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

2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

Currently, the page is 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Please see the talk page. I need to get back to my article work, so it would be impossible to try and deal with any of it further. It needs more eyes on it for the following - page move warring, edit warring, possible POV problems, possible BLP problems (these are living individuals involved and it deals with a potentially criminal act that people have been tried at the World Court for), and other problems. Some admin were previously involved in page moves. Since this is a major event and is ongoing, this wont be solved soon. I hope this can be handled in a way that doesn't lead up to some of the problems on other political pages (I need not remind everyone of what happened at the Sarah Palin page). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow! A military coup overthrowing a democratically elected Government is a "constitutional crisis" per the Wiki WP:NPOV! Need I say any more? Sarah777 (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read the sources and the page, it makes it clear that their Supreme Court ordered the military to remove him so their Legislature could appoint a new President. That is not a "military coup", especially when such would be against various international laws and a crime only a judicial body can determine. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If it walks, waddles and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck. This is a military coup. End of debate. Sarah777 (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP has higher standards than that. It would be unacceptable to label people as violating a law without a judiciary body determining such. Now please take your off topic comments elsewhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be unacceptable to label people as violating a law without a judiciary body determining such. Would it? Do you have a verifiable source for that assertion? What is a judiciary body? A dead judge? The North Korean Information Ministry? I can hardly be more "on topic" than pointing out the massive breach of WP:NPOV that is involved in Wiki calling a duck a goose. Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess the entire membership of the Organization of American States and the UN general assembly (not a single dissenting voice) are wrong too? Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

None of those are judiciary bodies and have no ability to determine criminality or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources call it a coup, but first let's determine what reliable sources are.

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

• The Washington Post published this Reuters story:
  "'I'm afraid to say my efforts were unable to achieve this,' Insulza said after talks with pro-coup officials in the capital, Tegucigalpa." "Insulza held talks with members of Honduras's ruling Liberal Party and the Supreme Court, which ordered the coup, to try to convince them to reverse Zelaya's overthrow." (bold added)
• July 3, from the Times in Britain:
  "Manuel Zelaya, the ousted President of Honduras, will never be allowed to return to his country, the leaders of last weekend’s coup said yesterday." "It gave the leaders of the coup until tomorrow to comply." (bold added)
• This is from The Associated Press:
  "Zelaya was toppled in a military-backed coup on Sunday and flown out of the country." "Hours earlier, Honduras' Supreme Court, which had authorized Sunday's coup, said it wouldn't agree to reinstate the toppled leftist leader." "Insulza said late Friday that Honduran officials had given him documents showing that charges are pending or have been brought against Zelaya, charges that purportedly justify the coup." "Nations around the world have promised to shun Micheletti, who was sworn in after the coup, and the nation already is suffering economic reprisals." "Italy withdrew its ambassador to protest the coup". "A Ousted Honduran Finance Minister Rebeca Santos on Friday told international finance ministers in Chile that the coup has already hurt the economy." (bold added)

Reliable sources like The New York Times[1], Washington Post[2], the Times in Britain,[3] The Associated Press[4], Reuters[5], and the Wall Street Journal[6] all call it a "coup".

Here's what BBC News has reported: "In the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, Stephen Gibbs finds out what people think of last weekend's coup, which exiled President Manuel Zelaya." "In the hours following the coup, the airport in the capital Tegucigalpa had been closed." "Despite the coup, the atmosphere at the Honduran border seemed normal".

The United Nations[7] and the Organization of American States[8] both call it a "coup".

Coup supporters have an incentive to be in denial, but the rest of the world isn't buying it. Arguments against the word "coup" are WP:OR, and therefore irrelevant from a Wikipedia perspective. Coup apologists are disproportionally well-represented, by Most Interest Persons, here. The point of view that this was anything other than a coup, is not represented in the free press. In the world, it's just a fringe opinion.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

"Coup" is the only name "easily recognizable by English speakers." "Crisis" is "ambiguous". -- Rico 00:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoa people! It is NOT up to us to establish whether this is a coup or a crisis or whatever. We report, not interpret. Here is a summary of what WP:RS's are saying:

• BBC - coup
• London Times - coup
• AFP - coup
• AP - coup
• Reuters quoting SofS Clinton - coup

I may have missed a wealth of sources describing this as a "constitutional crisis" - please correct me if that is the case. Manning (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. You missed an important one. Wikipedia calls it a "Constitutional crisis". Sarah777 (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a secondary source. Anyway the name has been fixed. Manning (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP makes it clear that those sources are not reliable because they do not have a judiciary backing. They are reporting rumor and innuendo. Until there is a court case, no one can be said to be participating in a coup, which is a crime. Furthermore, this entry at ANI is about edit warring, move warring, and other problems. Sarah has already proven on the September 11th page that she does not understand NPOV or abide by our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The judiciary can be involved in a coup just like any other organization. There is no reason why Wikipedia should swallow every judicial decision as gospel, especially not in this case. In Turkey you also have a tension between the judiciary and the government. Count Iblis (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, please reread - The World Court or some body like the ICTY would be a judiciary body that would investigate and try anyone involved if there was indeed a problem. Those are the international judiciary bodies. Due process is important to BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has been "fixed". This is WP:OR, nothing less. Since when did Wiki take it's naming policies from a concept called "judicial bodies"?!! (And I'd suggest that the 9/11 article (1) has nothing to do with this one and (2) proves that I understand NPOV perfectly. (our policies are an altogether different thing). Sarah777 (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So, to sum up: the entire world, all available reliable sources and the MSM call this a coup (aided and abetted by the Honduran judiciary) but Wiki now has a policy based on the WP:OR notion that if some "judicial body" (undefined) doesn't call it a coup then Wiki must ignore what everyone else is calling it? Sarah777 (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple common sense dictates that when an elected leader is removed by the military, it is called a coup. Common sense is anathema to the Wikipedia Mind(tm) usually, but in this case we are blessed by the common sense of reliable sources as well, who describe it as a coup. So please, let's ignore the whitewashing and wiki-lawyering, and title the page 2009 Honduras coup or some such. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! Otherwise I can hardly wait to apply this reasoning to a host of other political and military conflicts all across Wiki! Vast tomes are written in total ignorance of this "judicial" principle; wait till we start applying the ruling of Iran's judicial body (the Ayatollahs) to various conflicts. Must get to work on this straight away - major re-writes of the Israel/Palestine conflict called for. Sarah777 (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, consensus is against you on the 9/11 page for a reason - your understanding of POV and the rest is highly questionable. Your inability to understand the idea of due process and "proof" of a criminal act before declaring one is disturbing. These are WMF standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not reliable when they publish rumors or innuendos. Since only courts can declare a criminal act, any statement not by an official judiciary body counts as the above when it comes to BLP in determining if we can declare if said criminal act happened. Thus, this is not a "coup". It doesn't matter if "the entire world" says something, as the entire world could claim OJ Simpson was a murderer but his page will not reflect that. Furthermore, Tarc's comment is factually incorrect, as their Supreme Court ordered the removal and the Legislature appointed a new person. Having a strong POV is not a pass in violating the very basics of BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If the articles involved here are factually correct (and knowing wikipedia, I wouldn't take that as gospel), then OR has a point. A Coup d'état is stated to be the unconstitutional removal of the executive. If the nation's Supreme Court ruled that the President must go, and if they had jurisdiction to do so, then presumably it's not unconstitutional and hence not a coup. Note the many "if's" though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is way off the topic (which was move warring and edit warring :) ). By the way, I am fine about calling it a coup if an international court rules one, I just don't like declaring criminality before an official declaration by one with jurisdiction in the matter. Anyway, what about the word "alleged" which is normally used? That would be perfectly fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The OAS is apparently going to decide what to call it, sometime soon. What the "topic" here is, is not yours to control, even though you brought it. And since you questioned the sources' use of the term "coup", you opened that door yourself. It's clear to me that the sources are using the term "coup" a little more broadly than it's currently defined in the wikipedia article on Coup d'état. That doesn't necessarily make the sources wrong, as wikipedia editors have been known to try to make articles support a particular point of view. The legality of the President's removal appears to be in question, at the very least. Hopefully the OAS will provide some guidance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind to talk about it, and I admit that I am off topic too. I just don't want people to forget that there is admin attention needed to deal with edit warring and move warring so it doesn't get out of hand. The philosophical debate isn't that big of a necessity in comparison. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OR (is that a reference to the WP:OR you are promoting here?); in the case of 9/11 the majority proposition was that because the vast bulk of "reliable sources" called it a terrorist attack, that is what Wiki should call it. You supported that. Now you are saying that though the vast bulk of "reliable sources" call it a coup, some other principle applies because you have access to a higher governing body for Wiki called a "Judiciary Body". I rest my case M'Lord. Sarah777 (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Sarah on this one, if not necessarily with all her arguments. Reliable sources call it a coup. No reliable source I'm aware of calls this designation into question. Ottava, just because something is unconstitutional does not automatically make it "criminal". And no, we do not have to wait for a court decision to accurately report what reliable sources report. Your demand to wait for some international court decision is unreasonable - the international legal system does not work like this, and most likely no international court even has jurisdiction about matters that are internal to Honduras. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

News story today: "Honduras quits OAS over coup criticism" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

0.02 from the random reader: From when the courts must be NPOV? Are we saying the Supreme Courts of Thailand and Pakistan, themselves players of the political turmoils of their respective countries in the past 2 years, have the final say on how things should be called on WP? Given the situation, letting the Supreme Court of Honduras to decide the name of this article is probably violating WP:COI.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 05:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The unanswered question is, by what authority did the Honduran Supreme Court order the removal of the President? If it were a constitutional act, one would think there would not be such a huge outcry over it from various places around the world. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose one can easily get the text of the Honduran constitution-- to prevent needless NPOV dispute, as long a literal reading can support the Supreme Court to remove/impeach the President, the current name can stay.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 05:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Since OR is the one who disputes the "coup" terminology, maybe he should be the one to look for it. It would be enlightening to know whether they really acted within constitutional authority, or whether they invented a law for themselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In the past we have tended to decide naming issues based not on what is "right", or anything like that, merely what is useful. Whether this actually IS a coup or not is immaterial. Article names should typically be the name that is most likely to be looked for by the target population (the readership). Do we have studies on what's been searched for? I support using coup in the article name if that's the most common. (redirects from the other names, of course) ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Outing?

