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. 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

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Australian Greens

Could some kind admin step in and knock a few heads together at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Australian Greens. The two leading participants in the debate (User:Welshboyau11 and User:Timeshift9) seem to be having a competition over who can demonstrate the least understanding of Wikipedia policy. I've tried to explain the need for proper sourcing (which shouldn't be hard to find), but one participant seems to think that Google-mining is the answer to everything, while the other seems to be on some sort of postmodernist "there's no such thing as facts" trip. Given the subject (which surely interests contributors with a little more clue than these two), I don't think it would be any great loss to topic-ban the pair of them until they both demonstrated at least a basic understanding of Wikipedia policies regarding NPOV, sourcing, civility (yeah, I know, I should talk...) and what the heck Wikipedia is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the sources issue to Reliable sources/Noticeboard Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The 'sources issue' isn't the reason I raised this here. It is a basic failure to comply with (or even apparently understand) basic Wikipedia policies. Anyway, I've had enough of this nonsense - hopefully someone else can make them see sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I take offence to 'seem to be having a competition over who can demonstrate the least understanding of Wikipedia policy' and 'some sort of postmodernist "there's no such thing as facts" trip' especially when other Australian editors and an Australian administrator appear to agree with me. I'll let the pages speak for themselves. Timeshift (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That you seem to think that the nationality of contributors is somehow significant is one reason I raised this here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, you shouldnt be offended, as Andy is 100% correct.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the other editor seems to think editors are agreeing with him when they aren't. Australians don't own the article but they do hold the most sway out of it based on editors involved because that's where most of the interest comes from - this goes for any article of any nationality. It almost comes across sounding like it's being said that we don't count. Little green rosetta, so does that apply to others who are of the same view as me? And if not, why not? Timeshift (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:ROPE is cheap tonight.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you respond with relevance rather than glibness? Timeshift (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, BDuke worded it perfectly here. I'm going to withdraw from this discussion because it's now consuming too much time and energy, and realise that left-wing won't be allowed to be added any time in the near future, the status quo and majority of the article's editors are on my side. Timeshift (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering you think Austrailains hold more sway over this topic area than others, leads me to belive you have not a clue as to how this place is supposed to operate.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If more non-Australians have views on this than Australians, then guess what, Australians would no longer hold sway. I'm over this debate. Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The views of editors are not what determines anything. The views of Australian, or any other nationality's editors, indeed do not count. The views of reliable sources do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS comes to mind. While I actually disagree with Timeshift's stricter construction of it, it is true that the majority of people forming that consensus are likely to be local. If I went to an article on the Canadian NDP or the German Die Linke, I would be entirely unsurprised if the article's main contributors and the main decisions being made reflected, to a greater extent than otherwise, the views of Canadian or German editors respectively with a political disposition, or their expatriates abroad. Orderinchaos 09:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've not looked into Timeshift yet, but this misquoting of the Greens magazine by Welshboyau11 (also here and here) where the Greens argue that they do not fit in a left-right schema (Welshboyau11 uses it to say they're "clearly left-wing" quoting a part that indicates he had to read and ignore all the stuff saying they're not left-wing) screams "POV-pushing" to me (ignoring problems with WP:NOR and that that Greens magazine cites Wikipedia). His accusations of POV with anyone who doesn't support him (like this) goes against WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue with the Greens article is silly. Yes, I took out a quote. I think that's reasonable. I used other sources which can be found on the discussion pages, including an Encylopedia. The article does say the party is left-wing. I sugested we take the other part into account too, in the article. Welshboyau11 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy's appraisal is spot-on and it would be good if this one could be dealt with quickly rather than being allowed to develop into a full scale drama. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to note that one of our major protagonists here, Welshboyau11, has only been with us a week, and has already managed to upset quite a few other editors with his thoughts on them. This discussion is at least partly about policies. One that I would strongly recommend to Welshboyau11 is WP:Assume good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I actually did subject myself to reading the entire discussion on that page, and the impression I came away with is that the number 1 issue, over and above any content being raised, is Welshboyau11's "attack dog" behaviour. For the time-poor, I recommend skipping to the bits that follow Bilby's and Bduke's contributions - Bilby posted a rational, nuanced consideration of the issues with no attacks, implied or otherwise, and Welshboy went for the throat. His acquiescence to an editor who's somewhat made a name for themselves at the Julia Gillard article, Skyring/Pete, stands in stark contrast. WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL do not have clauses "these only apply when you agree with me". Orderinchaos 08:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking over others' assessments (and seeing Welshboyau11 continue to defend his overemphasizing half a sentence out of a whole magazine article on how the Greens are are not left-wing to push his "Greens are left-wing" agenda), I'm starting to think that Welshboyau11 should be topic banned from articles on Australian politics until he learns the five pillars. I wouldn't cry over more action being taken, but it's pretty clear that Welshboyau11's agenda on the Greens article is inhibiting his desire to be a good editor. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Half a sentence? The relevent section is "According to Wikipedia, the left of politics generally ‘supports social change to create a more egalitarian society. [This] usually involves a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that should be reduced or abolished.’ Under this definition, the Greens are clearly left-wing, and all the “four pillars” (participatory democracy, peace and non-violence, social justice and ecological sustainability) work towards these aims." That seems more like two paragraphs than half a sentence to me and seeing as it refers directly to the Wikipedia definition is seems quite relevant to me. The article is not arguing that the WA Greens are not left-wing, but that the left vs right argument is simplistic and that there is more to the reality of politics. I agree that Welshboyau11 needs to learn to slow down a bit, Wikipedia is not benefitted by undo battles or personal disputes on discussion pages, but he has only been part of the community for a couple of weeks so I think we should give him a chance to learn how things work. Welshboyau11 I have had disagreements with Timeshift9 (which does have an F)in the past but we have been able to talk them out and find common ground. Politics is inherrantly an emotive subject and leads to passionate discussion, but if we work together (not topic block someone in their first weeks) we can all learn to cooporate for the good of all. Djapa Owen 23:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

Arbitrary break - how to resolve this matter?

Having had a read through the thread on the noticeboard, Welshboyau11 has a major issue with anyone not agreeing to his desire to universally classify the Australian Greens and align them with Green parties around the world regardless of their history and roots. Anyone disagreeing with him is instantly accused of having some sort of political bias that skews their POV. I probably wouldn't be off the mark in saying that over half the posts in that thread are from Welshboyau11. Topic ban him for disruption, persistent WP:ABF, civil POV pushing etc etc. Blackmane (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

He's also now taken to labelling Timeshift9 "dumb and arrogant", "fascist" and "racist" on his talk page as well as in some of the debates, and referring to him as "Timeshit". Other admins might want to keep a watch on this newer development (firstly, I'm semi-involved, and secondly, I'm not around much.) Orderinchaos 09:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

He says it was an 'error'...pretty convienent one if you ask me. And his further comments are perplexing - maybe it's just the late hour, but I can't find any comments by or about Timeshift regarding his nationaility, or criticism thereof, in the above discussion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

An error is something you might do once, but twice the same error, with no similar pattern of a missing "f" on the keyboard? Trouble is, a large number of editors while showing AGF, being smooth, sensible and giving detailed and repeated advice, are consistently ignored. The net damage is significant editorial time being channelled to damage containment instead of positive editing. I agree with AndyTheGrump, Ian.thomson and Blackmane that admin action is required to help Welshboyau11 reconsider how he might constructively contribute. Timeshift's disputed comments are discussed above and are at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Australian Greens. --ELEKHH^T 10:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I could probably overlook the "f" misspelling, which is a bit unfortunate in this case. I've got a keyboard that occasionally doesn't register "e", "r", "f" and "t" at work. Given how often these letters are used, you have no idea how much that drives me up the wall. Apart from that, the degeneration into name calling is entirely unnecessary. Godwin's law may kick in soon. At this point, we've managed to see the usual collection of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations, WP:IDHT, general disruption, WP:ABF, POV pushing, persistent WP:ABF and probably throw in WP:TE. For a week (ish) old account, that's pretty impressive. Blackmane (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would overlook the F misspelling if it was not in combination with other problems. At this point, I'm thinking that a block would probably be in order, since he's contributed nothing positive to the site but plenty negative. If he agrees to a topic ban on modern politics and agrees to never talk with Timeshift, I could see him having just one more chance.

Will someone just block Welshboyau11 already? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would if I wasn't semi-involved. Orderinchaos 15:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

After only a week on wikipedia, and my only uncivl offence to call someone a racist and fascist, a block is not in order. I did misspell Timehift and it was an error. Who cares? Hardly a hanging offence anyway? I do not agree to a topic ban on modern politics - I don't think that is warranted yet. Welshboyau11 (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

People being topic-banned rarely do. And calling someone a racist and a fascist is not just a personal attack, but it could easily be construed as a BLP violation as well. If you don't want to be blocked, you need to accept when you're wrong - starting now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I must say, I haven't seen any other of his words missing an f, and therefore seems pretty unlikely it happened on Timeshift, twice. Just sayin'. Timeshift (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Most people would have read [{WP:5P|the pillars]] and avoided attacks in the first place. You don't have to agree to a topic ban, if there is sufficient community consensus for there to be one, it will be placed and enforced upon you. Normally, I'd be sure there would be shreds of good faith still lingering here and that a one time warning for the attacks would usually be considered sufficient. However, your attacks stacked on top of the other issues is unlikely to garner you any good faith. I had been holding off on actually suggesting this, but there seems to be 2 options. (1) a 6 month topic ban on modern Australian politics broadly construed or (2) indef block for all the afore stated issues plus the increasingly battleground mentality. Blackmane (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - topic bans usually reflect the community doesn't trust the user's judgement when it comes to editing in a particular topic or area, and so it's imposed rather than negotiated. I would actually suggest a much shorter topic ban (say 1 month), which can then be extended out to 6 months if after the month we see the same level of disruption and drama as we've seen this week; plus a possibly indefinite interaction ban with Timeshift9. If either is breached, site-blocks starting at 48 hours are imposed. I don't believe this user is beyond learning how to properly interact with the site, but they're a long way from that stage now. I have seen editors, though, who've got into all manner of trouble after coming in from the blogging or student politics world and they've eventually become highly useful and productive editors with otherwise unremarkable histories. Orderinchaos 14:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to do something! Now they're making a mess of the CLP article. Though the editor reminds me of a blocked/banned editor whom kept on returning under a few socks. Bidgee (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of the connection, but now you mention it, it seems somewhat obvious given their use of language and so on (although it's far more strident than I ever remember Watchover/Stravin using). One thing which stood out today is the attention to detail of MPs in various houses. Unfortunately any sock investigation would be unbelievably stale as those accounts were about 3 years ago. Orderinchaos 10:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Careful - Welshboy11 and references to socks don't go down well at all with him. Timeshift (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How am I making a mess of the article? It is constructive editing. Since you disagreed, I've taken the issue to talk.

