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

Ghostofnemo and SYNTH

Unresolved

 – This has turned into a civility issue based on User:Ghostofnemo#Wikipedia Hall of Shame also is in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions--Cptnono (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ghostofnemo has been disruptive at Peter James Bethune. We have previously been on noticeboards for other issues. Although his previous methods are questionable, his clear violation of WP:SYNTH is too much. Bethune's trial is currently wrapping up in Japan. He recently made statements that distanced himself from the founder of Sea Shepherd. Ghostofnemo is now attempting to insert information on potential mistreatment as the reasoning behind this. I don't know why the subject made the statement and none of the sources have said why. Please see this edit.[1] Is adding a line and source discussing Amnesty International being critical of interrogation methods in Japan without mentioning Bethune appropriate after a line discussing his Bethune quote? Instead of edit warring, can an administrator explain to GoN if his reverting to insert such material is inappropriate.Cptnono (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC) The line in question is a fair paraphrase of one source being quoted, so it is not SYNTH. The line in question is relevant to the article, which is about the trial of a suspect who has been held for a long period prior to his trial in Japan. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Another editor has reverted him so it appears that this is no longer an edit warring/against guideline incident needing admin attention issue. Should I move this to the OR noticeboard?Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, I'd like to have an administrator look at the pattern of deletions of referenced material going on at this article! Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Nemo, that line is synth. Yes, it's a correct paraphrase from the BBC story, BUT the BBC story doesn't say one word about Peter James Bethune. It's addition into Peter Bethune's article is implying that it's happening to Mr. Bethune. It's synth , Cptnono is right to remove it. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC) What about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=365765488&oldid=365765129 Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC) It's synth. Forget about Amnesty International. You can't pick and mix things from RS and construct a Frankenstein monster to tell the story you want to tell. The sources need to talking about the subject of the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC) AI says this is an issue in Japan. The BBC says it's an issue in Japan. I have WP:RS that say he was blocked from meeting with an attorney until after he confessed. The editors here, with no sources whatsoever, are denying this is an issue and deleted WP:RS referenced material that is NPOV, because they personally feel it's not appropriate! This skews the story so that it appears Bethune is receiving a fair trial, even though his attorney has been denied access to the trial! It's very POV to delete this material, and it's also POV to censor material about Japan's legal system and criticism of it. Here are my sources: Not allowed to meet lawyer: http://www.3news.co.nz/Sea-Shepherd-group-ready-to-defend-Bethune/tabid/1160/articleID/147145/Default.aspx and, more explicitly: http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bethune-has-long-wait-see-lawyer-3413921 Met with consular staff four times, but no mention of meeting with lawyer: http://www.watoday.com.au/breaking-news-world/nz-govt-attacked-for-bethunes-detention-20100406-roub.html Lawyer barred from court: http://www.watoday.com.au/breaking-news-world/bethune-could-get-fair-trial-lawyer-20100528-wi7b.html NZ govt says Bethune "was to meet with attorney last night" instead of "met with attorney last night":http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz+embassy+officials+meet+peter+bethune Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Now, here's the quote from the AI article: "Amnesty International has now called on Japan's new government to immediately implement reforms of the police interrogation system to avoid such miscarriages of justice. Suspects can be held for up to 23 days before they are charged in what the campaign group says is a brutal system that has no place in modern Japan. The conviction rate is more than 99%, often based on confessions. Amnesty International says some are extracted from suspects under duress." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8290767.stm Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC) And it says: ""The detainee has absolutely no access to his defence lawyers, has no idea how long the interrogation session would go," said Rajiv Narayan of Amnesty International." Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC) As explained to you on the talk page: If you want the article to say "he was mistreated" or "he had an unfair trial" then you need to find an RS that says so. Not an RS that alludes to something you don't like + something else. A clear "he was mistreated". So far, every source I have seen contradicts it but if you find one we can go from there. Until then you need to stop being disruptive. You have had multiple editors explain SYNTH and WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT .Cptnono (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Ghostofnemo, yes, it is an issue in Japan and in many other countries. There are many very interesting and complicated issues with Japanese society that anyone can discover in reliable sources or better still by going there to have a look for themselves. None of the issues are relevant unless the source itself specifically relates the issue to Peter James Bethune. The source has to do it, not you. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Here it is right here: "Sea Shepherd's Paul Watson says the Japanese are not letting Bethune see his legal team. He says Japanese authorities are entitled to interrogate a prisoner without representation, for up to three weeks. Bethune has however met with New Zealand Embassy staff in Tokyo since his arrival in Japan." from http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bethune-has-long-wait-see-lawyer-3413921 Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC) That's from the reference that was cited with the removed lines. Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC) And just a reminder, the stories discussing Bethune and his lawyer not being there for one of the hearings say things like "A lawyer representing New Zealander Peter Bethune thinks the anti-whaling activist could get a fair trial in Tokyo." and "He said he knew what had happened in the court 'because the hearing was pretty much all scripted, scripted in the sense that both the prosecution and the defence gave their opening statement but that opening statement was based word for word on a written statement that was provided to the judge days ago' ."[2] So he might have had an unfair trial but nothing says it while other sources could be read the exact opposite. There isn't a scandal here but GoN has been creating one for over a month now. Enough is enough.Cptnono (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Regarding the fair trial, here is what his lawyer actually said: "Despite earlier suggestions the trial was just a show, Harris said he thought Bethune could get a fair trial. "All indications and reports are that the lead judge and other two judges are fair-minded judges," he said." http://www.watoday.com.au/breaking-news-world/bethune-could-get-fair-trial-lawyer-20100528-wi7b.html Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Personally, I question the competence of his attorney, 1 for not making his interrogation without legal counsel an issue, and 2 for his attitude towards being excluded from the trial (yeah, no big deal). A man on trial, and his lawyer is not there in court with him!!!!! It boggles the mind what his strategy is, unless they are intentionally trying to get Bethune the longest sentence possible to create a martyr for their cause.... Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC) The linked WAtoday article is misleading. Harris is not the only one lawyer for Bethune. He is one of the lawyers for Bethune. There must have been the other lawyer/lawyers in the court. But the number of the seats for the lawyers were restricted. So Harris tried to see the trial from one of the seats for the public. But the number of those seats were also restricted, and he couldn't draw a winning number. That's what the articles says. Oda Mari (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Which article says Bethune's other lawyers were seated in court? Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC) See how annoying it is when sources are not presented? And just a heads up if this is still being looked at. GoN made the edit against overwhelming consensus.[3] Cptnono (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC) This is from my talk page. Where is the OR here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghostofnemo#June_2010 Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC) And yet another deletion of relevant, reliably sourced, NPOV material: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_James_Bethune&diff=365981031&oldid=365974855 Help! This is ridiculous! Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC) This starting to turn into two content disputes on ANI unfortunately. What it comes down to is multiple editors seeing SYNTH and misleading the reader while GoN sees it as POV based deletions. In the face of so many editors explaining to him why there are concerns GoN is bombarding the talk page and editing against more than one guideline. I know he is frustrated and feels passionately about this but he just needs to stop. I have asked him to wait and see what the expected flood of sources say next week with the conclusion of the court proceedings. Any controversial allusions to mistreatment or an unfair trial should wait until then.Cptnono (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC) And I've asked you and the other editors not to deleted relevant, reliably sourced and NPOV material from the article. Why is it that my "by the book" edits can be deleted based on the unsourced hearsay of other editors? Shouldn't they be required to find evidence that my sources are in error before deleting my edits? Why do I get a warning that I'll be banned on my talk page for making apparently good edits, but none of those making questionable deletions is being warned about it? It looks like WP:BULLY to me. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC) And another thing... why is it that my relevant, reliably sourced, NPOV edits can be immediately deleted without discussion? And why is the information completely deleted (down the "memory hole") instead of being improved? Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC) My sources are the news media, so that should be a sign these points are relevant to the article. I am not writing this stuff or presenting OR, contrary to the accusations being made. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Since we're not getting any official guidance here about how to handle this, I guess my next step is to treat these deletions as vandalism, put notices on the offenders talk pages, and revert their deletions. If I have to risk getting banned to get a verdict on this, so be it. I think the edits will hold up. The alternative seems to be tolerating being effectively banned already since my edits are immediately deleted, so I don't have much to lose. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Although it may not be "official" this has received the attention of additional editors. All have explained why your edits are not being accepted. I assume any further attempts to buck consensus will lead to some requests for a block. It would be best if you simply dropped it and tried imrpoving other aspects of the article.Cptnono (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately GhostOfNemo has updated his user page in a way that attacks other editors and is violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." and "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc, should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki)" see: User:Ghostofnemo#Wikipedia Hall of Shame. A "Hall of Shame", providing "reasons for exclusion for your amusement", and misrepresenting a debate are far different than "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages". I am seeking its removal. The user is more than welcome to keep the sources in a sandbox or right there for future reference.Cptnono (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Also in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions.Cptnono (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC) This is clearly uncivil and is not conducive to harmonious editing, with quotes taken completely out of context. If GoN wants to link to diffs or sections, fine, but don't take parts of arguements out of context.--Terrillja talk 02:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC) After reading your comments, I reread my userpage to see if I'm being uncivil. I don't see anything there that is uncivil or which distorts our discussions. Dissent and peaceful protest are my responses to your uncivil behavior. You should stop the witchhunt and just deal with the fact that your behavior is questionable and some of us will dare to question it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC) If an administrator had ruled on this, and told you to cut it out, I wouldn't have been driven to do this. This seems like a better response than edit-warring with you. It's the last act of desperation of a powerless person who is having his edits summarily deleted for apparently dubious, and at the risk of being uncivil, suspicious, reasons. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Cut it out. I don't know whether you really believe yourself to be powerless and confronted with a seemingly monolythic group of enemies or are just enjoying the pose, but the fact is that there have been good reasons for your fellow editors to confront your way of editing. You have been repeatedly pointed to the guidelines relevant for a constructive discussion of inclusion. Instead of taking them into account and working with them or at one point gathering that maybe what you want to do is more akin to journalism, and less to encyclopedic writing, you insist on inserting your POV unchanged. That's not the way WP rolls. 87.166.74.135 (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC) This has been going on for several months at least, and the content over which Ghostofnemo is warring has consistently skirted or violated exactly the same policies. His response to other editors is basically WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have no idea why this editor feels such a strong connection with this subject, but his actions give the impression of righteous anger not a collegial attempt at writing an article. I propose that if this continues, a topic ban is the best solution. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC) The way I see it, it's not me vs. them. It's reliable sources vs. them. I keep hearing POV and OR, but if you'll look at my edits, you'll see they are reliably sourced and that my edits do not misrepresent the sources. But the edits are immediately deleted, and if a reason is given, it's usually an accusation of POV or OR! Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC) And if you'll look at the talk pages, you'll see that there has been LOTS of discussion. I do hear them. But they keep accusing me of POV and OR. I don't see any. Do you? Where exactly do you see it? Please show me an edit I've made, compare it to the source, and show me the POV or OR. How can I respond to their accusations? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC) How about one of the most recent ones: [[4]]? Another topic, but as I have pointed out on the talk page, this is OR. Please familiarise yourself with the guideline and maybe get someone explain it to you with exemplary edits. 87.166.74.135 (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC) 9/11 conspiracy theories are different, because there are not many reliable sources that present conspiracy theories. We're presenting the theories that exist. We're not trying to prove that they are factually correct. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC) See this on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Addition_of_Operation_Northwoods_.2F_OR And I have made some changes based on their input. But they insist on total deletion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Regarding a strong connection with the subject, I have not deleted anyone else's reliably sourced edits, regardless of how unflattering they are to the subject. It's not like I'm trying to keep things critical of Bethune out of the article. But it does seem that the editors involved are trying to keep things critical of the whalers and the Japanese authorities out of this article and the Ady Gil article, even if they are reliably sourced. Why? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC) @GhostNemo - As an uninvolved party, I haven't read all the contested edits, but I did check out the links to the BBC article, used twice, and in both cases the insertion was quite incorrect. Actually, calling it Synthesis is too kind, it's improper inference without foundation.--SPhilbrickT 13:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC) The AI story is the source for the line that in Japan suspects can be held without access to legal counsel for up to 23 days, during which they can be interrogated by the police. The deleted line does not allege Bethune was mistreated or that a confession was coerced. It merely states that the police in Japan have the right to deny access to an attorney until after the suspect has confessed, or 23 days, whichever comes first. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Here's the edit: "Immediately after Bethune's arrest, Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society complained that Bethune was denied access to his legal team by the Japanese authorities. http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bethune-has-long-wait-see-lawyer-3413921 According to Amnesty International, suspects in Japan can be interrogated for up to 23 days by the police without access to legal counsel." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8290767.stm Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC) You can continue debating the content all you want (so far no one agrees). User:Ghostofnemo#Wikipedia Hall of Shame needs to be taken care of though.Cptnono (talk) 10:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC) At the risk of sounding snooty, I think I'm right, whether or not people agree with me. To exclude this information slants the article against Bethune. It will be assumed his human rights were respected, he got a fair trial, and had adequate legal representation, when reliable sources seem to put that in doubt. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC) The "Hall of Shame" comes down when it looks like the excluded material will be allowed to stand in the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC) If you are so certain you are right, it just makes ME look unreasonable, so it shouldn't bother you. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC) I don’t have a problem with the content of that page, but do have two minor request. First, the intended content of a user page is information about the editor qua editor. While leeway is allowed, and this content is arguable related to editing contributions, it would e better in a subpage. Second, I don’t see evidence that the page is no-indexed. It doesn’t appear that the page is yet indexed by Google, but I wouldn’t want someone doing a general search on this subject to end up on this page and misunderstand the nature of the page. (I do understand that not all editors in WP take the position that material like this is suitable even on a no-indexed subpage, but I’ll weigh in on the support side if it comes to a question. SPhilbrickT 15:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC) WP:UP#POLEMIC is pretty clear. And most of the content isn't the problem. I don't see any problem with him copy and pasting his own arguments on his page but being "shame"d for others' "amusement" is a little much Should I take this to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion if an in-depth conversation is necessary?Cptnono (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Ok, ok. I'll change it to "Hall of Questionable Deletions". Just a sec. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I’m trying to support you, but you are making it difficult. The change in title in a step in the right direction, but wording such as “I've provided some of their reasons for exclusion for your amusement:” leave the impression that your goal isn’t an honest attempt at dispute resolution. Can you see why someone would think that?SPhilbrickT 12:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC) In a subpage, keeping diffs of things for the future is fine, but using your userpage as a soapbox to protest what you see as unfair treatment by taking conversations out of context is not appropriate. Neither attempting to hold up wikipedia by refusing to remove it until people bend to your wishes. Comments like this about "bullying" things into articles are particularly worrisome to me, since Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battleground. Something about that suggests to me that it likely runs afoul of the ArbCom ruling on 9/11 as well.--Terrillja talk 13:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC) No one reads my userpage except you guys apparently. I am trying to make a point there, and the point is that these deletions are ridiculous. The "bullying" comment was because for once I actually forced the issue and cited WP:FILIBUSTERS and they realized my next step was a formal complaint. So they back down. For me, that was naked aggression - nothing compared to what goes on routinely at the Bethune article, eh? I still haven't gotten to the point of deleting someone's relevant, reliably sourced, NPOV edits yet. I dared to cite a policy that said the next step is reporting the offender to administrators. This is really getting tedious. I wish the administrators would either ban me, or make you guys revert your questionable deletions. I'm effectively banned from the article now, due to immediate deletions of my edits, so we really do need a decision. I've been on public trial for quite some time now. My last comments to the jury - please check out the deleted edits and the discussion on the talk page. Who is being unreasonable and who is being uncivil? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC) OK, one more point. According to reports in reliable sources, Bethune was hooded, denied access to legal counsel before his interrogation, put on a diet of only cabbage soup and rice, and his lawyer was excluded from court, yet all of this has been deleted from the article. Is that NPOV? Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC) You are not on some sort of trial. You were adding in SYNTH. Editors explained it. Now that you know, feel free ot edit just don't do that again since it will be removed. And the second part is concern over your user page. You "trying to make a point there" is WP:UP#POLEMIC. Remove it and stop using SYNTH to scandal monger and there should be no problem with you editing.Cptnono (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC) The deleted edits under discussion are not SYNTH. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI case needs eyes

