creqated dichotomy, but it loses all meaning if editors take the Manual of Style as the be-all-and-end-all of formatting and follow it blindly and without thought, disallowiung any anount of (legitimate) experimentation. Such an attitude doesn't allow the MoS to be a living, breathing thing, and mummifies it in a way that was never intended to happen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - User Backtable said "The reason I'm reporting this here is because these discussions concerning such triviality and absurdity should be reasonably put to an end, and I don't believe that I alone have the power to do that." I could be wrong, but I don't think an admin needs to close any discussions mentioned. I may have missed something but couldn't this be closed? I don't see any need for admin intervention. I didn't see Ryulong being disruptive, just persistent.--Rockfang (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This should be closed as it should never have been opened. It's a dispute on which guideline to use and there's been no edit warring or other disruptive editing, just heated debate from both sides.∞陣内Jinnai 07:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: all the IAR comments. I have attempted to use this in discussions (as seen at Talk:Journey Through the Decade). However, it seems that MOS-deifiers won't allow it unless there is a good enough reason, which is why there is this impasse that Backtable decided to bring to this board. In the original RM on J.t.D., GTBacchus made a very nice statement on how MOS has become unnecessarily ironclad here. As no wrong has been done, and no one needs to close the RFC I opened, I would say that that part of this discussion is over.

Either way, it appears that from the sampling here that WP:ALBUMCAPS is not what the "broader community" (as mentioned as a reason why ALBUMCAPS or MOS-JA should not change to allow exceptions here) wishes to do with song and album titles, but instead intends to keep the original artistic license on grammatical rules (unless there is absolutely a case of ambiguity). If there is truly a consensus for this, do we need to move this to the appropriate project talk page, or can the extended discussion here be used as the means to modify what are probably several (WP:ALBUMCAPS, WP:CT, WP:MOS-JA) project pages?—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if I had the ability to preemptively archive the discussions and put them in the blue boxes, or so to speak. Throughout the course of events, I was doing what I thought was necessary and said what I believed. I had no intention to cause any offense, and sorry about any that I did. I'm not that passionate about title anatomies, as I've been used to a particular way of doing things without giving it much of a second thought. I will be thinking about my comings and goings on Wikipedia over the next few days, and will hopefully be able to cool off. Again, sorry if I made any missteps. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 08:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as a party to the debate, it would not have been proper for you to close them with the blue boxes, anyway.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I have dealt with Ryulong quite a few times on English capitlizations of Japenese titles, but I am going to focus on his behavior and not the actual capitalizations. Recently, Ryulong started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#ALBUMCAPS about the capitalizations and not getting the consensus he wanted, he took his ball and WP:FORUMSHOPed to start a RfC at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles without bothering to tell either the Wikiproject or the individual editors who commented on his first topic about the RfC. This is just bad form when trying to reach a consensus in my opinion.

Some of his talk page editing can be seen as being WP:DISRUPTIVE and/or WP:TENDENTIOUS and that these discussions go on for way too long because Ryulong seems to have a need to reply to almost every comment in either thread while simply WP:REHASHing the same point over and over, almost to the point where it seems he is exhausting other editors into accepting his point of view. Aspects (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

My edits have already been labeled as not disruptive. And an inquiry on one page, followed by an RFC on another is not really forum shopping. I probably should have used the same page, but you very easily notified other editors of the other discussion, and now there's another discussion here that seems to be more definitive. Either way, I have broken no rules outright, as stated by much of the thread, and should not be penalized.

Regardless, Baseball Bugs, FormerIP, Koavf, Backtable, Jinnai, Beyond My Ken, Purplepumpkins, ElKevbo, The Bushranger, and Aspects; shall we discuss modifying the ALBUMCAPS/CT/MOS-JA guidelines to suit the better practice described here, on whatever proper forum that should be?—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight but I strongly believe that this is not the proper forum to discuss the issues related to capital letter in titles. I imagine there is an appropriate part of the MOS that deals with this and that would be a good place to start. ElKevbo (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Can we get this out of the kitchen please. Boys, go and play in the yard.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  The question is where is the yard supposed to be?—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Or the meter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL. My granny would have said "you're not to old for a good hiding, you know," but I suspect that's not pc these days :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Questionable recent block

I was blocked by User:BlackKite following a questionable report [[174]] by User:Yworo, I was accused of block evading, which I have never done, and it is something I detest and would never partake in, instead of following protocol BlackKite was quick and happy to pull the trigger and block me without a second thought, Yworo also did not notify me that I was reported on the noticeboard, he also has a history of going overboard with warnings (IMHO). I believed there was a breach of rules on their part. Sheodred (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• It looks like you were blocked not for socking but for violating WP:3RR. It's not required that you be notified or warned for these reports; 3RR is a bright line. Are you arguing that you did not actually violate 3RR? causa sui (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• You reverted three/four (arguable) times, against two other editors and discussion on the talk page - that's enough to block on its own regardless of the 3RR bright line - and then a mysterious IP appears to revert twice to your preferred version, followed by a uni IP from the same area. So either the IP addresses are you, or as proved by the edits on 15-16 November you and the 143 IP are acting as one editor, which is meatpuppetry. Feel free to call us a number of things, but please don't accuse us of being stupid. Black Kite (t) 19:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Why bring this up now? These events occured over 2 weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yup, rightly blocked for 3RR, a rule you were already blocked for once ... it was extended because you WP:EVADED a valid block by editing with an IP after being blocked. Not sure what the problem is here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• The problem is that I did not edit anything under an anonymous IP, I accept the fact that I broke the 3RR but I did not engage in block evasion, I achieve nothing by bringing this issue up but wanted to raise the issue for the block that was allegedly for block evading not breaking the 3RR, I just wanted to clarify that, and if you looked at the contributions of the alleged IP(s) "or whatever I used", they were involved in articles I never got involved with, thats the reality of shared and anonymous IPs, which was obviously not taken into consideration when I was blocked (which was not for breaking the 3RR, that I would have accepted). Sheodred (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
• You admit it was a valid 3RR block; certainly the 72 hours is appropriate; the dispute is about the anon IP and the additional 48 hours. The block has run, so no remedy (such as shortening the block) is now available. The issue is both moot and stale. Black Kite is good at recognizing ducks; perhaps he missed here, but it is not worth looking into now. If you hadn't engaged in edit warring, there never would have been a problem. Glrx (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Sheodred filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yworo. Glrx (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"We will make you fishers of men...fishers of men...fishers of men..." (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we will leave it at that then. Sheodred (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Two minutes work would have shown you that the IPs you reported geolocate to two different hemispheres. You don't need to be a check user to do that. You're lucky you're not being castigated for a bad faith report. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No, took longer than that actually, and I am still suspicious of the other two IPs that are within his "hemisphere" you failed to have mentioned in the above comment and I still retain my suspicions, if you have any grievances about what I did report what I did elsewhere where it belongs instead of posting here in this section, this is a question about a past-block relating to me, I already made my statement on the relevant page, the material you are dragging up here does not belong here, so kindly just back off, case closed. Sheodred (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOOMERANG. AN/I is not your personal Facebook Wall. In the future, keep in mind that edits like these are not acceptable practice. Badger Drink (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

This article needs more eyes. Quite simply, the editing environment is terrible, anyone who disagrees with the view that the article is fine, despite dedicating pages and pages to unchallenged WP:FRINGE material, is harassed, willfully misrepresented, and generally, everything possible is done to drive them off.

The article clearly violates basic Wikipedia policy, by failing to present the relevant mainstream arguments against the claims of tthe global warming denialists, instead presenting irrelevant material at the start (the structure is basically Mainstream scientists Claim X - with no evidence given for why scientists believe X, and then followed by huge numbers of quotes attacking X because of the hitherto unmentioned Y and Z, with the mainstream view on Y and Z unmentioned.) Indeed, the mainstream material presented is almost wholly irrelevant to the attacks made by the global warming denialists.

This article represents a complete failure of Wikipedia policy, only allowed to remain because enough people like that it pushes their POV.

Attempts to discuss this on the talk page basically result in WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT followed by the closure of threads, and insistence that people make their points all over again from the start. There is no possibility of any progress. 86.** IP (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Just as one quick comment...isn't applying the term "denialist" to the scientists, in itself, POV? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is. And I have to say it is mighty cold in the American Midwest, could someone please complain that a) manmade global warming has been notably absent here lately, or b) Al Gore should stop flying around in his private jet over us, bringing the snow. :) Kelly ^hi! 02:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Every time I see this article appear in the periphery of my Wiki-vision, I tend to let it slink by. It is an awful piece of contrived ugliness, categorizing a group of people based on their opinion on a scientific matter. Tarc (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't even that: it categorises people on our opinion on their opinion on a scientific matter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a very interesting point. A brief review of the article leaves me with the impression that the entire structure is WP:SYNTH. causa sui (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Came across this via Jimbo's talk page and I share similar concerns. We could probably use WP:BLPCAT and cut the primary sourced material pending adequate sourcing (although I am still trying to find out if there is an "obvious point" I missed and actually this approach is acceptable). However that's not necessarily a productive approach and sure to simply cause fall out - perhaps garner some thoughts from BLP/N as to the best approach? --Errant ^(chat!) 15:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

From the standpoint of argumentation, BLP is always a useful avenue since of all our content policies it has the most weight behind it. But the issue isn't defamation of living people; it's neutral and verifiable encyclopedic presentation. For arguments based in BLP to stick, you'd have to convince people that categorizing professional natural scientists by their opinions on natural science is somehow defamation. No one is being accused of Holocaust denial and Global warming denialism doesn't yet carry similar social consequences, I'm afraid. causa sui (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There are those who would disagree, as it has been suggested in the past, seriously, that "global warming denialism" should be made a crime - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

...of course that should read as it has been claimed that it has been suggested in the past, seriously, that "global warming denialism" should be made a crime. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• In the climate change case, Arbcom advised that "Experienced administrators and particularly holders of the Checkuser permission are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the Climate change topic area...". Please note that 86.** IP is such a new account, being first active on 8 October 2011. This account seems to be trying too hard, having already generated much drama at AFD, DRV, Jimbo's talk page and now here. Warden (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As a complete aside, WP:AGF. You're assuming that 86.** IP hasn't had a long history of editing under an IP previously, as suggested by the username. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I spat out my coffee a little bit at an editor being accused of "trying too hard". Good grief, we're now denouncing people for caring too much about Wikipedia. causa sui (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Typical dodgy tactic. An editor wants to remove some crap from Wikipedia- try to get them banned from the discussion with shadowy insinuations of sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. Reyk _YO! 21:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Tarc is right, and AndyTheGrump's observation is spot-on; this thing is a train-wreck, and it wildly violates WP:SYN by tying together a bunch of people with substantially divergent views under a categorization which is unique to Wikipedia (or sources which have cribbed it from here). We're supposed to be compiling information recorded elsewhere, not advancing new ways of grouping together people whose views differ from those of the dominant group. Simply splitting the list up into five or six different lists might be one way of fixing it, but then it no longer serves as a one-stop smear facilitator. Horologium (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Exactly. Some of the scientists listed here may not be "against" the AGW science at all, but just have reservations about some of it. They don't belong in the same category as people who reject all of it. But once you can no longer bundle them all together and thereby inflate their numbers, you can no longer present the "AGW is a dirty greenie lie" movement as a coherent position held by a substantial number of reputable scientists. Since that is the purpose of this page, its owners naturally resist any attempts to make it conform with WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. If I were a climate scientist who'd merely expressed minor doubts about some of the methodology and found my name on a list of climate change deniers because of it, I would not be happy- the likelyhood that people's opinions have been misrepresented in just this way makes this list a WP:BLP concern as well. Reyk _YO! 21:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a precedent here. We once had a list article Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, which listed the great and the good (or anyone really) who were on record (or had been overheard at a cocktail party) saying that they didn't believe that the Stratford guy wrote Shakespeare's plays (or that they'd once read a piece in the New Yorker on the subject). We know have an article about the internet petition on the subject, and the 20 or so people that the internet petition itself lists as key players. This list needs some similar underlying structure - people need to (a) be famous and (b) have signed a petition/report/letter to the newspapers or some agreed level of confirmation that they hold the stated opinion. List articles need a tight definition if they are to work, and this one doesn't have it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a peruse of this article and my eyes bled. Is there any criterion under which it could be deleted? --Blackmane (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How about that it's a POV fork? One major difference between this and the Shakespeare stuff is that that's merely an academic debate, not a political one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it's an obvious POV fork, not to mention a borderline BLP violation, but you try getting it deleted via AfD. "Consensus" is everything, my friend, even if it's a consensus of idiots. Black Kite (t) 00:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this has already been to AfD - and kept. *checks* In fact it's been to AfD five times, and DRV twice. Let's see the results: keep, keep, keep, no consensus, (DRV endorsed), keep, (DRV overutrned to no consensus).- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The only reason 86 started this discussion here is because he just failed to get it deleted. But since this isn't an "incident" and doesn't require any admin intervention, why hasn't this discussion been closed? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Problematic behaviour

I am reporting KIENGIR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for problematic behavior, repeated violation of WP:SOURCE, WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. I understand that this is a new user but I have tried everything and assumed good faith. The problematic article is Michael the Brave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

• As it can be seen from the talk page, I have tried to explain several times why the changes this user wants to introduce are not appropriate: [175]; [176]; [177]; [178].
• All responses were confusing (3 km long and not refuting the central point) and in almost all of his comments derogatory remarks and personal attacks. Ex: [179] and in all previous links.
• I have tried to inform this user of all the problems on his talk page (since it is a new user): [180]; [181]; [182]; [183] but this only aggravated the problem..
• I have talked about this problem with another editor on my talk page also and easily reached an agreement [184].
• I have talked to an administrator [185] but no solution has been provided.
• Also I don`t want this to be a bad faith accusation, but since I saw the IP address of this user and the articles he edited, I am wondering if this user is connected to User:Stubes99 since his IP address has been 84.0.xxx.xxx, 84.1.xxx.xxx and 84.2.xxx.xxx. [186]; [187].

The point is that all this edit warring and the removal of referenced text before is not a big problem but the fact that he refuses to respect the WP:SOURCE and the need to "correct" this article to reflect (I quote) facts has no direct connection to my personal opinion, since these were facts long before I was born :) and to tell the "truth" which he isn`t giving up. [188]. Adrian (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Dear" Adrian,

you're wrong again, since my registration is really has no connection to any other account banned in the past or so, if the "firm" will ban me, don't worry, my next username will be KIENGIR2. Furthermore, I will nor repeat myself. Anyone, who deals with a little bit history, can easily understand my claim an understand THE PROBLEM (after you, it had to told unfortunately 40km long more times, but still you don't get it). Facts are facts. The claimed changes are obvious. If the page remains so, itt will mislead users. If you "reinforce" a falsity with an unreliable source, it can't be taken as a good aim. If you pretend you are a victim and you identify the other who wants only correct mistakes cannot be held longer, it is also not a good aim. You can't provide reliable and valid (contemporary) source, because it not exist. The page also admits this fact in a later section, thus the page is self-controversial, etc. I am sure, Wikipedia policies were (is being) formed) to serve the "good". Thus Wikipedia can only thank me I do so many effort to have a truthful, valid encyclopedia. Otherwise I think something is wrong, if evidential facts are denied. The agreement you made with an other editor was a good beginning, but you applied it only one, instead to correct the all three statements. This debate has elementary importance if can we present anything that has no (contemporary) source (using the the designation "Romanian" in an anachronistic way), or stating an union (as well a false designation used by a more hundred year later histography and having only a formal meaning by it's own desired interpretation, but never had a LEGAL form) although it haven't been accomplished the time then. This is an announcement for every user, editor, administrator, in order to emphasize the importance we can only STATE something (if it's not indicated as an other view or theory or equal) if it is correspondent with the contemporary EVIDENCE and since no counter-evidence or any proof exist that would prove it wrong (impossible). Consider could someone state "three Iraqi lands made an union in 4000 BC", altough the "Iraqi" is anachronistic, the term "Iraqi" is missing and never been used in contemporary evidence, they haven't made an union (and missing as well from contemporary evidence), but i.e. a millenia later someone would interpret the leadership of Sumerian lands as the precursor of modern Iraq, and most of it's national and other international works would refer and use this concept and would consistently citate it. If we are no in a joke site, it cannot be afford. Thank You for (hopefully) understanding it.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

Kiengir ... I haven't looked at the rest, but did you honestly just suggest that if the community either WP:BLOCK or WP:BANS you, that you will intentionally and willfully WP:EVADE a validly-imposed block? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The really regrettable thing here is that at least some of the content-related points Kiengir has been making appear to have a certain amount of merit. If he would only assume good faith and work collaboratively with others (as opposed to being confrontational, condescending, and paranoid), he could make valuable contributions here. A sad waste of talent. It looks like we may have to manage as best we can without his assistance. — Richwales (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is that User:KIENGIR obviously challenged some data from the article after which I added 3 reliable references to the article and 2 more on the talk page(If needed I can find more references) and he still wants to "correct" the article to reflect the "truth". From WP:SOURCE - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.. I am not really interested in personal attacks he made, but on the long run, and looking at this problem from all sides, this kind of behavior can`t be ignored and that is the reason I have written this report. Adrian (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I will answer all of your questions:

->Dear BWilkins & Blackmane (his message can be read on my talk page)

Continously accusing me about personal attacks, etc. and last but not least accusing me with a kind of "(post) sock puppetry" is not the reperesentation of the "good faith" principle, regarding Adrian. The claimed changes were not revolutionary, but necessary and this all kind of mess could be avoided if Adrian wouldn't tried to make a provocation of discrediting everything and pretend no understanding, just speaking about rules and policies. This was the cause, this was not a "collaborative work" from his side. I can only suggest he felt itself ashamed about so big slips the page are peresent, and better continued to accuse me about behavior than be calm and find a real consense (later someone on its tak page convinced him about some necessary changes) If the citations Adrian added are regarded RELIABLE although they are not this case (only reliable for that today's histography speaking about union, but UNRELIABLE if we see pure history and contemporary evidence), then there's some problem with the policy and rules I think. However this case will be a good precedent. The "bad faith accusation" was awful from Adrian, since this kind of IP address is used by approx. 3 million people in the country, since the ISP distributes a random generated address to every users who connect. That's why I made this kind of irony, assuring everybody I am not the one who would alter or hinder it's true identity!

->Dear Richwales

"The show will go on", I will always try to do my best, and keep all policies and rules, but if somebody consistently discrediting facts and evidence, then I have no choice....I have to make all efforts in order have a good, realiable encyclopedia, otherwise I would deny myself. Regards (KIENGIR (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

I am sorry but accusing me of bad faith and "not being calm" (especially from you) at this point is just ridiculous. Repeating again and again the WP:SOURCE has no sense anymore since clearly you don`t respect it. Again and again you are using wikipedia as some kind of forum. Wikipedians don`t use wikipedia to talk with people about their opinion on some matter but facts that can be checked at any time. Since this discussion is always going toward "the truth" some user believes, I am asking for an administrator to review this and solve this problem.Adrian (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There are established dispute resolution procedures on Wikipedia. Vowing to wage an endless "edit war" in defence of truth is not one of these established procedures. Deal with these problems as the content disputes which they evidently are; direct and restrict your comments to the issues and not to personalities; and find and propose high-quality reliable sources to support any proposed changes or additions. The fact that you're sure something is true is not good enough here; you've got to verify it with suitable sources, so that other people can confirm that it's true and don't need to take your word (or the word of any of us) for it. The reason people are complaining about you is not because of any conspiracy by the Wikipedia "firm" to suppress the truth; it's a matter of your conduct, not the content as such. The show will indeed go on, and it would be nice to have it go on with your assistance, but that is only going to happen if you respect the established procedures and work with others in a constructive manner. — Richwales (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh Adrian, you're funny thinking you repeat the same arguments cannot be held longer...about your "bad faith": everyone can see the part your first reaction: "which is not an accurate statement as that the unification of the three Romanian principalities. " THIS THE POINT!!! You agreed at the first time the unification is not an accurate statement, but THOUGH instead to have a good faith and resolve the problem, you REINFORCED the false allegation with more citations can be regarded in a point of view a verifiable source, but cannot be accepted because it is announcing an obvious lie. If you really had a good faith, you wouldn't do that. What a nice coming out! Ooooops...and you try to play again the "personal opinion" card, although this case as well it has no direct connection to the hapennings between 1599-1601 :) Verifiability is important but since you could citate any web page with any statement, their content cannot be accepted always valid. Sorry, you are caught heavily...Try harder next time! From now on everybody can think about is is really the "wolf wanted to eat grandma", or maybe the opposite is true? Is it really somehow paranoid? Dear Richwales, we could not call it a real edit war since I have stopped editing on my own will for a period the case discussed on higher level. I hope you can understand, regarding Adrian's behavior he is really suspicious why will he reinforce something he as well do not agree...Finally again about verifiability: I think is not good, if any kind of false statement could be advertized in an article because there are "verifiable" sources announcing them, without PROOF, and it should be held as long as the true statement we don't present a source again, if claiming this source is enquestionable, because this case we should present a counter-evidence of something NEVER happened, although the normal way we have to have a PROOF on what really HAPPPENED. This case is not an easy case! Consider if many sources state: "At the times of Michael The Brave purple frogs have fallen from the sky", then this statement should be advertized so long you don't present a source "fulfilling" Wikipedia's rules would say "The allegation at the times of Michael The Brave purple frogs have fallen from the sky is wrong"???? Normally such obvious counter-citation/reference won't exist, because it is never needed in a normal society...(I have to repeat, if we are not in a joke site) So long we won't present a citation about Michael The Brave haven't made an union, despite all of the contemporary documents and 400 years of research were unable to prove it will be regarded as automatically invalid??? In a normal jurisdictonal case, the one who accuse HAVE TO prove it's theory, if the correspondent and contemporary evidence proving it's opposite! In this case, Adrian have to prove a union was made (although as we could see he don't even believes in it, and can only present citations reinforcing a falsity), for that he should provide contemporary documents reinforcing him. So long the word union/join/etc. cannot be used on the page (and the fact the false information was present on the page EARLIER, has really no effect, in this case it is IRRELEVANT) I ask all adminsitrators, editors, users to really think and concern about this kind of problem, otherwise the encyclopedia's content will not be reliable, and most of the average people just read wikipedia and not verify every statements and it's sources, de facto they would mostly accept what is presented) Thank You!(KIENGIR (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

Kiengir, no, it's not about proving anything. We are an encyclopaedia - we reflect what the best sources say. You are right that sources which are low quality should be avoided - the article should be using good quality academic sources. However, if good quality academic sources say that it rained purple frogs, then that is what will go in the article. If there is a difference of opinion between scholars (some say the frogs were blue), then the article should reflect the difference of opinion between scholars. I note that you said at one point "All of the statements I mentioned here can be citated IF NECESSARY, but the reality and the truth is independent of simple citations" Actually, no. The rules of Wikipedia are very clear. You must provide sources. Go back to the article talkpage, and cite the sources that support a different interpretation of Michael's achievements. Then all the article editors can discuss how to include this new information. If you do not cite sources but continue to assert that the whole world knows different to all the sources currently in the article, all that will happen is that you will be blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

How bleak procpects....I think the world as well existed with all of it's evidence before any citations or source were provided, or before any scripts were born, but all right, I see. Then Wikipedia is about a "citation-war", and then good faith or aim cannot be guaranteed from any side because they will say "I could present a citation supporting my statement"...This is not a solution. Then only a good lobby would decide what is presented, dependent of the number of groups, supporters, editor's, adminsitrator's faith....then it is a kind of democratic thing....However history is not nothing to do with "democracy". There are facts and evidence you can prove, or cannot prove, and these are independent's of other views. A have finished this discussion, will not make further comment, but the "citation-commando" will start :D Bye(KIENGIR (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC))

Bad Girls Club

Since nobody (not even an admin) commented on this, I'll bring it up since disruption is still ongoing

• Junebea1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shannon6375 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a history of vandalizing Bad Girls Club-related articles. The user was first blocked by User:Master of Puppets on 27 September 2011 for adding a last name to a living person without a source for verification, multiple times after I and User:Master of Puppets had removed them. After he was lifted from his ban, he engaged in a WP:3RR edit warring with User:Alexgx [189]. Within 15 days, Junebea1 began showing signs of WP:OWN when he believed that the "notes" section of the article should appear to readers, his edit summary was "These will not be hidden because these instances have already occurred. Keep it how it is, or you will be blocked." which "Stop reverting my edits. We need to maintain consistency with the past seasons' pages, and this is how it is suppose to be. Stop or be blocked." followed [190]. The discussion on the Bad Girls Club (season 6) talk page was to hide the notes (though now I am more towards on having them appear to readers). I told the user about the discussion but never undid his edits, which I left alone, though my reply was to bring admin attention. After the user ignored many (many) warnings on his talk page and had been removing or adding content without consensus, I brought up a discussion on the talk page to help bring stability to the article. Junebea1's responses were "There is no "the" in the title of the Bad Girls Club though, so that will remain left out" and "I'm currently experimenting to the find the best color that works" which I addressed that changes like those should be made by the community (consensus) and not on what he thinks or feels is right. (Other WP:OWN comments "DO NOT remove any references ever, or you will be blocked. And Shannon is not Shelly or Cheyenne's name so stop vandalizing it or you will be blocked.", "Stop hiding them because it makes no sense. You will be blocked for vandalism. You have to follow the past seasons' pages. Don't hide nothing, it will confuse the readers. Also, Cheyenne was forcefully removed by Tiara, so it's called a removal.") On 25 October 2011, the user gave me a warning for no pair reason. He was subsequently warned by User:Calabe1992. When I had created Bad Girls Club (season 8) article on 14 November 2011, it soon caught the eyes of vandalizing IPs and was semi-protected several hours later. The next day, Junebea1 redirected the article to its new name and added unsourced content, fancruft and removed statements that were sourced by a WP:RS. I reverted his additions and removals however, he undid my edit and decided to remove all sourced information except the cast members first names on the article. After Juneabea1 had undid my edit he gave me another warning. On 17 November 2011, Juneabea1 believed he should remove information from a WP:RS because he felt the author made a slight error. However, myself and MikeAllen disagree with his WP:OWN statements. Of course that didn't stop him from doing it himself.

I'm done with giving this user "last warnings" when they really do nothing to prevent Junebea1 from making contributions without consensus from the community. I think a temporary ban from editing Bad Girls Club-related articles is best, however, I'm not an admin so I'll leave this to you guys :)

Shannon6375

This user was blocked three times however, this user just vandalize the article Bad Girls Club (season 8). Immediate attention to these and its related articles needs admin help. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 20:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have already explained myself in the last report you made to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I don't understand why you are bringing up past incident's to get me blocked, when we already resolved this. I apologized for any disruptions I may have created in the past, and now all your doing re-reporting this. Since some of the comments you have made to me made me feel uncomfortable and some actions you have taken as an editor here, I have decided to report you, and this report is below. I once again apologize for any misunderstandings and disruptions I may caused, and as I said before it won't happen again, and it hasn't happened yet. Thank you for your time and consideration. Junebea1 (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why are you bringing so much WP:DRAMA to Wikipedia. You said in the last report that you wouldn't edit without a consensus yet you did it today, that's why I'm reporting you again and not feeding on what you said again. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a need for consensus when you are placing sources that are unreliable (i.e., an imprecise press release found here, and a website, which you deem unreliable but then support a user using as as source found here) I was only following what you were saying when you said it was unreliable. I was agreeing with you. How is that bringing drama, I'm just saying the facts. Also, you don't have any WP:EQ because you aren't forgiving and forgetting on problems that were solved a couple of days ago. I once again, apologize, I'm not sure if you accepted it or not, but I'm trying to bring drama, I'm just trying to solve the problems. Junebea1 (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I never placed an "unreliable" source to the article, secondly there's only one source on there. Thirdly, the drama is bringing up an AN/I report on me, when we both know I have done nothing wrong and have helped in preventing vandalizing going on. Lastly, why would I have an EQ if you continue to be disruptive in editing? There's been times I left messages to warn you and when there were discussions about your edits and yet you still feel as though you're additions are correct and the consensus are wrong. Though you have every right to deem the consensus built as wrong because you went WP:BOLD however, as respect, why don't you just talk about editing before you edit? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference? You reported me... twice. I turned the other cheek when you did it the first time because I realized I was wrong, but now you are reporting me again for all of the same reasons, which were resolved, that means you're wrong this time. That is WP:DRAMA. And I haven't been disruptively editing at all since you reported me the first time. I'm only going on FACTS. I am only going against the consensus because it is supporting unreliable sources. Why would I support the consensus if they are supporting unreliable sources and information, it just doesn't make any sense. I as well have been stopping vandalism from other users, specifically, User:Shannon6375. Thank you. Junebea1 (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The difference is I accepted your apology on the first report because you said "it won't happen again" however, you went against the consensus again by removing statements that were sourced. TVbyThenumbers.com is considered a WP:RS, if you think otherwise bring that discussion to WT:IRS. You're so called "FACTS" are not supported by the source so it shouldn't be included to a WP:BLP the difference from adding unsourced information to a WP:BLP oppose to un-supported facts to the lead is, the person you are adding/removing information is a living person and cannot have unsourced statements per WP:BLP, that's why I added a {{citation needed}} tags to the lead. Per WP:edit summary you need to add a summary of your edit, which you did not to do the vandal you undid. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The specific press release is not reliable because there are discrepancies throughout the article. That is unreliable. If it were straightforward and was consistent, then it would make sense to continue using that source, however it wasn't. Also you stated modelmayhem was unreliable, yet you support information that is backed by modelmayhem. That doesn't make any sense. You shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose when you feel that the source is reliable. That is WP:OWN. The "consensus" was wrong for trying to use unreliable sources for the information. Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense. Thanks! Junebea1 (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing WP:DR for you two. Squibbling at this board about content issues and asking for temporary blocks for possible ownership issues... continue at your peril. Doc talk 01:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

User:AJona1992

• AJona1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was originally blocked for sockpuppeting, but was eventually unblocked for promising never to do so again. I think this user should have remained blocked, that's just my opinion. This user is threatening to report me to AN/I, but I'm reporting him for his reckless behavior. For instance, I tried to use modelmayhem.com as a reference on Bad Girls Club (season 7) to confirm a cast member's full name; however, he decided that this website was unreliable, and he kept removing this reference. However, in another instance, User:MikeAllen, decided to use this website as a reference for another cast member's hometown, which User:AJona1992 agreed with his decision. This is WP:OWN in my opinion because User:AJona1992 is picking and choosing when he feels this website is reliable as a reference, and that shouldn't be allowed. Also, this User:AJona1992 called me honey, which is sexual harassment, here is the source that states this is sexual harassment. Here is the discussion where this user calls me honey and shows signs of WP:OWN: Talk:Bad Girls Club (season 8)#Gia. I'm not pressing charges. Also, this user shows signs of WP:CRYSTAL when he stated, "Maybe Gia was born raised in NJ but lives and considers herself from DL. Though only the episodes (or the 30 min preview coming soon) will tell." This information suggests a solution to me and User:MikeAllen's discussion about the sourcing for a cast member's hometown; however, he is just assuming something about her life, which could be true or false. He is supporting a source, which he originally deemed unreliable, by assuming (WP:CRYSTAL) something about a cast member's life, which supports the "unreliable source". Also regarding the discrepancy in the press release, if there is a discrepancy in the press release article, doesn't that make it unreliabe? In the article, found here, it lists Gia as from Newark, Delaware; however, it then goes on to call her a "Jersey girl." That is clearly a discrepancy, however they are supporting this reference by keeping it as a source, and User:AJona1992 is saying we need to come to a consensus, when it is clearly a fact that there is a discrepancy in the article. We shouldn't be using sources riddled with errors and discrepancies. I think a temporary block from editing on Wikipedia is best, but I am not an administrator... so I'll leave this for your discussion. Thank you very much! Junebea1 (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment on this but after reading the second sentence I feel as though I should say for the third time to you that I never agreed with Mike's source, I only agreed with what he stated on his reply to you. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh goody ... tit-for-tat ANI filings usually end up with BOTH parties blocked. Yaay! *munching popcorn* (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that Model Mayhem is a reliable source. Not only are they not notable enough to have a WP page, but they clearly state: "We do not control the Content posted through the Model Mayhem Services and, as such, we do not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content and disclaim any and all liability in connection with such Content."[191] That's like using IMDB or WP content as a source, and we can't do that. Doc talk 21:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, but User:AJona1992 is telling me it's unreliable, which is fine, but then goes ahead and agrees with another user (User:MikeAllen) who is using that website as a source for the very information he (User:AJona1992) is agreeing with. Thanks for your consideration. Junebea1 (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Lolz again for the fourth time I agreed with what Mike was saying not the source. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

me hears the distinct whup whup sounds of a boomerang in the air Blackmane (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I understand that you never supported the source, but you did agree with the information that was supported by that source. Junebea1 (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't this report supposed to be about the never ending Shannon accounts? Anyway, I was just showing you that another website exist that corresponds with the Oxygen press release. Her Facebook account also list her in the Delaware network. At this point oh well, wait until January. —Mike Allen 23:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(since Junebea was noted in the original thread, then opened an obviously related ANI thread, I brought them together with a subsection) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposing ban of User:Realhistorybuff

Due to gross incompetence, sockpuppeteering, and disruptive attacks. Nothing constructive is coming from him, and further edits will also likely need to be immediately reversed. Calabe1992 15:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't he already indef blocked? Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And has used multiple socks to get around it. Already well known over at SPI for attacks, mainly against Elockid. Calabe1992 18:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attacks from The Pink Oboe

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

This discussion has certainly caused some worries, but it has been open for about 24 hours and needs some sort of resolution. The case is full of unusual circumstances, and in reaching my decision I will refer to both the community consensus and the blocking policy.

Brief summary of events User:WebHamster has a history of many positive contributions, but severe issues with incivility led to his account being blocked in indefinitely in September 2009. Some time ago, the person behind WebHamster set up and started editing with a new account User:The Pink Oboe. This account too was subjected to numerous short blocks for incivility, and it was eventually extended, after the first part of this discussion, to indefinite by Jehochman due to continuation of this behavior, as well as a disruptive username. Upon an unblock request, Black Kite agreed to unblock the original account (WebHamster) after obtaining approval for this by Jehochman. Shortly thereafter, OrangeMike reblocked WebHamster and this discussion was restarted.

The case for unblocking

1. Black Kite did discuss with the blocking administrator Jehochman before unblocking.
2. OrangeMike failed to discuss with Black Kite before reblocking.
3. WebHamster has a long record of productive content building.
4. WebHamster made no disruptive edits after he was unblocked by Black Kite.
5. Unblock conditions have been proposed. If adhered to the disruption will end.

The case against unblocking

1. The Pink Oboe is a sockpuppet made in violation of the WP:SOCK policy.
2. The incivility concerns have not ended.
3. The unblock was made without community input, Jehochman should not have consented to an unblock.

My comments and conclusion The medical conditions mentioned have not played much role in my discussion. Some leniency is often granted, but the purpose of the blocking policiy is ultimately to protect the encyclopedia and the community that maintains it.

The validity of the original block on the WebHamster account appears uncontroversial. The primary issue as I see it is whether the unblock was valid or not. In this case, I find that Jehochman's approval for an unblock was beyond his authority. The block on the WebHamster account was not made by Jehochman, but rather by Protonk, who was not consulted. Although there has been a some acceptance for an administrator to unilaterally reverse his or her own actions in most circumstances, blocking a sockpuppet does not grant the "right" to reverse an action made on the original account. As such, I agree with the comments that the unblock should not have been made on Jehochman's consent alone. Since reblocking is a reversal of an admin action, OrangeMike's action should have been discussed beforehand, but most of the participants in this discussion have nonetheless endorsed his move, even if it was perhaps somewhat hasty.

The people opposing unblocking are also correct that block evasion by sockpuppetry is almost always considered unacceptable. Typically, it leads to more severe sanctions, and it is very rare indeed for block evasion to produce a favorable result.

WebHamster's current conduct remains an issue with many of the participants. I have reviewed the discussion at User talk:WebHamster and found that several of the people discussing with him have become exasperated at continued snide comments. Although part of this can be excused as frustration over being blocked, it does enter into an ongoing pattern.

As it stands, we have about 60-65% supporting the block. If there were a strong consensus to overturn the block in spite of the policy objections, this would be allowable, but if there is any consensus here, it is against unblocking.