They're also doing things like this, and is engaging in much the same behaviour. Timeshift (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift has continued to follow and harass me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Country_Liberal_Party#Proposed_change_to_infobox Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If you expect to move on without having to face what's been said to you, think again - this isn't harassment. Look at other editors comments above. You're blatantly ignoring everyone. Timeshift (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to disengage from the debate about the Australian Greens and my proposed changes. I will edit in other areas now. I am not going to get involved with or speak too Timeshift. I note he is following me and having a shot at me - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Country_Liberal_Party#Proposed_change_to_infobox. Please give me another chance and let me edit constructivley. I will learn from this experience. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at your rationale for changing it, and quite frankly, you've made a misrepresentation to justify your changes at the article, claiming that other articles use your preferred form of wording when they actually don't, and that's very plain to see for anyone who wishes to come by and check for themselves. After your misrepresentations of sources at the Greens dispute picked up by other editors (including saying that a source said pretty much the opposite of what it actually did), I'm not sure that there is a strong basis for the community to trust you to continue editing in an area in which you seemingly have major problems in aligning your own editing goals with those of the project. Wikipedia relies essentially on honour and trust to get stuff done, and if we can't function at that basic level, then it's only fair to impose restrictions and see how you handle them in areas other than those under dispute. Orderinchaos 10:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I made a small mistake. I have update my post to: That's not true. I did make a mistake in saying that it said Scottish seats in the House of Commons' and 'Welsh seats in the House of Commons'. But you made a mistake too. Did you notice that Welsh Labour has 26/40 - meaning Labour holds 26 of the 40 Welsh seats. With Scottish Conservatives, it says 1 out of 59 - indicating the Scottish Conservatives hold 1 out of 59 Scottish seats. Overall, their are 650 seats in the House of Commons in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. But rather than saying 26/650, since Welsh Labour only contest seats in Wales, it says 26/40 (40 being number of Welsh seats). Or take a look at Welsh Conservative Party - that was an example I was going to use. It specifically says 'House of Commons (Welsh Seats), 8/40. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed actions

Based on the above, it appears that Welshboyau11 (talk · contribs) is editing tendentiously and engaging in battleground behaviour on Australian political topics after just a week on Wikipedia. Other concerning behaviour includes misrepresentation of sources, personal attacks on other editors and forum shopping.

I therefore propose that Welshboyau11 is topic-banned from editing on Australian political topics for a one-month period, enforceable by blocks starting at 48 hours. He has noted on his user page that this is not his only editing interest, so it does not seem onerous. Orderinchaos 10:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support That seems sensible to me. The only alternative is to block him right now for tendentious editing. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There has been a misunderstanding! Please read my post above. I didn't misrepresent the Welsh/Scottish parties issue. Please see above. Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. I am a new editor. I've only been here for a week. I am sorry for all this. I did try to make a simple proposal in good faith. Unfortunately, it became sidetracked and turned into a slanging match. I am sorry for my part. I note this referal was about Timeshift too. But he is being ignored. I would like to ask editors and administrators to give me one more chance. I have leart from this. I didn't know many wikipedia rules and regulations (There are a lot!!) but I have certainly learnt a great deal now. I have a passion for this, and enthusiasm. I feel I can contribute to the project. I apologise for my mistakes. I would ask editors to consider giving me one and one only chance to contribute positivley. The best editors can get off to a rocky start. No one is perfect. And I've learnt a lot - that can only be a good thing. I'm sorry for misinterpreting and misrepresenting some sources. In the heat of the moment, I tried to skim over things and take out key points. Clearly, that was a mistake. Over to you guys. Welshboyau11 (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment, please don't attempt to drag me in to your aura of incivility. Timeshift (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Mostly Support Welshboyau11, this isn't a full blown ban from the site. A topic ban is a community imposed limitation that is basically the community not wanting you to edit anything to do with Australian politics. This is entirely different to a community ban, which is a community sanction further enforced by an indefinite admin block to prevent you from editing at all. You are still free to edit articles, just not those to do with Australian politics. A topic ban is something you abide by but admins cannot use their tools to stop you from editing the articles you are topic banned from. However, if you do you'll be hauled back to ANI where stronger sanctions perhaps blocks will be imposed. At this point, I highly recommend you accept the topic ban and go work on other articles. In some cases, topic bans removing editors from articles has actually led them to finding other articles to edit in and making really great contributions. This topic ban lapses in a month and in that month it is our hope that you'll develop into a good contributor at which point if you go back to Australian politics and don't cause a ripple, the ban has done its work. Blackmane (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Total support - with assumed support for expanding the topic ban if necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support, alas this has been proven to be necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support, and remind Welshboyau11 that he can always come back and appeal the topic ban after he has established himself as a productive editor on other articles; I suggest waiting 6 months before applying. Never mind; I misread the topic ban period. Support without reservation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support, is better for everyone, including Welshboyau11, who as a new editor can much better learn by working on less contentious topics first, and is obvious from his latest edits that he still has a lot to learn. I think much more prompt admin action would have been warranted already days ago and would have been highly beneficial. --ELEKHH^T 23:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, Welshboyau11 has said he is willing to learn from this already, and as far as I can see his combativeness has been contained for the last few days. I would suggest giving him another week or so of rope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Total support, duh. Timeshift (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Do you Totally Support yourself being banned too, as Andythegrump suggested? Or just me? Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How long ago, and with an admission that I wasn't looked in to? You're the problem here. Please don't attempt to drag me in to your aura of incivility. Timeshift (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Andythegrump refered you two. See above. Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You already said that. Timeshift (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you feel a constant need to snipe at people? Welshboyau11 (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• cough* The pot calling the kettle black? Bidgee (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Such bans are really bandaids. I think welshboy can learn, but needs to slow down (Wikipedia is not an urgent task) and work a lot on paying more attention to what others say. A ban won't help him learn anything. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. People can learn without being punished. As AndyTheGrump, the user who started this admin action said: 'The opinion of 'Australian editors' regarding whether left-wing and right-wing serve a purpose is utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia articles aren't based on the opinions of editors, they are based on what reliable sources say' - that is what I was trying to say. Just not so well. Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Further to that, when proposing I be topic banned he said 'Frankly, given the clear failure of both the leading participants (Timeshift and me) in this discussion to understand basic Wikipedia policy, I'm beginning to wonder whether they should be topic-banned for lack of clue' So if I'm banned, so sould Timeshift. Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Welshboyau11 is a new editor, seems to be learning fast, and IMO is being harassed by Timeshif, who has an abrasive manner towards everyone who disagrees with him, not just newbies. I'd like to encourage new editors, regardless of their political leanings, rather than push them away. There are enough eyes on Australian political articles that we aren't going to find ourselves too far skewed one way or another. --Pete (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Pete out of fairness you really should have noted this and posted in time sequence. Gnangarra 11:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• noting advised Welshboy about canvassing[1], cnavssing example[2] Gnangarra 08:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was kind of poor form, but I'd been looking at the discussion anyway, after noting HiLo and Timeshift talking about an ANI case and wondering what it was about. Welshboyau, you should ask for comments from all participants, not just those you think might take your side. We work together here, and I find that the more eyes on a topic, the better. We generally work things out for the good of the community. --Pete (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't aware of that policy. I'm still learning! Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. It's a minimal restriction for a minimal time and it's not as if this editor doesn't have other pages of interest to work on for a month. I note that Welshboyau11 has said he will stay away from the article in question now, but I'd much prefer to see a formal topic ban to underline this. Voluntary bans are no bans at all. I entirely see that Welshboyau11 will regard this sanction as unnecessary and draconian, but how many topic banned editors agree with their ban? If this short ban teaches him a lesson about what the community expects, he will learn to respect its norms. If he doesn't, then he knows to expect further action. He doesn't have to agree with our norms (though that would be good) as long as he agrees to adopt them while he's here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Clearly he hasn't learnt anything, time out (topic ban from Australian political articles) should given them time to learn to dos and don'ts. Bidgee (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I can learn from my mistakes without being banned. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If your one and a half week history is anything to go by - no, you can't. And it's not a ban proposal, it is a topic ban proposal. Timeshift (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Editors - this is a truly extraordinary thing. This user talking as if he was a Admin or even Jimmy Wales was actually refered here too as part of this!!!!! Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

please read WP:AGF Gnangarra 11:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, by yourself. [3] Noone else I can find in the dispute has referred to Jimmy Wales (and it's worth noting that while he is founder of the site, he has no special rights.) Orderinchaos 11:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. In relation to each specific claim: 1. The WP:TE linked, is an essay, not a policy or guideline. 2. WP:Battleground is the second claim. It takes two to be involved in a dispute - Timeshift was refered here along with me but no action or proposed action has been taken against him. 3. Misrepresentation of sources. I did not deliberately misrepresent sources. I did mispresent one out of many sources I qouted, by mistake. 4. Personal attacks. Again - it takes two to fight. I have apologised for my comments. 5. Forum Shopping. I don't believe that is against Wikipedia policy, and if it is I did not know. I'm not quite sure what it even is. Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll reply to only one point - the first. Tendentious editing is a phenomenon rather than a set of actions, hence why it is described in an essay. I shall quietly file away the irony of disputing TE and battleground in a fashion which displays exactly those two behaviours as just one of those things that happens sometimes. Orderinchaos 11:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How is disputing claims you have made disrputive or 'TE'? Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Welshboyau11, I appreciate you're new and trying to learn the rules as you go, and for that, I'll definitely cut you some slack and try not to bite too much. But I still can't see evidence that you understand what this topic ban is. If you really are happy to edit something outside of Australian politics for a week or two, then the ban will have no effect on you whatsoever, and you shouldn't care who supports and opposes it here. I think we get that you're new and want to learn, so I'd advise you to give this thread a break and do some article editing. Furthermore, sometimes it's the way people reply to things that's a problem, rather than what they're replying about. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason I am so passionate about this is I consider it an injustice. If you are trying to housetrain a dog, do you cut off one of it's legs in the hope it will learn, or do you be patient and show the right way? Or, when you first learn how to ride a bike, if you fall off, should you be belted with a stick, so you can see the right way? What does punishment achieve? Nothing. It only makes people more angry than ever. Welshboyau11 (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't life or death, it's an encyclopaedia. And I'm afraid that life isn't fair, you can't always get your own way, bad things happen to people, and sometimes what you're "fighting" for really isn't worth bothering about. Arguing back against points on here isn't helping your cause, but ignoring them and editing articles will. Although it's bad form to quote my own essay at newbies, WP:EOTW may give you some advice. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The exact same principles apply. And while life isin't fair, we should all try to make it more fair. It's not fair to ban a new editor after only a week for non-major breaches. Welshboyau11 (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment (Non-Admin / Involved.) I am putting this here because Welshboyau11 asked me [4] to oppose his topic ban here. Welshboyau, I continue to support your position in the content dispute that brought us here. What you are still failing to see is that support for your position is not the same as support for your behavior. The way you, Timeshift, Orderinchaos, and HiLo48 have handled this issue has been awful. We are under absolutely no deadline to get that infobox fixed. What I would recommend is for you, (and the other three editors for that matter,) to voluntarily take a month off of editing the Australian Greens article until everyone has had a chance to catch their breath and is prepared for a reasonable debate on the subject. I think it's a valid discussion to have, and I was ready to join in on your side of the issue. But the tone of the debate on both sides was so horrible that I didn't have the energy to even bother. I wasn't a part of the debate on the article itself, but from the tone of your initial notification to the NPOV noticeboard you had perfectly set the stage for the acrimony that followed. Sperril (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Here's a hint: If your debate leaves AndyTheGrump too exasperated to engage in a word war, you might need to step back a bit...Sperril (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your point about Orderinchaos is so valid. He is now being all self-righteouess, calling for me to be banned and ignoring his own bad behaviour, and indeed Timeshifts - despite an equal referal of Timeshift and me here. Welshboyau11 (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:BOOMERANG, stop criticising what other people have done (we get it) and start looking at your own behaviour. I don't see anyone revising their opinion to topic ban you based on anything you have said. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

But why would they? That would look stupid. No one is likely to change their mind. Secondly, I've admitted my mistakes and apologised. I don't think punishment would achieve much. It is counterproductive. Welshboyau11 (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