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkagitRiverQueen

A number of us believe that our old friend User:SkagitRiverQueen is back and socking in violation of her one-year ban, which as some might remember was enacted via a unanimous community vote. A checkuser has determined that a slough of IPs, plus two registered accounts, were all being used by the same user, but the behavioral evidence linking to SkagitRiverQueen has yet to be examined. Both registered accounts have been blocked, but determining whether this is SRQ would be important in deciding whether or not to extend her one-year ban (presumably to indefinite). If anyone can take a look and offer thoughts on a WP:DUCK determination it would help. Thanks. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:18, 4 Jun 2010 (UTC)

Notified SRQ by email, asked if she had anything she wanted me to pass on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

More eyes, please... uninvolved or involved. Unbelievable lack of closure. Clearly a quacking DUCK... Doc9871 (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

All the editors who have taken notice of this users socking is due to her behaviors looking like WP:DUCK. Her following User:DocOfSoc to obscure articles and also the comments the socks made that were in some cases identical to SRQ. What needs to be discussed is how to stop her IP's from socking and whether her extention should be made indefinite or changed to the time the socking was confirmed. That is my opinion on this matter anyways. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As CU on this case, I can say that SRQ accessed Wikipedia through the same means as the two recent socks, although from an apparently different location. Because there is no overlapping editing, this could represent a move or unreliable geolocation. There's no technical reason to believe SQR is not the same user. Given the behavioral evidence posted on the SPI, I think it's more likely than not that SQR returned as these accounts. Take a look at the SPI. Cool Hand Luke 12:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that SkagitRiverQueen ban for a year be changed to an indefinite because of use of multiple sock accounts. Also, if there is a possiblity to do any range blocks for a short period, say a month to 3 months, is doable than that should be done too. Opinions? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I would support that, but at the very least, SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should have his/her's one year ban reset, as per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Reset of ban following evasion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen ban discussion

I'm proposing that SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be banned and blocked indefinitely for socking.

• Support ban, as creator of this proposal. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I figured someone would close the SPI first, but since it's been around for two weeks with no word (except that all the suspected socks are indeed operated by the same user), I say that this is definitely SkagitRiverQueen socking disruptively in violation of her ban, based on the evidence presented in the SPI linked above; and her ban should be turned indefinite. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:05, 6 Jun 2010 (UTC)
• Support - She is well aware of what she has done and extending her block for a couple months doesn't remove the level of disruptiveness that followed in her wake. She's also very critical of the process, administrators and rules here. I think it should be extended to indefinite. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment a) This is the wrong page for this. b) The current recommendation for such discussions is to give things a week to settle following a precipitating incident before starting a community ban discussion. Jack Merridew 01:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The week is over. Previous ban is still in effect, and should be extended to indefinite. And I want my glasses back, Jack... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - the sock case was opened on May 23, 2010, a full 14 days since the can of worms was opened. The precipitating incident was well before that. The evidence indicates a holistic disregard for the ban from nearly its onset and a willful thumbing her nose at it. To paraphrase MikeAllen below, "don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support – You break the rules, you pay the price. Mike Allen 03:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as present -- only support reset of one-year ban.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Maybe a little "blocker's remorse"? (welcome back to the fray, BTW ;P) Disruptive socking by a banned editor is very punishable, and appropriately so - that's why the community bans people here. You've "recused" yourself, I believe, in this matter already - thanks for "chiming in" again, though. Duly noted. Socking by a banned editor should result in an indefinite block... Doc9871 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't really have a problem with Sarek changing his mind about his involvement in this, but I do disagree with simply resetting the ban. Considering the original reason for the ban, in combination with their continued nose-thumbing of the ban, I don't see why this is someone we want to have involved in the project. Are we really seeing any indication that things will be better once the ban expires? The issues were and are indicative of someone who isn't "getting it" and isn't interested in trying to "get it". To be honest I'm not even sure why the ban was originally proposed as temporary, but didn't want to make a big deal of it at the time. Generally people in these cases are banned indefinitely, until they express an interest in proving to the community that they can be trusted to contribute constructively. To have the ban simply "expire" with no effort on the part of the bannee (correct word?), and no evidence that the problem behavior has even been recognized by the user, is strange and inappropriate as far as I'm concerned. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:56, 7 Jun 2010 (UTC)