Could admins please look at the following thread to see whether it is in line with WP:OUTING, WP:COI and WP:NPA:

• [9], in particular this part of the thread.

In the thread, mention is made of a conference centre that the editor is supposed to have managed. The name of the conference centre is given. Will Beback (talk · contribs) has claimed that the name of the conference centre is apparent from two sites which the other editor "linked to" themselves.

• I can't immediately see where user:Terrymacro linked to the second one of these sites, "feld.re-url.com", on Wikipedia: [10]. It's not linked to on his present user page, nor on any past versions of it, as far as I can see.
• The name of the conference centre is not present on either of the sites, as far as I can see, nor mentioned on any other Wikipedia page in relation to that editor, as far as I can see: [11].
• The information presented here by Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs) goes way beyond what the editor divulged on the one site they did link to on their user page.

Please examine to what extent WP:OUTING, WP:COI and WP:NPA apply, in particular the following sections:

• WP:COI#Close_relationships: "Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx.[2] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization."

• WP:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. — Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor."

• WP:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information: "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in "the real world". This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Edits attempting to out someone should be promptly reverted, and a request for oversight made to permanently delete the edits from Wikipedia."

Is the linked discussion thread fine, or is it a cause for concern? Thanks. JN466 16:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In a brief review, I see no posting of personal identifying or contact information. The fact that another editor was able to use an editor's self-chosen WP:REALNAME isn't outing. I do see an asserted and insufficiently denied COI, and calling a COI a COI is not a personal attack. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no outing because the subject has used his real name and linked to his biographies. The editor signed his real name on talk pages, etc, for over a year.[12][13]. He linked to his own websites, which included a description of his work history.[14][15] Those sites both included detailed biographies, one of which includes this sentence: "In the 1990's I was the finance manager for a 2,000 acre outdoor conference facility outside of Brisbane, Queensland, Australia."[16] Another one said, "For the rest of the 90’s I was the finance manager for an outdoor conference centre about an hours drive from the city of Brisbane."[17] The movement in question owns a conference facility which exactly matches that description. The person's earlier role as an officer of a new religious group is reported in movement publications.[18] The user has rebuffed the assertion that he has a conflict of interest regarding the organization in which he has held senior positions, or incidentally, that he did anything wrong by inserting links and material on his non-standard astrological views. However the COI issue is probably better addressed on WP:COIN.   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd add that the Prem Rawat topic has an unfortunate history of editors with disclosed and undisclosed conflicts of interest, and has had two RfARs. Advocacy on behalf or (or against) the movement has been a real problem on Wikipedia going back to at least 2004.[19] Considering that experience, and the recent case concerning Scientology, I think that COI is a legitimate concern.   Will Beback  talk  19:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started a (rudimentary) section at WP:COIN. [20] Perhaps you might like to add to it. JN466 20:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge the concern raised here, and that further discussion is appropriate at WP:COIN, however it I would point out that the information I posted about which Jayen466 expresses concern was in direct response to this:

• My involvement with DLM ceased over 25 years ago. I have never been employed by EV, and I am not a member of TPRF. Any common sense applied to the situation would clearly indicate that 25 years gives the necessary detachment to provide NPOV edits for articles related to DLM. There is no COI. Terry Macro (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I considered a detailed response necessary to counter what I saw was either a major misconception by TerryMacro or a deliberate attempt at concealment. Admins should be aware that these issues bear directly on article content. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

@Jclemens: If you take a closer look, you will find that at least one of the links in the section leads to a document purporting to give the editor's birth date and private address. JN466 21:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING doesn't specifically prohibit linking to sites that give further information. To take a hypothetical example, many links to references include an author's biography that will include information like birthdate and job title. Linking to such a webpage does not violate the policy. Remember that the user added himself as a source to articles.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the URL of the site in question begins http://www.geocities.com/rawatsucks/ ... JN466 22:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Relevance?   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any specific assertion that an involved Wikipedia editor created that page? Is there any assertion that the page was linked without apparent other purpose than to introduce the personal information into Wikipedia? WP:OUTING does not specifically deal with including links to information hosted elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There are clearly several valid concerns here that need to be balanced: editor privacy, civility and the prevention of COI editing. I am not sure the way these competing concerns have been handled here has been in line with best practice, even though I sympathise with the motivation for providing the information, recognise the potential validity of the COI concern, and see the inherent difficulty involved in demonstrating COI without outing. At any rate I'd suggest that any future discussions hinging on private details had better be conducted off-line. ;)

As you say, WP:OUTING does not cover linking to external sites, however Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#External_links does:

"Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against persons who edit Wikipedia for the purpose of attacking another person who edits Wikipedia is never acceptable. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any person who edits Wikipedia through the posting of external links is not permitted."

The site linked to clearly is an attack site, comparable to Encyclopedia Dramatica; it uses four-letter words about this editor's faith group, and purports to give his private details – his name, address, and date of birth. JN466 10:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing, in current Wikipedia parlance, as an attack site. (Where's Dan T?) I see no evidence that the site was linked to in order to attack or harass a user. Rather the situation is a user who edits under his own name has denied a fairly obvious conflict of interest. He ignored subtle requests that he abide by the guideline, and has indstead insisted on escalating the dispute, saying literally, "put up or shut up." The webpage contains a purported legal document that shows he was the director of a movement facility, additional evidence of his conflict. If Jayen466, who has made repeated filings against editors, would like to take on the task of convincing Terrymacro to abide by this site's editing guidelines offsite, then I'm sure that help would be appreciated by everyone. In the meantime, I suggest that we redact the link.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Link redacted.   Will Beback  talk  02:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was out of town for a few days and not getting online as much, but I'm back now... The wording quoted above was the "compromise" that stuck by the end of the "BADSITES Wars" which could be kinda-sorta tolerated by the two factions, one which wanted a flat ban on linking to anything whatsoever, for any purpose whatsoever, in a so-called "attack site" (weren't you allied with that faction?) and the free-speechers (my own faction) who saw any such link bans as contrary to the spirit of this site. Even with the compromise wording which wasn't as draconian as the original BADSITES proposal, any accusation that some site or other is an "attack site" is something that produces more heat than light, and can easily be abused to try to squelch criticism and cover up conflicts of interest. *Dan T.* (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

user:Viriditas Wikihounding

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

This is not the place for this discussion. Please take it to dispute resolution. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The present dispute is a long one, and involves user:Viriditas and his/her continuing campaign against other users, in this case user:Wildhartlivie. This stems from a documented content dispute in the matter of Jonestown, which is now the subject of an RFC located here: [21]. Following the filing of the RFC in question, user:Viriditas began a campaign of wikihounding user:Wildhartlivie over to that editor's favored editing area, wp:actor, posting talk thread comments as can be seen here: [22], [23], and adding prods here: [24]. All of these articles display that user:Wildhartlivie had contributed to them in their edit histories, none of these had ever been the subject of user:Viriditas's edits prior to recent days, and user:Viriditas had previously iniated an unsuccessful sockpuppet investigation against user:Wildhartlivie here: [25]. Further, user:Viriditas's edit history shows he/she was not previously an editor on articles of this genre. The evidence of wikihounding is overwhelming, as is the obvious motive for doing so. I think it likely to be in the best interest of Wikipedia to split these parties up at this point, and let things cool off, but it appears user:Viriditas is spoiling for conflict. This is disruptive in my view, and harassing as well. I would therefore ask for a topic ban on user:Viriditas until further notice from editing articles that are part of the wp:actor wikiproject, or to edit any articles with recent edits by user:Wildhartlivie. Thank you. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You are hardly a disinterested party here, and it is seriously starting to look as though the hounding is coming from you. Two AN/Is and an RFC/U in what, a week? → ROUX ₪ 08:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it now? I want the parties to disengage, just as you advised user:Viriditas on his/her talk page here: [26]. From your own comments on that talk page, you support the editor in question, so your own position as a "disinterested observer" is not well taken. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I do support any editor who is being harassed. Again: two (or more?) postings here in a week, and an RFC/U. It is both disturbing and educational that you fail to see that you are doing precisely what you accuse Viriditas of. → ROUX ₪ 19:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you should be supporting user:Wildhartlivie. Do you actually think these adits were happenstance? Do you actually argue they are merely a product of chance? Can you show me articles in the Hawaiian islands, for instance, where I or others have followed this editor and made changes, placed prods, and placed comments on talk pages? You can't. I can assure you that if the editor in question stops her present campaign of wp:wikihounding and learns some wp:civ, and finds other outlets for his or her editing skills, the complaints concerning his/her disruptive and uncivil conduct will also stop. As you advised (and I agree with) - user:Viriditas needs to disengage, cool off, and move on. However, as he or she has defied all advice from others, and further ignored the RFC, I really have no other avenue for dealing with the editor in question than what we have here. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

