Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Co-editor apparently banning me from pages

See /Smatprt. A topic ban from the topic of William Shakespeare has been proposed and has considerable support, and a mutual editing restriction on all parties is also under consideration.

Moved to subpage as it's rather big. --TS 22:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Datestamp of this comment is faked in an attempt to delay archiving of this pointer. --TS 22:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the two editors (I am both the plaintiff and, in the thread, subsequently indicted)for whom a topic ban has been proposed, User:Smatprt, has noted on the page that he is experiencing problems with his computer, and will be travelling until the 18th, and thus cannot respond to the charges or issues raised concerning his editing behaviour. I suggest the page here retain this notice until at least that date.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Merridew behaviour

Resolved

 – No, it is. No admin is going to take action here, as my previous reverted close suggested. There are other venues available for dispute resolution. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Per [1], [2] and [3], I ask an uninvolved admin to block Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) for disruption. This is a continuation of a pattern of abusive editing on Merridew's part to impose his preferred styles on articles over objections. He is now accusing me of "harrassment" [4] for undoing his undiscussed changes to the styles established in articles that I previously edited. Merridew was banned by arbcom for past stalking and abuse of multiple accounts. His current arbcom sanction mentions " follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts". I submit he has failed to do so. I believe, at this point, his behaviour is more than serious enough to warrant a block. I would block him myself for disruption, but other admins have felt I am involved. (I will be offline for many hours now.) Gimmetoo (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You are involved; and very much so.  pablo 19:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a content dispute, and a kinda lame one at that. Is there a version that is more frequently used in other actor bios? Has this been discussed in a style guideline perhaps in a wikiproject? Tarc (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not about colours or styles or my editing; he's decided to target me. Merridew 20:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• this statement
• ANI632#obstruction of ref clean-up
• ANI632#Gimmetoo, again
• ANI641#RexxS behaviour (which was about Gimme' reverting me)

Merridew 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not going to lie, after reading over those diffs, and your ANI report, it looks like you, Gimmetoo, are the one who has been doing all the harassing. If there's a content dispute, take it back to square one with Jack and discuss it civilly. For the record, Jack is more than willing to talk about his edits. On a side note, considering that you yourself do not have all too stellar of a track record, I encourage you to not hurl stones at other people's glass houses when you live in one yourself. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that last bit isn't very fair. One 12hr block for 3RR and one temporary indef to confirm that an alt account was genuine does not make one's abode a glass one. Tarc (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Fastily's summary of the interactions between Jack and Gimmetoo/trow. It is clear that Gimme is the one being tendentious and unreasonable, and has indulged in hounding behaviour over a period of several months. Gimme seems to believe that he owns certain articles and interprets all disagreement on their content or presentation as a personal affront, and I'm sure I don't need to say that that is a totally unproductive and irrational attitude. It is also worrying that Gimme takes such delight in bringing up Jack Merridew's (very distant) past bad behaviour, as though it's prima facie evidence that Jack must be in the wrong now. That is quite obviously wrong too. I urge Gimmetoo to leave Jack the hell alone and stop being so precious. This is beyond tiresome. Reyk _YO! 22:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Closed this, before Gimmetoo/trow finds themselves having a major issue. Blocking Merridew themselves would result in a desysop RFC. So don't do it. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not resolved. Merridew went immediately to making similar inappropriate changes of style known to be controversial, in this case in direct violation of WP:CITE#Citation_templates_and_tools: " Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." The edits in question are to Kerr and Andress. Merridew made no attempt to gain consensus, no post on the talk page, no attempt at discussion that I can find. Furthermore, his edit to Andress installed a bug in the table that Merridew ought to know about, because it was the content basis for the last ANI issue. (An issue which, by the way, Merridew misprepresents above; Merridew undid one of my edits, I started a discussion, and Merridew didn't respond.) And I noticed these because both Kerr and Andress are articles I have watchlisted, and that I've edited quite a bit, as far as I know long before Merridew ever edited them. (I've also edited the other articles Merridew edited: Bynes and Bullock.) It seems likely to me that Merridew is stalking me, especially given Merridew's documented prior stalking. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Seriously? The difference between this and this is what you are so flustered about? Removing some entirely redundant coloring is an "inappropriate edit" that gets you up in arms like this? --87.79.51.168 (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup much? 160.44.248.164 (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Looks like someone is suffering from a serious case of WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please stop for the good of the project. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're all missing the point-- we have policies and guidelines for a reason, and Gimme is following them. How about telling Merridew to move along and find something else to occupy his time with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that Gimmetoo/trow is making it a habit of demanding blocks of editors who disagree with him when he doesn't get his way, has a major ownership problem with some articles, and refuses to listen to constructive feedback. Why should Jack "move along" when he's working for the good of the project and obeying policy and guidelines (indeed, helping to improve them) simply because an obstructionist doesn't like it? What needs to happen here is for Gimetoo to "let it go;" I hope that action will be taken against him the next time he makes one of these frivolous complaints.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain your assertion that Jack is obeying policy and guidelines, when it is Gimme who is doing so? If Merridew doesn't like our citation guidelines, he should take his crusade to that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that there are other venues for resolution of disputes before marching straight to ANI. This page is not for yelling "I don't like what this editor's doing, please block them". This is why I've marked this resolved (twice). Black Kite (t) (c) 18:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The explanation of how Jack is obeying policy and guidelines is that he's making articles internally consistent (and very often consistent with other similar articles as well). Consistency is a principle that overrules personal preferences. It is downright disruptive to complain about changing a reference like this: <ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20414325,00.html</ref> to this: <ref>{{cite web|last=Oh |first=Eunice |url=http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20414325,00.html |title=Miranda Kerr: Yes, I'm Pregnant! - Babies, Miranda Kerr, Orlando Bloom |publisher=People.com |date=2010-08-19 |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref> and Gimme knows it. He's also aware that MOS:ENDASH documents the consensus that we should change dates ranges like "1987-1988" to "1987–1988" and Gimme knows that as well. He even knows how to fix the problem that his browser causes him, because I've taught him how to do it (add a sort key). It's about time that Gimme stopped obstructing editors whose only desire is to improve Wikipedia, and quit running to ANI every time he doesn't get his way, before the community loses patience with him. --RexxS (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. ANI is not here to play mommy. I also don't see anything wrong with Jack's edits as a purely practical matter. He removes redundant coding, an outright good thing. Policy is descriptive, not proscriptive as we say. It describes accepted community standards, not tells us what to do. We even have/had that wording on one of the policy overview pages, followed by 'it can and does lag behind community practices at times'. I think the lack of outcry and the frustration with Gimmetoo's hounding of Jack is fairly good evidence that the policy in question is starting to get behind the times. -- ۩ Mask 21:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(od) Another editor tried to work things out with Jack once before but he managed to out last her. She retired from the project, see it here Wildhartlivie. I'm done for the night but I'm sure Jack can supply the many difs to the RFC and the projects who dealt with this. Have a good night everyone. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

User:A Nobody also had frequent arguments with Jack Merridrew. A Nobody is now banned from editing. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant, and blatantly untrue.  pablo 00:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I don't think you can draw a causal link between those two statements.  pablo 11:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There was obviously a big argument between the two: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rlevse --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

WHL (and a second account first thought to be a sock but later identified as a friend who edited at her house) seemed to be on a crusade to keep a wild variety of colors in various articles rather than going for a more unified, sober, and meaningful approach. There were more editors than WHL and Jack involved in that, but there was some edit warring on both sides, and I would not by any means paint this as "WHL tried to work things out with Jack". As for A Nobody, it's probably a lot more accurate to say that after a community RfC on A Nobody, the findings of which he failed to heed, and a subsequent ArbCom case which he "retired" to avoid, A Nobody was blocked and then a community ban was layered on top of that. A Nobody went on to disparage other editors on his private Wikia wiki, to the point of being ordered to desist by Wikia staff. That's probably a far more accurate recounting of events. I don't really hold Jack responsible for either of those two editors departing. ++Lar: t/c 10:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what CronhieGal's comment is supposed to mean. This dispute started when Merridew tried to install cite templates on two articles, and was reverted (by me on one, and another admin on the other). The consequent discussion on both articles did not provide consensus for Merridew's edits. Nevertheless, well after these discussion concluded, Merridew made precisely that change on two other articles - articles that I routinely edit, and edited long before Merridew ever edited them. Merridew made no attempt at discussion, and given the past two attempts, likely would not get consensus for Merridew's edits at the articles in question. Nevertheless, many editors appear to be supporting Merridew's edits as perfectly OK.

Nobody who edits here for any length of time is going to do everything perfect. Everyone has faults. Indeed, most of the commentators above have committed wikifaults in various degrees, including me. Indeed, some of those above are involved in this dispute but neglected to reveal that point for genuinely uninvolved editors. Some editors have civility issues. Some editors fail to observe WP:BRD. Some may be canvassing. Given the two IP edits from the same country, there may be sockpuppetry. Nevertheless, I saw the behavior displayed by Merridew as much worse than anything anyone else in this thread has done recently. But apparently those commenting above disagree. Therefore, I would like to get this straight: is it the consensus of this ANI thread that:

1. there is nothing wrong with edit-warring to change an article to meet an editor's preferred style, regardless of the style present in the article, how long it has been there, or any past discussions
2. specifically, the prohibition of WP:CITE of edit-warring to install cite templates is obsolete and is to be marked historical
3. there is nothing wrong with targeting articles another editor edits routinely
4. there is nothing wrong with edit summaries in article space identifying a specific editor's edits as harassment

Is that the consensus here? Gimmetoo (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, how about:

1. specifically, there is nothing wrong with improving an article by changing a bare url to a properly formatted citation, regardless of how many badly-formed references there are in the article, nor how long they have been there
2. it is unacceptable to edit-war to revert article improvements
3. the guidance against changing the style of references is subordinate to the need to have references displayed in a consistent format in an article
4. there is nothing wrong with identifying harassment when it occurs
5. ANI is not dispute resolution, and the community has only limited patience with those who abuse it