• Support I have the utmost respect for Sarek. I think that the disrespect and the lying she did saying she wasn't a sock when called on it on her sock accounts just shows she thinks she is better than the rules here. It took too long to get some attentions to this matter to begin with until Sarek came along. Sarek you did the right thing here. Unfortunately she couldn't wait it out and started to sock almost from the beginning. An indefinite is the right thing for this. She has no respects for the policies of the project and the project is better without the problems. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• SupportSocking this blatant could lead to nothing else. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - the only way to effectively deal with the problem. Socking is not the way to respond to a ban that had a timer on it, let alone any other situation, and doing so invites this response from the community. This is the correct page to be dealing with this, and it seems sensible to resolve an incident as opposed to leave it festering. There is no misbehavior by involved users here, and there isn't going to be (without sanctions being plonked on users who try to disrupt this discussion), unlike the other ban discussion, where some involved users refused to behave appropriately, admins and arbcom lacked the courage to intervene effectively, and the eventual ban process review that led to mostly flawed and and excessively bureaucratic proposals - those proposals are only effective (and applicable) to the users who historically have trouble conducting themselves appropriately; not the rest of the community.. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Letting an editor get away with this would send entirely the wrong message. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Strongly. She has been beyond blatant. She has lied and contradicted her former self in a self destructive manner. Although all ISP's can't be confirmed, I counted 26 socks on the Margaret Clark article alone and I believe socked as lately as the first week in June. This may not be the appropriate forum,but as a" Newbie" I was bitten almost to death by SRQ. She has no respect for anyone here in the Wiki Community. This has gone on far too long considering the extensive "evidence." It is unfortunate that an editor as talented and prolific as she was, has lowered herself to this level. I firmly believe we have no choice but to extend her banned/block to "indefinite." DocOfSoc (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack Merridew jumping the gun

Jack Merridew has campaigned tirelessly to do away with the use of color in filmography headings. During a discussion at WT:ACTOR in which he inappropriately canvassed support for his POV, a table heading for the purpose of formatting a table was presented. The consensus on the discussion was to implement the use of that template, as is, with the color included. A discussion was opened at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The use of colors in filmographies regarding the color. Consensus had not been formed there as of yet, but Jack went ahead and removed the color, literally jumping the gun and disregarding the discussion at hand, claiming There is no demonstrable consensus for this color and accusing the respondents that supported the use of color as "a group of friends acting as a bloc"and again dismisses opinions ontrary to his own as Why should you and mebbe a half dozen of your friends be allowed to rule over some thousands of articles?. Note that he also claims that "Someone has been evading, by any and all means, a consensus against this ornament for far too long.", presumably addressed to me, while he totally ignores that just as many spoke FOR the color in the template as his cohorts support his POV. That is a typical ploy, diminish the opinions that are against him and demean the editors who oppose it. The truth of the matter is that is also inappropriate characterization and outright dismissal of the opinions of the responders and he uses that to disregard everything that has been said. In fact, there is also no consensus to remove it, either, which is what was wanted when this was opened for discussion. The consensus for the general use of color hard coded into the table was inconclusive at the discussion at WT:ACTOR and it is shaping up that the consensus is again split, with equal numbers for and against. There is no consensus to remove the color either. This is yet another instance of his pushing his POV on the discussion and his sole decision that the discussion supported his actions. The discussion highlights the guideline (NOT policy) at WP:ACCESS#Styles and markup options, which clearly and decisively sets an exception for the point that The Simpsons group would be allowed the use of the color yellow. I contend his actions were grossly inappropriate considering it still under discussion and considering that he has actively lobbied against the color, he acted in a biased way to imposing his POV on the imagined results of the discussion. I do accept that a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color between themselves and then proceeded to write "guidelines and policies" set the "consensus" site wide for enforcing their choice. Consensus by force is not consensus, and in fact, the "site-wide consensus" has been challenged by this whole issue. The next step will be Jack trying to push through to remove the tables completely, something he has been quite vocal about pushing. P.S. Someone might want to take a look at the post I made at the pump page about Merridew's wikistalking, denigrating and harassing me, as well, if you care to. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think changing the color of the tables in the middle of the discussion was disruptive. It's not fair to the editors who are taking the time to respond at the Village Pump if JM can simply make a unilateral move like that. And while this isn't the place to argue the color issue, it does make it easier to read. And what is a film actor without an easy to read filmography? I don't think this should be such a big issue.Malke2010 22:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It may have been "jumping the gun", but I feel it was done in good faith. Your marginalization of "a small contingent" having written our "guidelines and policies", I feel, is an unfounded attack on Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.  Chickenmonkey  23:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, however you can turn it around. Don't muck up the discussion with trying to avert the issue. Show me proof that the standard table coding was not done by a small contingent. I don't think you can show that it was developed by a "large" contingent. And good faith is relative here, since Jack had less than stellar things said about him and he charged in there to make a pointy edit and before replying here, he moved on to another article to change it to blank tabling. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to feel -- and I'm not trying to turn this around or muck it up or whatever else you will accuse me of -- you seem to feel that any consensus that didn't involve you, doesn't count. Just because you don't know where the consensus is doesn't mean it didn't happen, and you should assume that the consensus was arrived at in good faith. Instead, you choose to take the same course that you're so offended of Jack Merridew taking: "accusing the respondents that supported the use of color as a group of friends acting as a bloc" and "a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color between themselves". It's the same tactic and it's not very civil, either way. I've been a witness to this "relationship" between you two for a little while and I believe it is fairly equal. I repeat my suggestion, if the two of you can't find a way to be civil with each other, you should avoid each other. If you absolutely have to interact, I would suggest no further comments on each other and focus your attention on improving the encyclopedia. Obviously, you're free to take that suggestion, or not.  Chickenmonkey  08:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the reason why I've brought Jack's conduct re: me to this discussion. He absolutely needs to stop wikistalking and harassing me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Do NOT bite the developers