One has to wonder whether you deliberately ignored the point I was making, or merely didn't get it. I'll try again: you are accusing Viriditas of hounding. And yet you are responsible for and/or enormously involved in at least two AN/I posts in a week, as well as an improper RFC/U. → ROUX ₪ 20:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How does one respond to such a point? The ANI in question was started by user:Viriditas, as can plainly be seen here: [27], not be me as alleged. Are you asking why I would defend myself from such a claim made against me? How am I "responsible" for the ANI thread when it was started by user:Viriditas?Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have hoped you would respond with some sort of acknowledgement that you are doing exactly what you accuse Viriditas of. Alas. → ROUX ₪ 21:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you will be disappointed. No comparison. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That you fail to see it doesn't mean it's not there. Oh well, lead a horse to water... → ROUX ₪ 04:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a topic ban against a well respected and established editor and administrator because they called you out on your plagarism and hounding techniques? You still haven't filled out that very lengthy RFCU, nor properly submitted it, and it appears that you are hounding Viriditas with these frivolous complaints. seicer | talk | contribs 10:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a topic ban against an editor who is wp:wikihounding another editor after having failed in a sockpuppet investigation, and who has also threatened that other editor. As for the RFCU in question, I did not initiate or submit it initially. Didn't you know? And I see you tried to delete it here: [28], which proved unsuccessful.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The only hounding going on here is by you and Wildhartlivie. I've been editing film and actor-related articles since 2004, and not a single one of my recent edits had anything to do with Wildhartlivie or her edits. Contrary to your claim, you and Wildhartlivie have been following me from talk page to talk page and article to article. That is hounding. Viriditas (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this, as I wasn't notified of this new incident repot. For the record, I'm not an administrator, but I would like to put some distance between myself and Wildhartlivie. I have asked her to try to give me some breathing room[29] and I will also try to do the same for her. Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, this has to stop. Your comment here is absolutely the most skewed and misrepresented claim yet. You had not stepped foot on the Kevin Spacey page since 2008 when you reverted vandalism twice [30] [31], yet this is an article where I am the top contributing editor on the revision history tree with 57 edits, as of this moment, you had made seven total edits. You represented your involvement on that page as "I've also made less than 10 edits to the article, all of which consisted of reverting vandalism, except one, which was to include the image I uploaded (and is no longer used here)." Until yesterday, you had made no edits to Talk:Kevin Spacey since November 23, 2005, which was to revert vandalism, and prior to that, four edits on December 14, 2004 [32]. Yet, you pop in and plan to to conduct the GAR on that page and tell me to stay away from you!?! Come on, what's wrong with this picture?

I am extremely active on WP:ACTOR. I have many of the good articles from that page on my watchlist and most of the featured articles. When changes are made to the articles on my watchlist, I look at them. When someone with whom I had had virtually no contact prior to the past week suddenly pops up within a very few hours [33] of the closing of an WP:SPI he/she filed on me and posts on talk pages for articles where I have recently edited and where that editor has rarely, or never popped up before, it looks quite curious. You had never to date edited Reese Witherspoon and had not made an entry on the talk page of that article until Friday. You had not made an edit to Mickey Rourke until Saturday morning since February 2, 2008 [34], and before that, 5 edits on October 18, 2005 [35]. And yet all three of those articles I had edited inless than two weeks prior to the dispute, two of them in the same week [36] [37] [38] I tried to discuss the Spacey article with you neutrally until I questioned why you were willing to "suggest improvements" prior to submitting a GAR request but instead were ready to jump to a reassessment after I mentioned it was already on the Sweeps list. Then you suggested I find articles to edit where you "are not involved". I responded neutrally on Talk:Reese Witherspoon and actually dropped the discussion after making one post. I asked another editor, Garion96, to look at the tags on Mickey Rourke and told him my thinking rather than engage you, and explained why [39], you basically attacked me [40]. This is intolerable and unacceptable and it must stop. Yes, please give everyone some breathing room, and stop making unfounded claims. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers has assessed 30,494 articles, yet you are following every contribution I make and accusing me of wikihounding? Hello? I've had Kevin Spacey and Mickey Rourke on my watchlist since 2004 and I've made edits to the talk page two years before you even showed up on Wikipedia. I've also reverted vandalism to that page less than 10 times since then, many before you even started your account. Could you please stop following me around? There's literally tens of thousands of articles you can work on. Is there a reason you are showing up on the articles I've recently edited and following me around just hours after I've made suggestions for improvement? Please stop. You seem to think that I pay attention to your edits. I have no idea what articles you edit, nor do I care. Please try to keep your distance from me and I will do the same to you. Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Administrators, please note I did not file this report nor did I accuse the above editor of Wikihounding, I am merely responding to the post and noting that it appears that I am being told to back off pages I've edited and made actual contributions to besides reverting vandalism and for at least two of them, are higher quality articles on the main project on which I work. Please look at the diffs I posted above, my contribution history, my areas of interest, and the fact that I do not now, nor have I in the past, nor have I recently, popped in on any other of the wide category of articles and talk pages the above editor edits. Please note the relative dates, frequencies and recency of edits, the evidence regarding the histories of editing the articles and talk pages that were discussed in my post. I do not care to engage the above editor in this discussion or any other. If I had popped up on a Hawaii related article, the majority of politically related articles or Wikipedia policy/guidelines pages on which the editor works, I could see how possibly it could be construed that I was following her around. As it is, we are talking about 3 articles upon which I have shown I have edited much more recently and more frequently, as the diffs show, or at least have actually edited. It is not acceptable, however, for any editor to tell another to back off of articles and go find something else to edit because that editor happens to watch them and sometimes revert vandalism, or might suddenly want to work. This is silly and unreasonable and I'm certain there are prohibitions against such assertions of territory. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you are being asked, by me, to stop following my contributions to every page I edit. It's pretty simple. Am I following any of your edits or going to articles you have edited and responding to your comments? No. Please try to control yourself. There is no reason you have to respond to any talk page comment I make, nor is there any reason for you to respond to me at all. Also, you seem to be waging a campaign against me on multiple talk pages, so your edits are increasingly seen as hounding. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see good faith in User:Viriditas's comments here. On July 4, 2009 Viriditas was knowledgeable enough about User:Wildhartlivie's editing patterns, that he/she filed a sock puppet report against Wildhartlivie. Today Viriditas says "You seem to think that I pay attention to your edits. I have no idea what articles you edit, nor do I care." This makes no sense to me. An editor does not put another editor in front of potentially the entire Wikipedia community for scrutiny, without having a significant interest in their editing. It seems that Viriditas does pay attention, does have an idea and does care, despite the above statement. Rossrs (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that isn't even close to true. I noticed an account revert to Wildhartlivie's version on Jonestown when she was coming up against the 3RR. I looked into it further and discovered that the accounts were virtually alike. I raised the question with Wildhartlivie, and then Roux recommended that I file a SPI if I had concerns. I did so, and here we are. End of story. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

PROPOSAL FOR RESOLUTION: user:viriditas has proposed "breathing room" on the talk page of Kevin Spacey as evidenced above. If I can have an assurance of this fact, with an agreement not to edit articles that are part of wp:actor wikiproject for a period of ninety days to allow the parties to disengage and cool off, I will consider the matter resolved, and ask admin. to close this thread as such: I have placed below this proposal a place for the parties to agree or disagree with this proposal for resolution. Please state "agree" or "decline". Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie: I do agree. History will show that outside of the three recent articles mentioned above and the recent issues on Jonestown, an article I've edited on often, I've had virtually no contact with Viriditas. That would have likely continued to be the case had the Jonestown dispute not taken place. Looking at the articles where Viriditas usually edits, I'm not interested in those topics. I don't even have problems with her reverting vandalism on articles where I'm most active, but I do have when someone with whom the situation here has quickly become tenditious suddenly shows an interest in articles where I've recently edited or suddenly shows an interest in critiquing those articles or ones where the editor has never edited at all. A lot of people have these articles on their watchlist, a lot revert vandalism, but the preponderance of those do not show up where I generally work to critique articles where I've recently edited. I especially do with that person conducting a good article review on an article where I've, inadvertently and to my surprise, become the top contributor and where previously, little activity by the other editor outside of reverting vandalism has occurred in 4 or 5 years. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your statement that you have "had virtually no contact with Viriditas" is contradicted by the fact that you have been following me to multiple articles and responding to my comments as well as contacting multiple users about me and discussing my edits nonstop for several days now. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas, please provide diffs or stop making accusations. → ROUX ₪ 09:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact is, none of my edits to film and actor-related articles have anything to do with Wildhartlivie, edits by Wildhartlivie, or any discussions involving Wildhartlivie. Even so, she can't stop interacting with me or discussing me: [41], [42], [43], [44] There isn't a single diff that shows any hounding of Wildhartlivie by myself or any "hounding" edits. Either the people using the word don't know what it means or they are using it incorrectly. All I'm asking is for Wildhartlivie to ignore me, and I will do the same to her. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. user:Viriditas, the ball is in your court on this one. I think it's fair, and accomplishes the goal of disengagement well while allowing both parties to edit in their normal areas in peace. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not agreeing to anything you propose Yachtsman1, nor do I even understand what you are proposing. Please stop harassing me. Viriditas (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