For the third time, Welshboyau11, I'll put it in bold this time so you might actually pay attention to what people are trying to tell you a topic ban does not stop you from editing here, it is the community telling you we don't want you editing Australian modern politics. Go edit something else for a month. A community ban is a ban from the site. This is not a vote for a community ban. I explained it in my vote above, I even posted a more succinct version on your talk page and now I am even bolding it for you. Please read what people are telling you, because it is really exasperating explaining it repeatedly. Blackmane (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I heard you the first time. It's still a ban and it's still punishment. If you see my user page Australian Politics is one of my two wikipedia interests. And a month is a long time. Think of it. 30 days untill I can edit properly and talk again. It is punishment. After only one week and one fight, it's a harsh punishment, and I won't learn a thing by being 'topic banned'. I will learn by reading more policies and hearing from other editors. Welshboyau11 (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:HEAR would be an appropriate addition to your list of essays to read at this juncture, I feel. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A month isn't long. There's nothing stopping you from reading the articles, creating notations in your sandbox or userpage, reading up on various policies, reading talk page discussions, digging for sources, the list goes on. it's precisely your lack of familiarity with various policies and guidelines that has gotten you into hot water. You're topic banned from editing but not studying. You might even find that looking from the outside will give you a fresh perspective. Blackmane (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Look, this is a newcomer, be gentle. There's no doubt that a topic ban on the Green Party of Australia is called for. But let's not be overbroad. There's no reason that he can't contribute in a meaningful way to pages on historic Australian politics, as opposed to contemporary Australian politics. So let's refine that banned area a bit, please: ...topic banned from matters of 21st Century Australian politics. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Also - If it's felt WBAu needs a period of mentorship, I would be happy to volunteer. It is hard to learn the Ways of the Wiki without a tour guide. Carrite (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:BITE and because there is not actually that much damage occurring to the article. This is actually a content dispute. It is understandable (though not acceptable) that Welshboy and Timeshift are edit warring over whether the Australian Greens are left wing, because that very topic is an internecine dispute within the Australian Greens itself![5][6]

WP:NPOV does not require us to make a decision, only to represent the major viewpoints, and I think the article would be improved if it had a (small) bit of coverage discussing the difference between the Bob Brown "Deep Green" faction (that sees itself as a new type of political party beyond left-right labels) and the Lee Rhiannon "Eastern Bloc" faction (that sees the party as left-wing). Agreement on this issue between Timeshift and Welshboy is not required for them to be able to collaborate on the article. If we include both their points of view, the article will be improved. --Surturz (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Somerled

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am concerned about racial propaganda and censorship being directed at my people the Pictic race and my ancestor Somerled in particular. The argument that his patrilineal lineage is Viking and that he is R1a1a is based on unscientific studies and false premises. This is contentious material which is offensive to his descendants including a study by Sykes which is has not been peer reviewed. " I have provided numerous cited arguments for his Irish lineage which have been censored. I would like this to stop and for both sides of the argument to be heard. It is not the argument I object to it is the censorship of referenced material on the pretense that it has not been cited. Just because it does not support the argument that Somerled was a Viking does not give anyone the right to remove it. I would like an unbiased biography of my ancestor please and an end to censorship. Wiki should not support racial propaganda.

The lineage of Somerled is well documented. He is a descendant of Conn of the Hundred Battles.. The claim made by Sykes that the predominance of Viking DNA in Clan Donald is evidence of Somerled's haplotype does not take into account the fact that this percentage is way less than the average for a random sample of the British population or that the Pictic subgroup found in the West of Scotland is not to be found anywhere else in Britain. The assertion that Somerled had an R1a1a haplotype is contentious and impacts on his descendants.

I don't mind both sides of the argument being discussed but the fact that people are systematically censoring all counter arguments is offensive to me especially when this assertion contradicts the majority of published work on this subject and hundreds of years of lineage documented by the Seannachies. . I do not consider the Lord Lyon to be a reliable source of independent scientific evidence as does Sykes and neither Sykes or Moffat have explained how a sub group of Picts came to be in the Western Isles.

What we do know for sure is about the systematic widespread rape by the English reported by the Scottish at the battle of Culloden. This cannot be discounted as a paternal event which would explain the R1a1a haplotypes appearing among Clan Donald. We are still dealing with the aftermath of this violent and brutal rape of our people and do not appreciate our story being censored for political reasons in support of the current power structure. This censorship is not editing and doesn't support a neutral point of view. I suggest that editors respect the arguments of descendants of Somerled in regards to his ethnicity and refrain from making contentious claims. I know my genealogy and the DNA haplotype of my paternal lineage and this is definitely not 'opinion' or 'imaginary' as has been posted on my talk page. I am not an imaginary creature who lives at the bottom of the garden and I feel that as an indigenous Pict my race is being victimized by these so called editors.

Moidart (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, since you provide no evidence of any editors behaving badly. Actually, the only evidence you've provided shows that you have a very strong point of view, which can frequently cause difficulties when editing here, as we require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view.

If there are specific problems in specific articles, you should discuss those on the articles' talk pages with the other editors involved, and try to work out a consensus. If you believe other editors are behaving badly, or are breaking Wikipedia's policies, then you can come here and report it, after you try to resolve the problem directly with those editors on their user talk pages. If you've just come here to recruit help in "fixing" articles you feel are biased, you've come to the wrong place. Admins aren't here to take sides in content disputes, they're here to administer Wikipedia's policies and mop up any behaviorial problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it's a content dispute. I'm involved in this. See Moidart's various posts on Talk:Somerled and User_talk:Moidart for his ravings about a "1984 type", "Nordic cause", "Viking conspiracy". The real problem is that he has a major conflict of interest which is totally affecting his ability edit; he can't distance himself from the topic. This conflict of interest is fuelling him to use personal opinion and synthesized sources, and the result is a totally skewed article of genetic gibberish.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked at the article now, and the only misbehavior I can see is Moidart's. His version of the article, besides being generally God-awful, is full of WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:FRINGE thinking, violations of WP:NPOV and probably other stuff I didn't catch.

Moidart, please go start a blog to disseminate your views, you're not going to be able to do so here, unless you can support each and every fact, individually, with a citation from a reliable source, as well as all the conclusions drawn from those facts. You cannot draw your own conclusions from clusters of facts and factoids, someone else, publishing in a reliable source, must do so, only then can you report it here. On your own blog, you can say what you want, not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

He's resorted to a POV fork here: Somerled the Viking Slayer.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If it's in relation to a fringe theory it should have been posted to WP:FTN. I've put the POV fork up for deletion as being an unambiguous duplicate of the other article. I also notice you were edit warring to keep a POV fork, this is disruptive: [7][8]. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Moidart has also copied text from Somerled into his fork article without attribution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I was notified about this discussion (thanks Shirt58). I don't have a horse in this race. I simply ran into a problem when I made a simple revert of a sentence or two as unsourced (I identified Moidart's edit as "good faith" when I reverted), then I was accused by Moidart of racism and censoring his article about his people. Otherwise I don't have much of an opinion about the articles Moidart has edited. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I've speedied Somerled the Viking Slayer as an A10. It's plainly about the same Lord of the Isles as Somerled. There seems plenty of space in the article to discuss sourced theories about his ancestry - from the evidence of my own Viking ancestry there's nothing to stop him being a Viking AND slaying 'em. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• • And after that speedying he did this. I think Moidart needs to start looking for incoming WP:BOOMERANGs... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that at the AfD discussion, since the link was still blue. Not content with an unsourced POV fork, Moidart is now claiming that these are two different people. Please could somebody speedily delete the recreated POV-fork and salt it. As for Moidart, well ... Mathsci (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have readded the AfD notice. If Moidart continues editing in this disruptive way, he almost certainly should be blocked. Mathsci (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that this editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE for an entire laundry list of Wikialphabetsoup, I've blocked indef. No problem with anyone unblocking if he demonstrates an understanding of why he was blocked and a good-faith effort to avoid further conduct of this sort. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, he was here to write articles of some sort, he just had the entirely wrong qualifications. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2012 phenomenon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I wasn't sure where to post this, and since I'm not sure (yet) if it qualifies as a dispute, I have decided not to alert the supposed offending party until I am sure he has actually done something wrong.

For context see this archived talk page. User:150.216.78.78 began posting predictions of this page's view count, which then turned out to be correct. The page's views skyrocketed past 1 million, but, rather oddly, would often return to the norm before skyrocketing again. This led some to conclude that said user was artificially inflating the view count. If that is the case, is it possible to stop? Serendi^podous 07:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You've decided to ignore the giant red bold text which tells you clearly and unambiguously that notifying someone is absolutely compulsory? Seriously? 176.250.119.189 (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty strange alright. It could have been mentioned on a high profile website somewhere? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

@IP in this case, I'd say this classifies as a good application of WP:IAR. Rather than inflating it into a dispute, Serendipodous has sought advice on whether this is worthy of being called a dispute. Blackmane (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've notified them anyway, I think there is something odd here. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There aren't a lot of details in the page view count, so it could be possible that there's a script (or two) running to artificially inflate the page view count. Ravensfire (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think there is anything to do here. Even if we were sure there was manipulation going on, there is no way to stop anyone from viewing a page outside of deleting it. This is the kind of issue that is probably best dealt with by ignoring it. I'm also not sure I see any harm in it anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I am interested in monitoring the view count for that page, because it is a useful method of tracking spikes in 2012-related hysteria. When the view count goes up, I know something notable has happened, and attempt to track it down. If the view count is being manipulated, I can't rely on that anymore. Serendi^podous 20:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Handy tip for anyone wanting to know if mentions on high profile sites is artificially inflating page traffic; putting anything into Topsy will generate a report of when (and in what context) it's been mentioned on Twitter, Reddit, high-profile blogs etc. It can be surprisingly interesting to see what's being talked about. 78.149.155.81 (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What we can do here is provide moral support and leave the door open for admin support if it becomes necessary to keep the on-wiki activity in check and avoid rehashing the same reasons and time-wasting over it: none of that page-view chatter is appears aimed at improving the article content and page-view stats aren't themselves encyclopediac for article content (and so discussions of them are similarly not in-scope for talk-page). DMacks (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, we could keep that off the talk page as you are correct that it has nothing to do with improving the article. I was thinking more of what we could do in practical terms about someone (possibly, maybe, or maybe not) deliberately manipulating page views. I don't see how we could even determine that in the first place without finding spme sort of post on a different website, and I certainly don't see how it could be prevented. I thought that sort of thing didn't really matter here anyway, that we were immune from SEO trickery somehow, but the technical end of things is not my forte so maybe I'm not quite getting that aspect of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We should not be disclosing those viewcounts anyway, and I seem to remember they started appearing without any real discussion a few years ago. I shrugged it off at that time but have grown more opposed to them since then. I think VPT would not be likely (or able) to do anything about it. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Whitewashing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It looks like the editor JournalScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) is whitewashing articles related to global warming, particularly those about global warming deniers. Amidst a flurry of changes on articles, he removes sourced criticism for rather dubious reasons. Can some admins/experienced editors have a look through the editors contributions and see what they think? Sourced criticism or sections critical of denialism or fringe science disappear: [9][10][11][12][13] (This list isn't exhaustive, there are many more). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not so easily convinced. What's wrong with this one? And why is this version preferred over this one? I don't see (at least in those two articles) any whitewashing. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This was removed as OR: [14]. This was removed as OR: [15]. This was removed claiming it violates RS: [16]. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Whatever one makes of individual examples, it's right on target to say that JournalScholar's editing is entirely dedicated to propagating a fringe POV re global warming. JS has been warned re ARBCC -- but it's not clear that the warning has reined him/her in at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, JS is currently blocked and won't be able to reply here for another few hours. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Also for Andrew Dessler, mention of his book was removed, The section saying about " policymakers and the general public often lack an understanding of how science works" was removed and replaced with a quote from an interview that makes him sound like an alarmist instead. If this was a once off then I wouldn't be alerted, but it's a pattern of editing that is clear across multiple articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearer examples would be things like [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Some extra [22], removes mention that Watts gave data to Muller [23] [24]. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Whiteashing" is a substantial overstatement - I suggest that cups of tea are called for. When oersonal opinions are placed in BLPs, there is the concern that they should be more clearly stated to be opinion, and not presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice. It is not our task to show how evil the "climate change deniers" are. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems you are commenting without actually looking at the diffs. Some of the diffs aren't even about deniers. Source content is being removed for invalid reasons on a large scale according to a POV; there is no other way to paint that. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I read the diffs. And I also read the OP's statement whitewashing articles related to global warming, particularly those about global warming deniers. which I find to be a substantial overstatement of the case at hand. And I iterate that cups of tea would help. Perhaps the problem is not just his POV - I think one well should follow Robbie Burns' advice about how one views others. Collect (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Justify these [25][26][27][28][29], [30][31][32], [33]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of those are problematic, some are not. It is certainly clear, however, that this is a single-purpose account. And the plagiarism issue below is troubling. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition to removing information JournalScholar considers critical of various subjects, there is also a plagiarism problem that needs attention. — ThePowerofX 17:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at JournalScholar's editing, it appears that some of his edits are at least arguable, while others are pretty much straight-up removals of well-sourced material without adequate justification. Given his track record and rapid-fire editing, this imposes a substantial burden on other editors to sort through a high volume of his edits and try to separate those that are arguably reasonable from those that are abusive.On top of that, given the evidence of plagiarism compiled above, there's now the additional burden of needing to carefully review his large volume of contributions for plagiarism and copyright violations.

