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

Template:Sexual orientation content dispute

Hi, I want to avoid 3rr here. A user is looking to insert content on this template which has seen similar issues prior of adding articles regarding sexuality to this template. I may have come across too strong so would like, presuming someone agrees that consensus should be sought here, if someone else would look at this and encourage discussion. -- Banjeboi 22:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Would I be correct in saying this is the diff and Perceived sexual orientation the "disputed" entry? Protonk (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Looks to me like Perceived sexual orientation belongs there, as it is a valid topic when discussing sexual orientation, and perception colours a lot of how sexual orientations are presented and received. //roux   22:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to avoid 3RR, don't revert. Seriously, this is a content dispute. You say so in your header, even. This is not the place for content disputes, please try dispute resolution. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have spelled out more. A user who has had a history of being extra bold and perhaps edit-warring in regards to this template is again adding content after it's been removed even though this scenario has been played out out a few times. I would rather not warn and revert them myself as I'm am involved in the issue. Here is the talk page discussion where you'll note a consensus of one. I am seeking that their addition simply be approved first before being re-added. The article in question, Perceived sexual orientation, sounds good but it needs a lot of work before its inclusion on the template, IMHO. This has been a similar concern with other articles that was the source of a long process to get the current template version. If concensus is that the article, as is, is perfect for the template, then great, if not, that's great too, but let's not edit war over it. -- Banjeboi 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't including the article on the template put more eyeballs on the article, thus driving more improvements? //roux   23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

By that theory dozens of problematic articles would already be on that and every other template. I guess the closest concern from the guidelines is If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them. That particular article was created twenty days ago, and renamed since and is very much in need of notability and sourcing. It's got some fairly significant issues that, IMHO, preclude its inclusion at this time. That last articles added, Environment and sexual orientation and Non-heterosexual were both greatly improved before consensus was that they were reliably sourced. Templates could be used to drive traffic to articles in dire need but in this template i would certainly advise against it. -- Banjeboi 23:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's remember that this is an encyclopedic template and topics are not included on it based on their need for improvement. It's not a general-maintenance-consider-helping-out-on-these-pages thing. – Steel 23:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, yes, but this is hardly the first time Cooljuno's participation at the template has become problematic. Are administrators going to do something about it, or are editors who care for our content left with no option but screaming louder, reverting more often? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Pageban...?

Oh look, Cooljuno again. I think there is cause for a pageban here. Every time Cooljuno touches this template there's an edit war and an argument on the talk page. See the edit war in October (talk page discussion), this big one in July/August (talk page discussion), and another last March. This POV fork appeared in October when he didn't get his way on the main template. Two previous blocks haven't solved the problem.
The underlying issue is that Cooljuno has very strong views on this topic and how information relating to it should be presented - views which are frequently not shared by any other editor here, the media, or academia. His responses to objections exacerbate things since they're often irrelevant, flawed or just nonsensical [1] [2]. I invite discussion. – Steel 23:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly think they mean well just mistake the whole working together thing as a mere suggestion rather than a core principle. I'd rather see a stern warning about edit-warring as that doesn't help thoughtful discussion. Sexuality issues, in general, seem to stir the passions in editors so extra caution would seem to make sense. Cooljuno, IMHO, has the markings of someone who's accustomed to more rough and tumble online venues and needs to dial down a bit when on wikipedia. I wonder if a restriction on reverting of some sort may be more helpful? -- Banjeboi 23:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the standard revert restriction? One revert per week? I wouldn't be against that. – Steel 00:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a limit to one revert on pages each day with the understanding that does not allow the same content to be reverted each time over multiple days and the goal is to improve dialog and working with other editors even if disagreements arise. They should also be given support or some way to sort out obvious vandalism and non-obvious vandalism. -- Banjeboi 00:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert restrictions never apply to reversions of obvious vandalism, from what little I know of them, since they're essentially extensions of the 3-Rev-rule. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree: after having worked with them before, Cooljuno's behavior around this template has consistently struck me as less than collaborative. Repeatedly inserting fringe opinions, such as the suggestion that pedophilia is on par with homosexuality, then cherry-picking references when several editors have patiently explained your error, is pretty disruptive. With this latest incident, waiting a few days for comments on a proposal does make sense; claiming other editors are "too late" to object after the change has been made is obvious nonsense. I'm sure that more than a few people have simply given up editing that template, given the constant combativeness. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I share the concern that a template talkpage was essentially a battleground repelling the very people who are needed. -- Banjeboi 11:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

COoljuno's behavior is some grand POV push, but I've never been sure if hes' a far right wing extremist, hoping to bring all forms of sexuality repugnant to the masses to an equality with homosexuality in that 'gay marriage leads to marrying dogs and raping kids' right wing meme, or some ultra leftist free love mindset, or he really just thinks all sexual congress is equal no matter what, but he's excessively disruptive, and ought not to be revert restricted, but topic banned from articles dealing with sexuality, interpreted liberally, for a period of not less than six months, to be reviewed then if he requests. ThuranX (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If their userpage is to be taken as is, they seem to be a young lefty of the ultra hippy (or your choice of broad characterization here) with a flair for anarchy. Having had a ban dropped on me like a house on my wicked sister, I'm willing to assume good faith they are trying to express some more radical views and need guidance that bold and civility need to co-exist; that revolutionary actions sometimes help but consensus is actually more radical than being hardnosed and agro about content issues. Also that wikipedia is, after all, an encyclopedia and not a social forum to work out contentious issues. I think they may specialize in sexuality issues here but, IMHO, basic working with other editors may be the underlying problem. Even the best editors don't work independent of everyone else in a vacuum. Are they editing in other areas with no issues? -- Banjeboi 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest a conduct RFC on the editor before moving to restrictive sanctions? It certainly looks like the behavior is problematic, but if it isn't outright trolling a run through dispute resolution is worthwhile. If that solves the problem, great. And if it doesn't, consensus for community action would be easier to build afterward. Durova^Charge! 21:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, however, this would seem a furthering of community time documenting disruptive behaviour and basically airing it summary-style in one place. Their talkpage already seems to do that. I was in hope that this discussion would get them to chill but (sigh) here they are edit-warring about formatting talkpage comments. And an SPA has also made an appearance to !vote which perhaps shouldn't be attributed to them but it's all a bit of a replay from past discussions which became heated battles. I think it's time for a revert restriction, I'm tired of going in circular pattern on these issues. Perhaps others could offer input if their efforts on non-sexuality articles are constructive or if there is a better way to ease up on the disruptiveness? -- Banjeboi 10:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, dispute resolution isn't a license to misbehave without consequences. If you open RFC and the problem continues or worsens, it would serve as a reason to truncate RFC with a sanctions request. If you'd like, I could contact this editor at his/her user talk and attempt to resolve the problem. It's not very likely that'd change the behavior (although hope springs eternal), but if it doesn't then you'd have an uninvolved party who could certify the RFC. Fair enough? Durova^Charge! 06:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to open and run the RfC if you wish but I have spent far too much time trying to reason with this editor. I still AGF they mean well and am reticent to ban in any way but also wonder if investing a fair amount of time/energy into further documenting issues here is the best use of community resources. Undefined sexual orientation and Perceived sexual orientation are both messes that have no place on the template for now. They are some sort of split off Pomosexual which was the source of the first rounds of template warring. Pomosexaul, however, is a reasonably stable - if stubby - article with reliable sources and largely free of glaring problems. The other two aren't. I think their behaviour remains in the extra bold area which I will largely write off as youthful folly, read into that how you will. My hope is that they will be persuaded not to simply stop disruptiveness but instead will be won over to writing good content and building consensus. To me, an RfC would seem to build a scarlet letter for a somewhat young and newbie editor. I think they need edit coaching and revert restrictions instead. -- Banjeboi 22:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I stand corrected. I just saw on Talk:Pomosexual Cooljuno411's efforts Talk:Pomosexual#Split article?, Pomosexual & undefined sexual orientation that explains more of this. Pomosexual is the article they had tried, many times, to insert on the template, it seems undefined sexual orientation is the new host of some of this content so this is just the latest round of essentially the same issue. -- Banjeboi 13:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sock

I have this feeling that Ingopingo is a sock of Cooljuno411. Ingopingo's only edit at the time I post this, is a support !vote at Template talk:Sexual orientation - the edit war/consensus discussion at issue here - right under Cooljuno's support !vote. Within 2 hours of each other. 2 hours and 1 minute to be exact. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 08:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I found that troubling as well. -- Banjeboi 16:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Donadio

 In progress

Once again the same user in the same article: White Brazilian. Last week, this user was blocked 2 times for disruption in this article. Now that his block expired, he is back again to the same article, wih the same useless discussion in the Talk:White Brazilian. He's flooding this talk page with his personal opinions and theories about the figures of the Embassies of Italy and Lebanon in Brazil (his theory is that the Embassies are lying). He is frequently changing the article with his own theories, with unsouced informations (he has a "pro-Portuguese" point of view of the subject, and tries to erase the informations about Germans, Italians, Arabs and other ethnic groups).[3]

WP:NOTFORUM -- Wikipedia is not forum, but Donadio is ignoring this rule, trying to cause troubles, not only in White Brazilian but in other articles as well. Opinoso (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not "causing trouble", I am trying to discuss the problems with the article White Brazilians in its Talk Page. Opinoso is behaving as if he's the owner of the article. Donadio (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oooooooooooooh, this guy is just trolling. See now the summary of his edit on Rio Grande do Sul: "nobody speaks 'gracias' in Rio Grande do Sul". Good grief. Donadio (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just the usual sort of ethnic nonsense. Most people in Brazil have diverse ethnic backgrounds, and it's all just bickering about what labels to attach to them. Attitudes about this topic are different in Brazil than in the US, so one can't solve the problem the same way one would here---basically this is a content dispute between two parties neither of whom is clearly in the right, and both of whom have been blocked in the past for edit-warring. Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like Donadio is a Single purpose account looking though the contribs, if I was still an admin, I would have blocked indef. Can someone do that for me. Thanks Secret ^account 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, my account is not a single-purpose one. I have made edits in many other issues, including heavy contributions in the list of Brazilian writers. Donadio (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing here is that User:Donadio was blocked 2 times, in a short period of time (1 week) for disruption in the same article: White Brazilian. Just after his 1 week block expire, the first thing he did was to create another discussion in the same White Brazilian article, for what he was previously blocked. It seems he's not going to stop this. And, yes, he seems to have a Single purpose account, since almost all his contributions are dedicated to find troubles in this same article. Opinoso (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I was blocked for the first time for breaking the 3RR, which you also broke, using a sockpuppet.

I was blocked for the second time when trying to make what seemed to me common sence editions to the page, such as pointing that there were French and Dutch invasions in Brazil, the population of the towns in the Demography section, the fact that the "other source" that claims that there are 18 million people of German descent in Brazil is Dieter Böhnke, that the IBGE figures for immigration seem incompatible with the Embassies' claims, that most White Brazilians are of Portuguese descent. Frankly, I don't know why I was blocked, all those editions are factually true. The latter was even agreed by you.

Since my unblocking, I have avoided editing the article, and am trying to discuss the disagreements in the talk page. Which is what you are now trying to forbid me from doing. Donadio (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made editions to articles as varied as:

Maria Clara Machado Mayor of Porto Alegre National Renewal Alliance Party List of Political Parties in Brazil Carlos Lacerda Gramado Cristovam Buarque Candomblé Luís Fernando Veríssimo Workers' Party (Brazil) Belo Horizonte List of Brazilian Writers Literature of Brazil Acela Express List of Brazilians João do Rio Wladimir Herzog Fernando Gabeira Cipriano Barata Revolutionary Movement 8th of October List of active autonomist and secessionist movements 1960s in Brazil Roberto Burle Marx Serviços Aéreos Cruzeiro do Sul Portuguese language Lumpenproletariat Murphy's Law Dichotomy Eclipse Petroleum Jelly

Hardly a sole purpose account. Donadio (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

On the last weeks, you are enterely dedicated with your disruption in the article White Brazilian. The first thing you did after your block period expired was to create another disruptive discussion in the same article you were previously blocked 2 times last week. It seems a Single purpose account. And there are no disagreements in that article, since you are the only person claiming the Embassies are lying about the figures, based on you unsourced opinion and your pro-Portuguese point of view.

Now you are even doing personal attacks, calling me "troll".

Since you were blocked 2 times last week for disruption in the same article and now that you are unblocked, you are once again in the same article repeating the same disruption, it's obvious you are enterely dedicated to it. And it's also obvious that you are not going to stop the disruption until you get blocked again. Opinoso (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a disruptive discussion at all. I have stated all the points of disagreement, in a polite and well-thought way, have made alternative proposals for some of the points, have brought new sources into discussion. You haven't answered to anything.