Perhaps we could get consensus for that? --RexxS (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying, if any part of an article is "inconsistent" in any way whatsoever, that you are 100% completely justified in changing every style aspect of the article to any style you choose, and that it is 100% completely justified to remove any other fixes or corrections to the article at the same time? Gimmetoo (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And you're saying that on articles that you routinely edit, and have edited for a long time, nobody is allowed to format the references to display in a consistent manner, or you'll report them to ANI? Or is it just Jack who isn't allowed? --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say "consistency" is fine, if it reflects the way the article has developed. For instance, I would say that an article that is stable with 90% one variety of English could be made 100% that variety, but taking a 10% variation as an pretext to make the article 100% a different form would probably not be OK. Would you agree? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that consistency of presentation is far more important than whatever underlying mechanism is used to achieve that. I certainly would agree that an article which is 90% one format and 10% another would be improved by making it 100% consistent. To address the issue of which format, the "majority style" of English is not one of the deciding factors given at WP:ENGVAR for good reason. The primary deciding factor is whether the subject has strong national ties; the secondary one is the first major contributor who used a variety of English. Since an article may have been expanded considerably by an editor who used a different variety, we've reached the present consensus that majority usage is not a deciding factor. Nevertheless, extrapolating ENGVAR to other issues requires caution. "The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language" means that we hold either variety in equal respect. The same does not apply for the display style of references. For example, I believe that one of the fully-formatted references (as enumerated at WP:CITE#HOW) is always preferred to bare urls (which often only display a superscript numeral). It would be a mistake to object to an edit which improved an article with inconsistent referencing by bringing it into consistency with one of the full citation styles given at WP:CITE#HOW. Wouldn't you agree? --RexxS (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I would disagree with some of your statements. Installing citation templates is contentious. While a "fully-formatted reference" is in some ways an improvement, I think that using "fully-formatted reference" as a pretext for installing citation templates in an article that has developed without them is an abuse, and to do so to target and bait editors who support WP:CITE is pointy and WP:HA. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand your view, and appreciate it. Citation templates are contentious, but I'm not prepared to either endorse or condemn installing them without considering context. I still think the way references are presented is more important then whether they are made via a good hand-crafted reference or a citation template. As everyone knows, citation templates make citation maintenance much easier and present a (generally) consistent result. Not everyone understands the problem that an large article with 100+ templates can take a considerable time for the server to generate in edit mode. That is an issue that will require developers to address. Personally, I have no difficulty with someone converting an underdeveloped article to citation templates, but I wouldn't recommend it for large, heavily referenced articles at present. I accept that your view may be different, and there is a large "grey area" in between the obvious extremes, where discussion and judgement is required. I'm glad we can agree on the value of fully-formatted references, but I would still recommend that individual articles deserve individual discussions, and suggest that the relevant article talk page is a better venue to search for consensus on this issue. --RexxS (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you can see this same type of disagreement being discussed multiple times. First, here is an AN/i report very similar to this one. Also instead of writing down all the difs in it, you will see in that report all the difs of where this was discussed at multiple locations like the village pump, WT:ACTOR. All I'm saying is that this same kind of complaint got no where before and it needs to be dealt with this time. The actor project had a few major discussions going on about this too, the dif is in the link above. Jack did the same thing to Wildhartlivie following her from one article to the next. The dif for that was deleted so I can no longer get access to it. Jack has a set way that he feels the project should follow and he just barges in and makes the changes and doesn't bother to discuss it with editors who are working the articles. I dropped out the discussion finally myself because it was like talking to a brick wall. Wildhartlivie, finally got fed up with no one taking this serious to help her out with all the harrassment she felt she was getting so she finally just slapped a semi-retirement up and slowly found that she couldn't work here with running into Jack still that she found that her enjoyment here was no long going to be had and she left permanently. We have to have Jack follow the same set of rules as everyone else. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand that Jack does target editors and he is relentless. I know he has his supporters but it is time now with another editor saying the same thing about it to make it stop. Just my opinion but this is kind of a rerun of what I saw the last time. I hope this clarifies my hurried post last night. Gimmetoo is not wrong, he is right, Jack has no right to force his opinions on everyone else. He's been doing that for a long time now, is anyone going to say enough is enough now? HTH, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate or helpful summation at all. You (as a friend of WHL) are wildly misstating the case here. WHL was not harassed by Jack and to say that really is over the top. ++Lar: t/c 10:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie, you know I've taken WHL's side in a lot of disagreements, more than most, in fact, but your summary of events is plain wrong. Her departure was far more complicated than you indicate, she was consistently hostile towards Jack, and her standard reaction became to completely lose her temper, not just at Jack but at several editors, usually for piddling reasons such as they did something she didn't like. I think it's fair to say that WHL viewed Jack with malice. You also know that Jack asked me to mediate between the two of them, WHL agreed, and then at the 11th hour absolutely refused to proceed and instead chose to depart. Her choice. She could still be here if she'd kept a cooler head. I agree with Lar's comments, above and below. Rossrs (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I need to clarify what I meant in saying I agreed with Lar's comments. I agree with what he said regarding Jack's intentions. I'm convinced that his aim is to make incremental improvements where he sees the need and rather than ask permission to make edits, which he should not have to do, he makes them and then discusses them when questioned. That is how it should be. I was strongly against him at the beginning of the talk you refer to at WP:ACTOR, then I thought that as nobody else was prepared to listen to him, I would, and ultimately I could see his point. WHL wouldn't/couldn't (I don't know which) but didn't make an effort to see any viewpoint but her own and if anything her attitude fanned the fire. I think she was more than capable of speaking up for herself, so I don't believe it's right to portray her as a victim. Rossrs (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's my view on this contretemps. ((obDisclose, I've stuck up for Jack before) Jack, in his gnomish way, has been going around improving things (I find it hard to argue against moving citations from bare links or hand formatted references to the citation templates, and even harder to argue against changing bare dashes to emdashes per the MOS.) and that seems to have setGimme off to the point that he's exerting ownership characteristics. That needs to stop. The case, as presented by Gimme is spurious (and it was closed twice already). I'll go farther, if Gimme keeps reverting improvements to articles, whoever makes them, a block is in order. Jack is editing in agreement with our convention. Gimme should drop the stick and back away from the horse, now, before this degenerates further. ++Lar: t/c 10:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's any help, Lar, your summary reflects my own thoughts (obDisclose, I share Jack's perspective on improving Wikipedia). To be as fair as I can to Gimme, I should say that citation templates present an issue in very large articles (as I outlined above), and that changing hyphens to endashes in date ranges (per MOS) presents a minor problem particular to the Safari 4 browser (as outlined in Gimme's earlier complaint against me). These issues are solvable, but not at ANI. I'd encourage Gimme to engage in the process of seeking solutions, as there are plenty of editors willing to collaborate in that. --RexxS (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That's true. The issues are discussable and solveable. I'm not going to buy into the citation discussion any further than I have, but I have been discussing the use of colour in film award tables at Talk: Halle Berry, and in fairness to Gimme, he is discussing it. On the other hand, we discussed the same thing a few weeks ago on my talk page, specifically Halle Berry, and he reverted me in mid discussion and suddenly I was alone in the discussion. That appears to me to fall under the heading of "ownership characteristics". If he's looked at my talk page since then, he's aware of how negatively I viewed that, but as long as the current discussion remains on track, the issue remains solveable. Rossrs (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

nb: Gimmetoo's reverts of my edits to Ursula Andress && Miranda Kerr are being discussed at Talk:Ursula Andress and the awards colour-thangs at Talk:Halle Berry. I'm still travelling. Jack Merridew 03:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the color issue, but MOS specifically addresses this by stating that excess markup should be avoided, and ACCESS discusses the issues wrt vision-impaired editors and screenreaders. I rather imagine there is a similar issue occurring here, as there is probably little reason to introduce color there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Briefly, Sandy, the "color issue" is that some articles have developed with tables that use colour-coded results. Merridew et al. are trying to remove them. I am viewing that issue as mostly an arbitrary style change. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation-- if the color coding conforms to WP:ACCESS, I don't have a problem with it. The usual problem with color coding is that it doesn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, editing a table to reflect a site-wide default style is not "an arbitrary style change". If I was reckless enough to change the colours to yellow and purple, that would be arbitrary. Deciding among a relatively small group of editors that the plain table needed to utilise colour, and then adding the colour to various but not all tables, is far more "an arbitrary style change" and creates an inconsistency (yet another one) that didn't exist before. Why is one choice arbitrary and one not? Rossrs (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Slippery slope

This discussion has been marked closed several times, but it continues; some of the arguments above mystify me and this discussion appears to be headed for a slippery slope if not resolved, so please let's not mark it closed again.

RexxS, I'm particularly confused by some of your feedback, because at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ormulum/archive1 you understand the reasoning behind not switching citation style, but here we find many editors expressing different opinions, contrary to WP:CITEHOW. I don't want to derail this discussion, so perhaps you can explain the apparent contradiction on my talk?

The slippery slope: editors above appear to be endorsing the use of citation templates in articles that don't use them, and allowing Merridew to continue this behavior against guidelines. Certainly bare URLs are not preferred, but neither are citation templates, and many of us hate them because they so clutter the text. If we're headed down a slippery slope that endorses them, here are some counterexamples to refocus the issue away from Merridew's behavior, which I do believe is disruptive.

1. Tourette syndrome (TS). I largely wrote and cited that article myself. I hate citation templates because they clutter the text and are subject to the ever-changing whims of whomever edits and changes them. I cited TS manually because it is easier to grab the info from PMID and format it to conform with WP:ITALICS (journal names, etc) and WP:MOSBOLD (volume number), without cluttering the text. On the other hand, I endorse the use of citation templates at other medical articles that are frequently edited by numerous editors, since most of them won't understand an individual style used on an article edited mostly by one person. If Merridew decides to impose citation templates on TS, I'm going to be kicking and screaming.

2. Venezuela suite of articles. There has been a long-standing problem on those articles, as no particular citation style has been endorsed across the suite (as in medical articles, which largely use the Diberri template filler); the citation style used in Venezuela articles is a mish-mash because of the number of different editors who edit those articles and format citations differently (unlike TS). When Rd232 starts a new article, he uses his own citation style-- one I have never encountered elsewhere-- but if he started the article, guidelines say we should continue his style (which never happens because few understand his style-- I try to conform, but I can't bring myself to violate ITALCS and MOSBOLD). Are those arguing against Gimme here willing to say that we should alter Rd232's style when he started the article with a consistent style? He also hates citation templates, but his citation style does not follow WP:ITALICS or WP:MOSBOLD.

3. The Ormulum FAR linked above-- citation style was changed without consensus, and it's just plain ugly. (Added clarification: some editors' writing style is more conducive to parenthetical citations, and they should not be switched to the cite.php format, as specifically mentioned at WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but I disagree with most weighing in here-- Merridew appears to be on a pointy campaign, while Gimme appears to be trying to enforce guidelines because he understands the slippery slope. If some handle isn't gotten on this matter, it's looking to head the direction of the most lame date-delinking case. No one should be unilaterally imposing citation templates in articles without gaining consensus on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

? I don't use bold in references, and per normal convention across many citation styles (and WP:ITALICS), I italicise books and journal titles. My citation style is a minor variation of APA style (in that I prefer to put article/chapter names in double quotes for clarity). Rd232 ^talk 12:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I may have misstated your style (I didn't go and re-check), but the point is, it's consistent, but new editors to the articles don't follow it, resulting in a mish-mash including the addition of citation templates, which is against guidelines. This is an example of the slippery slope that I hope will refocus this discussion with concrete examples unrelated to Gimme or Merridew. (I think it's true there probably isn't a MOSBOLD issue, as that refers to journal volumes which aren't found frequently in Ven articles, but on Italics, you italicize websites, which isn't normally done-- that's what I can't bring myself to do, since I'm a MOS maven on that sort of thing :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Our principle is very well established: each article should be left in the citation style that has been established, and newer references should (over time) be reformatted back into that style. If a well-established article does not use citation templates, the references shouldn't be converted to use them. If it does use them, the references shouldn't be converted away from them. If it uses footnotes, it shouldn't be changed to Harvard referencing. If it uses Harvard referencing, it shouldn't be changed to footnotes. Going around changing styles on numerous articles violates this principle and is not appropriate as an editing pattern. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly my understanding of the issue and the problem that is occurring here. On the Venezuela articles, very few of them ever reach GA or FA potential, so the issue has never come to a head, but if an article started by Rd232 were to reach GA potential, citations would need to be converted back to his style unless alternate consensus were developed on talk. I do not understand the support here for Merridew's campaign, and am dismayed at the statements made about Gimme enforcing guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If I was looking at an article at GAN or FAC, and there had been a change in citation styles (to discover that would involve digging in the history). I really doubt I would quarrel with it. Unless editors involved with the article complained, I don't see why it should be an issue, as long as it is consistent. And yes, I do know the policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This has never been tested (the original editor of the Ormulum FA is gone, so he didn't complain), and I certainly wouldn't hold up a FAC over this, but the slippery slope exists nonetheless, and my concern that it is headed the direction of the lame date-delinking case (another area in which I would never hold up promotion of a FAC, but that engendered heated and lame discussion, which is why I say we need to get a rational handle on this rather than disparaging Gimme.) Let's suppose I'm hit by a truck tomorrow, and someone starts adding citation templates to TS ... or a Venezuela article gets stalled at GAN because Rd232 wants his original style respected-- how is this going to be resolved? We have a guideline for a reason, and both CITEHOW and WIAFA are clear. Gimme is enforcing guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I could run after the ambulance for you :) ... I'm thinking judgment call, don't want to be too rigid in setting up guidelines in advance because as you imply, we can't anticipate all the fine points in advance. That bit of policy was not handed down on stone tablets, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but. What happened at Ormulum is inexcusable, because it opens the article to the potential for another FAR if anyone complains, rightly, about the citation style imposed upon the article by mostly one editor, who didn't appear to understand WIAFA. I could be pointy about it and insist that the FAR not be closed until this is corrected, but 1) I don't think that would be helpful considering other issues surrounding the deteriorating environment at FAR, and 2) one editor decided to ignore the citation debacle and simply bring the article to standard, which is generally a good thing. But the result is not optimal-- the original editor's writing is more conducive to parenthetical citation. My argument is that we should not be disparaging Gimme here for keeping the bigger picture in sight, and we should be resolving this in a way that won't lead to another lame date-delinking debacle. There will likely be a judgment call at Orumulum to keep the article FA in spite of the change, but what if someone later complains? It's a slippery slope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is basically an issue of consensus: people shouldn't go around changing existing styles unilaterally (with the exception of making style formats consistent within an article, when there is a clear style consensus developed). Anything else should be resolved by discussion on the talk page. To return to the original discussion subject - if Merridew is continuing to go around not respecting existing style usage, that's a problem to be demonstrated and then to be addressed. Failing to demonstrate/address should not raise concerns that policy is being overturned. Rd232 ^talk 13:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct, and that is how this discussion needs to refocus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point, we had turned to discussing policy instead of conduct. Well, looking it over, I strongly suggest a RFC/U.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope my counterexamples that don't involve Merridew or Gimme helped bring the issue into more clear focus. Perhaps we could avoid an RFC/U by simply asking Merridew to stop? We won't benefit from an RFC on citation style because we don't yet have a good test case-- this only comes to a head at FAC and FAR where citation style must be respected, Ormulum is the best example so far, and Geogre is gone and no one else is willing to take up that crusade, since the article was brought to standard. Further, we already have a guideline, and an RFC is unlikely to overturn it. I think-- I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There have been RFC's on this issue here and here. The last one has links to where this has been discussed in other places too. I thought some difs might be helpful to this discussion. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Xanderliptak, redux

Xanderliptak (talk · contribs)

I saw this edit on my watchlist, and reverted it, as I see no reason for the removal.