My conclusion is therefore to decline the unblock. Decisions of this nature may as always be appealed to the Arbitration Committee.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Indefblocked by Jehochman, unblock request declined by Fluffernutter. causa sui (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – Webhamster unblocked by Black Kite A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

... and reblocked by User:OrangeMike. Black Kite (t) 18:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• The Pink Oboe (talk · contribs)

• Jeancey removes post from The Pink Oboe at RfD
• Reverted by The Pink Oboe; "who the fuck do you think you are. Don't you fucking dare touch my comments again"
• Reverted by SarekOfVulcan
• The Pink Oboe undos SarekOfVulcan's edit
• I revert the edit
• Off2riorob warns The Pink Oboe for 3RR
• The Pink Oboe reverts: "Fuck off Rob I can count"

Although personally I feel a block of The Pink Oboe would be extremely unconstructive in this situation, I'd like to see some admin intervention here. HurricaneFan25 18:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone also have a word with him about repeatedly swearing in edit summaries, three times today hes used the word f**k in edit summaries. The occasional one is undestandable/excusable but repeatedly seems unreasonable. Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Profanity isn't the problem, the personal attacks are. HurricaneFan25 18:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You choose the words you want to use to make a point and I'll choose the ones I want to use to make a point. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth did you think it would be a good idea, as editors involved in the debate, to be edit-warring (it had already been reverted twice) to remove comments made by another editor involved in the debate? A bit of clue from all editors would help tone down the drama. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Offensive and insulting commentary about other editors disrupts the process of building the encyclopedia by poisoning the collegial atmosphere of collaboration and mutual respect. The removed comment was inappropriate per and is correctly removed according to WP:NPA. causa sui (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What collegial atmosphere? This place is a hotbed of Machiavellian shenanigans, cynicism, racism, sexism, bullying, power struggles and more, all the vagaries of the real world are encapsulated here and these, to quote Rob, "volunteers" are made to adopt unnatural behaviour. Eventually it takes its toll. And that toll does not result in a "collegial atmosphere". --The Pink Oboe (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And comments likes the ones you made are actively preventing any kind of collegial atmosphere from happening. --Conti|✉ 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Bollocks. It isn't like this because I said it is. It's like this because a lot of human beings are involved. Collegial atmosphere? never going to happen. It doesn't even happen in real world academia, it's got no chance of happening in the virtual world. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've heard this particular piece of circular logic a bunch of times now, and I still don't get it. "It's not going to work anyhow so I'll make sure it's not going to work to prove that it's not going to work." Huh. --Conti|✉ 19:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

How about thinking for a moment, about the context, instead of blindly quoting policy. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Civility is one of the Five Pillars, and WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I reverted the edit because it was a personal attack; I commented in the discussion purely to weigh in. HurricaneFan25 18:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That may be the case. You (and Sarek) also reverted comments made by an editor you're arguing against. That's never going to solve a conflict. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just want to weigh in here. I was the first to remove it and I have not taken part in the debate at all. I was not arguing against anyone, just removing a personal attack against an editor who, when it was posted, hadn't added commented yet. Jeancey (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Warned. [192] causa sui (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"We would very much like you to continue to make constructive contributions to articles and related discussions." Who's we? Could you be any more patronising? --Mkativerata (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose "We" includes the set of all editors who agree that the behavior under discussion is not acceptable, for whom I somewhat boldly take myself to be speaking. I'd be interested in suggestions on how I could be more effective at communicating the behavioral expectations of the community without coming off as patronizing, provided that the suggestions don't include condoning unacceptable behavior (like this). causa sui (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm... don't write to other editors in an officious manner? Elen of the Roads seems to have been managing it quite well on that talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding the royal "we" would probably a good idea when not speaking to newbies, IMHO. It gives the impression that the person spoken to is not or should not feel like part of the community. --Conti|✉ 19:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When it comes to skills with diplomacy, Elen of the Roads is quite a high bar to set. I hope you wouldn't expect that no one can do this kind of administrative work unless they are as good at it as her, because that would disqualify quite a few of us. ;) I do watch and learn from her wherever I can. So while I can always improve that aspect and I appreciate the feedback, I stand by the comments; because the important thing is that The Pink Oboe comes to understand that this behavior will not be tolerated. causa sui (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's patronising because you're talking as if I don't know what's expected of me. I'm not a bloody toddler you know. It's bloody annoying getting a damn lecture from someone who thinks I'm an idiot for taking potshots, especially when it's most likely that person is younger than me. It does not make the situation better, it's like throwing gasoline on a fire. People management by the average admin is appalling. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly that's a problem in itself if you think a person younger then you can't ask that you behave in a manner appropriate to wikipedia because they're younger then you. Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I hate having to point out the obvious more than once, but The Pink Oboe shares an awful lot of the same interests as a particular blocked user, who just happens to have as friends the same set of editors who have been coming to their defence in this latest round of incivility. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You hate it? But it hasn't stopped you doing it twice. Seems to me you have a debt to pay this Webhamster.--The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• WebHamster's last edit
• TPO's first edit

Hmmm. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A sock check may turn out to be unnecessary, the way this is going. [193] causa sui (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked by Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). [194] causa sui (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There are three reasons to block: (1) the account is acting like a troll, (2) the username is slang for penis, which is not cool for a collaborative project involving people of all ages and sexes, (3) this is extremely likely to be User:WebHamster who is indefinitely blocked. Note that (1) and (2) are sufficient reasons to block independently of (3). Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch, but I was going to say, isn't there a guideline called "Don't be a Pink Oboe"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO I'd say 1 and 3 are the solid reasons while 2 is iffy; "pink oboe" is pretty obscure, not like a well-known rusty trombone, y'know. But anyways, good block. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that doubters google-image the term [pink oboe] and see what comes up. I do NOT recommend doing that image search at work, unless you happen to work at a porn shop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

See, the username was the most obvious issue that I saw - until I read the talk page and looked into the edits. I've declined to unblock, and have not consented to lower the block to a single week as the editor requested. Did someone put in a checkuser request? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I opened a SPI request and was just developing it when it was closed - in less than a half hour. I don't think checkuser will help unless the users data is recorded somewhere. Webhamster edited on some kind of local network. The only account active in the last three months (for checkuser checking) is The Oboe. User:WebHamster has one confirmed sockpuppet - User:Fred the Oyster - I challenge anyone to spend half an hour comparing the three accounts contributions and not to come to the same conclusion I did. - saying that, its not really a big issue, its his recent edits and apparent unhappiness at the way things operate around here thats the real issue. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Pity you didn't spend that half an hour working on an article. Parrot of Doom 21:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Rob works on plenty of articles. If the editor in question had been behaving civilly, there would have been no need to spend that half hour on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Here, The Pink Oboe mocks the indef block by pointing out that anyone can simply recreate another account to escape the consequences of a block. I asked Alexandria (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to consider reopening Off2riorob's SPI in light of these developments. causa sui (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly "mocking" to point out the self-evident truth obvious to anyone. Time to walk away from the bonfire and put your pitchfork away. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So what's the alternative? To not block anyone? Sure, he can create a new account. And if he goes back to "the scene of the crime", as socks often do, then he'll be bounced again. But if he behaves, he won't be caught, articles might improve, and then everybody wins. How likely is that, though? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocking infantilises everyone, not healthy. So he shoots off on his talk page at the blocking admin, so what? For all I (and you know) he may have created another account some time ago, and is using it now. Blocking only serves to enrage, it prevents nothing. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen countless cases where blocking eventually sent malcontents away for good. So it can accomplish its goal. Ranting and raving is normal behavior for a segment of the blocked editors, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a very revealing comment. You make the judgement about who is a malcontent and who isn't, and the purpose of blocking is to drive those you consider to be malcontents away. Perhaps you ought to try having that included in the blocking policy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it your view that no editor should ever be blocked? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

But we haven't even had our s'mores yet. causa sui (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry - he just tossed off a Personal attack on the blocking admin. If it's not removed, I'm going to lock the talk page. I'd really rather not, but I don't see many options here - he's rapidly digging a hole. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't hold against him his anger at being blocked. Block suck, but sometimes there is no other alternative. Jehochman ^Talk 00:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No other alternative, as opposed to just "no alternative"? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WebHamster in progress. causa sui (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

...and we have a winner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Mary O'Nette - Thank Jimbo we've got automatic IP-checking tools. We'd never have spotted that one without. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

WebHamster is not the sock master...you'd have to go back much further to ID that one. We've seen this numerous times before.--MONGO 00:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I think Courcelles did check for sleepers. What other evidence wasn't considered in the SPI? causa sui (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, I have no doubt that is the case...but WebHamster's very first edit...is not one a newbie would make. Not that anything seems to have been problematic then...but then again, socks are socks, and any older ones are probably long lost anyway.--MONGO 01:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem particularly suspicious, perhaps you're getting paranoid. Nev1 (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What? I was merely alluding that WebHamster wasn't a newbie even 5 years ago...how does that make me paranoid? I don't need checkuser to ID a sockmaster--MONGO 02:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

WebHamster has now been unblocked by Black Kite (talk · contribs) on the basis of "I knew TPO was you as soon as I poked through your contributions following that non-free image kerfuffle, but, meh, what's the point of blocking someone who's mostly editing productively?", most likely related to WH's request here as The Pink Oboe, asking to be unblocked so he can continue to contribute in a particular manner.

The unblocking admin doesn't appear from my quick checks to have consulted the CU/blocking admin who acted on the SPI, for any of the (multiple) accounts this user operated. This strikes me as...non-ideal. Unrepentant socking is generally one of those things you don't get unblocked after because you say "Now I could quite easily [edit] as a sock but sooner or later I would be caught and that's just a general waste of time for everyone." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I must admit to be rather puzzled by this development as well, from what I saw above and the user's attitude, I fail to see how his socking should be treated so leniently. I really don't understand the reasoning behind the unblock. Unrepentant sockmaster, serious civility problems (see his talkpage box at the top for a sample of the user's attitude and approach). User clearly states that "I know it could be said that I just don't care, which to be honest is probably close to the truth.". Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a fair bit of historic here from a fair while ago. WebHamster was blocked with the note to get over the issues and edit in an adult manner and request unblocking and we now appear to have that situation. He is on a good faith request agreement not to continue recent disruptive/rudeness issues and we all hope that he will move forward in a constructive manner. The socking issues are not worth additional action imo and I for one have no objection to the unblocking, in fact I support it. Lets hope good faith and constructive contributions will be the outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"The provisos for me to be unblocked is that I keep my edits to article space (except my own page of course), and then only to add, change or remove images, or other edits that are image related. I've promised not to get into discussions in Wikipedia space (apart from the image workshops) or other User space (though I may break that one just for a select few users)." Please note the last portion. I fail to see the good faith, aside from being straight forward about his intent to break his commitments. Also see the whole civility-free space thing, the middle finger given to the reader of the page, and extensive socking in the last 24 hours. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as for the extensive socking, he created a few throwaway accounts. The best is that he has held his hands up to the WebHamster account and made a commitment to move forward in a less disruptive and more colloquial and constructive manner - negating on that commitment will likely have the usual consequences. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Off2riorob here. If Webhamster/Pink Oboe wants to confine himself to a single account, choose a non-scandalous username, edit productively in the image arena and stay away from the discussion pages which tend to be the problem areas for him, that's what we want, isn't it? 28bytes (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reblocked; there is no way we should REWARD sockpuppetry like this. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That takes us solidly into wheel-war territory, doesn't it? 28bytes (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Depends on how much you want to wikilawyer it on the grounds that he unblocked WH, not TPO... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

They're the same editor, for Christ's sake. Did the blocking admin consult me? No. Did he consult the original blocking admin (Jehochman) who agreed the unblock with conditions? No. It doesn't matter which account is unblocked. We have an editor who promises to behave if given an account, and only stick to one area of Wikipedia (image post-processing) at which they have been very productive. If they slip back into problematic behaviour, we can re-block them. It's a win-win situation. I fucking despair sometimes. Black Kite (t) 18:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Said editor also announced his intent to break said promises regarding the area of involvement, has a box on the top of his talk page announcing his intent to continue behaving as in the past regard civility issues on his talk page. On the one hand he says he will do so and so, on the other makes it very clearly he won't. I don't see how it can be judged credible. I see no change in the user's behavior from what led to his block, nor will to change. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Except that they've edited very productively for a long time until recently under the sock. I've known who it was for a long time and so have a number of other admins. Don't they at least deserve a chance to prove they can behave? Fixing the problem if they don't is only one keypress away. Black Kite (t) 18:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm with Black Kite on this one, and I support the unblock. It's not about "rewarding" anything, it's about what's best for Wikipedia - and I think giving an otherwise productive editor a further chance to contribute (and it will be under close observation now) is the best approach at this time -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• The issue of WH/TPO being "productive" is somewhat disputable; note that this thread was initially begun on the issue of his habitual incivility and nonconstructive behavior. The socking only came out later, and added fuel to the fire that was already burning. I, personally, don't see someone who engages in as disruptive a manner as TPO was as someone who is "productive". I suppose others have different views on what constitutes productivity. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

User:WebHamster block and unblock; possible wheel war - leaving it to the community to judge me and others

This user was blocked. He started sockpuppeting, using multiple accounts; when caught and blocked, he was unblocked by User: Black Kite, for reasons which are completely a mystery to me. I reflexively reblocked WebHamster, since I could see no reason on earth to reward a sockpuppeter whose socks are not merely incivil but gratuitously obnoxious, vulgar and destructive (one sock claims to suffer from Tourette's-like symptoms). I was not trying to start a wheel war, but of course will submit my WP:IAR action to the judgement of the broader administrative community. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite is generally a very sensible admin - did you touch base with him to ask why he'd unblocked? MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Re Webhamster: I support an unblock per my comments above.
2. Re Orangemike: Orangemike is an excellent admin and made a decision he thought was obvious and in the best interests of the project, so have a minnow for the wheel-warring (if it's fair to call it that) and let's move on from that and let the community decide on Webhamster's fate. 28bytes (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Black Kite's reason for unblock can be found here (and to be fair, in the unblock comment he did say "per discussion at User talk:The Pink Oboe" - a quick search on "WebHamster" found it for me) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• The unblock was also agreed with Pink Oboe's original blocking admin Jehochman (see talk page). OrangeMike did not consult with either myself or him. The reasons for unblocking are only a mystery to him because he didn't investigate the issue - all the information was there. The user asked us for one chance and we gave it to them. The only difference is we unblocked their original account, not their sock. If we'd unblocked TPO and OrangeMike had reblocked them that would have been wheel-warring - so why is this OK? They've edited very productively as TPO until recently; I've known who TPO was for a while and some people have known for longer than me. I didn't see the point in blocking a productive editor at the time. What's the worst that can happen? WebHamster returns to his previous behaviour, gets blocked again and stays blocked. What's the best? He continues editing productively (in an area where not many people work) as he did as TPO. Win/win situation, surely? Black Kite (t) 18:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Kite; the discussion at User talk:The Pink Oboe is exactly what I meant by "reasons which are completely a mystery to me"! There was nothing in that brief discussion which I could understand as an explanation of why a serial sockpuppeter should be unblocked; nor do any of your further comments, good faith as they clearly are, clarify it for me. The only reason I reverted you is that it seemed to me to be a no-brainer, classic WP:IAR material; I certainly meant no discourtesy to you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused by that, I thought the chain of events went :he is disruptive as TPO, has an SPI started because of that, and then is proven to be WH an indef blocked user. If he was constructive as TPO, surely this chain of events would not have transpired. Did I miss something? Heiro 19:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. He got into a high-profile argument as TPO and ended up getting blocked for incivility (which was fair enough, but it wouldn't have been an indef); prior to that he had been constructive - see the history of his talkpage, for instance. Black Kite (t) 19:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

He got blocked for personal attacks or harassment twice. The first time it required removing talk page access. I believe this sort of behaviour and general incivility was what got the Webhamster account blocked so I would say it is concerning since it doesn't sound like they've improved much. They have been constructive, so it's a question of whether the good work they do is enough to outweight the problems they seem to cause. Nil Einne (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support block-rewarding an indeff blocked user who sockpuppets,( and whose behavior as the sock is so egregious he gets himself blocked again and in the process reveals still more socks), with an unblock of the original account? Per the link above, where the editor discusses his medical problems and seeks to blame his behavior on them to some extent, WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. The project and its other members shouldn't be subjected to the sort of behavior the editor has displayed, repeatedly as several accounts, editing Wikipedia isn't for everyone. Heiro 18:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. The 'discussion at User talk:The Pink Oboe" does not appear to have addressed the issue of socking, and only peripherally addressed the issue of incivility ("language won't be an issue, because I won't be talking to anyone", basically). There were also only two participants in that discussion other than TPO, as opposed to the numerous editors who weighed in on the original ANI thread, which was strongly in favor of TPO (or WebHamster, or whichever name we'd like to call him) being a disruptive user. In a case where community discussion has reached the point of "block this user for his behavior", followed by the revelation of blatant socking (which the user seems to find amusing), I would expect to see discussion with the community prior to an unblock. OrangeMike was a bit fast on the draw to reblock the way he did, but to my eyes, the unblock was...really quite bad, such that the block really ought to have been restored pending community consensus that TPO's proposed restrictions were valid unblock conditions. ("You should unblock me. I'll behave, mostly, and anyway if you don't unblock, I'll just sock." "Sure, have an unblock"? Really?)A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This case definitely took a strange turn. Wikipedia doesn't typically welcome sockmasters back with open arms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Except that he gave up all his socks to us to show at least a bit of good faith, something that appears to be in short supply round here. Black Kite (t) 18:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • That's another strange turn. It's typically hard to get sockmasters to admit they're socking, let alone providing a list of them. I wonder - how hard will it be to get a reblock at a later date, vs. reblocking right now? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
      • If he steps out of line once, I'll block him myself, and I said as much. Black Kite (t) 19:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • No, he did not "give up" all his socks. They were found in an SPI. causa sui (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Not quite - the SPI was only endorsed because he admitted to socking - the checkuser was originally turned down as not enough evidence; at that point he could have given up with TPO and carried on with one of the others, if he'd so wished. Black Kite (t) 19:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
        • You still have this wrong. I helped to get the SPI reopened after unrelated editors presented evidence of socking in the AN/I discussion above. TPO also made statements after being blocked indicating he thought it was pointless to indefblock him because he could just create another account. That is not the same thing as coming clean; it's the opposite. It's "I'm going to do what I want and you can't stop me." He openly admitted it (ha ha, you guys got me) after the checkuser confirmed the socking. causa sui (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support reblock per Fluffernutter. When community consensus is that strong in favor of a block, unblocking with a two-person consensus is a Bad Thing, and OrangeMike acted appropriately to enforce the consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - Black Kite should explain why he/she shouldn't be desysop'd for unblocking. Rklawton (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - User was socking less than 24 hours ago, announced on the top of his talk page he won't follow his restrictions (second paragraph) and made clear he has no interest in behaving civilly (first paragraph). We don't need sockpuppetters who never repented and clearly stated their intent to keep socking if not unblocked. Zero willingness to address the socking, zero willingness to address the civility issues. I'm still amazed at how the user was even considered for unblocking without him addressing any of the issues that got him blocked. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 2) Frankly, I endorse the block. TBH, I couldn't see any "real" material on the talk page that addressed the original reasons — including the socking — of blocking. HurricaneFan25 19:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Trouts for all. I don't much care whether Webhamster/Pink Oboe/clever sockpuppet guy is blocked or unblocked. What does grind my gears is the fact that I (and others) specifically declined to unblock, and did so for specific reasons. Whatever other accounts the editor was using, his conduct as TPO was enough to warrant a block. At a minimum, I would've liked to have seen Black Kite offer some sort of explanation, here or to the admins who had blocked and confirmed the block - "Hey, you reviewed this, but now he's promised to do X, Y, and Z, and I think we should unblock." would've been all you needed. There was no urgency here, no imminent harm to the project in leaving this guy blocked - quite the opposite. From the conversation at TPO's talk, I imaging having an editor advocate on his behalf would've been sufficient to satisfy him as to his shot at being unblocked. The reblock was ill-advised as well, though much easier to justify. My concern there is that the drama it causes will far outweigh the damage prevented by the block itself. OrangeMike and Black Kite are both smart admins, but we got suckered here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, my last comment. The only drama is here, not anywhere else (and you're also missing the point that it was Jehochman who originally agreed to the unblock; I only pressed the button because he wasn't around). WebHamster (as TPO) was a very productive editor in an area where not many people work (you only have to look at the history of TPO's talkpage to see the number of fulfilled requests for image work). JH and I obviously thought that it was worth one last chance - and let's face it, it wasn't as if he wouldn't be heavily monitored. I don't understand this, really; we have dozens of disruptive editors wandering the Wiki causing massive drama everywhere (see, for example, global warming, Israel/Palestine, cold fusion etc. etc. etc.), many of them being blocked, unblocked and still causing massive drama and problems yet TPO had stayed under the radar for a long time, working away productively. It was worth a shot. And as I said, the moment he stepped out of line, he'd be gone for good. Ah well. Black Kite (t) 19:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • My point wasn't that he should or should not be blocked - Wiser men than I have already weighed in. My concern was that it seemed that very little discussion had taken place about it - though Jehochman agreeing to the unblock is a big piece of the puzzle. I don't give a good goddamn whether the editor is the most prolific featured article writer on the planet - if there's reason to believe that his incivility and sockpuppet shenanigans were going to continue, he should've remained blocked. That's the point on which I think we should've had more discussion - and it's likely I would have agreed with your position. Hell, I kind of do anyway. But that wasn't my point. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support reblock Like Fluffernutter I am unpersuaded by the sincerity of his statements. WebHamster/TPO doesn't seem to believe that he's done anything wrong. Like UltraExactZZ I think that given the history the bigger danger to the project was unblocking, and given the number of people endorsing the original block some review would have been much better than unilateral action. Edit: Suggestions that anyone desysop are totally ridiculous. It seems impossible for an admin to make a mistake without someone reaching for the executioner's axe. causa sui (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support reblock....and with RkLawton as to the desysopping og Black Kite...there is a bad pattern developing here and some admins are seriously misusing their powers.MONGO 19:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Wait a second here. Jehochman blocks... fair enough. Jehochman then gives his blessing for an unblock, which Black Kite then does. How is that, by any stretch of the imagination, "misusing [his] powers"? 28bytes (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • RkLawton asks for Black Kite to give reasons as to why he should not be desysopped. One would assume reading the bloody threads would demonstrate BK's view point, without him having to explain it (like this a court of law or something). Unhelpful drama creating desysop calls are not adressing the issue; More germane is that they do not belong in a thread about the unblocking / blocking of this user. Pedro :  Chat  20:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I get it...a completely neutral admin decided to perform a completely uncontroversial action and had wide support for it prior to this action...why didn't I SEE that!!! Of course!MONGO 21:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested to know what you mean by your sarcastic use of "neutral" here ... (tip: check The Pink Oboe's block log). Black Kite (t) 21:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What you clearly do not see is that sticking "wheel war" and "block" in the same section at ANI will invite much pointless drama and confuses two issues. For an experienced user like yourself, I find that a little suprising. Your sarcastic reply duly noted and disregarded however. Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oh yeah ... and next time I need advice on poor tool use by someone who was desysopped for the very same, I'll ask, thanks. Black Kite (t) 00:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am speaking from experience...your apparent inability to see that you're part of the problem here seems to indicate that you need a similar experience...and it can be arranged.--MONGO 02:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'd suggest being sarcastic and then being vaguely threatening probably underlines the reasons that you lost the tools, to be honest. Anyway, your call, you know where WP:RFCU is - go for it. Black Kite (t) 02:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I hereby declare this bluff 'called. Reyk _YO! 02:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support UNblock. I'll stick my neck out, though not my pink oboe. What WebHamster et al have misdone here is not really under discussion, and neither is the good they have done for the project, and the latter should be our interest. I am satisfied that we have full disclosure, and I am satisfied with the discussion on the Oboe's talk page. I'll take him at good faith. I won't go finding fault with the blocking, unblocking, or reblocking admin; I want us to move on. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support block - Frankly, from what I saw of TPO's unblock request, it basically amounted to "I don't want to sock, so unblock me" - with the implication that socking or meatpuppetry would likely occur if an unblock was not issued. As for contributions vs. civility - it's not "either/or". Yes, TPO/etc. has contributed a lot of quality content. But if he won't contribute in a civil matter, the encyclopedia won't grind to a halt without him (maybe we need WP:WIKIDOESNOTNEEDYOU written?); if he can't, as has been hinted at ("mini-strokes"/Tourette's) then, without any disrespect meant on account of his condition, WP:COMPETENCE comes into play - making allowances for uncivil behavior because "they can't help it" isn't a road I think we should be going down. I don't think anything stronter than {{trout}} should be handed out, but I do believe there should have been more discussion prior to the original unblocking, seeing as the AN/I thread that kicked off the most recent round was still active at the time of unblocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – this situation looks like the one with TreasuryTag – a "keyboard warrior" editor who looks for naive/soft admins and uses them as a crutch, not only to do their fighting for them, but to warrant/justify their behaviour. As for "tourettes" – in cases like this I wish WP:RS applied as much to "mental instability" claims as it does to verifying an editor is deceased before marking their page as such – i.e. they should be asked to prove it, as it's easy for anyone to game the system and use WP:AGF as a pretext to act disruptively. Personally, I wish a few more admins had the constitution of Pierrepoint and were willing to pull the lever on every highly disruptive editors, instead of turning the matter ad nauseum. Pusillanimous people like Webhamster feed off sympathy, and Wiki isn't a play ground. Nor does approving of "adult language" automatically make Wiki an "adult site" and mean we should discriminate against younger readers on that basis (see this nonsense]) – strong language is offensive to people for many reasons: age, gender, sexuality, religion, natural dislike for profanity – so members like Webhamster are harming Wiki on a far greater scope than a few clean-minded minors. There are people aiming to give Wiki a functional position in schools, as a resourceful encyclopedia – that won't happen with F's and B's flying all over. Editors are not the only people on Wiki, and I sometimes think some admins are frequently short-sighted in their approach to dealing with the internal community (contributors), and forget the wider world of regular readers who never click "Edit" but use the site faithfully. Anyway, just my two cents as I think a few admins consider themselves the only members capable of discussing such matters, per the idiom "too many chiefs but not enough Indians", which often results in low quality management. NB: These are not PAs, they are observations – if you can't accept that admins are all fallible humans too, you need to wake up to reality. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Come on Marcus--I don't think like to think of Black Kite and myself as naive or soft. No one here was suggesting, I think, that non-admins aren't welcome in this discussion. School teachers are unlikely to publicly peruse the talk pages of editors (though I have used Malleus's talk page to an all-adult, coed audience), and I like to think that teachers will pull up Featured Articles if they want to use Wikipedia, but that's beside the point. Your complaint about low-quality management is a bit gratuitous, since at the current state of discussion the editor you want blocked is still blocked--if anything, you should probably sing the praises of the long-sighted admins who support this block and the stiffness of their pink oboes, as opposed to Black Kite's and mine weakly protuberances. Ha, if anything, I could show how HUGE my pink oboe is by unblocking against stiff consensus, but I want to be a team player even if I disagree with what we're doing here. So if I seem weak and naive it is because I follow consensus, hoping only to help sway it. BTW, and FWIW, I have disagreed with WebHamster in the past--I may have even called them a bad name. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, firstly I didn't say "who" was naive/soft, you put those names forward - I said editors "like" TreasuryTag/Webhamster look for soft admins to fight their battles for them, given that this isn't the first instance of such behaviour being discussed and persistent troublemakers defended more than they deserve. Now Black Kite is taking the flak for putting his neck out, and people want him demoted from admin as a result. I sympathise with him, because it shouldn't have to come to that - Webhamster's account was put on the block and severed. There is no "good faith" in playing admin sympathy for your own gains if you're aware that you are disruptive, as he is and has been to a considerable degree, cunning, inconsiderate and self-serving interests. Secondly, my comment on "low-quality management" isn't a complaint, it's a suggestion that most of the people commenting, and bickering, here are admins and it doesn't hurt to seek outside opinions, to maintain a neutral balance. As for Wiki in schools, who said anything about teachers? Kids have net-access, research, find an article that supports their studies, then they go to the talk page and find some trumped-up prig f'ing and name-calling. That discredits the article, and wiki entire. How it affects the kid, or their research, is unpredictable. Would it also be right for someone with Webhamster's demeanour to post their "tourettes afflicted" (yes, I'm cynical) views on, let's say, the Justin Bieber talk page, where no doubt a lot of young girls are likely to visit? If you had a 12–16 year old kid, would you want them to read his "oops, slip of the finger due to my tourettes" remarks? I wouldn't - but the comments reflect on Wiki as a whole, not that one editor, or one article, but everyone and everything gets blanketed with "Wiki is a foul website" remarks. You, me, Jimbo, every admin and contributor, because one guy thinks "shut the fuck up already" is an appropriate edit summary or response to a challenge when their contribs are criticised. I do support those admins who support his block. But take a look at TreasuryTag's history and how easily someone can play the system, bounce back time and time again under false promises, socks, etc, get the support of admins and then back-stab them all because they knew they have no intention of being civil. How many resources are they wasting due to their disruptions in comparison to their "productive edits"? For every hour he spends alone, several admins spend each warning, investigating, discussing his account. In short, his productiveness isn't good value because his attitude loses more time than his contribs gain. I have no sympathy for blocking someone with a million edits, if they can't learn to mind their attitude to the degree that half those edits involve turning Wiki into a sewer. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum's worst enemy is the clique of supporters that flock to him, blind supporters and disrupters and trolls that imo are the enemy within to the project - users that support an environment that would look like the early flame wars of the internet. and would if they had their way, destroy the project. - User:Parrot of Doom, User:WebHamster - User:Nev1, all from the same geo location, add on User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz - they all blindly support each other and degenerate the community civility position. Such groups of disruptive users that edit against the community consensus position need removal whether some of them write content or not, as a group imo they are a net loss to the project. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheers rob, your unwavering support is much appreciated. Nev1 (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I'll take that abusive and nonsensical comment as a compliment. Feel free to geolocate me--I'm pretty close to Birmingham, actually. And maybe MF can come by and copy edit for you, troll and flamer that he is. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not helpful. 28bytes (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Its the reality though difficult to look at . - This whole issue revolves around Malleus. What did WebHamster do immediately after creating the disruptive run to mummy redirect - he ran to mummy - or rather... Malleus... to tell him what naughty disruptive thing he had done. Who has supported the redirect , supporters of Malleus. Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're not asking for administrative action against Malleus for someone visiting his talk page, then bringing him up is only going to inflame things further. So, again, not helpful. 28bytes (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly how does this mess revolve around me, except in Off2riorob's fanciful imagination? Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Its all about you Malleus, your supporters, you are the leader of the group. They support you, your position, they flock to your talkpage. The best thing you could do is tell them all to go away, find another figurehead. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a group now? How exciting! Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

: If I may. I'm not a member of this "community" anymore but check in from time to time, and this one i find amusing. The original indef block on the Hamster was placed by one "Protonk." The discussion leading up to it was precipitated by hamster's creation of a page on the false claim that a celebrity enjoyed stuffing small rodents up his butt. This block was widely supported at the time. [195]. The warning notice at the top of his page, and the picture of the middle finger, are just adorable (If you have come here to lecture, patronise, troll or otherwise fuck me about then you lose the right to have any expectation of a civil response.) Have fun!Bali ultimate (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblock- This editor has been doing productive work so I'm persuaded by Black Kite's argument that they should be given another chance. It's not as though they'll be able to do much harm now. Reyk _YO! 21:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. As a general comment, editors who engage in severe BLP vandalism as Webhamster did most likely have severe problems that make them unpredictable, e.g. severe mental or alcohol problems. It is not appropriate and neither in Wikipedia's interest nor in such editors' interest to let them resume editing without following the proper process to minimise damage to either. Hans Adler 21:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • If you're referencing the gerbil, that was years ago. Has Hamster/Oboe been guilty of such infractions since then? (I'm asking honestly--I agreed that the article should have been squashed.) Drmies (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

    It doesn't matter how long ago that was. We have procedures for banned editors who wish to return, such as WP:STANDARDOFFER, and they should be followed. Returning as a sock, behaving problematically again, and then getting caught is not one of them. I don't see why should make an exception for an editor with such a confrontative attitude, who also makes bizarre, unverifiable claims related to Tourette syndrome. It's not OK to feed such trolls. Hans Adler 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

    He made no such claims about Tourette syndrome. I don't know why people keep saying he did. 28bytes (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

    Sorry. Thanks for pointing that out. In my case I saw it mentioned in this discussion, saw something like it at User talk:The Pink Oboe#Tourette's syndrome affects some editors, so please be kind to everybody, and didn't really go beyond the heading. Turns out that it was Kiefer Wolfowitz who came up with the idea, and TPO actually dismissed it. Hans Adler 22:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