a small contingent who decided to use a very light gray color? One might root through the ancient history of MediaWiki:Common.css to find where the two shades came in to class="wikitable" but I expect it's old as hell, and mucking about in {{prettytable}} might dredge up older-yet history. One can't easily change this, either; it's now in shared.css, which requires developer access to change. These colours are bedrock; used on all WMF wikis and prolly most wikis running MediaWiki. Personally, I assume that these shades were chosen with considerable care with concern about maximizing accessibility and avoiding cultural sensitivities. Shared.css is for styling that underlays all the skins and the natural next level to consider overrides is Common.css and then individual skins. The most inappropriate level to specify a colour is hard-coded in individual articles. Jack Merridew 00:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't assume. And I find the insertion of the baby picture beside my post about this deliberately insulting and demeaning. Things regarding Jack need to come here to keep him honest. Consensus can change, which is the key issue to this table. You can't muster the consensus to support your stance and more editors, different editors, show up each time. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume good faith of the devs; WP:COMPETENCE, too. Try it ;) The baby picture was funny and seems to have been intended to lighten the mood. Cheer up, Jack Merridew 01:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As I found out awhile back, the first photo on a given page will show up if you hover over the link, or some such thing. So putting photos on this page is not really the best idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think too many know that trick ;) Anyway, I hope you didn't fall for the suggestion that I posted the picture. I see it as a good faith comment by a neutral bystander. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Crap, Jack. There was no suggestion whatsoever that you posted the image. If I thought you did, I would outright had said that. You do enough damage around here without martyring yourself needlessly. There was no such suggestion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie cannot edit anywhere without Jack following behind trying to dehumanize and demean her for whatever personal grudge he has on her. His spitefulness has been noted many times, even by administrators... but nothing ever happens and he's free to follow WHL to the next page and rinse and repeat the same bullshit. Sickening. Mike Allen 03:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how Jack followed Wild here. The thread is clearly about him, him joining it to defend himself isn't out of line. That aside, can you please substantiate your accusations of wikistalking?— Dædαlus^Contribs 07:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, no one said he followed me to this discussion, I notified him, but he has suddenly appeared to disparage me on this very board in the past. I have been busy today with serious family issues, but I will gather diffs to show that he does. It will take a little time to do so, but they will be forthcoming. He also posts to IP editors talk pages against me just after I've posted there. There is no way he keeps those pages on his watchlist without following my edits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that Jack has been banned before for wikistalking, it's not like there isn't a pattern of the same behavior that people are going to view him through the distinctly not rose-colored lenses of. Yet nothing much ever happens and the same group of fellow travelers defend him at each step of the way.Shemeska (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Um I was not talking about this discussion. Though the "accusations" are based on proof. Mike Allen 08:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is also demonstrably true that Wildhartlivie responds in a predictable way whenever JM happens to end up in the same part of the project as her - to flame out, outright accuse him of wikistalking her and to treat his edits as malicious. This isn't helping, and may be part of the reason that people don't really pay it too much attention. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This. Seriously, I'll be the first to say I tend to like Jack, but these two have a seriously unhealthy focus on one another. Surely Wikipedia is big enough that a way can be found for them both to just stop interacting all together, and if you must be in the same discussion, then don't response to the other. Is there such a thing as a topic ban where neither is allowed to reference the other by name or suggestion at all? As it is, the back and forth between them is really derailing the entire discussion re the template issues, and seems to be coloring the responses some. From my view in reading the RfC--ignoring all the bad faith suggestions re canvassing (evidence?), accusations on both sides of having "blocs" and "cabals", etc--that the RfC was inherently flawed. One discussion was for the template, one for the color. The former ended with consensus to use the template, while the later ended for no consensus on using the blue color - yet the template discussion was for it "as is" with the color - resulting in opposing results. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've ignored a lot of shite. I see a solid year of evading the communities input about this effort at WikiProject Branding. All sort of tangents and misrepresentations. The RfC did get off poorly. It began as a sort of quick nose-count by WHL of whomever was watching WT:ACTOR. I bumped that thread up to an RfC and then commented. At length over—what?—six weeks? The arguments agianst the various messes and issues re these filmography tables are well presented in there. There is talk on VP(pol) about running an RfC on colour and I could warm to the idea. I want to see a route forward to cleaning up the considerable mess of code that's strewn about an in awful lot of articles. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And I've endured a whole lot more shite from you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack you know you've been following Wildhartlivie around. You showed up at many articles and conversations that you could have only gone to at the same time as WHL by using her contributions. The behaviors of Jack at WP:ACTOR shows the type of treatment he gives. He knows exactly what buttons to push on WHL to get her to respond in kind, and unfortunately she takes the bait way too often. Articles he showed up at are Cher, Charles Karel Bouley, Kate Winslet and the list goes on. He also goes to user talk pages where WHL is having a conversation with an editor like for instant User talk:Logical Fuzz and User talk:My account now (this one was proven to be a sock like she said it was.). These are just a few examples of Jack showing up to tell WHL whatever. There are a lot more of these but I feel this is enough of a sample to show that there is a problem that needs to be stopped. Thanks for taking the time to look, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: User WHL has a long history of reverting any changes she disagrees with as being 'against consensus'. This seems to be a clear case where there is no consensus to support her proposed change to color table headings (other than the usual suspects MikeAllen and CrohnieGal -strange that she accuses Jack of having a cabal or a cohort when these two seem to pop up in support of every controversial change she makes), yet she refuses to follow her own guidelines and leave well alone. Not only that, but to accuse a user of wikistalking her when in fact she is the one who is putting incivil and downright rude remarks about him on third-party editors' talk pages is utterly hypocritical. Suggest user WHL takes a long look at her own behaviour before drawing other editors to AN/I Little Professor (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Terima kasih, which is bahasa Indonesia for thank you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Professor, you have your agenda for showing up and commenting here. I can substantiate that too. Removing embedded notes, which you were told to stop ring a bell? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I do remember you taking ownership on several pages, using hidden embedded notes such as this to enforce your 'correct' version of the article and claiming consensus backs your view, when in fact the evidence would appear to the contrary. You have a history of ignoring other comments about your ownership issues, taking them as personal attacks rather than constructive feedback about your behaviour. It's perfectly appropriate for me to comment on this issue when it turns up on AN/I again, that's hardly 'having an agenda'. For the record, I couldn't give two hoots whether the first line of a table is grey or blue, which is why I haven't commented on the RFC or the Village Pump proposal. The issue is your pattern of behaviour in attacking another editor for violating your ownership of pages, and the tenuous/false claims of consensus to back your personal opinion, which several other editors have commented upon. Little Professor (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Professor, you would have been a lot better off actually bothering to hunt the diffs you think you need to slam me. Your diff "proofs" are all wet. The use of embedded notes like this one have frigging nothing to do with ownership, they are used to help maintain a standard. Meryl Streep's article frequently gets hit by someone returning "Academy Award-winning", that's not kosher per the MOS. Your "proof" for that is not in accordance with NPOV or the MOS nor is it standard accepted practice. This in fact did contain a personal attack and a suggestion that I leave Wikipedia. In fact, you have a strong history of inappropriate editing and reverts. Inappropriately reverting a talk page post as vandalism and "gayness". Removing talk page posts and referring to them as "rants" [5] and removing 3RR warnings with "uncivil"[6]. Then there are the reverts were you just lulz [7] after being approached for leaving a template for improper use of the minor check mark that automatically appears when using rollback, even when the post specifically points you to the page that confirmed that. Then we have your total misinterpretation of posts that allegedly confirm things that other editors have said. None of this covers ownership or claims of false consensus. I believe Crohnie is right, you don't have a firm grasp on what is going on. Your agenda stems from being overruled by an administrator when you tried to remove embedded notes from articles and the bad faith claim of ownership you tried to use. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack, with the seemingly dislike you have for all of us at WP:ACTOR, why did you sign up for it? --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment @ Little Professor, have you even looked at what this is about? I don't pop up at every situation and I also don't always agree with WHL. I tell her when I do not agree via email so that what I say can't be turned around and used against her. What you are saying above doesn't fit the situation at all. There was a consensus at WT:ACTOR for the template with the color at least the way I understood it. The discussion was ongoing when Jack took it upon himself to start deleting the color from the template and was told to stop doing it by an administrator. (dif upon request but I believe it is at Jack's talk page or the template page, I'd have to look). You are coming to aid a friend, good for you. I do not deny I am friends with WHL and never have. It is recorded in the history of my contributions. That being said, I don't come to a situation without looking into the what is going on and getting the facts straight. Unfortunately it doesn't look like you took the time to do that which is an important step to take. Sorry, but you are wrong about this and I gave some difs. I can get more if needed upon request. I am done for today but I just couldn't let that comment of your's stand unchallenged. Have a good night. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"You are coming to aid a friend" - to my knowledge I have never had any kind of interaction with Jack Merridew before. I'd appreciate it if you would either substantiate or withdraw that remark. Little Professor (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And I would greatly appreciate if you would withdraw your unseemly arbitrary comment of, "other than the usual suspects MikeAllen [...]". Thank you. Mike Allen 01:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Professor is absolutely correct. Just about every one of the many disputes WHL ends up in can be traced back to her habit of claiming ownership over articles, reverting edits she doesn't like as "against consensus", and being rude to the editors who made the edits.—Chowbok ☠ 17:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The original RfC was quite a mess, sprawling over multiple subjects. It also raised project-wide considerations at a local level. At WP:VPP, there is currently a proposal for a specific, targeted discussion on table top colors with a wider audience, and I imagine that conducting such is the only way to resolve this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl is probably right about that, but I don't think this current noticeboard cycle is about the color of the templates. JM seems resentful of WHL's efforts on actors/film articles. He seems to pick issues just to get a predictable response out of WHL. WHL then sees the issue as an attack on her and the article. And then JM comes back with a provocative edit like reverting the color in the templates. This is disruptive behavior. It seems like JM is just challenging WHL's dominance on these articles. I can understand why she might be looking at every thing he does now as an attack. I think JM is a good editor, but right now the issues are clouding his judgement. And it's come to the point where there's overreaction on both sides. JM, my advice is just drop the color issue and start finding common ground with WHL. She's really very easy to get along with, and you'll find you both have a lot more in common than you realize.Malke2010 14:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. Robofish (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As a note, I am working up a list of diffs to offer proof for wikistalking. That will be posted in a bit after I've assembled it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am working on assembling diffs regarding his wikistalking. It is a lot more involved and detailed than even I recall. I will finish it tomorrow and post it here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits not with consensus