I have even started a new section proposing a single change: that the well known historical facts of Dutch Brazil and France Equinoxiale be included in the redaction of the page. It seems that you cannot bring any argumen on why it shouldn't, so you are trying to change the discussion from the content of the page into a discussion of Wikitiquette. Donadio (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and please. Saying that nobody says "gracias" in Rio Grande do Sul can only be trolling. I'm gaúcho, I know what I am talking about. Do you want what? Just google for

• mario quintana gracias
• porto alegre gracias
• grêmio gracias
• tangos e tragédias gracias

selecting the "Páginas em Português" option, and you, and anyone interested, will see that yes, people do say "gracias" in Rio Grande do Sul.

Gracias. Donadio (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

On the face of it, this looks like an edit war brewing between not one, but two editors with possible COI implications. I have yet to read through and evaluate all the recent chages to not only the article and it's associated talk page, but also related articles. It looks like all recent edits have to do with Brazil and / or Brazilian-related topics. Edit Centric (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, while this discussion is happening, what I would suggest is for BOTH Donadio and Opinoso avoid making ANY changes to this article, or any related. The first thing that stands out is Donadio's statement that since his last block, he has avoided editing the article in question. This is false reporting, see here, here and here. The very next edit, Opinoso reverted Donadio's edit, citing it as vandalism. (See this reference DIFF of edit.) Our FIRST aim should be to arrest the process of edit warring before it gets as far as before. Next, I would suggest formal mediation. Edit Centric (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm trying to adhere to Wikipedia's recommended line: if my edits get reversed, I go to the Talk Page and try to discuss them. Apparently Opinoso has a problem with that; he says that I am "flooding" the Talk Page. But if I can't edit and I can't discuss in the Talk Page, do then I have to accept Opinoso's "ownership" of the article?

I would ask you, if you are going to review those edits, to pay special attention to those of

• January 15, at 15:31,
• January 15, at 18:08,
• January 15, at 19:30,
• January 15, at 20:57.

Notice, please, how bad faith is assumed from the first reversal ("Undid vandalism"), and how two different posters make exactly the same edit, thus circumventing the 3RR.

Also, I think it would be a good idea to bring some Brazilian editors, not called by me or by Opinoso, to this discussion. Opinoso is taking advantage of editors and admins not speaking/reading Portuguese. Donadio (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have mentioned those edits (I have been avoiding editing, except...).

One was a correction of a factual mistake; Pedras Grandes is a town in Santa Catarina, not in Rio Grande do Sul. Other was a mere attempt to include the population of those towns in the article. First time I tried to do it, including the population of two or three of them, Opinoso reverted, stating in the summary that if I was going to include such data, I should include them for all of the towns. So I took, perhaps naively, as granted that it wasn't a polemical edit (why would it be, if one thinks about it?) Finally, the third was the reinclusion of the "factual accuracy" banner, which seemed to me quite obvious: the factual accuracy of the article is in question.

The content of the article, of course, I have tried to not edit.

Thank you for your help and patience. Donadio (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the set of Jan 15 edits goes to edit history and proving past issues, but these were taken care of with a block, if I'm not mistaken, and were part of the LAST edit war. What we are dealing with here is THIS instance, and the prevention of another edit war being taken out on the article, and ultimately proving to be yet another detriment to the community at large. Now a question, and this is for BOTH Donadio and Opinoso; would you both be open to a formal mediation process? Edit Centric (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

On the Jan 15 edits, the problem - from my point-of-view, of course, is that I got blocked for breaking the 3RR rule, while Opinoso circumvented the same penalty by using a different IP.

On the mediation... Sure I am. Is it possible to include other Brazilian (or Portuguese, or Angolan, etc) editor in such process? Donadio (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think you're asking a bit much there, insomuch as the mediation process is more about getting you two working together on the material, and aiding in a "meeting of the minds". As for the edits that you cited, all that this shows is that Opinoso edited while logged in, and then may have committed another edit after logging out of his user account. (Not sure about that one, I don't have access to do SOCK research. All I can evaluate as a "third set of eyes" is the appearance of this.) Again, that is then, this is now.

FOR THE ADMINS - What is the policy for discussions on en.wikipedia, inclusive of article talkspace and user talk pages, where language applys? IMHO, it makes situations like these MUCH easier to mediate / mitigate if English is used. I don't want to "speak out of turn" here, before I would cite that as a requirement within any mediation process... Edit Centric (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to hand this one back off to the admin-side now, there's a situation brewing in Alaska, and I have family in Anchorage. See Mount Redoubt Volcano, Alaska. Edit Centric (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck; I hope everything goes OK for you and your people. Donadio (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I already did a request for arbitration, but Donadio was blocked during 1 week, then I don't what happened to it. I do not know if a formal mediation is the case here. A formal mediation is used when the two parties are neutral and have different point of views, based on reliable sources. However, Donadio, since the beggining is not using reliable sources, but his own, non-neutral theories. The user has a clear pro-Portuguese point of view. He already reported, with pride, that his grandparents are of "colonial Portuguese" descent, and since then he is trying to claim, with no sources, that most White Brazilian are of colonial Portuguese descent, and that the latter immigrants are small minorities. For this, he uses no sources. He wants to claim that most Brazilians are "his own", which is not the case, since post-colonial European immigration outnumbered many times the pre-colonial settlers, and most of the colonial Portuguese settlers in Brazil mixed with Africans and Amerindians, so that most of their descendants are not part of the White Brazilian population.

See the differences between the original article, and Donadio's edits: [4]

After the figures about Arabs and Italians in Brazil, he wrote the numbers are "incompatible with the official data on immigration by the IBGE". Then, he claim that the numbers of Arabs could not exceed 1 million, and of Italians 15 million and that the numbers are "inflate". However, this is his own theory, his own original resource. He probably found these numbers with his calculator at home. There are no souces on the Internet, or in books, to claim the figures are inflate, or that the Embassy is lying.

The point is: Donadio, who seems to be very proud of his Portuguese grandparents (nobody asked him about it, but he posted this useless information) is trying to increase the Portuguese influence in Brazil and to diminish the Italian, Arab, German, among other. He is not being neutral.

In the Italian case, the user frequently claims that "only" 1.5 million Italians arrived to Brazil. Yes, that's true. But, with his calculator at home, he found a theory that the descendants of these 1.5 million Italians could not be 25 million, as the Embassy and many other sources claim, but "15 million". No sources on the Internet points the figure "15 million". All the sources point 25 million. I have to remember Donadio that Wikipedia does not allowed him and any other users to make up theories. Donadio got the number of 1.5 million and used his calculator to find his figure of 15 million, based only on a information of how many times the Brazilian population increased since a date that he randomly choose.

• First: to calculate the present Italian-descended population of Brazil, nobody can use the 1.5 million figure of Italians who came to Brazil, because this figure is counted from 1875 (when the first Italians arrived) until the 1930s, when the last significant groups arrived. Since 1875, Italians were having kids in Brazil (and many kids, because on that time people usually had several kids). Most Italians arrived in Brazil from 1880 to 1900, so there are over 120 years of the mass immigration to Brazil. In 120 years, there are many generations, maybe 6 or 7 and even higher. Then, to calculate the present-day population, the person must include no only the 1.5 million Italian immigrants, but also the children, grandchildren and the many other descendants since the year of 1875. Then, the person must know the periods that most Italians arrived, not only include the 1.5 million all together.

• Second: the person must know the rates of mortality among Italians in Brazil. Not all ethnic groups in Brazil had the same mortality rate. Everybody knows that African-Brazilians had high rates of mortality, because of slavery and poverty. Then, to include all ethnic groups of Brazil with the same mortaly rate is a big mistake.

And also you must know the birth rates among them. I mean, you must know how many kids the average Italian woman had in Rio Grande do Sul in the 1890s (3? 7? 9? 12?). The person also must know how many kids the average Italian man had in São Paulo in the 1920s (2? 5? 18? 20?). Moreover, the person must know the life expectancy of the Italians in each part of Brazil (12 years old? 48 years old? 78 years old).

• Third: Also, how many Italians returned to Italy after some years living in Brazil? How many Italians arrived from Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela or even from the United States to Brazil during the emigration period? How many "Italians" arrived with non-Italian passports? How many arrived illegally? Also, the proportion of Italian males and females in Paraná, or the proportion of males and females in Minas Gerais.

All these informations are taken when a scholar wants to know how many people of the current days descend from a population of years, centuries ago. I'm pretty sure Donadio does not have access to all these informations to calculate how many Brazilians have Italian roots nowadays.

However, I'm pretty sure the Italian Embassy does have access to all these informations, so they are able to calculate how many Brazilians have ancestors who immigrated from Italy. Then, Donadio, you are not allowed to calculate yourself the figures, but the Italian Embassy is.

Different reliable sources claim the figure of 25 million "Italian Brazilians".

• Italiani nel mondo (claims 25 million)
• The President of Brazil, Lula (claims 30 million)
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy (claims from 23 to 25 million)
• Itália Nossa (claims 23.5 million)
• Memorial do Imigrante (from 22 to 25 million)

For Lebanese:

• Memorial do Imigrante (7 million)
• Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil (7 million)
• Embassy of Lebanon (7 million)
• O Estado de S. Paulo Newspaper (6 million)

Then, Donadio, stop with this useless discussion. You are not allowed to take your own conclusions here, not allowed to post your theories. You are not a scholar to determinate how many people of Italian or Arab descent live in Brazil. You are using sources that have nothing to do with the subject to make up theories and create fake figures. Stop it. Opinoso (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So, what happens if I accept mediation but Opinoso does not? 189.114.16.212 (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the many ad hominems above, let me try a further step towards conciliation. I listed 12 points of contention in the article's Talk Page (under "What is wrong with this article"). I think Opinoso is disussing only one of them, exactly the one on which disagreement is stronger. I suggest that we start discussing the points where an agreement is easier to attain. I suggest, specifically, point 5, which I have further detailed under "French and Dutch Invasions". I think the edit I'm proposing is perfectly reasonable, and I am sure that Opinoso can easily accept it. If not, I am willing to listen to his reasons to reject the edit, and, if we can't reach an agreement, I'm also willing to accept a third party opinion, and to give up the edit if such third party opinion is against me.

Deal? Donadio (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, in practice, the fact that I have accepted mediation and Opinoso has not seems to mean that he is free to continue editing, while I am not. Is this how it is supposed to be?

(Curiously, one of his recent reversals in the Russians in Brazil article. There he seems to be of the opposite opinion: "data" about people of Russian descent in Brazil are inflated. So he lowered the figures from 200,000 to 70,000. Regardless of the [Câmara de Comércio e Indústria Brazil-Rússia] stating that they "must be" about 200,000.)

(Notice: I actually agree with him in this one. It's just that it seems he has a double standard here.) Donadio (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to ask someone to talk with Opinoso about things like these:

The point is: Donadio, who seems to be very proud of his Portuguese grandparents (nobody asked him about it, but he posted this useless information)

This is a personal attack. I never said or implied that I am proud of my Portuguese descent. I said that I am of both Portuguese and Italian descent, responding to someone who questioned how could the sum of the diverse White ethnicities amount to more than the White population.

For this, he uses no sources. He wants to claim that most Brazilians are "his own"

This is also a personal attack. He can't know what my motivations are.

his theory is that the Embassies are lying

I never said, or implied, that they are lying, just that they are wrong.

The user has a clear pro-Portuguese point of view.

This is assuming bad faith, besides being a ridiculous claim. What would the Portuguese have to gain if most Brazilian people are of Portuguese descent? What would Italy have to lose if so? This isn't a war between Portugal and Italy, or some kind of contest to see who "owns" Brazil. It's a discussion about the ethnic composition of the Brazilian population, just that. Donadio (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As of now, I would say that Opinoso is testing limits, gaming the system. What he wants to do is to have a final word regarding the subject of Brazilian demography. If anyone disagrees with him, he makes personal attacks, and tries to make it impossible for them to edit the articles. It is not a new behaviour; in practice, he has already made most other Brazilian editors wary of discussing the subject. A quick look at his User Talk Page will show his many conflicts with Dantadd, Felipe C.S, Janiovj, Sparks1979, A.Z., Fsolda, Dali-Llama, SWik78, Domaleixo, Mhsb, Quissamã, Khoikhoi, and Crazyaboutlost.

His comment that "nobody speaks 'gracias' in Rio Grande do Sul is outrageous. It is almost like saying that no one says "y'all" in Texas. It shows his confidence that no Brazilians are even perusing these articles.

What he is doing is the following:

He has managed to make it impossible to me to edit the article. Then he managed to make it impossible to me to discuss in its Talk Page. And while the discussion here was about getting me blocked, he was posting extensively. As soon as the possibility of a mediation appeared, he stopped posting here, and went back to the Talk Page - where he has, among other personal attacks, accused me of "trying to open a mediation". By this means, he is also getting to make my posting here quite inconsequential.

What should I do?

Go back to editing the article, which is useless, since he will revert anything that I write, even common sence things like "the Dutch invaded Brazil in the XVII Century"?

Go back to the Talk Page and try to argue with his deafness?

Quit Wikipedia, and warn other people that it is an unreliable resource, because some people are able to establish de facto monopolies on editing some articles?