    Thank you. I appreciate the correction. 28bytes (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• FYI: Hamster just posted an unblock request on his talk page. I'm going to venture a guess that no single admin will respond to that before discussion here has developed a bit--or descended some more as the case may be. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock - The point of blocks, so we're always told, is to stop disruption. TPO was blocked and any supposed disruption ended. Now he's agreed to chill out and to continue where he left off. So what would a block achieve, or is it punishment that people want? Oh, and which admin is going to rebuke Off2riorob for his personal attack a few lines up? Parrot of Doom 21:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I've asked Rob to refactor - as you or Drmies or anyone else could have done. Or are you after punishment (your words) POD? Seems like it to me. Pedro :  Chat  21:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Hopefully, none. Whilst Rob is somewhat crude, his observations are just. It is just as "fair game" to identify shared geolocations as it is to match IPs socking, and suggest a pattern - he could have been less accusational, however. If you want another admin to rebuke him, you're spinning his opinions into personal venture. This discussion relates to Webhamster's block, not your.. pride. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not after punishment, just consistency, but I think I have more chance of seeing a chicken with lips than that.. MarcusBritish, you're talking bollocks; I am not a disruptive editor, as Off2riorob alleged. Parrot of Doom 21:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm talking bollocks? That's the kind of addlepated remark I expect of someone who doesn't have a good word for anyone, but themselves. Maybe you too could do with a course in civility. Don't come the priggish abuse at me though. You clearly assumed I "sided with" Rob. On the contrary, I said his observations were just, not his conclusion. Don't run to admins to defend your name, pride, conscience or to rebuke people, it really is poor for and I am unperturbed by your.. sulking. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 21:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, you were talking bollocks and you still are. Off2riorob wrote a blatent personal attack against several editors and you excused it as merely an observation. Then you bring up the issue of civility, erroneously, while assuming that my post referred to my pride or conscience when it was plainly about neither. Nice of you to finish off by claiming I'm sulking though. What now of your civility policy, eh? Parrot of Doom 22:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Sulking is an observation also. Bollocks are something I don't attribute to you, physically. Like Webhamster - all mouth, no trousers. Keyboard warrior. Because no one wants to rally to your anti-Rob campaign, you try to belittle them. Your "bollocks" remarks are nothing more than insults, and if you were smart you would at least offer a defence as to why Rob is wrong. You didn't even attempt that. Instead you resorted to slurs and demands for a chief whip to sweep his remarks under a convenient rug for you. So here's some more "bollocks" - what makes Rob wrong, and you right? There are 2 sides to every argument.. and your only defence has been "bollocks". I observed that, you made it "offensive" to yourself. I don't take fools gladly. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
            • • You make this laughably easy. I made no observation of Rob or you, rather it was your arguments to which I referred. That didn't stop you from whittling on about civility, before launching into half a dozen silly personal attacks about my manhood and my motives. That makes you a hypocrite, just like most of the other civility proponents I've encountered here. Parrot of Doom 22:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                • I have to make it easy - wouldn't want to strain you. You've been grinding an axe against Rob for a while, I saw your off-hand remarks above and on Webhamster's talk page - you either have a serious crush on him, or a personal settle to score, to warrant that amount of mentions of him. As they say - take it outside. You have no room for "rebukes", kettle calling the frying pan. It's a pleasure encountering you - you set the benchmark for me to realise how I'm normal, and you're constantly condescending and contemptuous. I call a stick a stick - problem is, where yours is lodged, no wonder you have problems dealing with "accusations" that are not that important, and are off-topic. Storm in a teacup, old boy. Your tactics are little more than misguided bully tactics. Go bitch to someone who remotely cares. Your attempt at "sarcastic" edit summaries are decrepit too. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                  • Yet more personal attacks. Laughable. Parrot of Doom 23:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                    • Glad you're amused! I find your sycophantic request here even more so the funnier. Got a problem? There's a "New Section" option above – use it. Claim I'm PA'ing you, whilst defending your own first-serve comment given that I'm not the only one thinks you're a whiney pretentious fool. I'll do you a favour in return: I'll paint that "chicken with lips" on my arse – seems like you could do with a good kiss! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                      • For anyone interested, I think your presumption that I have any interest in sucking up to anyone here says a great deal about you. For anyone interested, that is. Enjoy wallowing in filth. Parrot of Doom 23:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
                        • More butter? *smoochy* Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block He's clearly not competent! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block I think Black Kite made a good-faith "on the ground" call to unblock, given JEH's agreement, however given the wider interest and egregious latter behaviour by TPO, running it by the community first would have been a better strategy. BK's reasoning is sound but there were lingering concerns about whether WH is truly committed to civil engagement, and OrangeMike's reasoning in reblocking (we don't negotiate with sockmasters) is also valid. The latest unblock request tips me over to firm support for the block to remain, at least for now, so I guess I am one of "the slavish zealots amongst you". Franamax (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - while I supported Black Kites good faith unblock on a short lead, my support was only after the event. I also support Mike's re-block for his stated reasons. - as he is now blocked again and nothing I have seen from him has given me any faith that he will contribute with regard to community norms and not attempt to push his minority position on to the community at this time without further discussion and assurances I am unwilling support an unblock. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Completey Navel-gazing commentary by non-administrator Isn't it great how we can fight the same block-unblock-block fight every 2 to 3 months without having to remember the last time we had a drag out fight with threats to go to ArbCom with emergency petitions for desysopping and non-apology apologies from the wheel warring administrators who cause the problem. I think I've seen this pattern now 5 times in the year of active editing and perusing ANI. If we're going to make WHEELWAR mean something then there should be consequences. Each administrator is responsible for only one administrator's actions, their own. If you can't stay around to implement a adminstrative action based on consensus, you should let another administrator make the decision.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasteur (talk • contribs)
• All this is, really, is a clear indictment on our entire community - both "content editors" and "admins" and everyone in between. When so much fallout can come from one "arsehole" (pun intended) you have to question whether something is fundamentally flawed. Those redirects have a certain validity you know... I mean, seriously, come on! Unblock and everyone go back to their corners. --'Errant ^(chat!) 22:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As I see it, the issue this time (as with the last time it happened, a few days ago) is lack of communication prior to taking some potentially controversial action. A few words of discussion could have prevented this latest food-fight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - WebHamster is wikilawyering to somehow say 'he' wasn't blocked, only the account was, and there's no prohibition against socking to evade a block anyway. That's obvious bullshit, and we should not be rewarding someone who refuses to follow a very simple rule by welcoming them back. → ROUX ₪ 22:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Welcoming them back with some pretty onerous restrictions you forgot to mention. You have clearly also neglected to look into the history of User:Law, aka User:theUndertow. The socking issue is by no means as clear cut as seem to believe. Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I think it's fair to say that kerfuffle has actually negatively influenced people's willingless to accept someone coming back when blocked and showed people were actually not that willing to accept the sort of thing even when people behave well (from memory that was mostly the case). Okay there's no administorship here, but when you get blocked for the same problem a few months after coming back, and then try to say there was nothing wrong with you coming back, well.... Nil Einne (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • (after e/c) TU left behind a smoking ruin of resignations out of his good intentions, because he took it too far and his "friends" acquiesced. That incident did make clear that the community does not look kindly on "open secrets" when it starts impacting on the community, as it clearly did here. Franamax (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support for unblock I've looked briefly in to the webhamster history but I still don't know that much. I commented fairly extensively on TPO's dispute with Hammersoft at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive723#Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop and WP:NFCC compliance. As I remarked there, any sympathy people had for their position generally evaporated once people saw the incivility and personal attacks and the general way they behaved. Unfortunately, it seemed almost impossible to get this through to them. It seems that WH has somewhat of a history with this sort of behaviour and then after coming back really, it only took a few months for them to be blocked again requiring talk page access to be revoked, and then another block a month later without the sockpuppetry being a consideration. This doesn't lead me to believe they've improved. Yes, they can be quite constructive at times, but seem to go off the rails way too easily and way to massively. The fact that when they confessed to socking and said they wanted to come back as WH, they seemed to suggest it was pointless to keep them blocked since they will just sock doesn't inspire much confidence. It's not that I'm saying they're definitely insincere, they may very well be sincere at this time believing they will change. But as so many examples in real life shows, it's actually fairly common that people can be sincere about changing when they make the promise, but then all to easily fall back in to old 'habits'. Having said all that, I'm willing to support an unblock only because they seem to put in a lot of good work, particularly related to images. This doesn't negate their bad behaviour, but it means I am willing to let them have this one last chance if they really desire it. They need to understand there will be a rather low threshold when they return and if they fail to improve they're likely to be gone for a long time (and if they continue to sock, it'll just mean they're gone for even longer). So I suggest they strongly considered whether they really want to be unblocked at this time. The alternative would be a 6 months+ break (it does look like the community is going to force this on them anyway), without socking and then come back if they've really sure they can behave better. If after the break they still aren't sure they can behave well, then just don't return. Some people just aren't a fit for wikipedia. Other then hopefully some benefit of time, I think people will be slightly more tolerant of them if they're coming back after a longer time and seem to have genuinely improved even if they make some (minor) mistakes. Still it's their choice, if they want to return now, so be it. Nil Einne (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock and put this pitiful thread out of its misery. OrangeMike has caused more disruption with his wheel-warring than WebHamster could ever do with his naughty words. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. I don't see the aftermath as bad. The fact pattern is difficult. Nobody wants to reward bad behavior. I'd give the block/unblock/block episode a pass all around, and I'd let Black Kite (who was tracking TPO earlier) try rehab with short leash. Glrx (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. As a rule I don't support overriding another admin's decision. No reason to override the original block though. We need to permanently get rid of more of these disruptive users. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• ;Support block Given the complexity of the situation & the divergent opinions, I find it remarkable that BK would have unblocked without prior consensus. Surely they must at least have realized that this was controversial. I regard OM's action as merely restoring the status quo, and showing some of the problems with our definition of wheel warring. I'm previously unfamiliar with this particular mess, but looking at it, it seems inescapable to conclude that the unblock was an action that carried risk of imminent danger to the encyclopedia , and an emergency reversal of it was in order. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support keeping blocked. We can't allow people to just sockpuppet and then say "Oh, I was good while sockpuppeting, let me back in!" I support giving WebHamster a second chance if he refrains from socking for the next 6ish months. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Are we going to run a weekly checkuser or something?--MONGO 03:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm just suggesting a standard offer, nothing out of the ordinary. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• As the original blocking admin of the TPO account, I had offered an unblock on condition that the user choose exactly one account to edit from, and that it not be TPO (as the username is arguably inappropriate; this user won't benefit from a trollish username), and that the user refrain from gratuitous profanity, personal attacks, and generally abide by Wikipedia policies (implicit condition). As I see it, the user agreed, and Black Kite unblocked. If the unblock message was insufficiently clear, any concerned admin could have asked Black Kite (or me) to explain. There was no need to rapidly flip flop the block. Please, let's not talk about wheel warring; this might just be a misunderstanding. Does anybody need any further explanation? Did WebHamster do something incorrect since they were unblocked? If so, a re-block for recidivism could be justified. Jehochman ^Talk 03:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The thing is, I think, that there are more problems here than just the socking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Arbcom This incident seems to have arisen because Black Kite reverted Jimbo's speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Run to Mommy. Black Kite seems to be acting as an enabler or apologist for incivility and the result is more incivility and drama. This background indicates that Black Kite was involved and so his unblock was invalid. The matter should be referred to Arbcom, who are currently deciding the Unblocks and enabling case. Black Kite has already declared himself to be tangentially involved there and this incident seems quite similar. Warden (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This would be pervasive if it wasn't (a) a personal attack ("enabler for incivility"? gee, thanks - still, I can ignore that), and (b) complete bollocks. Because I didn't revert Jimbo's deletion - have a look - it's still deleted. All I did was close the RfD (because it was pointless with people voting both like the RfD was still running and converting it to a DRV after Jimbo's deletion) and then restart it as a DRV. Which was completely logical, and no-one has complained about until now. Your second problem is that you don't understand what "tangentally" means, since I didn't use my tools at all in the case referred to at Arbcom. And I think you'll find that unblocking a user in good faith after the blocking admin had already agreed to the unblock is something they're probsbly not going to think worthy of a case either. Black Kite (t) 11:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock, which was entirely in line with Jehochman's 'conditions' so can hardly be said to be controversial. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock. If someone wants to propose a community ban then so be it, but this is the wrong way of doing it. Polequant (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block and trouts for the unblocker and the previous blockign admin for agreeing to it. Problematic user turns out to be a sock of an already indef blocked user, and the result is an unblock? Furthermore, could some of the enablers perhaps point out to Webhamster that editing as Webhamster and as The Pink Oboe at the same time is just probably not the best idea when you are blocked for sockpuppetry, and wanted to come back with just one account? Perhaps just showing that you are serious about it might have been somewhat helpful (yesterday and today 17 edits as Webhamster, 22 as Pink Oboe. I've accordingly bloced the Pink Oboe talk page. And why has Hurricanefan25 removed the sockpuppet cat from the sockpuppets[196]? Not helpful at all... Fram (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm a little surprised that, right in the middle of this AN/I discussion about unilateral admin moves, you unilaterally locked the talk page. It seems to me that that could have waited until there was resolution here; I'm not sure what the hurry was. 28bytes (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • He has requested an unblock as webhamster, and agreed before the previous unblock to edit with one account only. So why does he need two talkpages for two accounts? If he wants to edit as Webhamster, there is no need for him to have Pink Oboe edits at Pink Oboe's talk page. Please tell me, why does he or we need the Pink Oboe talk page active as well? Fram (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Because other people are engaging him on conversation on both pages, and he's not being disruptive on either. But that's not really the point. The point is that could we maybe have a moratorium on blocks, unblocks, locks and unlocks on the guy until this discussion is settled? We don't need any more unilateral admin actions right now; we already have the Colonel calling for an Arbcom case. What we need is discussion and consensus on this. 28bytes (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Everyone who wants to engage him can go to the page where he is requesting unblock. He is an indef blocked sockpuppeteer, why does he need two accounts editing two talk pages at the same time? His TPO user page is redirected to the WH user page (not by me), he wants to be unblocked as WH: having the discussion there and here is more than sufficient, without discussions about what to do with people with Tourette, which he doesn't have anyway. "What we need is discussion and consensus on" the block or unblock, not side-discussions on sock talk pages. How is keeping that talk page open helping us have discussion and finding consensus on this? Fram (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Yes, I understand why you locked the page. Do you understand why I think additional undiscussed admin actions are unwise at this point? 28bytes (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
            • "Undiscussed" admin actions are not okay? Whatever happened to WP:BOLD? He doesn't need the sock talk page to discuss anything. Doc talk 09:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock per the double standards and incivility shown by some editors on this page. It seems somewhat hypocritical that calls to block should be done in a most uncivil manner attacking WebHamster and others, perhaps they should be disregarded.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block Past behavior, and attacks from TPO against other editors, show that no trust is warranted for this user—the only thing we know for sure is that more drama will be forthcoming. Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. Getting oneself indef-blocked while on the verge of arbcom sanctions (note Carcharoth's comment), Then coming back literally hours after the case was dismissed because he had been supposedly indeffed? Not to mention the long history of socking, including socks created back in 2008 and 2009, including a 2009 sock that remained dormant until very recently? We can't even be sure that he's not socking right now, since any sleepers from that time would be entirely checkuser-proof. And the response to "unblock me or I'll sock anyway" should be to revoke talk page access and get a checkuser, not to unblock. T. Canens (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• CommentHow many chances will this user be given? Its not like he is a new user, its not as if he has not been told mulitple times how he should act? He admits to He admits to having 6 dynamic IP's and states that if the block remains he will not view Wikis rules as binding (but he does not anyway), and in effect is holding the project to ransom with the implied threat that he will not obey those rules. Moreover he does in fact continue to use unnecessary profanity, with regards to his attitude towards admins and the project. His contempt for both is really quite stunning. As to his 'proficancy' as I understood it copentancy wsa no excuse for breaking the rules. All users have to obey the saem rule regardels of the abilites.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - As Johnuniq says, no trust is warranted for this user, and they shouldn't have been unblocked in the first place. I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise. Swarm ^X 18:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block Very long history of blocks for incivility and edit warring, and recent incivility by his sock does not inspire confidence in better behavior in the future. Edison (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment WH has demonstrated further refusal to get it at User_talk:WebHamster#The_very_short_leash_proposed_for_my_return. causa sui (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

PMAnderson: likely breach of the conditions of his ban

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.

---

Background

In August PMAnderson was notified of his year-long topic ban by admin Elen of the Roads in these words, which I extract from his talkpage (and I underline for convenience):

Outcome of community discussion
There is no point in blocking now for civility issues occurring previously. Let us instead see if we can prevent repetition. Since all are agreed that WP:MOS is the current flashpoint, and there is a very considerable consensus that you need to stay away from it for some considerable time, let us try this. You are Topic banned from WP:MOS and discussions anywhere on the project concerning the Manual of Style or technical aspects of the use of the English language, including this talkpage, for a period of one year. I note that you have already agreed to leave this area alone, so I do not anticipate an enforcement issue, but if you should breach the ban, you can expect to be blocked for one week for a first offence and for the residuum of the topic ban for a repeat offence. If during the topic ban period, another substantial issue to do with civility, tendentious editing, personal attacks and/or disruption should arise, I have to advise that you face being banned from Wikipedia permanently. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That text, or very similar, can be found at the original ANI discussion page dedicated to the case. See also subsequent discussion.

The current incident

Neutrality recently posted at PMAnderson's talkpage (diff) to advise him of a discussion at WT:MOS, and PMAnderson responded at Neutrality's talkpage (diff). I quote PMAnderson's post in full:

All I am permitted to say
You have mistaken WP:MOS for a useful page, one full of advice derived by consensus from the actual practice of English writing. Observe who, and how few, defend it; observe whether their practice is based on English, or indeed on reason; observe how those who object are insulted and silenced (I have been silenced).
Then, if you see fit, do what I do: ignore it and write English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Though I did not bring the action at WP:ANI that resulted in PMAnderson's ban, I supported it – as one of the main victims of his disruption, incivility, and threats. I supported the ban in good faith and with clean hands, in the interest of the peaceful development of the Manual of Style – which had been disrupted by PMAnderson's activities, and which since his departure has benefited from a harmonious and collegial atmosphere. Productive work on WP:MOS has been able to resume.

Now I come here in the same spirit. It seems that PMAnderson is in breach of his ban. Rather than simply inform Neutrality that he was topic-banned and could not participate, he took the opportunity to denigrate the core style guide for the Project, and to revile the editors most dedicated to its maintenance. I am among them, as I should declare here. It is not for me to judge how PMAnderson ought to be dealt with, but I feel justified in advising the community of his recent behaviour. I leave it in the hands of those experienced in dealing with such recalcitrant abusiveness to determine what action might be appropriate.

Noetica^Tea? 10:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be verging on triviality as a complaint. Find something a teensy bit more substantive as a violation. And have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Collect, you might care to read Elen's decision. The text is above, underlined. The community discussion that led to this was so long and full of complaint against Mr Anderson that it had to be transferred to a sub-page. Community sanctions are either enforced properly or they may as well be disregarded by everyone. Which is it to be? Tony (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not an admin, so perhaps I'm not supposed to be commenting here. But there are two separate issues: one is a breach of WP:CIV, and the other a breach of the specific ban.

• Civility. I'm unable to find any criteria under "Identifying incivility" that would allow us to characterize these remarks as uncivil. Nor are they disruptive: User:Neutrality asked for Pmanderson's opinion, and PMA explained on the user's talk page why he couldn't discuss the particulars of the query. In informing Pmanderson of this ANI action, Noetica even makes it quite clear that he's pursuing an old grudge.
• MOS ban. The technical issue is whether these very broad comments constitute a violation of the ban. I take the ban to mean that Pmanderson cannot discuss matters of style, either the guidelines on points of style as outlined on MOS pages, or the specifics of style on article talk pages or any other WP space. I don't take the ban as a sort of non-disclosure agreement, where he is forbidden even to say "I have disagreements with the MOS about whether the guidelines reflect correct English usage, and therefore I'm not allowed to discuss this with you." Which is all he really said. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Topic bans are (or should be) enacted to prevent disruption, not so we can have games of gotcha. IMHO this falls squarely in the latter.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. It's more of a bitter comment on his ban, which is understandable, than about the MOS anyway. Let it be. --regentspark (comment) 13:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cynwolfe. No breach of the ban has happened here. Pmanderson was asked to comment to a single editor on their user talk page. That is not the same thing as taking part in a discussion. The comment wasn't uncivil, albeit fueled by frustration perhaps, and their comments were not about any of the content of WP:MOS.--v/r - TP 15:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Arguably uncivil, but I don't think it's a violation of his topic ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Clear breach.

This is not the first time that PMA has tested the limits and violated the letter of what was, by all accounts, a rather mild sanction, relative to the strong consensus to block him for a long time. A one-week block as a reminder of the terms that he must operate under is certainly justified; campaigning against the Manual of Style, even on a user talk page, is not OK. The terms of his ban instruct admins to block him for a week in response; I hope one will make that more than a hollow threat. Dicklyon (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So what would you do to prevent others from inviting his comment in the future? Put a large banner on his talk page saying "Don't feed the Don't discuss WP:MOS with PManderson"?--v/r - TP 16:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There was no strong consensus to block him for a long time ? I made the vote to block was 21 (for) - 16 (against), which is definitely not a consensus. Elen's block is way OTT, IMO. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Could I have that again in plainer English? I'm not sure what you mean. I haven't blocked PMAnderson...ever, as far as I recall. I closed the discussion and told him he was topic banned from a quite specific area, and I would block him if he ignored me, but I've not actually had to block him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to put a warning on somebodies talkpage when (s)he has a topic ban, similar to the warning when somebody is blocked? It is quite possible that another editor will not know about a topic ban. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The topic ban is still on my talk page; that's how I can quote it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wat does the MoS say about using words like "residuum"? Count Iblis (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see any breach of his topic ban. And it's at the thin edge of the wedge of incivility, but seeing as how it's on his Talk page we usually allow a little more lattitude there. I don't think any action is required... --HighKing (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I wouldn't see saying just this and no more as a breach. Yes it was a bitter comment, but I can't see how it is incivil. Had it continued into a discussion about MOS, then he would have been in breach, but Wikipedia isn't in the business of dishing out non-disclosure clauses.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot argue with the closing admin. The exact language of the ban is that I am not to discuss "technical aspects of the use of the English language." I have not done so; however, if such a complaint comes my way again, I will ask Elen for her permission to take that harassment to ArbCom.

The substantive discussion on which Neutrality asked my opinion is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Does MOS:RETAIN override MOS:LQ?. It could use neutral voices more than this section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I wasn't aware of the (apparently very extensive!) history involved. Since I don't know about the backstory (and frankly can think of few things more unpleasant than wading through pages and pages to find out), I have no particular comment except to say that it's a rather dramatic comment, but one that violates no specific injunction. I would concur with the sentiments of Cube lurker and User:TParis. Neutrality^talk 19:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Kudpungs improper use of speedy delete

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.

---

Kudpung speeded power to hire and fire without consulting it's talk page and then immediately went nonresponsive. This is not appropriate administrator action. I want their bit removed or serious counciling for them regarding their use of tools. I am attempting to notify them of this but am having client difficulties and would appreciate assistance giving them an ani notification. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this for real? No diffs, possibly too many pints, and a request for de-sysop? Sleep it off, eh? Doc talk 11:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please remove your personal attack immediately. I'm on a client that has serious limitations. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack? There was none and you should know it. Doc talk 11:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"possibly too many pints" please, attempting to dismiss another editor by accusing them of substance abuse is a direct attack on their person. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Don't do that again, Doc9871. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

He was suggesting a desyop, Thumperward. I... am gonna hold my tongue. Warning noted. Thank you. Doc talk 12:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please calm down, Fifelfoo, stop throwing angry accusations around, and try to explain what you think has happened in calm and unemotional terms - give us the timeline, provide diffs, and show us the steps you took to contact the admin directly with your concerns. And please provide a redlink to the actual article title so that other admins can examine your claims -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Power to hire and fire
• demand for undeletion

you're welcome. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• • thanks, my client is a mobile client. Within 2 minutes of the deletion the administrator had stopped responding. I had provided a rationale against the deletion on the deleted talk page which directly addressed the claimed deletion rationale. The speed of the deletion, the failure to read the talk page and the delete and logics behaviour is uncivil. It magnifies the existing power disparity between user and admin and cements it for any non-expert user. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Fifelfoo, I read the deleted article and it appeared to be a WP:DICDEF, with vague references to a number of possible IWW members. I would strongly suggest you continue discussing this with Kudpung; in the alternative, you know where WP:REFUND is.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, quick look - Fifelfoo objected to the deletion, and instead of civilly approaching the deleting admin and asking for an explanation, instead posted an angry demand for its reinstatement - which is not the way to get a speedy and helpful response from someone. Then Fifelfoo brought the matter here just an hour later, demanding desysop, which shows extreme impatience at least. Fifelfoo, you need to calm down, approach people in a much less angry manner, and give them time to consider their replies - making polite requests rather than exploding angrily is the only way you'll get anywhere. There is absolutely no admin action needed here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

speedies actioned in under one day with academic papers cited and with the speedy talk page structure followed by users but not by admins? Yes I'm angry and rightfully so. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Kudpung made a mistake. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, then there's no choice then but to desysop. I mean, there could have been a mistake here. Nice knowin' ya, Kudpung. Doc talk 12:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Not helpful. You should stop being not helpful, or at least do it somewhere other than the main drama board. Fifelfoo, the phrase "power to hire and fire" is not even mentioned on Industrial Workers of the World right now; the right time to split to its own article would be some (long) time in the future when a split is required for length. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Kudpung made a mistake is not the issue here - people, even admins doing Speedy Deletion work - can make mistakes. The issue is whether it should be here at ANI, and no, it most certainly should not be! Instead of exploding with anger, demanding the article's reinstatement, and demanding the desysop of the admin because he did not instantly comply, Fifelfoo should have behaved the way civilised and collegial Wikipedia editors are expected to, and discussed it politely over at Kudpung's Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)

1. No civil attempt to discuss [197] [198] there or here - per WP:DR.
2. The patroller's deletion criterion was appropriate and after checking met with my approval.
3. Wrong noticeboard - if any, the place is WP:DELREV.
4. No one, whether editor, admin, or any other volunteer is expected to jump to orders.
5. And the 'client'? This is Wikipedia.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, "client" in Fifelfoo's post refers to his user agent rather than a customer: he's presumably on a mobile device of some sort. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:DELREV, not here. A point to note: the process outlined there says clearly: "# Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question'. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look." Of course we may be past this now and courtesy may have been the first casualty. But it would have been a better course than an immediate report here, which WP:DELREV notes should be a last resort when everything else has been tried. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The irony of Kudpung, one of the very few admins willing to run at the horrific mess that is NPP head-on, being dragged here (complete with a call for desysopping) is rather stunning. Every once in a while, I'd like to see the article creator take some responsibility when their article gets tagged/deleted; it's not like NPPers can read your mind. I can assure you that Kudpung isn't a baby-mutilating deletionist looking to destroy the most possible terabytes of text. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Need Some Help

Resolved

 – Taken to SPI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey All, need a checkuser for a possible sock? I am having some problems with User:Ynotradio and his suspected socks User:PennHelper and User:76.98.205.8. This user seems to have some obsession with WXPN-HD2 because it used the branding "YRock" which was popular in Philly, which this user now uses on his online web stream (probably against copyrights). This user has tried on two different occasions to get the WXPN-HD2 page moved to a different page name. First "Y-Not Radio" (the name of his web stream) and then "WPLY-FM", neither of which is the legal name of the station under MOS or the FCC. It appears the user is now trying to move the WXPN-HD2 page to WXPN (WXPN and WXPN-HD2 are considered separate stations per the FCC and per MOS). This is tendentious and disruptive editing at it's worst...and just plain wasting the community's time. Even if a CU can't do a checkuser, could a DUCK block be put in place or at least one for disruptive editing? Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I notified all three of this discussion and issued a COI notice for Ynotradio. WikiPuppies! (bark) 19:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My fault on not notifying. That's what I get for editing when tired. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations is thattaway.--v/r - TP 19:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the ol' pass the buck. While the SPI sits there for God only knows how long, this user can continue to disrupt Wikipedia. Great job guys. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

What makes you believe a checkuser is more likely to respond here? --Jayron32 19:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SPI is used for record keeping. It may take longer in the short run, but it's use will be in the long run when behavior evidence is logged for socks that can be referenced for future WP:DUCK tests. This is the "Administrator's Noticeboard" and administrator's don't have CU rights. It's not passing the buck, it's sending you to the people with the tools, procedures, and expertise. In fact, the BIG BOX on top of this page says "Are you in the right place?...To report suspected sockpuppetry, see sockpuppet investigations."--v/r - TP 19:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I came to ANI because checkusers are normally admins to begin with. So, ANI is a pretty good place to find some admins and probably a CU or two. Hence my posting here. Also, I wanted to get this taken care of quickly (mostly cause I am tired of dealing with it) because my damned allergy meds have long since kicked in...meaning I am going to be out of commission for awhile. Normally SPIs need more information, have questions, etc. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the SPI case, I've done a check. SPI really is the best place to iron stuff like this out. In #wikipedia-en-spi, a bot dumps all the diffs made to SPI related pages into the channel - you'd be surprised at how up to date we have the capacity to be. WilliamH (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Oncenawhile

Please excuse me if I'm doing anything incorrectly in this report, as to my recollection it's the first time I've reported a user.

Oncenawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in disruptive editing relevant to a naming dispute involving two articles, History of the Southern Levant, and History of Palestine. On February 25, 2011 Oncenawhile moved History of the Southern Levant to History of Palestine despite History of the Southern Levant being in place for over two years and functioning as the only name for the article which hadn't lead to consistent move wars, and with History of the Southern Levant being praised as a good name for the article.

After the article was restored to History of the Southern Levant, Oncenawhile created a new page called History of Palestine, copying most of the content of History of the Southern Levant, and merely changing a few details here and there. The disruptive editing began as Oncenawhile then proceeded to redirect multiple wikilinks from History of the Southern Levant to History of Palestine. Here, here, here as well as here where he instead directed away from the History of the Southern Levant article to Ancient Israel and Judah. I spoke to him on his talk page, and informed him that I considered this disruptive editing, and that there were no problems with both articles existing, but redirecting links away from one and to the other in such a way was disruptive.

A few months later Oncenawhile did the same thing again by removing more links to History of the Southern Levant here and here and here as well as in two instances moving additional articles from History of the Southern Levant to History of Palestine here and here

After I restored the original wikilinks, Oncenawhile wrote on my talk page, attempting to debate why Palestine was a better name than Southern Levant. After I replied that it would be better to discuss this on the relevant article talk page, he said due to my "refusal to discuss" the issue on my talk page, he had "reverted my changes" Drsmoo (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The community (or the AN/I cabal) might decide to take action here. But for allegedly long-term problems like this, WP:RFC/U may be a better venue, in case nothing comes of this AN/I. causa sui (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Drsmoo (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Drsmoo, your post above is misrepresentative. It includes incorrect facts, statements out of context, and neglects to mention key points.

• You neglected to disclose your authorship interest, as you were the editor who renamed the article to History of the Southern Levant in 2008. Your references to "the only name for the article" and "consistent move wars" regarding the original name of History of Palestine are misrepresentative. The article was stable under that name for seven years, until two isolated and immediately-reverted vandalisms in 2007 followed by the unilateral renaming which you carried out in 2008.
• You neglected to mention that you were blocked on 13 March 2011 for move warring re the article name. You also neglected to mention that the article had been stable following my February 2011 revert to History of Palestine for a meaningful period with numerous third party edits being made, before you began warring over the change.
• You made a highly misrepresentative statement re the current History of Palestine article, which you stated was built by "copying most of the content of History of the Southern Levant, and merely changing a few details here and there". Both the move and the content build were done slowly, with clear talk page discussion, and by painstakingly merging the content with the history section from the Palestine article. Discussion of this process took place over many months, and is recorded in the following places here, here and here.
• You neglected to mention that you partook in exactly the same practice in late March regarding swapping of links (rather than the better practice of simply adding a new link) and that our subsequent discussion on my talkpage which you linked to was cordial and mutual acknowledgement and understanding was reached between us immediately. And you have misrepresented my actions regarding the specific link changes you linked to. For example in this edit you linked to I removed a number of extraneous links, including to BOTH History of Palestine and History of the Southern Levant and in this edit you linked to I clarified a statement and removed an in-line link which violated WP:MOS
• Your final statement is again misrepresentative and places statements out of context to paint a picture. Your statement says "After I replied that it would be better to discuss this on the relevant article talk page, he said due to my "refusal to discuss" the issue on my talk page, he had "reverted my changes"", which bears absolutely no relation to the logic, cordiality and detail of the full discussion as recorded here.

If you wish to debate this matter further, please could I ask you to take more care with how you represent the facts in future. Perhaps in parallel we can get back to trying to debate the underlying substance of your editorial issue. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You haven't responded to any of the accusations on here, you just immediately went and tried to make this about me. You replaced links from the original article to your new one over and over and over again, as the edits showed, I reverted your disruptive edits. Are you seriously coming on here and accusing me of doing what you flagrantly did because I reverted your improper edits? In addition it's blatantly untrue as I inserted a link to History of Palestine in the Archaeology of Israel article after you removed it. And two weeks with 18 edits is a "meaningful period" but over two years with hundreds is not? It is fine to have more than one article, but to try and replace one with the other in a way which avoids community consensus (for example, trying to discuss it on my talk page while avoiding the relevant article talk pages) is not. Wholesale removal of links and references to a long standing article is a clear cut example of disruptive editing. It is worth noting that Oncenawhile has also been cited for uncivil behavior on another noticeboard recently Drsmoo (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Drsmoo, I remain very keen to find a way to remove the emotion from this and move on, but you appear to be obsessed with making our interactions in to a long term WP:BATTLEGROUND (exactly as you did with the first user who made the mistake of being responsible for getting you blocked, as documented here).

Your post above is again misrepresentative, for example: (1) "it's blatantly untrue" (despite evidence here, here and here amongst others), (2) you make no reference to either my explanation that the articles in question related only to the concept of Palestine and not to the Southern Levant or to our immediate consensual resolution which I referred to above, (3) "avoids community consensus" (despite the detailed article talk page discussions I linked to above, e.g. here), (4) "avoiding the relevant article talk pages" (ignoring the explanation provided on your talk page that since you made the same changes across multiple articles it seemed sensible to try to centralise the debate; (5) "cited for uncivil behavior" (when you mean "cleared").

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend that you read the diffs you're citing, if you did you would see that the editor you referenced was in fact criticized for forum shopping and for not assuming good faith and told her accusations were untrue. In every single example you posted it was a case of me reverting your changes to the wikilinks. What you claimed is a blatant untruth. I reverted your changes. What you have done, has been to go around from page to page and methodically remove links to History of the Southern Levant. You made a talk page post on your new article, but no talk page discussion regarding any of the moves in their relevant talk pages, nor any talk page discussion of any of the changes of the wikilinks which you've made far and wide. Instead you tried to engage me on my talk page, which makes no sense as I am not heavily involved in any of those articles, and when I suggested that you instead bring it up on the relevant talk pages, you changed the names abruptly. This is not acceptable editing practice. Drsmoo (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't give two hoots about this dispute - however, this is a cut and paste move of content without attribution - so in it's current form most of that page should be deleted as an administrative rather than editorial matter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your post. There was very clear attribution given on the talk page. Either way, the edit you've linked to is 8 months old - the article is completely different now having been merged with the history section from Palestine.Oncenawhile (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The talk page is a nice addition, but the attribution must at minimum be in the edit summary. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. And please repair the attribution as described there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation - this has now been fixed. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ray Nagin

Resolved

 – User blocked

Can I get some admin eyes on Ray Nagin? Since 5 November quite a bit of the article has been rewritten to cast Nagin in a more favorable light, including the removal of cited text [199]. All of the edits in that time period were by Craynagin (talk · contribs), an IP that geolocates to New Orleans, and a bot. I'm suspicious that Craynagin is Nagin himself or someone editing on his behalf (Nagin's first name according to the article is Clarence). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of what has been added is blatantly unsourced. Unless anyone argues otherwise, I think virtually all of it can be reverted. Calabe1992 22:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Reported to WP:UAA as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