  Putting all of this together, I'm going to indefinitely block JournalScholar. This isn't intended to be a "forever" block, necessarily, but at the very least it will give other editors breathing room to review his edits, determine the scope of the plagiarism/copyright issues he's introduced, and try to identify which of his many removals of well-sourced information are appropriate. I'm not comfortable with him continuing to run around making large volumes of potentially plagiarized edits.

  I'm not opposed to an unblock at some point in the future, but I would strongly urge that it be supervised and tightly coupled to some evidence that JournalScholar understands a) content and sourcing policies, and b) the basics of plagiarism. If other admins disagree with this block, I'm happy to reconsider it, but based on available evidence I see it as clearly warranted on a preventive basis. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Good block. Indefinite is not permanent. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:JournalScholar by MastCell) That is absolutely ridiculous and uncalled for. I am unable to even defend myself! Why are you not allowing me to defend myself? I cannot hope to have someone copy and paste this to the ANI board. All of my edits are good faith edits that have been fully sourced and each edit fully documented. I have never removed sourced criticisms for dubious reasons - every single reason for the edit was clearly given. If you are not going to review my edits independently but attempt to claim by looking at a simple before and after diff then that I am "whitewashing" something then you are not attempting to be intellectually honest. I cannot defend myself on this talk page. All those editors complaining about me do not want me editing because I was attempting to give those BLPs a NPOV and not the negatively biased view that they are presented in. Any issue of plagiarism I will gladly correct and they were all in good faith. Other editors clearly read those and made no attempt to correct them or point this out as a problem of which I would have immediately corrected. I had assumed since those sentences were fully source it would meet criteria for adequate credit. --JournalScholar (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock request copied from User talk:JournalScholar by EdJohnston . I have not even been given the chance to defend any of the accusations against me. The editors attacking me strongly disagree with my editing various BLPs to a NPOV because they hold these people in a negative light. No attempt was made to contact me about any of these issues as I would have worked to resolve all of them. I would like the opportunity to defend each charge made against me. An indefinite block is absolutely uncalled for. I would like the possible to post to the ANI board to defend myself. "Looking at JournalScholar's editing, it appears that some of his edits are at least arguable, while others are pretty much straight-up removals of well-sourced material without adequate justification" - That is an absolute lie. I have never removed well-sourced material without adequate justification and will defend every edit I made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JournalScholar (talk • contribs) 20:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone want to bring this to CCI now? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I asked JournalScholar to explicate some of his editorial decisions on his talk page. He has posted a response. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The responses on his talk page about two specific edits do not indicate that JournalScholar is aware of the problems with his editing: the blatant copyvios in adding content; and the spurious reasons for removing sourced content with which he disagrees. Mathsci (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually think most of his responses were well-considered and understandable. I also see why IRWolfie would be suspicious. I supported blocking as a way to clear things up, but he actually has a fairly strong unblock case. Blocks are used to prevent disruption, and that shouldn't be the case on the issue of plagiarism now that he is aware of our concerns. I would not oppose an admin unblocking if they were comfortable with his explanations. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 13:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

He needs to also demonstrate he actually understands WP:RS and WP:V, WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN. He still defends his removal of the content above. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, any admin considering unblock should take a look at the deleted version of the user's user page, which was an attack page against a particular wikipedia editor and evidence of a WP:Battleground mentality. It's not clear that the user understands why that page was unacceptable. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Any unblock should come with a clearer instruction about conforming to ARBCC. I'm also concerned at the claim that the plagiarism was done "in good faith". I don't really see evidence of greater/sufficient understanding on that element. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jprg1966. I am comfortable with his explanations. If further comments from JournalScholar indicate he understands the plagiarism issue, I have no objection to unblocking or reducing the block to time served for edit warring. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but his explanations make no sense. He is removing quotes of people claiming that self-published sources can't be used for their own opinions. That is clearly nonsensical, and it is evident his spree of removing mainstream content will continue. He still maintains that press-releases by groups with editorial oversight are self-published and thus unreliable, once again for attributes quotes. It has been explained to him numerous times that they are reliable. It is evident that his disruption will continue if he is unblocked. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see a better understanding of WP:FRINGE and WP:ARBPS before unblocking. We really don't need someone attempting to "balance" the scientific mainstream with pseudoskeptical fringe. Sædon^talk 19:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, but be careful that we're not blocking someone because of their viewpoint. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No of course not, freedom of thought and all that. He can hold any view he pleases, he just can't push it here. Sædon^talk 19:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have declined the latest unblock request. See here for a summary of my reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A good block. Is there a procedure or place to discuss undoing the damage?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Report: Claude Closky & Marcel Duchamp Prize (both French and English Wiki Page -- 5 pgs total)

Dear Administrators,

I was wondering how I can go about reporting abuse and unwiki behavior. The pages in question are:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Closky
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp_Prize
3. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Closky
4. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prix_Marcel_Duchamp
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Williams
6. It appears that a new wiki account has been made to initiate the abuse and vandalism. User: Weakart [[34]]

Do you have any suggestions on how I might file a report or get assistance in this matter? Thank you -- --Hellartgirl (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The account edits have clear comments. I am following that case since a paper used a picture I made... As well as I can tell, the artist called LG Williams seems to be an artistic hoax of somekind, and his work seems to exist only on photoshop, therefore it is a problem to use a weird article of the french Huffington post (why not on the english one ?) as an insulting rhetorical question. Jean-no (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• This seems to be a content dispute over the reliability of some article from the French edition of the Huffington Post. (I should note that on the French Wikipedia an admin came to the same conclusion [35].) So try WP:RS/N or WP:DRN. (I've left a note about this at WP:WPVA. Some experienced editor with an interest in visual arts may be able to mediate this affair.) Also please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:NOTVANDALISM and use WP:user talk pages to post notifications, not the user pages themselves. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  I just said « Stop » on WP:fr ! S t a r u s – ¡Dímelo! – 23:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starus (talk • contribs)

  Well, you didn't block either party for WP:VANDALISM but warned them to stop edit-warring, so I assumed you concluded it falls within the realm of WP:AGF-able content disputes. Of course, an edit war is not how such disputes are supposed to be solved... Tijfo098 (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  And it looks like my assumption was correct [36]. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, I don't see why they are not discussing in French on the French Wikipedia. Starus is an admin there and his warning roughly reads "We are on the French Wikipedia and to write in French. This conflict is of no interest of the article and (their) spillover from other wikis (no less). The blogpost in question appears to be disputed - whatever the blog audience support -, it is (therefore) necessary to add a different secondary source, neutral and reliable for the content in the article. Unless of course that doesn't achieve consensus among contributors. Violations will lead to blocks." As for the "vandalism" and "abuse" part, such terms are not relevant here. I see personal attacks on the frwiki talk page and those need to stop as well. --Jasper Deng (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you Jasper. Your translation reflects exactly my idea. Just a thing, I wrote « Unless, of course, that does achieve consensus among contributors ». I left her a last warning for her personal attacks. S t a r u s – ¡Dímelo! – - Starus (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Esteemed and Concerned Wiki Colleagues: I am enjoying this conversation, thank you. Please forgive my intrusion but I am curious if any other wiki users share my concerns?

1. Should not the discussion here be oriented upon the repeated deletions from an self-confessed angry editor of a verifiable and reliable source?
2. Because the reason for the user/editor deletion has clearly been documented: "Myself, I'm just pissed off (...so I deleted the posting.). (->Jn) (d) 6 septembre 2012 à 00:25 (CEST)"
3. Clearly deleting another user's posting on this grounds is illegitimate.
4. Moreover, as far as the discussion of 'suspected' a hoax upon an international verifiable source, you are simply kidding yourselves. Where in the HuffingtonPost.fr is the article disputed? Nowhere. This claim is mere fantasy -- mere conspiracy theory.
5. As far as I can tell the HuffingtonPost.fr has 350,000 readers a day and an excellent editorial staff -- surely the editors are professionals and they would would have by now dealt quickly and effectively with any supposed 'hoax'.
6. Possible Remedy: why not simply post the article until which time some wiki editor can publish their contradiction in a similar verifiable source?

I look forward to reading your replies with great interest -- --Art4em (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It depends who posted it and in which part of the site. See The Huffington Post#Controversies and RS/N discussion, particularly the part "In the case of aggregated content, the original source is what should be evaluated." Tijfo098 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, are you talking about the angry wiki editor and his illegitimate deletion? Because this is the matter in question under this thread... --Art4em (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "off topic" in an AN/I thread. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! That is the wiki spirit: there is no such thing as "off topic". In which case, I would propose that we turn our attention something relevant like can 12,345,566,788,345 angels really sit comfortably today in Charlotte at the Democratic Convention? What do any other wiki editors think? --Hellartgirl (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

COI?

It would be helpful if the parties involved clarified their affiliations in this matter, as they both seem to have a WP:COI. Jean-no has stated above that a picture of his was used, although it's rather unclear what he means by that. Hellartgirl appears to have intimate knowledge of the employment place of LG Williams--the ASU Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts--, which also "happens" to be the employment place of Julia Friedman who wrote the French Huffington Post blog entry at the center of this dispute. (Also, Friedman doesn't seem to be a regular blogger on the HuffPo, because that was her only post there insofar. If her claims were to be included in Wikipedia articles, assuming they even qualify per wp:weight, they would clearly need to be attributed to her, because the employment connection between Friedman and Williams is simply too strong to allow us to attribute her opinions to the "French Huffington Post", as Hellartgirl has done [37]. Also, 68.98.238.40, who first added this info to the French Wikipedia [38], maps to Scottsdale, Arizona--which is nearby ASU.) Art4em has been focusing on LG Williams for quite some time, including some articles which turned out to be non-notable when examined by the wider Wikipedia community. Finally, let me say that WP:COI does not require a declaration, but one would go along way towards the rest of us extending good faith in this matter, in the face of accounts whose editing appears fairly focused on this affair. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. And indeed, a novice observer might discern that your diligence deserves merit were it not for the fact that:

1. It should be clear to all by now that too many editors write upon nothing they know very little about, i.e. The Cult of the Amateur
2. This might be the first person in the modern world to describe public records and resumes viewed upon the internet as 'intimate'
3. The above comments clearly display outright prejudice and total disregard in its "oversight" in mentioning that said comments posted above were in response by a user to contest another editor's editorial summary and illegitimate deletion, "((lg williams n'existe pas!))" (● 4 septembre 2012 à 00:09‎ Qiwi (discuter | contributions)‎ m . . (19 259 octets) (-229)‎
4. The reliability of IP's and a clear disdain for anonymity on the internet and wikipedia
5. Specious expertise on just how one becomes regular? [39] [40]

Overlooking this "bad faith" summary wrapped in good faith duplicity and rhetoric, let us simply get to the point of the discussion: "Do you think the 2005 Prix Marcel Duchamp should be reattributed to LG Williams or not? [41] --Hellartgirl (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. Over the past week or so, the editor Jsigned has become disruptive on the article Taare Zameen Par. A few weeks before, he had continuously tried to change the title throughout the article to the English translation against the consensus of the editors for the article, but he eventually gave up. He later returned, making illogical edits to the article such as this and this without offering any discussion. He then began trying to put an incorrect translation for the title despite his inability to find any supporting sources here. He has now become obsessed with changing the placement of the international DVD title, such as here and here. He refuses to offer discussion, instead leaving edit summaries like "do not revert" and "ENOUGH". I myself, and two other editors, have reverted his edits. I am open to the possibility of the placement changing, but currently feel the other way is better. Citing BRD, I reverted and opened a discussion on the talk page (here) and even left him a message alerting him to this on his talk page (here). However, his immediate response was to delete my message and again revert the change. His version is the one currently up, and I don't want to keep reverting it to avoid an edit war. Thanks. Ωphois 23:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Then leave it at what I change it to, Ophois. Like Stars on Earth is the international English title. It is the title by which the film is known in English-speaking countries. The article should be titled Like Stars on Earth. This is not Indian Wikipedia. The original Indian title should go in brackets in the first sentence, and you're trying to tell me the title given to the film in the US, UK, etc. cannot even be included in the first sentence. That is bullshit.