Call for arbitration? Will anyone hear me, or is it again going to be like talking to the walls?

I throw myself upon your mercy... Donadio (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin opinions needed

Saint Pancake has been speedied, undeleted, flagged for speedy again, had the flag removed, and had the flag reapplied all today. Can some more admins chime in and help develop consensus for what should be done?

Full disclosure: I was the one who flagged it for speedy deletion as a G10 first, and I believe it is a valid G10. After it was deleted and then undeleted, I tried to start a conversation about the situation—and about NPOV as it applies to redirects in general—at WP:NPOVN, but only 2 people have chimed in (one on each side).

Thanks, Mike R (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Deleted again. G10 doesn't only apply to living people (G10 quote: "it serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject"), and this is a particularly unpleasant pejorative epithet - used practically only in blogs - the existence of which reflects really badly on Wikipedia. I actually don't understand why it was recreated, especially as the recreating admin said "the term is a disparaging name [5]" which is exactly what G10 actually says. Black Kite 21:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• While technically BLP does not apply we should rightly consider the feelings of her friends and family. Leave deleted and salt if required. Exxolon (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed - and as said above, G10 doesn't only apply to living people anyway. It can also refer to groups, companies, organizations - in fact really anything that can be disparaged. Black Kite 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Per all of the above. This should not be a redirect; G10 applies. MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, G10 certainly applies to the dead as well as the living. —Travis^talk 22:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• G10 does not apply, since the redirect does not "serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject". Likewise per the examples at WP:REDIRECT "Butcher of Kurdistan redirects to Ali Hassan al-Majid" and al-Majid is a living person while Rachel Corrie is not. This is not as cut-and-dried as the above opiners would like to make it. Actually, it is... but in the other direction. Marked this thread unresolved. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial cases. Take it to WP:RFD. The discussion at WP:NPOVN shows that there are non-trivial arguments on both sides. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Although you cannot threaten the deceased, articles and redirects can still disparage a dead person. G10 does apply. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only does G10 apply, it's a textbook G10. I'll say it again - "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage ... their subject or some other entity". What other possible purpose could the page have? Since the nickname only exists to disparage [redacted] (it's just an unpleasant nickname used on a few internet blogs and other user-generated sites) then it follows that the page only exists to do the same. Black Kite 00:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference, Jclemens, between this case and Ali Hassan is the reliable sources that have the 'butcher' reference. If and when the term becomes widely used and reported in reliable sources there may be a case for inclusion/redirect of this term in/to the article, until then there is none whatsoever. Quite frankly it disturbs me that an admin has such a poor grasp of That's not how I see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Exxolon (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. Find me one policy or guideline, anywhere, that requires redirects have reliable sourcing, and I'll withdraw my objections. Fact is, if someone had created Saint Pancake as a POV fork with any keepable content, it would have been merged back intoRachel Corrie and the redirect left in place. Really--read WP:REDIRECT; there's simply no support for your position there. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That took me all of 30 seconds. WP:RS says "Wikipedia articles[1] should use reliable, third-party, published sources" - if you check the [1] footnote, it says "^ Articles include anything in the main namespace. Most other pages, such as Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, are exempt from this requirement." Since redirects ARE in the main namespace the policy applies. I have however refactored my sentence as you've requested to avoid any appearance of a personal attack. Exxolon (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)\

Then we have a serious disconnect between WP:REDIRECT which governs the specific case, and WP:RS, which doesn't mention redirects by name. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We do? I've just (quickly) scanned WP:REDIRECT and came across "Reasons for deleting - You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list): - 3. The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article." - this would seem completely appropiate to this case - which part of WP:REDIRECT are you looking at? Exxolon (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a large does of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going around. The redirect mirrors a notable off-wiki disparaging name for Rachel Corrie, it's not a Wikipedia-centric phenomenon. There is really no comparison with the "Joe Bloggs is a loser" example. The Butcher of Kurdistan example is far closer to the point. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As one of the regular editors of the [redacted] article, we've declined to put the Pancake into the article, it comes up every now and then. Lack of RS, mostly.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and no one in favor of keeping the redirect has argued (that I've seen) in favor of inserting it into the article. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to expect that redirects would be specifically called out as a form of attack, though I'm sure consensus to add it could be rapidly generated if it becomes an issue. If I created an article named fucking asswipe and redirected it to a person's page, would anyone seriously argue that that wasn't an attack? It's reasonable to argue over whether Sarah Pancake is an attack or not, but if it's an attack, formatting it as a redirect doesn't provide it with some kind of magic armor plating.—Kww(talk) 03:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your strawman, Kww, is that your example describes someone who uses a non-unique term in a specific redirect to disparage the target. As I've pointed out in the NPOV discussion, no one else is called "Saint Pancake" besides Rachel Corrie, the redirects have been averaging 12 hits a month in 2008, and the use of Saint Pancake to refer to Rachel Corrie clearly has a non-Wikipedia origin--thus the redirect reflects a disparaging name for Rachel Corrie widely used in right-wing circles, rather than a Wikipedia-specific attack on Rachel Corrie. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if you accept that "12 hits a month" is demonstrative of actual usage, it isn't very convincing for a site as visible in search engines as Wikipedia is. If a "St Pan cake" link gets a top spot among other "St Pa ncake" links in Google by virtue of being in Wikipedia, and therefore is occasionally clicked on, that means it should stay in Wikipedia? That sounds dangerously close to indirect self-referencing.

Additionally, that premise is based on a rather faulty assumption - that all of the clicks are indicative of usage rather than someone following a discussion thread. I know I can account for a few of those clicks, and a closer look at the general "stats.grok.se" link you referenced at NPOVN shows that "usage" spikes around discussion of the redirect's validity. arimareiji (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting argument, but I've Googled for "Saint Pancake" and I don't see Wikipedia anywhere in the results list, so up until today, it wasn'a substantial issue. I agree, though, that this thread has probably brought more awareness of the term than the redirects ever did in their 6+ years of combined existence, which seems the height of irony. Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah... what other discussions of the redirects' validity? I wasn't aware these had been discussed previously. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check over at the [redacted] talk page and archives, if you're asserting this hasn't repeatedly been brought up and linked to. arimareiji (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The redirect was discussed on that talk page, or the inclusion or exclusion of the term from that article was discussed on that talk page? The latter is common knowledge, referenced above. The first, if true, is news to me. Jclemens (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it's news to you, some would-be humorist keeps using fabricated/misrepresented sources to insert such gems as "Rach el Corr ie supporters held a fundraising pancake breakfast" and "known in her official hagiography as 'St Panca ke'". So yes, the nickname does come up along with a cutely-placed redirect to it. arimareiji (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this discussion here? Anyone opposed to me reinstating the redirects and listing them at WP:RfD? If we're having a debate about it, then it's obvious that WP:CSD do not apply. ANI is not a place to discuss redirects--RfD is. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object. I have come up with two crystal clear quotations from Wikipedia Guidelines that preclude it's existence. The first mandates against it's creation (WP:RS says "Wikipedia articles[1] should use reliable, third-party, published sources" - if you check the [1] footnote, it says "^ Articles include anything in the main namespace. Most other pages, such as Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, are exempt from this requirement." Since redirects ARE in the main namespace the policy applies.) and the second would mandate it's deletion should it be created ("Reasons for deleting - You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list): - 3. The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article.") - Unless the term is mentioned in sufficient reliable sources AND consenuse is established to include it in the article itself then there is absolutely NO case for having the redirect at the present time. Exxolon (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To put it pithily, the name is unsupported by reliable sources, hence a CSD, both as an unlikely search term and prankish vandalism. If it ever becomes widely cited, for whatever reason, that'll be another tale. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Point - "The redirect mirrors a notable off-wiki disparaging name for <name of subject>" - I've yet to see you actually come up with any evidence that it is a NOTABLE off wiki disparging name. Exxolon (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

G10; a redirect is mainspace and is not protected from general WP policy. In response to your question of "Anyone opposed?", I would note that five people had already voiced explicit opposition just above the question, and two more since you've asked. arimareiji (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those responses. Exxolon, Gwen Gale, lack of RS is not a speedy criteria under any circumstances. Arimareiji, G10 is disputed by multiple editors (check the NPOV noticeboard) and WP:CSD is not for things that are disputed. All of those arguments properly belong in an MfD disucssion. Now, does anyone have a policy-supported reason the CSD should stand, instead of being reverted and sent to MfD? Jclemens (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Easy - G10 - "solely to disparage it's subject" - which was applied on the 2nd deletion. Exxolon (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, G10 is disputed, so disputed discussions (and it was disputed before Black Kite deleted it the second time) should properly go to XfD, not wheel warring to re-delete a contested CSD. Oh, wait, I just said that above. Jclemens (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As Gwen Gale said before your above comment (per timestamps), WP:DRV applies. "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions." arimareiji (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's not sufficiently clear: "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion." Not "Reverting a speedy deletion is the process to be used, then discuss it." arimareiji (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The RD is a CSD. CSD deletions can be disputed. See WP:DRV. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Redaction required

Normally I'm loathe to refactor other peoples comments, but I strongly feel we should remove all mentions of her actual name from this discussion - we're heavily spidered and we could create a self-fufilling prophecy here. Exxolon (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree in principle, but not in practicality. If any reliable news organization picks up on this when there are much more pressing topics to cover, I'll eat my hat. arimareiji (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd strongly object as well. Rachel Corrie is dead, has been for years, and is likely to stay that way indefinitely. The term has been in use since she died, and is likely to stay that way indefinitely. There is no reason to WP:CENSOR this thread. As I said elsewhere, I think the fact that this WILL show up on Google shortly is pretty funny--the redirect sat there minding its own business for years, then someone decided it was an "attack page" and pretty soon Google will have more hits on the term. Wikipedia didn't start the use of the term, but in the attempting to excise a relatively innocuous appearance thereof, the exposure of its use has been amplified. Classic Streisand effect. Jclemens (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia editors to forestall this kind of thing. If the term sticks, it'll be echoed here. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a good idea, the argument that excising the name here will lead to its being spread further doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was actually the other way around, that excising the name from this talk page would prevent it from coming up as "hits" for search engines. But like I said, I'll eat my hat if anyone outside the Little Green Footballs blogosphere thinks this is more newsworthy than what else is going on in the world. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Since it appears to be an outcome that Jclemens has been pushing for--or at the very least he believes will happen--then I'd say yes, delete all references to forestall it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, CalendarWatcher. Finding it "ironic" doesn't mean I desired that outcome. I've reverted the changes to my comments. The redaction here is pointless censorship, since the deletion review will list both the redirects and their targets anyways. Again, I'm specifically objecting to other editors refactoring my comments. If anyone wants to put in a request for oversight here, great, but as has been pointed out above "Saint Pancake" is regularly brought up on Talk:Rachel Corrie, so it would be rather pointlesss. Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As I did not use--and can't imagine ever using--'ironic' in whatever debased sense you're implying, I fail to see why you bring it up. I will say that I believe that yes, you do want to spread this mocking insult to a dead person used by fanatics, and given that Google relies upon linking in building up its rankings, using the phrase and inter-connecting it among different pages as much as possible increases attention to it, and that that outcome of using Wikipedia to promote it is what you would like. Clear enough? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no, I meant that I found it ironic. You may feel free to assume bad faith all you want, but the simple fact remains that the only reason this is on the NPOV noticeboard, ANI, and now DRV is that those who've been advocating for the redirect's permanent deletion have gone forum shopping, twice, and insisted on DRV rather than taking it straight to RfD where a contested G10 should have gone initially. A proper application of process would have minimized such exposure. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that WP:TALK#Others' comments provides for such removal only in cases of libel. Unless anyone is asserting libel, refactoring another editor's comments is contrary to accepted conventions of Wikipedia behavior. Please follow such conventions and continue to assume good faith, especially on politically sensitive topics like this one. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not 100% true - WP:BLP allows refactoring/removal from any part of the encylcopedia, although it does not apply in this case. Exxolon (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The bit about 'libel' is pure wikilawyering: I would have thought simple human decency would have sufficed, but apparently not. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comment seems to overlook folks who disagree with Corrie's political stances--simply Google for evidence thereof--and unnecesarily imply that those who believe such disparagement should be accurately reflected in an NPOV encyclopedia somehow lack human decency. I'll note that while a motive has been ascribed to me several times by others, no one has bothered to ask me why I think the redirect has merit. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Stormfront

I bumped into the following thread on a certain rather distasteful site called Stormfront; it talks of attampts to move their agenda into WP. See here. I doubt they can get anywhere but be aware and see if we can track any accounts down for blocking. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much, they think we have some sort of rep system, wherein above a certain percent or points one becomes an admin, and they think the American Economy is strong and healthy. When you're that out of touch, and provide a publicly accessible master plan, eventually you get stopped. ThuranX (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