And I've just blocked him using {{Uw-ublock-famous}}. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Civility

this seems to have been over before it started Crazynas t 12:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved  – Blocked for a week Risker (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC) The civility at Talk:pregnancy is descending further as in these edits by User:Dreadstar [200] [201] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Blocked. Risker (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC) After reviewing the page history, and especially considering that Dreadstar is an administrator, I am in agreement that Dreadstar's behavior was inappropriate. I support Risker's block. --Elonka 05:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Concur also. Calling people names is never appropriate, neither is using heated language designed to denigrate or enflame other users involved in a discussion. Administrators especially should know better. Repeatedly calling someone a "liar" does nothing to move a dispute towards resolution; it is unseemly for any user and doubly so for an administrator who is often expected themselves to make decisions regarding the behavior of others. --Jayron32 06:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Regrettable situation. Why was he blocked for a week? He's never been blocked before and I would have thought that it would have been for a lesser time period. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC) If he requests an unblock and indicates that he has no intention of calling people liars anymore, the block could be lifted, and I would also support that. Alas, his first edit post-block was this, which is to repeat the same offense which got them blocked; do you suspect, based on that, that Dreadstar would stop calling people liars if it was a shorter block? --Jayron32 06:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I've been following the situation, and am in agreement with Jayron32. I too had questions about why a 1-week block was necessary, but upon a more detailed review, I support it. It's worth noting that at Talk:Pregnancy, Dreadstar attempted to close a discussion in which they were involved, used the "liar" language multiple times, then reacted to the block with a {{retired}} template, and (possibly) coming back in as an anon to post the same on their userpage (I see that the anon is now blocked as well). There appears to be more going on here than a simple case of one-time namecalling, so the 1-week block seems to be a reasonable course of action at this point. --Elonka 06:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) There is a whole lot more going on here than you can see in a few hours of reading. An editor, also an admin, manipulated process multiple times to achieve his desired outcome, and further at times was not honest about the things he had said or aspects of the RfC. While an image in an article is not a big issue in my mind , honesty and manipulation are. Do not drag through the mud of implication an admin-Dreadstar who had no blocks, and who most of the time was exemplary in how he dealt with other editors, in his helpfulness and kindness, and lets not start creating a narrative around an editor based on assumptions gleaned from a long, convoluted RfC which followed on the heels of reams of discussion on an almost identical RfC. Further, actually the accusation had nothing to do with James beliefs, it had to do with an editor saying he hadn't done something when he clearly had. I didn't intend to get into this, but really, some of this goes too far.(olive (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)) That may or may not mean anything, how can any of us tell if you don't present evidence and provide diffs as to your reading of the situation? That can be done without calling anyone a liar, n'est ce pas? The core issue is whether one does the effective thing in ending disputes of this nature (presenting evidence to neutral parties for review) or one does the harmful thing (resorts to namecalling and personal attacks). This situation actually highlights the problem with trying to resolve disputes by calling people liars: Let's say, purely hypothetically, (and I don't say that this is reality, merely a supposition for the sake of making a point) that Dreadstar's position in this dispute is the right one; that is Wikipedia would have been better off had Dreadstar's position been the one that prevailed. By calling the other party in the dispute a liar, what Dreadstar has done it ruined the opportunity for Wikipedia to benefit because it now makes it harder for the right thing to be done. Had he handled this the proper way, the correct side of the dispute would have prevailed. This is why civility matters; Not just for its own sake, but because when people defending the proper outcome act incivilly, it harms Wikipedia in that such incivility prevents Wikipedia from enacting the proper outcomes. In simpler terms; If you are right and incivil, the right thing never gets done because the incivility gets in the way. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia rules, it has to do with human nature: people don't like to agree with rude people, even if they are correct. --Jayron32 19:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC) FWIW, block is wrong. Someone who lies is a liar; if Dreadstar can show it, then he can say it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC) No, calling someone a liar does not act to move a discussion towards resolution. Even if it can be demonstrated that someone said something which it turns out was inaccurate, the act of namecalling is not, of itself, a productive means to move forward. He doesn't get to call people names no matter what he can "prove". Comment on the contributions, not the editor... --Jayron32 06:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Jayron. You confuse in your language someone who is generally polite and helpful with, people who are rude, people who call other people liars. I have experinced abusive language against me that makes Dreadstar's comment look like a ripple compared to a tidal wave, and that language was ignored by admins as if it was every day language I could point out right now multiple comments all over Wikipedia that cross the line in a big way, and which make Dreadstar's single worded comment seem trivial. There are fire lighting words in our language that can ignite us to defend, and there are ways of burying abusive words in language so it seem on the surface to be more palatable, but underneath is infinitely more damaging. Dreadstar seems to be standing by what he said and that in itself is a strong statement given his general propensity to be friendly and civil. People let go every now and then and say what they are thinking in the words they are thinking it. This seems to be what happened. Sooner we allow that and understand it when a block record is unblemished then ignore the festering abusive language and behaviours which harm other people day in and day out on Wikipedia. And is there anybody on this page who has not let go every now and then. A warning would have been as effective and appropriate per the admin in question with far less fallout. An admin's record, years long, has to stand for something and in this case it didn't. Wikipedia is not punitive, and a warning would have alerted Dreadstar and not put his back up in a situation which he felt strongly about. I'm afraid the block looked a lot like a punishment. I respect Risker, but think she made a mistake. And no this did not seem like the time for diffs and an explanation. If its needed and in a venue where that is appropriate I can present them.(olive (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)) Hmmm. Assuming that he can, I'd give him the chance to prove it. Our policy on incivility clearly labels lying as uncivil. We call people sock puppets which is effectively calling them liars. It is only name-calling if it is untrue and gratuitous. If he can not prove it then that is another matter. Let's hear his evidence. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC) No, it would still be namecalling, and still be a bad way to resolve a dispute. Look, I have children, ergo I have fucked in my life (at least twice). That doesn't mean you get to call me a fucker. Same situation here. Even if it turns out that an inaccurate statement was made, and even if it was made intentionally, you don't get to call people names. There are ways to proceed which reduce tensions and gain consensus, and calling someone else a liar is not it. --Jayron32 06:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Hey, having fucked twice, that's not bad for an administrator! Congrats--I hope it was worth it. I have two as well, and man! they're expensive and a strain on the lower back. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Now we're just paraphrasing Robert Benchley. As for me, no children, though it's pleasant enough to go through the motions. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)I would respectfully disagree, Seb. I would think that if Dreadstar were correct, the proper method is to come here, bring diffs demonstrating the issue, and ask for extra eyes to help the problem. Baldly calling someone a liar is neither appropriate nor helpful. I believe that there are enough ways to demonstrate issues with a given editors edits without being inflammatory. If Dreadstar has evidence of prevarication when it comes to wiki editing, bringing the appropriate diffs will almost certainly bring the "wrath of ANI" down on the editor in question. -- Avi (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC) He was advised to point out that the user was "repeatedly incorrect". Is that now coded language for "liar," and will a future instance of saying that someone was "repeatedly incorrect" lead to a block? I just want to know. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Don't act obtuse. If you find a statement is incorrect, provide diffs or evidence which show the statement is incorrect. Don't call people names, and ideally don't comment on people, comment on actions. Why is that hard to understand? --Jayron32 06:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Seb, I would say that there is a difference between coming to ANI and saying "We are having an issue with editor X. Please look at the following diffs in which editor X has violated the following wiki principles…" and saying (anywhere) "I say editor X is a liar". Even if someone first said A and then B, it is possible that they changed their mind. Focusing on the content (the violations) and not the editor (the violator) is pretty much always preferable, is it not? -- Avi (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC) "you have been repeatedly incorrect" is commenting on the person (as is "(you) don't be obtuse", by the way). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Seb, I've never called you "obtuse". Please check the attribution of the edits (they are coming in fast and furious, I know ). Yes, "you have been repeatedly incorrect" comments on the editor as well, but it is still less inflammatory than saying "you are a liar", and asking for an impartial third opinion, and bringing supporting documentation, is better, at least in my opinion, than unsubstantiated personal attacks. -- Avi (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC) There's a significant difference between saying that someone is making incorrect statements, while giving evidence to prove it, and calling someone a liar without any evidence. I support this block. WP:CIVIL is a key behavior policy.   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Point of order: The block is for making personal attacks, not for violating the civility policy. Risker (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the correction. The section heading is "Civility", so I made an assumption. I tend to think of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as being so closely aligned that they mostly cover the same ground. Either way, calling someone a liar repeatedly is outside of community norms.   Will Beback  talk  07:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC) So one can personally attack another civilly? Interesting... --Jayron32 06:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC) That is not what I said. I am pointing out that the block was under WP:NPA, a more stringent and clearcut policy than WP:CIVIL. Risker (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC) You see my point now, Jayron? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I've seen and understand your point all along. I disagree with it. Merely because I see your point doesn't mean I think it is correct. --Jayron32 07:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Oh I know that. This is where I have problems with this civility-blocking anyways. I don't see "liar" as an attack, esp. not when it's potentially true. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Dreadstar should not have used the words "liar" and some form of block/warning was in order. Risker's block, however, seems precipitous; she has subsequently expressed her bemusement at Dreadstar's sudden retirement. Underlying this episode and the report here by Doc James (without informing Dreadstar), there were (and still are) unresolved issues concerning the legitimacy and timing of the present RfC on Talk:pregnancy in the wake of the very recently closed previous RfC. I would not be surprised if this results in an ArbCom case (for conduct and procedural reasons, not because of actual issues involving images). Mathsci (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I don't know where you see "bemusement", Mathsci. I am saddened that Dreadstar has opted to retire. To me the key issue was Dreadstar calling Jmh649 a liar because he believes that Jmh649 has a different opinion than Jmh649 professes. It is a straw man argument, to start with, as it has absolutely nothing to do with resolving the issue at dispute; what Jmh649 believes is irrelevant. What is relevant is the position that each editor takes, and the policy-based reasons for their position. One can misinterpret policy, but one cannot "lie" about it. Risker (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC) You wrote on your talk page, "Nonetheless, I know that Dreadstar has done a lot of positive work in the project, and I am saddened that he feels he needs to leave." I took that juxtaposition of phrases to represent bemusement; I am sorry if I misunderstood you. I have not condoned the use of the word "liar", but thanks for this further clarification. Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC) It sounds to me from the original comment that Risker is saying they feel their blocking Dreadstar was justified but are saddened that Dreadstar decided to leave as they had done a lot of positive work for the project. I don't see how that's bemusement. Im fact, I think it's fairly common admins feel their blocking was justified but are saddened if the person blocked decided to leave whether as a direct result, or as a contributing reason, except perhaps when the person blocked is the sort of person a lot of people were hoping would just leave rather then continue down a path likely to lead to an indefinite block or even a community ban.Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC) He had never been blocked, wasn't given a warning and wasn't advised of this thread. This doesn't seem right. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 07:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Oh that happens here sometimes... :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC) According to the policy on personal attacks, particularly What is a personal attack, an accusation isn't necessarily an attack. An attack may be "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users." ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 07:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Bearean, given that Dreadstar accused Jmh649 of lying about his own (Jmh649's) personal beliefs, and he did it not once but twice, I don't think there's much here to be "proved". Risker (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Is "son of a bitch" [202] (in the edit summary) [203] a personal attack? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC) A one week block for civility, hmmmm... that may be unprecedented, but its now a precedent, so everybody play nice of you'll have a week off to think about your naughtiness....LOL Carlossuarez46 (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Even though I think civility should be expected of everyone on this site, I don't particularly like the idea of blocking an established contributor for a whole week just because he called someone a liar. Yes, it was quite rude, and Dreadstar should have known better. But still, it's a very lengthy period for something that strikes me as relatively mild. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Note that per above, the block was for violating NPA not civility. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, but making personal attacks is a form of incivility. I don't think it really matters which policy is cited. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Well not everything incivil is a personal attack. Arguably all personal attacks are incivil, but there is a reason why we have a seperate policy against personal attack. Related examples, making a legal threat is arguably always incivil as well as is outing, harassment and death threats. There's IMO a good reason we would nearly always say on ANI someone was guilty of one of those rather then simply being rude or guilty of incivility (and death threats isn't even a seperate policy), it helps to be specific on what the problem was. (I mean if you want to push it, edit warring, vandalism, basically anything blockable could be considered incivil, it would be rather confusing if all we ever talked about were people being rude or incivil.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Remember, I said "a form of incivility", not "synonymous with incivility". But I understand where you're coming from. In my mind, it doesn't really matter what you call it. A spade is a spade. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC) For clarity, my point is in you original comment you say 'though I think civility should be expected of everyone on this site' which misses a key point that while we expect civility, we particularly expect certain things like people don't make personal attacks, not simply because these are incivil, but because they can cause particular ill will. (Even more so with outing, harassment and death threats.) I'm not of course saying all personal attacks are the same. Nil Einne (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Apropros or nonapropros, and aimed as it is at AfD, WP:LIARLIAR might be worth a read. FWIW I say good block. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC) The problem with calling someone a "liar" is that lying means intent, and it's very hard to be certain about that wihtout getting inside the person's head. That's why "inaccurate" or "not a fact" or whatever are more appropriate to use, since these things are much easier to demonstrate. BTW, my favorite circumlocution for correcting a Very Important Person who says something patently stupid comes from The Mote in God's Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle: "Regrettably, that turns out not to be the case." Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Calling someone a liar is only "relatively mild" when you compare it to some of the worse stuff that editors get away with here. It is not actually "relatively mild" in terms of what would IRL be considered civil discourse; indeed it would be grounds for a very strong rebuke indeed in most areas of debate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, exactly. It is mild relative to some of the nastier diction editors have used to describe each other without getting anything more than a reprimand. I certainly don't condone anyone calling someone else a liar, but I don't really support blocking a long time contributor with an otherwise spotless block log for a whole week because they called someone a liar. At most, I'd support a 36 hour block for making a personal attack. I don't know, I guess I'm just more lenient than the average person. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC) If you have an environment which is not punitive, and in which our purpose is to keep good editors working we must apply what will accomplish that in the best way. An editor with a clean block log was pushed for some reason to use language (liar) he probably never has before. What does one do in that situation. What action will accomplish the best result, to move past the frustration or to punish. I'd suggest that one talks to the editor. If I had a child, and I do, who was "good" but who behaved every now and then in a way that needs help, I can tell you that that human being benefitted from the act of good faith which I extended when I talked it out but did not punish. And I believe that kind of action created the strong young woman I have today. I'm not saying anyone in this situation is a child. But human nature is human nature. (olive (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)) Wikipedia is not therapy. Admins are not "pushed for some reason to use language" which they otherwise shouldn't use. Admins should be in control of themselves when dealing with other editors. This isn't the first time Dreadstar has made personal attacks.[204] Further, he knows that accusing others of being liars is a personal attack: .. you are accusing other editors of vandalism and being liars. That's not only uncivil, it is a personal attack. If you continue making such accusations, you will be blocked. Dreadstar † 16:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[205] Also, there is no excuse for incivility, even if you feel you were "attacked or feel attacked". Dreadstar † 18:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[206] You're in charge of your own actions and you cannot place blame on others for what you do. [..] Dreadstar † 20:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[207] Yes, I undersand the situation, but Yami was uncivil in calling you a liar, that's the point of the diff. A civil response would have been to say that you were mistaken and explain why, calling someone a liar is personalized instead of being directed at content and actions rather than people. Dreadstar † 22:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[208] Provocation is no excuse for incivility, no matter what the provocation is. [..] Dreadstar ☥ 02:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[209] Comments such as that, this, this and this are uncivil and cross the line into personal attacks and will lead to your being blocked. Dreadstar † 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[210] Accusing a living person of being a "liar," “fraudulent” and “disingenuous” as you did here does indeed violate WP:BLP, and forgive me if I don’t repeat the violation by quoting your exact wording. [..] Dreadstar † 02:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC) [211] I'm sorry, but it is indeed bad faith for you to accuse other editors of being "disingenuous" and claiming that the reasons they gave are just "ridiculous..excuses" to hide the "real" reason behind their objections. Not only bad faith, but a personal attack as well - you're in essence calling people liars, that's a blatant personal attack, period. Again, I strongly recommend you not make further comments about editors and restrict yourself to commenting on the editorial content of the article, per the Wikipedia Policy, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you persist in attacking other editors you will be blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 01:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) [212] He's told me to "fuck off".[213] Yet elsewhere he has set the threshold for personal attacks very low.[214][215][216] In 2008, Littleolive oil posted a comment about an admin who had called Dreadstar a liar, and at that time she said: No editor or administrator should consider himself judge and jury as in these opinionated comments: “You are a liar and serial copy right offender” [..] Judging another editor, and then based on that judgment assuming that that this now gives one the right to name call and threaten can only cause escalation of the initial problems. [..] I would like to suggest that an administrator must show better judgment - must be able to clearly understand an individual judgment is opinion and not fact. At no time by our own standards on civility, are name-calling and threatening even remotely appropriate. An administrator who thinks that the personal analysis and judgment of a situation gives the right to treat another editor in a way that is less than respectful might consider taking a break from such situations for awhile. [217] In short, Dreadstar knows that calling someone a "liar' is a personal attack and that editors making personal attacks may be blocked.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC) The comments above are mine. Don't attribute them or the ideas there to anyone else. I could easily put together the same kind of 'script' on anyone else including you, to show that you should have known something or should have behaved in a different way than you did.You've missed my point but I'm not surprised. And I chose not to bring diffs here, not to turn this into a quid pro quo environment. I'm sorry you didn't do the same. (olive (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)) Recommend closing thread by uninvolved party. Several have made good points - particularly Jayron's excellent point and Will Beback's well-researched and diligent list of comments above. As no further admin action is forthcoming, I recommend that this thread be closed. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC) I agree this should be closed. You seem to be suggesting by supporting Jayron's comment that diffs should have been presented against Doc James. I didn't want the mess, know this is much more complex than presenting a few diffs and didn't feel this was an RfC or arbitration where one set of diffs spawns another and another and so on. I'll note that Dreadstar has never suggested he wasn't uncivil he simply said that what he said was true, and stood by that claim. The comments and thoughts posted here on this are mine, and in no way reflect how he may or may not be feeling about this. I'll note also that Will's comments lack context which might or might not make a difference in how they are viewed. I stand by my comments and in the pertinence they have to this situation. (olive (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)) I think the key point is Dreadstar clear knew his or her comments were not only incivil but personal attacks, and as he oor she f course also knew, as any admin should, that personal attacks are not tolerated on wikipedia. Trying to defend against a block for personal attacks by saying they are the truth and you're getting blocked for saying the truth, is not on, and frankly a little silly if you yourself have in the past acknowledged that what you're now saying is an unacceptable personal attack that will result in a block. Perhaps Dreadstar has since changed his or her mind but it does at least illustrate that they once understood and agreed with their block. I do agree an uninvolved user might as well close this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC) I'm not quite sure what you mean in your comments, but let me say that the incident above does not even remotely resemble this one and was abusive in the extreme. The comment was taken our of context of the situation and the case. Further, I suggested and still do that an editor with a clean block log might have done well with a warning. Will posted his comments out of context and is getting the result of that, misunderstanding. I'm not on trial here and have right to my opinion on this as does every one else here. I'll add that I know more about this than most having been involved in this article and know the players from other arenas, and for that reason my opinion may have a different slant than some- not better or worse, just different. I 'll remind you that Dreadstar in the comments I've seen at least, has never commented on the appropriateness of the block. Yes this should be closed.(olive (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)) You seem to be missing the point. I've read the statements in context and at no time did Dreadstar say it was okay to accuse someone of being a liar if the situation was different or worse or or the accusation was 'true' or whatever. What they did say was accusing someone of being a liar was unacceptable personal attack and would result in a block. They further made it clear that it didn't matter what the history was, it was still unacceptable. Note, I never said or intended to imply Dreadstar commented on the appropriateness of this specific block. What I did say was when after the block for what they had said in the past admitted was an unacceptable blockable offence they indicated they had no intention of stopping such unacceptable blockable behaviour but instead continuoing it, which suggests a warning would not have helped. You can try to argue they would have responded differently if just given a warning. But remember the primary purpose of a warning is to ensure people are aware their behaviour is unacceptable. As an admin who we hold to a higher standard, and was clearly aware of the unacceptablity and blockability of their offence, a block doesn't seem an unresonable course of action. And the uninvolved admin who made the block, Risker did make it clear they would unblock if Dreadstar had responded the way they should have responded. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm of the opinion is carries far less weight then the opinion of the person who was actually blocked, who is or at least was clearly of the opinion blocking was eventually at least, the correct course of action, which was what I'm pointing out. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that.) BTW, you may or may not be aware, I've minorly involved myself with the pregnancy case although not to the extent of !voting (mostly because I'm undecided which image is better) so I've seen some of what is going on and I have little sympathy for Dreadstar from what I've seen. Although just to avoid further confusion, let me repeat, the situation is irrrelevant since no where in Dreadstar's comments did they imply the situation mattered; what they did say was calling someone a liar, regardless of the situation, was an unacceptable personal attack which would lead to a block. This also means there is only one significant player here, Dreadstar themselves, since whatever wrong doings Jmh649 may or may not have made are largely irrelevant, unless someone is suggesting they themselves are guilty of blockable offences. Nil Einne (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC) This case has been marked as resolved.(olive (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)) Do you mean Risker's close? If so, it's been like that since before anyone else's replies including yours and mine. Nil Einne (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Block review

User: Wheres Dan is fairly new and displays some trouble understanding what is and what is not a reliable source at Talk:Tribe of Dan and User talk:Wheres Dan. After he called another editor an anti-semite here I've blocked him for 24 hours for violating WP:NPA. I don't really block that often, so a review would be welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly cromulent block. Not only was that particular diff about a clear a personal attack as you get, but it was after a series of equally troublesome interactions. If 24 hours doesn't result in the required attitude adjustment I'd just up it to indef. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well within reasonable to me.--v/r - TP 14:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Good block. I only wish other examples of incivility when they're coming from not-so-new editors were dealt with this swiftly. causa sui (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly good block--Cailil ^talk 17:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Doncram creating unacceptable articles in mainspace again

Doncram (talk · contribs), after coming back from a 3-month break for disruptive editing, has created this article. Either he or I need an indef block, and at this point, I don't think I care which. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Note also this edit, where he claims that there's athere will be a redirect pointing there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be an indiscriminate dump of a WP search result for "Chambers building". Hmm... T. Canens (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see the issue. SarekOfVulcan is complaining that I added a hidden comment in a dab page, relating to an appropriate merger proposal, clearly laid out at Talk:Oak Hill#Merger proposal. After SarekOfVulcan deleted the comment, I restored (and updated) it. Is there a need for an ANI discussion?!???!!! If you have a view about the merger proposal that suggests the redirect, please comment in the merger proposal. For this you open an ANI case? --doncram 17:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

About the Chambers Building disambiguation page, I identified that there are multiple wikipedia-notable topics of that name, and began the disambiguation page. In one or more edits since then, i went back and forth to pages that linked to it and developed several valid entries. In the version S points to, the page is not fully developed, obviously, it was in progress. It was/is clearly tagged as "Under Construction" and has "NRHP dab needing cleanup" tag as well. If S objects to the dab page, he should open an AFD i suppose. For another example, see Chambers House disambiguation page, created by me in this edit, revised in several edits to this version. Do you have a problem with that. --doncram 17:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

KHCAA Golden Jubilee Chamber Complex is a topic "of that name"? And Everett Chambers? And considering "Chambers House" includes A. E. Chambers Octagonal Barn, yes, I have a problem with it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It happens that there are two places Chambers barns that seem worth mentioning in the Chambers House dab page. The dab page covers places named exactly "Chambers House" or "Chambers Farm" or "Chambers Farmstead" or "Chambers Barn", and variations that are likely shortened to any one of those, in practice. There are many such dab pages. I don't see the relevance of any of this for ANI. I can't discuss further now, sorry. --doncram 18:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, "Unacceptable articles" would include articles that might seriously violate BLP. Doncram's articles appear to be made in good faith and have a reasonable chance of withstanding closer scrutiny. So perhaps an indef block for SarekOfVulcan is called for per his own suggestion. Rklawton (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if you're accusing me of creating articles that violate BLP, I'd really like to see examples instead of insinuations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Read what you and I wrote again. You are complaining about "unacceptable articles" - so I gave you an example of an unacceptable article. I then defended Doncram's article as not unacceptable. Finally, since you stated that either Doncram or you should get an indef block, and since Doncram's edits aren't blatantly problematic, then you, per your own suggestion, should receive the indef block. Rklawton (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You're saying that an article that included the text "The City Chambers in Glasgow , Scotland has functioned as the headquarters of ... 1889 The building originally had an area of 5,016 square metres. ... 8 KB (1,275 words) - 15:44, 3 November 2011" wasn't blatantly problematic? Doncram left it in that state and edited other articles until I posted here, at which point he cleaned it up.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I don't. I'd just fix it or tag it for cleanup, but I certainly wouldn't complain about it on AN/I. Rklawton (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Doncram's first edit summary on Chambers Building indicates that he was uploading work done in the midst of having lost his internet connection, so it is possible that the initial creation was something he submitted quickly in the midst of frustration over internet problems. Regardless, Doncram knows that he could easily avoid this kind of confrontation by the simple measure of putting his draft pages in user space, then moving them to article space when he has finished improving them to an acceptable condition. --Orlady (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't like Sarek jumping on Doncram immediately after Domcram's return from a 3 month block. He should assume good faith and gently discuss problems, rather than essentially starting the discussion here. I'd think it's fair to ask Doncram to start some of these articles in user space, but confronted immediately (well, 2nd sentence) with "Either he or I need an indef block, and at this point, I don't think I care which." by Sarek, I'd say a 1-day block to S would be an appropriate response. I would also like to personally ask Doncram to get back into editing gradually, in a manner guaranteed not to upset anybody immediately. Smallbones (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both Orlady and Smallbones here. Doncram should ease back into editing, making discrete, complete changes and in general, trying to keep a lower profile. SarekOfVulcan should not be making either/or declarations and should ideally help encourage better behavior by word and example, rather than drop people back into ANI on their second day. dm (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• The original version of this article was definitely terrible and should have been created in userspace if that's the process that doncram wants to use for creating dab pages. However, after a bit of nudging he quickly cleaned it up. Nudging on his talk page probably would have gotten the same result as nudging on the drama board. Without very much knowledge of the circumstances of doncram's 3-month break, I'd say that an immediate kneejerk ANI complaint was uncalled for. —SW— ^comment 21:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  Circumstance of the break can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Doncram, 1 August 2011. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If he's now cleaning up after himself, he has learned something from his three month break. The block details here was to stop him transferring the content of another database into Wikipedia without any check being made on the quality of what was being imported (there were a lot of problems with the other database). All the time. Without stopping. And endlessly abusing both the guy who wrote the script that he used, and anyone who tried to clean up the mess. However, as I say, if he is now prepared to correct his own problems, then that's progress. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

IP hopper at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard

Can anyone think of anything useful to do about the IP hopper at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard who thinks we're violating his civil legal rights, and doesn't understand why we won't let him link to a Russian site that streams Beatles tunes? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps making clear that we are discussing the copyright law of the United States (under which we operate), not of Russia, and adding that we want to avoid breaching copyright anywhere? I'd rather not do it myself; this would be most impressive with short, linked quotations, and somebody who's up on it could find them much more easily. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Russian Federation is a signatory to the Berne convention (most ex Soviet countries are). He is breaching copyright under the Berne convention, Apple Records/The Beatles have not licensed their product for free streaming to anyone (not the BBC, not Steve Jobs, no one). He almost certainly knows this, and knows that his hack cannot last forever, hence his increasingly colourful demands. Recomend no response and reverting further edits - this isn't a language difficulty, nor is it our duty to explain to him how he is violating Apple Records copyright. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Current edit reverted via this discussion. Should the noticeboard perhaps be protected? Calabe1992 21:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Quick Suggestion: add the domain name beatles1.ru to the blacklist. At least make it difficult for him to post it anywhere - as well as prevent him from using Wikipedia to advertise a site that violates copyright law. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

See if he posts again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems on a spamming run elsewhere as well from what I can dig up. Also, get this, there's claims posted about the content being licensed under the Creative Commons 3.0 Unported license. Heh. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Still at it. Could someone else please revert; I'm not going to war over it. Calabe1992 22:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Second thought - see edit summary. Legal threat justifying rangeblock? Calabe1992 22:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a legal threat in my book. (Note he also throws the S-word ("slander") out there in the edit itself.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As the editor who apparently is restricting the IP hopper's civil rights, I have warned them multiple times (though it never seems to stick because they keep ip hopping). Shall we apply the DUCK test and blacklist the site, the email that they want to correspond on, and move on. I simply asked the OTRS volunteers to close the conversation in the "No, you can't link from WP to that site" manner. Hasteur (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Blacklist ahoy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added the link beatles1.ru to the spam blacklist due to the spamming/disruption. I'll look into if this needs to be also submitted for blacklisting at meta:Spam blacklist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm also seeing the link at ru.wikipedia.org and fi.wikipedia.org ... will post at meta later today to request adding the link to the global blacklist (first need to step away from my system for a few hours). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

D'oh, you beat me to adding it. I added a notice explaining the server location/local copyright law matter. Personally, I don't think this is bad faith, just totally and utterly misguided. From my experience, Russians often resent, give no consideration to, or even reject copyright - usually because of the draconian restrictions and limitations on artistic freedom they have experienced in their modern history. WilliamH (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I tried to look into this but my firewall would not let me. Webroot says it is a site known to be related to spyware. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but it's enough to concern me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Civility

this seems to have been over before it started Crazynas t 12:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved  – Blocked for a week Risker (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC) The civility at Talk:pregnancy is descending further as in these edits by User:Dreadstar [218] [219] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Blocked. Risker (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC) After reviewing the page history, and especially considering that Dreadstar is an administrator, I am in agreement that Dreadstar's behavior was inappropriate. I support Risker's block. --Elonka 05:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Concur also. Calling people names is never appropriate, neither is using heated language designed to denigrate or enflame other users involved in a discussion. Administrators especially should know better. Repeatedly calling someone a "liar" does nothing to move a dispute towards resolution; it is unseemly for any user and doubly so for an administrator who is often expected themselves to make decisions regarding the behavior of others. --Jayron32 06:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Regrettable situation. Why was he blocked for a week? He's never been blocked before and I would have thought that it would have been for a lesser time period. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC) If he requests an unblock and indicates that he has no intention of calling people liars anymore, the block could be lifted, and I would also support that. Alas, his first edit post-block was this, which is to repeat the same offense which got them blocked; do you suspect, based on that, that Dreadstar would stop calling people liars if it was a shorter block? --Jayron32 06:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I've been following the situation, and am in agreement with Jayron32. I too had questions about why a 1-week block was necessary, but upon a more detailed review, I support it. It's worth noting that at Talk:Pregnancy, Dreadstar attempted to close a discussion in which they were involved, used the "liar" language multiple times, then reacted to the block with a {{retired}} template, and (possibly) coming back in as an anon to post the same on their userpage (I see that the anon is now blocked as well). There appears to be more going on here than a simple case of one-time namecalling, so the 1-week block seems to be a reasonable course of action at this point. --Elonka 06:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC) There is a whole lot more going on here than you can see in a few hours of reading. An editor, also an admin, manipulated process multiple times to achieve his desired outcome, and further at times was not honest about the things he had said or aspects of the RfC. While an image in an article is not a big issue in my mind , honesty and manipulation are. Do not drag through the mud of implication an admin-Dreadstar who had no blocks, and who most of the time was exemplary in how he dealt with other editors, in his helpfulness and kindness, and lets not start creating a narrative around an editor based on assumptions gleaned from a long, convoluted RfC which followed on the heels of reams of discussion on an almost identical RfC. Further, actually the accusation had nothing to do with James beliefs, it had to do with an editor saying he hadn't done something when he clearly had. I didn't intend to get into this, but really, some of this goes too far.(olive (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)) That may or may not mean anything, how can any of us tell if you don't present evidence and provide diffs as to your reading of the situation? That can be done without calling anyone a liar, n'est ce pas? The core issue is whether one does the effective thing in ending disputes of this nature (presenting evidence to neutral parties for review) or one does the harmful thing (resorts to namecalling and personal attacks). This situation actually highlights the problem with trying to resolve disputes by calling people liars: Let's say, purely hypothetically, (and I don't say that this is reality, merely a supposition for the sake of making a point) that Dreadstar's position in this dispute is the right one; that is Wikipedia would have been better off had Dreadstar's position been the one that prevailed. By calling the other party in the dispute a liar, what Dreadstar has done it ruined the opportunity for Wikipedia to benefit because it now makes it harder for the right thing to be done. Had he handled this the proper way, the correct side of the dispute would have prevailed. This is why civility matters; Not just for its own sake, but because when people defending the proper outcome act incivilly, it harms Wikipedia in that such incivility prevents Wikipedia from enacting the proper outcomes. In simpler terms; If you are right and incivil, the right thing never gets done because the incivility gets in the way. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia rules, it has to do with human nature: people don't like to agree with rude people, even if they are correct. --Jayron32 19:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC) FWIW, block is wrong. Someone who lies is a liar; if Dreadstar can show it, then he can say it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC) No, calling someone a liar does not act to move a discussion towards resolution. Even if it can be demonstrated that someone said something which it turns out was inaccurate, the act of namecalling is not, of itself, a productive means to move forward. He doesn't get to call people names no matter what he can "prove". Comment on the contributions, not the editor... --Jayron32 06:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Jayron. You confuse in your language someone who is generally polite and helpful with, people who are rude, people who call other people liars. I have experinced abusive language against me that makes Dreadstar's comment look like a ripple compared to a tidal wave, and that language was ignored by admins as if it was every day language I could point out right now multiple comments all over Wikipedia that cross the line in a big way, and which make Dreadstar's single worded comment seem trivial. There are fire lighting words in our language that can ignite us to defend, and there are ways of burying abusive words in language so it seem on the surface to be more palatable, but underneath is infinitely more damaging. Dreadstar seems to be standing by what he said and that in itself is a strong statement given his general propensity to be friendly and civil. People let go every now and then and say what they are thinking in the words they are thinking it. This seems to be what happened. Sooner we allow that and understand it when a block record is unblemished then ignore the festering abusive language and behaviours which harm other people day in and day out on Wikipedia. And is there anybody on this page who has not let go every now and then. A warning would have been as effective and appropriate per the admin in question with far less fallout. An admin's record, years long, has to stand for something and in this case it didn't. Wikipedia is not punitive, and a warning would have alerted Dreadstar and not put his back up in a situation which he felt strongly about. I'm afraid the block looked a lot like a punishment. I respect Risker, but think she made a mistake. And no this did not seem like the time for diffs and an explanation. If its needed and in a venue where that is appropriate I can present them.(olive (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)) Hmmm. Assuming that he can, I'd give him the chance to prove it. Our policy on incivility clearly labels lying as uncivil. We call people sock puppets which is effectively calling them liars. It is only name-calling if it is untrue and gratuitous. If he can not prove it then that is another matter. Let's hear his evidence. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC) No, it would still be namecalling, and still be a bad way to resolve a dispute. Look, I have children, ergo I have fucked in my life (at least twice). That doesn't mean you get to call me a fucker. Same situation here. Even if it turns out that an inaccurate statement was made, and even if it was made intentionally, you don't get to call people names. There are ways to proceed which reduce tensions and gain consensus, and calling someone else a liar is not it. --Jayron32 06:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Hey, having fucked twice, that's not bad for an administrator! Congrats--I hope it was worth it. I have two as well, and man! they're expensive and a strain on the lower back. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Now we're just paraphrasing Robert Benchley. As for me, no children, though it's pleasant enough to go through the motions. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)I would respectfully disagree, Seb. I would think that if Dreadstar were correct, the proper method is to come here, bring diffs demonstrating the issue, and ask for extra eyes to help the problem. Baldly calling someone a liar is neither appropriate nor helpful. I believe that there are enough ways to demonstrate issues with a given editors edits without being inflammatory. If Dreadstar has evidence of prevarication when it comes to wiki editing, bringing the appropriate diffs will almost certainly bring the "wrath of ANI" down on the editor in question. -- Avi (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC) He was advised to point out that the user was "repeatedly incorrect". Is that now coded language for "liar," and will a future instance of saying that someone was "repeatedly incorrect" lead to a block? I just want to know. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Don't act obtuse. If you find a statement is incorrect, provide diffs or evidence which show the statement is incorrect. Don't call people names, and ideally don't comment on people, comment on actions. Why is that hard to understand? --Jayron32 06:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Seb, I would say that there is a difference between coming to ANI and saying "We are having an issue with editor X. Please look at the following diffs in which editor X has violated the following wiki principles…" and saying (anywhere) "I say editor X is a liar". Even if someone first said A and then B, it is possible that they changed their mind. Focusing on the content (the violations) and not the editor (the violator) is pretty much always preferable, is it not? -- Avi (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC) "you have been repeatedly incorrect" is commenting on the person (as is "(you) don't be obtuse", by the way). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Seb, I've never called you "obtuse". Please check the attribution of the edits (they are coming in fast and furious, I know ). Yes, "you have been repeatedly incorrect" comments on the editor as well, but it is still less inflammatory than saying "you are a liar", and asking for an impartial third opinion, and bringing supporting documentation, is better, at least in my opinion, than unsubstantiated personal attacks. -- Avi (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC) There's a significant difference between saying that someone is making incorrect statements, while giving evidence to prove it, and calling someone a liar without any evidence. I support this block. WP:CIVIL is a key behavior policy.   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Point of order: The block is for making personal attacks, not for violating the civility policy. Risker (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the correction. The section heading is "Civility", so I made an assumption. I tend to think of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL as being so closely aligned that they mostly cover the same ground. Either way, calling someone a liar repeatedly is outside of community norms.   Will Beback  talk  07:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC) So one can personally attack another civilly? Interesting... --Jayron32 06:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC) That is not what I said. I am pointing out that the block was under WP:NPA, a more stringent and clearcut policy than WP:CIVIL. Risker (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC) You see my point now, Jayron? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I've seen and understand your point all along. I disagree with it. Merely because I see your point doesn't mean I think it is correct. --Jayron32 07:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Oh I know that. This is where I have problems with this civility-blocking anyways. I don't see "liar" as an attack, esp. not when it's potentially true. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Dreadstar should not have used the words "liar" and some form of block/warning was in order. Risker's block, however, seems precipitous; she has subsequently expressed her bemusement at Dreadstar's sudden retirement. Underlying this episode and the report here by Doc James (without informing Dreadstar), there were (and still are) unresolved issues concerning the legitimacy and timing of the present RfC on Talk:pregnancy in the wake of the very recently closed previous RfC. I would not be surprised if this results in an ArbCom case (for conduct and procedural reasons, not because of actual issues involving images). Mathsci (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I don't know where you see "bemusement", Mathsci. I am saddened that Dreadstar has opted to retire. To me the key issue was Dreadstar calling Jmh649 a liar because he believes that Jmh649 has a different opinion than Jmh649 professes. It is a straw man argument, to start with, as it has absolutely nothing to do with resolving the issue at dispute; what Jmh649 believes is irrelevant. What is relevant is the position that each editor takes, and the policy-based reasons for their position. One can misinterpret policy, but one cannot "lie" about it. Risker (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC) You wrote on your talk page, "Nonetheless, I know that Dreadstar has done a lot of positive work in the project, and I am saddened that he feels he needs to leave." I took that juxtaposition of phrases to represent bemusement; I am sorry if I misunderstood you. I have not condoned the use of the word "liar", but thanks for this further clarification. Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC) It sounds to me from the original comment that Risker is saying they feel their blocking Dreadstar was justified but are saddened that Dreadstar decided to leave as they had done a lot of positive work for the project. I don't see how that's bemusement. Im fact, I think it's fairly common admins feel their blocking was justified but are saddened if the person blocked decided to leave whether as a direct result, or as a contributing reason, except perhaps when the person blocked is the sort of person a lot of people were hoping would just leave rather then continue down a path likely to lead to an indefinite block or even a community ban.Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC) He had never been blocked, wasn't given a warning and wasn't advised of this thread. This doesn't seem right. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 07:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Oh that happens here sometimes... :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC) According to the policy on personal attacks, particularly What is a personal attack, an accusation isn't necessarily an attack. An attack may be "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users." ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 07:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Bearean, given that Dreadstar accused Jmh649 of lying about his own (Jmh649's) personal beliefs, and he did it not once but twice, I don't think there's much here to be "proved". Risker (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Is "son of a bitch" [220] (in the edit summary) [221] a personal attack? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC) A one week block for civility, hmmmm... that may be unprecedented, but its now a precedent, so everybody play nice of you'll have a week off to think about your naughtiness....LOL Carlossuarez46 (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Even though I think civility should be expected of everyone on this site, I don't particularly like the idea of blocking an established contributor for a whole week just because he called someone a liar. Yes, it was quite rude, and Dreadstar should have known better. But still, it's a very lengthy period for something that strikes me as relatively mild. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Note that per above, the block was for violating NPA not civility. Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, but making personal attacks is a form of incivility. I don't think it really matters which policy is cited. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Well not everything incivil is a personal attack. Arguably all personal attacks are incivil, but there is a reason why we have a seperate policy against personal attack. Related examples, making a legal threat is arguably always incivil as well as is outing, harassment and death threats. There's IMO a good reason we would nearly always say on ANI someone was guilty of one of those rather then simply being rude or guilty of incivility (and death threats isn't even a seperate policy), it helps to be specific on what the problem was. (I mean if you want to push it, edit warring, vandalism, basically anything blockable could be considered incivil, it would be rather confusing if all we ever talked about were people being rude or incivil.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Remember, I said "a form of incivility", not "synonymous with incivility". But I understand where you're coming from. In my mind, it doesn't really matter what you call it. A spade is a spade. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC) For clarity, my point is in you original comment you say 'though I think civility should be expected of everyone on this site' which misses a key point that while we expect civility, we particularly expect certain things like people don't make personal attacks, not simply because these are incivil, but because they can cause particular ill will. (Even more so with outing, harassment and death threats.) I'm not of course saying all personal attacks are the same. Nil Einne (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Apropros or nonapropros, and aimed as it is at AfD, WP:LIARLIAR might be worth a read. FWIW I say good block. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC) The problem with calling someone a "liar" is that lying means intent, and it's very hard to be certain about that wihtout getting inside the person's head. That's why "inaccurate" or "not a fact" or whatever are more appropriate to use, since these things are much easier to demonstrate. BTW, my favorite circumlocution for correcting a Very Important Person who says something patently stupid comes from The Mote in God's Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle: "Regrettably, that turns out not to be the case." Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Calling someone a liar is only "relatively mild" when you compare it to some of the worse stuff that editors get away with here. It is not actually "relatively mild" in terms of what would IRL be considered civil discourse; indeed it would be grounds for a very strong rebuke indeed in most areas of debate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Yes, exactly. It is mild relative to some of the nastier diction editors have used to describe each other without getting anything more than a reprimand. I certainly don't condone anyone calling someone else a liar, but I don't really support blocking a long time contributor with an otherwise spotless block log for a whole week because they called someone a liar. At most, I'd support a 36 hour block for making a personal attack. I don't know, I guess I'm just more lenient than the average person. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC) If you have an environment which is not punitive, and in which our purpose is to keep good editors working we must apply what will accomplish that in the best way. An editor with a clean block log was pushed for some reason to use language (liar) he probably never has before. What does one do in that situation. What action will accomplish the best result, to move past the frustration or to punish. I'd suggest that one talks to the editor. If I had a child, and I do, who was "good" but who behaved every now and then in a way that needs help, I can tell you that that human being benefitted from the act of good faith which I extended when I talked it out but did not punish. And I believe that kind of action created the strong young woman I have today. I'm not saying anyone in this situation is a child. But human nature is human nature. (olive (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)) Wikipedia is not therapy. Admins are not "pushed for some reason to use language" which they otherwise shouldn't use. Admins should be in control of themselves when dealing with other editors. This isn't the first time Dreadstar has made personal attacks.[222] Further, he knows that accusing others of being liars is a personal attack: .. you are accusing other editors of vandalism and being liars. That's not only uncivil, it is a personal attack. If you continue making such accusations, you will be blocked. Dreadstar † 16:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[223] Also, there is no excuse for incivility, even if you feel you were "attacked or feel attacked". Dreadstar † 18:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[224] You're in charge of your own actions and you cannot place blame on others for what you do. [..] Dreadstar † 20:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[225] Yes, I undersand the situation, but Yami was uncivil in calling you a liar, that's the point of the diff. A civil response would have been to say that you were mistaken and explain why, calling someone a liar is personalized instead of being directed at content and actions rather than people. Dreadstar † 22:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[226] Provocation is no excuse for incivility, no matter what the provocation is. [..] Dreadstar ☥ 02:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[227] Comments such as that, this, this and this are uncivil and cross the line into personal attacks and will lead to your being blocked. Dreadstar † 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[228] Accusing a living person of being a "liar," “fraudulent” and “disingenuous” as you did here does indeed violate WP:BLP, and forgive me if I don’t repeat the violation by quoting your exact wording. [..] Dreadstar † 02:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC) [229] I'm sorry, but it is indeed bad faith for you to accuse other editors of being "disingenuous" and claiming that the reasons they gave are just "ridiculous..excuses" to hide the "real" reason behind their objections. Not only bad faith, but a personal attack as well - you're in essence calling people liars, that's a blatant personal attack, period. Again, I strongly recommend you not make further comments about editors and restrict yourself to commenting on the editorial content of the article, per the Wikipedia Policy, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you persist in attacking other editors you will be blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 01:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC) [230] He's told me to "fuck off".[231] Yet elsewhere he has set the threshold for personal attacks very low.[232][233][234] In 2008, Littleolive oil posted a comment about an admin who had called Dreadstar a liar, and at that time she said: No editor or administrator should consider himself judge and jury as in these opinionated comments: “You are a liar and serial copy right offender” [..] Judging another editor, and then based on that judgment assuming that that this now gives one the right to name call and threaten can only cause escalation of the initial problems. [..] I would like to suggest that an administrator must show better judgment - must be able to clearly understand an individual judgment is opinion and not fact. At no time by our own standards on civility, are name-calling and threatening even remotely appropriate. An administrator who thinks that the personal analysis and judgment of a situation gives the right to treat another editor in a way that is less than respectful might consider taking a break from such situations for awhile. [235] In short, Dreadstar knows that calling someone a "liar' is a personal attack and that editors making personal attacks may be blocked.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC) The comments above are mine. Don't attribute them or the ideas there to anyone else. I could easily put together the same kind of 'script' on anyone else including you, to show that you should have known something or should have behaved in a different way than you did.You've missed my point but I'm not surprised. And I chose not to bring diffs here, not to turn this into a quid pro quo environment. I'm sorry you didn't do the same. (olive (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)) Recommend closing thread by uninvolved party. Several have made good points - particularly Jayron's excellent point and Will Beback's well-researched and diligent list of comments above. As no further admin action is forthcoming, I recommend that this thread be closed. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC) I agree this should be closed. You seem to be suggesting by supporting Jayron's comment that diffs should have been presented against Doc James. I didn't want the mess, know this is much more complex than presenting a few diffs and didn't feel this was an RfC or arbitration where one set of diffs spawns another and another and so on. I'll note that Dreadstar has never suggested he wasn't uncivil he simply said that what he said was true, and stood by that claim. The comments and thoughts posted here on this are mine, and in no way reflect how he may or may not be feeling about this. I'll note also that Will's comments lack context which might or might not make a difference in how they are viewed. I stand by my comments and in the pertinence they have to this situation. (olive (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)) I think the key point is Dreadstar clear knew his or her comments were not only incivil but personal attacks, and as he oor she f course also knew, as any admin should, that personal attacks are not tolerated on wikipedia. Trying to defend against a block for personal attacks by saying they are the truth and you're getting blocked for saying the truth, is not on, and frankly a little silly if you yourself have in the past acknowledged that what you're now saying is an unacceptable personal attack that will result in a block. Perhaps Dreadstar has since changed his or her mind but it does at least illustrate that they once understood and agreed with their block. I do agree an uninvolved user might as well close this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC) I'm not quite sure what you mean in your comments, but let me say that the incident above does not even remotely resemble this one and was abusive in the extreme. The comment was taken our of context of the situation and the case. Further, I suggested and still do that an editor with a clean block log might have done well with a warning. Will posted his comments out of context and is getting the result of that, misunderstanding. I'm not on trial here and have right to my opinion on this as does every one else here. I'll add that I know more about this than most having been involved in this article and know the players from other arenas, and for that reason my opinion may have a different slant than some- not better or worse, just different. I 'll remind you that Dreadstar in the comments I've seen at least, has never commented on the appropriateness of the block. Yes this should be closed.(olive (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)) You seem to be missing the point. I've read the statements in context and at no time did Dreadstar say it was okay to accuse someone of being a liar if the situation was different or worse or or the accusation was 'true' or whatever. What they did say was accusing someone of being a liar was unacceptable personal attack and would result in a block. They further made it clear that it didn't matter what the history was, it was still unacceptable. Note, I never said or intended to imply Dreadstar commented on the appropriateness of this specific block. What I did say was when after the block for what they had said in the past admitted was an unacceptable blockable offence they indicated they had no intention of stopping such unacceptable blockable behaviour but instead continuoing it, which suggests a warning would not have helped. You can try to argue they would have responded differently if just given a warning. But remember the primary purpose of a warning is to ensure people are aware their behaviour is unacceptable. As an admin who we hold to a higher standard, and was clearly aware of the unacceptablity and blockability of their offence, a block doesn't seem an unresonable course of action. And the uninvolved admin who made the block, Risker did make it clear they would unblock if Dreadstar had responded the way they should have responded. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm of the opinion is carries far less weight then the opinion of the person who was actually blocked, who is or at least was clearly of the opinion blocking was eventually at least, the correct course of action, which was what I'm pointing out. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that.) BTW, you may or may not be aware, I've minorly involved myself with the pregnancy case although not to the extent of !voting (mostly because I'm undecided which image is better) so I've seen some of what is going on and I have little sympathy for Dreadstar from what I've seen. Although just to avoid further confusion, let me repeat, the situation is irrrelevant since no where in Dreadstar's comments did they imply the situation mattered; what they did say was calling someone a liar, regardless of the situation, was an unacceptable personal attack which would lead to a block. This also means there is only one significant player here, Dreadstar themselves, since whatever wrong doings Jmh649 may or may not have made are largely irrelevant, unless someone is suggesting they themselves are guilty of blockable offences. Nil Einne (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC) This case has been marked as resolved.(olive (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)) Do you mean Risker's close? If so, it's been like that since before anyone else's replies including yours and mine. Nil Einne (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Block review