Here is the naming guideline for foreign language films:

"Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers; normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world. Normally, this will be an English language title that is recognized across the English-speaking world; however, sometimes different English-speaking countries use different titles, in which case use the most common title, and give the native and alternate English title(s) afterward.

Note: in the following paragraphs, the phrase 'the English-speaking world' refers to countries in which the majority of the population speaks English as their first language; it thus includes the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as several smaller countries. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE COUNTRIES SUCH AS INDIA in which English is a common second language, but in which films are rarely produced in English." Film Fan (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Now maybe we can add sockpuppetry to the list of sins? A discussion was held about this very topic, and consensus was to leave the titles as they are. Here are some links to discussions: from film project, from naming conventions. Also, keep in mind that it passed FA as is. BollyJeff | talk 00:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• • • Firstly, those talk pages are TALK PAGES (not in the guidelines/policies) for a reason. Secondly, both those discussions mentions that when the Indian title is used, the ENGLISH TITLE SHOULD BE MENTIONED IN THE FIRST LINE. BUT, as the guidelines CLEARLY STATE, the title used in "the English-speaking world" should be used as the article title anyway. To try and deny BOTH of these obvious amendments is fucking ridiculous! Film Fan (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages and discussions are used to interpret ambiguities in policies and guidelines. And actually, the consensus on those discussions probably should be added to the guideline page. Anyways, per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, the name used should be the one cited in English-language sources. 99% of the sources used in the article list the foreign title. Ωphois 00:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That is an absolute bullshit statistic plucked from the fantasy of your mind. Film Fan (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this issue, can any administrator who becomes involved in this issue (or one just reading through) please make a conclusion on the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films)#Titles_of_Indian_film_articles? The editors requested a conclusion back in April so that the decision could be added to the policy, but no admin ever did. Thanks. Ωphois 01:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

A Google search gives 2.5 million hits for Hindi title and and 0.5 million of English. Personally I am okay with having the English title in the first line, so long as the Hindi title comes first, and all editors remain civil. BollyJeff | talk 01:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Google searches are not controlling when the title is not in English, WP:COMMONNAME is, and it calls for the article to be at the name commonly used in English. Unless it is one of the very few foreign films which become well known by their original name, the common English-language name is almost always going to be a name that uses English words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As I noted earlier, 99% of the sources used (all in English) use the foreign title. The international title is only referred to online when discussing the DVD release. Ωphois 02:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That is an absolute bullshit statistic plucked from the fantasy of your mind. Film Fan (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that this was brought to ANI not because of the issue itself, but because of Jsigned's edit warring, refusal to discuss the matter, and previous disruptive behavior on the article. Personally, I can live with the current version, but a third editor had reverted Jsigned's edits citing BRD, but Jsign completely ignored this and just went back to reverting. With Jsign's abrasive conduct lately, I mainly brought this to the attention of admins due to concern of future disruptions at the article. Ωphois 03:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No no. You are the disruptive one, Ophois. And I have no idea who Ani is, but I don't like the sound of her. Film Fan (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You're currently on "Ani". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Film Fan (Jsigned), you need to tone it back a notch. And Ophois [42], this is Wikipedia, you don't have to discuss edits before you make them, however both of you need to discuss now that it was reverted, instead of warring. This isn't dispute resolution nor the warring noticeboard. Take this back to the article talk page (per WP:BRD), and if you can't work it out there, go to WP:DRN. This isn't an ANI issue (yet) and admins should not be needed for all involved editors to develop a consensus. Stop the blind reverts and discuss, or full protection and/or blocks are likely to follow for all the edit warriors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I personally feel that Jsigned's edits are more destructive than constructive. Given that he has engaged in countless edit-wars in the Taare Zameen Par article, with edit summaries falling on the edge of WP:UNCIVIL, failure to follow WP:BRD and learn from his mistakes, a topic ban or a block is long due. Secret of success (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

My edits were correct, and your personal feelings are not. Film Fan (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, thank you for you input. My edit that you cited is taken out of context however. That was in response to similar previous edits that Jsigned had made on the article, when he was previously reverting against editor consensus. I did not bring this to ANI as dispute resolution, but to deal with Jsigned's disruptive behavior. His immature/explicit responses in this discussion alone should demonstrate what we have been having to deal with. Ωphois 16:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Are Film Fan and this Jsigned character the same user? Having a mis-leading signature in itself is disruptive. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 17:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Lugnuts. Film Fan (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that so? your sig: [[User:Jsigned|Film Fan]] ([[User talk:Jsigned|talk]]) BollyJeff | talk 23:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ophois, you still have to try to go to the appropriate venues, to demonstrate you have made good faith efforts to resolve the situation. If he refused to go to DRN, that would be a stronger case for disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, Dennis Brown, I think Jsigned's behaviour has escalated beyond a content dispute on one isolated article, and requires some admin attention. Specificially, I point out the following:

1. The issues already identified by Ophois in this thread.
2. The edit-warring and uncivl behaviour identified by Secret of success in this thread.
3. Being caught in a signature forgery above. Specifically, Jsigned is signing off as pre-existing user, Film Fan (talk · contribs), and than claiming they are not Jsigned.
4. Being incivil in this thread, and refusing to acknowledge any problems when confronted about said incivility.
5. His continuance to edit-war while this thread is being being discussed! (See the history at Love (2012 French film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views))

Seems to me it is time for admin intervention. Singularity42 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48 hours, under WP:DE. Trying to be nice didn't work, so he forced my hand. I've left a full explanation on his talk page, including how he needs to change his signature to one that isn't misleading. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been following Jsigned's career here for several months now, and what I've seen here is pretty typical behaviour. "I am right, you should shut up" and quite dogged edit-warring to achieve what seems most often to be ramming home whatever definition of "english" film title is in Jsigned's mind. In the Troll Hunter debate, they showed great ingenuity in pressing their view, like substituting (and edit-warring for) incorrect film poster images. If Jsigned is not dealt with now, I predict future appearances at this noticeboard. This is one of those often-right but incredibly abrasive editor situations that become quite messy. However, I must reject the suggestion of signature forgery, I was the admin on hand when Jsigned changed their sig, and I felt at the time it was policy-compliant (linked to proper upages) - so pls bring to me if you feel that was incorrect. In retrospect, maybe they should be invited to usurp the Film Fan account, but there's no forgery IMO. Franamax (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. If Jsigned simply wanted to be called "Bobby" or "Karen" and arranged their sig to display that name, that would be one thing - iffy, perhaps, but acceptable if consistent and not meant disruptively; but signing with the name of a previous user is deceptive, and should not be allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the relevant section of WP:SIG:

Signatures which include no reference to the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in [[User:Example|User:Nickname]]) are strongly discouraged, as it can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers). The actual username always appears in the page history, so using just the nickname on the relevant talk page can make it appear to be a different person.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No, my nerve fibres are screaming too loud, I can't type that TLA, I hate having to point out simple things like good faith. Perhaps we should look for reasons other than outright deception on the part of the other editor? The "previous user" never made an edit, n'est-ce pas? What is the immense sin here? Hovering over the sig (we do all have popups enabled, right?) shows the correct target - and I'm fairly sure I can quickly come up with quite a few editors with flamboyant sigs. Franamax (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

@Franamax: Of course, AGF. If a user inadvertantly breaks that policy (or any policy, for that matter), one goes to him or her and points out the problem. If they change it, no problem, if they don't, they get blocked, whether the original mistake as done innocently or not. Really, though, in this specific case, he should never have been told it was OK to do so, because it manifestly is not OK to do so. Still, that's easily fixed, and Dennis says (below) it wasn't the reason for the block, so... Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

So kinda like how I pointed out the specific problem and potential solution for the editor on their talk page, which no-one else bothered to do? And since I'm putting my name out here, I never told Jsigned "it was OK to do so", but I acquiesced when I noticed they changed their sig while I was actively monitoring their contributions. If you find a concern that an existing account with zero edits ever shares the same name, you should probably count that up as my deficient adminship, it's true that I should have been ever-vigilant and found that zero-edit account. No-one up 'til now (and at the original Troll Hunter move where Jsigned changed sigs) has been seriously confused by the sigs. The substance and manner of their contribs were and are of far greater concern than the signature. But we should extend courtesy even to those seemingly headed out the door. Franamax (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As we should extend courtesy to those who signed up here but never edited, at least until their user names are official usurped. I'm sorry that I interpreted "I was the admin on hand when Jsigned changed their sig, and I felt at the time it was policy-compliant" to mean that you told him it was OK, rather than that you merely acquiesced to his actions without comment. And please, do not infer from my comments anything specific about my views on your "adminship." I am quite capable of telling an admin when I think they're doing a bad job (although I do so infrequently, consider that admins are armed and I am not), and I have not said that about you, nor do I think it. I do believe you made a mistake in this case, but I've made a boatload of mistakes as an editor here, and I don't consider myself to be in any (serious) way "deficient". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The sig wasn't the reason for the block, but using the same name as a different registered user isn't allowed. As I told him, it doesn't have to be his exact registered name, but it does need to be a name that isn't a registered user. This does cause confusion as if you go to the search bar and just type User:Film Fan, you don't get the info that the user doesn't exist, you get a completely different user. If you think that one finer point needs a discussion at WP:AN, no offense would be taken, but I am forced to stand by my original assessment unless someone can persuade me that I'm reading the spirit of the policy incorrectly, as it seems very specifically to be addressing this exact scenario. That the user he is impersonating hasn't made edits is meaningless if you accidentally go there to give me a user warning template, for example, as you wouldn't get a warning, and this seems exactly what the policy is trying to avoid, explicitly. If he can capture the named account via usurp after his block, then more power to him, I have no beef with that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I maintain and reiterate that your statement "the user he is impersonating" is categorically false. You have presented no evidence whatsoever that Jsigned is seeking to impersonate anyone. And further, unless you can show where you have been watching longer than I have, I'll state that Jsigned is not pretending to be anyone other than their own rude and abrasive self. Please frame your concerns in other than accusatory terms and accept that this overeager editor may have not actually read whichever obscure page you or I can conjure with ease. Again, no problem with other aspects of the block, but you shouldn't be suggesting deception where none exists. Franamax (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Jsigned may have just been being sarcastic, but when asked in the discussion above by Lugnuts if he and Film Fan were the same person, Jsigned said they weren't. Ωphois 02:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't sweat it Ophois. It is fine to disagree, like Franamax and I do. We agree on the main points of the block, we disagree on the handling of the signature. Like any other editors, we can (and should) disagree without being disagreeable. Everyone has their own opinions, no use laboring them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Now that he has been blocked, why don't we wait for sometime (after his block expires) and see if this continues? If it does, we can always re-report and if not, nothing to worry about, right? Secret of success (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP sockpuppets