They certainly want to disrupt the vote process by influencing via socks/forum discussion. Well, look no further. It looks to be UKHistorian (talk · contribs) - it's a definite looking at the posts now. See post # 6 and # 8. He has been editing Gavin Hopley & Talk:Gavin Hopley - both of which were deleted but still may need to be creation-protected. Also, the user says he anonymously vandalized Wikipedia before. I'm suggesting that there be a block on UKhistorian and perhaps even an checkuser SPI. ~ Troy (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up, but in fact this is old news - they announced this at least four or five years ago. It means we always have to be vigilant with articles on race, racism, white people, the Holocaust, etc., but we'd have to be vigilent with these articles no matter what ... Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

They can't of anounced it four or five years ago, because the timestamps for their bright idea are this month, as are the ones on the deleted edits. Maybe other Stormfront users have tried things with Wikipedia before - I would be surprised if they hadn't - but this one is new. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to Slrubenstein, in terms of working out the articles, that's definitely the case, but ...what do you mean "four or five years ago"? This appears to be recent as far as I can tell. And it seems that more than one user has recreated Mary Ann Leneghan (User:TheHappyRampager and User:Realitarian). I don't know why they even bother, but I can't help but feel suspicious (again). ~ Troy (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein is right: yes, it was four or five years ago that I first saw their thread declaring that they would infiltrate Wikipedia and start to slant our articles "their" way; they even discussed how to do it in some detail. Late 2004 or early 2005 I think. They were persistent for a while and we did not have as robust a defensive mechanism then. If I rememeber correctly it wasn't too difficult to associate particular Wiki users with Stormfront members. So they're trying it again: we can be vigilant and revert racist nonsense again. Antandrus (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn;t really look like a really serious effort and as far as I can find there is nothing else similar currently. That place is such an echo chamber, makes my skin crawl. Viridae^Talk 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too surprised by that, but you're going to have to get use to it. There are several of forums like that focussed on ...you probably don't even want to know. ~ Troy (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone cares to write them, Mary Ann Leneghan and Gavin Hopley (or at least incidents involving them) both look notable. Based on the intelligence and nuance displayed in the linked thread, I don't think we have too much to worry about with this particular cadre of budding encyclopaedians. Skomorokh 02:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, we should protect the page. Yes, I know pre-emptive protection is frowned upon. But the article is already balancing on a razor's edge, and we need to keep it from falling off. While we can trust our established editors to work to keeping it balanced, we can't in hell trust Stormfront to. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Nyeh. It was delisted from GA, so poof goes the razor metaphor. I'm not surprised, really. The problem with articles like this is that the majority opinion of the subject is presented as fact because there is no proof of the obverse, and any attempts to quantify it as a majority opinion (in this case, 95-99.9%) are often shut out by allegations of adding undue weight. From an article reviewer stance, it breeds terrible prose and disjointed writing because of this partisan infighting, MOS breaches and issues about neutrality: whether we're too sympathetic, whether we're too hostile, whether it's scientific enough, whether it's too scientific (which can happen, say if creationism was described in the first paragraph as "unscientific" without qualification, as opposed to the currently neutral method of saying why it is and who thinks it). That's why we rarely see any articles like this at FA-level, or even GA-level. And the ones that are (for example, Intelligent design) still suffer the problem of bad (or at the very most, less-than-satisfactory) writing. But enough of my soapbox. My previous point still stands. :) Sceptre ^(talk) 03:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI I blocked UKHistorian (talk · contribs). Are there any others we can/should block? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Alis.Payan is back again

Resolved

 – Dealt with by Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). — neuro^(talk) 09:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alis.Payan describes our problem child ... long-term anonymous and sockpuppeting vandalism, all from a subrange in the Dominican Republic which she is the only apparent editor using. Today I noticed her inserting herself into the cast of Camp Rock 2, which is one of her historic editing areas.

200.88.94.0/24 was hard-blocked for 90 days the last time, and that expired 11 days ago. I've gone through the last 100K edits and 200.88.94.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is her only case of anonymous editing. Can someone go ahead and reinstate the block? 6 months this time perhaps? It needs to be a hard block, because she is a dedicated puppeteer and checkuser has indicated that she is the only user of that range.—Kww(talk) 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've soft-blocked the range for six months - Without a CU confirming that there's socking or that there's no legitimate other user in that range a hardblock seems unjustified at this time. But six months seems appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Filed at SPI to get checkuser confirmation.—Kww(talk) 12:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katelyn Wyler:The Movie that at least one named account has been created. Anyone care to tell me who created Katelyn Wyler:The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) so that I can look into it further?—Kww(talk) 18:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was BreeHills12 (talk · contribs). No other edits from that account ... do I hear quacking? Blueboy96 18:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly do. Either go ahead and indef it, or let me know that you don't think you have enough evidence and I'll add it to the SPI report.—Kww(talk) 18:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite took care of BreeHills12.—Kww(talk) 19:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Marcus2

• Marcus2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I need admin eyes on this, because this has gone on long enough. User:Marcus2 has a serious issue with both WP:CIV and WP:NPA. I placed a non-templated message to the user warning him of his behaviour, to which he responded with seeming understanding. But apparently he doesn't get it. He does contribute with some level of value, but his negative behavior, to me, far outweighs any positive contributions. Please, to the admins, review the contribs with some level of depth, and don't just whitewash the issue; there are too many diffs for me to list here. At least one other user besides myself has tried to communicate, so now I would like an admin to attempt communication. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As the other editor who has attempted to inform Marcus2 of these issues, most of it stems usually from his own POV-pushing methods where anyone who disagrees with his take on things is insulted in edit summaries and on talkpages. This isn't anything new but after several years of the same issues coming up time and again and being reminded of the policies he breaks in regards to his editing methods there's got to be a point where it becomes apparent Marcus2 cannot conduct himself on Wikipedia, that point was passed for me in early 2007. treelo _radda 14:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

More diffs of the uncivil behavior would help - the one that I followed showed that he was being uncivil, but the argument could be made from the immediately-preceding edit that he was being baited: "You don't act the fool in music articles, why is it that animation articles are fair game to go and be a dick? I'm going to be watching you and I reckon that I could actually get you topicbanned so cut the shitslinging in your edit summaries and talkpage contribs towards other editors who do not agree with you."

Please note that I'm not saying that I know enough context of the situation to assert anything more than a passing impression. I'm suggesting that you provide more diffs because if it's a nasty ongoing pattern, diffs will be easy to find. Without them, I doubt you'll get a serious hearing. arimareiji (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I looked on the links out of curiosity, and I have roughly the same impression. Frankly, I'd remove such battering on my talk page myself from people constantly attacking and bating me if I were in his shoes. Being a little hotheaded, especially when provoked, is not such an unexpected thing (nor does it prove "making harm", because I'm not sure he's the one starting it), and I myself experienced such situations, with diverse results. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Among the 50 or so recent edits made by the user, most seem to be useful to Wikipedia, from removing useless information, to reverting vandalisms and such. My 2 cents as long as I'm around here. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

These are from edit summaries:

1. calling good-faith nonsense
2. POV, who says "the network has gone downhill"?
3. fairly strong tone for an edit summary?
4. idiot?
5. is that an acceptable edit summary?
6. this one, too?

These are from talk pages:

1. is that appropriate?
2. or this?
3. does a disagreement rate this kind of behavior?

Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As it is ongoing and not just something recent, here's a few more from in the past regarding personal attacks either not specifically directed or towards other specific editors [6][7][8] and POV pushing [9][10][11]. For his extreme NPOV standpoint and attacking other editors, see this talkpage dicussion. treelo _radda 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Two of you guys (Treelo and Yngvarr) seem like worrywarts, because you don't seem to see the forest for the trees. Basically, I am trying to make Wikipedia more accurate and less based on things like fan fiction and cruft. For that, I agree with Anime Addict AA. Marcus2 (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like to me you're figuring as long as you're making something more accurate then gross incivility is alright by you. We just want to see what others have to say and preferably from more level heads than Anime Addict AA. treelo _radda 14:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• While I take no position as to anything else brought up here, the edit summary which is described above as "calling good-faith nonsense" involved reverting vandalism in which another person had added Mitt Romney as a producer of Who Let the Dogs Out (album). I don't see how such an addition could have been made in good faith; Romney is a politician and former organizer of the 2002 Winter Olympics, not a music producer or musician. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Assistance with incivility

Resolved

 – Blocked for 48 hours — R² 05:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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

I am currently having an issue with an editor displaying some serious civility issues and personal attacks, specifically directed at me. I feel that this issue may go beyond WQA as this user seems to feel it is his right to say whatever he wants about any editor, in any part of Wikipedia.

User:Tarysky began editing in December 2008. I first came across this user when I edited a page he created about an upcoming Erykah Badu album (New Amerykah Part Two (Return of the Ankh)). I removed some unsourced material and I was promptly confronted on my Talk Page. Tarysky then insisted on re-inserting the information that he claimed was properly sourced: [12] [13] [14] [15]. Note that the reverting and edits made by Tarysky to this article not only reinserted unsourced information but also re-added some other errors I had found within the article (such as an incorrect album title).

Tarysky's first interactions with me were to leave messages on my talk page referring to my edits as "sloppy" and that I shouldn't be editing the article anyway because I did not create it [16] [17]. When given warnings about inserting the unsourced information, edit warring and an uncivil attitude, I was "dismissed": [18].

I asked a trusted editor, User:Realist2, to please keep an eye on the article: [19]. Tarysky then jumped in and accused me of making personal attacks: [20] and demanded that I stay off his Talk Page [21] [22].

Similar unsourced edits were then made to the article by User:JC STARR729, and when I or Realist2 removed unsourced information, Tarysky left messages on our Talk Pages to stop "edit warring": [23] [24] [25]. Tarysky then reverted the article and stated that it "doesn't not need to be reverted anymore by no one" [26] and added a "source" that was nothing but an image of a magazine cover [27].

Tarysky then decided that Realist2 and I were sockpuppets [28] and proceeded to open a CheckUser request: [29] [30] [31]. As he waited for someone to address his request he continued to add comments and antagonize me and Realist2: [32] [33] [34]. Tarysky's innapropriate comments at Requests for Checkuer were deleted by User:Tiptoety and subsequently reverted by Tarysky [35] along with another accusation [36] and another rude comment [37]. When inappropriate comments were again removed, Tarysky reverted [38] twice [39].

Tarysky then accused User:Iridescent of being a sockpuppet when Iridescent asked for him to stop his behavior [40] and informed me that I should not be "following his edits" [41].

Yesterday, 30 January, I reverted some edits I thought (at the time) were without proper sources. This led to Tarysky attacking me on my Talk Page [42] and in an edit summary [43]. A comment pertaining to me was also left on an article Talk Page [44] and when removed by me, was reverted by Tarysky [45].

I reported yesterday's activity as it was occurring at WP:AIV because I felt that Tarysky should be blocked for his attacks, but did not want to do it as the attacks were directed at me. I was told that AIV was not the appropriate page to report such activity, which is why I am here. Note that Tarysky also had something to say at AIV, denying any wrongdoing [46] [47]. Tarysky then also dismissed a warning left for him by User:Daedalus969 as "personal attacks" [48] and denied that he attacked anyone [49].

I have not had further contact with Tarysky, although he has placed a "rule" on his Talk Page obviously directed at me [50] and he seems to be doing some damage control today: [51] [52].

Note that during this entire exchange, Tarysky has consistently denied attacking anyone, while accusing everyone else of attacking him. His claim is that he is "correcting" me [53].

Lastly, every single warning or attempt at discussion left on Tarysky's Talk Page is promptly removed by him, usually with a snide comment or accusation. This also includes warnings about uploading copyrighted images (which have nothing to do with me): [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]

This is a User that has some serious issues with communicating with others and ignoring whichever policies he feels like sweeping aside. There really is no reason why there should be accusations of bad faith, sockpuppetry, vandalism or some kind of smearing of his character against anyone who disagrees with his edits. I feel that his actions and belligerence so far have been more than enough reason for a block but because I'm involved in the fracas I'd like some additional Administrator eyes on it, if possible. Far be it for me to bite a newcomer, but this is someone with only about 2 months of editing experience and this is not a helpful way to start out.

Thanks in advance. - eo (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorse Eo's analysis of the situation. I haven't interacted with this disruptive editor since the end of the checkuser case he filed against us both. I have my concerns he is socking as well. He repeatedly accused lied, saying Eo was making personal attacks, further from the truth. One big headache. Endorse block, maybe we should request a checkuser of our own too... — R² 19:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In cases of incivility, it is tempting to give a final warning first. But what this editor is doing is so bizarre that it's hard to know what to tell him to stop doing. I suggest that a 24-hour block for disruption is justified, with the block reason pointing to this thread. It seems that any admin who visits his talk page will be accused of being a sock, so warnings may not get much traction. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorse blocking untill he can learn to act like an adult. Wikipedia doesn't need people like this.--Patton^t/c 21:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been correcting his edits when he was wrong. If that's called a personal attacks then beep it. About the sockpuppetry case, him and Realist2 seem to have editted a lot of articles to together. I did a checkuser which was later declined. The only reason why he is doing what he's doing is because he still holds that grudge. Enlight of this, I was adding another album to Erykah Badu's page called "Badu". He later comes and erases it. I go his talk and show him the sources that the album has been released and put in stores. He goes stays "Stay Off My Page" after I have corrected him. And just that, he has been trying to start arguements of stupid stuff and contacting other Users when it really doesn't matter. From that time when I edited the New Amerykah Pt. 2, he tried to take over. Since I knew what was going to happen, I went to other articles. He later follows me to other articles like Storm. I went to his talk and told him to stop following edits and reverting them. The victim is me because everytime I edit some pages, he goes and reverts it. He done this to many other users that I just will not name. The fact is, if I edit a Erykah Badu, he will mess it up.