User: Wheres Dan is fairly new and displays some trouble understanding what is and what is not a reliable source at Talk:Tribe of Dan and User talk:Wheres Dan. After he called another editor an anti-semite here I've blocked him for 24 hours for violating WP:NPA. I don't really block that often, so a review would be welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly cromulent block. Not only was that particular diff about a clear a personal attack as you get, but it was after a series of equally troublesome interactions. If 24 hours doesn't result in the required attitude adjustment I'd just up it to indef. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well within reasonable to me.--v/r - TP 14:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Good block. I only wish other examples of incivility when they're coming from not-so-new editors were dealt with this swiftly. causa sui (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly good block--Cailil ^talk 17:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Doncram creating unacceptable articles in mainspace again

Doncram (talk · contribs), after coming back from a 3-month break for disruptive editing, has created this article. Either he or I need an indef block, and at this point, I don't think I care which. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Note also this edit, where he claims that there's athere will be a redirect pointing there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be an indiscriminate dump of a WP search result for "Chambers building". Hmm... T. Canens (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see the issue. SarekOfVulcan is complaining that I added a hidden comment in a dab page, relating to an appropriate merger proposal, clearly laid out at Talk:Oak Hill#Merger proposal. After SarekOfVulcan deleted the comment, I restored (and updated) it. Is there a need for an ANI discussion?!???!!! If you have a view about the merger proposal that suggests the redirect, please comment in the merger proposal. For this you open an ANI case? --doncram 17:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

About the Chambers Building disambiguation page, I identified that there are multiple wikipedia-notable topics of that name, and began the disambiguation page. In one or more edits since then, i went back and forth to pages that linked to it and developed several valid entries. In the version S points to, the page is not fully developed, obviously, it was in progress. It was/is clearly tagged as "Under Construction" and has "NRHP dab needing cleanup" tag as well. If S objects to the dab page, he should open an AFD i suppose. For another example, see Chambers House disambiguation page, created by me in this edit, revised in several edits to this version. Do you have a problem with that. --doncram 17:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

KHCAA Golden Jubilee Chamber Complex is a topic "of that name"? And Everett Chambers? And considering "Chambers House" includes A. E. Chambers Octagonal Barn, yes, I have a problem with it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It happens that there are two places Chambers barns that seem worth mentioning in the Chambers House dab page. The dab page covers places named exactly "Chambers House" or "Chambers Farm" or "Chambers Farmstead" or "Chambers Barn", and variations that are likely shortened to any one of those, in practice. There are many such dab pages. I don't see the relevance of any of this for ANI. I can't discuss further now, sorry. --doncram 18:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, "Unacceptable articles" would include articles that might seriously violate BLP. Doncram's articles appear to be made in good faith and have a reasonable chance of withstanding closer scrutiny. So perhaps an indef block for SarekOfVulcan is called for per his own suggestion. Rklawton (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if you're accusing me of creating articles that violate BLP, I'd really like to see examples instead of insinuations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Read what you and I wrote again. You are complaining about "unacceptable articles" - so I gave you an example of an unacceptable article. I then defended Doncram's article as not unacceptable. Finally, since you stated that either Doncram or you should get an indef block, and since Doncram's edits aren't blatantly problematic, then you, per your own suggestion, should receive the indef block. Rklawton (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You're saying that an article that included the text "The City Chambers in Glasgow , Scotland has functioned as the headquarters of ... 1889 The building originally had an area of 5,016 square metres. ... 8 KB (1,275 words) - 15:44, 3 November 2011" wasn't blatantly problematic? Doncram left it in that state and edited other articles until I posted here, at which point he cleaned it up.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I don't. I'd just fix it or tag it for cleanup, but I certainly wouldn't complain about it on AN/I. Rklawton (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Doncram's first edit summary on Chambers Building indicates that he was uploading work done in the midst of having lost his internet connection, so it is possible that the initial creation was something he submitted quickly in the midst of frustration over internet problems. Regardless, Doncram knows that he could easily avoid this kind of confrontation by the simple measure of putting his draft pages in user space, then moving them to article space when he has finished improving them to an acceptable condition. --Orlady (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't like Sarek jumping on Doncram immediately after Domcram's return from a 3 month block. He should assume good faith and gently discuss problems, rather than essentially starting the discussion here. I'd think it's fair to ask Doncram to start some of these articles in user space, but confronted immediately (well, 2nd sentence) with "Either he or I need an indef block, and at this point, I don't think I care which." by Sarek, I'd say a 1-day block to S would be an appropriate response. I would also like to personally ask Doncram to get back into editing gradually, in a manner guaranteed not to upset anybody immediately. Smallbones (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both Orlady and Smallbones here. Doncram should ease back into editing, making discrete, complete changes and in general, trying to keep a lower profile. SarekOfVulcan should not be making either/or declarations and should ideally help encourage better behavior by word and example, rather than drop people back into ANI on their second day. dm (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• The original version of this article was definitely terrible and should have been created in userspace if that's the process that doncram wants to use for creating dab pages. However, after a bit of nudging he quickly cleaned it up. Nudging on his talk page probably would have gotten the same result as nudging on the drama board. Without very much knowledge of the circumstances of doncram's 3-month break, I'd say that an immediate kneejerk ANI complaint was uncalled for. —SW— ^comment 21:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  Circumstance of the break can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Doncram, 1 August 2011. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If he's now cleaning up after himself, he has learned something from his three month break. The block details here was to stop him transferring the content of another database into Wikipedia without any check being made on the quality of what was being imported (there were a lot of problems with the other database). All the time. Without stopping. And endlessly abusing both the guy who wrote the script that he used, and anyone who tried to clean up the mess. However, as I say, if he is now prepared to correct his own problems, then that's progress. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

IP hopper at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard

Can anyone think of anything useful to do about the IP hopper at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard who thinks we're violating his civil legal rights, and doesn't understand why we won't let him link to a Russian site that streams Beatles tunes? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps making clear that we are discussing the copyright law of the United States (under which we operate), not of Russia, and adding that we want to avoid breaching copyright anywhere? I'd rather not do it myself; this would be most impressive with short, linked quotations, and somebody who's up on it could find them much more easily. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Russian Federation is a signatory to the Berne convention (most ex Soviet countries are). He is breaching copyright under the Berne convention, Apple Records/The Beatles have not licensed their product for free streaming to anyone (not the BBC, not Steve Jobs, no one). He almost certainly knows this, and knows that his hack cannot last forever, hence his increasingly colourful demands. Recomend no response and reverting further edits - this isn't a language difficulty, nor is it our duty to explain to him how he is violating Apple Records copyright. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Current edit reverted via this discussion. Should the noticeboard perhaps be protected? Calabe1992 21:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Quick Suggestion: add the domain name beatles1.ru to the blacklist. At least make it difficult for him to post it anywhere - as well as prevent him from using Wikipedia to advertise a site that violates copyright law. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

See if he posts again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems on a spamming run elsewhere as well from what I can dig up. Also, get this, there's claims posted about the content being licensed under the Creative Commons 3.0 Unported license. Heh. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Still at it. Could someone else please revert; I'm not going to war over it. Calabe1992 22:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Second thought - see edit summary. Legal threat justifying rangeblock? Calabe1992 22:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a legal threat in my book. (Note he also throws the S-word ("slander") out there in the edit itself.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As the editor who apparently is restricting the IP hopper's civil rights, I have warned them multiple times (though it never seems to stick because they keep ip hopping). Shall we apply the DUCK test and blacklist the site, the email that they want to correspond on, and move on. I simply asked the OTRS volunteers to close the conversation in the "No, you can't link from WP to that site" manner. Hasteur (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Blacklist ahoy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added the link beatles1.ru to the spam blacklist due to the spamming/disruption. I'll look into if this needs to be also submitted for blacklisting at meta:Spam blacklist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm also seeing the link at ru.wikipedia.org and fi.wikipedia.org ... will post at meta later today to request adding the link to the global blacklist (first need to step away from my system for a few hours). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

D'oh, you beat me to adding it. I added a notice explaining the server location/local copyright law matter. Personally, I don't think this is bad faith, just totally and utterly misguided. From my experience, Russians often resent, give no consideration to, or even reject copyright - usually because of the draconian restrictions and limitations on artistic freedom they have experienced in their modern history. WilliamH (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I tried to look into this but my firewall would not let me. Webroot says it is a site known to be related to spyware. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, but it's enough to concern me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Constant attacks by User:Deterence

Resolved

 – User indef blocked

From what I understand, User:Deterence was blocked a little a week ago for personal attacks on another user. In the few days after the block expired, he has launched another barrage of insults on other users participating in WP:ITN/C. Most disturbingly, he seems to be targeting the user who reported him for the first block. I'll let the facts speak for themselves:

Incivility and derogatory remarks:

• 01:59, 16 November 2011 "Ashishg55, it's taking a hell of a lot of personal self-control not to tear you a new one over that remark."
• 22:17, 16 November 2011 "Mamyles, that has got to be the most ignorant comment I have read all week."
• 20:01, 18 November 2011 "You've got to wonder about the mentality of someone who seems positively happy to have been the victim of police brutality.."
• 11:46, 18 November 2011 "I am not the least bit surprised to see that Doktorbuk made this AfD nomination. He is fanatically obsessed with removing all traces of the Occupy movement from Wikipedia and, as recent discussions with him have demonstrated, there is absolutely no reasoning with him whatsoever."
• 12:06, 18 November 2011 "The POV-pushing agenda behind this nomination/censorship could hardly be more obvious."
• 11:50, 18 November 2011 "Another pointless AfD nomination by an editor with too much time on their hands."

Personal attacks:

• 00:41, 16 November 2011 "Your assessment is so utterly simplistic that it is bordering on the ridiculous. Or you are trolling."
• 05:55, 17 November 2011 "This place seriously needs an IQ prerequisite."
• 07:24, 17 November 2011 "Yeah, go have another cry to mummy."
• 21:42, 17 November 2011 "Are you even REMOTELY capable of actually coming to grips about what we're even talking about?!"
• 21:59, 17 November 2011 "It's official. You're brain-dead."
• 22:05, 17 November 2011 "Were you in the Special Ed classes in school? Are you still in the Special Ed classes in school?"

This is only a small fraction of the edits he has made since he was blocked for incivility. After wasting ten minutes of my time "trolling" through his recent edit history, I cannot find a single edit in which he made a comment that was not confrontational or insulting in some way. I think this suffices to show that Deterence has not learned the lesson from his previous block; in fact, his behavior has became demonstrably worse. Perhaps a longer block or a topic ban would lead him to a better direction. JimSukwutput 07:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Funniest read I've had all week. However, I will make one point: only one of those quotes was addressed to "the user who reported him for the first block", so it's a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that I am "targeting" that particular editor. If anything, doktorb is the addressee of a disproportionate share of my wise commentary. But, that's only because he has learning difficulties. Or because he's a Republican. I'm not sure which because it's rather difficult to tell the difference. Perhaps I'll make a second point: harden-up you great girl's blouse. Deterence ^Talk 08:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with Jim. I am at a loss at what should be done, as blocks apparently do not work. Warnings do not work either, see for example this very recent discussion at ANI or this recent warning. The reply above doesn't make me feel confident in that the incivility and soapboxing will stop either. Pantherskin (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have only just logged onto to Wikipedia today. I find the language used in his reply ("that's only because he has learning difficulties") hideously offensive. I welcome the one week block, but would like someone to confirm if the tone of his reply on this page was taken into account (or will be) for any later ruling. Thank you for the swift response, it's great to see that these issues are sorted out quickly. doktorb _words^deeds 10:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This is his 3rd block for WP:NPA, and his 2nd in a week for it. Considering the brutal level of attacks he's now at (mental capabilities), I'd be willing to indef at this point - it's clear that the same antisocial/anti-rules tendencies that draw him to the Occupy- series of article are showing their very ugly face on Wikipedia, and it's not going to get better. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd support indef - in fact, I was thinking of proposing it myself as I don't see any way a 1 week block will be effective -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Firmly supporting indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. I just wanted to make sure they stopped right now. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Block duration increased to indefinite. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This users behavior has been inapropriate at every turn, and the community has given them a hell of a lot of leeway and many opportunities to correct it. Rather than learning from the warnings and blocks, however, their behavior has gotten definitively worse over the past several days. Firmly support the indef as well. Swarm ^X 15:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Good decision, entirely appropriate block. WilliamH (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Good heavens, this was long overdue. Glad to finally see sanity restored to ITNC. Strong support of indef.--WaltCip (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wales

Discussion

31 October 2011 User:Geni requests citation for Cymru am byth for national_motto infobox field at the article talk page, See Talk:Wales#Cymru_am_byth

Edits at Wales

• 21:28, 2 November 2011 Geni removes the content "rm "national motto" pending someone finding a decent citation for it."
• 21:28, 2 November 2011 User:FruitMonkey undid revision by Geni "Take it to the talk page. It was accepted in the GA review."
• 22:05, 2 November 2011 Geni undid revision by FruitMonkey "I did raise it on the talk page"
• 22:13, 2 November 2011 User:Snowded undid revision by Geni "identified as vandalism"
• 22:38, 2 November 2011 Geni adds a couple of {{Citation needed}}. "So far requests on talk and googling have hit a brick wall"
• 14:34, 3 November 2011 User:Daicaregos removes cn and adds "de facto"
• 19:52, 3 November 2011 Geni re-adds cn, removing de-facto "drop citation needed back in. See talk"
• 20:03, 3 November 2011 Daicaregos removes cn and re-adds "de-facto" "Reverted good faith edits by Geni (talk): Drop cn templates back out. See talk. "
• 16:35, 6 November 2011 Geni re-adds cn "drop {{citation needed}} back in. Still no citations despite extensive requests on talk page"
• 20:10, 14 November 2011 Geni removes the moto "rming "motto". Still no citations"
• 20:32, 14 November 2011 Snowded undid revision by Geni "You can add a de facto if you want but you do not have agreement to that"
• 21:17, 14 November 2011 Geni undid revision by Snowded "rv. WP:V is an agreeded standard. For Aeron's sake if it's true it shouldn't be that hard for you to find a reliable source now should it?"
• 21:25, 14 November 2011 Daicaregos undid revision by Geni "Please discuss before reverting"

Comment

I am just a by-stander and don't have an opinion about the content changes. Nothing is urgent about this request, though the edit pattern appears strange to me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• The disputed content is being discussed on the talk page. It is unsourced by WP:RS, is in the infobox of the article yet not mentioned in the article itself. It should not be there and (IMO) its presence is being maintained for the wrong reasons. Leaky Caldron 19:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Who R you?

Pretty gross civility violation here by Who R you? (talk · contribs), who remains unrepentant after receiving friendly advice. Not the first time – his talk page is littered with incivilities, and he is polluting the atmosphere with his flaming at WT:UE. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no call for that, or for this either for that matter. I've issued a warning but given just what little I've seen of his behavior would have no problem with a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• He posted yet another blatant personal attack just a few moments ago. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• This hot off the presses. I suppose you could count me as part of the "scum [that is] always around to abuse the process and whine and complain how they aren't treated nicely by the people they're fucking over". --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• It's part of a broader problem; there's plenty more like this Apparently I'm pulling a "slimy scumbag trick" by alluding to a source; Who R U is quite sure that sources don't exist and I'm making it up, although they carefully avoid calling me a liar. I've since explicitly linked to a source; but I'm sure we'll get another bad-faith TL;DR rant on that thread and in many others. Also, creating that wikiproject was just an attempted end-run around all those people who disagree with Who at the proper page; Who has a mission to remove diacritics, and mere consensus cannot be allowed to stand in the way of that mission. bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't abbreviate his name as "Who". It tends to creates the Who's on First? effect. GoodDay (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• For another example, anybody who takes the time to read through the epic comments here will find an abundance of bad faith and sniping at other editors - for instance "P.S. Did they not even try to make the word lé to make it appear more foreign? Incroyable, ces enfants stupides!". bobrayner (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As one of the non-scum and also a non-admin, I think temporary ban from all discussions involving English language might circumvent this, as the English language discussions seems to be the trigger of these outbursts. Then again, saying that probably makes me scum. ;-) --OpenFuture (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I love this rant. In the very same paragraph where he complains of people "abusing process", he insists that the solution to the likely deletion of his project is to find an admin willing to restore to user space... in abuse of process. Less concerning than his incivility (which to me are merely the ramblings of a zealot) is various comments about how it is better to let him keep his project rather than force them to rely on email, etc. Such comments have a very WP:EEML feel to them, and are of a far greater concern to this project than Who R's inability to handle dissenting viewpoints. Resolute 14:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That is plain ridiculous. Talks about people abusing the system and wasting peoples time all the while he is attempting to do both. But you are right that does sound like a similar case to the WP:EEML. -DJSasso (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe there may have been some kind of offsite coordination in the diacriticals controversy in the past, although the attempt at creating a pov-pushing project is at least open to all viewers (but participation is limited to those who agree with Who R U). However, offsite coordination is very hard to prove (it's all very well suspecting it, but I've only actually uncovered it once, on Astrology). I'm curious as to how a couple of people on that side of the debate found and joined the wikiproject so soon - at first glance I didn't see any talkpage notification (which would have been canvassing anyway). Perhaps it's mere coincidence, and there are people who check the directory of wikiprojects every day for interesting new projects to join... bobrayner (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm a suspect, but I discovered the new WikiProject via following the creator's contributions. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Who R you? (talk · contribs) has also used more "conventional" canvassing; see this and this for example. Just by reading the RMs one gets the impression that the community's position on many moves is evenly split, or swinging towards removal of diacriticals; but in reality, one side is very good at "getting out the vote". bobrayner (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, it looks like there's not much good faith on either side [236] [237]. causa sui (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, tempers are fraying on both sides, and I fear it may become a vicious circle. I would argue that the diff you present is not an ideal response to this rant, but it's certainly understandable: "Apparently living in Czechoslovakia has left you out of touch with the real world... Regardless of your inability to comprehend... scum are always around to abuse the process and whine and complain how they aren't treated nicely by the people they're fucking over..." - and there are many other diffs with a similar tone. Even if Who R you's canvassing and manipulation and mendacious misinterpretation of policy were to stop instantly, it is almost impossible for other editors to have a reasoned and civil discussion amid so many angry comments. Even hitherto calm editors can get sucked into the maelstrom. bobrayner (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, this little gem shows that they're willing to game the system to stay "on the right side of" the PA line. Even without directly making an attack against anyone, there is still sufficient sustained violation of civility that this warrants a block. --Blackmane (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • For someone so involved in matters like does he really not realise Czechoslovakia hasn't existed for nearly 19 years or is he just being dumb? Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Good faith should be assumed only until overwhelming evidence of the contrary. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• And he's at it again. I'm pretty sure, given his history of personal attacks and a warning to cease and desist from them - [238] - that this is blockable; see the comments in the third new section and his closing at the bottom of the diff. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, he is not the only editor commenting on other editors there. The real problem is that what he says about the other editors' behaviour is verifiably false. Contrast this:

  • "The purpose [of WikiProject English] is to enforce one particular interpretation of policy. An interpretation that does not have consensus, and in fact if anything is in a minority when it comes to actual practice." -- "You and your buddies keep making the same claims that there is no consensus and that I'm only following one interpretation, and yet I keep providing word-for-word quotes of the policies and asking you to explain how it is that you're intepreting them and you never respond.  I take that to mean that you can't figure out how to twist words like "… follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language …" to your purposes, and you know you'd look like a fool if you tried; so instead you use the common childish tactic of baseless accusation in the hopes that no one will consider your words too carefully." [239]

  With this, this or this gem:

  • "[...] I'm still waiting for your reply as to why WP should ignore the sources; or is it the ol', because a small group of people continuously bring this subject up in one forum after another, fail to get consensus, and repeat, justification. And I've noticed that other people get complaints filed against them for disruptive editing for having dared to violate the private rules that WP:Hockey made up to replace all the other rules that say follow the RS. Funny how sometimes if you harass people enough they just give up rather than try to combat the private agenda of some. Maybe now more people can comment here as well as at Talk:Marek Židlický and this continuous disruption that's been going on for years can finally be stopped. [...]" -- "Because not all reliable sources are reliable for the spelling of a name. You've read all the discussions by the looks of the lists you wrote so you have likely seen the large number of reasons that have been given ad naseum. [...] Most likely things would have changed by now to include them had it not been for some hardline 'not in my country' editors who keep trying to bring it up in every forum possible and while making attacks on anyone who disagrees with them stating that they are only doing it because of mother country pride and the like. We are an encyclopedia, our goal is to provide information. Cutting out the proper spelling of someones name is counter to that goal. We should follow the establish usage of other reference works which in many (not all) cases use them as well as the highly respected manuals of style such as the AMA, APA, Chicago Manual of Style. It is crazy that wikipedia wants to be a reference work but we would ignore what reference works and the major style guides suggest we do and instead rely on sports reporters. Sports reporters are hardly reliable for the proper spelling of a name in a lot of cases." [240]

  That guy is repeating the same nonsense over and over. When you bother to refute it, he drops out of the conversation and occasionally one of his allies comes in instead, although more often there is no response at all. Then shortly afterwards, in a different thread or elsewhere in the same thread, he makes the same absurd claims again, and sometimes even explicitly denies the mere existence of the responses to which he closes his ears. If a project built on WP:CONSENSUS as its main decision making process tolerates this kind of behaviour for too long, it may as well close down. Hans Adler 10:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  I'm interested in the tagteaming too. Is an SPI warranted? causa sui (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  It's refreshing, to know that the editors who're seeking disciplinary actions against WRy, aren't from the pro-dios side. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  I might add that the statement you obviously fully understand that we 80s head-bangers were contemplating the Wagnerian look of the name and viewed the losers of WWII as our tough role models.  It couldn't have been that selecting a foreign, non-English symbol, the umlaut, symbol of our parents enemies during the war, what they fought, killed, and died to destroy, that we thought that it would piss them off that the heavy metal that we blared contained a symbol that represented that which they at one time despised.  No, you're right of course; we teenagers were contemplating the Wagnerian influence and wanted to follow in the footsteps of those tough losers that surrendered. (in the original diff when I restored this from archive) seems to me to either be accusing the other side of being Nazis, or accusing them of accusing his "side" as being Nazis. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, but your accusation seems a bit over the top to me. The sarcasm wasn't optimal here, but it was a detailed explanation of Who R You?'s position on a specific point, which in this case was actually more than reasonable. Spellings such as "Motörhead" (in which, by the way, the umlaut makes no sense at all) can definitely not be used as proof that umlauts are not foreign to English. The frequent use of black letters by the same scene clearly demonstrates that. Hans Adler 21:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  Nobody ever claimed that umlauts didn't look foreign, so that's not what he is trying to say. His point was rather that using umlauts somehow associate you with Nazism, and that the usage of umlauts therefore upset those who fought against Germany in WWII and that the usage of it therefore was there to intentionally piss of the parenting generation of those who listened to Blue Öyster Cult etc. This is of course is completely absurd. But I'm sure he isn't trying to insult anyone with that statement. -OpenFuture (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

  It's not absurd to me at all but sounds perfectly plausible. Provocation is a typical motivation for many elements of youth culture, and I can see no point in that kind of music other than provocation and expression of aggression. Hans Adler 18:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

  Regardless of that, given that the umlauts etc. are associated with a large number of European languages, and not specifically associated with Nazism (unlike, say, certain symbols they usurped), saying that people "fought to destroy the umlaut" is reducido'd more than a little too absurdium in my book. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

  @causa sui, it probably would be a good idea. Seems like a strong possibility looking at his edit history how he jumped from new editor to doing things that don't look like something a new user would do. @Bushranger it's funny you mention Goodwin's law as I almost posted something about that when I noticed him calling people Communists down below. Not exactly the same thing but a twist on Goodwins law. -DJSasso (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  All right. I'm not familiar enough to compile a comprehensive list of suspects. But if there are a lot then a sleeper check isn't a bad idea either. causa sui (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Natalie Wood case

No administrative action required ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A review of the Natalie Wood article ASAP is warranted. Her "mysterious" death case by drowning 30 years ago has been reopened in Los Angeles and has become a major news item. As there seemed to be excessive detail in the "death" section of the article when the recent story broke, I suggested trimming it on the Talk page, which I did the following day. However, an editor later replaced, and even expanded, that pruned section, relying on original research and even adding inferences. I then explained the new problems created on the Talk page and reverted to the earlier version. Again, the editor restored all of the material with no apparent attempt to even fix the OR problem, besides ignoring the others. The article has received nearly a half million readers just yesterday. This is a new headline-making investigation, and the section describing events should be watched carefully to avoid abuse. I'm not sure if there's any relationship, but there was some edit-warring that took place last year.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Comment: I can't imagine what the above editor is referring to in regard to WP:OR. Everything added is referenced. As expressed on the article talk page, the above editor's rationale for unilaterally deleting nearly the entire section was based on anyone reading it being biased in relation to the case being reopened by the LASO. There was also mention of the section "affect[ing] a pending case". Huh? I have outlined my reasoning for the rewritten section as it is on the article talk page. Further, I know of no WP policy that prevents content being included on the basis of an open criminal investigation. If there is one, I'd be interested to see it. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure why this content dispute has been brought here or what kind of administrative action is being requested. That said and FWIW, I've read the current version and the trimmed version, and I don't like either of them. Something in between, better worded, and more source-compliant would be better. Should be hashed out on the Talk page, though, not here. If necessary, it can be escalated through the ususal channels of content disputes.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure why it was brought here, either. I took the content issue(s) to the talk page, the other editor has yet to address what was added there. As far as the above comment, "read the current version and the trimmed version, and I don't like either of them" - well, WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is applicable in response to that comment, eliciting me from me: So? "That alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted". Lhb1239 (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Uh, okay, my comment wasn't intended to be a full-blown analysis of what's wrong with both versions, but you're certainly welcome to be snippy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC) I fail to see how quoting policy is being "snippy". And just for the record, that comment along with the edit summary you provided for same ("touchy, aren't we?") could very easily be classified as a personal attack and is neither necessary, accurate, nor the proper use of an edit summary. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC) @Bbb23: An editor is engaged in edit warring over the inclusion of over 450 words of apparent personal commentary dealing with a major news story. There are mini cites given which do not include the commentary and essentially serve no purpose to most of the text. The editor has even added their own summary: "The official theory is . . . ", which at least someone tagged for citation. Criminal charges could become an issue down the road. So there are some administrative actions that can be taken: 1) Remove all OR and synthesis; 2) Prevent edit warring over its inclusion; 3) Prevent abuse of BLP guidelines by those steps. I realize that with only half a million viewers a day, and on all the TV and newspaper media, it may not be a big deal, but some attention may still be warranted. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC) @Wikiwatcher: It would be helpful if you would specific as to (a) what editor you are referring to, (b) what you think specifically is "personal commentary" and original research, (c) providing diffs, (d) why you think this article will have any bearing on anything to do with any criminal case that might develop, (e) how any of what's in the article is a BLP violation. Your vague references don't give a clear picture of anything I think you are trying to accomplish here (which could be part of the reason why others have questioned your reasoning in bringing this here to begin with). Lhb1239 (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Wikiwatcher, I've pretty much said all I have to say on this topic. I don't see the need for any administrative action here, but perhaps an admin will disagree. Your three suggestions aren't persuasive given the level of the dispute. #1 is just content. #2 can be handled through WP:AN3 if appropriate. #3 can be handled at WP:BLPN (obviously nothing to do with Wood herself).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Ludwigs2 on Talk:Muhammad/images