I then looked at his contribs and saw a problem. He is systematically removing all images he has uploaded to Commons from use here, and has requested speedy deletion of same on Commons (which cannot obviously be dealt with here; I included this detail merely for background). Not wishing to create intense drama, I have not reverted the latest edits; I believe this is symptomatic of behaviour that has been going on for quite some time. (See also, from almost a year ago, very similar situation). Namely, this user appears to be labouring under the misapprehension that he gets to control use of images he has created after he has uploaded them. Beyond that I cannot speculate as to motivation.

I am honestly not sure what the course of action here needs to be. This is clearly problematic, and repeated, behaviour. User has been notified. → ROUX ₪ 05:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I jut came across this through a page on my watchlist. I note that Xander and Roux have some history, so I thought I would, as an uninvolved party, concur with Roux's reading of the situation. As it happens I think the one example of an edit that Roux provides is not a good one because (for unrelated reasons) that content should not be there. But the broader issue still stands. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit I provided is simply the one I ran across first (I use a hack on my watchlist to only display changes since the last time I loaded the page, then scroll to the bottom and work my way up). There were other edits, but seeing that there was a pattern I refrained from reverting them all and instead brought the issue here. Agreed that the specific first edit I provided can and should be discussed on the relevant talk page; the general issue is what needs to be examined here. → ROUX ₪ 05:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the past history; Roux has suffered quite a bit of abuse in this interaction. I would say Roux is correct that there is a behaviour issue, but I've also seen XL change behaviour when approached the right way. The core issue currently seems to be a licensing dispute. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

To be clear I did not attempt to discuss this with Xanderliptak, as discussion with him has proven to be less than fruitful. I figured better to gain the attention of uninvolved people. → ROUX ₪ 06:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The images he uploads to Commons are freely licensed. The licenses are not revocable. So we can use them, whether he wants us to or not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 12:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That was the core issue that came up a few days ago. Presumably Xander figures if he can't get what he wants, then he'll delete them and then nobody can have what they want. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't presume tell people what I want. You showed up late to a discussion and tried to talk about things that the discussion was not even concerned about. Again, you are here talking about issues no one else has even brought up. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Roux reverted the edit here: [5] and when Hamiltonstone complained on the talk page, Roux explained his rationale here: [6] I don't see any need for this board, but rather, discussion should begin on the article talk page. Xandarliptak is as free to edit, and be bold as any other Wikipedia editor. Every edit he makes that Roux does not agree with cannot be brought here. It should be on the article talk page.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

See below. You have clearly not paid any attention to what I wrote or what is happening here. → ROUX ₪ 18:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What is this ANI even about? People complain about the images in the article, I have to argue to keep them in. More people complain, so I take them out. Then those that wanted them out complain I take them out? What kind of logic is that? What is all the Commons talk and "we can use them even if he doesn't want us to"? I was the one always arguing to use hem, ROUX and others were saying we should not. I just finally gave in and said take them out. ROUX should have been happy. Side note, I did get what I wanted on Commons. ROUX and Beyond My Ken were trying to pull up past arguments, but Commons ignored them. The Commons issue had nothing to do with using or not using images, but about what the licensing summary being deficient. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That was on one article where the inclusion of unsupported elements was the nature of the dispute, not the inclusion of the coat of arms in general. 'All this Commons talk' is merely, as I said, background; you are attempting to have images which you freely and irrevocably licenced deleted, an issue that will be dealt with on Commons. I never tried to pull up past arguments on Commons, because I did not make a single comment on Commons; once again you appear to be unable to comprehend that you must provide diffs of alleged behaviour and not merely say whatever you want. This ANI is about approximately thirty instances of you removing images you have created from articles where they very clearly belong. The same images you are attempting to have deleted. The same behaviour you engaged in nine months ago (discussed here, you may also wish to see your own talk page to refresh your memory). → ROUX ₪ 18:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to tell what you really want, since you change your story so often. :) But why all this excitement over drawings of family crests and such? This ain't Rembrant stuff, you know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The better question is why is Roux following Xanderliptak? And why is Hamiltonstone claiming he got here from his watchlist when everybody can read this exchange for themselves:

I do not understand why there is any information about the Kennedy coat of arms on this page, which is about the surname, and serves as a disambig page for people to locate relevant Kennedys as subjects of WP articles. Move it to an article called Kennedy (coats of arms) or to the pages relating to relevant individuals or families, but surely get it off this page? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally think it is useful information (though I may be biased). My concern with the removal, and why I reverted it, is partly a matter of WP:BRD, and partly a matter of a posting to ANI that will be up momentarily. → ROUX ₪ 05:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that now. I'd like to keep this separate. It isn't that the information may not be useful, but I don't see why discussion of a range of coats of arms of different Kennedy individuals or families should be on the surname page rather than on the pages of the relevant people (or indeed a page about the coats of arms, if there are a few relevatn secondary sources to satisfy notability). But this is a bit of a new area for me, so if there are contra arguments, I'd like to hear them. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Even assuming good faith here, Roux appears to be saying he wants to keep the material just so he can come here. It looks a lot like canvassing, hounding, and a lack of AGF on Roux's part. On Xanderliptak's side, it appears he's just being bold. My suggestion would be to stop this before it gets to look like you're setting the dogs on Xanderliptak. He's removing the images people have fought to get rid of, but now inexplicably are fighting to have restored. Might be time to reassess your own behavior.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

<belated response to comment by Malke about me:> "why is Hamiltonstone claiming he got here from his watchlist when everybody can read this exchange for themselves". The answer is: I have Kennedy (surname) on my watchlist. The removal of the coats or arms seemed like a good idea; its reversion by Roux seemed a bad one. But as heraldry etc is not my area, I thought I would raise the issue on the article talk page and draw that discussion thread to the attention of the two involved editors at their talk pages: [7] [8]. It was only when I did that that I discovered there was a broader issue, and i thought I should mention that at ANI, since a thread had already been opened and some uninvolved comment appeared to be desirable. I don't appreciate the slur implicit in your comment Malke: you could have checked the diffs, where the timestamps would have made it clear that this was the simplest explanation. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Um... did you read anything I posted here? Seriously, don't post without reading what is going on. → ROUX ₪ 18:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an echo in this section, namely someone griping about Xander being "followed". Some editors don't like being watched, and rung up for what they're doing, since they have this notion that they should be able to do whatever they want, unimpeded. They come here and complain that they're being "harassed"... by multiple users. At some point, the possibility might arise that the editor is being followed because he needs to be followed. Hanlon's razor might figure into this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, this actually makes me somewhat angry. You do not understand a single thing that is going on here. You clearly have not bothered to read a single thing I wrote, and certainly haven't looked at the links I provided. I am not saying 'keep the material so I can come to ANI.' In terms of that specific article it is simply the first one I saw on my watchlist. Then I looked at Xanderliptak's contribs, and saw he has removed every instance of every image he uploaded to Commons. Further, on Commons, he has requested speedy deletion of all his images. (Something he can't do, not for the reason he has given.) Nobody has 'fought' to get rid of [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39], almost all of which are articles about nobility, for whom coats of arms are a fairly important subject, recording as they do marriages, alliances, elevations (or demotions) in station, etc. The removal here of one of his images from the talk page of WP:WPHV is particularly noteworthy as well.

Xanderliptak is, quite simply, attempting to remove all of his images from use on enwiki, with concomitant attempt at deleting them from Commons. This is a problem that is related to ownership behaviour from over a year ago detailed here and here, which you would know if you had read the links I had initially posted.

In all seriousness, please do not comment when you have demonstrably not familiarized yourself with the details of what is going on. I bear no personal animus towards Xanderliptak, my concern is with widespread disruption arising from his repeated attempts to control the end result of images which he has freely contributed to the project. → ROUX ₪ 18:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has "fought to get rid of" Xander's images. The issue, as Roux states, is that he wants to maintain control of them, and since he can't do so, he's working on getting rid of them. (I'm sure they'll bring him a healthy profit on the black market.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This would be a good place to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to advise Mr. Xander to that effect. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I tried saying this politely. Apparently you didn't read it. I'll be more blunt: you do not understand what is going on, you have obviously not looked at a single link or diff provided, and your contributions to this discussion are completely and totally unhelpful and off base. Please stop commenting. → ROUX ₪ 23:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Roux, I understand perfectly what is happening here. I don't see Xanderliptak doing anything but being bold in his edits. I don't see anything wrong with his removing the images. If editors want them back, they're free to put them back, or find other images, or they can take the articles off their watchlists. Focus on the edit, not the editor. And chill about it. It's time to let this go. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The way I understand it (and Roux, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), this guy is not "being bold", he's trying to assert ownership over his own creations, in defiance of the license rules. And he's been getting irritated because the rule-followers keep impeding him. I never heard of that guy until this past week, but it didn't take long to figure out what he was up to. How do you figure other editors are "free to put them back"? These are designs of family crests or something, which he himself created. So no one else could claim them as their own, and hence they couldn't upload them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you do not, Malke. Xanderliptak is not being WP:BOLD. of course you would know this if you had read the diffs I had provided, including practically identical behaviour from almost a year ago. Your insistence that you understand what is going on is clearly indicating that you have not read the diffs. The edits you have made to this discussion are beyond useless. Until you can indicate that you have actually read the diffs and links provided, I urge anyone else reading this to pay not the slightest bit of attention to anything you have to say on this matter. → ROUX ₪ 23:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)First, it's never wise to assume you know what his motives are. And second, if he created the image and is now removing it, what is the big deal here? If an editor makes an edit to an article, but then comes back and removes the edit and then puts in something else, or decides that the edit wasn't really a good one, who is to say he can't do that? Images come and go on Wikipedia. Nothing here is permanent. A week from now none of you will care about any of this.

Imagining what Xanderliptak's motives are appears to be the central problem here. There's a reason we have this guideline. Try it out in real life and you'll see what I mean. We can always assign motive based on our own prejudices and beliefs, but at the end of the day, we don't really know for certain what anybody's motive is, or is not. This whole thread was started based on an assumption that didn't take into account other things that might be going on. The previous arguments are now old. This new argument should have been addressed first on Xanderliptak's talk page and/or the various article talk pages. Not here. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. Again you are demonstrating that you have not familiarized yourself with the history. Addressing this problem with Xanderliptak directly would have been less than fruitful--again, if you had familiarized yourself with the history you would know this. Addressing the issue on 30+ talk pages would have been similarly useless. I beg you, stop inserting your uninformed commentary. It only obscures the situation. → ROUX ₪ 00:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

History is past. Today is all you have. Forget about it and move on.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that Malke moves on since he seems so spectacularly clueless about this issue. Jon (217.44.188.123 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

If you actually read some of the stuff Xander has said recently, you don't have to "imagine" his motives, as he's right out there with it. He was trying to apply the "moral right" principle to his little creations, and he was told repeatedly that it doesn't apply. Having finally apparently gotten that message, he's going through and trying to get them zapped on dubious grounds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If a rights holder didn't really understand and intend the implications of a CC licensing for an image, then we have sometimes deleted the image. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If editors have had issues with that guy for a year, it's probably not that simple. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That is, however, not his stated intention. He has stated, variously, that they 'were intended to be quick sketches and I will replace them one by one with better versions' (paraphrase, not his exact words, but very close; of course that still doesn't explain why he is seeking deletion. He could simply upload new versions over the old ones), and 'these images have caused trouble so I may as well remove them until the new versions are ready' (again paraphrase. And ignoring the fact that the images are not the problem, his behaviour is). These are things he has said on Commons, and I can provide diffs if requested, as he has said nothing on enwiki about his motivations. Moving back to the original point of this post: there are severe behavioural issues with Xanderliptak, namely:

• Repeated application of WP:IDHT (visible in every recent dispute/discussion he has taken part in, both here and on Commons
• Repeated allegations against fellow editors and refusal to provide diffs of the alleged behaviour despite repeated requests
• Repeated misrepresentation of tenor, tone, and content of discussions and what other editors have said with, again, refusal to provide diffs backing up what he says despite repeated and unambiguous requests to provide same
• Repeated refusal to provide references backing up what he has stated
• Ownership behaviour of his images (diffs provided above setting the context as an ongoing issue for almost a year, not new)
• I will provide diffs of all the above if asked, I just don't have the energy right now to comb through that many pages.

I don't deny that Xanderliptak has made valuable contributions. Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry is spotty at best, and it is one of those areas where visual cues are practically mandatory for understanding the subject. However, the above issues, none of which are new, are a distinct problem and need to be addressed in totally unambiguous terms. I had proposed an editing restriction for Xanderliptak to address some of those issues; Prodego's premature archiving of the thread prevented discussion that might well have prevented this set of circumstances from occurring.