Now about the images, I was just trying to help. There were Users who was able to help me with these situations. We talked about it on our talk pages. After a while, I stopped adding images. So no matter how many links you put up against it, that was a case of "Trial and error". He acted like it's a big deal.

Now for the checkuser comment. How can you checkuser me when I am the only person doing my own edits. No one is backing me or adding the same thing I am. I going to various/random pages telling what I know and then uploading valid sources.

Now about personal attacks. I have made no personal attacks. However, since when does correcting someone by giving them sources a personal attack. If someone erased someone you added and you know what you added was right, wouldn't you go to that person and correct them. Not only that but in my case, Eo was following my edits to begin with when I claimed him to be a sockpuppet. Tarysky (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Tarysky for 48 hours for disruptive editing per the evidence of eo, above. In this case it was fair (I think) to let the editor respond before taking any action, but I find myself unable to make much sense of the response. User:Realist2 left a further comment on the situation at User talk:EdJohnston#The ANI thread. It is astounding that Tarysky has accused three different editors of being socks -- Eo, Iridescent and Realist2 -- who between them have about 150,000 edits. There is a disconnect between Tarysky and reality, in my opinion, and we need to let reality win. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Second Opinion Requested (ThuranX)

I have been attempting to informally work on a dispute between Arcayne (talk · contribs) and ThuranX (talk · contribs). As part of this dispute I asked arcayne to run all concerns he had with Thuran X's behavior through me so that i could filter extraneous requests (possible wiki stalking). After i made the request to arcayne, thuranx began a wild trail of straw man accusations against me. Any editors attempting to clarify the situation were attacked. I would appreciate a review of my actions to ensure that the initial comment to set this in motion was not inappropriate. here is the comment Below is a rough timeline.

• [68]Arcayne reaches out to me for assistance on an edit dispute
• [69] I reply telling arcayne to assume good faith and that thuranx is acting in good faith as well.
• [70]Arcayne expresses concern of incivil behavior
• [71] i drop a note at thuranx's page asking him to make content disputes about the content, not the editor
• [72] i notify arcayne that I dropped a note at thuranX's talk page asking him to make content disptues about the content, not the editor
• [73] thuran appears frustrated with apparent continued wikihounding(stalking) from arcayne. I drop a note asking that arcayne cease editing thuranx's talk page and instead run concerns through me (an attempt to diffuse the situation).
• [74] thuranx mis-interprets my above statement and accuses me of coming to arcaynes defense.
  • [75][76]Several other un-involved editors come along and alert thuran that he misinterpreted my statement. Thuran in paranoia accuses them of coming there to protect me [77][78]
• [79]Thuran again makes a long statement telling everybody that I am wrong and that there interpretation of what I have said is wrong. That I am in fact endorsing stalking and harrassement.
• [80] I again try to clarify my initial comments were made with the itnent of asking arcayne to leave thuran alone. I also [81] warn him that is blatant accusations of bad faith against all editors in the thread may get him blocked (I however intentionalyl do not state that I would block him as that would be a COI).
• [82] again other uninvolved editors attempt to explain that the comment was direected at arcayne not him.
• [83] thuran accuses me of posting the message directed at arcayne on his talk page because, "The reason that conversation is placed here is so that I don't forget that Arcayne has friend in high places."
• [84] I tell thuran I am done sticking up for him as it has been thrown in my face repeatedly and that I am done dealing with it.
• [85] Thuran uses a straw man argument on my above statement saying that I am endorsing stalking and that I am a bad admin.
• [86] I tell thuran that watching problem editors is not stalking and that I am done being involved. Isattre, " Should you engage in any blatantly inappropriate behavior I will block you, no questions asked." and otherwise I am done.
• [87] engages over and over in straw man arguments, implying extremes and things I never said with an edit summary, "go away already, you fascist." tells me to reverse the statements I have made and threatens to take it to ANI.
• [88] I encourage him to take it to ANI.

Any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks! Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In my own personal experience (which was quite negative) ThuranX is one of the most overtly hostile editors whose account is still active. His block log does not begin to reflect the overwhelming amount of personal attacks and invective, and AFAIK (though I could be wrong on this) he has never indicated a willingness to abide by community norms. IronDuke 18:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

He has been notified here. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur. ThuranX's aggressive attacks on me on this very page were criticized. He obviously needs to learn how to be civil. AnyPerson (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A block won't do that, though; it solves the short-term disruption but nothing else. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite true. Perhaps a mentor is in order here, someone (who ThuranX respects) who can block if/when ThuranX gets out of hand and monitor his posts for gross incivility. IronDuke 19:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't need a mentor, and you and I have past beefs that prevent you from being at all neutral, so be honest about that. What I DO need is for Arcayne to be prevented from stalking me, and Chrislk02 prevented from acting as Arcayne's bully-protector. ThuranX (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right that we have had past beefs, this is why I said "In my own personal experience (which was quite negative) ..." Thats' why I knew, when I saw this post, that Chris was correct without having to wade througha lot of diffs. Would you be willing to promise to adhere to community norms re civility? Is that possible? It could at least preclude something like a mentor.IronDuke

Another recent discussion was at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive57. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is half the story. Arcayne has been harassing me for years on here, and I've repeatedly left pages to disengage with him, starting with Thor (Marvel Comics) and most recently Joker (comics) and The Dark Knight (film). Chris has actively endorsed, shepherded, and protected Arcayne while he engages in a protracted period of wikistalking and harassment, and edit warring. I spent days on talk watching Arcayne continually ignore consensus, and policy, to maintain material that ONLY he felt was germane to the articles. Eight editors on one page, five on the other, all reverted him directly, or otherwise removed his addition. Many, though not all, used the talk page or clear edit summaries about this. I engaged him on talk at length. His responses were the same sort of obtuse wikilawyering others have seen in him before, each followed by a restoration of the material. Here's one early example:[89], wher Fbunny had just commented on the talk, and instead, Arcayne chooses to open a new section, in one of the oldest moves for gaming consensus, start a new section and act like you don't see the old. I think that's in WP:FLAT section 6, Gaming. When multiple editors present consensus by act and reasoning against him, and he's running close to 3RR, he turns around and warns me about it. I wasn't there at all, but it's a good move that Arcayne enjoys - Strike first, right or wrong. Then he runs and gets his protector, Chrislk02. Lest you think I'm kidding, [90] - Some quotes from Chris: " Arcayne is welcome to review everything that you do. In fact, I will be paying a bit of attention to what you do too, especially due to your long history of incivility. It is not wrong to follow what other people do, in fact that is what makes this wiki such a great place." After Arcayne escalates a WQA in three places, deliberately NOT redirecting potentially interested editors to one central section. He gets three separate groups of people fired up about me, constantly posting and increasing the noise. Then I get blocked, and Chris sanctions Arcayne's actions. Since then, I've been under Arcayne's "watchful eye", which is really manipulative stalking. I have never represented, contrary to Chris and Arcayne's interpretations, that I think I'm above scrutiny, I simply do not want Arcayne to be the one doing it. That's all I keep asking for. Now, however, I have to ask that Chrislk02, who comes running at Arcayne's beck and call to back him up, also be precluded from coming around at me.

Further proof this is all Arcayne's game to get me? After I stated that I would be unwatching the articles, he completely stops editing them. He doesn't respond to other editors asking about the sections, he leaves the pages. Based on that, I have re-watched them. I am being held hostage to his games on Wikipedia, and my options, as I outlined earlier this month, are simple. I can either leave the project, or endure his constant gotcha-games. Neither's ideal for me, because outside of his nonsense, I enjoy what I do here, and I've been doing good stuff for a long time here. I'm sick and tired of worrying about when Arcayne's going to come out with another attempt to get me banned, which IS his ultimate goal here, and unless Chrislk02 is prevented from assisting him, that ban will be quietly imposed one evening when no one is paying attention, as an indef block.

I will admit, I was rude to R Baley for no good reason; it appears he was actually trying to help. But I have no similar good faith for Chris or Arcayne, both have made quite abundantly clear that they want to see me banned. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have to say that, based entirely upon their block logs, that indeffing both ThuranX and Arcayne would perhaps reduce third party editor/admin workloads but it should also be noted that both editors have made very many good contributions to the project. There needs to be a way of allowing both editors (and any alleged supporters) to edit the encyclopedia. The best way would be for both parties to agree not to edit in each others areas of interest and where there is already an established contested article for them not to directly revert each other or interact. I have some experience of formulating such conditions (see here - well, supporting Ncmvocalists work) and wonder if they might be adopted by the parties here? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I endorse LessHeard vanU's helpful suggestion. We can't go on like this. --John (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I...I want to weakly endorse Thuran's summary of events here. I don't want to say that Thuran is a charming fellow or that he didn't say the things in the diffs above. But I do want to say that the...coverage of Thuran's edits by Arcayne/Chris is outside the norm. We saw the last AN/I about Thuran, with a number of users (most notably Manhattan Samurai) clearly agitating for him to be blocked. They got their wish, partially because Thuran acutally was incivil but partially because hectoring in AN/I usually achieves its desired objectives. I suggest that editors and administrators commenting here look through the last AN/I about Thuran (the wonderful new search means that I don't have to dig through looking for the link myself) before determining which "side" to come down on. I will also note that LHVU does have some experience in setting up mutual topic bans but that those work best when the users share a minimum of coinciding interests. This may not be the case with those two. Protonk (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans aren't needed for either of us. All that's needed is a clear statement to Arcayne: "Stop stalking ThuranX, unwatch his page, stop playing tattletale, and remember, he's not always wrong, when consensus is 8-1, and 5-1 against inclusion, then material should probably be out." A simple statement to Chrislk02 that in the future, he should ask another admin to review material he thinks is objectionable instead of doing it himself or coming to me about it, would be enough. This second part is commonly stated here on AN/I about admins and editors they regularly butt heads with.

Check my talk page and my contribs. Outside of those two, I've been FAR more considerate since the last mess. However, Arcayne's deliberate provocation eventually worked. I can't report it, there's an admin endorsing it, and I just kept trying to make him see that there's great consensus against it. Unfortunately, Arcayne went and came at me, got an admin who I know is hostile to me to help, and pushed things back up to AN/I levels again. If not told by the community to disengage, he will do this again and again. Look at the long, contentious problem between Arcayne and DreamGuy. And once Arcayne drives me away, he'll move on to another editor. It's like he's got some passive-aggressive compulsion, which compels him to take on, headlong and unstoppably, any editor who stands up to him at length.

I'm not denying I'm prickly at times here, I had a long row with David Fuchs, who has commented above. However, since then, he and I have settled things, and have worked together on things. Other than Arcayne, and now Chris, I've got no regular editor to whom I can ascribe no good faith. I'm not saying many of the blocks in my log weren't deserved; they were. Some weren't. But this is getting ridiculous. Am I supposed to just unwatch every page Arcayne shows up on? I'll be off the page after a few months of slow, steady, expansion by Arcayne. ThuranX (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no one notified me of this discussion, of which I appear to be a part of. Allow me to be blunt: I stopped watchlisting ThuranX some time ago, almost simply because he doesn't want to modify his behavior, and I have better things to do with my time here than babysit his edits. So I don't. I have not hounded his edits; in point of fact, I only discovered the last instance that resulted in his being blocked because I watchlist some of the pages that apparently he does as well, and noticed his throwing an undeserved beating into a fairly new user. As WQA has had little effect on his behavior in the past, I thought we were at risk for losing yet another user to ThuranX's behavior, so I took the matter to AN/I.
My first interaction with thuranX, more than two years ago, was no more pleasant than the one two days ago. His good contributions aside, his unchanging behavior is problematic. Granted, I've had a bumpy past, but I think I've grown as an editor, especially in matters of editorial interaction. I've seen newer users leave the project specifically because of his behavior, which is largely, 'it's my way, or fuck you'. Prickly doesn't begin to serve as an adequate descriptor.
It was because of this animosity on his part that I sought out the last admin who told me to come to him if I encountered problems. When I saw that the problems with ThuranX were only going to escalate, I needed some advice. Not protection, or preface to reporting him here, as Thuran kept claiming.
I want to stress that blocking/banning him shouldn't be a goal here; it has not in the past addressed his behavior at its core, and he would likely see such as unfair. As well, that might affect his mostly good contributions, turning them ever more sour. As to what would be more appropriate escapes me. I can't see him accepting a civility modification mentor, but maybe that might be a choice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that after making such a big deal of how he was going to be policing me, that Arcayne instead quietly,without fanfare, changed his mind and unwatched my talk page between 6 Jan and 27 or so Jan, when we again came into conflict. He made such a big deal of how he had every right to watch me, supervise and report me, that it would simply be absurd to assume he'd changed his mind silently, without telling anyone. As for his first interactions, I left the Thor page because of him, since then, I've left other pages to avoid him. Arcayne, however, every few months, shows up, picks some point to build contention, and whenever I try to talk about it, escalates, usually by digging in his heels for a few days, then reporting me when I get frustrated with his behavior. You would think I would have learned the just report him even faster than he reports me, but no. each time, I go into it thinking 'this is the time I'll get him to listen to others.' Each time, I wind up reported and hassled. I just don't have any interest in being the aggressor, but I'm no good at not looking like one in the face of his behaviors.