Discussion

A little background: Talk:Muhammad/images is a special talk page created to deal with the large number of editors who come to complain about showing depictions of Muhammad on the Muhammad article, due mostly to religious considerations. Consensus has been decided on multiple occasions that images of Muhammad are acceptable on the page, this has been truly exhaustively discussed in the past as you can tell by the large disclaimer on the top of the talk page, and by reading the archives. This does not mean that consensus cannot change, but it's unlikely and doesn't seem to be happening now. Furthermore, WP:NOTCENSORED is unambiguous when it states "Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations." User talk:Ludwigs2 has made it goal recently to strip the article of images of Muhammad on the basis that it offends Muslims. It is true that some sects of Islam consider it unethical to depict Muhammad as I'm sure most people here know. It has been explained ad nauseum to Ludwig that policy does not allow us to consider religious beliefs when writing this encyclopedia and his response is that we should invoke WP:IAR. I explained to him that IAR still needs to be determined by a consensus and that he cannot unilaterally invoke it to force a POV into the article. His response was that other editors are abusing the rules by enforcing them and if we stop abusing the rules then he will stop IAR. This conversation has been going back and forth with the same points being explained by several editors many times, and it has now crossed the WP:TE line - the entire page is one large WP:BATTLEGROUND at this point, with several WP:IDHT, WP:NPA and WP:AGF issues such as accusing all the other editors opposing removal (which as far as I can tell is all other editors, though there are editors who would like less images for various reasons) of WP:OWN and expressing disbelief that the people he's dealing with can think the way they do and still be normal adults. I'm asking that an uninvolved admin assess the situation and determine if Lugwigs2 requires some kind of a warning or if I'm being overly dramatic, and I thank you in advance for reading the talk page thread because it is a bit long. The relevant thread is here. I'm not posting diffs because the entire thread demonstrates the points I am attempting to illustrate, as it's not a single comment that is at issue here. There are other threads involved in this discussion, but this is the most recent and best highlights my complaint. Noformation Talk 01:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This was bound to hit the AN/I fan sooner or later, just one massive Facepalm. If I may offer a pre-rebuttal to what Ludwigs2 is like about to touch on here, neither I nor IMO anyone else asserts ownership of the Muhammad article. I have said "images will not be removed this article" as a simple acknowledgement of the slim-to-none chance that it would ever actually happen. It's like saying "Ron Paul will never be President" or "the Bills will never win the Super Bowl". One is not staking out an aggressive posture against either scenario taking place, but is rather acknowledging the likelihood of occurrence, or lack thereof. It has also been endlessly frustrating to deal with a user who demands existing policy be bent in an absolutely wrong direction to accommodate someone's religious beliefs. And not even a specific someone, all of this is in defense of nebulous "some people out there don't like this article" sensibilities. Tarc (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I have said similar and have elaborated in the same way. The article can certainly change if a consensus to do so is formed, but it will not be done based on religious considerations and the chances of the article being depiction free are slim. This is not asserting ownership. Noformation Talk 01:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) I believe the term you're looking for is "Slim to none, and Slim left town". - The Bushranger One ping only 01:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC) A very very tiny portion of the diffs of behavior related to this can be found here[241] (this was for an AN/I or RfC/U I planned on filing but am still working on organizing and moving the diffs over from an offline copy). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Just noting that I am aware of this thread, and to clarify some misperceptions in Nofo's presentation. beyond that I will allow administrtors to review the material before commenting further. comments on Nofo's summary: I am not trying to "strip the article of images of Muhammad on the basis that it offends Muslims." As I have said repeatedly on the talk page, I want to undertake a frank evaluation of the value of these images to the article to see if keeping them is worth all the immense amounts of trouble that they cause. as Nofo noted, there is a special subpage (with 16 archives) all focused on these images; one would expect the images to be of vital importance to the page for all of that conflict, yet as far as I can tell they are at best decorative illustrations. That struck me as nonsensical - why cause this much trouble over eye-candy? Nofo and Tarc have (understandably) downplayed the extent of wp:page ownership. I have had at least four editors (including one admin) tell me bald-face that the images will not be removed under any circumstances, and that any discussion of the matter is unacceptable (two most reacent examples [242],[243], though there are dozens) I have consequently been forced to turn to wp:IAR simply to get any sort of discussion going. The IAR justification, incidentally, is over the misuse of NOTCENSORED: the policy is being used to retain images that have no particular value to the article but are highly controversial - effectively offending a significant population of our readers and damaging the project's reputation without any overriding encyclopedic reason. please review the talk page at your leisure; happy to answer any questions. Hopefully this can be resolved without further drama on the page. --Ludwigs2 01:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) P.s. this has been cast as being about me, but there are at least two other editors in the discussion making similar arguments to mine who have not been notified. I will leave notices in their talk (I don't want to involve them unless they choose to participate here). --Ludwigs2 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) That is so very not true, and I can provide faaaar more diffs to prove it's not than the tiny handful in the link I posted above. Shall I? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I very clearly said "without a consensus for your position, these images will not be removed" in that diff, I seriously doubt anyone will read that as ownership. Noformation Talk 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia editors insist on calling the Bible stories fairy tales, without concern for offense to Jewish and Christian believers. What's so special about Muslims, that they should be catered to? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Fairy tales? In mainspace? Do we? --FormerIP (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Yes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Example? I rather think we tolerate highly biased articles making out that Jesus' existence is uncontested historical fact and stuff like that. Not that this supports Ludwigs2's case. --FormerIP (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Bugs: when it comes right down to it, I don't really care who gets offended, so long as the project has a valid, encyclopedic reason to do the offending. If we need controversial material, we use controversial material, but do we really want to be throwing controversial material in our readers' faces for no reason whatsoever? see the recent foundation resolution on controversial content. --Ludwigs2 02:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Wow, at AN/I, you actually decided to make such a claim, even though diffs to prove your true motivations and feelings on this matter are right here for all to see? (to everyone else) This is why I think nothing short of a topic ban is going to stop the tendentiousness, disruptiveness and editing in bad faith (not to mention erroneous claims of being attacked while attacking others). In my opinion, that entire comment shows a bad faith response as can be noted from over a dozen diffs showing (in his own words) it is not his true motivations. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Considering that depictions of Muhammed are usually verboten, their mere presence is of major educational benefit here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC) That's a ridiculous argument, Bugs. Here's a gratuitous and excessive counterexample of something that is offensive but we have no educational mission to include. The concept that we should include offensive material just because no one else will host it is jaw-droppingly silly. SDY (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC) And that's a ridiculously, jaw-droppingly silly, and thoroughly bogus comparison. Unless you're aware of some American law restricting depictions of Muhammed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC) In other words, you think we should include kiddie porn if the laws of Florida didn't say no? Maybe we should include the goatse.cx image for its "educational value"? Including gratuitous offensive images is tasteless and crude: if they have clear educational value that should be easy to defend. Including them for the sake of some twisted sense of entitlement about freedom from censorship is not writing an encyclopedia. SDY (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC) For quite some time we did include the goatse.cx image, first the image itself, and then a screenshot of the website with the image clearly visible. The arguments for the inclusion of that image were much better than those for the Muhammad images, and it didn't get finally removed before Jimbo got involved. Hans Adler 07:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC) If there's an alternate universe where kiddie porn isn't universally condemned as wrong and depraved, and is instead accepted, and if there's a wikipedia in that universe, they'd probably have kiddie porn in their article. The comparison is way too weak because of all the fundamentally unique issues that apply to child pornography that don't apply to almost anything else. Interestingly, I don't particularily think that a category exists whose members are "child porn, goatse.cx and the religious prophet Muhammad". Noformation Talk 03:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Images that might be taken as extremely offensive, perhaps? The complete cultural blindness of this site is shocking sometimes. We have very different ideas about encyclopedias. Regardless, this isn't the place for this conversation. SDY (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Re: "cultural blindess" - good thing too, if it weren't culturally blind, it would be a very shitty encyclopedia, especially with all the various interests that have tried subverting article after article. My time here at RC has proven that to me. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Comment. There's no way I'm reading through all the material here, major case of tl;dr, but I would suggest to Ludwig that his reasoning is dubious when he argues that a possibly valid reason to remove images from said article is simply because they are causing more trouble than they are worth, when it is he who is causing most of the trouble. I agree with the original poster that an uninvolved admin might perhaps need to have a chat with Ludwig and possibly issue a warning. This discussion has truly been done to death at a variety of locations on wikipedia, and I really think it's time for Ludwig to let this issue go. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 02:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I had a read through of the entire section myself to get to grips with the situation. Wrt to the point raised re ownership, I didn't see any particular signs of it. I read the various "these pictures will never be removed" comments as "these pictures will never be removed based on the position you are taking". Frankly speaking, all I read was the same argument repeated over and over again until it was escalated into heel digging and declarations of applying IAR ad nauseam until the pictures were removed for the sake of the sensibilities of religious hysterics. --Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I cannot believe this was brought here. Ludwigs2 is not just repeating the same arguments over and over again. The most recent round of discussion was kicked off by the resolution recently passed by the WMF on controversial content. Raising the issue here on Wikipedia with what are very easily our most "controversial images" was fully acceptable. In response, Ludwigs has been met with abuse and vitriol. Ludwigs eventually decided to pursue an RfC (supported by myself, Anthonyhcole, and others); a number of regular editors (Tarc is the worst, but also Robertmfromli) have made strong attempts to stop the RfC. When a group of editors attempt to assert that their understanding of policy is so obviously correct and their opponents are so obviously wrong that we shouldn't even ask for the community's input, that is the very definition of ownership. Now, I will admit that Ludwigs2 is on the extreme end, and the chances of his preferred outcome (i.e., no pictorial images whatsoever) is essentially a no-go, but Anthonyhcole has done a very good job of pointing out that there is a middle ground here that needs to be considered (i.e., that by including so many images from a very narrow time period and fairly narrow interpretation of Islam we are in fact violating WP:UNDUE). WP:CENSORSHIP is fine, but it is being used as a bludgeon on that page, as if its very existence means that anyone who even considers removal of any images there is nothing other than a Sunni apologist. My opinion is, once we settle on a wording, we need to let the RfC run. If it turns out (as is likely) to support the extremist "all images are good position", then fine--of course, Ludwigs2 and any other editor must be free to pursue further dispute resolution. That has really been my position all along: that a group of editors are essentially trying to prevent dispute resolution due to their sense of their own unerring interpretation of policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Qwyrxian: Me? I tried stopping the RfC? Are you truly serious? I kindly ask you to review the page history. I was willing to give up[244][245] because of Ludwigs2's actions, but I *NEVER* tried stopping it. The exact opposite is true. *I* restarted it THREE times[246][247][248] and *I* made the only proposal that had any chance at getting any images removed (other than you tacking virtually the same proposal onto proposal #5). So, would you like to retract that claim that I tried stopping the RfC? And apologies for the bolded text, but your claim is so vastly different than what really happened. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 06:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Qwyrxian: Apologies for any tone you may read into that. That page is a massive mess, and I am sure you simply missed the things I pointed out above. I am upset about such a claim being made against me, but I know (from seeing you around for a long time) that it's nothing more than not having gotten a handle on that massive walls-o-text talk page. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This AN/I is about Ludwig's behavior, not the content discussion. There may be a middle ground and that's fine but in the meantime Ludwig has made personal attacks, assigned motives to other editors and yes, has repeated the same argument regarding offending Muslims over and over again to the point of WP:TE. He is yet to make a policy based argument against WP:NOTCENSORED, which specifically rules out using religious belief as a valid criteria of building the pedia. Instead he invokes IAR, which he would not need to do if policy was on his side. Yes there have been edits by editors who share my view on the images that made me cringe, I didn't find their behavior bad enough to take to AN/I, but if you do then by all means open up a case. However, in what you wrote above all you did was point to the behavior of others and not that of Ludwigs. Please see some of the diffs below. Noformation Talk 04:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Just to add to this, I have absolutely no problem with an RFC nor do I oppose changes to the way images in the article are handled, and I don't think other editors do either. The problem people have is that we cannot make a case based on Ludwig's reasoning that it offends religious beliefs. Other arguments are fine. I brought this thread here so that an uninvolved admin can step in and calm the waters - not to stifle discussion or stop DR. Noformation Talk 04:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I find Ludwigs2's arguments quite sensible, and am more inclined to the view that there are a number of editors opposing Ludwigs2 who are overinvolved on that page, and who are turning this into a battleground over principle. I am still trying to get up to speed with the subject matter, but as far as I can make out, pictorial representations of Muhammad have never been as common and widespread in Muslim traditions as pictorial representations of Christ in the Christian tradition, for example; so the basic situation is a completely different one. We should focus on the most common types of representation (calligraphy etc.), just as we focus on the most typical depictions of Jesus in his article. Even among such pictorial depictions of Muhammad as did exist, the majority showed him as a flame, or veiled; yet most of the pictures we feature are those of the rarer naturalistic type – so they are both unrepresentative and more likely to cause offence. If we keep in mind that we should balance educational value and potential offence, the only reasonable conclusion is that we have far too many naturalistic images of Muhammad in the article. Perhaps one veiled one, and one showing him as a flame, might be reasonable, because these are the common styles. It might also make sense to look at how other encyclopaedias are handling this; Britannica for example does not include any images of Muhammad at all, as far as I can see; neither in the Micropaedia and Macropaedia articles on Muhammad, nor in the Macropaedia article on Islamic art (which is mostly non-pictorial). We'll probably need an RfC on the content issue at some point, and that should be well-prepared, and underpinned by serious research. --JN466 05:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC) There are many arguments to be made on the article's talk page, but one of them is not that it's against Islamic tradition. And again, this is about Ludwig's behavior, not the content dispute. Noformation Talk 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Well, as someone who has only happened on this page this past week, I see lots of "I didn't hear that" and aspersions from the other side as well, rather than an effort to seek compromise and consensus. I think everybody on that page needs a cooling-off period. (By the way, note WP:NAUSEUM.) And to address the point of tradition, I think we can agree that naturalistic depictions of Muhammad are rare, and nowhere near representative of how Muhammad is represented in Islamic tradition. --JN466 05:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC) A small portion of Ludwigs2 behavior and comments Engages community in attempt to remove images based on Foundation resolution[249] Very next post, claims (in edit summary) "the astonishment is general, not a function or religion"[250] yet the only known objection is religious beliefs. One justification repeatedly trumped out is "[...]and since none of the images of the prophet presented on the page are factual[...]"[251] (one of many diffs) - yet refuses to believe that such would apply to pictures of Euro-Jesus - while admitting it is because people aren't (religiously) offended by such.[252] thus indicating (again and again) the real issue is one of religious offense and not whether the images are "factual". Earlier admits his motivations are religious in nature[253] - continues to do so, such as[254] VERY early on, starts accusing those who he disagrees with of having a prejudicial tone[255] - they cite policy and it's uniform use, he calls their tone "prejudicial" He suggests an RfC[256], which gets given actual attention and yet two days later tries end runs around an RfC that obviously won't remove every image of Muhammad by attempting to remove one editor using WQA[257], and an attempted an end run at ArbCom hinting at our behavior (with diffs) while claiming that isn't part of it[258] (diff to final post on proposed ArbCom case so entire thread can be viewed). During this ArbCom end run attempt, he tries pointing out a "deep ideological divide in the community" by pointing out a Village Pump proposal that shows the exact opposite.[259] (Also) DURING the attempt to formulate an RfC to address such concerns, those with opposing viewpoints and vastly different understanding of policy than him are labeled (by him) as showing or having a bias, not AGF, incivility, anti-Muslim sentiments, personal attacks (against him), etc,[260][261][262] Advises he will continue[263] to bring up what amounts to policy changes in the wrong venue. Advised he should go to the right venue[264]. Obviously refuses by actions (see talk page) and again repeats (after being told by multiple editors that it's getting tendentious (and disruptive))[265][266][267](and plenty more) that he will continue to do so anyway, even after acknowledging the correct venue (and even responding with "tenacious" once in response to claims of his "tendentious"ness) [268][269] Added by ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC) We need to limit this discussion to Ludwigs2's behavior. We *really* don't want to hash out the image controversy here as it's one that will never achieve consensus anyway. Rklawton (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC) It achieved consensus long ago (that a few images stay) and has had it ever since. What it will never achieve is universal agreement, but that's not the same thing. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Agreed, I was just about to post the same thing. Noformation Talk 02:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Agreed as well, but in fairness to Ludwigs, we need to limit it to everyone's behaviour, even if I echo others in believing that he himself is responsible for nearly all of the conflict. Now, onto the point, I won't repeat everything RobertM has said, but I have a collection of links myself that echos those. The one I will leave is typical of his behaviour on that talk page: "...the extravagant effort I see dumped into defending these trivial images is only explainable by deep-seated anti-Islamic prejudice." This was from last weekend, but he has made several similar accusations of bigotry and racism, the most recent of which I saw was from yesterday. That is pretty much his MO. We need to remove images of "the prophet" because some Muslims are offended, and therefore anyone who does not support his goal of censoring the article must be a bigot. He has been tendentious in the extreme and routinely makes bad-faith arguments against his opponents. Resolute 03:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Cannot but agree that Ludwigs has been speculating on the motives of editors at that page and he should stop. Ludwigs2 is by no means the only offender. I would very much appreciate it if all the editors on that page would apply WP:TALK. It is extremely tedious trying to engage in rational argument when every fifth paragraph seems to be about editor behaviour or speculations about motive, from every direction. It draws out the process and just makes people dig in their heels. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I agree. The whole recent discussion on that page seems to have degenerated into battleground mode. I would not want to lay the responsibility for that at any one individual editor's doorstep. --JN466 05:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I believe we are on our 5th attempt at an RfC (which ironically he proposed and tried to circumvent). I even proposed an RfC that actually had a chance of getting an image or three removed (the "all or none" ones we know wouldn't change anything, and Ludwigs' written or implied as "none or none" ones weren't going to happen). If that's not a compromise, I don't know what is. Worse yet, there isn't anything else that can be compromised on in that venue. The rest require policy changes or policy addendums - where, on well over a dozen occasions, Ludwigs2 was suggested to go. We can't change nor ignore WP:CENSOR. At least 4 times, a viable compromise in the form of an RfC that may have removed some images was proposed. And finally, the rest of us don't really need to cool off. We just don't need tendentiousness and every RfC attempt turned into a circus of repeated IAR claims and repeated claims of (grossly paraphrased) "ooh, you attacked me again!" I disagree with various of your points, yet you and I are going back and forth in good faith with points and counter-points and listening to each other. Same with other editors. Yes, it's been difficult for us to ignore Ludwigs2, and I think all of us have tried, and most of us have failed... but ignoring him doesn't work either. And I've got pages of history in the talk page archives - plus the current page - to prove that. Simply responding to each other (as you and I have been doing) results in walls of the "Policy Whack A Mole" game, accusations towards other editors, single purpose IAR rants, and so on. I'll gladly do no more than provide a link to the Village Pump each time from now on, so the rest of us can discuss... but, at this point, the number of accusations and attacks on editors from him has gotten ridiculous, as has the tendentiousness and disruptiveness. I personally think he's long overdue for a topic ban. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Rob, this is a complex issue. It will take time for calm rational discussion to arrive at an idea of the best way forward, if indeed anything needs to be done. There is no hurry. The only problem I see at that page is a tendency for many editors, of every persuasion, to allow themselves to be sidetracked into ad hominem. You can ignore ad hominem. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Anthony, you are correct. And my apologies, if my frustrations at others ever got misplaced and misdirected at you or anyone else. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC) My OPINION: Summary of this whole event This was intended to be part of the AN/I I held off filing and was to go with the diffs I provided above and below. It has been modified to note the two locations of the diffs, as I never finished moving them from off-Wiki to my userspace) (diffs representative of most or all of this are already posted here) When it comes to removal of the images, whether one or all or something inbetween, there are two camps involved: One camp which wishes to discuss the merit (historic, educational and artistic value to the article) of each image (or the images as a whole). One editor (Ludwigs2) who wishes to see them all removed based on religious objections to them. It seems that if those in "Camp #1" make what he perceives are compelling arguments, he tries that road for a short period of time. Everyone else starts discussing such with them in good faith, but as soon as it looks like there is pressure against any part of any such proposal, he tends to revert to various policy Whack A Mole type arguments based on religious objections to the images for summary removal of all of them, including suggesting an RfC that asked or implied (paraphrased) "remove all for this reason, or remove all for this reason". It is at that point where things continue to spiral out of control. Multiple attempts have been made to restart discussions, but the end result is always the same. I can provide diffs to various such conversations where those at odds with Ludwigs2's actions were working in good faith with those in "Camp #1" - and where he sidetracked things for his single minded objective. Due to his preliminary support of some of these (before he reverts to his true objective), a person only giving the page a quick read may come to a grossly wrong conclusion about his objectives as he himself (diff below in response to Anthony, many more available) had admitted is his goal. This is just my perceptions of the matter, with diffs in the section above I created, as well as below to support my interpretation. Your's may vary (or not). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 08:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) My take on this whole thing is that Ludwigs2 wants a clear interpretation of the ArbCom resolution reflected in Wikipedia's existing policies. As a precisionist Wikipedian myself, this is something I agree with. The problem is that Ludwigs2 picked the wrong venue, perhaps to use as a test case, but nevertheless it's the wrong place to build a consensus regarding fundamental interpretations of policy. At this point, after the same arguments have been stated over and over again, I would agree that Ludwigs2's persistence in the wrong venue has crossed the line into tendentiousness. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I took the fact that the resolution was already incorporated into WP:CENSOR with the religious censorship section left intact as the community's interpretation. I'd gladly see through such an endeavor for clarity, if you believe such is really needed. On the other side of the coin though, Ludwigs2 (I have the diffs, and can provide them later if you would like) started out at that article by removing images, caused drawn out debates about removing images, tried policy Whack-A-Mole to remove images, tried RfC attempts to remove images, tried a Village Pump proposal to remove images (was that one another end run attempt at an ongoing RfC?), and when pushed, repeatedly admits it's religious based objections at the core of his argument - hence my interpretation of his motives is different. Even with the very very unamibguous wording that was left in WP:CENSOR, it seemed more Policy-Whack-A-Mole time again. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) After re-reading much of the discussion (there's a good chunk of my life I'll sadly never get back), I have to concur with RobertMfromLI's summary--Ludwigs2 does keep reverting back to the same argument over and over. If Ludwigs2 wants to use that argument in the upcoming RfC, that is fine; however, there's no point in continuing to bring it up over and over again when xe knows that the current local consensus is opposed to that position. Right now, Ludwigs2 should be focused only on helping phrase the RfC itself, then xe can add whatever additional points xe wants to it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Quick question (sorry it is my first AN/I) should we continue to report any behavioral problems or should we let the matter lie while people look things up? Since I have noticed several times since we started this that personal attacks are continuing. Tivanir2 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Topic Ban Proposal Topic ban? Ludwigs2 seems to be behaving no differently on this article than he has on astrology, pregnancy and acupuncture. (On Men's rights, it seems that his presence provides a useful counterfoil to some of the newly arrived editor-activists.) Almost all his contributions to the discussion on the image subpage appear to be outside wikipedia policy; and he still has not succeeded in finding a way to engage with other users who do not share his opinions, without causing offense. In this case, he has been shifting between several different lines of argument in a way which makes it very hard to see whether he has any coherent objections beyond WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. My suggestion is that, since he seems intent on producing more heat than light and at the same time causing offense, his presence on that talk page is purely disruptive and not a net positive for the project. Perhaps the best way foward is for Ludwigs2 to be topic banned from all discussions of images on wikipedia for a preliminary period of six months. (On astrology, he was topic-banned for six months.) Mathsci (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Sadly, Support VERY VERY STRONG SUPPORT I tried avoiding going to this forum for quite some time (hence I never even finished adding diffs to the report I started in my userspace), but I think we are at the point this is the only viable option. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC) After a bad faith RfC just created today,[270] I am now inclined to change my "Sadly, Support" to "VERY STRONG SUPPORT" - as pointed out by another editor, the RfC is biased to the point it is worded similar to "When did you stop beating your wife?" This needs to stop. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose. Ludwigs2 is needed to balance the POV of that article. It is striking how the illustrations of our article on Jesus are fully consistent with and celebratory of Christian tradition, while the illustrations in our article on Muhammad are not only inconsistent with Islamic tradition, but actually offensive to many muslim readers. That should give anyone just a moment's pause for thought about the neutrality that this project aspires to, and the extent to which we have achieved that lofty aim. --JN466 06:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) As a brief aside, I've paused for a moment, and come to the conclusion that we're not necessarily hearing from a representative portion of the Muslim community, since we tend not to hear from Muslims who actually like the images there; kind of a "planes that crash" problem. I won't try to bring the discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images here, but to briefly state; I know many Muslims personally who feel it's a personal choice whether or not to be offended by pictures of Muhammad, and that a secular encyclopedia should show depictions of him because that will lend itself to better understanding of the subject. To the topic at hand here, I'm not making a decision on whether I want to see an editor topic banned at 3 in the morning, so I'll weigh in later on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Blade, the point is that we should pick typical, traditional representations of Muhammad, that a muslim would recognise as typical representations, just as we do in the article on Jesus. We simply don't do that. Ludwigs2 is aware of that, but he is being stonewalled, and unreasonably so. --JN466 07:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Jayden, Ludwig wants to remove all images of Muhammad because some Muslims find them offensive. He doesn't want some, or one, he wants none. I don't think a single other editor is opposed to removing or changes images in general, it's just that we're not willing to have no images. Noformation Talk 07:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Actually, Ludwigs has repeatedly stated his true intent is to get all the images removed - that is why various of us are working in good faith with those discussing what you are talking about above - they don't want summary removal. Big difference. Does he make a few good points? Yes, and I've given him credit for them. But he then returns each conversation to efforts to simply summarily remove all images. Would you like diffs? If so, how many? Five? A dozen? That page is a convoluted mess, but you'll see (if you spend an hour or four reading it) that the rest of us are discussing every such issue in good faith, whether for or against the images. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 07:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Actually, he has signed up to this No one would object to pictures of Muhammad illustrating Muhammad#Depictions of Muhammad (if it ever gets written) No one objects to pictures of Muhammad illustrating Depictions of Muhammad We believe the artists' impressions of historical events in this article have no educational value for the topic of this article - or, if they do, not enough to justify the space they take up. so he's happy to have images that add real educational value. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Sorry, Anthony, that is not a true representation of events. He himself admits "as I have said several times, I currently believe all images should be removed"[271] - but then follows that with "but I'm open minded[...]". Though he proposes things to be discussed that have some merit, he keeps returning the conversation to one of removing ALL images (how many diffs would you like?) - and then admits he will continue to push the issue until it happens (buncha diffs above). That's editing in bad faith. One cannot say they are open minded (and even get off to a good start on some topics) then try to turn it back to that singular motivation. That is what numerous of us are upset about. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 08:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I think he agrees with me and many others that none of the images of Muhammad presently adorning the article are appropriate, due to their lack of relevant educational value, so they should all go, but is OK with images of Muhammad in a (yet-to-be-created) section on images of Muhammad. That's my reading. I know you and others read his position differently. I've been assuming you're misunderstanding his position. Time will tell. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC) No Anthony, here is his reasons: religious offense[272], religious offense[273], religious offense[274], religious offense[275]... (pretend I posted about 10 more - or I simply can if you like). Every time he is pushed for justifications, he reverts to the religious offense argument - with a massive dab of WP:IAR thrown on top to ignore WP:CENSOR's section on religious beliefs. You've had to have seen those arguments. That is when things fall apart again. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 08:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Oh yes. He believes since they're offensive to many readers, we should withhold our usual tolerance for educationally valueless images in this case. We tolerate images that breach WP:IUP like that on articles like Jesus because they're pretty, but, if I understand him correctly, he argues that images that add nothing to the readers' understanding and offend many people should go. But he's open to using images of Muhammad where they have some didactic purpose. It's not contradictory to argue against gratuitous offensiveness but go along with offensiveness when it's the inevitable byproduct of a greater good. The doctrine of double effect applies here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This is not really the place to discuss content. The concern here is about conduct. An ArbCom case on images, proposed by Ludwigs2, was recently rejected by arbitrators. Ludwigs2 does not appear to have dropped the idea. [276][277] [278] Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC) It was rejected as a content rather than conduct issue, but I recall that several arbitrators went out of their way to state that a wider community discussion about the general topic of controversial content was necessary. --JN466 07:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC) (correct venue) Suggested and ignored numerous times. Some of the diffs above, 10-15 more if you like. I'd even help with it. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 07:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose I haven't followed Ludwigs' behaviour at Astrology so can't speak to that. We are in different camps on Acupuncture, and his argument there could be better focused, but we certainly don't need to be protected from him there. At Pregnancy, he is arguing for a view that, the last time I looked, was in the ascendancy. At Muhammad, his behaviour would be fine if he could just learn to not speculate about others' motives or respond to ad hominem. You're right, Mathsci, he does have several lines of argument, and one of them is that we should not use controversial images in an article when (a) they have little real educational value or (b) an uncontroversial picture would do just as well. I agree with this line, and believe that (a) applies in this case, but believe it represents a novel position, and is something that should win community approval elsewhere before it can sway a content decision. But he also argues that the images lack educational value, and so violate WP:IUP, and, on various grounds, that they violate WP:DUE. On these last two points of policy, there are many others, including me, who agree with him. His failure to observe WP:TALK has been well and truly matched by many others who oppose him on that page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC) If uninvolved editors who have reviewed the WP:NOT RfC and recent threads at Talk:Muhammad/images decide on sanctions for all parties involved in ad hominem discussion, I'll change my vote. Banning only one editor in this situation would be highly unbalanced. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Support with reservation Outside of controversial pages Ludwigs is a great contributor, but he doesn't play nice with others and cannot accept when consensus is not in his favor. He acted this way on Astrology and was topic banned for six months so I don't know why it would be any different here. But long term what's the solution? Drama seems to follow him where he goes and simply topic banning every time he gets to this point is inefficient. Perhaps a third solution, such as mentorship, would be beneficial here. I don't want him topic banned, I just want him to accept that policy as written is not in his favor and to stop acting as though IAR will function without consensus, but if he is unwilling to stop then I reluctantly support he be topic banned from the Muhammad article in regards to images. I've seen other instances of him invoking IAR when consensus and interpretation of policy didn't agree with him and frankly it's annoying and unproductive. Honestly I jumped the gun in supporting a topic ban. Ludwigs' is a good editor and generally makes great contributes and it's not fair for me to condemn him so strongly. I think think admin intervention is necessary but this goes too far for the time being. Noformation Talk 06:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC) (to Noformation) Eh, it's only a topic ban (not a site ban). He can continue to be a great editor elsewhere. It's preventative (not punitive) in order to end the disruption to what are probably attempts at good faith proposals to review the images (and their value) one more time. I'm not sure what other administrator intervention is possible other than a topic ban? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I just think it goes too far. If this AN/I was focused on behavior and not on content then I think Ludwigs behavior would have been more strongly rebuked and that he would back off from the WP:BATTLEGROUND and be willing to adjust. Unfortunately all the content is distracting from the issue. When I filed the report I made the mistake of asking people to read over the thread rather than providing diffs of specific NPA, AGF, etc, violations, which had the effect of getting people to take sides in the debate. I'm not sure where to go from here tbch. Noformation Talk 19:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I don't particularly want to see a topic ban either, if it can be avoided (which is why I started and never completed my filing). But, perhaps like you, I cannot think of any remedy other than one. And rebukes don't seem to work well - I'm dealing with such an issue on two other articles, and multiple admins have stopped in with rebukes which end things for a few hours to maybe a day - then edit/revert warring begins anew. I think each article has passed six such edit/revert wars. Until it's made abundantly clear that such rebukes are serious by stopping one dead in its tracks with a temporary block, they are going to continue. I suspect the same will happen here. One of those editors (in my other "situation") is also involved in this article, btw. Though admirably not engaging in such behavior on it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I imagine this will take a couple days to settle out and when it does I reserve the right to change back to support. I'm hoping that now that uninvolved editors are weighing in that it will be a bit of a wake up call. We'll see if anything changes on the talk page. Noformation Talk 22:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose. Ludwigs2 has done the right thing on that page, and has been behaving far better than most of his opponents. While Noformation's behaviour on the page is definitely not the worst, it's bad enough (especially the ridiculous interpretation of boiler-plate language in WP:CENSOR as a strict rule that we may not ever consider religious offence internally for editorial decisions except to prevent legal action against Wikipedia), and it's mind-boggling that this editor has the extremely poor sense of reporting Ludwigs2. Hans Adler 08:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Watch where you point your finger. I have done my very best to be civil and follow talk page guidelines. If I have done something outside of policy please provide a diff or don't label me as "not the worst." NOTCENSORED is unambiguous in regards to religious considerations, it clearly states that Wikipedia is not part of any religious groups and thus we do not follow their customs - that's about as boiler plate as it gets. Noformation Talk 08:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This is an absurd misreading of WP:CENSOR, and it can only be explained with your desire to insult or a severe reading comprehension problem. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a playground for fighting your cultural war against Islam, or religion in general, or whatever it is. Hans Adler 09:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Please provide a diff where it's demonstrated that I was uncivil or violated any policy. You have painted my conduct in a negative light, so back it up or strike your comments please. You are now ascribing motives to me when you have zero idea what I believe about Islam. I have done nothing to deserve such accusation aside from disagree with you. Expressing my interpretation of policy and my take on an issue is not a behavioral issue and is not against any policy. And again, not considering religious belief is not the same as deliberately insulting religion. All gay people offend a portion of Christians by virtue of being gay, that does not mean that they are obligated to hide their sexuality. In the same way, we are not obligated to consider people's personal beliefs and that is why not censored specifically says "Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations." and "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms." Noformation Talk 09:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Hans Adler's statements seem to be at odds with the history of Islamic art, as presented for example on the website of the Islamic collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Even in Vienna, Hans Adler had the opportunity to see the al-Sabah collection from Kuwait in the Kunsthistorisches Museum this year including a page from the manuscript of Nizami’s “Khamsa” depicting the Prophet Mohammed’s night journey to Jerusalem.[279] Mathsci (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the that. I have found it odd that this has become such an issue when there hasn't exactly been a huge backlash against WP by the Muslim community - to me it seems like a solution in search of a problem. Personal experience wise, about half of my dad's side of the family is Muslim (the other half Hindu) and this subject never came up for me when I was growing up. I know the edict exists, but as far as I know it is not in the holy book, but it's rather a modern movement. In my personal opinion, I think that people in the mideast who flipped out about this a few years ago wrt the Danish cartoons were manipulated into doing so for political reasons. I also find that people in the west tend to misunderstand life in the East - I guarantee that this is a bigger deal to people on this talk page than it is to the majority of Muslims in my fatherland, but I suppose it's anecdotal and I could be wrong. Noformation Talk 23:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Filling a page with undue weight images just because some Muslims are offended by them and you know you can get away with it is the really offensive thing here. This is what angers even the most liberal Muslims, who would not normally mind naturalistic depictions of Muhammad. In fact, it angers even me as an atheist living in a traditionally Christian country with many (mostly liberal) Muslims. It's absolutely despicable behaviour. Hans Adler 12:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC) So now I'm not only anti-islamic but I also am the one who filled the page with images. Please provide diffs of me adding images to the article and please provide diffs substantiating your previous characterization of me as an editor - any WP:TALK, WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL diff will do. Never have I expressed a desire to offend anyone, I have only said that religious considerations should not be relevant, this is not the same thing and not everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. Please stop attributing motives to me and strike your comments - you clearly do not have the diffs to back them up otherwise you would have posted them already. Your credibility goes down the drain when you make claims you cannot back and when you're unwilling to correct incorrect statements. Noformation Talk 22:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Fully agree with Noformation. He's done nothing to warrant such claims. And I can provide over 4 dozen more diffs to show Ludwigs2's behavior that you think is "the right thing". Yes, I know you think my behavior is the worst (or is it Tarc's? someone else? who won?), but again.... dozens of diffs. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 08:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I haven't decided between you, Tarc and Kww. Hans Adler 09:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Hans, at no time has my behaviour been inappropriate or problematic. We disagree on things, but that doesn't provide reason for you to disparage my behaviour (or to refer to me as unethical and autistic, either). I don't bring up WP:NPA often, but you are getting there.—Kww(talk) 11:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Your massive IDHT behaviour and refusal to accept that there is a valid dispute has certainly been very inappropriate and problematic. Not sure if or when I referred to you personally as autistic, although there have been situations in this dispute where autism spectrum conditions are the only remaining explanation of an editor's behaviour that is compatible with good faith. Hans Adler 12:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Hans, you're as bad as he is with this repetitive IDHT quoting. I hear you both just fine, I just disagree. Strongly. The established consensus is that images of Mohammad are of encyclopedic value to the article, and that religious concerns cannot be taken into account when deciding to remove or retain images. Sooner or later, those who agitate for change again and again in the face of considerable opposition wind up like this. Ludwigs is heading down into ChildOfMidnight/Grundle2600 territory. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I hear you, Hans. You believe that religious sensitivities should be taken into account in our editorial decisions. You are wrong, and no amount of listening to you will make you right. That doesn't mean that I don't hear you, it simply means that I believe that you are fundamentally and unalterably wrong. I assume that you can accept that someone can in good faith believe that you are wrong.—Kww(talk) 13:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Can I suggest that we, those of us involved on Muhammad, stop adding to this thread for a while. If we want uninvolved editors to offer their advice about this situation, the least we can do is cut down the amount of tangental reading. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Support topic ban. A cursory glance at the scores or hundreds of posts by Ludwig on the image talk page indicates obsession with maintaining a minority position based upon IDONTLIKEITSOIGNOREALLRULES. This is a secular encyclopedia and we should not set the precedent of putting content into a fundamentalist religious straightjacket, as the majority have consistently argued. ArbCom has refused to hear the debate as a content dispute and at this point the disruption needs to be terminated. Ludwig on his User Talk page indicates he sees a ban as inevitable and thinks it's some sort of game. [It's on some other User talk page, factually correct but sourced wrong, nevermind.] Time to end the distraction with a rapid topic ban. Carrite (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Support, as there comes a time when you gotta stop beating the dead horse. PS- This goes for all the editors who continue this 'delete images' campaign. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Support topic ban from Muhammad and and all Islam-related image discussions. I see no alternative. The user keeps advocating a position incompatible with the mission of Wikipedia. We're not talking about removing some gory or porn-y pics here. He advocates removal of all human-like images Muhammad and replacing them with a flame [280]. (Note the bold font and all caps in the post, plus self-admittance that he's saying the same thing for about the 30th time.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Support - If Ludwigs is never going to drop the stick (and I don't see any sign that he is), someone will have to take it away from him. His continuous declarations of the majority view as invalid or not reasonably argued by his personal standard are hallmarks of the most disruptive kind of tendentious editing. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Support - L2's continuing his behavior pattern after multiple discussions that have pointed out its disruptiveness, and his POV-oriented editing in general, justifies a topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Support - Overall, this is a perennial topic that has never garnered wise support to change the status quo. Ludwigs2 tried and failed in March of this year, then came back to try again. Same result. He has said many many times that he will not stop bringing this up until he gets what he wants, so administrative action is necessary to do for Ludwigs what he is unable or unwilling to do for himself. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Support, sort of. A topic ban on article talk pages only might work best. I believe Ludwigs2 should be free to propose clarifications or changes to Wikipedia policy in more appropriate places such as the Village Pump. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Support - from what I can see, his editing on the subject is tendentious. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Guys, you need to appreciate that our present article fails to show the typical representations of Muhammad, while showing six examples of a very rare type of illustration that also happens to be offensive to many who have grown up in the Islamic tradition. Muhammad is normally portrayed abstractly, and there is a very rich tradition of calligraphy, symbols and pictograms to do that – which we don't show. Examples: [281] [282] The effect of our present article is not unlike the effect the Jesus article would have on the reader if you showed them just one cathedral painting, plus 6 shock images of Christ like Piss Christ and Jesus on the electric chair (also shown in a cathedral, but hardly representative). You could argue NOTCENSORED there, but no one would go for it, because editors would realise that it would just be completely undue to focus on such exceptional images, while neglecting the mainstream depictions of Christ. The problem with Islam, unfortunately, is that our editorship is generally less familiar with it and doesn't pick up on such subtleties. [283] So I don't think Ludwigs2 is being tendentious here; it's his opponents who are, probably unwittingly so. --JN466 07:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose in the strongest possible way. As Anthony has pointed out at Talk:Pregnancy Ludwigs POV is increasingly gaining ground, and he was explicitly asking for compromise which seems to be happening now at last, despite the ideological absolutism of one or two editors. This Muhammad depiction issue is also astounding. I've known about it for some time but purposefully kept a distance. What I'm now reading is a sorry collection of some of the most ignorant arguments I've ever seen on Wikipedia. This is an area that could use some expert commentary because I see a lot of very confused arguments for keeping these images in the Muhammad article as general illustrations. You will find plenty Muslims in today's day and age who are not offended by these images, and plenty others who are. What you wont find are Muslims who find them normative in any way. You wont find Muslims with depictions like this hanging on their walls, filling pages of books in their libraries or hanging at their place of worship. Why? Because depictions of Muhammad are fringe within Islamic history. That's a very basic fact. Sure there are traditions within which he has been visually depicted, and we have an entire article to cover that fact Depictions of Muhammad. But in the main Muhammad entry these images are completely UNDUE and nonrepresentational of the mainstream tradition today and throughout history and across the globe. Outside of the offense issue this whole matter can be resolved by applying WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Expert commentary that has been provided disagrees with your assertions above. See the comments from Johnbod, for example, in the current debate as well as the one from last March, concerning the prevalence of such images throughout history. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC) What exactly is Johnbod an expert in? I'm a scholar of religion and I have taught Western Religion courses. My assertions are based on that. Also, please do not confuse assertions about the art history of the Depictions of Muhammad with the history of Islam. For instance all the "scholarly" evidence I've seen Mathsci produce has been 100% irrelevant to this question. Relevant to the depictions entry yes, or to Islamic art but we are not talking about those entries. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Your argument above seems entirely based on judgements of an art historical nature to do with the uses to which art is and historically has been put. I suggest you read the Gruber pdf below, where you will find much contrary evidence to your anecdotal OR. You obviously don't know the right Muslims, though I'd suggest some of them turn up now & then on your tv screen. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Maybe that is where the divide stems from? This is not an article on religion. It is a biography on a person. Why are we treating it like it's a religious article? We don't treat the Edison article like it's an article on lightbulbs. Related to the religion he started, yes. Included in that category because it is relevant to that religion, yes. About that religion, no. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Robert you couldn't be more wrong. I assume you also think that Jesus and Abraham are not religious topics, they are just biographies? The primary sources we have on Muhammad are religious. The secondary and tertiary sources the article is based on are written by, scholars of religion. I wont deny that there is biography here, but clearly it is religious biography, and clearly it is much more than that. This topic falls within the field of religion and history of religion, and history of Islam most specifically and most importantly. I'm perfectly willing to believe you made that assertion out of a genuine confusion of some kind, but if so please understand that you are sorely out of your depth here, and seem to completely misunderstand how the academic study of this topic is organized. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Not at all out of my depth. It is a biography, albeit about a religious figure. It is not an article about Islam that happens to mention a person. Of course, since his major notability is Islam, it will broadly cover those, including using sources of the appropriate nature. But it is still a biography. It is not Islam which is how it is being treated. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I stand by my last statement. Religious traditions include all kinds of things, like founding figures. They are part of that tradition, and when what we know about them comes from the tradition, when what people have cared to know about them is related to that tradition, and when scholars who study them are scholars of that religious tradition what we have is, above all, a religious subject. Saying you are not out of your depth only makes your comments seem that much more ignorant. Sorry.Griswaldo (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Griswaldo, stop harassing people who disagree with you. We do not treat religious figures with undue reverence in the Wikipedia. We write biographies, not hagiographies. If you don't know the difference between the two, then perhaps we should be talking about the depth of your understanding of the subject matter, or lack thereof. Tarc (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Griswaldo, stop harassing people who disagree with you. That's a very odd thing to say to someone responding to people who challenged his own comment. I explain why I oppose this and people challenge me on it and when I respond to them that's "harassment?" Tarc next time you mean to post something look over the conversation enough not to say something inane. As to the difference between a biography and a hagiography I'm well aware of it, but I'm not sure if you mean hagiography in a technical sense or in the now more common sense. I'm certainly not promoting an uncritical view of Muhammad (common sense) though I do recognize that the "biographical" source materials for Muhammad are mostly compiled by followers of his who, if this is the correct term to apply to Muhammad even, considered him a holy person (more technical sense). That said I quite clearly understand that he's not a Christian saint, and that we're not writing about him based on an actual tradition of hagiography (most technical sense). If you believe that historians of religion only tackle biography in terms of hagiography, or as Johnbod appears to believe only in terms of theology, then you're sadly mistaken. I'll point out to you once again that this entry is written from sources that are almost entirely historians of religion (specifically Islam). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Absolutely oppose... and I don't even want to repeat the reasons. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose The fact that Ludwig's position may be in the minority doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to it and wikipedia operates by consensus rather then majority rules anyway. The Muhammad image issue is clearly far from a simple one with plenty of people repeating themselves. (I took part in a long ago RFC and I think I said then as others have said now on both sides that the parallels with other figures isn't simply since unlike with many other figures like Jesus, Buddha, in the modern era even people familiar with the subject will often have seen few depictions and not really have much of any preconceived idea about depictions of the person. As I grew up as a Christian in Malaysia, I can definitely attest to that. Therefore the issue of undue weight, historic vs current practice, readers expectations, making sure our use of images is sufficiently educational rather then simply offensive form a complicated mix and simply yelling 'notcensored' doesn't go anywhere particularly since most people including Ludwings aren't arguing for removing the images completely from wikipedia but how many and where they should be in Muhammad as opposed to other articles like depictions of Muhammad.) Having looked at the discussion, I agree with Seb, Griswaldo and others, cutting out Ludwigs will harm the discussion by removing an important counter-POV and I do not believe Ludwigs is being tendentious. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Please do not assign gross mischaracterizations to our motives as you appear to have (probably unintentionally) done in your first sentence. No one is asking for the removal of Wiqi55, Jayen, Anthonyhcole, Hans (yet), or various others who have similar views. It is the attacks against other editors, the bad faith proposals, the end runs around RfC attempts, the tendentiousness and disruptiveness (which he personally admits to continuing) and such that has dragged him here. A tiny handful of diffs are already included to support this. It would thus be greatly appreciated if you would correct or clarify your mischaracterization. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC) No I'm not changing my comment. As I've said, the issue of something being in a minority or majority is not particularly relevant since we operate by consensus yet it was brought up several times in this discussion as have related issues like how he continues to maintain a POV that all images should be removed or stuff about how editors advocating the deletion of images need to stop, this being a secular encyclopaedia, his view being incompatibile with wikipedia's mission etc. As I already said in my first comment, I've look at the discussion and I see no evidence he is being tendentious much more so then other people on all sides. He is not automatically tendentious because he continues to support a view that is in the 'minority' or mentions that view when relevant. I don't see any evidence he's operating in bad faith either. The fact that he retains a certain POV and continues to express it when relevant doesn't mean he isn't open minded, it may simply be arguments he's seen so far haven't sufficiently convinced him. As you yourself have acknowledged, he is willing to support and discuss alternative options even if they aren't his preference and he retains his preference. Ultimately there are plenty of areas on wikipedia where there is always going to be strong differing views and where any option is going to be opposed by a fair number of people and therefore the issue will keep coming up again and again. Achieving consensus may mean a compromise, but it doesn't mean people can't maintain or should never bring up their primary preference where relevant. As a case in point, I recently participated in a discussion on the move for Burma to Myanmar. I don't believe a consensus is going to be reached for the move, but either way, I don't expect this issue to be resolved any time soon (although I do think there will eventually be some resolution, at some stage the government is going to be accepted enough that whatever name they choose, most will follow and eventually only a few will try to argue for something else, like with Mumbai/Bombay for example). As for the RFC, it seems premature as there was existing, recent discussion which should have been used to guide an RFC, and it's obviously far better to work towards an agreed wording, so I agree it was a bad idea. That doesn't mean it was in bad faith. Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Support; mind you, it's not the fact that we fall on opposite sides of this argument that leads me to do this, nor is it the comments by the really involved editors in this dispute. However, I have a problem with being told I have some sort of prejudice against Islam by someone who's never met me based on one comment (it's in one of the numerous diffs above, I can bring it down if necessary; incidentally, people who know me know I've read Avicenna, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Taymiyya, and Malcolm X, to name just a few), which shows a serious lack of perspective on the issue (the fact that I don't agree on this issue doesn't make me anti-Muslim). Nor do I take kindly to the constant repetition of arguments that RobertMfromLI described a section above. And if anyone wants to get on me, I have PDD-NOS, so I stand guilty as charged of being on the spectrum; however, I don't see how that's germane to this particular topic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Support I am (as far as I can tell) totally uninvolved with this dispute, but after reading the associated talk pages, the horrendously worded RFC, and seeing the number of times this user has brought the same, somewhat disingenuous arguments about this issue, this seems like the appropriate step. Not to mention that, as gets pointed out repeatedly on the images talk page but has gone mostly unnoticed in the discussion of the images here: these images were created by Muslims, so the argument that these images are forbidden is on incredibly shaky ground. To keep using this argument warrants a suggestion that Ludwig drop the WP:STICK. eldamorie (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC) The fact that these images were created by muslims to illustrate a certain type of book 500 or 800 years ago does not make them useful or obligatory illustrations in the Muhammad article. The fact is that if you want to show how Muhammad is portrayed in Islamic religious art, you need to be aware that "For practical purposes, representations are not found in [Islamic] religious art ... Instead there occurred very soon a replacement of imagery with calligraphy and the concomitant transformation of calligraphy into a major artistic medium." (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Islamic Arts, Macropaedia, Vol. 22, p. 76.) We are showing typical religious art in the article on Jesus, but you seem to be unaware of how untypical our illustrations in the article on Muhammad are. --JN466 17:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC) or 800 years ago, 300, 200, etc and still today. While there is certainly far far less figurative art in Islamic art, there is a continuous tradition, including from the 13th century representations of Muhammad, though far less in the Arabic-speaking world than for example Persia and Turkey. There are better sources here than the EB (who anyway appear to be talking about the first centuries of Islam), for example this handy PDF from the leading specialist today, in the leading journal. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC) John this line of reasoning wholly misses the point. The argument is not that depictions of Muhammad weren't being created continuously. The argument is that they have not been common within the Islamic tradition as a whole and throughout it's history, and indeed have been explicitly frowned upon more often than naught. Above Robert accuses me of confusing this entry with Islam, but I think that his accusation is backwards. It is you who are confusing this entry with Depictions of Muhammad or even Islamic art, both valuable entries in which depictions of Muhammad have their educational value. But again, the question isn't about banning these images completely from the encyclopedia it is with the use of them in the main entry on Islam's founding prophet, a figure who has been known 99% of the time without visual representation. I don't mean to make this into a turf war, but the fact that art historians work in this area is meaningless to the over arching issue. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC) And how are questions about the commonness of a particular form of art not a question of art history? The history of religion may tell you what theologians said people ought to do or not do, but art history will tell you what they actually did, or do, something general religious historians are not qualified to pronounce on. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC) You do not understand what the history of religions covers apparently and that is quite unfortunate. It includes the history of ideas (which doesn't mean only theology btw) but it also covers social history. Your art history sources merely attest to the fact that the traditions of depiction existed and that within realm of Islamic art more generally they were more or less common in certain periods. The fact is that depictions of Muhammad have a negligible influence on the perception of Muhammad that has formed historically inside and outside the Muslim world. This is where the difference between Muhammad and say Jesus or Buddha is immensely significant. The historical perception of those figures has been significantly influenced by physical depictions, which, again unlike with Muhammad, abound historically and cross-culturally. Now mainstream sources in the history of Islam, which are the main sources for this entry and for information about Muhammad are true to this fact. The way we present information about Muhammad should follow these sources, and should not be unduely weighted towards information that is of virtually fringe stature when it comes to the perception of this figure. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, I was not aware that depictions of historic events, even made years after the fact, were against some policy or guideline. I guess we have a lot of articles to fix. Wanna give me a hand? As you noted, this is not about the depictions of Muhammad. As I noted, it is about Muhammad - which is a place where one (free from religious beliefs) would expect to find depictions of Muhammad, both singular subject (ie: just him) and event based (ie: in a historic setting). Or are you trying to state that since this image largely touches on Islam it should adhere to religious beliefs and religious actions (on types of depictions)? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC) It should simply show the most common and representative depictions, and they are abstract, not figurative. --JN466 21:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Johnbod, I assure you the EB is talking about the defining characteristics of Islamic Art generally, and about the lasting impact Islam had on the artistic traditions of the peoples that embraced Islam. I really don't think the wording could be more emphatic: "For practical purposes, representations are not found in Islamic religious art". The images that do exist are appropriate in a curiosity cabinet like the dedicated article we have on them. --JN466 19:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Well then, here as elsewhere, EB is not the best source. It is a strange statement, as very many of the best-known Persian manuscripts contain at least one Mi'raj miniature. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC) You can find the same sorts of statements all over the place. [284][285]. It's not like the Encyclopaedia Britannica is at variance here with the rest of the literature by stating a well-known fact about Islamic religious art. Yes, there have been limited traditions of depictions of Muhammad, especially in Persia about 800 years ago, but that is all it is. However interesting it may be, I am sure you don't wish to argue that it is anywhere close to being the mainstream form of artistic expression with respect to Muhammad in the overall body of Islamic art. That's calligraphy, hilyes etc. --JN466 21:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I gave you Muqarnas (below) & you respond with "well-known facts" from Islam for Dummies!!! Puuurleeease! The idea behind "especially in Persia about 800 years ago" for example, is nonsense. The various depictions of M from the few remains of that period receive a lot of academic attention, as from the founding period of the Islamic period, but there were probably more depictions in Persia from 600-400 years ago, or Turkey in the same period (certainly far more survive), and there are definately way more in Iran today. Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC) It's not going to work, Johnbod. I also gave you Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Encyclopaedia of Islam and the Muslim World. And just for reference, Islam for Dummies is published by John Wiley & Sons, and written by a professor of religion. There is academic interest in the depictions of Muhammad, but it is a small specialist academic niche compared to the general field. Here is a bit more on the difference between Islam's and Christianity's approaches: [286], [287]. --JN466 01:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Please stop - I wrote most of Aniconism in Islam. Your comments are still misleading, and have only a highly tangential bearing on the issue here. If you think you have some "well-known facts" to share with the wiki-world, take it to the appropriate pages. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Strange indeed that Aniconism in Islam did not contain any aniconic art, but only exceptions to the rule. --JN466 20:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC) John, the article appears to be filled with original research or otherwise unreferenced text. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Also, your statement (I wrote most of Aniconism in Islam) appears to be false unless you edited under a different name formerly. The edit history shows you merely significantly expanding one or two sections while making other copy and style edits. I did find it an odd claim given how unsourced much of the entry is, though those sections appear to have been in place before you started editing to your credit.Griswaldo (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Support - this is the same atrocious behaviour from Ludwigs that he exhibited at Talk:Pregnancy. Enough is enough. → ROUX ₪ 19:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Support. The biased wording of Ludwigs' RfC on the matter is the tipping point. As I note above, I clearly feel that he is a disruptive force on this topic, but I wanted to give him a chance to participate in an RfC on the matter when it was created. However, he can't even manage to maintain NPOV when formulating an RfC question, which coupled with numerous other examples of problematic behaviour strongly argues that he is not capable of discussing this matter in a non-disruptive fashion. Resolute 22:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Support. I don't particularly care about the content arguments, nor have I edited anything Islam-related. However, this is the same behavior that L2 displayed at Astrology, Pregnancy, and a multitude of fringe science articles. The general pattern is that he stakes out a ostensibly reasonable but unpopular policy position and proceeds to accuse those who disagree of ignorance and/or unsophistication and/or bad faith and/or cabalism and/or POV-pushing (list is not exhaustive). Ad hominem rhetoric and textbook IDHT follows. Just yesterday he insinuated that an editor whom he disagreed with was a sociopath.[288] He's been topic banned from astrology.[289] He was warned numerous times for his behavior at Talk:Pregnancy.[290][291][292][293] He was even cautioned by Arbcom to "avoid drama-creating rhetoric" in a recent case.[294] This needs to stop. This is a problem of poor behavior, not content. Skinwalker (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose Unconvincing, a user is topic banned for serious disruption or to avoid an indef. I see none of that here, the user holds a minority opinion and engaged in legitimate procedures (talk, RFC) as opposed to other illegitimate alternatives. Nobody can be blamed for that; the proposal reads like "This user is shouting to loud and it annoys us" Well calmly engage in discussion or ignore. Tachfin (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I must ask, even by your rationale, may I ask you how many personal attacks and racial/religious type slurs/attacks is the quota that was needed? Lemme know, and I'll change my !vote. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Support The only time I have had interactions with this editor was when he was complaining that no one was listening to him. When I pointed out that all of his concerns had been listened to, and had subsequently been rejected, he went on to attack me by calling my comment unintelligent. I gave up after that, thinking that there was absolutely nothing anyone could say to this guy, to get him to stop. He will never stop unless he is topic banned, plain and simple.--JOJ Hutton 20:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Support While editing may be a bonus from all users the constant regressions into personal attacks and policy whack a mole do not lead to constructive editing. Even when called out on personal attacks he makes no attempt to either apologize to the target or refrains from doing so again. In one case he even called out someone else as using a personal attack and then soundly proceeded to do the same within the same post. Since that point he continues with the attacks. If someone needs diffs I will learn that piece and post them to show the multitude of attacks I have seen but I don't think that is necessary. Tivanir2 (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Support ban. It looks like he bounces from one article to the next causing disruption wherever he goes. Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Support ban - dead horse. I'd also support an indef block for causing more trouble than he's worth. Rklawton (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose ban All you idiots need to go away and stop waving "OMG NOTCENSORED" in everyone's faces. Thank you. --cc 11:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC) The user casting the above !vote was indef blocked today. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC) support ban. Ludwigs has been extremely disruptive and never quotes wikipedia policy and wastes valuable time. Pass a Method talk 19:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose ban. From what I have read, Ludwigs has a decent case to make, which is not so much about censorship, but about questioning what, if any, positive reason there is to have these images on that page. I've yet to see anyone answering that question in a satisfactory way; most of those who have been responding to Ludwig2 haven't even tried. Given this, it seems to me that his behavior has also been relatively restrained. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC) I am not quite sure what you mean. The 2009 book by the Islamic scholar Omid Safi Memories of Muhammad: Why the Prophet Matters is copiously illustrated by historical images of the Prophet Muhammad. (Safi is chair of the Study of Islam in the American Academy of Religion.) In none of the many reviews of this book has any objection been made to the images. But the point here is Ludwigs2's conduct, which appears to have very little to do with the particular subject matter involved (pseudoscience, astrology, pregnancy, etc). Mathsci (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Hi. I mean what I say I mean: which is, first, that Ludwigs point is that those who are arguing for the inclusion of these images on the page need to come up with rather better reasons for their inclusion than they have hitherto. Whether or not some other publication (in this case, Safi's book) includes them is wholly beside the point, unless your argument is "they do it, so we should too." Which is not much of an argument. And then, second, given the fact that (as you are illustrating here) so many people refuse to see the point, and prefer rather to jump up and down shouting "censorship" at him, Ludwigs's conduct seems to me to be very restrained indeed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC) We will never come up with sufficient reasons for Ludwigs, because he has shown a habit of moving the goalposts every time his arguments get refuted. That being said, reverse the question. Consensus coming in was that the images belonged. It is actually on Ludwigs to generate a new consensus that supports his view, and thus far his arguments have been centred entirely around the argument that some people find them offensive. He keeps getting beat over the head by NOTCENSORED because his only argument is to censor the article to suit a specific religious viewpoint. Also, I suspect his conduct is only restrained right now because he is teetering on the edge of a topic ban. He was very liberal in accusing anyone he disagreed with of bigotry, among other personal attacks, for a considerable period of this debate. At present, he continues to try and argue editors in circles until they give up in frustration. Resolute 01:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC) "We will never come up with sufficient reasons for Ludwigs." This sounds like a violation of WP:AGF. And for what it's worth, I think that talk of censorship is completely beside the point. So far as I can see, ludwigs is not arguing that images of Mohammed should not appear on Wikipedia; rather he is saying that they should not appear in *this* article. And that the onus is on those who think that they do belong in this article to prove their case. And, especially in that those who disagree with him seem to refuse to engage his argument, I think he has a pretty good point. And he's making it remarkably civilly given the amount of grief he's getting, of which your refusal to assume good faith is merely one (further) small instance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC) As I mentioned on Jimbo's talk, Safi has also pointed out that most muslims have refrained from making such images, that there are no such images in mosques and public places of worship, that in place of pictorial representations, there is a rich tradition of calligraphy, arabesques and natural designs in Islam, and that when muslims friends come to his house, where he has an image of Muhammad, he thinks twice before telling them that it is, in fact, an image of Muhammad, as some react badly to it. And I would add that Ludwigs2 has been and is being subjected to an unseemly barrage of personal comments by editors on Jimbo's talk page. --JN466 01:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC) oppose ban per conviction and I do endorse the reasons given by JN466. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Support the guy causes more issues then he solves. Put down the stick already --Guerillero | My Talk 23:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose Too complex, controversial for mob justice. Submit to dispute resolution, WP:RFC/U and WP:ARBCOM. causa sui (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC) (moved vote to appropriate section) --Tachfin (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Re: "shouting to loud and it annoys us" This user was topic banned from astrology for poisoning-the-well comments, including comparing people who disagree with him with the KKK. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive99#Ludwigs2. On the Muhammad issue, we see a repeat of the same behavior, albeit with minor reduction in intensity. Besides the overuse of caps lock and bold in his posts (see diff above for that): He writes about someone disagreeing with him that "people (like you) keep talking crap about me" He writes that until people agree with him (to remove depictions of Muhammad) Wikipedia is a Jerry Springer show [295]. He writes in a edit summary "except, Robert, no other policies matter to you" Writes about another user "You are not using ethical reasoning - that is a demonstrable fact" He writes about someone who disagreed with him "what you just said was patently idiotic nonsense. I swear..." He tells the same user: "keep your grubby little fingers out of my psyche" He even admits, after redacting another passage (not one of the above), that "I just can't control my tongue." These are just the examples that struck me, there are probably more. There are other editors who agree with Ludwigs2 on the subject matter, including Jayen466 and Griswaldo, but these guys seem able to disagree without being so disagreeable. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Please close the topic-ban subthread Can an uninvolved admin please close this subthread now? The only people who have commented here, myself included, have strongly held opinions about the content dispute(s) that precipitated the thread. Almost all, if not all the people who want him topic banned, for instance, have diametrically opposed POVs to his. Clearly we are not about to enact a topic ban based on those voices. So have we had enough of this? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC) This has nothing to do with his views. It has to do with DOZENS of personal attacks and tendentiously using the incorrect venue to try to implement policy change to remove the secular mandate in the last paragraph of WP:CENSOR. Your implication, as I perceive it, that this is about the content dispute may hold true to your !vote, but I can assure you, there are numerous others of us that it does not apply to - including the numerous editors who !voted (on either side of this) who were not engaged in this situation at all. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC) I see no reason to close this subtread, when !votes and comments are still being posted, with policy-based supports (14) and opposes (6). Let the process play out, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC) The supports and opposes are not policy-based, they are based on subjective evaluations of Ludwigs2's behaviour on the page in question. Almost all these subjective evaluations happen to be aligned with editors' attitudes to the underlying conflict. This makes them essentially worthless. Hans Adler 20:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC) I wonder whether at this time of year Hans Adler's usually impeccable logic might not be a little clouded by premature doses of Martinigansl please don't click here if you are a vegetarian. Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC) @Hans Adler: Whether the !votes are policy-based are not is something for the closing admin to evaluate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Therein may lie the objections from some to keeping things open until an uninvolved admin does such. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 18/7/1 (on just count)... soon may be the time to end this? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 08:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Perhaps a reasonable compromise? All the participants in the talk page discussion have come here and are basically continuing the same sorts and styles of arguments, it's all just looping. Perhaps I might suggest a compromising position. Someone start an RFC and contact, neutrally mind you, some of the relevant wikiprojects to participate. To prevent a rehash of the talk page, the opposing sides in this debate should state their positions and refrain from substantially trying to sway other participants. Having re-read the discussion, and being totally uninvolved, I can see the arguments of both sides. Run the RCC< don't just talk about it. --Blackmane (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs has been asked, many times, to follow the dispute resolution process if he thinks he has a case to make. This user tried out this argument that WP:NOTCENSORED does not protect the image usage in the article, a view that received little support in March of this year. Now he's back again, twisting a foundation resolution that has no applicability to the situation, an incessant 3-week drumbeat. Those editors who support hosting a Wikipedia article free of religious censorship have no need to initiate an RfC, as the status quo is just fine. Ludwigs will get no relief and will make no headway in regurgitating the same arguments over and over at the article talk page. The ball is squarely in his court to follow dispute resolution if he will not accept the consensus at the article talk. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Therein lies the rub. There is no consensus, nor will there ever be. There are two camps each with a large number of adherents. One camp favors no censorship, the other favors censorship as a special case. We hear from new members of the latter group almost daily on the main article's talk page generally representing Muslims around the world. Rklawton (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Oh, but there is consensus. Yes, we see periodic posts that inform us Islam forbids such images. Someone replies with the argument that we are not an Islamic project, often linking to the methods by which individuals can respect their own beliefs by hiding the images for themselves, and they move on. But the "remove all images" camp has no policy backed argument, only the complaint that "I am offended". Simple numbers do not create a no-consensus situation. Otherwise, there would be no consensus on the argument that many athletes are "gay" because fans of rival teams often edit to say so. Resolute 13:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Agreed. If you look at the overall commentary on the talk page, the status quo is generally favoured. There is one single regular editor there (Ludwigs2) who supports censorship on religious grounds, and another (Anthonyhcole) who has attempted in good faith to formulate an RfC proposal. Then there is Hans Adler, who shows up from time to time, accuses editors he disagrees with of bad faith (as he has above in this very discussion) then disappears. Pretty much everyone else supports the current situation. Ludwigs has been advised it is up to him to initiate DR, because the rest of us don't see a need. Instead, he chooses to waste a great deal of time for numerous editors by forcing discussion back into circular arguments. Granted, the rest of us keep responding, though I have tried to step back involvement overall. I won't vote on the topic ban proposal, but I will say this: the problem would disappear if Ludwigs were to be placed under one. The "dispute" is that one-sided. Resolute 13:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC) No there are other editors, such as Wiki55. Unfortunately all these named editors persist in making grossly inaccurate statements about the images actually in the article, such as (above here) "..."that by including so many images from a very narrow time period and fairly narrow interpretation of Islam we are in fact violating WP:UNDUE)." by Qwyrxian. For the record (and yet again) the 5 Islamic images come from a period of over 500 years (and we don't have a contemporary one available), include at least 2 Sunni ones (possibly all 5 are actually Sunni) and come from Persia (2), Turkey (2), and Kashmir. A very similar spread, if not wider, to the sort of (almost always Catholic) old master painters we use to illustrate Jesus and other Christian articles, ignoring the many Protestants who still regard these as idolatrous. Some editors have been putting time in over a long period pushing the line that all the images are Persian and Shia, and by implication can therefore be dismissed. There is a considerable intra-Islamic component to this dispute, & its a pity that people who ought to know better, like Hans Adler and Anthonyhcole have accepted this line without much examination. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Just for the record, would you please link to an instance of me making grossly inaccurate statements about the images actually in the article? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Blackmane: I'd agree that an RfC would be a good starting point, but even trying to determine the proper language for an RfC becomes a major point of strife. For instance, every RfC approach I've suggested starts from my perception of the problem - that the images have no appreciable value which justifies the offense they cause to our readers - but any such wording is instantly nixed by Tarc, Robert, and Resolute as being against NOTCENSORED. I could start an RfC on my own (and I will if that's what you suggest), but the RfC will most likely devolve into more of the same dispute as the editors opposed to change dispute its validity (in fact, at least a couple of threads currently on the page show exactly that devolution as we've tried to discuss proper wording for the RfC). As far as I can see, the page is locked down in such a way that any discussion about removing the images is declared to be against policy. I don't know how to get past that obstruction except to keep trying to talk through it. --Ludwigs2 14:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I have posted what I am coming to believe is the only reasonable thing, which will show good faith on the parts of those who wish the images removed and properly adhere to policy uniformly instead of (yet again) special case for this article only. It's on the article's talk page in a new section.[296] Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 14:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC) The first item is the "gotcha", i.e. that there's no valid encyclopedic reason to remove the artists' conceptions of Muhammed if you're going to retain artists' conceptions of Jesus, etc. The second item is the "yeh, but" option, which opens a huge can of worms that would abolish the "I don't like it" barrier and turn wikipedia into even more of a free-for-all. So why does anyone think Muslim readers deserve special treatment, while Christian readers can go "freak" themselves? Well, there's no logical reason, so it must be driven by fear. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC) In the current circumstances, I'm not sure that the recent extensive rewriting of WP:CONSENSUS by Ludwigs2 was timely.[297] It now reads a bit like a personal essay. (Off-topic for ANI) In 2002 Yale University Press published the book "Peerless Images: Persian Painting and its Sources" by Eleanor Sims, Boris Marshak and Ernst Grube, academics who have curated the Islamic art collections in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Hermitage, St Petersburg. It contains several images of the Prophet Muhammad. Looking at the book and its detailed commentary, it is hard to understand how images of this sort could be considered uninformative or without educational value. As the New York Times has reported just recently,[298] the Metropolitan Museum of Art has just reopened its Islamic collection after 8 years of remodeling. On display are Persian illuminated manuscripts, including images of the Prophet Muhammad, visible in the NYT link and here on the Museum's own website [299] (the short NYT audio link for "illuminated manuscripts" is interesting). It is also on commons here and has been used several times on fa.wikipedia.org. Mathsci (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) (to Bugs) Bingo. I treat EVERY article the same, regardless of my personal beliefs or feelings of offense. And there is not a single mainstream religion or irreligion or spirituality that is not on my WatchList (along with hundreds of sub topic articles). Thus, all I ask is the same from everyone else - judge every article and article content equally. No more, no less. Which seems to fit with those weird things we have here called policies, guidelines and editing in good faith. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC) The importance of the Muhammed depictions is actually the same as the importance of the many Jesus images. Whether they look like their subject is not the issue, that's a red herring. What's important is that it reflects how the followers of those faiths saw their spiritual leader. It provides a window on styles of artistic portrayals in various times and places. If that ain't educational, I don't know what is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Bugs: re your "What's important is that it reflects how the followers of those faiths saw their spiritual leader". This is precisely the problem: The followers of Islam do not generally depict their spiritual leader, and when they do it's usually symbolically, as a flame or a veiled figure. full-face images of muhammad are a rarity, mostly restricted to a couple of historical periods. I absolutely agree with your statement, but your statement implies we should remove images of the prophet and use the symbolic forms that Muslims themselves use. --Ludwigs2 15:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC) "Saw", as in past tense. You're describing the present. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I'm not just describing the present, but the most prevalent view, historically and currently. Full-face depictions are not common. It's funny: I even offered a compromise on the talk page where we would create a section specifically about the historical depiction of Muhammad in which to put images of this sort (they would be appropriate there, in a section that discusses the controversy of depictions of the prophet), but that got shot down for some reason I never understood. If we go by standards of common usage, full face images are excluded as a distinct minority style; if we go by conventional ethics full-face images are excluded because they offend people for no gain to the encyclopedia. There's no reason I can think of to keep the images (though I'm open to suggestions), so why are they on the article in the first place? Remember, these are simply works of art - there are no known depictions of what Muhammad actually looked like.--Ludwigs2 16:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Actually, that proposal flies in the face of what has deemed to be the standard (per policy and guideline interpretation) on every other such article on Wikipedia. Thus, what you proposed is not a compromise, but a special case exception. Biographies have images or depictions of their subject (and their subject in historical event settings) prominently placed throughout the article. This article already is chock full of special case exceptions that are not warranted, such as (on the talk pages) the massive disclaimers, the FAQ, the instructions on how not to view the images, the removal of all images of Muhammad in the top 1/3 of the article, the explanations of policy on the talk page and so on. I am against adding one more special case exception. Doing so will eventually lead (as you desire) to there being no images of Muhammad on this or any other article. I would bet good money that if (by some remote chance) all images were removed from this article, that you would move on to the other articles next. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC) (Besides the fact that each time you claim you are willing to travel this road, you still end up on your "remove all, they offend" road instead). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC) So you keep saying, but (again) I question this reasoning. It all comes back to the simple problem that Wikipedia is offending millions of people for no real reason. As I keep saying, If you show these images have non-trivial value to justify the problems they cause, then obviously they would be protected. However, every time I say that, you decline to show that they have value and instead asset that it's a violation of policy to consider that. The arguments you've given in your post above break down as follows: my proposal - that we use the most common imagery used by muslims - "flies in the face of" policy (not true; that is actually exactly what NPOV asks of us) that other articles show images (irrelevant, since other articles do not have to consider a well-known religious proscription) that the ability for individuals to censor the images themselves justifies Wikipedia using the images (patently ridiculous) that removing images from this article will lead to removal of all images everywhere (hyperbolic and nonsensical) that I somehow personally desire the removal of all images everywhere (hyperbolic, nonsensical, contrary to what I've said in talk, and a bad-faith personal attack to boot) Really, please… --Ludwigs2 17:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC) The claim that "Wikipedia is offending millions of people for no real reason" is your personally-held opinion that you repeatedly put there as some sort of immutable fact that us dumb heathens cannot understand. This is really the heart of your problem Ludwigs, and the reason why many are beginning to dismiss your actions as tendentious and disruptive. Tarc (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Uh… Tarc: it's a proscription in a faith with something like a billion followers. even if we only restrict ourselves to the most fundamentalist groups (the ones most likely to take offense) that's still millions or tens of millions of people There are 16 archives of heated debate solely over this issue on the article - really, you made a subpage just to handle the volume of complaints, and that subpage has 16 archives That's a whoooole lot of evidence, Tarc: How do you justify calling this my 'personally held opinion'? --Ludwigs2 17:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC) "it's a proscription in a faith with something like a billion followers". No it is not. You don't help your case by typing in false statements. It may be that a few current adherents of the religion believe there is such a proscription, but even if there is, it applies to the adherents, not to us. I think a fair number of people have been mislead into thinking there is a broad proscription, and I think they are wrong, but it is not useful to debate how many people (correctly or incorrectly) believe in the proscription, it is only relevant to ask whether a proscription of a religious group has any force on non members of the group. If you answer yes, please explain why, as that conclusion leads to madness.--SPhilbrickT 22:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Oh gosh, we're back to the "religious offense - must honor religious beliefs" rationale. That means WP:IAR is probably soon to follow. :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Ludwigs, another claim I attacked you? And then another false claim about my actions? I've posted, numerous times, multiple reasons the images have value. Here is a tiny sampling of diffs to prove it.[300][301][302][303][304][305] It is not I who is ignoring anything. And this is exactly the type of thing you do on the article's image talk page. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Also I would like to point out that the neutral point of view doesn't argue your claim. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" would be useful if you were also trying to include modern (what you describe as common) images of muhammad but isn't a basis to remove current pictures because they were a significant view of what the islamic community was allowed to do. And since the minority of the religion still believes its acceptable to view pictures (you know that 15% of the billion which also falls into millions and millions of people) it would be purposefully ignoring that POV as well. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs, let's look at the phrase again, this time with crystal-clear highlighting; "Wikipedia is offending millions of people for no real reason" THAT part is your opinion, opinion you keep trying to pass off as fact. That a group of people are offended is fact, yes. That we are including the images in the article "for no real reason" is opinion. Are we settled now? Tarc (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC) The 'for no real reason' part is something that is open for discussion - as I keep saying, if you can demonstrate that the images have a reasonable value to offset the problems they cause, then the images can stay. However, using policy to prevent wp:Consensus discussion on this issue is the troubling point. --Ludwigs2 19:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC) That's the point; it was open for discussion, and your position was rejected. We don't need to demonstrate what you are asking for. End of story. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC) "if you can demonstrate that the images have a reasonable value to offset the problems they cause, then the images can stay." This isn't the appropriate metric. Do the images cause some problems? Absolutely, they do, as a lot of ill-informed people request removal, and it is a problem dealing with them. But I'm not interested in assessing the value of the images to the encyclopedia and comparing it to the problems caused, I'm interested in the damage that would be caused to the encyclopedia if we sent a message that raising a ruckus is a good way to impose your will. Neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated why Wikipedia should pervert its own guideless simply because they are in conflict with someone else's desires. If claiming offense works here, what is to stop a temperance group from insisting that WP not have any articles about alcohol, or a child decency group from insisting that pictures of nudes should be removed. There are all kinds of groups who request removal of blocks of material. We politely decline all such requests (except when the material might be in violation of law). If we grant one groups request, we have to grant all group's request, or you have to explain why this request is unique. I don't think it is unique. SPhilbrickT 18:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC) To Ludwigs2: did I need to provide more diffs to my own postings of reasons? Should I have included the numerous times other editors have posited reasons as well? You keep acting like we haven't stated reasons (reasons considered valid all across Wikipedia) - but we have. While perhaps seemingly numerous, the number of diffs above is probably in the 15-20% range of what I could provide to prove we have made such points. C'mon... the page is linked to in this AN/I, you know others are bound to figure out that you are incorrect in repeating your claims that we haven't done such. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This argument belongs elswhere, not at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Oh, how we've tried so many times to point that out to the one who has the biggest issue with this. Even some of those who support some level of image removal have suggested or leaned towards such. :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Small note: I've struck RobertMfromLI's name from my earlier post. Only one time did Robert ever imply an RfC wasn't necessary, and he did in fact try to restart the RfC several times. I don't know what made me think that he was one of the people trying to derail process in this case; my apologies. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Brass tacks straw poll This poll is not an administrator issue. Feel free to move this to a more appropriate venue, but this page is already becoming cluttered with irrelevent issues. Please keep the discussions on this page relevent to issues which need administrators to protect articles/delete articles/block a user. Admin noticeboards are not for general discussions of either policy or content issues. Let me suggest WP:VPP. --Jayron32 16:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I think we should take this opportunity and address the core issue that is gumming up the works here. Dispense with the following question it will likely end this dispute (one way or another); either it will obviate my grounds for wanting to remove the images or it will obviate the sole argument used to retain the images. The question: Granting that NOTCENSORED necessarily protects controversial content which makes an unambiguous contribution to an article, does NOTCENSORED also protect images that have trivial value to the article? In other words, NOTCENSORED clearly protects images of penises or vaginas on their namesake pages, or the cartoons of Muhammad on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy); does it also protect page decorations, artistic illustrations, unneeded explications, or other material of negligible content value to the article? I will bracket the above question as a policy RfC a bit later, unless someone suggests that's innapropriate. --Ludwigs2 15:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This is again a biased question (just like your similar RfC proposal). You imply as fact that the images have trivial (even emphasized by you) value (and then go into detail about how trivial they are), thus pushing the conversation to summary deletion of all the images. Once again, in my opinion, this is a proposal in bad faith as it directs only one answer since you already established as "fact" that the images are trivial. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) The argument hasn't been about protection of trivial images. It has been about images marked trivial. Also this is the incorrect forum for this question since it should be addressed at the village pump. The actual argument that the images are trivial should be occurring at the muhammad page not here. Effectively this is derailing the entire purpose behind this AN/I. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Comment. (edit conflict) I don't think this covers the issue, Ludwigs2. NOTCENSORED does not protect trivial material from deletion, but I don't believe the material in question counts as trivial. The amount of fuss over it certainly indicates that some editors believe it to be non-trivial. --FormerIP (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) FormerIP: if we clear up this issue, then we can actually sit down on the talk page and discuss whether or not the images have trivial value. Right now we cannot even have that discussion, because every time I suggest evaluating the worth of the images with respect to the offense they cause, two or three editors tell me that any such evaluation is against policy. NOTCENSORED is the One Ring on that page; until we clear up this issue the page is stuck. --Ludwigs2 16:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC) NOTCENSORED does not protect trivial material Support: Allowing NOTCENSORED to cover trivial material creates up an difficult-to-resolve opportunity for violating NPOV: controversial images can be put on a page merely to attack a perspective non-verbally, and held there by using NOTCENSORED to squelch discussion. This sets up the editing environment as a long-term BATTLEGROUND, where multiple editors try to address the issue and run into an endless wall of bureaucratic policy assertions. Wikipedia should not offend its readers with non-contributive controversial material (see wmf:Resolution:Controversial content). We offend where we have to, because we have to, not merely because we want to use that material. --Ludwigs2 15:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Support. Wikipedia does not seek to include as much offensive material as possible merely because offensive material is permitted in appropriate contexts. Especially with respect to images, editors frequently need to choose between alternatives with varying degrees of potential offensiveness. When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, Wikipedia does not retain the most offensive options merely to "show off" its ability to include possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not protected in the name of opposing censorship. --JN466 16:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC) NOTCENSORED does protects trivial material Support, but this doesn't shield against other arguments. All NOTCENSORED requires is that arguments for deletion be framed in formats relevant to an encyclopedia, and religious arguments are not relevant to encyclopedias. We don't keep images because they offend religious groups, but we don't delete them because they do. Images have to be examined from a purely secular perspective.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Irrelevant to this discussion due to bias ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC) This poll is excessively and unduly biased by stating opinions (trivial worth) as fact wrt images on Muhammad) I posit that this poll, as it is specifically directed at this issue (or grossly in the wrong venue) is biased by implying opinion as fact to imply the only answer is to remove the images at Muhammad as all being (implied as fact above) trivial. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Support - one should not bias such polls (or RfCs) by using their opinion as fact to ensure one specific POV outcome. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC) For anyone who wants a discussion of NOTCENSORED, I've just started one at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#What WP:NOTCENSORED is not. Robofish (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) * Notice: I've decided I'm going to copy this RfC over to wp:NOT, and wait for a result to be reached there before re-entering the discussion at talk:Muhammad/Images. that should end the discussion there for for a while (at least as far as I'm concerned). It also likely resolves this thread, though I'll leave that up to you. I'll post the link to the RfC here after I've made it. --Ludwigs2 00:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC) This thread is not resolved as long as there is an open question of a possible topic ban for Ludwigs2. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC) suit yourself - If you want to spend your time trying to find a punishment in a non-current situation, that's your business. Here's the link to the RfC. --Ludwigs2 01:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs has said on his talk page that for the time being he will stay away from the page, I think this is a good faith proposition and would say that we should give him a chance to make his case in the correct venue before topic banning him. Noformation Talk 01:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I wasn't aware of his comment. Still, this is not his first time on the merry-go-round, when this blows over it's likely he'll exhibit the same behavior elsewhere. AGF is often in conflict with common sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC) What he said and what he is doing are counter to each other. He has proposed a very biased RfC that basically states the images are worthless, so shouldn't we remove them? He's simply using another venue to get the images removed and ignore countless consensus. Let's see now. RfC last Spring - runs to Village Pump: both RfC and end run fail (him). Proposes RfC this time around, not going the way he wants (removal of ALL images), tries end runs to WQA and ArbCom, disrupts attempts to create an UNBIASED RfC, gets dragged here and uses the distraction to file a BIASED RfC even in light of the fact that the rest of us were trying (through HIS disruptions) to create an unbiased one. (IMHO) This needs to stop. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC) ArbCom declined the case because it was formulated as a request to rule on content (policies). Perhaps a new case request focused on the behavior of the editors involved would be more appropriate? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Not too sure about that. I'm at over a hundred diffs and counting of bad faith, disruption and more (and I'm not even really trying). Ludwigs cannot come even remotely close, even combining diffs of such stuff for every editor "opposed" to him. Virtually all of the rest of us, on any side of the fence (or even sitting on it) want a resolution to this. Most of us are tired of the dead-horse-ad-infinitum-ad-nauseum responses with a bunch of accusations thrown on top. I'd rather see this resolved than a topic ban. But every good faith effort results in disruption or an end run attempt. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Comments on ongoing conduct of Ludwigs2 Despite having given assurances that he has reformed, Ludwigs2 has recently continued to ridicule and belittle those editors disagreeing with him. One of the difficulties is that he is being extremely slippery about why he is objecting to the images of Muhammad. It would appear that he believes, for whatever reason, that the courtly images of the Prophet Muhammad produced in illuminated manuscripts of the Ottoman Empire, Persia and elsewhere cause offense to some parts of the international Muslim community for religious reasons. However, when pressed on the subject by Kww, he has accused those repeating this statement of "making up cheap lies". In a conversation on his user talk page with Kww he wrote: [306] "They are cheap lies. maybe you believe them (in which case they are cheap lies you are telling yourself, rather than cheap lies you're telling to others), but from my perspective there's not a whole lot of difference. keep your grubby little fingers out of my psyche, and deal with what I am saying to you as I say it (not filtered through the twists and turns of your own perspective)." It is an example of Ludwigs2 deliberately misunderstanding other users and switching from one argument to another. Already on User talk:Jimbo wales, he wrote of thise disagreeing with him:[307] "What's happened here is that some editors have recognized a particular and real threat against the project - censorship by religious groups trying to enforce their particular worldview - and reacted to it in an extreme and uncompromising manner. They are insisting that these images remain on the article solely and precisely because they are offensive - not because they want to offend, mind you, but because they are engrossed in battling censorship and have lost the ability to discriminate censorship from normal editing. Nor is this problem restricted to this article (you can see it play out in multiple areas of the project: fringe articles, political articles, cult-related articles). It's depressing." These statements are not accurate and are indeed a highly inflammatory way of describing other editors. It creates an impasse for any future discussion. (I personally have not voted in any image discussions but have located commentaries in WP:RS on the historical use of images of the Prophet, written by Islamic scholars from the East and the West.) On the same user talk page, Ludwigs2 later made this personal attack on Tarc, [308] "Yes, Tarc, and I've been reading this kind of post from you for the same amount of time, and I have to say it hasn't been particularly pleasant. It's just as I said above: all you need is a willing flamingo and a few hedgehogs to fill out your role as the Queen of Hearts. " These remarks were later redacted by Ludwigs2 after Short Brigade Harvester Boris criticized them. Ludwigs2's conduct has not reformed and these personal attacks seem completely counterproductive at this stage. Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC) I am, obviously, fed up with the ad hominem these discussions are steeped in. They make reasonable discussion very difficult. But I would urge editors unfamiliar with this situation to not just rely on spoon-fed quotes in forming a view. The current negative tone of these discussions is set by more than one editor. If you feel like chiming in, at least read through the latest threads at Talk:Muhammad/images. That will give you a good feel for the general behaviour of the Dramatis personæ. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC) I hope that Ludwigs2 will get the message sooner rather than later.[309] Mathsci (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Nothing is improving. [310] [311] Mathsci (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Not sure, but he seems a wee bit more moderate than in the examples from the past week. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs2 has not stopped.[312] "We can have a decent discussion over whether Wikipedia needs/wants to offend the religious beliefs of all these people, but please stop trying to make the fact that we are offending their religious beliefs 'go away'. That kind of intellectual dishonesty gets in the way of a reasonable discussion." As usual these personal attacks ("intellectual dishonesty") are embedded in a longer discursive screed. Even if Ludwigs2 turned out to be a so-far unidentified world expert on the history of Islamic art (all signs are very much to the contrary), his conduct at the moment seems to be little more than flame-warring. Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs2 has the uncanny ability to phrase personal attacks in a way that skirts the direct wording of our WP:NPA policy. The basic construct is: "If you disagree with me (and I know you do, but don't say it in this sentence), then you are part of a despicable group, such as: the KKK / the intellectually dishonest / the Jerry Springer audience / those not using ethical reasoning / those uttering patently idiotic nonsense / etc." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Barely days after his last failed proposal for a case, Ludwigs2 is yet again suggesting an ArbCom case on roughly the same topic.[313] There is nothing ArbCom can do except for topic banning or banning users for disruptive conduct. Mathsci (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Wait again? Well we will see if that comes up again. Since ArbCom doesn't deal with content it's a waste but we will see. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC) What should be taken to Arbcom is the case of Ludwigs2 conduct. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs2 still seems unaware that he is creating problems by making inflammatory statements.[314] "Honestly, I see this whole extended kerfluffle as a 'teaching moment' for the project, one where (maybe, with luck) we can all get past the kind of pugnacious adolescent snobbery that defines certain controversial articles and develop a more mature, responsible attitude towards the encyclopedia. so far it's rough going, but still" That is not "engaging in discussion". It is a personal attack on other editors that don't happen to agree with him. Mathsci (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC) For goodness sake, in no way is that a "personal attack." Egads. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC) I find it quite hard to interpret the words "pugnacious adolescent snobbery" as anything other than derogatory. Mathsci (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC) And I find it hard to see what there is that's either "personal" or "attack[ing]" in ludwigs2's comment. Which surely is the point about a would-be "personal attack." You folk are grasping at straws here. Instead of all this fuss, why not deal with the arguments? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Comments by Chzz Sheesh, that's long. Forgive me collapsing it. The arguments on what is/is not 'appropriate' re. certain images on certain pages will go on forever. There's some non-collegiate behaviour on the part of several editors, but that'd be better handled via an RFC/U or whatever. I can't see any admin action as appropriate at this time. If I'm wrong, can someone cut out the tl;dr and just say "X should be blocked for Y and Z". Otherwise, feel free to continue the eternal arguments on the article talks. ANI is not the right place to discuss content/consensus. Nor is it the right place to discuss vague ongoing concerns with user conduct; if you can present a WP:DIFF/diffs, showing "XE did THIS which was WRONG according to THIS policy, please do so. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC) I have uncollapsed it following discussion on Chzz's talk page. This thread contains a proposal for a topic ban in an area not covered by discretionary sanctions, thus the topic ban requires community consensus, and cannot be enacted by a single admin. Also, conduct diffs have been provided in the discussion above, e.g. in this subsection. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC) OK, so: This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators [...] Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. - thanks.  Chzz  ►  04:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC) What is contained here and here should be enough to judge whether a sanction is warranted or not, IMO. Tarc (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC) I see no evidence that the conduct by Ludwigs2 breaches any policies or guidelines - that's the key point here. The discussions re those images will no doubt go on forever, and of course anyone disrespecting prior consensus might present problems; however here/now, I see no evidence of that.  Chzz  ►  06:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Have you ever heard of WP:CIVIL? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Chzz, per Tarc above. I stopped at 142 diffs (and only posted a tiny portion of them). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Community Topic bans should indeed be discussed at WP:AN, not at ANI (here), according to the letter of the policy on community bans. But it wasn't me who started it here. If an admin deems it necessary, I have no objection to the thread being moved to WP:AN. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC) The general practice has been that if a topic ban discussion arises from an ANI thread, it's left on ANI, but one started here from scratch should be moved to AN, where topic ban discussions are generally held. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Query Is it reasonable to say Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted. An then on the sub page: If you have come here to protest against the presence of images depicting Muhammad, please don't post here. Such objections have been raised before, and been given our consideration. If you have come here to protest against how people are trying to remove images of Muhammad from Wikipedia, please don't post here. That is not new either. I understand that people don't wish to rehash the same arguments again and again, however consensus does change (See GNAA AfDs for example), and singling out this issue as one that shall never be discussed seems both counter to Wiki-philosophy and likely to be effective only in stopping more thoughtful folk from discussing the issues. Rich Farmbrough, 11:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC). I fully empathise with the sentiment motivating those diktats but also have deep qualms about the way it's expressed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Rich, I never saw local consensus on this particular issue to matter in even the slightest. CENSOR has been very clear on this for quite some time. No "should not" adhere to religious... - a specific "will not". Thus, it's a matter of incorrect venue. No local consensus is going to suddenly change things to "hey, other than on the article of Muhammad, we act secularly". Thus, if you note, in that same infobox, it is noted where the proper place is to propose policy changes. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Side note, I think that box was hashed out during a few other non-secular concessions that never should have happened (till policy was changed to allow such - which it still hasn't been). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC) There is no contradiction. 1) directs image discussions to the sub-page as it tends to overwhelm discussion on the main talk page. 2) seeks to weed out the insipid "remove the images they offend me!!!" messages from IPs and WP:SPAs. Summation "Bring image-related discussions to the sub-page but don't waste our time with rote removal demands, come here with something intelligent to say". Tarc (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Well spotted :)) Of course it's not reasonable to say that. Basically, we are telling people, If you want to post about this, don't do it here, but "over there", and "over there" we say, If you want to post about this, don't do it here. This reminds me of certain customer service phone conversations I've had the pleasure of having, where each department says their hands are tied, and swears it's the other department that's responsible for fixing the problem. --JN466 10:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Jayen, that is so very not true. Though a particular editor DID make such a claim, that claim was a boldface lie. That editor did use the correct venue (Village Pump), made the proposal, it was deemed the proper place, it was !voted on, and simply put, he lost and then made up that ridiculous claim. Village Pump, or RfC then (with enough support) Village Pump. Worked before, working now. But not the article's talk page, where we cannot change policy. Don't believe everything you read - I didnt, and thus checked it out to find that the correct venues (as noted in the warning box on that talk page) do indeed work properly. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC) The only comment i have read on this issue is what Rich wrote above, and the wordings he quotes are correct. I had never really registered them, until he pointed it out. It seems quite extraordinary to me. There is even a STOP! sign in Arabic (and a "Don't feed the trolls" message assigning everyone wishing to complain to that category). --JN466 17:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)Yes, but it is out of context, as it does not include the rest of the message that follows with instructions on where to address such concerns: "Suggestions for an adaptation of standing guidelines are offtopic on this page and belong on Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)." (both are linked on original). Thus, it is all covered with the proper way to deal with things. Let's say we wanted to blatantly ignore copyvio for the article on John Doe - would we (a) simply do so (or demand it done) or (b) suggest a policy change? What would be the correct venue for dealing with the needed policy change? (a) the article's talk page, or (b) Village Pump? While the snippet above doesn't accurately portray the whole meaning of that box, I'd posit that going to that page and reading it will indeed show that the box does address everything, including pointing people to the correct venue, where such issues (including for that article) have been properly addressed in the past, all sans "no, go back there" as a response. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Tarc has it right. The message isn't intended to stop all discussion (the MB of text we've spent on it over the last few weeks should make that patently obvious), but to point out that messages like "Please remove the images, they offend me" will not be given much consideration. To the present day, even after all of these discussions on at least a half dozen forums, I would suggest that that remains the consensus view. Resolute 16:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC) The key word here is "protest". If someone wants to mount a reasoned argument that amounts to something more than a slogan rooted, then there would be grounds for discussion. But if it is mere "protest", then it's fine to let people know that it's not likely to go anywhere. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Nomoskedasticity: that's a nice rationalization, but in practice that's not the way it works. Every discussion, no matter how reasonable or reasoned, is designated as an unjustified protest and dismissed/attacked on those grounds. Look at what happened to me: I'm an intelligent, reasonable individual, with a decent policy argument to make, and all I got for my efforts was endless endless amounts of circular reasoning and a bunch of editors hounding me through ANI like a dog. Anyone without my (formidable) intellectual resources could not have endured the page at all, so a claim that 'reasoned arguments' might be successful is pure fantasy. --Ludwigs2 00:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Wow. Just...wow. Tarc (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Tarc, if nothing else your snide edit summary rather confirms what Ludwigs2 is saying. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Er, no, it confirms nothing of the sort. This entire mess was precipitated by and is continued by one tendentious, disruptive editor; Ludwigs. I am simply amazed that someone has the balls to come to ANI and write shit like "thank goodness I'm such a genius or these wiki-bullies (his POV, not reality) would've done in a mere mortal long ago". It is beyond ludicrous. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC) And now I'm called the "fan club" in another snide edit summary, while Robert's also trying a similar tack. My goodness, you guys are, well, "smug" to pick a word you've invoked recently. Ugh. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Don't worry Tarc, one day our intellectual resources will be as formidable. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC) @ jbmurray: I heartily agree with your edit summary: "enough of the snideness and smugness, please". However, we might not agree about who is being snide and/or smug. Bielle (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC) We might indeed. Look, I don't have a dog in this fight. I've never previously (to my knowledge) interacted with any of these editors. I've never commented on any of the articles at issue. And I'm not part of the dog's breakfasts that are the thread on the subpage of the Mohammed page and the thread on Jimmy Wales's talk page. All I do is I make a couple of brief comments on ANI and then on the RFC, and first I find myself frankly badgered on my talk page, and now I discover I'm labelled the "fan club." Please. This is extraordinarily unbecoming conduct, and directed against someone who's barely involved--indeed, who's about as uninvolved as could be, short of sitting in a cave somewhere. It's all extraordinarily unseemly. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC) jb - it was my mistake for posting anything here. I just happened to notice the comment and responded to it thoughtlessly. sorry for the fallout; I'll leave now. --Ludwigs2 02:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Ah yes jbmurray, sorry that because you thought I was asking questions in bad faith (though the recent uninteruppted discussions on that images talk page would speak otherwise) that I was badgering you - especially because your initial and continued belief I am acting in bad faith created a situation where you ignored my most important question. While I didn't expect you to have a high opinion of me, I also didnt expect you to jump to an opinion about someone you hadn't interacted with. Some of the barnstars here[315] are exactly because I will go well above and beyond to help someone present their opinion as best as possible, no matter how much I disagree with them. As this would have (before I deleted it when he was blocked - but surely you can check it and his talk pages out yourself).[316] Or my efforts with Bad edits r dumb. Or changing things on Homophobia that I know are correct (to something more "watered down"), but are not supportable by the sources available in a way that matches Wikipedia's standards. I wanted honest opinions - you wanted to find fault in me asking. Is that my fault? Or is it yours for, without knowing me (or the depth of this situation), deciding what you thought of me and my reasons for asking? I suspect it is not my fault. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Robert, you are being disingenuous. I answered any questions you had. It's not my fault you didn't like the answers. My conclusion that you have not been arguing in good faith is based on my own interactions with you, and your reports to me of interactions with others. You may well have earned barnstars and gone marvellous things for the project in other areas, I have no doubt. May you continue to do so. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Please bury this dead horse in a deep, dark hole At this point it is just being used by Ludwigs to troll...yes, troll, in the fullest "intentionally posting to provoke a reaction" sense of the word. Sorry if that rubs someone the wrong way, but there's no other explanation for "anyone without my (formidable) intellectual resources.... Chzz looked into it all earlier but didn't find anything actionable at the time, perhaps that'll change after this, perhaps not. Others have weighed in that topic bans need to go to WP:AN. We've long passed the point where this is going to reach anything meaningful here, so a call to the proverbial "uninvolved admin" to make the next call. Thank you. Tarc (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Most fully support - with a note to the uninvolved admin that much of the earlier conversations that precipitated this are now in the Muhammad/Images talk page archive. Reading that page (not the archive) now will not show the entire story from beginning to end. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Agreed, agreed. Those who brought this to ANI clearly haven't found the agreement they had hoped. There is no consensus on a topic ban. Time to close this down. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC) How about we leave determination of consensus to the admin who's masochistic enough to try and take this on? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC) I removed murray's archive, as he has made himself quite involved at this point. Tarc (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC) It's just an observation, but in almost 6 1/2 years of contributing to Wikipedia, I've noticed that editors who provoke strong feelings from other editors – pro and con – generating multiple threads of this size and polarity on the noticeboards, tend to, eventually, be indef blocked or even community banned. That's not a recommendation or a desire, simply a statement of probability based on empirical observation. Ludwigs2 might want to take that into account and moderate his behavior if he wishes to avoid that end result. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC) This needs to run until resolved one way or another. If this behavior is considered acceptable then I will more than happily loosen up my own strict interpretations to the rules. I tend to go through everything I edit at least once to ensure that it meets the letter and intent of policies so that would make it much easier for me. Tivanir2 (talk) 06:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC) As far as I know, I'm uninvolved in this. I will wait at least 24 hours for any objections, but if there are no serious objections, i will read and close this sometime after 24 hours from now. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC) I'd prefer, as preventative measures are on the table, that an uninvolved admin does the final evaluation and close - whatever the results are. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Not relevant in this case. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Epilogue: Light in our darkness Changing the subject of the thread to something more positive, on User talk:Jimbo Wales I noticed that Jayen466, Anthonyhcole and I have agreed that it would be a good idea to use an image of the Night Journey in the section of Muhammad devoted to his depiction, with an improved text to accompany it. I would be quite happy to help creating that improved text (multiple good sources are already available) and to help selecting which of the images is appropriate. As I said there and on Talk:Muhammad/Images, I don't see any reason to keep the same number of images. The statements of Jayen466 and Anthonyhcole were short and direct: I was happy when I found them. Mathsci (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Unarchiving