User:77.252.190.250

Over the past several days, 77.252.190.250 (talk · contribs) has made several contentious edits to a large number of BLP articles, not citing a single source. Due to the fact that some of their edits are obviously vandalism (claiming that Dakota Fanning is the sister of Evanna Lynch, and that Michelle Monaghan is the sister of Dominic Monaghan), I have reverted every one of their edits (those that have not previously been reverted). I request that others keep an eye on this editor. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

All true, but at this point its 6 hours stale; we should certainly keep an eye on this IP to see if it starts up again, but I am not sure what good blocking would do right this minute, since we have no proof that this person will use the same IP again, and they do not appear currently active. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandal has started up again from same IP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And the vandalism continues. Why would there be anything wrong with blocking an IP that has been used by the same person for four or five days in a row, even if they are not currently vandalizing? Which, of course, they are, right now. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just issued a level 4 warning. It doesn't appear as if English is this editor's first language, though. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no, the IP is editing from Poland. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Honduran move warring

Resolved

 – move protected Mfield (Oi!) 22:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started a thread at Talk:2009 Honduran coup d'état#Move warring?. Today the page has been going back and forth between 2009 Honduran crisis and 2009 Honduran coup d'état with no apparent consensus, and no talk discussion by any of the movers. I have no opinion as to which is better, but I suggest that the 'coup d'état' version be move-protected and the 'crisis' redirect be fully protected to deter any more cut-and-paste moves. Use WP:RM if consensus is obtained for a different title. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

See also #2009 Honduran constitutional crisis above. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that warring and move protected it about 10 mins ago, leaving a message on article talk about it. Mfield (Oi!) 22:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"2009 Honduran crisis" would seem to be the obvious thing to call it, especially as the coup itself is causing repurcussions that go beyond the mere act of kicking the President out. Honduras has managed to isolate itself from the world community, at least for the present. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, that discussion belongs on the article talk page.  Sandstein  09:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There is or was a large section above on this very issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Violation of editing restriction by Rotational

Rotational (talk · contribs) is under an indefinite editing restriction. The specific sanction is:

"Do not revert-war to make any article formatting change that is against the guidelines in the Manual of Style; in particular, you must not revert another revert in order to change the level of a heading or the position of an image."

The specific problem addressed by the restriction is Rotational's edit warring over his preference for right-facing images to be placed on the left.

He has violated his edit restriction at Alexander Francis Lydon by moving a right-facing image to the left under the ruse of removing an infobox,[45] and then subsequently reverting a revert of it.[46] Infobox or not, this is an unambiguous violation of "you must not revert another revert in order to change... the position of an image."

If an uninvolved administrator would undertake enforcement, that would be appreciated.

Hesperian 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Meh. Looking through his history, I see only this single, technical violation in recent days. He's also not edited in 14 hours. Wouldn't blocking at this point be punitive and not actually stop anything? Why not just warn him of this violation of his editing restrictions, and let him know not to do it again? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't go in for this "punitive/preventative" crap. Whenever someone blocks to uphold a basic community standard, someone screams "punitive"; never mind the fact that upholding community standards is fundamentally preventative.

Fine, whatever. Would an unvolved administrator please let Rotational know that he is permitted to violate his edit restriction once a fortnight from now on, so long as he makes a superficial attempt to hide the violation.

Hesperian 00:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made no attempt to 'hide' my edit since it is in accordance with MoS guidelines that suggest placing right-facing images on the left. Clairvoyance is something which should only be attempted by experts - in the hands of amateurs it could lead to dementia. Rotational (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't require clairvoyance; it merely requires an passing familiarity with Rotational's long long history of edit warring on this issue, together with explicit statements such as this one, together with an unambiguous violation.[47] Hesperian 11:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said that he was allowed to do anything like that. What I said was I did not see the need to block him at this point. If you could explain what effect blocking would have in this case, then I could understand the reason. Please do not put words into my mouth, or tell me I said something I did not say. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I did no such thing... but now you're doing it to me.

Okay, I'll spell it out for you. Rotational has been edit warring on this issue for years; that's no exaggeration: here's an edit war over essentially the same issue, from back in March 2007.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] He was finally placed on edit restriction a couple of months ago, and managed to refrain from breaking it for a little while. Now he is testing the waters, seeing how much he can get away with. If removing infoboxes proves an effective shield for him to return to edit warring on this issue, he will do so. I'm asking for an uninvolved admin to prevent that, by enforcing his editing restriction.

Hesperian 01:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to state my point of view, which is that the effectiveness of restrictions is greatly reduced if the results of violating them are not predictable. Things like this should automatically lead to a short block, no fuss, no bother, block for a day. Looie496 (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have left a message for Rotational asking him to undo his last edit at Alexander Francis Lydon, which removed the infobox. I have warned him that if he continues to obstruct the restoring of the infobox, without first getting a consensus that supports his action on the talk page or at ANI, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A community discussion at the administrators' Incidents noticeboard has reached a consensus that you be placed under the following editing restriction. Do not revert-war to make any article formatting change that is against the guidelines in the Manual of Style; in particular, you must not revert another revert in order to change the level of a heading or the position of an image.
Firstly, which guideline states that an article has to have an infobox? Secondly, I made it quite clear that "I regard this as an illegal decision, which clearly flouts the guidelines of the MoS, and do not accept it." Lastly, your so-called community discussion' involved some half a dozen people, all of whom had an axe to grind, except for Joe Hepperle whose input was ignored. After the gangrape in which articles were removed from my userspace and placed in mainspace against my wishes, I have stopped contributing new articles. So if it makes you and your gang feel any better, block away to your heart's content and know that I have lost all respect for your judgement and a system which lends itself to harassing constructive editors. Rotational (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You could, perhaps, tone it down a bit. If you are interested in not getting on people's bad side, you are certainly going about it in a bad way. Being combative is not going to encourage people to listen to your side of the story. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if a case could be judged on its merits rather than on how sweetly I smile or how many friends I have in high places. Rotational (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, the merits are these: you have been forbidden from doing something. You then did that thing. Whether or not you agree with the conditions or not is utterly immaterial. → ROUX ₪ 05:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem not to understand the meaning of the word 'merits'. Rotational (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually no. But it seems that by 'merits' you mean 'whatever Rotational says', which is your usual argumentative style. I have had my fill recently of leading horses to water, so I'll leave it to others to discuss this with you. → ROUX ₪ 06:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a valid discussion to be had on whether a block to prevent slow-moving disruption is preventative or punitive, but that's perhaps for another day. Firstly, I've reverted the actual edit that breached WP:MOSIMAGES. We have a style guide for a reason, and if people disagree with tis content they should seek a consensus for change rather than simply ignoring it and writingtheir own version. There's no reason why an article must have an infobox, but no article should have a left-aligned image as the first content below the article name. Second, I will remind Rotational of the edit restriction. I haven't blocked him because he seems to have stopped editing, and it was only one variation. A block would have been equally valid given the edit restriction but on balance I decided to let it alone and see if the reversion is again reverted. If the breach is repeated then different action will be required. Feel free to disagree. Euryalus (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

PoliticianTexas sock

Per previous instructions (here and here), I'm requesting that User:ABQStyle be blocked for being a sock puppet of community-banned puppeteer User:PoliticianTexas.

Evidence: in this edit, ABQStyle changed the infobox on Albuquerque, New Mexico to use a copyright-violating image. That same image was previously added to Albuquerque, New Mexico by User:Burns37 on 11 September 2008, and by User:LamyQ on 18 September 2008 and again on 24 September 2008. Burns37 and LamyQ have already been blocked as PoliticianTexas sockpuppets. Given that the image in question has been deleted each time as a copyright violation (off en.wikipedia twice and commons once), it's clear that its return can't just be coincidental.

Thanks in advance... — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a CheckUser here. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why? The reason for the "(here and here)" that starts off my request above is that's when we were previously told to bring the report here to skip that process. Not second-guessing; just trying to find out if something's changed. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I did not look at those two links. That said, the reasons I have filed an SPI case are that 1) it helps to keep a nice paper trail of things, as well as document prior socks for comparison (especially for technical purposes) and 2) to check for sleeper accounts or the use of open proxies or tor nodes. Hope that answers your question. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that ABQStyle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs) (PolTx for short)

• PolTx has replaced the infobox image at Albuquerque, New Mexico a dozen times or so, each with a copyvio image that is quickly deleted. ABQStyle has reuploaded one of the copyvio PolTx images at Commons (Commons:Image:Albuquerque Infobox Montage Design.png) and placed it in the infobox. ABQStyle diff, LamyQ diff (LamyQ (talk · contribs) is a known PolTx sock)
• ABQStyle added a list of city nicknames and mottoes in the Albuquerque, New Mexico infobox (despite a warning comment in the text not to do so). This was also previously done by Brandynman (talk · contribs), known PolTx sock. ABQStyle diff, Brandynman diff

--Uncia (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that some IP editors are PolTx, and are also ABQStyle

Interleaved with ABQStyle's edits of Albuquerque, New Mexico are some IP edits that match earlier PolTx edits. This provides evidence that PolTx is active again, and may provide evidence that he is ABQStyle.