This ist he best way I know to summarize how I feel about him: Arcayne is the kid who pokes the other kid in the back during class, randomly, and not too often... just enough that the kid in front knows that it's coming, but he doesn't know when. Then, the kid in front abruptly turns around and punches the kid behind him, and gets in trouble, and the kid behind knows it worked, and prepares to start all over, because the punch is worth the misery caused. That's what dealing with Arcayne is like for me. ThuranX (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If ThuranX were under the impression that other editors were watching his behavior, it would serve as a temper on the behavior. After the first few days following his block, I kept him on my watchlist for a short period of time. I didn't interact with him, and went about my business. After a while, I took him off my watchlist and went on. convinced that - if the problem had not been resolved - someone else could deal with it.

A more accurate representation of his provided analogy would be the bully who picks on folk, and when someone finally decides to tell the principal about it, the bully either pretends to be sorry for it, or complains that he had to hit the kid because the kid wouldn't walk the way he wanted him to.

The best way to summarize Thuran's issue here is that if he doesn't want to feel at risk for being reported, he needs to sufficiently modify his behavior so that he no longer is susceptible to being blocked for a civility issue. ThuranX thinks he is the smartest kid in the room, and the reality is that no on e is the smartest person in the room while editing Wikipedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A civility probation should suffice to suppress many conflicts involving Thuran. I have his talk page on my watchlist since I blocked him for incivility last year. Since then, it has become clear to me that Thuran has a problem in the way he expresses himself to users who are bringing him frustration. Thuran also seems to believe that users who complain against him are "out to get him", like in a conspiracy ring. Thuran does not seem to acknowledge own fault, always preferring to adopt an aggressive posture to defense himself against any admonishments, regardless of their rightfulness. This behavior should be restrained. Húsönd 18:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Even though i'm not an admin, i've dealt with uncivil editors before. They continually revert pages and make personal atttacks because neither one refuses to admit their wrong or reach a compromise. I think that either they both apologize and end this year long fight, or ignore eachother enitrely (at the risk of both being indef blocked). Elbutler (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been seeking a compromise in the article discussion virtually since this issue arose, so long as the event being disputed is included; as per at least three different policies, while at least one person keeps characterizing them as BLP and undue weight. As far as ThuranX is concerned, I'm not following him around; we simply edits some of the same pages. I leave his edits alone and perform mine. He chooses to attack my edits (not reverse, or question but attack), despite being repeatedly asked to focus on the edits and not the editor by no less than four different people.

In the best of worlds, he could be a lot nicer to folk (not just me). At the very least, the guy could stop attacking me at every given opportunity. Have the pages the wikitool indicated a commonality one or both of us have dropped from our watchlist. Thor is a typical example; I haven't edited there since five days in August, 2007, and during that time, none of my 11 edits interacted with ThuranX' edits). I don't seek the guy out (I mean, seriously - considering the guy's behavior, only a masochist would), and he in fact follows me to articles to post complaints, and has done so for more than a year. I am not sure why I should apologize for not backing down to a bully, or defending the new folk. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously accusing me of stalking you now? Is this the level of absurdity that you must resort to? I can't believe this. ThuranX (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reported Grawp to my police department

Resolved

 – Nothing we can do further. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is because he is creating usernames with people's phone numbers in it see http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20090123234010&limit=500&type=globalauth and oversight-l has refused to delete them. This is not a legal threat, because I have already reported them. 78.145.227.16 (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oversight can't kill usernames. You need to contact a bureaucrat thru IRC or email or other private means; the rename will remove the issues. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Go for it mate, good luck--Jac16888^Talk 23:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ha! Since the information about me, for example, is available on my website, they may decide not to throw away the key on this one. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely there's a few other things we could pick him up on? Defamation? Disrupting the work of a charity? Disobeying the explicit wishes of the owners and community of a privately-owned website in matters concerning them? I'm not sure how many of those are offences, but there's plenty of other things we could clock him for. We've put up with this for too long. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 23:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sure racism's a crime, and he must have said something racist (or at least anti-semitic) at least once. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 23:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Racism isn't truly a crime, per se (IANAL). However, the harassment of volunteers via proxy would be. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• You can't really win against Anonymous. It's a hydra. Grawp is more of a concept or a legend than a real person. Reporting to the police is really wasting time. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• That may be, but JarlaxleArtemis, the original Grawp, can be prosecuted or sued. Frag, his RL name bounces about quite often. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oh good grief, what a load of bollocks! The police really have better things to do than process frivolous complaints. RMHED (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's somewhat late where I am, but how about a little WP:AGF? We know a local police dept won't be interested, but that's no reason to insult the reporter, unless we want to assume the worst, which I don't see. --Rodhullandemu 23:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The police? An answer, but not the right answer. The right answer could be knowing somebody who knows somebody who knows a guy named Vito. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You never know... If you get a fortuitous combination of a state with a strong and untested anti-cyber-bullying law with a bored and/or fame-seeking prosecutor, you may get something going. Maybe we could see a Indiana v. Trolls article sometime soon. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 19:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL — Kevin586 (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

@Sceptre: Hmm, yeah, but how come the cops who did Operation Buccaneer against warez groups pinned down an otherwise anonymous group of pirates? If the low lifes behind the Grawp mob are seen committing breach of privacy, then it might qualify as a criminal act, and we might have a good reason to put this Grawp menace to oblivion. Anonymous and/or ED sees Wikipedia as their nemesis, but what they're doing to us is obviously below the belt, right? Oh, and I suggest that you bring this to the FBI instead of the local police department. The Feds are more adept when it comes to cybercrime, I guess... Blake Gripling (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That isn't going to stop anything though, and you're deluded if you think it will. Too many copycats now. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. All it's going to do is delay it at best. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 21:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please can someone speak to this user please: Raoulduke47 (talk · contribs)

He is marking all his edits as minor, I believe in an attempt to avoid them being seen on watchlists. I asked him to stop here and he replied on my talk page with a comment to the effect of "haven't you got something better to do". Ryan4314 (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• You mean he wouldn't comply with your request!!! Outrageous, ban him this instant. RMHED (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Minor says; "The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences to not display them. If there is any chance that another editor might dispute a change, it is best to not mark the edit as minor."

It then goes on to list to what is acceptable to mark as minor edit. His response states that he considers edits such as "adding pictures to FA class articles" as "minor", WP:Minor says otherwise and I worry that he will continue to do this. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If this really causes you "worry" then I urge you strongly not to watch any news broadcasts as they are likely to do irreparable damage to your mental wellbeing. RMHED (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RHMED, if you don't have anything constructive to contribute please don't comment. Minor edits are exactly that - edits such as spelling mistakes, typos, whitespace removal etc - anything that substantially changes the article is not minor and should not be marked as such. Exxolon (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole complaint is frivolous. At most this user is sometimes going against a guideline. If their edits were bad then it would be a problem, as it is their edits seem to be good so why the fuss? RMHED (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

if m:Help:Minor Edit didn't exist, then you might have an argument for the complaint being frivolous. but it does exist. actually, what's frivolous is the idea of an editor arbitrarily deciding it's acceptable to pick and choose which wikipedia rules to follow or deem optional. the guide isn't that ambiguous. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I can agree that this is not the most important issue in the history of the wiki. Still, "a 'minor edit' is defined as one making only trivial or superficial changes between the current and previous versions of a page, such as typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, and the like. By clicking the "minor edit" box, an editor represents that the change would not call for review by other editors on the page and could never reasonably be the subject of a dispute. An edit summary should accompany each minor edit, although this can be brief (e.g., 'sp', 'punct', 'format'). Except for edits automatically marked as minor by automated tools, which themselves should be used only in accordance with policy, any change that affects the meaning of an article should not be designated as minor." (From a recent ArbCom decision.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, I was not aware of that recent ArbCom decision. Would you mind notifying User:Raoulduke47 of the significance of it and WP:Minor please, as I don't think he'll take me seriously, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it's relevant or not, but there is a check box in prefrences that when checked makes all edits minor edits. Perhaps the user has that checked, and isn't really familiar with the Help:Minor Edits read. To be honest, I really hope the next big argument in Wikipedia isn't going to be a huge debate over whether or not the edit itself is minor or not. There's plenty of drama to go around as it is. — Ched (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never understood why we have that switch in preferences - it seems that it would make it more likely that non-minor edits would be marked as minor. Has anyone undertook to eliminate it? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree it isn't the biggest deal ever (although the severity of an issue hardly acts to predict the intensity of response), but it is a trust and presentation problem. A lot of folks (not me, for this exact reason) leave edits marked as minor and edits by bots off their watchlist, on the presumption that they would never have to check up on edits like that. Marking edits as minor is a breech of that trust--a trust that is enforced only through social convention. When people violate those conventions, the response is usually disproportionate to the apparent offense. Sure, we are just talking about a little m, but the issue really is trust and observation. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is because Wikipedians have their own language separate from the English language. In Wikipedian, minor means who is quoted above. In English, a minor edit is one that isn't major. Some may interpret major as significant re-writing and cutting things out and adding things in. So always take into consideration what you are thinking and what the other person is thinking may not be the same.

So don't just gang up on that other user. Ipromise (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Raoulduke47 (talk · contribs) is an experienced editor (Sept 06)
• I have shown him WP:Minor, so he now knows what edits should only be marked minor and why it is bad to mark all edits as minor. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

edit warring, and indirect language used to make blatant personal attacks and uncivil remarks

after i asked User:Nukes4Tots to provide a source for this, he reverted me without supplying a source. since we were both warned for edit warring 2 days ago, i did not want to edit war with him, so i went to his talk page, cited WP:PROVEIT and the reasons why his unsourced claim needs to be sourced, but had already decided to edit war to add back his own unencyclopedic, unsourced, misspelled POV statement. his explanation as to why a source was not necessary was because ANY retard should understand what he's talking about.

• (more "retard" talk!) i guess it's okay to remove sourced content without discussion because your edit summary clearly defines the sourced content as retarded
• he reverts me with "Listing every referenceable agency is a FOOL's errand. Are you for it?" i was for it, since i'm the one he reverted. does that mean i'm a fool?

• he admits, in reference to this nasty edit that "there were some strong words in there (carefully chosen to avoid a direct personal attack) and, yes, I might have been baiting"

• over here, he specifically went out his way to tell me that i'm not a fucking moron: "how the fuck am I attacking you? An attack would be me calling you a fucking moron. I do not believe you are either a moron or a fucking moron." oh good, that clarifies it. he was showing examples of what he wouldn't say.