The previous discussion was not closed by an administrator, so I have restored the lengthy thread. (Partly this was due to Ludwigs2 resuming his activities on-wiki regarding images and related policy, after a brief lull.) Please could an uninvolved administrator reassess the voting on the topic ban (in case of doubt, I voted for a topic ban). If the discussion was inconclusive and there is truly no consensus, so be it. Mathsci (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 has pointed out that Gimmetoo (talk · contribs) (not identified as an admin [317]) is an alternative account of Gimmetrow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), In view of the renewed activity of Ludwigs2 after a two day lull, a review might still be in order. Mathsci (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you afraid of food poisoning? Hans Adler 22:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

??? Mathsci (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What he means, Mathsci, is that trying to reopen a closed thread simply because I have entered a discussion (as is my right, until there's a consensus I shouldn't) looks more like a personal issue than anything else. I'll note also that this is maybe the fourth or fifth time over the last year or so that you've tried to get administrative sanctions against me, usually on topics with which you were not previously involved…

If there is a personal issue that you and I need to discuss we can do that in talk, unless you really want to do it here. But as Hans points out this horse is kinda dead. let's all just get back to editing. --Ludwigs2 23:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion has been reviewed and closed by an uninvolved admin. Tachfin (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Bold doesn't make your opinion seem more official and it fails to note the resumption of behavior once the AN/I thread was closed. Not sure why you're only commenting on the portion of the unarchive that's already been covered above. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, great, let's have a meta-discussion party to insure that the prejudicial anti-Ludwigs2 headings that didn't get support stay at the top of ANI and burn themselves into everybody's mind. Hans Adler 13:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Robert, when something is wrong from the premise it raises red flags. Mathsci unarchived the discussion and removed Gimmetrow closing comment assuming he's not an admin (see the edit summary); well undoing another admin's work based on wrong assumptions is uncourteous and unhelpful. If you do not agree with how the closing went, that is another issue and was not addressed here as far as I can see. If you think Ludwig is doing something wrong there are alternatives for addressing it properly but dragging it over weeks in ANI, when it proved ineffective, is frankly not the best option. P.S: I've notified Gimmetoo of this, since it hasn't been done before. Tachfin (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, you missed this part " (Partly this was due to Ludwigs2 resuming his activities on-wiki regarding images and related policy, after a brief lull.)" which I did not write. And apologies, but what other venue would you suggest? Also at almost 70% support for a topic ban, it's not quite nearly the indecisive results people claim. If one removes the (grossly paraphrased) "it's ok for him to attack others to make his voice heard" opposes, it raises to well over 80%. Again, this wasn't about a content dispute or his opinions on the matter - it was about his conduct, including disruptiveness, tendentiousness and many many personal attacks. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
        • As far as I can tell, only involved opponents of Ludwigs2 and some of his long-standing enemies found anything in his behaviour that could have justified singling him out. I think the closing admin also saw it that way. The mere fact that Ludwigs2 became more active in the discussion again, with no claims that he did anything wrong, is an obvious bad-faith argument ridiculous as a reason for reviving this discussion. The fact that it was Mathsci who did this doesn't make it better, either. Besides, I find it interesting that you are bold enough repeat your unfounded accusations against Ludwigs2 here. I noticed that in the time since I made clear to you what I think about your behaviour in this discussion, others have done the same. Hans Adler 19:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
          • If the problem is as serious as you believe then WP:RFC/U is your friend. As someone noted, "this is too complex for mob justice". There were no convincing diffs and it's difficult to read through the wall of posts above let alone come to a sane unbiased conclusion.--Tachfin (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Hans, stop being contrary. I made no accusations in this re-open. I simply pointed out that the issue presented by someone else was a two parter - the close and the continued behavior. You twisting such gets tiring. I actually made no commentary on my opinion on the matter. I simply pointed out there was a second part that was not addressed.
            • Tachfin: yes, it became a nightmare here - and on that talk page. Thus, your point is noted and probably very representative of the situation. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
              • So "it was about his conduct, including disruptiveness, tendentiousness and many many personal attacks" wasn't your opinion on Ludwigs2 but a neutral description of Ludwigs2's behaviour? Perfectly ridiculous. Ludwigs2 was the target of a neverending stream of personal attacks by disruptive, tendentious editors including you. (See below for a few examples.)
                And Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. A suspicion that the closer of a discussion who claimed to be an admin is not actually an admin is a very poor excuse to reopen it without discussion if otherwise there was nothing wrong with the close. The fact that Mathsci's suspicion was also wrong doesn't make it better.
                Examples of attacks by RobertMfromLI against Ludwigs2:
                • And IAR is NOT a magic wand you can use to get your way, which is all you want. Nearing completion of an RfC of my own, which such BAD FAITH efforts above may soon require.
                • this brings me back to my RfC proposal above, which (other than simply removing all images because Ludwigs2 wants such ... or (Ludwig2's) "remove all for this reason or remove all for this reason")
                • As for getting you banned/topic banned/whatever, I hope you've noticed, if you make a good faith effort, my interaction is quite different. When you propose an RfC (such as in the last couple days) with biased questions that ask or imply "delete for this reason or delete for this reason?" then my interaction is different and I do lean towards requesting some sort of action (no, not necessarily a ban, topic or otherwise).
                • Every time we start getting someplace on an RfC that won't summarily remove all the images, are you planning on returning to your "ethics"/"morals"/"offensive"/"IAR" arguments to sidetrack it? Every time we start getting someplace, are you going to keep trying to use this venue for things that we cannot address here (such as changing policies to support your position) - or are you going to instead move such stuff to the proper venue?
                • you've handily ignored the questions in your lengthy response. Are you willing to abide by the consensus without repeating your same justifications ad-nasuem? Are you willing to stop addressing your dislike of policy on this very inappropriate forum? Policies will NOT be changed here - address your issues with policy elsewhere. Will you once again avoid the questions I know you fully understood?
              • At this point I decided to stop with the list. I don't know if it went on for weeks or if RobertMfromLI got a bit tamer at some point. All of this is practically standard behaviour in really heated discussions and normally I would not have brought it up. But behaving like this and then attacking Ludwigs2 for behaving almost as bad as that takes a lot of chutzpah and should not be tolerated. Hans Adler 01:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, first, I reiterated what that behavior was - read the whole thing in context - I made no accusations of what his current behavior is. Next, I don't see any personal attacks from me there. On the first, he admitted such was his reasons - diff above in my summary diff list. On the second, virtually everyone thought his RfC proposal was biased - it states as fact that the images have no value - which leaves no options in the choices except delete - it is not his place to determine what the COMMUNITY finds as value in the image - he created a bias that was incorrect. On the third: same answer. On the fourth: did you miss is personal attacks calling us anti-islamic (bigots)? And more? Or that the policy change he wanted should be taken to the CORRECT venue? On the fifth: really? You've been here more than long enough to know a talk page for an article is not the place to change policy. So, what's wrong with that suggestion from me? The tone? It was what... the 10th time? And again, I see no attack. I didn't call him prejudiced, anti-islamic or a plethora of other things. Here's the funny thing, as I told him (and everyone else who bothered to read it), I think (err... KNOW) blocks are preventative, not punitive. Thus, at this time, I'd be against a block or other sanction. Regardless, in not one instance above, have you shown me to have uttered a single personal attack against him the editor. And in all, I've provided a sampling of diffs to support each. So, it's funny, you're "attacking" (not as in personal attack, but as in opposing) someone who is not supportive of blocking him at this time. I wish you'd change that seemingly singular mindset, but regardless, it won't affect my current oppose of a block or sanctions against him. At this time, I cannot support such. Again, it's not his opinions I was ever at odds with - it was his actions, which seem far from the same at this moment in time. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(Just replying generally.) FWIW as someone who is not supportive of action against Ludwigs2 (check the above discussion) I'm reluctant to criticise Mathsci for originally reopening it when they believe Gimmetoo wasn't an admin. I myself felt it was the right thing, if anything it would at least reduce the feelings of it being improperly closed. And I don't see any reason to believe this wasn't simply a good faith error and IMO a fairly easy one to make. As people can see from Gimmetoo's talk page I myself made the mistake after seeing Mathsci's comments. I checked their user rights (both the current rights and user right change log) after this came to light and also had very quick glance at their talk page to see if there was anything I was missing (if you search for 'admin' there are messages which mention the alternative account but I was more looking to see if there had been any recent status change). I can't remember if I checked their user page but if I did I missed the alternative account bit. Gimmetoo changing their remark that they are an admin when they closed of course further confused me.

As people had specifically asked for an admin to make the close (and it's also the norm) and Gimmetoo had said they were an admin, it was fair to say Gimmetoo was acting in the capacity as an admin but not using the tools (if they were this wouldn't be an issue since they would have had to use Gimmetrow). So I don't think it's unresonable that Mathsci checked this. Many people will not have heard of either Gimmetoo or Gimmetrow before so will be unaware of the history, and the most obvious step to check is the user rights of Gimmetoo the one who made all the actions here. Checking the user page to see if it's a disclosed alternative account isn't going to be something that occurs to some except when it's likely from the name (meaning something like Gimmetrow-alt account or Gimmetrow-away). In other words, while Gimmetoo does disclose it on their user page, it does seem to me it would have been helpful if they had specifically mentioned being an alternative account when they made close oredit(after below):and perhaps also earlier when they had said they are an admin. Of course now that this has happened, hopefully Mathsci and me will remember to properly check the user page to see if it's a disclosed alternative account as well.

But regardless of what mistakes have been made, now that it's been clarified, I do feel it should just be re-closed. The bit about Ludwigs2's renewed activity seems irrelevant, the close was based on the perception there was no community consensus for any action not the lack of activity from Ludwigs2. It's clear the community has no desire to re-discuss this issue, so it's not like the renewed activity is changing that. And in any case most of the discussion happened long before the 2 day lull. Of course I can't guarantee that the fact that I don't disagree with the outcome isn't influencing my opinion.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, even if your opinion is influenced by the outcome, I honestly cannot see anything contrary to it in my opinion either (and under current circumstances, can't see how it would be influenced). As I noted to Hans above, I'll make official below, just in case this remains open:

• Oppose sanctions/blocks/whatever at this time. The fact that I was at odds with Ludwigs2 was never the reason I supported sanctions. Those reasons are above in the diffs. Sanctions are preventative, and I see nothing to prevent at this time. So, while we are probably (or definitely) at odds with our opinions on this subject, I cannot support a block at this time, as his interactions do not (IMO) warrant such. I would support re-closing this, but will not cast that as a suggestion, as that is something others in the community should decide based on how they perceive his current interactions. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)