• 98.23.210.53 (talk), 98.23.192.108 (talk) Providing party affiliations of city councillors: 98.23.192.108 diff adding affiliations, 98.23.210.53 diff re-adding after revert, TrentZee diff (TrentZee (talk · contribs) is known PolTx sock)
• 98.23.204.5 (talk) adding exact same nicknames and references as ABQStyle did above; see discussion above. 98.23.204.5 diff, ABQStyle diff

--Uncia (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:ElPilotoDi

An immediate block please, the user is uploading a vast number of inappropriate images of copyright violations to all the Madonna (entertainer) related articles and is undertaking user page vandalisms. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you try WP:AIV? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Late Show with David Letterman

The comic made poor jokes about Sarah Palin's daughter - no not the 14-year-old but Palin's 18-year-old who was an unwed mother; the talk-radio folks apparently can't milk this enough. Palin herself made appearances to make much of it, Letterman apolgized and she accepted. Really, I'm overselling this. Some very determined folks just need to inject this first on David Letterman which we've been able to halt but keep on plopping it in Late Show with David Letterman. Palin since has announced her stepping down as US Alaskan governor. The Letterman joke is seemingly on her public image article and that seems, IMHO, an acceptable place for now. Could others have a look at this? There seems no concensus to include this as yet and now I'm avoiding edit-warring with possible socks. I'm stepping back for the moment could others uninvolved have a look? Thank you! -- Banjeboi 05:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What administrative action do you seek with regards to this issue? Hobartimus (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a semi-protect might be appropriate as my gut tells me we may be dealing with a sock issue. Anons and new accounts wishing to re-insert this would then need to discuss on the talkpage. I'm not terribly interested in sorting out which of the accounts actually may be socking and frankly those that are good at it know how to evade being detected. So absent some outside opinions I think semi-protect would help on this situation. -- Banjeboi 06:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• The same thing is happening now at David Letterman, as User:Arzel is trying to reinsert it. Unitanode 07:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Semi-protection of the appropriate articles would seem to be in order. This is basically POV-pushing and trying to make a big deal out of a little blip. Plenty of folks have commented on Palin. Letterman is just one guy. If you had every comment made by or about those folks, you'd have a large book. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • David Letterman is getting some good edits by IPs, which would be collateral of a semi. If we're dealing with serious socks, problem would reoccur as soon as unprotected, so we permanently lose beneficial edits. The Late Show page issue involves established editors as well as anon and newbies (semi wouldn't block them). Are we expecting useful material to be contributed by *any* editors who aren't serious enough to bother filing an editprotected on the talk page? I'd support protection but only as a stop-gap while burning down the sock-store. DMacks (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Does it make sense to let it play out more, keep reverting and see if we have sock evidence? -- Banjeboi 09:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson

During a long debate about moving the alpine town of Merano to Meran, the final decision was to move it. Already during the debate, the user relied heavily on non-factual arguments, often making assumptions about other users nationalities instead [56]. As a French-Swede who has never lived in Germany, I find it strage to be called a "German nationalist". Such irrelevant comments border on insults, andother users than myself objected to it [57]. The decision to move was based on the fact that both Merano and Meran are used in English, and the principle is to use local majority names; this was already the case in 115 of 116 municipalities in the province before, and the move brought Meran into line. Rather than accepting the decission, or at least continuing to challenge it on the talk page, the use took to edit warring to support "his" name of the aticle. [58], [59], [60], [61]. While technically avoding a violation of 3RR, the user is clearly edit warring over the name issue. Once again insulting [62] the motives of those of us who wanted the move to bring the 116th article on Alto Adige in line with the 115 others. He even tried to report the user who restored the page for edit warring [63], showing that he is well aware of the policy. The user's disruptive and insulting behaviour does nothing to improve the situation.JdeJ (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The English version of the official homepage of this town [64] uses Merano. (There's only a link to the german page in the article.) So do the Baedeker guide, the Blue Guide to Italy, the AA Guide to Italy [65], the English Michelin Guide [66], etc. Aren't these guide books the place to look for English-speaking usage? Perhaps it needs a few more people to comment. Mathsci (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As was shown during long discussions lasting two weeks, both Merano and Meran are used in English rather often. For communities in Alto Adige, we follow the local majority language and that is the case for all of the 116 communes in the province. However, my report here is directed at PManderson's behaviour, not his views. He may argue against Meran as much as he wants, I even welcome him to do that but I object to his manner of repeatedly insulting editors who do not agree with him and I find his latest trick of resorting to disruptive edit warring when decisions don't go his way to be immature and unconstructive.JdeJ (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have had a number of disagreements with PMAnderson. His arguing style is always assertive, sometimes aggressive; but I have never found him to employ deception or "non-factual arguments", nor to edit in bad faith. On the contrary, PMAnderson's arguments are usually far more rigorous than those of his opponents. The diffs presented are, arguably, evidence that PMAnderson has uncharacteristically fallen foul of the ad hominem fallacy; but that's about all I see here. Hesperian 12:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian, I take your word for it that that has been the case in your disagreements with PManderson but I do not agree in this case. Other users, including myself, repeatedly tried to get him to present factual arguments but with little success. I even asked three sraight questions to sort it out [67], but they remained unanswered. The other user supporting the same view as PManderson, Ian Spackman, has remained civil and factual througout the discussion. And yes, I do object to being called a "German nationalist" time and time again. Given the history of German nationalism, I consider it a serious insult. I have pointed out to PManderson that it is both insulting, irrelevant and wrong (I'm French, not German) but he continues to use it. I fail to see how repeatedly using a label that he knows is both incorrect and considered insulting isn't "non-factual".JdeJ (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just tried Google (English). When I typed in meran without clicking "Search", Google's AJAX lookup of popular terms gave "merano" and "merano italy". AFAIK "Merano" is normal in English and I only know "Meran" as the name of a chess opening variation.

I've checked the relevant discussions at the [68]. Support for "Meran" was entirely based on a WP guideline which says that normal English usage takes precedence in English WP, and ignored all evidence about what English usage actually is - both there and in this discussion. IMO PMAnderson's use of "disputed" tags was quite justified.

By pushing for hard for anything other than "Merano" on English WP, the supporters of "Meran" are guilty of peristent POV-pushing and edit-warring. for any of them to complain of edit-warring by PMAnderson is outrageous. --Philcha (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Philcha you are off topic - the issue is not whether he is right in his views but the manner in which he pursued those views. If the consensus was to move to Merano then Pmanderson should have accepted that or followed the proper venue for rediscussing the topic not by singlehandedly impose his view on the article. This is editwarring. It is not editwarring that a group of editors propose a discussion, establish a consensus and act accordingly. furthermore it is of course incivil and a red herring to accuse opposing discussants of being "german nationalists" - german nationalism has nothing to do with it and it is incivil and against the assumption good faith to asume that an editor has his opinion because of his policitcal views and not for the reasons he himself gives. Reviewing the evidence I think Jdej is correct in his assesment of incivil and disruptive behaviour frm Pmanderson. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Maunus above, Philca is completely off topic. Philcha, I have no problem with you or PManderson thinking the page should be named Merano. I do not agree with your argument for it and you do not have to agree with mine, but that is beside the point. The point here is conduct, not views. What you are saying is that you think people who agree with your views may behave as they want, because they are right. People who do not share your views are by default guilty of "outrageous" condunct. Not because of they way we behave but because you have decided our views are wrong. While this tells us volumes about Philcha's views on freedom of expression, it has nothing to do with the report on PManderson. He is reported for repeated insults, not for being right or wrong.JdeJ (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this complaint seems to have been whittled down to "how dare he call me a German nationalist!". And judging by sentences like "Yes, I do object to being called a 'German nationalist' time and time again", there also seem to be an implication that he has done so numerous times. Time, I think, to inject some reality into this discussion:

PMAnderson never actually used the phrase "German nationalist". Initially he said "Very strongly oppose. This is the German national faction on the loose; there is also an Italian national faction (have they been notified of this?)."

Then follows a whole lot of "how dare you!" rhetoric in which he is twice misquoted as having used the term "German nationalist". This is a gross distortion of what he actually said. Characterising a group as a "German national faction" is miles away from calling an individual a "German nationalist", especially when he refers evenhandedly to an "Italian national faction".

Further down, PMAnderson says "This disruptive nationalism has gained no voices; this should be closed."

Then follows a whole lot more "how dare you!" rhetoric in which he is again twice misquoted as having called someone a "disruptive nationalist". Another gross distortion of what he said: it is the difference between calling a political/national position disruptive, and calling an editor disruptive.

Then, right down the bottom, PMAnderson finally uses the word "nationalist", but again in reference not to an editor but to /both/ factions: "There is no consensus to change here; there never has been. There is an uneasy stasis between two factions of nationalists, both of whom will say and do almost anything for their National Truths."

These repeated accusations that PMAnderson called you a "German nationalist" are not sustainable. Go away, figure out what he actually said, and come back when you can post a complaint that isn't full of falsified quotes. Then, and only then, it might be conceivable that we would see PMAnderson as the problem here, rather than you. Hesperian 14:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The comment about "disruptive nationalism" was a direct answer to a comment I made, so I don't think my complaint misrepresent the situation. A bit surprised to see that Hesperian seems to want to pick a fight, or why should he choose to always go for small insults if he can ("go away" "come back when you can post a complain" etc.) rather than saying the same thing in a polite and civil way?JdeJ (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

JdeJ had the courtesy to mention this filing to me; I thank Hesperian for his answer, which I should probably have put worse.