I do want to note right now that Jack Merridew keeps reverting the filmography at Scarlett Johansson from using the template that DOES have consensus for use, to a sortable table, saying the "color" doesn't have consensus. In fact, however, the template does have it. I put the templates back in tonight and within two minutes he reverted with no explanation. He has done this repeatedly to this article. The template has consensus for use and this is quite typical of Jack's conduct toward me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack changes the template to what he believes is consensus, and he's "jumping the gun", but you change an article to what you think is consensus, and that's okay? I believe, it would be best if any of these types of edits were withheld until after the discussion is concluded. That way, we'll hopefully avoid any further edit warring or disputes or personal attacks or any such things.  Chickenmonkey  08:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, JackMerridew should not be changing anything right now. And WHL is correct, the consensus is there to keep it. What JackMerridew perceives to be consensus seems to be the problem here. And I was not aware that JackMerridew has been previously banned for wikistalking. Administrators should take note of this previous behavior. Any editor here who feels they are currently, or have been recently, stalked by JackMerridew, please post diffs for Admins to see.Malke2010 14:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, for clarity, the table was not employing the template until Wildhartlivie added it, while the discussion is still going on. Hopefully, after the page is unprotected (if that occurs before this discussion ends), it will be left, as is, until the discussion ends. There's no deadline for Wikipedia and there's no reason to make such an edit that will clearly be challenged and result in a needless edit war. It just makes sense: nobody should add the template anywhere during discussion and nobody should remove the template anywhere during discussion. That way, hopefully, personal attacks and some wikistress can be avoided.  Chickenmonkey  19:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Um no. Jack knows full well that there is consensus for the use of that template. Also, he is the one who first added the template [8]. Then a couple weeks later, he goes on his "make tables sortable" tear here. I objected then, [9]. Jack proceeded to revert each time the template was returned, at one point calling me a disruptive editor and saying don't be disruptive. His buddy Chowbok jumped in to revert someone else here, in support of Jack, something he often does. There is no consensus for use of a sortable table and to remove the template. Jack knows that. And remembering the non-consensus supported "Tables by Jack" only came up because I was asked above to prove that he wikistalks me. That he reverted my edit within 30 minutes is even more indication of stalking. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that this issue, on that article, occurred already is further reason to avoid making that edit until after the discussion has ended. Also, honestly, I saw the edit, too, and I was going to revert it in favor of waiting for the discussion to end (just as was done when Jack edited the template).  Chickenmonkey  01:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Jack didn't say he changed it because of a consensus. Please go read what he said. Then Chowbok who's not been in on any of the discussion that I'm aware of changed it back to what Jack wanted because Jack wanted it. Their only reasons are that the sortable is better which is their POV. It doens't matter the article has been protected to their version so they should be happy. As for me, I don't understand why I should have to discuss my reasoning and they can just go and do whatever they want to without waiting for a consensus. It makes no sense to me thus I'm done for now. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This was a staged provocation by WHL. The filmography for Scarlett Johansson has been sortable for more than a month and she chose this moment to edit war over it. It's been discussed at WT:ACTOR#Sortable tables, and like everything not to her liking, the thread has been tied in knots by her and her fellow club members. My view is that something useful, like sorting, is moar important than their blue. George Cukor#Filmography seems to have survived as sortable, for now... Sincerely, Jack Merridew 16:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refactor your personal attack. There are editors who agree with WHL just as there appears to be an editor agreeing with you which got the article protected. We are not club members. We are members of a wiki-project that you are also a member of. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