Several other editors who have bothered to read the history here seem, unless I am mistaken, to agree that there is a problem. A solution needs to be found, please, to prevent further disruption. → ROUX ₪ 02:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Roux, there is an issue. I thought the dispute about one image was just getting resolved (leaving out three shields) - with an "out" provided on a silver platter - and I was disheartened when the dispute simply shifted to something else. I do think XL's image contributions are extremely valuable, but if XL wants to remove the images, my suggestion is to just let that happen. So long as XL only removes XL's own images and nobody else picks a fight, I suspect XL would eventually restore those or better images and the project will see a net benefit. And if that turns out to be false optimism, the issues get resolved another way. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have zero faith whatsoever that those images will ever be replaced. My AGF reserves here are fully depleted. Also as a general principle I think it is a bad idea for Wikipedia to indulge the "I'm taking my toys and going home" behaviour when it comes to encyclopedic content. The precedent it sets for disgruntled editors to remove content they have contributed is... bad. → ROUX ₪ 03:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have zero faith whatsoever that taking up this many kilobytes with what amounts to "Someone needs to talk to the user, but Roux has a past history with him" is conducive to anyone staying with the project. With regard to the deletion of images, if we're talking about him wanting to make a newer, better version, that's fine; I reverted the diffs linked above because I was under the impression the user was ragequitting over his inability to modify the licensing. If the images are going to be mass-deleted for whatever reason in the future, a bot should unlink them with an explanation. This will avoid confusion and have the added benefit of not annoying people with the articles on their watchlists. Recognizance (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The good thing is that Xander's edits were reverted - the images are back in the articles. I think just about all of his speedy deletions were overturned by the admins over on the Commons. It sucks when a contributor throws a hissyfit and spitefully starts destroying all their contributions as some sort of payback - holds their contributions/images hostage. That's where we need admins to step in and set the record straight - that you can't disrupt the project that way. Maybe this thread ought to be marked 'resolved' because really Malke is pointlessly winding Roux up. I think we should just leave this issue be, it's been dealt with. I doubt Xander will pull the same stunt again.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, if Roux is 'wound up' he did it to himself. It was Roux's choice to come here and make this complaint which doesn't need admin action. He could have done nothing, especially as Hamiltonstone didn't even want the image on the page in question. Roux could have waited. There's no emergency on Wikipedia, least of all with the deletion of images. This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. And ignoring the obvious lack of WP:AGF, WP:CANVASS, and WP:HOUND, makes this thread seem like an even bigger hissyfit than anything Xanderliptak has done. Stop hounding the guy. Nobody here likes his images anyway.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, look. Three people now have told you that you don't know what you're talking about. I have pointed out repeatedly that you clearly haven't read any of the links or diffs provided. If you had, you would know that this is really not about the single page which Hamiltonstone is involved with, that was merely the first one where I noticed this problem. Could you please just shut up until you know what you're talking about? → ROUX ₪ 16:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I do see your points. But what I'm talking about is, you should not have come here as your first move. If you really want to start the process, start an RfC/U. Don't come here with every bit you find. Stop looking at his contributions. You're too involved here. I'm actually very sympathetic to you that you are so upset by this. I saw your request for an unblock and I felt very bad for you. But you're coming here first is not a good move. Do you see any admins here doing anything? Xanderliptak has disengaged on this thread. You should do the same. Everybody should do the same. For now, a good solution might be a self-imposed interaction ban, for say three weeks, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm. There is no other option for a first move here. Discussion with Xanderliptak is pointless. RFC/U is less than pointless, it's just a delay of a month while more disruption can occur. I looked at his contributions solely because I saw one weird removal and wanted to know what was going on. You really, really don't have a clue what is going on here, and what has been going on for almost a year. Please cease your uninformed commentary. → ROUX ₪ 17:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at all your diffs, etc. Believe, me, I know exactly what has been going on. Xanderliptak should stop removing images, and you should take a break from this. If you don't look at his contributions, you won't be upset. Let someone else notice things. And how do you know, maybe your comments have made an impression on him. Now it's time to wait and see.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Malke 2010. Xanderliptak has pissed off more than just Roux, and more than just Roux have been restoring all the images he has deleted from articles, declining all the speedies on commons etc. This isn't about two editors arguing, this is about one editor behaving in an out of order way by trying to control the onward disposition of images that they uploaded.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved party passing through: If other contributors have been pissed off then it would probably be best if they make the complaint and follow up on it. Rightly or wrongly, considering their history, Roux's reporting of Xanderliptak here and forceful argumentation against Xanderliptak after the initial notification can give the impression of hounding. Notice of Xanderliptak's actions has been give to the admins here; a continuing prosecution would seem to be unnecessary. Lambanog (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hard to argue with that. Xander certainly has pissed more people off, but it may well be that they have concluded that the horse is already dead. Perhaps it's time to close up here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine. The next time that Xanderliptak pulls something like this--and the next, and the next--I will bring up this thread and the last one, and remind you lot that you had a chance to stop the disruption but ignored it. This editor has attacked others, been rabidly dishonest about others, attempted to own content, been disruptive, etc etc etc, with total impunity. I suggest that admins familiarise themselves with the concept of 'enabling.' → ROUX ₪ 21:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban for User:Jamesinderbyshire

Resolved

 – James agrees he made an embarassing booboo, and we all learned something about Google Books.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to improve Famine in India to a GA level article for the last few weeks. I am no longer able to assume good faith in User:Jamesinderbyshire who is being disruptive per my understanding of policies. I am asking experienced admins to evaluate the matter and enforce an article-space/talk-space topic ban on Jamesinderbyshire.

User:Jamesinderbyshire provided a ficticious reference by misquoting tow authors through an intricate setup of fake links/snippet view from Google books. He typed out the following (fake) quote from page 504 of the book[40]:

“ The Bengal famine "killed more Indians than did two world wars, the entire Independence struggle, Partition and the worst famines of the 19th Century." ”

The quote, if true, would have pretty much put an end to the dispute with Jamesinderbyshire's POV prevailing (my claim was that the late 19th century period of 1875-1900 caused the maximum famine deaths which is a totally different period from the Bengal famine of 1943). I had to spend significant amount to my Wikipedia time to decipher Jamesinderbyshire's intricate setup of book names, authors and bad links to look for the correct books and locate the quote which reads like this:[41]

“ The Bengal famine "killed more Indians than did two world wars, the entire Independence struggle, plus the communal holocaust which accompanied Partition." ”

After pointing out this fallacy, Jamesinderbyshire apologized by claiming it was a mistake but then quickly went back to his pattern of indulging in trolling or original research on a different subtopic of the same article. [42] These are classic symptoms of gaming the system as the essay on fictitious references points out. The same essays states about fictitious references:

• "It is a most serious offense because it compromises the integrity of Wikipedia"
• "Fictitious references are typically those used to support a hoax, original research, essays or opinion passed off as neutral facts"

Of these, Jamesinderbyshire has indulged in two - original research and essays or opinion as has already been pointed out me and another user to Jamesinderbyshire.[43] [44]

The Famine codes and Malnutrition section of the talk page have the relevant details. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I made a mistake in a quote and immediately on having it drawn to my attention corrected and apologised for it. I also expressed an opinion in a talk page about Indian government expenditure. Other editors have also critiqued Zuggernaut's approach to editing the article at Talk:Famine in India. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see the very considered comments by a number of editors at User talk:Zuggernaut in the British Empire section (this row built up originally from an ongoing dispute between Zuggernaut and multiple editors at British Empire) calling on him to restrain himself, explaining that he is misunderstanding POV and in particular one very considered statement there from User:Pfly [45]saying "while I can understand the frustration you might feel when faced with a team of Britons defending the BE page, I have to say your methods have not exactly lent themselves to sympathy from people like me". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You typed out content that was blatantly inaccurate, put quotes around it and used it to support your position. I assumed good faith, you said sorry for the fictitious reference and then continued on with similar behavior. Your strategy is a classic example of someone who is trying to game the system to push your own POV. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage further in silly point-scoring. I apologised for the mistake and I did bot repeat it - the allegation you make about the second item is unrelated to the first. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a real pattern of wrongdoing here? One misquote is not a pattern of POV-pushing, and the only other diffs you provide seem, on the face of it, to be fairly harmless. I'm certainly not seeing enough evidence to suggest any sanctions of Jamesinderbyshire here. I've not really looked into the behaviour of Zuggernaut himself as yet. ~ mazca ^talk 23:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a pattern. On a previous occasion he demonstrated similar behavior when he cited a page number in a book and provided a link which did show some of the pages before and after the page in question but not the actual page being used to strengthen his case. When I looked up the actual page elsewhere, I found that the data was irrelevant to the topic being discussed. [46] Nonetheless, doesn't WP:FAKE talk about a "zero-tolerance policy" for such behavior. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The misquote might be passed over except that Jamesinderbyshire went on to use the misquoted form specifically to support his argument. In my judgement that's a pretty serious error, and an appropriate response to having it pointed out would be for Jamesinderbyshire to withdraw from this particular discussion. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Did he use the misquote to support his argument after it was brought to his attention that the quote was in error? If not, then we should AGF and assume this was a mistake. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm prepared to AGF and assume it was a mistake, but to mistakenly misstate a quote in exactly the way needed to support one's position, where a correct quote would not have supported it at all, is such an appalling mistake that I would want to hide my head in shame if I did it. Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. But as Larry Ubell says on the Leonard Lopate show, he who doesn't make mistakes is probably not doing anything. Best to AGF without passing judgement. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I came here after assuming good faith as I mentioned in an earlier response. Jamesinderbyshire has behaved in a similar manner just a day or two prior to this instance (page 501 of a different book was cited, the provided link had pages 500, 502 but no 501. When I looked up page 501 elsewhere, content was irrelevant to the argument). Maybye this is a case of WP:Competence? Whatever it is, it's caused plenty of disruption because I have to fight hard and spend significant amount of time on what is a very well known statistic. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