JdeJ has repeatedly stated his nationality to be French-Swedish, and I believe him; his problem is that he believes Wikipedia guidance is (or should be) that we should always name settlements in accordance with the linguistic plurality, even when this is contrary to English usage (like Cologne) and when the majority is 51.5% (as the last Italian census showed for Merano). His actual concern would appear to be the Swedish-majority settlements in Finland, for which English usage would appear normally to be the Swedish form; and he has invented a novel and superfluous "rule" to defend this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I thank PManderson for his response, it seems our views are not as far from each other as the last weeks debate could make one believe. While I don't believe the local language majority should always dictate our naming policy, it is probably true that I place higher emphasis on it than PManderson. Needless to say, I have neither the authority nor the intention of inventing any "rules" about it. I will be more than happy to discuss this issue further with PManderson in the future, and I hope such discussions can focus on facts and that edit warring is avoided.JdeJ (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not place less weight on the principle he has invented; I place no weight on it at all; neither does anybody else. It is, per the discussion linked to, a temporary expedient, for places for which we have no other evidence whatever what they should be called. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, so much for the recent imposition by ArbCom of restrictions on Mr Anderson for unacceptable behaviour; the remedy was supposed to have the opposite effect. I note there have also been a number of flurries here concerning his habit of edit-warring to get his way, often on matters that might seem trivial to the broader community, but which upset other editors on the article talk page. Tony (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Tikkuy

Resolved

 – Both edit warriors blocked.  Sandstein  13:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This user is continuously adding fancruft and improper sources to the Chillin article and reverting to the fancruft version when other users are cleaning the article. Please help as I'm sure warning s and explanations are of no use. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You two are edit warring over content. Please stop it and use WP:DR instead, e.g by seeking WP:3O input. There is no need for administrative action here, except perhaps to block any user who continues the edit war.  Sandstein  09:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm deleting any unreliable source and unsourced information which the user is thinking that I'm doing on purpose. I left a detailed explanation on the user's talk page regarding WP:RS and WP:V but inspite of that he continues. There's no point in going to WP:DR or WP:3O or I would have done that. You can see that other users have the same opinion. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think you'd find that most users are of the opinion that Legolas2186 is only concerned in adding his or her own findings to every page they go to and is not concerned with making the wiki a collaborative project. Any time somebody adds verified and reliable content to a page, this person reverts their edits again and again. They then call it 'fancruft' and claim it is unverified when in fact the sources are very reliable and include such web sites as MTV, the ASCAP database, etc. This person deserves to have their account blocked for continuosly making disruptive edits and going against consensus. Tikkuy (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You are bordering on intolerance. You have continuously added blogs and unreliable sources to the article even when being directed to WP:RS. Any unreliable sources are always removed. Where is your consensus regarding this? I'm afraid you are failing in your reasoning. The MTV link has been kept using <ref name=""/> tag. But I believe you donot know about formatting to learn that. And about other users, they are very well aware of what I do here. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's funny that you're allowed to add as many web sites as you'd like no matter how unreliable they are, but if someone else tries to make an edit in good faith and attempts to be constructive, you revert their edits until you get your way. Unfortunately, you continuosly reverting my edits won't dissuade me from making them again. You need to understand that you cannot always get what you want and that other people's opinions and contributions matter just as much as your own. Most other users who have experienced your disruptive behaviour on Gaga related articles would say the same thing. Tikkuy (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the edit war on Chillin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) continues, I have blocked both editors for 24 hours.  Sandstein  13:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 23#File:Neda.jpg

Resolved

 – Closed by Black Kite

Could someone please close this discussion? It's been open for two weeks. Shouldn't be a difficult close, but most of the regular closers have taken part in the discussion. J Milburn (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do need to point out that the image that was being voted on is no longer the image that they were voting on. Rgoodermote  18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, forgot to purge. Rgoodermote  18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Small anon block needed

Another problem has cropped up on the Mariah Carey articles. An anon in the 93.149.194.0/24 range has taken to removing "pop" from every spot where it occurs in a genre:[69][70][71]. Charmed36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverting him. I requested that Charmed36 not simply revert, but supply references when he reinserted "pop", and he has partially complied [72]. I wish I could say 100% complied, but that doesn't seem to be the case. This has been going on long enough that it has become disruptive. I'll complain at Charmed36 again about not including sources when he reinserts, but it would be nice if someone could put up an anonymous editing block against 93.149.194.0/24 to try and put a stop to this.—Kww(talk) 12:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

ASIO File

A community decision was made to redirect the article at AfD. A user has repeatedly[73][74] reverted to the pre-redirected content and has unilaterally rejected the community decision. I have restored and protected the article to prevent this happening again. The user and I have some history, with which I will not bore you. However, I'd appreciate a check on my use of page protection by an uninvolved admin. Thanks, Papa November (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be Frei Hans (talk · contribs · block log). The Junk Police (reports|works) 13:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur with protection of redirect. I have also left a message on Frie Hans talkpage confirming your actions as correct. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User Block Requested

The editor involved in the above page Frei Hans (talk · contribs) should be considered for a block based on the evidence and pattern of engagement submitted at this WQA filing. This kind of needling and disruption is intolerable. Eusebeus (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Papa November has already started an WP:RFC/U against the user (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Frei Hans). I would see what that accomplishes first in hopes that a block can be avoided in the interim. MuZemike 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to think that this RFC/U could encourage Frei Hans to reform his behaviour and that a block won't be necessary. I'd appreciate it if people could head across to the RFC and put in their 2p. Papa November (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He filed an SPI just now - evidently he thinks Verbal and A Man in Black are your sockpuppets.[75] If he continues to do this, especially if he doesn't respond to the RfC, a block may have to be made, hopefully only a short one to stop his disruption. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He's refusing to comment at the RFC and is just updating his SPI to include every user who warns him. Can an uninvolved SPI clerk please make an assessment ASAP on this, please? Papa November (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised I haven't wound up on that list yet.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving him twenty minutes more. If he doesn't come up with anything, I'm just gonna' close it as disruptive. If anyone would rather skip the wait, I won't complain. Watch that you don't jinx it, Sarek. lifebaka++ 17:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

*cough* This is kinda' ridiculous now. It appears my generosity has been rewarded. Could someone just close the fiasco quickly? lifebaka++ 18:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

← OK, there are now ten very well established, totally unconnected users on that list. This is pure disruption. Could someone please make an assessment ASAP before he manages to unveil our evil conspiracy? Papa November (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What the heck? I gave him advice (based on the WQA filing) this morning, and yet I don't make his list of obvious Socks? Where's the justice??! FFS, this sucks! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Such is life. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked for 24 hours. Sorry to those who didn't want to see a block here, but this seriously didn't look like stopping otherwise. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, hopefully the 24 hours will give him time to reflect and give me time to finish writing my thesis! Papa November (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 18:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Good block. The SPI filing out of retaliation is total nonsense. --Caspian blue 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He did a tit-for-tat WQA filing this morning too ... don't forget that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to add Caspian Blue and Bwilkins to the check user request???---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I bet if we CU'd Balloonman, we'd find out he really is Spartacus! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

...or that User:Joey the Mango is User:Abductive (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abductive/Archive). MuZemike 18:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• At a guess, it would seem we are dealing with someone who has some sort of mental illness. Hans Adler made some persuasive comments to that effect at the RFC/U. Perhaps out of respect and us all generally not being douchebags who mock mentally unstable people we should wind this down and stop with the jokey? → ROUX ₪ 18:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it's only a temporary block, we should facilitate a way for Frei Hans to allow him to respond to the RFC/U on his talk page until the block expires. If nobody opposes by the time I finish lunch and get back home, I'll boldly facilitate that. MuZemike 18:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point I should make a note: he already feels that a whack of people are ganging up on him. The RFC/U is not going to help that belief. I'm one of the most patient folks, and really am having trouble with the behaviours here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What is our other option then after the block expires? I think it's safe to say that the SPI accusations et al are likely to continue tomorrow, so what process do we follow to avoid further disruption or, at the very least, what do we do if and when this happens again? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The only option is to indef block if the disruption continues. Blocking is not a punishment but rather a protection of the encyclopedia. It doesn't matter whether the user has a mental illness or not if they are being absolutely disruptive and are unwilling or unable to modify their behavior. An indef block is the only way to prevent this type of thing from going on if they come off of their block and are not at all willing or able to stop the disruptive actions. Mental illness or not, disruption of this sort can not be allowed to continue without action; we can try to accomodate someone who has a problem, and be more patient with behavior than with a simple troll/vandal, but if a user's actions are consistantly disruptive, they need to be indef blocked, whether they are trying to be disruptive or honestly cannot help it. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the irony

User:Free Hans has been blocked as a sockpuppet of user:Frei Hans. Let's be vigilant! Papa November (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's block evasion (see Free Hans' edit, which has clearly occurred during the block) and hence warrants a reset and/or extension of Frei Hans' current block. MuZemike 00:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

...and now re-blocked 31h. MuZemike 00:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reset, 31 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not indef block him? Or checkuser back FH? The Junk Police (reports|works) 02:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that'll come soon enough. Meanwhile he's put up an unblock request. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser request

Per User talk:Frei Hans, I have boldly went ahead and requested a CheckUser on the two accounts, just in case someone else is doing a number here. MuZemike 07:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Outlines"

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

Wrong venue. For requesting deletion, use WP:XfD; for assessing community consensus about this matter, use WP:RfC or fora such as WP:VP. This board is for requesting urgent administrator intervention, which does not seem to be sought here.  Sandstein  21:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