• and this

• when 'apologising' to an admin for the 'incivility misunderstanding' from a few days ago, he clearly wasn't attacking my language skills personally when he said he would "intentionally avoid words and phrases that anyone without a firm grasp of the english language might misinterpret as a personal attack or incivility" implied personal attacks are only worth half credit, i guess.

in his defense, he claims that i am wikihounding him because i'm reverting unsourced additions to one article we both edit, Glock pistol. i am reverting unsourced/OR additions as per usual, but it's nothing personal about him. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been hounding me for some reason. I've been editing the Glock article over the long term and he pops in and disagrees with a mistake I made. I agreed with him and since he has been hounding me. I've use the "F" word on a few occasions, but have tried to keep it civil with him. It seems a clear case of WP:hounding as I've stated to him on several occassions. It's in his nature to hound other editors as he did with user:Svernon19 and was reported by Svernon19 in this thread: [91]. He also has a history of tedious editing as reported here: [92]. Not sure how civil I am required to be when I'm being hounded. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

here's the diff of svernon realizing he may have jumped to incorrect conclusions as the last message on that same ANI thread, which you forgot to include: [[93]] . and here is the diff from after the ANI thread, when he immediately went to my talk page and wrote In hindsight, I think you were probably right about this one -- I probably shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. Svernon19 (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Theserialcomma (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• quick summary of edit warring: this unsourced, misspelled statement needs to be removed or sourced. when i tried to remove it and asked for a source he reverted me without providing a source. not wanting to edit war, i took it to his talk page, where he called me a retard and said he didn't need to cite all his sources. then all the other stuff above. i presume that if i remove it again, he will continue to edit war. so hopefully someone else will fix it. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Then correct the spelling. I didn't NEED to provide a source when I entered it as it was obvious. A simple google search yielded hundreds of sources. Yet, instead of fact tagging as you should have done you chose to edit war. You're playing it really close to stalking on this one, again. You hound people until they back off a bit then you continue to hound the. I've checked your edit history and you're playing it close to your MO, buddy. It'd help if you had a tiny bit of an idea what you were talking about. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to end all of this DRAMAHZ by just providing sources instead of requiring other editors to look for sources? AnyPerson (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, however then I get into phase 9 of a 15 phase harassment campaign. He questions the sources then baits, badgers, reports, misinterprets, ignores, and plays all kinds of games. I'll provide a source if he'll stop editing the article. However, the references are as easy as googling "Compensator" and "Perceived Recoil". He'd have known that if he'd tried. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeh but.. if an edit is challenged, it's incumbent upon you to provide the source for the edit. Unless it is blatant common knowledge ("the sky is blue" or "water is wet"), you need to back your stuff up. It costs you nothing to provide the source. So. Next time when someone asks you to provide your source, do so and head off these mindbogglingly stupid arguments before they can happen. Sources do in fact need to be cited for anything contentious. So do that. Thanks. Can we close this now? //roux   06:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but... that's my contention. It is blatant common knowledge. For instance, if I said that a screwdriver is for driving screws, does that mean that I then have to reference that fact? Nope. A compensator, by definition, compensates for percieved recoil, a fact that is blatant common knowledge in firearms circles to the point that it's comical to even ask for a reference. There is no point in filling the entire article with a reference for each and every word. No, it's a matter of principle. Do we put a reference that a bullet is the part of the cartridge that flies out the barrel? This is a 'fools errand' trying to reference each and every word. Had this particular editor come out of the blue and asked for a reference, I'd have provided it. However, this editor is playing a game that you're now deep into. He's been hounding me. This is the fourth argument he's picked with me. It's WP:Wikihounding that we should be discussiong rather than if the object of this editor's obsession is really contentions or just another game. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you assuming that the only people reading or using the article are firearms enthusiasts? Common knowledge means common knowledge, not 'common knowledge within a specific subgroup'. Please provide references, stop edit-warring, and deal with the alleged wikihounding separately. Thanks. The thing about providing references is that if the other person keeps trying to tear them down no matter what you do (and believe me, I have been on the same side of this situation as you), you then have a really great leg to stand on when it comes to resolving the dispute. If, however, you don't provide any refs then anyone is justified in removing the content unless it truly is common knowledge outside firearms circles. //roux   17:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

American spider beetle

A template on the article says "Please note this page will be under revision by University of Toronto entomology students between 22/01/2009 and 12/02/2009. For more information about this project, please see [1]". The link is a blank user page. Is this allowed? Schuym1 (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Schools_and_universities_project#University_of_Toronto_.28Winter_2009.29_.28Ongoing.29. We also have a template, {{EducationalAssignment|date=YYYY-MM-DD|link=Wikipedia:School and university projects#PROJECT}}, which is meant for this (and supposed to go on the talk page, not the main article). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The watching and editing it allowed and invited. The template on the article is misplaced. Protonk (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• This is the first time that I have heard of that page. Schuym1 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Are these templates permitted on the talk pages? If not, why not? Seems like a great template for reducing redundant questions, which is similar to the purpose of other templates. If it is permitted, it should probably be restored and moved there. ThuranX (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's where they belong, and where they've already been moved to... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

My fault. Different colors, different templates, didn't see it. Why aren't we more clear in the one that IS there, which is quite vague? The misplaced one was far more informative. We ought to provide the basic formatting and code so that each project can tag their own, identifying who and what at a glance. ThuranX (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor creating unsourced BLPs, and tagging them as such

I've come across an odd situation; an editor is creating unsourced articles about various footballers, and tagging them as unsourced. See, for example, [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]. I've asked him why he is doing this, but have received no response. I have no idea if the details given about these individuals is correct, or if they even exist, but I thought I'd bring the issue here for discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What I do is do a Google search, and if I find nothing to establish notability, I usually speedy tag it A7. ArcAngel (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

After having thought about it, I think the correct course of action is to re-direct them to the pro league they play in, as there are few Ghits for each of them. ArcAngel (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Usually when I see that it's usually a recreation of a previously deleted article complete with the old tags, sometimes even DB and hangon tags. These articles have nothing in the deletion logs so it might be the creator is hoping new page patrollers will see the tags, assume the article has already been checked and move on. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• It may even be more mundane that that. People may just be pulling out the history an old article (from one of the many mirrors and forks) and copy-pasting from there. Protonk (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Before getting any wild ideas you should check and notice that none of these pages have existed before or been deleted. So why is somebody creating new articles with the "unreferenced" tag? I guess it spares you the work of adding the tag, but why not cite the sources and spare everyone the work? I mean unless the user is unabashedly making up names, they have to be using some kind of source (though I'll admit I can't find it). — CharlotteWebb 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I found this as at least a reference for Arian Jean Akassou (Which was the only one of the above diffs I sampled). Somebody with more knowledge of international football might be able to make something of it. Maybe he has a source which we would not class as WP:RS but he is absolutely sure and wants us to find the sources to match. Agathoclea (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor revealing too much information?

Resolved

 – User page deleted. — neuro^(talk) 09:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is This user, a minor, revealing too much information on his Talk page? AnyPerson (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would say so. Isn't there a policy against e-mail addresses being posted? ArcAngel (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted their userpage per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy, and left them a message pursuant to the Arbitration case. Tiptoety ^talk 03:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

... there is a policy against e-mail addresses being posted? Um, wtf? -- Gurch (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible Wage Slavery sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – Semi'd for 1 month. — neuro^(talk) 09:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

On Wage Slavery, there appears to be something amiss. Multiple experienced editors are reverting a rather large chunk of text being added by two apparent SPAs (NeutralityForever (talk · contribs) and MethodstoMadness (talk · contribs)) and a whole host of IPs, all of whom have no other substantial edits other than to this article. The IPs seem to be being used to lure the other editors into edit wars and then turn them in ([104] and [105] in hopes of getting them blocked. I'm bringing this here in hopes an admin can straighten this out, or at least level the playing field. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• NeutralityForever (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for edit warring. Protonk (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sure there's a way to check this out with special software. I have no relation whatsoever to NeutralityForever or any of the other contributors. I've been following the wage slavery page closely for a long time. The large chunk of text is not "being added". A few editors decided to REMOVE that chunk of text that had been there for quite a long time. So I and other editors keep insisting that the burden of proof is on those wanting to remove such large chunks of text. It seems a consensus that it is legitimate to delete those sections IF they are not relevant to the definition of wage slavery and important facts associated with it that the VERY editors proposing the deletion have chosen to have in the lead paragraph. I think you'll find out if you examine the definition, that the the parts are very relevant. In any case, the parts should be analyzed and discussed in the discussion page before any such drastic changes. thanks for your attention MethodstoMadness (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

MethodstoMadness has reinstated the section here [106]. He also discusses his edits in terms of "our side." Dayewalker (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of NeutralityForever. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

He's asking for an unblock. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblock declined. Mr.Z-man 06:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Due to the evident sockpuppetry by IPs, I have semiprotected Wage slavery for one month. Other admins may adjust this as they think appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's sockpuppetry on NeutFor's behalf, shouldn't his block be at the least extended? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 03:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Pokerhand

Resolved

 – Page deleted by Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) — neuro^(talk) 09:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is User:Pokerhand spam? The original version of the page included links to the pages, the User has removed the links, but the names of the pages are still there. AnyPerson (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like spam, quacks like spam. //roux   05:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like G11, deleted as G11. — neuro^(talk) 09:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Might Be A Problem

...then again it might not. I came across this piece of vandalism and while most of it was just babbling, the part that struck my attention was the part about "Imminent air plane crashes on commercial Boeing and Airbus jets". To me, that isn't something to be messed with or taken lightly. I did a TrustedSource search and the IP is out of Bangkok, Thailand. Not sure if anyone thinks this is worth reporting, but I will leave it up to you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 1, 2009 @ 08:13

Will handle. Conferring with TSA and DHS. Edit Centric (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Formosa's Law may apply... 88.112.34.160 (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Anything like this is definitely worth reporting, and anyone can report it. What I did, and what you can do, is google Department of Homeland Security, and call the number on the Contact Us page. You may be asked for some basic info about yourself, but don't be hesitant to provide it. You never know, you might just be preventing another 9-11 from happening! Edit Centric (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Intermittent Personal Attacks

User:Btzkillerv appears to make personal attacks intermittently, getting away with them each time.

The following recent diffs illustrate what this editor has been up to.

[107][108][109][110][111][112]

As can be seen from the above diffs, this editor has made a number of personal attacks against other editors who have violated Wikipedia policy. In the latest and most serious incident so far, User:Btzkillerv viciously abuses an indefinitely blocked editor after a series of vandal edits were made by various user accounts to User talk:Btzkillerv, User:Btzkillerv and Template:User_Manchu_Chinese.

It also seems odd that Btzkillerv labeled User 77.182.67.105 a Hanjian(i.e. a traitor), considering that the vandal edits concerned (by other users) all involved denigrating people of the Manchu ethnicity only.

The question now is "What sort of remedies and sanctions should be applied to stop this type of conduct?" Does the editor involved simply get blocked for a period of time? Or will the editor be banned from editing certain pages? 72.43.122.208 (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh there's good timing. ^One more Tor node blocked. I'd just point out that I've blocked several other Tor nodes as well as some sockpuppets (User:Manchurianisation, User:Manchurianization, User:Anti Manchu Lobby, ...) who have been racially harassing Btzkillerv recently, and I've semi-protected Btzkillerv's user and usertalk pages as a result. Probably nothing to see here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, User:Btzkillerv has also abused indefed user Manchurianisation by calling him or her a "traitor". 85.31.186.211 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:84.9.144.107

Resolved

 – Block extended, talk page semi'd. — neuro^(talk) 18:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A person on 84.9.144.107 has repeatedly posted harrassment and other personal attacks on their talk page User talk:84.9.144.107 despite being temporarily blocked. They should be permanently blocked.Smallman12q (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• We don't block IPs permanently except in very unusual cases. However, I have extended the block and semi-protected the talkpage for the same amount of time. Black Kite 14:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:124.124.44.194

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. — neuro^(talk) 18:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A user on 124.124.44.194 has repeatedly vandalised pages despite being warned. WarrenA (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV. MuZemike 16:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Banned user

Resolved

 – User blocked indef, and page protected. — neuro^(talk) 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User:TomPhan is evading his banning through the use of sockpuppets (User:TonPham)...again. Normally, I'd go to the WP:SSP board, but this kind of abuse really requires a more expedient approach. This time, he is taunting me over a fellow Wikipedian's death. This is in extremely bad taste and I request help with another block as soon as it can be done. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

On a related topic, could I have my talk page semi-protected to prevent the same kind of abuse for the near future? — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked and sprotected -- Samir 19:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User claiming he hacked another persons account.