I am asking for a semi-protection of the article Tarkhan. A few days ago, User:Greczia was banned for sockpuppetry and for POV edits (including in the article mentioned above). It is obvious that he is now using IPs to revert to his POV. --Lysozym (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Semi-protected, however, next time you need to make a request at WP:RFPP, which is specifically setup for page protection requests. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I am observing this article since 1 week and actually we need a protection for the article because of Lysozym. It is clearly visible that he is trying to downplay a possible Altaic (turkic/mongolian) Etymology. He is infiltrating his own POV by deleting highly relevant and importan segments (no matter if Grezcia or who else is banned). Those IP's he is accusing with sockpuppetry have nothing to do with his false claims. --80.132.183.212 (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you're not someone who is currently blocked, you can head on over the article talkpage to try and gain WP:CONSENSUS for your edits - but accusing of POV is not the way to go about that dangerouspanda 09:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Accusing of POV is not the right way to go.--Calm As Midnight 23:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jew Watch

Talk:Jew Watch (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Can an admin please review the recent edit war on the talk page and knock some sense into some people?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's mainly the new(?) editor, and I've warned him and will be keeping an eye out. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems more like some people there wants to remove comments that are indeed to the discussion about the article, but not liking when others do it about comments that are not about the discussion. hipocrisy in this case of Jim1138. do talk to himWitsBlomstein (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

WitsBlomstein the issue is that we do not delete other people's contributions to the talk page. That is what talk is about, healthy discussion. We edit the article and discuss the edits on the talk page in order to try to reach consensus. I appreciate that the topic of the discussion is an emotive one. It is for both sides. Try abiding by the procedures the Wikipedia community have developed and seek moderation by an administrator if it is not working OK? The same of course goes for Seb az86556, Jpgordon and Mann jess, I do not believe deleting contributions from the talk page is appropriate do you? Djapa Owen 14:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

WitsBlomstein is a pretty obvious sock of the IP hopping anon editor 109.225.103.247, 77.53.83.107, and 77.53.83.205, who have been readding comments to a closed discussion. Given that, he's edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

And 77.53.83.46 (talk · contribs) who has also edited the same page (all the IPs are from last month). He's editing on articles to do with Jews, white supremacy, etc. Virtually every edit of his that isn't on a trivial subject has been reverted. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Anne Block/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne K. Block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I looked at Anne Block as part of new page patrol, realized that it had been AfD'd about a week ago, and tagged it as a repost. The AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne K. Block and indicates that there was some kind of edit war between someone who was apparently attacking Ms. Block and someone who was on her side. The talk page of Anne Block contained a statement by someone who claimed to be Ms. Block that seemed to me to push the WP:LAWSUIT button, metaphorically speaking, by indicating that she wanted to file a civil suit, although she then immediately blanked the page. The diff about the civil suit is at [[43]]. I hope this can get some quick attention from an admin before it escalates. Ubelowme _U ^Me 03:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As legal threats are not tolerated, I quote from William Shakespeare himself: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Basically speaking, I think a block should be necessary in this case. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

His army is a ragged multitude

Of hinds and peasants, rude and merciless:

...

All scholars, lawyers, courtiers, gentlemen,

They call false caterpillars, and intend their death. (Hen VI, V, iv) --Shirt58 (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

But WP:DOLT applies as well. Deception passer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and L8incoub3rt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been making some pretty clear BLP violations. Also note that numerous versions of the attack page exist in talk page histories and AfC as well at the article itself. VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Panyd has very sensibly speedied the article under WP:G4. It's my opinion that blanking the page effectively constitutes a withdrawal of the legal threat, and so I don't feel that User:AnneBlock45 should be sanctioned for this - since she's already withdrawn the threat, a block for NLT would serve no purpose. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's see if I have your logic correctly: She threatens legal action, making her subject to WP:NLT, we delete the article on entirely internal grounds, not related to her complaint, and you believe that this negates any exposure for WP:NLT on her part? I'd say that part 1 has nothing whatsoever to do with part 2 and that the user should be subject to blocking regardless of what's happened to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Yunshui appears to be saying that Ms Block's blanking of her own legal threat removed the NLT violation, not the article deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have imposed a legal threat block, as I don't feel that merely blanking a talk page constitutes a withdrawal of the threat of legal action. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Because consensus is for losers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee has my argument correct; AnnBlock45 blanked the page (and thus removed the threat) before the page was deleted. That said, I'm not going to quibble with Mike's decision. I am casually curious as to what he'd accept as a valid unblock request, though, given that the user now has no way of re-withdrawing her threat... Yunshui 雲‍水 14:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What a stupid bad block. She made the legal threat, then blanked it just 1 minute later, before the page was deleted or any further action taken. It takes serious bad faith to not see that as a withdrawal of the threat -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC) (redact unnecessary insult, sorry) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Boing! said Zebedee above, the quick blanking of the threat after it was made could easily be viewed as a withdrawal of the threat. There was no reason to block the account. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments as I was the nominator in the original procedural AfD. First, Block's withdrawal of the legal threat could be viewed not as a retraction but the realization that she didn't need "a copy of submission" as the article had not yet been deleted. In addition, it doesn't make sense that she would contest the speedy deletion of an anti-Block article. Second, to the extent she did in fact mean to retract her threat, she can still contest the block by explaining that and promising not to make legal threats in the future. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the block of Block (had to get that in), but even for those who disagree (and I fully understand why), it's not the end of the world if the block remains in place. I also think that if Block requests an unblock, someone should point to this discussion on her Talk page to help the reviewing admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I left that link on her talk page as part of alerting her that I'd initiated this conversation. It's immediately above the block notification. Ubelowme _U ^Me 16:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree this isn't the very best of blocks at all. Blanking = withdrawl. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've unblocked AnneBlock45, and left a note that if the comment had not been blanked, the block would not have been unreasonable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• I would suggest that deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anne Block needs to be considered. Mangoe (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  I've deleted that page as well. That deletion might be on the edge of being out-of-process; anyone who thinks it improper can let me know, or admins can undelete it themselves if they want. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  Looks perfectly sound to me, Flo. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not that it matters at this point, but unless she had been warned prior to this, I don't feel the block should have been imposed given that she blanked the page immediately. GregJackP Boomer! 21:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

While I obviously disagree with Floquenbeam that a consensus has been reached, I don't feel strongly enough about it to dump on him/her about reversing my block. (And I appreciate Boing!'s strikeout of an insult.) We're all working towards the same goal. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Matthew Anthony Smith

I'm reluctant to report what is essentially a content dispute, but this has been going on for what seems like forever, multiple editors have been involved, and yet much the same behaviour continues.

The essential problems are most succinctly summed up by reference to the user talk page: it is worth checking the history as well as the current revision since he has a habit of deleting particular threads. In summary he created a succession of variations of {Template:Infobox CPU} which were nominated for deletion and they were deleted as a result following reasonably well developed debates. The editor in question is now seeking to modify the generic template with much the same net effect as the changes that were rejected at XfD. User continues to engage in the same non-communicative and owning behaviour as was used in the past despite opposition having been expressed to those changes. Crispmuncher (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC).

are you kidding me!, the changes that were were rejected in the modified template was the UI, not the content, the conclusion came to be a merge and so that is what i am doing. they did not fully merge all those labels so that is what I was doing, the template did NOT lose any compatibility from the generic, and if there were any problems that I would fix them. and I have fixed them so whats the problem? all of the problems that were related to ARM cant be fixed because appearantly it doesnt use this template it uses this one Infobox CPU architecture Matthew Smith (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• User:Ruud Koot filed this report at WP:ANEW. It has some possibly useful links at the bottom of the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

India (featured article)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

India is presently a long-standing featured article. But that's for another day. The thing is, many other FAs about countries (Japan, Germany, Canada, Australia et al.) have a city population template in the demographics section and with good reason. India doesn't have one. So I made a template (actually I made two because of the high varieties of subsequent complaints about its "ugly looks"). I went to discuss. Got feedback along the lines of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT.

• "This was discussed in the past and the template was removed because it doesn't add any value to the article. I for one think that these city templates are nothing but an eyesore." - apparently the editors of other FAs that have the template, are unmindful. That's what it seems to me.
• "No need for more clutter" - notice that the "demographics" section of other similar FAs (Germany, Japan, Australia) usually contain subsections like "religion", "language", "education", "health"; India, being an FA, has none of that, yet supposedly it is causing too much clutter as far as the inclusion of the template is concerned.
• "no to a city template" - Yup. that's it and nothing more.
• "you better show something other than WP:OSE and stop repeating yourself like a parrot." - however, I tried to explain how it will help give the readers some idea about the populations of the largest populated areas/settlements/cities in India. All in vain.
• "City templates are fine with me as long as they're in the right place."
• "I generally approve of city templates. They aren't that large, and they give me a rough idea on whether the population is distributed throughout various areas or concentrated on a few major cities...(big comment)" and other comments basically saying either we can have one or we must not have one, check here.

After undergoing this highly perplexing and hazy discussion, I boldly inserted one of the templates in the demographics section, to see what happens afterwards, naturally it was reverted with the summary "consensus first, inclusion later". I continued the discussion, again replies were "Looks awful", "Absolutely no to such ugliness", "India is preeminently (and in my view thankfully still) a rural country" (emphases are my own). I momentarily bursted out saying that the template's primary job is to give information about largest urban agglomerations in India rather than serving as an eye-candy. Then I was advised "never underestimate the importance of aesthetics and good taste" by the one who reverted me. I started discussion about the looks of the template. Nothing helpful came out of it with the exception of one comment by Ashley who made me rethink the order of those agglomerations.

Yes, we can quibble about the looks or the stats of the template all we want but that alone or WP:IDON'TLIKEIT cannot serve as grounds for removal of the template altogether, especially when other FAs have these in demographics section. As a side note, in the article, there is not a glimpse of the modernized part of India. Now, I am frankly sick of these asinine comments. Don't desire to see more of those here. Thank you for your time. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?)} 09:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a content disagreement - I can't see anything requiring any admin actions. If simple discussion on the talk page can't achieve a consensus, I'd suggest looking into the steps of WP:DR -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's not much that can be done here from an admin perspective. FAs have for a long time been plagued by ownership issues and some weird desire to allow their primary contributors to veto edits of which they disapprove; that's not going to change in the course of an ANI thread. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup, wrong venue. And, fwiw, those things are eyesores; too long, too boxed-up. They could be simple, abbreviated, lists with most of the detail off in the city articles.

OP's got a {{plain link}} template in their sig, which is not on per WP:SIG. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I found the FAR discussions about country articles rather shallow in general but let's not get into that issue here. This is a content dispute, so go back to arguing among yourselves, or try other means to obtain a wider participation, WP:DRN, WP:RfCs, etc. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries

 – That's more suitable Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?)} 10:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"poArtExpressionism.com" external link

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To the Admin, How can this happen on wiki within 24 hours on a valid link?

I am new at this; however in a 24 hour period it appears some editor block a valid poArt Expressionism link.

The following link has triggered a protection filter: poartexpressionism.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.