---

you thought that infoboxes were a problem, when getting out of hand and evolving into a counter-article-within-the-article? That was yesterday. Enter The_Transhumanist (talk · contribs) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge. A "project" aiming at creating an "outline" article to every bona fide article on Wikipedia. An "outline" is apparently a sort of glorified infobox or category listing given the status of standalone encyclopedia article. Thus, for Kosovo, we get outline of Kosovo, which doesn't have any scope other than simply Kosovo but it repeats the pertaining links in a "hierarchical list". The mind boggles at the implications. The damage this is capable of doing especially in difficult-to-maintain topics like Kosovo is immense. The natural course would be to treat this as an indexing effort, like the "outlines" main page, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge. Yet for some reason best known to themselves, the editors working on these "outlines" adamantly resist such a solution, apparently heading for all-out confrontation. I am very close to nominating the entire thing at WP:AfD, since "articles" they insist these are, and as "articles" they would need to satisfy WP:NOTE criteria as enyclopedic topics in their own right. --dab (𒁳) 18:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What administrative action do you request with respect to this?  Sandstein  19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably a mass deletion of the "article"s. I'm not necessarily in favor of that, but it's a plausible administrative action. (Cavaet. I've interacted with him before. I don't know if these outlines are as bad as the ones he generated previously, but I'm an involved admin.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm with dbachmann on this. Despite asking several times, the people wasting their time with these outlines have failed to explain how they're actually useful to any reader, especially given the highly non-intuitive titles. E.g., if I want to read about Canada, I'll type Canada into the search box. Not Outline of Canada. And should I find other links I want to follow... why, those just happen to be in the actual article! As well as nice and conveniently organised in navboxes at the bottom of the article! The people doing this are wasting their time and ours on what is essentially a fork that replicates a cross-section of articles, navboxes, and portals. And yes, I say they are wasting our time. The sheer volume of (useless) work that is going into these could have been spent on something that would actually improve the encyclopedia. → ROUX ₪ 19:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I object to the unilateral "closure" of this thread. I am posting this here for a reason, I am requesting the attention and contribution of my fellow admins in tackling this. Last time I checked, this was what this noticeboard was for. This is a serious issue that is rapidly growing out of proportion, not some random content dispute. What this user is doing is well within the fraudulent. They are reverting my bona fide move out of main namespace claiming that[76]

Dbachmann is ignoring the consensus established in many discussions over the years concerning this set of lists

with reference to WP:STAND, where, it turns out, they have recently snuck in reference to their own new-fangled type of "stand-alone list".[77]

This adds serious issues of user conduct to the already grievous namespace mess. Now would people please refrain from hushing this up telling me to "yawn, go open an rfc" but instead try to help doing something about it. --dab (𒁳) 20:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, you're trying to get rid of these articles? ANI is entirely the wrong venue for this. File an RFC or the "mass AFD" to which you alluded. –xeno^talk 20:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Right venue or wrong venue someone needs to do something about this. The last thing we need is more box clutter on a page. What we have is a box on almost every talk page telling readers that the 'outline' for the 'topic' associated with that page is incomplete. Do we really need a shadow wiki that is crummier than the original? Grumbling, I return to my hole. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. This is nothing more than a content fork, as all of the links contained in these 'outlines' are already in the main article. Further, the sheer amount of time required to keep these up to date (as opposed to e.g. writing articles) is mindboggling, not to mention that the whole thing is a lovely little walled garden in which criticism is... unheard, to use a polite word. → ROUX ₪ 20:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether you love, like, dislike, hate, or are indifferent to these outlines, do you really think you're going to come up with a coherent and actionable conclusion at ANI? –xeno^talk 20:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me that an RfC needs to be started before a mass AfD. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Shall we close this here as misplaced once the RfC or MfD on the portal is opened? It could still be done within the normal parameters, and doesn't require immediate admin action. However, a move out of the main namespace seems appropriate to me.

On second thought, outlines of countries in the Balkans are probably in violation of the RfAr there, and outlines of other articles subject to special restrictions are, by their nature, subject to those special restrictions, but are not monitored. The outline creation in mainspace must stop immediately, and those where the article is subject to special restrictions must be moved out of mainspace. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I already tried to close this but the initiator re-opened it. This most definitely requires a rational and focused community discussion (ANI is anything but). I would suggest RFC rather than AFD. –xeno^talk 20:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Outlines have been around under various names since 2001. See also Wikipedia talk:Outlines#move this out of main namespace please. The Transhumanist    21:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Stuart D. James

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked with talk page editing disabled, and talk page fully protected to prevent further abuse. MuZemike 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This user is running around to IP talk pages trolling and claiming to be an admin. No constructive edits whatsoever. contribs --LP ^talk 19:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is sufficient to get an indef block. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. I wonder if he noticed that all his edits are public? - Jredmond (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Someone should have a chat with Brad Polard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bacon Man 832 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Art Sampson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Art Sampson looks like a SPA with some kinda' grudge against whoever Edie Money is, and I've blocked the account indef to prevent abuse. lifebaka++ 19:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher's a Checkuser, I think she was being subtle while telling us the accounts are linked. Seems odd to bring them up if that wasn't the intent. --M^ask? 20:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect very strongly that this is not Stuart D. James, but someone making racist and vandal edits to besmirch the reputation of someone with that name. I've deleted the talkpage, and would appreciate if someone else would delete whatever else may be appropriate to delete. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone replacing flag images: possible vandalism

Special:Contributions/88.64.76.179 is replacing images of countries' flags: check their contribution log. It looks fishy but I'm not sure. Please undo his changes if necessary. Chutznik (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, when you tell them about this thread, you could ask them to explain the motivation behind these changes. –xeno^talk 20:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Sebas1955 copyrighted image problem

Sebas1955 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading images which they claim they have permission to use, citing OTRS tickets. But there are a number of other images they have uploaded which they claim to be the copyright holder of. Can an OTRS person verify the claims they're making concerning the copyrights they're claiming to be providing to OTRS, and could an admin give them a lesson in copyright? In addition, they seem to be working in tandem with an anon to insert the images into articles. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

IP 81.97.19.159

This user has written some very very abusive and obscene remarks on my user page. Thankfully another editor reverted them but I was very offended and disgusted by the remarks. Could you please block the user in question. Here is a link if you wish to investigate http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Christian1985&diff=prev&oldid=299688509 Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That was 5 days ago. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To explain the point a bit, it looks like that IP editor was only using that address for one day, so a block would probably have no effect. Looie496 (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Admins vs contributors

Administrators do a tremendous job of keeping some form of order on Wikipedia. However it is user generated content that has allowed Wikipedia to grow to almost 3 million articles. Needless to say, but it's average-joe contributors who have created the bulk of the content in these 3 million articles. In fact, according to a recent study[78] anonymous editors contribute the "highest quality" content. Because of these facts, administrators should not look down upon ordinary users when it comes to matters of content. Users volunteer their own time and effort to research material in libraries or online to provide their material for free to wikipedia, which is an honorable thing to do. So what is transpiring on the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy is somewhat disturbing.

The administrator User:Dbachmann recently reverted four months of user-generated content. He then sought other administrators to protect the page. In a recent straw poll on which version was preferred, some administrators, such as User:Dougweller and User:Akhilleus, participated in the poll and they all sided with Dbachmann. Whereas the regular users User talk:Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka, User:Wdford, User talk:AncientObserver, User:Taharqa all favor restoring the previous version and allowing users to generate content. In short there is a clear division, we have administrators on one side who prefer to protect a particular version, and we have regular users on the other side who want to generate content. Is this a fair contest in a content dispute?

Secondly the administrator who protected the page, User:William M. Connolley, appears to have picked a side in the content dispute. Recently Luka posted on the talk page that Dbachmann, who got the article protected, is known for his arrogance and abrasive editing. He cited the following as evidence.

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_(2)
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_3
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann

Apparently, Connolley didn't like the fact that Dbachmann's behavior was being discussed and deleted the aforementioned complaints about Dbachmann's behavior[79]. He then went on to defend to Dbachmann stating that "Dab's one of our best and most conscientious admins, and Wikipedia is in his debt for giving time and energy to keeping these inveterate POV warriors at bay summarises it" [80]. Connolley is presiding over a content dispute involving Dbachmann, yet he sounds his praise for him. It is pretty obvious whose side Connolley is on and fairness cannot be expected from him. Connolley completely ignores the fact the numerous editors have complained about Dbachmann, and one complaint reached the arbcom where Dbachmann was reprimanded. This clearly means that the Arbcom acknowledged some of the complaints made by users were valid. In this case it is, inappropriate for Connolley to be defending Dbachmann.

Dbachmann has been around wikipedia for a while, but sometimes longevity causes arrogance. Most administrators here don't have three RFCs and one arbcom hearing about their conduct. In summary a group of administrators have decided to take a side in a content dispute. They have decided that they know content better than regular users simply because they are admins. Imagine if admins decided that because they are admins, they should decide the content in the article about atomic physics. Let users generate content, and let the admins maintain wikipedia. Jay Waxman (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a funny culture. Since this is your first edit since August 2008 and only have 15 edits from August 2008, some may accuse you of something. I do not think your grievance will get very far. New users are not given the same weight as some others. Whether this is right is a different question. There are a number of essays on the topic, such as protecting the wrong version, cabal, etc. A lot of alphabet soup like WP:JARGON, WP:SOUP, WP:SHUTUPNEWBIE, WP:SHUTUPADMIN, etc. Good luck! Keep on writing (or maybe stop writing if trying to write provokes anger). User F203 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder who you're a sock of. → ROUX ₪ 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is true that anonymous users do much good and provide valuable content, but they also provide the largest amount of cruft, spam, POV-pushing, disruption and general annoyance. Someone have to work keeping that at bay and mostly only registered users do that job. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