The user is User:Curse_of_Fenric on Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Imposter account claims to have hacked User:Timelord69. How should this be reported if at all?Smallman12q (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. This appears to have been in good faith, a severe slap on the wrist is needed, but not a block, in my opinion. — neuro^(talk) 19:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

he didn't hack anything. They signed up with an email address of his domain. He was sent the activation email.--Crossmr (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe what he means is 'gained access to the other user's account through questionable methods'. — neuro^(talk) 01:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes that it was I mean. You are correct that he didn't technically hack the account since he was sent the activation email, but I don't believe it was appropriate for him to take control of the account. Is there a policy regarding taking control of an account when you have the activation email?Smallman12q (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, because it is an incredibly unusual situation, one which falls more within the realms of human judgment than policy and guideline. — neuro^(talk) 02:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What questionable methods? He was sent the activation e-mail. If this user genuinely uses this nickname in other venues and the email activation was sent to an address associated with his domain it is quite likely someone was setting up the account to target him. I see no problem with him changing the password and taking control of it, but if he doesn't get it blocked it should be identified as associated with his main account.--Crossmr (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard Spalding vanity edits

User:R_spald01 has been editing himself into the List of Rollins College alumni for months. Lately his aggressiveness in this matter has increased [113]. I don't think he's a vandal, I think he's just mistaken about WP:NOTE. I told him on his talk page to provide source if he feels he is notable but he's just reverting.Yeago (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted BLP violations being restored by Landon1980

Resolved

 – User has agreed to cease edit warring. GlassCobra 20:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey removed blatant WP:BLP-violating troll comments here from Talk:Barack Obama, and warned the IP user appropriately. Landon1980, on what basis I have no idea, has decided to restore the material 4 times, [114], [115], [116], [117]. Posting here as this will likely need admin intervention to bring the disruption to a halt, as this user is not even slowing down for WP:3RR. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Landon of this thread, and asked him why he chose to edit war over this as well. Tarc, it is common courtesy to notify users when you open a AN or ANI thread about them. GlassCobra 20:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, I did. :) Landon deleted it. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tarc did notify me, I reverted his comment. Landon1980 (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

After all the rude comments from Tarc in the past I have a hard time assuming good faith when dealing with him. I know for a fact he reverted me in pure spite of me. He has called me insane in the past, and edit-warred with an admin to keep his personal attack on the talk page of this same article. Landon1980 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice bit of, um, ad hominem hysteria there. We already dealt with the spurious "insane" thing last year, discussion of which is probably still on my talk page, as I archive infrequently. As for "spite", no, I reverted you because you were restoring a nothing-to-do-with-the-article anti-Obama slur, which ran afoul of WP:BLP, as well as your removal the warning issued to the IP. Tarc (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, Tarc, I should have checked the page history. Landon, why were you edit warring over a trivial and borderline offensive comment? Assuming bad faith against Tarc aside, that's no reason for breaking 3RR, especially when an admin was the first to remove the comment. GlassCobra 20:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

At least four editors have reverted the comment. Landon1980 made an identical claim about me, that I did so to "spite" him, and is engaged in a discussion on my talk page suggesting that he seems to regard the whole thing as a battle against a cabal of Obama apologists.[118][119][120] I have no opinion on whether the editor should be warned or blocked again. He says here that he is not going to revert anymore.[121] The whole thing is unnecessary if everyone just calms down and moves on.Wikidemon (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Large family is not a living person, and calling a person charged with drug possession a criminal (in which Obama barely knows) is not a BLP violation. Try assuming good faith from time to time. Landon1980 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Landon, please hold to your statement on Wikidemon's talk to cease edit warring over this comment. I'm marking this thread as resolved since no admin intervention is required now, and will continue this conversation on your talk page. GlassCobra 20:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Eugene Krabs (talk · contribs) has taken up the edit war and is dropping vandalism warnings on the talk pages of editors that have removed the comment. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And it looks like an admin or somebody should decide whether stuff about Obama's relative in Africa constitutes a BLP violation. The original posting by the IP address was certainly a POV-push. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There's already a discussion open on WP:BLP/N. It's a legitimate and in my opinion unclear question whether repeating the (apparently true) reports of this person's arrest in his home country are a BLP violation in the first place, or are inappropriate on other policy grounds (weight, POV, notability, coatrack, NOT#NEWS). We also have no idea what the story really means and what will come of it. What is clear is that it can become a behavioral or content problem if taken too far, too fast, or too enthusiastically. This is yesterday's front page news (now a day stale, and no longer on the front pages). For anyone who is truly here to edit an encyclopedia, we can afford to take a breath, wait a week, then see what if anything comes of it.Wikidemon (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, assuming good faith it appears that Eugene Krabs, is just trying to help but new to Wikipedia and a little slow on the draw... He/she has been doing non-partisan wikipolicing elsewhere on the subject of urging people not to modify talk page comments. If it's truly a BLP issue, the comment about Obama's brother would be a rare exception to that rule. I'll be bold and mark this resolved again, in hopes that everyone gets it by now...Wikidemon (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If it is of any relevance here, my problem with the "Obama's family..." line is that it a) presumes the guilt of someone who has only been charged with a crime, and b) defames the Obama family by implying that there's bound to be criminals in there somewhere, since there's so many of em. One could even draw a racial undertone from the latter. Tarc (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the reasons I removed it in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The latter was not part of the comment. There is no "racial undertone" in the comment of the IP. Before you tamper with the comments of other editor's you should have a good reason. Also, read WP:BLP so not to misapply the policy in the future. You have to try extremely hard to interpret that comment as an insult to the Obama's. Landon1980 (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange behaviour of Yearlytaxforms

Resolved

 – Salted by MzMcBride--Patton^t/c 21:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yearlytaxforms (talk · contribs) keeps recreating Bryant Ng with extracts from various books. I'm not sure what to make of it.--Patton^t/c 21:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bryant Ng most recently was a copyvio of "Our Immigrant Stories: South Asians in Illinois, 1945-1965" ([122],[123], etc.), so it could be speedily deleted for being a copyright violation, among other reasons (edit: has been deleted now). I think delete and salt is the appropriate action. As for what's going on, my guess is that Yearlytaxforms is trying to use Wikipedia as a personal web host. Strange227 could be unrelated. -kotra (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's just one version of it, he's recreated it about 7 times with extracts from various books.--Patton^t/c 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes he just keeps doing it done about 10 tiems in last ten mins.--Patton^t/c 21:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Odd. Judging by this, I'd say the user's name is Bryant Ng. Maybe he's copying the book text to "his" page in preparation for writing an article. Were all the books on the same topic? If not, maybe he's just trying to be disruptive... that's the best explanation I can offer. -kotra (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No they were on random things, he even copied and pasted the Einstein article into there.--Patton^t/c 22:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

*scratch head* I'd guess just disruption then, but whatever the reason, he'll be blocked if he continues. -kotra (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

202.84.20.21

• 202.84.20.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) all entries, despite many warnings, have been vandalism, and limited blocks have not helped.Ethelh (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This report was originally placed at WP:AIV, where I noted that the last edits were 2 days ago. Is there any other response other than RBI for this vandal? The contrib history is little more than vandalism, but is there more than the expected Philippine orientated article editing that indicates that this is the one individual? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I say give him a chance, don't block untill he vandalises again.--Patton^t/c 23:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"All we are saying is give IP's a chance..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Flags

Resolved

 – Being discussed elsewhere. — neuro^(talk) 01:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for Admin help please: Aidan Jennings (talk · contribs) has added those little flags icons to a load of ship articles. He's added them to the ship builder section of the infobox, two questions:

• Is this inline with WP:MOSFLAG?
• If not, damned if I'm reverting all of them ;) Is there some magic tool admins have to easily fix all of these please? Ryan4314 (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems harmless. I can see the editorial argument that flags in ship infoboxes should represent only the flag she flies under. But that's something to take up with him or her. Protonk (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Roger, you can close this if u like now. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah, we can keep it open. For all I know there is some super secret collection of editors who want flags just so and will be incensed when they see this. Maybe it is a problem. I was just giving my read. Protonk (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's being discussed here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Flag icons for builders. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spies sappin my sentries

Resolved

 – Deleted. — neuro^(talk) 01:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We need an admin to end this utter madness. A user is hurling insane accusations at half of Wikipedia, with little to no supporting evidence. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. BJ^Talk 00:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. ^Law _shoot! 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yea, thanks for ending that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And a few admins have scolded him already. Honestly, the fact that he apparently doesn't know where the IP editors come from kinda surprises me, but I gave him some info and asked him to avoid two other hotspot talkpages. I often enlist anon allies to help revert vandalism on my talkpage during a 4chan attack; I don't want them being called socks of anyone. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 00:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"And a few admins have scolded him already"... and non-admins, as well! Anyway, I gave him links to RBI and some other stuff, hopefully he will learn quickly. I do understand the desire of a new user to burn every IP address they ever see vandalizing (when I first started I used to keep a list of all IPs I had reverted), but eventually we all learn to RBI... Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies guys and thanks a lot for the links politzer. I will certainly refere to them in the future!Smallman12q (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Interveinious,_intertwined

Resolved

 – Page deleted and block set to disallow him from editing his talk page. – wodup – 03:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Interveinious,_intertwined is editing his talk page with a bulky (1 MB) formatting filled with profanities and swearing which are clearly inadequate abuse of wikipedia resources. Please take proper action (adding a notice to his talk page in current situation looks unfeasible, given the disruptive nature of the current formatting). Fbergo (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Mucoid plaque

As per Talk:Mucoid_plaque#Pseudoscience_discretionary_sanctions and the general consensus of the editors of this article, could I ask another admin to step in and restrict User:Heelop from disrupting this article and its talkpage? Tim Vickers (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Mickproper

Resolved

 – Mickproper blocked; I've undone my erroneous block/autoblock already and apologized. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 04:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(I posted the text below to WP:Wikiquette alerts earlier today, and was told I should post here instead.)

After I AFDed one of his articles and reverted some of his edits, Mickproper seriously lost it and posted this to my talk page and sent me a personal threat in email, which I took seriously enough to report to my local police. ("just so you know you punk...when I find out your real identity, you're going to have a VERY bad day!") I don't wish to be involved with this guy anymore. Someone should keep an eye on him, though - I think he is well-intentioned, but his edits are frequently unsourced, unverifiable, and/or contain original research. And he has a temper. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeowch. I think this guy needs an indef but fast, sans email privs. Well-intentioned he may be, but threats like that are certainly NOT okay. Blocking now. Do not reply to his email; just killfile it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 04:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1) Kill his account

2) Bury the corpse

3) ??

4) Profit! HalfShadow 04:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And blocked. I welcome other administrators to comment on the block on the chance I've cocked up. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 04:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You cocked up. HalfShadow 04:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And I corrected it. (Hits self in face with shark). Correct account blocked now. -Jeremy ^{(v>_<v Dittobori)} 04:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandal SPA?

Something of note, that popped up on the radar at Super Bowl XLIII:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Newenglandsports11

Tends to be a WP:SPA editor that makes edits like the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santonio_Holmes&diff=prev&oldid=267963380 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_New_York_Giants_season&diff=prev&oldid=263454544

Probably needs a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.100.146 (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Overly hostile editor at the DYK talk page

User:Politizer has been overly hostile to people who do not agree with him for over two months at the Wikipedia talk:Did you know page. Recently, he posted a response saying this in the edit summary: "clarification about yet another Ottava Rima factual inaccuracy. come on, man, learn your shit already". I asked him not to put personal attacks in edit summaries because he has a habit of it. He responds with "don't want personal attacks in the edit summary? fine, I put it in the edit itself" in the edit summary and this in the edit: 1) "Hey genius" 2) "Once again I am in awe of how poor your understanding of DYK is. Non-admins can update Next, and they do all the time. You fucking moron." 3) "this is how you repay me—by whining about the same old bullshit and being too thick-skulled to read or understand anything I say.".

The user has attacked others besides myself, but it is harder to dig through the archives (I can easily find my name and match the conversations). For instance, there was this where he was warned about his hostility by User:NuclearWarfare. This original diff shows his use of edit summaries to further hostilities ("haha, that's just precious..... oh well. gonna try to avoid this thread now"). As you can see here (" hi asshole :-D") I am not the only one who he does this to. Upon looking at edit summaries, he does it frequently such as here. As a side note, he also has a strange habit of issuing "final warnings" as a non-admin (examples): 1 and 2. (these were found on the same pages as diffs related to the user's actions above). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to the other comments right now because I'm in a hurry and other people will be better able to piece through them in an NPOV fashion. As for the final warnings, I issued those two because the users were VOAs who inserted libel into BLPs (for the one) and attacks against living individuals (for the second). But that's really irrelevant to this thread. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Any user can issue any warning. Final warnings aren't limited to an admin. Grsz¹¹--Review 04:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Using "bitch" in one of the edit summaries as you can see above shows that there is a problem with how the user handles vandals. I removed the last two, but the above is enough to show a concern. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Not really much for me to say here, other than I urge people reading to read the entirety of the most recent discussion (the bottom portion of WT:DYK#Closer look) rather than only the diffs that Ottava Rima provided. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And another response...regarding Ottava Rima's "I'm not the only one he does this to" diff, that edit was in response to one of Ottava Rima's buddy editors, who had already attacked me just a few edits before that (in that diff, scroll up in the conversation to Malleus' comment "More experience than you of counting?" If you're unfamiliar with DYK and me, this comment was mocking me for having once challenged one of Ottava Rima's DYK nominations for not being expanded fivefold.) This ANI thread would mean a lot more to me if it were something other than just Ottava Rima and his friend wanting to tattle on a guy they don't like. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why User:Politizer has no warnings for these type of comments in his/her recent edit history. Looks like there should be a warning for being chatty around the holidays (Wikipedia is not your personal chat room or some such), but it seems that an editor who is this hostile would have lots of warnings for personal attacks given on their talk page. I'm not going to be reading the entire conversation because no one felt the comments by this editor were serious enough when they were made to warn him/her from making them. --KP Botany (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I don't see anything that requires any admin action. The editor hasn't even been recently warned for incivility, so there's absolutely no call for a block over this incident. This barely warrants a wikiquette alert, and only because both sides of that argument need to take it down a notch.

And on the point being bickered over: if there's a page in the DYK project that only admin are allowed to edit, why isn't it protected? -- Vary Talk 05:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

reply to Vary Because it's not a page that only admins can edit. The pages that only admins can edit (Template:Did you know and the queues) are protected; as I mentioned in the conversation that sparked this ANI, the DYK rules clearly state that non-admins can edit Next, and in fact most of the editing of Next is done by them. Just for some clarification. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)