I stated some info here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expressionism#keeping_the_.22poArtExpressionism.com.22_external_link

WHERE do I appeal this apparently militant activity or is this just how wiki functions?

thanks Julius — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliusJeff (talk • contribs) 11:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute. You've done the right thing by going to the article's talk page, but consensus seems to be the link shouldn't stay, so assume it's not the end of the world and have a look at something else. That said, Modernist shouldn't be flinging policies at you as he's violated the three revert rule himself by reverting your good-faith edits here here and here. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked him to comment on the talk page, he persisted in adding his link and then canvassed his friends to add the link and they did. I did my best to explain policy to him...Modernist (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

All that's well and good, but if it escalated up to WP:AN3, somebody might notice your three reverts within 24 hours and block you as well. I can't hand on heart say you were reverting obvious and bad faith vandalism. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

He's adding a personal website with only questionable and tangential value to the article at best; classic spamlink, Ewulp reverted him as well; it becomes vandalism after he'd been warned, went to the talk page, and then emailed his friends to add the link - and 2 of them did. It was my responsibility to try to explain the policy to him and I did. He then began to personally attack me, as I said I did my best...Modernist (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" ;-) Anyhow, nobody's blocked, Julius has been firmly told his link's not staying. Now, let's all look at some nice pictures of some small, furry and cute animals. Aaaah.... --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka

I have explained enough with User:Obi2canibe about the violation of pushing POV and introducing WP:OR to User:Himesh84 on the talk page of above article and failed. We need Administrators' action.Sudar123 (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What other dispute resolution methods have you tried besides telling them your feelings? There are additional steps between "I told them to stop" and "I need an administrator to intervene". See WP:DR for a list of ideas. --Jayron32 13:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Jayron32, we didn't try at other dispute resolution methods since it is an obvious POV of the editor without any reliable citation to support his/her point.Sudar123 (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If so, it should be trivial for you to get other editors to agree with your side in the dispute then. When it is one-on-one, you'll find that administrators aren't likely to act to break the deadlock. If it is the entire community-on-one (see WP:CONSENSUS), then it is much easier. For the first, having many other editors comment on a topic makes it easier to convince the other person to get in line, making an administrator unecessary. Secondly, admins are more likely to take action if it is clear you have been the reasonable person, and have exhausted all options before coming here. --Jayron32 17:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

But it's a requirement in a community such as Wikipedia. WP:DR lists the processes - often it's a misunderstanding of an encyclopedia, or a lack of knowledge of the policies. If there are specific infractions, such as edit-warring, those are typically taken care of at individual boards like WP:AN/3RR dangerouspanda 16:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

user:Alwaysunpctruth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wants to use Stormfront, the Racialist Papers, and other such sources on Amy Biehl and related articles. Refuses to engage in discussion/talkpage. More eyes needed. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indef. No hope of productive edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's my opinion that we should block all usernames containing "truth" on sight. ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, support. Also all usernames containing words like "justice", "fair", "balanced" etc. (Oh, look, here's a double whammy; can anybody find a username which has all three?) Improve Wikipedia, block 'em all. Bishonen | talk 15:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC).

Strongly endorse indefinite block. Completely unacceptable. If there is any more of this sort of thing I'd appreciate being notified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Username suggests blatant bad faith POV vandalism, to be honest. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• No, not over yet. I'm going through links to flawlesslogic.com. Can someone smart build in a filter and block that Nazi propaganda site? Drmies (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

76.1.125.223

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

IP has done blatant vandalism on the psychoanalysis article (diff). He/she also has a history of blocks and vandalism. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 3 months (last block was one). In the future, please report to WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Slow brewing edit war at 16:10, has been going on for months

I'm somewhat involved in this because I've already given an opinion at RS/N [44], but I've also noticed that the article 16:10 has been the subject of recurring bouts of edit-warring. Some admin intervention may be necessary, at least in the form of warnings. There has been discussion on the talk page among disputants in the last week of August, however it looks like they've (again) resorted to reverts at the beginning of September. Mind you, there has been edit-warring around the exact same paragraph at the beginning of August and in the middle of July as well when the page was protected, so this is inching towards WP:LAME. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the response at Talk:16:10#3O in July and now at RS/N, I'm inclined to say that the wp:consensus seems to favor inclusion of that paragraph as having appropriate wp:weight based on the opinion of multiple technology journalists appearing in reliable sources. So, the editor User:Urklistre who (with help of the SPA User:Yokononos) keeps removing it appears to be engaging in disruptive editing at this point. (There was also a WP:DRN discussion in July, which was closed due to Urklistre's non-participation.) Tijfo098 (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify (I'm one of the editors involved), the paragraph has been disputed since 9 July, which is when I first added the content in question [45]. There has since been one attempt at WP:DRN and two attempts at WP:3O, a few other editors have become involved, and in fact the dispute seemed to have been more or less resolved, until the most recent bout of edits and reverts, by the editors mentioned above. While this has been accompanied by attempts of discussion on the talk page (see Talk:16:10#Questioned part about opinions), I have to agree that User:Urklistre's behaviour points to a disruptive editor (I filed an ANI report about it about a month ago, but it didn't receive any response). Indrek (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tijfo's assessment. This is a good example of how an editor who went through almost every dispute resolution available was unable to solve the dispute because another editor (and I'd say two possible socks) has no problem just being aggressive. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is too lame for words. I have protected this article for two weeks, which is enough time for anyone with a bit of common sense to propose an RfC on the talk page--one which proposes something simple like a choice between two different paragraphs, or which asks in addition to that whether a given source is to be used or not. You all hurry up and get that show on the road, because if you don't I will ban all of you from editing that particular article, and I will burn the talk page (I can't believe I read it) and merge the whole damn thing into 16:9. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Checkuser note. Urklistre (talk · contribs) and Yokononos (talk · contribs) are a  Confirmed match. I have indeffed the latter, but, considering the article just got protected, was leaning towards just warning the former. If a fellow admin is feeling less lenient than I, do feel free to block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    • You are a more generous person than I am with socks. I'm very patient with disagreements between editors or content disputes, but not deception (lying) which is the goal of socking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Haha, I was waiting for a CU to come by: it looked all too easy. I'm going to unprotect the article and block the Urk for two weeks for socking and editwarring and being a complete disruptor. If they come back and do it again Dennis B. can do this thing. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I had filed the SPI right after I saw this, it just took a while for a CU to get freed up. I almost duck blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
        • It looks like WP:GIANTDICK applied here. Thanks guys. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the swift response, everyone. I assume this wraps up the issue and the article is OK to edit again? Indrek (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
          • The article has been unprotected, so whoever isn't blocked can edit it. Hopefully this was a learning experience for Urklistre and he'll be more collaborative in the future. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Yummy Dunn

Formerly Vtr1781249, this user was brought to ANI for a policy issue regarding WP:UKNATIONALS recently, and though he said he read the policy, this, this, and this indicate that there is a unilateral application/removal of the word "British" being applied. The latter removal in fact contradicts a UK government site's terminology. MSJapan (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Nationality and ethnicity are not the same thing, Nationality refers to a persons heritage whereas, ethnicity refers to ethnic status. For example, to say I was a Greenlandic Asian would be incorrect, I'm either Greenlandic or I'm an Asian but clearly not both, however, I can be a White Greenlandic or Black Greenlandic &c. The British Government data collection statistics were not contradicted, they refer to both nationality AND ethnicity and are, in any case consolidated statistics Yummy Dunn (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to quote British Government statistics, you must quote the exact terms they use. They ask people if they are Black British, Asian British etc deliberately, and the terms should not be deprecated. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I would not personally rely on Government statistics, but use independently compiled statistics, however, to answer your point the British Government stats are Consolidated for both nationality & ethnicity, in the article which was corrected, the topic was "Nationality", so the quoted statistics were wrongly applied Yummy Dunn (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Its a clear pattern of disruption. If you check Yummy Dunn's contribution record you will see similar edits on other articles. In each case s/he was reverted and asked to use the talk page but simply reinstated the edits. We now have another spate on another set of articles, with the same arguments about nationality and ethnicity with no reference to sources. We have a single Issue, disruptive editor who seems willing to ignore the community. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yummy Dunn's assertions are not true. The quoted statistics are for the Census findings for ethnicity and say nothing about nationality. The Census asks separately about ethnicity and nationality; the ethnicity classification is set as "Black and Black British" subdivided into 'Caribbean', 'African' and 'Any other black background'. Incidentally it is wrong to describe these as 'Government statistics' as they are produced by the Office of National Statistics, which is an independent agency collecting its own data and deciding its own policy; the ONS is capable of reproving Governments if they mishandle the information it provides. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That particular comment was specifically referring to http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk in the Cambridge article, which should be a government entity given the web address. MSJapan (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That is to misunderstand what is meant by 'Government'. Neighbourhood Statistics is part of the UK Statistics Authority, which is an independent agency of the public sector providing statistics to the Government and to the public. It is in a fundamentally different situation to (e.g.) the Department of Health; Government departments also publish statistics but there can be a political input in deciding what they publish and when. UK Statistics Authority is studiously politically neutral and so should not really be referred to as a 'government entity' in that sense. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Reinstating the School of Science and Technology, Singapore

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I'm a current employee and staff of SST and I'm given the permission by the Principal of the school, Mr Chua Chor Huat, to use the writeup and pictures from the SST website into the SST Wiki page (pls refer to the sst website -> about SST -> Organisation Structure -> Admin Office -> Carol Lum). I'm the Corporate Communications Executive and I do both the photography and writeup for the school.

Apparently it was stated in the deletion log that the page had been deleted because of the use of the logo in the page. This page is the school's main Wiki page and it is not possible not to use the logo at all. I'm not sure I understand why it was deleted based on this reason as it does not seem justifiable.

If reusing the photos that were from the SST website is not allowed, I will change the gallery entirely. As I've taken new photos of the students' achievement in the recent month, I've already made periodical edits since early this week.

Please reinstate the page as soon as possible to allow me to make the edits to the pictures in the gallery.

Thanks.

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumcarol (talk • contribs) 01:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue was that you copied content without explicit permission. You need to provide proof that content from the school's website is available under Wikipedia-acceptable terms, and that's not simply "Content from here may be used by Wikipedia". Except for images used under the standards of fair use, everything (including text from the school's website) must be available for purposes including corporate use by anyone, unlimited copying by anyone, and unlimited modifications by anyone. You can do this by any of several ways:

• Arrange for the webmaster to put a notice on the website saying "The contents of this website [or "of this page"] are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike License 3.0". This is Wikipedia's main permissions license, and it means that anyone would be able to use your website's content (or content from pages with the license statement) for the purposes I mentioned above.
• Pick a page or pages to use, and then arrange for the webmaster to send an email through the OTRS process, explicitly permitting the use of that page's or those pages' contents under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike License 3.0.
• Arrange for the webmaster to send an email through the OTRS process verifying that you, Lumcarol, are authorised to copy content from the website and release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike License 3.0.