We have one minor mistake corrected quickly. This should never come to ANI, but its pretty typical of this user who has both canvassed and forum shopped before on a subject where his edits pursue a clear Indian Nationalist agenda. This is a clear attempt to bully an editor with a sound edit history over multiple articles (including contentious ones) away from the proposers pet subject. If every editor here who made a mistake was blocked no one would be left --Snowded ^TALK 05:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This ANI is not about my behavior. It's about Jamesinderbyshire's attempts to use fictitious references by gaming the system to have his POV/OR prevail. Nonetheless, it's best to check a persons logs/history for the allegations that User:Snowded, Jamesinderbyshire's collaborator is making. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If you bring something to ANI then your behaviour is subject to review. In this comment you are now alleging a conspiracy! I suggest you withdraw this one and start to behave collaboratively with other editors and stop forum shopping. --Snowded ^TALK 18:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to Looie496, I can only say, yes, I was very embarassed - I know it looks like it might have been deliberate, but it really wasn't - I wasn't pasting a source from a Google Books entry, I was manually typing in late at night mytime from a book and I also had in my mind to say something about comparison with the 19th Century figures - the two got conflated and I completed the quote incorrectly. As I said, I did immediately apologise and revert this edit as soon as it was brought to my attention. I do understand how this would look and will try very hard not to make that error again. On Zuggernaut's second point about me behaving "in a similar matter" previously, this is simply incorrect. The reference he refers to is this [47] which does appear on page 501 in the Cambridge Economic History of India Volume 2, it's just that the quick Google Books search does not list page 501 - you have to click page 500 and then follow it down. The table on that page was relevant as it shows overall death statistics in India during the period in debate. Zuggernaut got agitated that I had claimed this covered "famine deaths" and not "general mortality", something I did not claim. I simply raised it as a discussion point and it has been rather unfortunately seized upon as evidence of some kind of malfeasance on my part, which is both unfair and untrue. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who clicks the link in the paragraph above will see that page 501 does not appear in the preview. I get a clear message saying "Page 501 is not part of this book preview." I had to hunt down this book elsewhere, look up page 501 to discover that the page had detailed tables completely irrelevant to our topic as any discerning reader conversant with the article will be able to tell. Sadly this is a pattern with Jamesinderbyshire. He is trying to game the system in order to come up with data that supports his OR or POV. As the WP:FAKE essay points out, these are classic symptoms of someone trying to game the system. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you're just a little unclear as to how Google Books works - the reference is to page 501, which does I assure you exist, which does have the table of data I accurately referred to. In fact, the only one attempting to Game here is you Zuggernaut, as you are attempting to gain uncontrolled access to the article by using ANI to hopefully drive editors off who produce sources you don't like. Note that other editors are busy reverting your latest round of edits to the article because, like me, they feel put out by your attitude. All very ironic because on Talk:British Empire, the original source of all this disgruntlement on your part, I actually tried to take your side and get some attention to the views you were proposing for content in the article; other editors there were so annoyed with your conduct that they wouldn't listen to you. Now you've added another annoyed editor to your growing collection. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In this edit Jamesinderbyshire claims that this source provides a "table of death rates according to a range of academic sources for India between 1871 and 1950." Well, p. 502 of that source does provide such a table. Jamesinderbyshire, hang your head in shame - 501 does not equal 502. Zuggernaut, Jamesinderbyshire made a mistake with one source and has acknowledged it. The only mistake with the second source seems to be that Jamesinderbyshire said 501 instead of 502. Unless I'm missing something I think your claims of WP:GAME and WP:FAKE are completely out of line. TFOWR 17:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Jamesinderbyshire - you said the data goes up to 1950. It actually goes up to 1951. I'll let you off seeing it's the weekend, but do please pay attention. ;-) TFOWR 17:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR, I am honestly trying, and I am honestly also quite confused now. When you go to that book, do you not see the page number as "501" on the page where the table is? I will take another look - perhaps it goes over several pages. As for the end date, yes, I stand corrected - it is 1950! Mistake. Cough. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, 'fraid not! What I'm seeing is at the top of page 502: "Table 5.12 Estimates of Expectation of Life at Birth by Sex, Indian sub-continent, 1871-1951". The bottom of page 500 is text and a couple of footnotes, and page 501 "is not part of this book preview". I wouldn't worry unduly: my chastisement was very definitely tongue-in-cheek. TFOWR 19:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realised, thanks. Strange though - I see a large table on Google Books at page 501, entitled Table 5.11, Death Rate, Infant Mortality Rate in Indian Sub-continent, Various Sources, 1871-1951. The table is sideways on, eg, Landscape Mode. It's quite odd this - do people see Google Books differently? I assure you I am seeing that, I wonder if anyone else who is casually reading this can say if they are? Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, definitely don't get it. I can tell you, based on the tables I can see, that Table 5.11 is either on page 499 or page 501. I'm going to WP:AGF here and assume you're not trying to mislead me, and it really isn't on page 499 ;-) TFOWR 19:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's more a case of assuming sanity I think - hopefully I am still in one piece and when I see "Page 501" it really exists and not just in my head! My hold on reality is starting to depend on confirmation from other editors in talk pages... Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Aha, wait a moment. The table in this book is in portrait, not in landscape, and on a page that has 502 printed on the page top and bottom. Clearly TFOWR is looking at table 5.12 and James is looking at Table 5.11, although I can't figure out how he can see it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - Jamesinderbyshire maintains that there's a mystical "page 501" between pages 500 and 502, and an equally mystical "Table 5.11" somewhere between "Table 5.10" and "Table 5.12". ;-) TFOWR 15:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Google Books presents things differently to different people in different parts of the world. (I had firsthand experience of this in an AFD discussion, several years ago; and I've seen the issue come up many times in the years since.) There are many reasons behind this. Officially, Google Books tries to respect different countries' copyright requirements. But there are almost certainly other factors at work, including things like incomplete database replication. Hence two maxims to remember:

• Don't ever just point to a Google Books search results page. What you see will not be what other people see. They won't necessarily see the results in the same order as you. They won't even necessarily see all of the same books as you.
• Don't use bare Google Books external hyperlinks as citations. Give a proper citation, with the title, author, publisher, year of publication, and page number. Supply the ISBN, where available, so that people can follow the Wikipedia:Booksources hyperlink to a book source of their choice. (For discussion pages, I personally use a brief ISBN+page number format. But for articles, always a full citation and never a Google Books hyperlink.)

Uncle G (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Uncle G, I didn't know that Google Books result vary to different user groups like that - I've not seen them much used in actual sourcing but they are pretty widely deployed during talk page discussions, so it's important to know about this and I will keep it in mind. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

One feels there must be a guideline or help page somewhere that this advice gets added to - I always use cite book templates for Google books, but I was unaware that it showed different pages in different locations. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

New for me as well. That said this is now a content issue. Unless someone wants to look into Zuggernaut's behaviour in running to ANI about one mistake quickly corrected I'd suggest that this is closed off and discussion continues on the talk page of the article itself. --Snowded ^TALK 12:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Other than a general suggestion to zuggernaut that using ANI as a weapon in editorial battles is perhaps not the best of ideas, I'd say this is a dead horse that has no further need or desire to be flogged. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Zug seems to have slunk off. Unless James wants to make something of it, I suggest we mark this as resolved. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No argument here. Thanks for the various points of advice and will try to take them all on board. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Range block pretty please

Note:Move from AIV per admin request:

• 63.118.16.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) range block needs to be reinstated. The IP range has been blocked twice for BLP policy violations and insertion of ethnic/descent categories to biographies. Previous ANI discusions here and here Original blocking admin is no longer active, so I'm making the range block request here. --Jezebel'sPonyo
  •  Done blocked this one IP for 1 year. This was not of the same range as the ANI thread indicated before, do you know what the prior rangeblock was, and do you have evidence that he is operating from that range now? --Jayron32 00:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It was actually another editor who supplied the difs on my talk page, I just brought the issue here for follow-up. Reviewing the difs again it's apparent the now blocked IP is not related to the previous ANI complaints. He is however returning to the same behaviour that he has been blocked for twice previously, so thank you for giving him the year off. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Kubura - hounding, sock puppetry, disruptive editing, personal attacks

Background

User Kubura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of conflict with other editors over articles relating to Croatia. See his contribs. On 4 October I made two reversions of pending changes to previously accepted versions of Croatian language: [48] and [49]. As there appeared to be an edit war starting, I asked in the edit summaries for discussions of changes to take place on the article's talk page to attempt to reach some consensus. As the user, Jack Sparrow 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and some Croatian IPs had continuously made the same edit, I asked for page protection [50].

Hounding

Kubura arrived at my talk page two days later to obviously make a WP:POINT and posted a 3RR warning [51] to which I responded explaining that he was in error and that my only involvement was as a reviewer, that he should feel free to either strike out the warning or recognise his error or not but that either way he should at least check contribution histories before lashing out and issuing warnings out of some vendetta. He chose to do neither, and in his response he addressed another user who had commented, and used a phrase that does not pop up often (see Sock puppetry below) "don't etiquette the opponent as nationalists."

I removed the warning myself two days later only for Kubura to return a further two days later and reinstate it with the summary "No censorship. You appeared on edit warring on 4 Oct 2010 with 2 reverts in 28 minutes, without explanation on the talkpage." A page watcher saw the reinstatement and removed it here [52]. Getting thoroughly peeved with this WP:HOUNDING I asked Kubura to stop posting irrelevant warnings on my talk page. Kubura responded that as far as he was concerned I was part of a tag team pushing POV on the article. I attempted again to impress upon Kubura that he was wrong not to AGF my 2 reversions of 4 October, that I was not part of a tag team or anti-Croatian conspiracy and that I was fed up to the eyeballs with his hounding. He then repeated his tag team allegation to an admin, stating that I was gaming the system: [53].

His next step in his campaign of harassment was to complain about me at WP:WQA here: [54]. This was in the midst of another rampage of WP:POINT warnings, where he issued notices of WP:ARBMAC to everyone who he disagreed with, and then posted to another user a hint to do his dirty work for him in reporting User:Kwamikagami to WP:ANI here: [55] as he could hardly go there himself due to unclean hands.

Sock puppetry, disruptive editing and personal attacks

Kubura has since made no logged in edits, however the campaign of disruptive editing and hounding has been continued by Croatian IPs: [56], [57], [58] including the same allegation of censorship directed at me that Kubura used, [59], [60] demonstrating an understanding of wiki editing, [61]. The IP focuses his attacks on me (for censorship), and Kubura's two other favourite targets, Kwamikagami and User:Ivan Štambuk. He specifically cites Kwamikagami's WP:INVOLVED investigation, and another subject close to Kubura's heart, Ivan's "insults." Another Croatian IP, 83.131.95.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeated the same arguments used by Kubura, made personal attacks calling other editors "liars", and trotted out the same phrases including the accusation that people were "ettiqueted as Croatian nationalist," an unusual turn of phrase used by Kubura.

I call WP:DUCK.

Relief

In view of the above, I am raising these matters for the attention of others, and request that you consider if any action should be taken against Kubura. Personally, I believe he should be blocked indefinitely, but I leave the conclusions to be drawn by, and any outcome decided, to my peers. Keristrasza (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Keristrasza's evaluation of the situation with User:Kubura. Keristrasza has been totally uninvolved with the discussions at Talk:Croatian language, but Kubura dragged him/her in nonetheless with ridiculous accusations. Kubura's hounding goes beyond just Keristrasza as well. He/she actively sought out someone who has a past history of reporting User:Kwamikagami for admin issues. This research turned up User:Neutralhomer, and Kubura posted this on his/her talk page. Neutralhomer then trotted over to WP:AN/I and used Kubura's information to initiate an AN/I complaint against Kwamikagami (a complaint which led nowhere). Kubura has contributed nothing to the discussion at Talk:Croatian language and has been disruptive on the Talk pages of those who oppose his/her POV. --Taivo (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This thread was archived for being over 24 hours old. Is this the wrong noticeboard, and if so to which one should I move it? Covering as it does vandalism, sock puppetry, and arbcom rulings, I am unsure which would be the most suitable Keristrasza (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that no one cared to act on your complaint. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In other words, a green light for him to just carry on regardless. Oh well, c'est la vie. Keristrasza (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Completely undiscussed controversial climate change move needs reverting

A less than a month old account that originally claimed to be a WP:CLEANSTART case and still has no obvious link to the user's previous identity has just moved Climate change denial to Criticism of Climate Change (yes, complete with the wrong capitalisation) without any prior discussion. To avoid a move war, can an uninvolved admin please move back so that a discussion at WP:RM can be started cleanly. Thank you. Hans Adler 06:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Done and move protection enabled. Toddst1 (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarity, can you or someone provide a diff to the account's claim of cleanstart? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

da diff Toddst1 (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See new section below, which I have been preparing since I started this report. Off to a lecture now. Hans Adler 07:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, and I was just thinking I'd seen this user's editing style before.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem... See here**Terra Novus's Diff**..I will stop editing this article if it really is such a issue due to me being a recent WP:CLEANSTART, but I hope that the more experienced editors involved will fix this article's WP:NPOV issues...--Novus Orator 07:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As a relevant aside, I'm about to close the Climate Change ArbCom case (once I have breakfast) and will be posting the details later today. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

About the user

After some additional research, here is some further reading:

• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive638#Edit warring on Cryptozoology articles – 13-15 September, ANI discusses what to do with the disruption caused by the Gniniv in cryptozoology area
• Gniniv claims to retire (15 September)
• First edit by Terra Novus claims clean start (18 September)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Terra Novus/Archive – 28 September, user asks for CU to clear them from suspected connection with FellGleaming
• User talk:Carcharoth#Confirmation – 1 October; user goes to an arbitrator's talk page for rubber stamping of their "clean start" after it came out that they had not notified anyone after disappearing while community action against them was discussed
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#User:Gniniv / User:Terra Novus / "Novus Orator" – 4 October ANI discussion
• Undiscussed highly contentious move in climate change area
• Extreme POV editing in climate change area

This seems to be a competence problem rather than bad faith, but something needs to be done. Hans Adler 07:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If certain types of editing are causing similar issues in other topics, then a topic ban is unlikely to do much good. Unless the Community is willing to put the user on probation (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for examples), or a mentorship thing (which is a timesink), I'm not sure anything short of a ban or indef block would be able to address such a situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage this editor to take this opportunity to completely leave all controversial topics, or at least to return to his initial account. To Terra Novus, if you continue having problems like this with the new account, I think you'll quickly be banned, since you will be taking too much community time when people have to figure out what you're up to. If you want to keep trying to improve controversial topics, and you want a fair hearing, you should go back to your other account. Really, I would recommend getting out of contentious topics altogether, since candidly, you don't show a sensitivity to the types of things that will get you in trouble across the board. But for maximum leeway you should surely go back to your first account. Only if you are extremely confident that you can stay out of all controversial topics altogether with this account, as well as any areas in which you've previously edited, is there any remotely plausible chance that you will not be sanctioned under this new account, at least in my opinion. Mackan79 (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART is quite clear in its statement that editors who decide to place {{retired}} on their original account and create a new account should not return to edit the articles/subjects that they previously edited as it could lead to WP:SOCK issues. If the intent was to simply keep editing the same way, one cannot claim cleanstart. One can hold an WP:Alternate account for specific purposes, but at this point, the new account does not meet them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, and as I said above I have stopped editing Climate Change articles. If any one will take the time to look at my edit history as Terra Novus (After my cleanstart), they will see that I have adhered to the noncontentious topics policy in the articles I have chosen to edit. This was just a ignorant misstep on my part into a new subject that was too contentious. As I acted in good faith (and, to be honest, in ignorance of the move request policy) I hope that the community will understand my full adherence to Wikipedia's principles.--Novus Orator 04:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Other recent edits

I've taken the time Terra Novus suggests, to review his edits, and I'm sorry to say that I can't agree that he's stuck to non-contentious topics or edited in a responsible manner within them:

• In this edit to the Pro-life article we get blatant misrepresentation of the cited source, which says, verbatim: "Traditional Jewish teachings sanction abortion as a means of safeguarding the life and well-being of a mother. While the Reform, Reconstructionist and Conservative movements openly advocate for the right to a safe and accessible abortion, the Orthodox movement is less unified on the issue."