RFCU or ArbCom would be a better choice

Jay, complaining about administrators to the administrators board is usually a waste of time, for various reasons. Either draft and post an RfC about the admins that you're having problems with, or else take it directly to ArbCom via a RfAR. If you draft an RfC, remember that you need to have tried to resolve the matter first via posts on the userpages of the admins in question. It would also be better if another editor has done the same, so that your RfC can be certified by two users. Good luck. Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jay Waxman indeed seems too knowledgeable of Wikipedia in contrast to his sporadic appearances. However he raises a valid point. I see William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) again is brought up to ANI for his another questionable conducts. After WMC removed several editors' opinions[81], he was not only engaged in edit-warring with AncientObserver (talk · contribs) and Wikieditor06 (talk · contribs) on Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy to remove AncientObserver's comments "3 times"[82][83][84] but also quarreled with the former and then blocked him "as an involved admin".[85] What a nice....block (?) again in a row after the fiasco caused by his other two controversial blocks. The matter is definitely beyond ANI and RFC/U, so this must be dealt by the ArbCom.--Caspian blue 02:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I know WMC has been involved in arbcom rulings before... would one of the remedies not apply to these cases? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the past RFC/U and ArbCom cases on him in detail, but just found them.--Caspian blue 02:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley 2 (due to certification matters, it was userfied)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

Solely in relation to this: "Let users generate content, and let the admins maintain wikipedia." - This isn't a valid distinction. Everyone can (and should) generate content. Everyone can (and should) do maintenance. Admin tools permit certain additional actions, but so does rollback, the ability to code bots, Twinkle, AWB and a host of other things. Euryalus (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree Admins are also users and should generate content. However, when generating content, if an admin is involved in a content dispute, they should temporarily "take off their admin hats" in that specific dispute. Simply that there is a somewhat distinction between administrative responsibilities and generating content and mixing the two could result in a conflict of interest. Thanks Caspian Blue for the links to the RFCs. Jay Waxman (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I notified all of the mentioned editors/admins with {{ANI-notice|Ancient Egyptian race controversy}}, but you should've done that after you initiated the thread here. That is a common courtesy--Caspian blue 03:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Caspian Blue. I do not yet know the ins and outs of Wikipedia but I do feel that WMC has been irresponsible with his Admin decisions. Perhaps I was being a bit defensive with my responses but I think it's ironic that I end up getting blocked for a conflict that he instigated. I hadn't run into any problems with Admins on Wikipedia until Dab got an Admin to revert and protect this page. This situation is out of hand and needs immediate attention. AncientObserver (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The complaints about Dougweller, Akhilleus and Dbachmann seem completely without foundation. Ancient Egyptian race controversy is a highly problematic article,which has been heavily edited by the constantly multiplying socks of Muntuwandi and has been discussed multiple times here. It has been very hard to police. Caspian blue seems to be using this case as a way of getting at WMC for the block of his wikifriend ChildofMidnight: his intervention has very little to do with the afrocentrist issues involved. Mathsci (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Mathsci. The admins are doing what they're supposed to be doing: not mollycoddling POV-pushers. This is a bunch of hot air. → ROUX ₪ 06:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jay, that is indeed how it's supposed to go. Admins don't wield tools to win content disputes, period, and any admin who is found to have done so should be compelled (by personal recognizance ideally, failing that by ArbCom) to divest themselves of the tools. On the other hand, sometimes it's a social network problem, in that people cultivate friendships/alliances with folks who will help them out on the basis of the relationship, rather than the merits of the case. This is a more pernicious and insidious problem, IMHO. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Jay Waxman could be another sleeper sock account of Muntuwandi, looking at the editing history. Mathsci (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This already went to arbcom

I've been watching this dispute for a while since stumbling across Muntuwandi and his socking activities (something interesting has come up concerning Jay Waxman, but I can't say anything for sure yet). However, what I think is best for this article right now is to apply this little arbitration remedy to both sides of this dispute to get this article looked at by people with fresh eyes and no emotional attachment to afrocentrism or Egyptology topics. This would effectively incorporate the following users (not everyone who would be affected, I don't know this debate too much):

• AncientObserver (talk · contribs)
• Wdford (talk · contribs)
• Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk · contribs)
• Big-dynamo (talk · contribs)
• Taharqa (talk · contribs)

I'm sure there are others and I might be picking out only users on one side of the debate because these are only the names (other than the myriad Muntuwandi socks, as Muntuwandi is already banned from the project), but this may (or may not) solve article problems currently.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have banned the following four users from Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page:

• AncientObserver (talk · contribs) for six months
• Wdford (talk · contribs) for six months
• Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk · contribs) for six months
• Big-dynamo (talk · contribs) for eighteen months

After a review of the article and its talk page, I have discovered a pattern of POV-pushing fringe theories from those four users. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Breaking news

Patrick Tracy Burris bears watching, Patrick tracy burris has already been deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've RD'd both for now to Gaffney,_South_Carolina#Serial_Killings_of_2009. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing war

These IP addresses 156.56.162.187 and 156.56.131.213 keeps making disruptive edits after being warned many times. This person has even had the nerve to call my edits vandalism. Is there anyway we can get a lock on the Kelley School of Business article so that this person will stop with their repeated edit warring? Dumaka (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've warned the editor appropriately. It appears that those two editors are actually one editor, just using a dynamic IP address. If he continues, WP:RFPP is thataway. (X! · talk)  · @269  ·  05:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding persistent deletions and false accusation of Top on ice

Recently I started making contribution on the page of Kim Yu-Na, mostly making grammatical corrections. I also added contents a few external links to her fan forums and her Twitter page.

There is a user called Top On Ice, and he or she has been keeping removing those links without any reasonable explanations. The person has removed multiple contributions for no persuasive reason including the removal of an undisputed fact such as that Michelle Kwan was the nine-time U.S. champion. I have been reverting this person's removals. This person just had a warning mail sent to me for vandalism. This person is in fact censoring contributions on Kim Yu-Na's page, and I believe this person's conduct constitutes vandalism, and thus he or she should be considered to be blocked. This person mentioned me at the end of this link, but I do not know its purpose. It seems that this person is making a false accusation against me, claiming that I am the person of the blocked user. Please check out my talk. - Chunwook —Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

This is best addressed by following the instructions found at the dispute resolution page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User has made a threat, and is displaying ownership of articles

I am making this report because of the actions of User:Jerzeykydd, and his personal feelings of ownership and inappropriate behavior arising because of ("I made every presidential election article that way I am planning on keeping it that way" part of message left on my talk page) related to a number of election articles. The user has also engaged in threatening behavior on my talk page User talk:Highground79 ("don't push it or I'll get pissed off") (comment came as part of message left on my talk page on 00:14, 1 July 2009). Since I have been on wikipedia only briefly the last few days I hadn't paid attention to it till now. While I am in now way frightened by the user there threat is not appropriate for wikipedia and I believe someone other then myself needs to make the user aware of this.

(Rough history of underlining problem: included for background) The underling issue which started all of this is the user in question and I have a disagreement over how to label parts of a section. The user has had it suggested to them by the User:Timmeh to start a discussion on the matter but has chosen instead to continue to edit war. the user insists via claims of ownership on labeling the results of presidential election article by state in a manner in which it appears as though equal weight is given to the "by county" results and "by congressional district" results as is given to the "statewide" while in some cases the user seem to accept Result (instead of "statewide", but will not accept election result)

My edits to the labels are attempting to distinguish the fact that only the statewide total is the election result (that which electoral votes are awarded for) The county and the congressional district results are a subset of the electorate and are less important (labels I attempted to include (results by congressional districts and results by county) because it doesn't matter who wins the most counties or congressional districts in most states (I'm trying to clarify this) the electoral votes are a all or nothing deal. While this may seem obvious to you wikipedia is used by people all over the world, and the our electoral college system is completely foreign to these users (it is important for the understanding of these users to distinguish the difference between the numbers that matter and the ones that do not). I would be happy to discuss this on the talk pages but the User:Jerzeykydd insists on edit waring and inadvertently is making it harder for users in other countries to understand what is the important (determining #'s) and what is essentially just an interesting fact. I know this is long winded but I wanted to explain what is going on and how it started. Highground79 (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs showing the issues you mention. Several would be good. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

He's right. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jerzeykydd, pick those diffs (which are "differences between one edit and another"), and post the URLs of those "diffs" here. There we might be able to get a better understanding of what is going on. Thank you, MuZemike 07:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I gave an edit-warring warning on the user, going into detail of what can happen if the user's reversions do not stop. MuZemike 08:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

An offending diff is here. Manning (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That is nothing like what you've said. He's clearly said he does not want to edit war, and says that he works hard on the articles you two have a dispute on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check requested

I just deleted The Commune which I had salted previously (which was very cleverly evaded by a move request) as the article in no way asserts notability. There seems to be a series of related articles including other questionably notable socialist/anti imperalist groups. Anyway, I could use a sanity check on my action here, but it will have to be other admins since everything is all deleted.--Tznkai (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A second opinion:

• The Commune - A group formed in November 2008 with a total membership of 12. No reliable references. Founded by two people whose claim to fame is also founding another non-notable activist groups. An appropriate A7 deletion, as notability wasn't even asserted.
• Alliance for Workers' Liberty - asserts notability and might have some valid references, though it needs a copyedit.
• Hands Off the People of Iran - asserts notability but should certainly be stubbed to reduce the screenloads of polemic and personal opinion. Let's see how the AfD goes. Euryalus (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

trouble brewing at July 2009 Ürümqi riots

There are an increasing number of inexperienced users, single purpose accounts, IP trolls etc getting close to edit warring and being otherwise disruptive in July 2009 Ürümqi riots and its associated talk page. Particularly troublesome is User:60.190.146.38. Admin eyeballs are requested. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)