We have to impose all of those procedures because anyone can claim to have the right to use content; without OTRS, there's non way to prove who you are. In short, this is meant to protect your copyright. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There's also the fact that Wikipedia is not for promotion, which it appears from your comments the intent of the page is. And, regardless of that, this is not a matter for AN/I. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I just sent the article to AfD. It should really be moved to AfC - completely promotional at this time. GregJackP Boomer! 04:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sasakubo1717 repeatedly re-inserting PROD tags

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Sasakubo1717, who is from the Thai Wikipedia, placed a proposed deletion tag on Tongkah Harbour Public Company Limited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It was removed by an IP editor (not me), but he subsequently restored the tag three times, despite being told that this is against the English Wikipedia's proposed deletion policy, and ignoring suggestions that he take the article to AfD instead. I really don't see the point in continuing an edit war over a stupid tag on a very short stub, but the involved editor does not seem interested in constructive discussion with IP editors. He may be more receptive to admins' opinions, so I am requesting assistance here. (Note that I am the same editor as 125.25.0.198 and 115.67.98.73.) --115.67.66.207 (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made the required notification to Sasakubo1717 (for any user brought up here). It would've been better if you had first discussed on his talk page about this, but now it's here we might as well discuss. He does not seem to be proficient in English, so I don't know if he understands what he's doing. However, what's clear is that we don't need any admin action right now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Assistance given. By an admin. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When you approached him the first time to discuss this with him, before bringing it here, what was his response to you? --Jayron32 04:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

See the article talk page, Jayron. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. --Jayron32 04:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that Drmies was not acting in his capacity as an admin, but as an ordinary editor in removing the re-added tag, for formality's sake.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I was? Drmies (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

IIRC any uninvolved editor in good standing could've removed the tag, and given the warning, since you didn't threaten anything like blocking. It didn't take an admin to make it clear that the article is here to stay.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think this can be closed w/o admin action, now that Sasakuboi1717 is aware of what he/she did wrong and now knows to refrain from re-adding deleted PROD tags.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Done Sorry, That the only way I know how to make delete request(Re-added delete tag), and have done clear by admin to be notable in Wikipedia & you have to understand my English --Sasakubo1717 (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor has acknowledged and apologised. I'm closing this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please Fix and correct wiki page: Alex Gilbert

Please fix page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Gilbert as he is an award winning film maker: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4338251/

The page was deleted in late 2007 which was over 5 years ago. This needs to be corrected. Please just unprotect so I can work on a small article for the page. Your help would be much appreciated. He has worked with Film Director - Peter Webber. Worked on Children TV in NZ. Won the film award in the USA as he is a NZ Film maker. Is the youngest TV On Air Director in NZ. https://twitter.com/alexgilbertnz He also worked with 'Stuart Dryburgh' on the Emperor film as he was the Camera Intern for the Film. Please fix and correct.

Thank You --Filmsandtv2012report (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest you start a draft article in your userspace, such as User:Filmsandtv2012report/Alex Gilbert. Then when you have a draft that you think shows he meets our notability guidelines you can submit it to articles for creation for review. GB fan 04:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Filmsandtv2012report (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)---

Thank You!

Note, even if we take everything claimed at imdb as true, which we can't as it is not a reliable source, the award your talking about was given to a film where his role was "Audio Recordist and Additional Camera", and the award was from the 2012 Utah Arts Festival, not an award of particular note. Everyone who works on a film isn't automatically notable if the film wins a major award, and not every awards is that notable. To get it approved at Articles for Creation, you are going to need to provide much more evidence of notability then you provided here. Monty₈₄₅ 04:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Intentionally disruptive editing by USER:StillStanding-247

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Still has been here long enough to know that [46] and [47] are way out of bounds with respect to POV. I haven't bothered to check his other recent edits, but in light of these and his refactoring/deleting other users comments on ANI last night during his faux outing, I can't shake the feeling that he is doing this to annoy other editors or to make some grand point. This has got to stop. User will be notified.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute. Please assume good faith, take it to the talk page, and discuss the problem as you see it calmly like rational Wikipedians, with the goal of resolving the dispute, not escalating it. Move to close this thread. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, suggest it be closed. TFD (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I have already closed the above discussion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

And I have reopened this. This is not a content dispute, but about a recent pattern of disruption.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I think Still's edits seem to be puzzling. If these edits have a pattern of disruption, then I suspect that this might be a serious problem. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the first of the two edits presented, I hardly see how that one makes a huge difference. The second edit is somewhat of a problem because it presents an opinion as if it is fact. This could be reworded to fix the problems. Like others have said, this seems to be a content issue, and would probably best be solved by educating StillStanding on how things like this should be presented in Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looking at those two diffs, while I disagree with both of them, I don't think they are so far outside the norms of reasonable editing that administrative action is warranted. In the first case, while the Republican Party is largely the party OF christian conservatives in the US, that does not make IT a christian conservative party, there are many other constituencies represented in the party, and it isn't primarily defined as such; but all that is the content dispute and nuance. Pushing a POV isn't actionable in and of itself, and I don't see conduct that rises to the point deserving any sanction at this point. Monty₈₄₅ 05:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It ain't the POV in our articles, it's the disruption in our pedia. I can promise you I would never bring anyone to ANI over simple POV issues. Still has been advised to stand down by many editors and stop being confrontational. A random sampling of his talk page diffs will demonstrate this attitude.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you attempted to resolve this problem on the talk page? As far as I can tell, it looks like you are trying to use ANI to get the upper hand in a content dispute. That's actually more disruptive than an editor adding content you disagree with. Viriditas (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a content issue that's being discussed on the articles' talk pages. I'm not sure why you're trying to make drama here, but it's counterproductive. If you disagree with the edits, come talk with me and the other editors. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'd like to point out that Still closed this and Viriditas did an improper rollback and removed another editors comment in the process.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I clearly opined against the OP, I strongly object to the summary closure of recent, active, unresolved threads in general, and even more so when done by non-admins before even a single administrator can offer their input. It seems bitey and unhelpful. Even if admin action isn't warranted, ANI threads can still be productive, whether it's helping users work out an issue or educating newer users on what is and isn't appropriate for ANI without biting their heads off. Our primary goal as administrators should be to help people, and if you're a non-admin who wants to assist on this page, that should be your goal as well, rather than policing whether threads should be closed. Swarm ^X 07:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Quick side note: As I am involved, I never made any attempt to close this report. Two other editors did. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Correction, three separate, uninvolved editors attempted to close this thread. I'm not sure I understand Swarm's objection. Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Swarm's objection appears to be based on the misconception that admins are better equipped, smarter or more knowledgeable than other users. In many cases this may be true, but I know of no overall magic transformation that occurs when you get the bit; what you get is the ability to block and delete and etc., not better judgment or deeper knowledge about Wikipedia.

It is said here many, many times that this is not a place for generalized discussion, nor is it part of dispute resolution. It is a place for complaints which require admin action. If there's nothing for admins to do, then there's nothing for admins to do. Too many threads hang on well past their sell-by date and become magnets for incivility and antagonism, so threads should be closed as soon as it's clear that they're not about the need for admin action. They can alays be re-opened if others disagree. Whether the thread is closed by an admin or non-admin is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This is most definitely not a content dispute - this is about Still's apparent continuous disruption. My recommendation: WP:RFC/U because this is a pattern of unwelcome behaviour dangerouspanda 10:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The specific complaint above shows no evidence of a pattern of "continuous disruption", since only two diffs were presented. What appears in the complaint itself is a content dispute, which was brought here in order to see if an admin would step in and favor the OP's side, but since (as you apparently agree, since filing an RFC/U is not an admin action) there is nothing in the complaint to warrant that action, closing was appopriate. AN/I is not advice to the lovelorn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

As you aren't Kreskin I can see how you made that assumption. And as I have made a grand total of 1 edits to the articles in question, and that in a completely different section I think its safe to say that I am not involved in any content dispute on either of those articles. Yes my complaint here was not crafted sufficiently to give the uninvilved a better prospective. I apologize for posting this to the wrong venue. Perhaps Panda is right about an RFC/U, but that is going to be a major waste of time for all involved. Or maybe an uninvolved admin could sift through Still's (and anyone else's for that matter) edits and they can see for themselves this disruption. There are plenty of POV editors from all sides, but none even rise close to the level of disruption caused by Still. Just look at his recent talk page where other editors advise him to step away from the politics. I've had my say, and I apologize for putting this poorly crafted,(bit not without merit) incident forward.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• This appears to be yet another skirmish in the ongoing political warfare between two editing factions (StillStanding belonging to one, LGR belonging to the other). The war has been spilling out all over Wikipedia in recent weeks, including here, DRN, NPOVN, and user talk pages, and it's becoming highly disruptive. I would encourage someone to open an RfC on something (whatever it is everyone's actually fighting about, preferably? Whatever that is, at its root...) to lance this boil. I suspect I'm not the only uninvolved editor here who's getting rather sick of seeing the same names having the same fight over the same issues daily. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Akemi Loli Mokoto seems to be vandalizing his own user page

I didn't do a checkuser, but based on editing style it looks like User:Akemi Loli Mokoto has vandalized his own user page multiple times. This guy is actually the indef banned User:Saikano who was causing trouble in 2007, but I unblocked him in 2009 and have been keeping an eye on his edits since then, which have not been especially troublesome or controversial. Anyway since this is a "community ban" which I arbitrarily ignored I think it's about time for me to turn this over to the community, and maybe think about:

1. confirming who is doing the vandalism with checkuser, if anyone thinks that will be helpful
2. getting other people to watch his edits
3. or just banning him again if that really seems like the best solution.

Shii (tock) 06:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should do a usercheck because I have not vandalized anything. Since I have been allowed back to Wikipedia, I have done what I should have done before my ban(edit pages without bias, not insult other users, not use the "talk" page as a forum, etc). I was pretty child-ish back then so I regret my actions in the past. I hope, if it comes to it, the community understands that and lets me stay. Beside that, I am completely lost on what the hell just happened to my user page since I was asleep and I would like it if Wikipedia investigated it. I guess announcing the fact I was going to sleep to Twitter was not the best idea since I am often targeted due to my blunt tweets. I am going to fix the minor damage now. The edit done to my page are not "like me" by the way. I'd never be caught dead using idiotic words like "weeaboo". I do however get the feeling that despite my edits on other pages(most of which were minor), I am facing a ban for something I did NOT do. If I edited my own page, it was done using this user name and I did not edit to the point of violating Wikipedia's rules. That is all I have to say. --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Checkuser note. It seems unlikely that the two accounts are operated by the same person. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I thought they were the same for sure but I'll assume good faith that they are not. Anyone can close this conversation if they check it over and see that nothing unusual has happened here. Shii (tock) 12:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Loli?

Akemi Loli Mokoto, on your website that you link to on your user page, you have the following disclaimer:

Lolicon(some of the pics you see on this site) is LEGAL in the US, Japan, and other countries. But this will only be about the US. In 2002 the US Supreme Courts ruled in a 7-2 ruling that virtual child porn is LEGAL![link] This was affirmed in 2003. It was upheld in 2008.[link 1] [link 2][Link 3]. In Ohio the high courts also ruled that Virtual Child Porn is LEGAL[link 1] [link 2]. My host does NOT prohibit sexual or pornographic content if it is legal. This blog is UNTOUCHABLE! So do not waste your time bitching.

I'm curious - what is the meaning of the "Loli" in your username? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, when you were User:Saikano, you used to sign as "Lolicon3043910" - is this related? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, Loli is(to me) short for Lolicon. Over the past 1(maybe 2) years, I have strayed away from using "Loli" and "Lolicon" in my usernames and about mes since I am moving towards a correspondences contract with CNN next year(hopefully). Since I am unable to change my username on Wikipedia to something more desirable(Akemi_Mokoto, Akemi-Mokoto, Akemi.Mokoto, or even AkemiCNN) I have been forced to keep the "Loli" in Akemi_loli_mokoto. As for the Saikano and Lolicon3043910 usernames. I am unsure. I know I was User: Saikano but I do not know where the Lolicon3043910 username came from or anything else about. I know I made it but that is all I know about it. Is it a problem? If I could redo what I did in the past, I would. --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it a problem? No, not at all. After I saw your defense of "virtual child porn" on your site, I was curious if your username was promoting it. I think you have answered that. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. All the best. --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Changing username is permitted, so I see no reason not to allow a change to Akemi Mokoto (note that spaces are allowed in usernames, if you want). Though as that policy says, you might want to think twice about using your real name on Wikipedia, especially if you're already being harassed. I don't think that a past agreement not to use sockpuppets (whether or not it is still active) should be interpreted to prohibit a name change - does anyone disagree? Wnt (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

75.70.221.14

75.70.221.14 (talk) continuously adds advertising material to the Is Anyone Up? article talk page and based on his contribution is starting to harass other editors. Jonjonjohny (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for 48 hours by User:KillerChihuahua for vandalism and personal attacks. I would have blocked as well, just for this.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)