• In this edit to the Green Party article we get the Green Party represented as "Socialism", via a sidebar, with no edit summary and no use of the talk page.

• In the Swedish welfare article we get drive-by POV tagging with no edit summary and no use of the talk page.

• In this edit to the Solid South political article more drive-by tagging, with an edit summary this time but still no use of the talk page.

• Our article on Race initially had this sentence that accurately summarized its four sources,

This new science has led many mainstream evolutionary scientists in anthropology and biology to question the very validity of race as a scientific concept describing an objectively real phenomenon.¹²³⁴

Then Terra Novus came along and first gave us this remarkable passage,

After the rise of the New Left amongst academia, a modified population genetics reflected a new understanding of the sources of phenotypic variation. Pressure from demographic groups in society has led many mainstream evolutionary scientists in anthropology and biology to question the very validity of race as a scientific concept describing an objectively real phenomenon, although, ironically, they were the ones who historically popularized the concept. (See also Political Correctness).¹²³⁴

and then eventually gave us this sentence, which cites the same four refs but grossly misrepresents their meaning:

This new thought has lead most modern scientists in anthropology and biology to totally discount the validity of naturalistic racism.¹²³⁴

• In this edit to the article on Messianic Judaism we get argumentative, pro-Christian tags inserted into a simple statement taken directly from its cited source on what Jews believe about Jesus.

• In this John Birch Society edit we get a change from the correct full statement,

The Southern Poverty Law Center, lists the society as a "Patriot' Group". Its definition of patriot groups includes: "Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the 'New World Order' or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines".

to this truncated one,

The Southern Poverty Law Center, lists the society as a "Patriot' Group". Its definition of patriot groups includes: "Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the 'New World Order'.

The SPLC cited reference did indeed include the phrase "or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines."

I appreciate and value Terra Novus' contributions to space vehicle articles, volcano articles, and similarly non-controversial articles. I also imagine he believes he's doing the right thing by making these kinds of changes. But it's my clear impression from these and other edits that he's so agenda-driven that he will purposely distort controversial articles to match his political and religious beliefs without respect for the sources they cite. He doesn't seem to be able subordinate his beliefs to the policies we're all required to abide by in order to contribute here. I have no idea what the best remedy for this problem might be, but I know it needs one. This pattern cannot be allowed to continue.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the impressive presentation. Since this came after a claimed clean start (which was very ill-advised but presumably in good faith), I guess the best way forward would be a mentorship, possibly in combination with a topic ban for contentious topics and contentious edits, and an understanding that once there is a mentor available the user can no longer claim to have been ignorant about an edit's controversial nature. Hans Adler 17:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I will be happy to accept the advice and help of a more experienced user...If anyone is willing to give me comments and correction as I work on becoming less biased that would be much appreciated...--Novus Orator 03:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

A start would be to remove the statement "Please join me in helping lower WP:Systematic bias on Wikipedia. " from your user page. I hadn't looked at your contributions recently and hadn't realised the extent of the continuing problem. You also need to make it clear that you are not going to continue what I can only call a campaign and avoid any articles that you would believe would fall into the scope of such a campaign, as you don't appear to be able to "subordinate our beliefs to the policies we're all required to abide by in order to contribute here." I'd definitely support a topic ban for contentious topics and contentious edits. Dougweller (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Hans Adler is being a bit generous here. Terra Novus is presumably intelligent enough to figure out when his edits are to an area that has a political or religious controversy attached to it (race, abortion etc etc). He knows he has strong views in some areas - I don't think those are going to get any less strong. Ergo, I don't see that a mentor to 'make him aware of an edit's controversial nature' is necessary at all. Every edit that people are complaining about, Terra Novus seems to hold the view that things are being 'distorted' by political pressure or bias. Therefore, if he ever feels it necessary to make an edit that 'corrects' this 'distortion', he needs to raise it on the talk page first. The same should be true of any editor - they shouldn't just be barging into an article, changing content on the grounds of 'religious bias', 'political correctness' or whatever. I don't think TN needs a mentor, and I don't think his own views are going to change substantially. He just needs to follow the rules - if you think something needs changing because of your views on the subject, get into a discussion.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I was making an assumption on Novus Orator's age that may or may not be correct and probably doesn't need further discussion. Also most people have a lot more exposure to demagogy than to rational arguments, and many editors seem to believe that everything is about opinion and feelings (probably reflecting the state of the US popular media) – so Wikipedia's norms take some getting used to. If nobody volunteers as a mentor, my proposal is moot anyway. In any case I support an indefinite (not infinite) topic ban for all contentious areas and all contentious edits to other areas. Hans Adler 12:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the SPLC definition of "Patriot groups" it is possible that the definition, in itself, as it covers a large range of groups and motivations, might be misconstrued by some readers with regard to the infamous Birch society, with an thought that all of the ascribed factors are thus applicable to that group. To that extent, the attempt at truncation is likely defensible. Collect (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Not without a source that says that the SPLC only applies those specific elements of the category to the JBS it ain't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As OhioStandard rightly points out, much of the sourcing in TN's edits does not stand up to scrutiny. Here is another example from today in interracial marriage: [62]. The original content was unsourced, but the source provided by TN was no better (the website of an interracial dating agency). On Heim theory, there is no reliable secondary mainstream source available that describes this theory as an "emerging theory". After TN's edits to the lede,[63] ("trimming"), it is not apparent to the reader that this is a fringe theory, not currently within mainstream physics. These were two random examples. Mathsci (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the dating agency link was already there as a URL - Terra Novus just turned it into a cite template footnote. Horrible ref, which I've removed now. Rd232 ^talk 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

@Dougweller I am going to revise the Systematic bias statement on my user page to "Please be aware of Systematic Bias and do your best to correct it"...I think that would be less inflammatory. I don't think it is wrong for me to bring awareness to WP:Systematic bias as a issue, because it is something that the Wikipedia community is attempting to correct...--Novus Orator 03:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the concern was that you appear to have misunderstood the meaning of "systemic bias". It is not systemic bias if our articles are written based on an understanding that rape, slavery and torture are criminal and should not be allowed, or that Hollow Earth theory and alien abduction are not to be taken seriously. There is no significant difference of opinion about these topics between various cultures. Systemic bias is about the problem that we have more editors writing about the most trivial details of today's commercial children's toys than about classical antiquity, and more editors writing about obscure differences between two closely related languages that for some reason matter to nationalists, than editors writing about the major indigenous languages of South Africa. Hans Adler 08:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Revealing personal identity

User ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log), in this diff reveled my personal identity. That was my username before, so he knows it from then. As this problematic user (whose block expired in less the 15 days ago) was well aware of Wikipedia:Harassment policy, and informed several times about it, i would like urgent admin reaction regarding this incident. Also, i would love some insurance that this user will not again do this. I didn't removed my name, but someone should do that also. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry I forgot about that(btw you were discussing this with another editor not me, since you've never reported me for that), but I'll remove it myself and an oversight should delete the diff. I'm sorry about it, but I honestly forgot about it(and my first block has nothing to do with that as for being problematic the verdict is on my 31 DYKs).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have Rev/Deleted both the original post and the correction mentioned above (because the diff shows what was changed from as well as to) and restored the corrected post to the page. I have also warned ZjarriRrethues about being so careless in future and, per WP:AGF, hope that this concludes the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, NEVER place a link to a diff containing personal information on any page on Wikipedia, including this one. In stead, send it STRAIGHT to oversight. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Suicide threat

Resolved

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Authorities contacted

This edit is probably vandalism but I leave it in your capable hands. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 03:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC) It's more like a cry for help in my opinion. Seems like the IP has now been blocked, but perhaps the legal authorities should be notified also? In any case, no admin intervention is necessary here that I can see, so it should be marked resolved. Whose Your Guy (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC) I blocked the IP. I will leave it to others to deal with the now-reverted vandalism. RevDel may be appropriate, as may contacting the local authorities. I have no opinion on that matter, and someone else can take up those causes if they so desire, but the IP is blocked. --Jayron32 03:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC) IP locates to atlanta; please do not revdel for at least 48hours.Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC) That's not the geolocation that I'm seeing.  :) I've got another set of eyes looking at it. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Just a note for all: The Foundation is aware and actively investigating at this time. Jalexander-Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Does someone notify the foundation of these recently or are they just monitoring for such occurrences? Either way, does this mean the foundation is contacting the local authorities now? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 04:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC) A combination of both. Usually we get quick notification from this board. Tonight, I happened to be reading it. Yes, the Foundation will assume the responsibility of contact if that's appropriate (I haven't done any significant investigation on it yet). Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you very much to everyone who took the time to investigate. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC) As final confirmation, the Foundation has contacted the authorities. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Xxmatt2010xx

Resolved

 – Articles deleted and salted, user warned. Incidentally, the base article Matthew Allen doesn't look fantastically notable either.. Black Kite (t) (c)

The above user had a final warning in July re his persistent attempts to create an article about his (non-notable) self as Matthew Dieu Allen. Up for WP:Proposed deletion (been there 6 days so its about to go) is Matthew Allen (actor). It is the same one. I'd just left a note on his talkpage re a Prod-2 recommendation that it be salted and a COI notice - but only then did I check out the rest of the page and see the final warning there. Plutonium27 (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You're nicer than I am; I would have tagged that for A7 in a second. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Me nice? Aw shucks. No, I'm just a bit dim. I prod-2'd it just to suggest to the deleting admin to salt it as the original tagger mentioned previous attempts. And as its 6 days since it was tagged I reckoned it would go any time now. I didn't realise til a bit later it had been created 4 times before and there was a final warning in there . Plutonium27 (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if I didn't know it was a recreation, I probably still would have tagged it- whether it would have been deleted is another matter. Anyways, this guy seems to have a terminal case of either IDIDNTHEARTHAT or incompetence, and I'm not seeing any signs of improvement. You issued him a warning about salting the article title; I'd say that suffices for a final warning. If not, someone can drop by and do the honors if they're so inclined. Seems he got a final warning in July over this, and just kept on going. Prospects for improvement don't look too promising. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is in fact the sixth time he's tried to create an article about himself, using three permutations. Four times as Matthew Dieu Allen (once in 2007, twice in April 2010 and once in July 2010), once as Matthew dieu Allen (also April 2010) and now Matthew Allen (actor). Other contribs are not impressive: projects he's been involved with and stuff for crystal (all speedied). There are still many variations on the name but and apparently no end in sight to his endeavour.Plutonium27 (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S.bonus: base article tagged Plutonium27 (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Pointy AFD nomination of Western Azerbaijan

Resolved

 – AfD was closed as speedy keep by Stickee. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ninetoyadome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has nominated Western Azerbaijan for AFD, claiming the article is "basically an azeri fairy tale which doesnt have any evidence to back up". This is a fairly disruptive AFD nomination of what appears to be a fairly sourced article on the basis of nationalistic politics. The user has only edited Armenia-related articles to date, which is why this is appears to be a WP:SPA, and I doubt any communication with the user would get anywhere in this case. Therefore, on the basis of WP:IAR, I'm bringing this issue directly here. A speedy keep and slap on the wrist would be good. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 08:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Re: Justus Maximus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could an administrator please hide Justus Maximus' soapboxing at Talk:Communist terrorism and warn him to stop. I have already warned him on his talk page. Here is his latest posting. All these lengthy postings argue from the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and other early writers that Marxism is pro-terrorist. But articles must be based on secondary sources and therefore these postings are distracting. TFD (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"must be"? Not quite. Reread the guidelines on sources - primary sources may, indeed, be used to show what the primary sources state. Thus the writings of Marx are absolutely proper sources for what Marx wrote. Marx used the word "terrorismus" which is quite akin to "terrorism." The German word "terror" is also akin to the English word "terror." Collect (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There are actually scholars who have made a study of Marx and Marxism, and it is not necessary for us to comb through his works and determine what he really meant. Furthermore, it is wrong to then form interpretations of the actions of the Soviet Union and of modern terrorist groups based on our interpretations of Marx. I realize that you may be able to do this, but that is original research. TFD (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This would appear to be a content dispute. Collect, while it is perfectly acceptable to quote Marx as saying "I hate white rabbits" it is not acceptable to interpret this into an explanation for the Soviet government's approach to Alice in Wonderland without a reliable source for the interpretation, and you know this full well. Ergo anyone attempting an to get an argument from first principles into a Wikipedia article is always going to run into WP:OR issues, even if this isn't soapboxing. Ultimately it doesn't matter what Justus Maximus thinks, what matters is what the sources say. Suggest everyone get back to discussing that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have already provided scholarly sources stating that Marx advocated revolutionary terror etc., such a the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, in the Discussion. At no point have I demanded that my personal views be included in the article. What I requested to be included were observations made by scholars, which should be considered as legitimate by any standard. Justus Maximus (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been in part a content dispute but it is rapidly becoming a behaviour issue. We need a few uninvolved editors to take a look, and someone sympathetic needs to provide some mentoring to Justus on the use of primary sources. --Snowded ^TALK 09:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should first explain why Paul Siebert is removing my contributions on dubious grounds and why legitimate sources like the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Robert Service, etc., are "inadmissible" for the purposes of the article. Without these sources the article seems incomplete it being silent on where later strands of Communist terrorism got their inspiration and ideological justification from. Justus Maximus (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"The German word "terror" is also akin to the English word "terror."" Not only that, but in some cases the German original has "terrorism" as I pointed out in the Discussion. Justus Maximus (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi

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

Not sure what to do with this editor. He's your pretty standard truth warrior ideologue and is going badly off the rails. Since the point-fest that was his article on "Judiasm and bus stops" which he freely aditted to having created because he was struggling to have an article on Judaism and violence deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops) his edits have grown increasingly aggressive and bizarre. He's been using a fringe source to try to brand Istanbul, Tiberias, Sanaa, as the "Islamic cities of hell" (using an apocryphal hadith from the 12th century from a traveller that hated these cities). For instance "ISLAM CALLS THIS CITY HELL HELL HELL HELL", [64]. He recently sought to remove the fairly basic fact that Hebron is a holy city to Muslims (since they believe the prophet abraham is buried there and that Muhamad stopped there on his night journey to jerusalem) [65]. Almost all of his edits have a slant -- either downgrading the muslim interest in a place, or seeking to create the impression that there are so many Islamic "holy cities" (for instance, he's just added the absurdity that Kairouan is considered by "many muslims to Islams fourth holiest city") that there interest in places like Hebron and Jerusalem is of no matter (I also saw him recently seeking to downgrade the non-contreversial fact that the original Muslim Qibla was towards Jerusalem with some irrelevancies about language in the Koran [66]). The sheer volume of this stuff is impossible to keep up with, and he just reverts and brushes off appeals to stop. He, charitably, is either not equipped to write on mainstream Islamic views, or is so equipped, but is simply using wikipedia to make political points. I won't oppose the edits of a propagandist any more. Hopefully this will be dealt with.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently he's had a bee in his bonnet about Islam and "holiest sites" back to 2006, according to this AN/I report from then [67].Bali ultimate (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the rest of this, I must say that it is certainly not absurd to describe Kairouan as "Islam's fourth holiest city". This is what I was told and read when I went to Tunisia many years ago; and there are over 200,000 Google repeating this[68]. RolandR (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Times' military correspondent wrote of Kairouan in 1939: "What a Hell of a place to put a Holy City". But unfortunatley Roland, we cannot rely on users' own experiences of what they "know" or what they have "heard". Only published RS are sufficient. That a user can remove material on the premise that it "has never heard of Damascus being a holy city in Islam" is unacceptable. Chesdovi (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly acceptable. According to our verifiability policy, unsourced material can and should be challenged and, if challenged, the people who want to include the material need to provide backing for it in reliable secondary sources. Removing that unsourced claim is quite OK. Reyk _YO! 21:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

And if it's sourced with 8 citiations....? Chesdovi (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue was that you reverted several times without adding the sources, and now that you have added something others feel that the sources don't actually back up the claim being made. I don't presume to know enough about Islam to judge about that; you need to discuss it on the talk page. Reyk _YO! 22:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Before I moved material from Hebron, I at least made a token search to see if I could find RS. "Bali" just removes anything he has not "heard of before"! I also noted the removal on the talk page. When I have added sourced material at Sana, it is again removed. I am quite capable of discussing matters amicably as I did when I added Tiberias is a city of Hell in Islam. But I will not have anything to do with "Bali", who describes my work in rude terms and airs his views in the most repulsive of fashions. Chesdovi (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subject but Sana'a should be protected because of an edit war, and Bali you should know better by reverting that information as vandalism, as you did with your first revert, and with Istanbul even though it's not vandalism. And Chesdovi for reverting back and not using the talk page, and looking closely at your edits, your edits keep getting reverted, and you hardly go to the talk page and as the creator of the clearly WP:POINT Judaism and bus stops, some sort of saction should be placed on you. Secret ^account 21:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions belong on the "other" editor involved here. I am within my rights to abstain from comunicating with that editor, a most abusive and intimidating user whose use of profanities is outrageous. Chesdovi (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Err, Bali...even UNESCO think that Kairouan is a major Islamic holy city [69]. Chesdovi, you have every right to ask not to be sworn at, but you cannot complain if another editor uses bad language in a non specific way even if you don't like it. You must keep using the talk page. Plainly not all of your edits are outright wrong, some would appear to be, but if you don't communicate with anyone, all that will happen is that you end up being blocked for edit warring. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want anything to do with this "Bali". He has been creepily followng me around ever since I raised concern about his violation of WP:CIVIL. Chesdovi (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you need to be upfront with everyone else, and you need to add the sources THE FIRST TIME, not the seventh time.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. But if users want sources, they could add a tag. If they want to stir up trouble, they prefer to remove and revert and then report. You can see the wonderful additions I made to qibla. My additions were a real improvement, and "Bali" uses it as an "example" of how I "downgrade the non-controversial facts", yet it is very clear from the discussion at Jerusalem that the issue is not so simple after all. Chesdovi (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Links to European American

There seems to be a rather odd campaign underway to replace references to White people in the United States in a wide swath of articles with references to European American. This is particularly inapt in articles reporting U.S. Census data on "White" people, who may descend from geographic origins as far-ranging as Israel and Afghanistan. The issue was specifically addressed and resolved by community discussion at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States#Discussion of use of European American and White American on this page, but this is a one-article resolution. Advice for a swift and complete resolution would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands dispute

OK Everyone, this was posted on my talk page. And seeing as I can't make heads or tails between the two bickering parties, I'm going to repost it here. I really don't have much comment other than to note that Phoenix7777 indeed makes the poor choice of labeling any edits he disagrees with as vandalism. So this is posted from my talk page; if anybody can make heads or tails of it, by all means please step in, because I feel like I'm having the Chewbacca defense thrown at me. Regards, Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

quoted from talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Magog the Ogre, I would like some assistance in dealing with an edit-war that's occurring in Senkaku Islands dispute. In a nut-shell, this page is about a territorial dispute between China and Japan. While POV-pushing is a common occurrence in that page, a long-time editor of the page known as User:Phoenix7777 Special:Contributions/Phoenix7777 has recently took it upon himself to revert practically every attempt to correct pro-Japanese misinformation presented on the page. This includes numerous types of contents that had been discussed extensively and properly justified. To name a very good example, a figure and reference of a newspaper article published by "People's Daily" or "Remin Ribao" was used in the article. The article said a number of things, which are widely confirmed by Chinese editors and very well discussed: (1) "Senkaku Islands" was listed as a constituent of "Ryukyu Islands", which is not the same as "Okinawa" (2) "Ryukyu Islands" was occupied by the U.S. at the time of the article's writing (3) The author of the article explicitly disagreed with how the U.S. and Japan conspired to have the U.S. annex the "Ryukyu Islands". However, some editors grossly misused this article and decided that it is evidence that claims "Chinese recognition of Senkaku Islands". Also, in the figure caption, the same editors persisted to put "(Okinawa)" beside "Ryukyu Islands" Phoenix7777 when the figure did not make such an equality (nor Okinawa is ever the same as Ryukyu Islands even when under U.S. occupation). Even though the degree of misuse is very obvious and occupied several threads of discussion(1, 2, 3), Phoenix7777 still refuses to acknowledge the error. He tried to justify his point by citing a load of outside Japanese review articles that made the same logical mistake, but that still doesn't change the fact that the original referenced newspaper articles did not recognize Japanese control of the Senkaku Islands (which also had been pointed out to him several times). Needless to say, he also reverts attempts (1, 2) of correcting the mistake on the article and even threatened to report me of "vandalism". This is only one of several examples of his disruptive behaviour. I think other editors more affected by his conduct may be able to provide even more examples. In addition, there were others who complained about his edit-warring in the past (1, 2. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Note: This complaint has been notified to San9663, Winstonlighter ‎ and STSC by User: Bobthefish2. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I will explain the recent edits I've reverted as vandalism. San9663 (talk · contribs) removed a description from a direct quote[70] and by the very next edit removed the corresponding description from the paragraph.[71] Bobthefish2 (talk · contribs) removed a citation and a cited description[72] and by the very next edit added a {{cn]] to the sentence.[73] Aren’t these vandalism? I ask Magog to warn them or to block them for an appropriate period.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC) It's puzzling that you insist to only selectively read certain sentences of my writing and not others. As I've addressed before in here and in previous discussions, many of your citations were inaccurate in their reading of the source they cited. The disagreement is not even a matter of subjectivity, but rather a matter of definition. If an article unambiguously says "A" and not "B" and your sources say this article says "B", then your sources are wrong. And needless to say, your cited description is also misinformation by extension because it is advocating that the original newspaper article is saying something it is not. This is a VERY simple refutation and I am surprised you can't come to terms with that. Anyhow, I believe it is a very clear-cut case of who's actually vandalizing and engaging in an edit-war to push his POV. If an admin can't set an example of destructive interference like this, then it will be hard for editors who are actually interested in writing objectively to do anything. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Note. A canvassed user San9663 came to comment here. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Sans9663 is not a canvassed user. What I filed was a complaint and not an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. I did not ask for a consensus and as a result, there is no vote to stack. What I did do was to notify two other editors who had made similar complaints in the recent past and another editor who's planning to file the same complaint. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC) The reasoning of my edit was fully explained in the note, following the reasoning of another editor (john smith)'s principle suggested in a preceding edit elsewhere. It did not change the content as all, just removed some redudant description wich were repeated in the saem entry and could be found by simply following the wiki link. While Phoenix7777 had made several edits which were POV and controversial, and changed "claim/POV" by removing the source/claim in the sentence to make it look as if were undisputed fact, often right through reverting without discussing. Recent examples can be found here and here. I tried to convince him through talk page but since he put my name here I had no other choice but to repsond and raise the issue. San9663 (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Oh yes, I forgot about that too. I don't think User:Magog the Ogre will want to go through the Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute talk/history pages, but all the evidence are there. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC) This is another example of sabotage, and has been done various times. San9663 (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Actually we don't need wikilinks to all of the alternative name which double-redirected to the most widely accepted name. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Another example of User:Phoenix7777's destructive behaviour can be found in the Rare earth element's history. While on the surface, it appears he is removing a link to a term because the link already existed earlier in the article, a closer look will show that numerous chemical compounds or elements in this page were linked more than once (i.e. monazite, loparite, cerium, and more). To add context to this, he is not a participant of that wiki page and the edit he reverted belonged to User:San9663, whose reverts are regularly targeted by him (and often for no justifiable reason). Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Statement from the accused user

I misunderstood the interpretation of the vandalism. User:Qwyrxian explained me and I understood. See my talk page. I apologize for my misuse of the term. However the unexplained removal of a citation or a cited material I labeled as vandalism is still a malicious edit unacceptable to this community. Please note the problem is that User:Bobthefish2 is insisting the edits made by Bobthefish2 and San9663 are not vandalism but legitimate edits instead of malicious deletions. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already gave you the reasons why they were bad references in a thread where you listed them. For some reason, you like to pretend the counterarguments and refutations never existed! To repeat myself for the gazillionth time, whatever you cited was completely and unambiguously wrong.

And of course, I don't care if you apologize for mislabeling us as vandals because that does not encompass the worst of your behaviour. I filed this complaint because you've been vandalizing other people's edits including mine. You've reverted contents that were against your position regardless of whether or not they were backed by sound justification. Then later on, you even turned this into a game. Just look at how you followed User:San9663 around and reverted his edits in pages where you have no previous activities on. Your contributions page says it all. I am also not the only one who has run out of patience with you. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that User:Phoenix7777 has just reverted yet another attempt to remove his dubious references and claims which were, again, very unambiguously refuted in multiple threads. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I am an involved editor on the page, although in the specific dispute above I think my only involvement was to correct Phoenix7777 on the use of the term vandalism. Hopefully, based on the apology above, xe will not do so again. I will say that this article is definitely a problem right now, as it's 1) a big mess, so it needs major revision, but 2) is extremely politically charged (i.e., enough that the related topic is causing riots and acts of violence in China against Japan right now), and so 3) is very difficult to make edits to. Yesterday, User:Bobthefish2 came to my page asking what he thinks we should do: [74]. My response ([75]) is that the next best step is probably Full Page Protection (on both Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute), for about a week or two. As I told Bobthefish2, I would make the request myself, except for the fact that I recently made the most recent significant changes (moving a sentence and citation from the main article to the dispute article), so I don't want people to think I'm trying to protect "my version", especially when neither article is even close to what I would consider my "preferred" version. I do invite admins to take a look, and then lock the page down for some time, in any wrong version that you arbitrarily like. My feeling is that if we (all) can't get into a more collaborative editing mode in the next week or two, we're going to have to seek mediation. I don't agree with Bobthefish2's most recent comment on my talk page, [76], which recommends "the worst vandals and their IPs" being banned from participating on the article, because I don't see anyone who meets that criteria. Instead, I'm seeing mildly problematic editing from multiple different editors on both political sides of the debate, but no one person is particularly worse, and I don't see anything so bad, yet (although, like the real-world situation, we're riding on the edge all the time). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)--Sorry, but I'm removed the resolved tag. It seems wrong to me to claim in less than 1 hour after Magog posted here that the issue is resolved. Can't we just give this at least half a day to see if anyone involved actually wants to comment on the issue here? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian's observation and recommendation regarding the wiki entry and the issues. An example is, I added the double square brackets to the text so that it would provide a proper link to its corresponding wiki entry, but user [Phoenix7777] always tried to revert me (diff here). He indeed became so obsessive as to stalk me to another unrelated entry Rare Earth Elements to remove the double brackets I put to link a chemical element to its wiki page (see diff here). I view this as unreasonable disruption targeting someone he disagrees with, call it "malicious" according to [Phoenix7777]. Though behaviors such as this are probably better described by as "not particularly worse" (quote Qwryxian -- in my view it is simply minor nuisance and childish but I don't disagreee with Qwryxian), it does presents unnecessary hassle to the community and creates problems and sometimes unnecessary arguments among the members. I have now basically stopped editing in entries where he participates because I do not want to waste time in meaningless edit warring. ---- (I think I do not understand how to make "Notify" function works - help/pls fix) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at noticeboard of discussion regarding reason for discussion. The thread is thread name of the discussion.The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. —San9663 (talk) 04:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the "quote" in the reference

Please comment on the following edits.

1. San9663 (talk · contribs) removed a description from the quote in the reference[77] and by the very next edit removed the corresponding description from the paragraph.[78]
2. STSC (talk · contribs) removed the whole quote in the reference.[79]

The quote was added because the availability of the preview of Google book is precarious and dependent on the region. Actually the page is currently invisible. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The contents removed by STSC are the same dubious contents I've referred to many times. It's a good thing that you brought this up yourself. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There was diff no quotation marks on the wiki text. It does not appear like a quote at all. I thought it seems a redundant and subjective description and removed it according to the reasoning by a previous editor of "non relevance" —Preceding unsigned comment added by San9663 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(Involved user) I note that San9663 in this reversion and this reversion said "continuing John Smith's previous edit of simplifying". This refers to a removal of a reference I made of the Washington Times' supposed ownership by some church. I don't think that San's reversions are comparable, as it's a bit daft to refer to every publication's ownership if mentioned in a Wikipedia article. However, the People's Daily's ownership/control may be far more relevant given the Chinese government's territorial claims.

I also don't think that STSC should have marked his recent edits as minor.

I haven't looked at everyone else's edits widely. John Smith's (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Deceptive online pharmacy spamming

An editor, Lex2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding in online pharmacy spam links to wikipedia articles, disguising them as part of a discussion on the article subject matter. Their first edit to the encyclopedia was online pharmacy spam and survived for over six months until I deleted it this evening. Other edits regarding spamming internet pharmacies.[80], more deceptive/disguised spamming and this deceptive disguised spamming. As can be seen it appears they have resumed internet pharmacy link spamming.

Added original research violating WP:BLP policy,[81], [82], and then proceeded to edit war over it,revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, revert 4, revert 5, revert 6, 7, revert 8, revert 9, revert 10, revert 11, revert 12. This editor was blocked for this for 48 hours at the time, for edit warring as well as BLP violations. I am just giving this information for background, the problem is deceptive spamming which seems to go unnoticed by article watchlisters as being a productive edit.

All of the editor's edits have been unproductive. The only edit that looked like it was possibly done good faith was this original research contribution. I think that the editor should be indefinitely blocked. Thank you for looking into this matter.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The only two edits this editor has made since 2009 were on Oct 7, both spam as noted above. The editor has previously been blocked for BLP violations, but has not previously engaged in spam with the sole exception of the edit LG mentioned. Since LG has issued a final warning regarding the spam on the editor's talk page, I can't quite see a justification for doing more at this time, other than keeping an eye on this editor's contribs. Looie496 (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This kind of spamming is quite common on pharma articles and usually I would just leave a level 1 or go straight to level 4 warning and not bring it for admin review. It was after I reviewed their contributions a bit closer that I realised that they contribute nothing positive to the encyclopedia. I agree that they are not a very active editor, although given the deception and the types of contributions they make, I wouldn't be surprised if they edit using ips or sockpuppets which I thought of and made me consider a block might be the best way of dealing with this editor. If the consensus is to just leave the account as active with a level 4 warning that is ok. My concern was the level of deception and these edits sticking to articles as constructive contributions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Typesupper2

A "new" editor, Typesupper2 (talk · contribs), has chosen to make, as their first contributions to Wikipedia, disparaging remarks about living people. The user calls Norman Finkelstein a "Nazi propagandist" in an AfD here. I removed the comment (here) and informed the user that such comments violated Wikipedia policy (here). The user responded by reinserting their comment with the edit summary of "reverting Muslim censor" (here). Could an admin provide this user with a greater understanding of the BLP policy than I have been able to provide and an ARBPIA notice? nableezy - 02:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite a very strong temptation simply to indef per Godwin's law, I have simply given an I-P sanctions warning, which this account has not yet received. I concur with Nableezy in thinking this is not a new editor, though. Looie496 (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark

Resolved

 – Nothing left to do here -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent IP vandalism including obvious defamation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Pretty bad. Deleted. AniMate 02:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Dbpjmuf and sockpuppets

This user and multiple dynamic IP socks have been edit-warring, namecalling and ignoring consensus of multiple editors at Big Beautiful Woman, adding loaded language and POV pushing. This page was semi-protected, but it's not enough. This is not just 3RR, edit-warring and incivility, this is multiple issues with this editor. I request a block until they can clean up their act. Wikipedia is not a battleground.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The editor is undoubtedly identical with the IP who has been making the improper edits. However, I have been unable to find any record of a clear warning about edit-warring being given either to the account or the IP, so I cannot justify imposing a block at this time. I have now given such a warning, and any further attempts to impose this edit should be met with a block. Looie496 (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are two warnings blanked by the user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A89.100.0.70&action=historysubmit&diff=389887517&oldid=389836409

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A89.100.0.70&action=historysubmit&diff=391304428&oldid=391089929

Plus check out the edit summary history here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A188.141.12.67&action=historysubmit&diff=385521919&oldid=385521817 --Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

DGG's unblocking of Rangoon11

I am asking for community input on the actions of DGG (talk · contribs) in the unblocking of Rangoon11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

Rangoon11 was blocked just over a week ago for three months following a SPI and his posting to here (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident#Harrassment by User:Codf1977)

At the SPI s/he avoided addressing the issue and following the block, s/he made no request for unblock or review, instead chose to evade the block two days later by editing from 92.29.112.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Only after that IP had been blocked did s/he make a unblock request, which was declined by Favonian (talk · contribs).

Without further input from Rangoon11, Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) made an offer to intercede and get the block lifted at User talk:Rangoon11's talk page, this was followed by DGG's offer in the archive of the SPI and talk page.

Rangoon11 then agreed to "make the required undertakings [to use one account]" and was unblocked.

DGG did not consult with the blocking admin Hersfold (talk · contribs), only informing him after the unblock. Nor does it appear did DGG consult with anyone else, or take into account any other of the reasons for the block or it's length (as detailed in the SPI) nor the subsequent block evasion into account when deciding to unblock.

I believe this is abuse of the admins discretion, not to dicuss this in anyway with any of the admins involved, or to bring it here for discussion since other editors here expressed concerns about his editing (see here).

Codf1977 (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Rangoon11, DGG, Hersfold and Favonian informed Codf1977 (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• In order to clarify matters, it appears, per Rangoon11's talk page, that you have been involved in discussion or in some other manner with Rangoon in the past. Can you disclose what the extent of this interaction has been? Silverseren^C 07:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, over his editing of pages on UCL, for his take on it see the ANI thread he posted linked to above. Codf1977 (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• DGG is an editor of outstandingly good temperament, who would never do a thing just to further his own self interests, and has demonstrated an admirable ability to work with anyone. Instead of assuming bad faith or abuse on his part, one would do better to try to understand him as a role model. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would think that all (or most) admins would want each of there actions viewd on it's own merits and not in the context of other good or bad actions. I also think that admins use of the tools not only should be free of any self interest, but crucially, also free from the appearance of any self interest and that can't not be said for this case. Codf1977 (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment It doesn't seem to be self-interest to me. I think you're reading just a tad too far into things. If you read the entire Update and the following Unblock sections of Rangoon's talk page, he agreed that he will consult with the Col. and DGG on future related article. I think you should give it time and see if he improves instead of bringing this directly to ANI. You seem a little too involved in this issue at the moment. Worst case scenario: We run out of rope. Ishdarian 09:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm trying to find anything remotely problematic? What about an unblock is self-interest? Blocks are about prevention, and never punishment ... if the requirement to protect is no longer needed, the block should be gone. I cannot find any good reason that this review is here... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible suicide threat

I recently blocked User:BrandonMMcLean as a vandal-only account, but also noticed the following edit: [83], the editor adding (presumably) himself to the list of 2011 deaths. This is a bit disturbing, is anyone else seeing the same thing here I am? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a suicide threat to me. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 07:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and it should be taken seriously.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone else file a quick RFCU? I'm using a slow internet righ now and the page isnt loading properly. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 08:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) RFCU is Sockpuppet Investigations, are you sure Access? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case that it is a legit threat, then someone may have to inform the local constabulary. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. Stop with the melodrama. It's one thing to treat an articulated threat as genuine (which I still think is unhelpful), it is another to read a threat into simple nonsense. Revet, block, ignore. You are being trolled. I always simply remove these things as simple vandalism.--Scott Mac 08:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Scott, please read WP:SUICIDE, we have rules for this. Everyone else, please find a Checkuser online (per WP:SUICIDE) and have them run a CU on the account, then call that town's police department with the information...name, time of post, etc. Police departments have said time and time again, they would rather people call and it be nothing, then no one call and it really be something. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SUICIDE is an essay, not a "rule". I happen to think it is misguided and choose to disregard it.--Scott Mac 09:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You can choose that, fine, but when someone actually does kill themselves because you ignored it, it will be your fault and your fault alone. I pray you are never in a similar situation where you post (or even say out loud) a vague cry for help and someone ignores it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That isn't going to happen. Get a grip. People who are crying for help, actually cry for help, they don't post anonymously to an anonymous website. This is just drama stirring and troll feeding.--Scott Mac 09:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

People... Scott is right in this case... listed for 2011? what are they supposed to do? stick a memo on their computer somewhere that says "remember: check next year in summer @ so-and-so's door"...? man... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you seriously rather take the chance the dude does something between now and who knows? Each suicide threat, no matter how troll-like, should always be taken seriously cause you never really know if they are serious or not. Dude could be laughing his ass off as he writes it or sitting next to a cocked loaded pistol. You don't know and that is why WP:SUICIDE is in place. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to contact the police unless, I guess, it appears urgent within the next few hours. User:Philippe (WMF) said in another suicide threat thread above Yes, the Foundation will assume the responsibility of contact if that's appropriate and confirms they keep an eye out for these things. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Then someone should contact him. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he'd be very happy if some stranger from Wikipedia out of the blue got his phone number and rang him up to see if what he posted was some form of sick joke or a real threat. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

let me be clear:WMF assumed responsibility of contact in that instance. Not generally. We have much too small a staff to do that generally. Please do not assume we will always do that. In this case I got an email that I happened to check in the middle of the night and I'm on it. Time spent waiting for staff could be critical. Don't wait to find us. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)