JM, I shouldn't have to point out to you that it's trivial to make the template version sortable (I just did it there and it took me three seconds). Disliking the colour is all well and good, but let's not go misleading people as to what this debate is over. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that will need to be reverted ASAP, I believe. Most of the filmography tables use rowspans on the years and the sorting goes quite amok on those. I suppose it could be made optional somehow, like it seems you've done with the colour, and that could be useful. Making the colour and option is interesting, but we'll need agreement on the usage of that... Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And it was all reverted out, both on non-consensus grounds and that it broke stuff. I'll check back later. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, Dude, you've created the lamest edit war.Malke2010 23:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it began about 9 months before I ever edited any of this stuff. You prolly need to read the RFC. Anyone who thinks this is just about 'blue' is missing most of this. It's about a clash between the technical realities of large scale software development and anyone can edit. Most editors are incompetent^{#1, not #2} to opine on technical concerns. See also: WP:RANDY. Jack Merridew 03:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ccacsmss

I feel reluctant to bring this up but I think I ought to. User:Ccacsmss has been active for over a year and specialises in highly focused edits which seem to entirely consist of stripping out Wikilinks, stripping out Wikilink piping and stripping out Wikilink redirection. The resultant Wikilinks often end up going to the wrong place. I can only describe his editing style as "autistic". There have been a number of warnings placed on his talk page and he was once suspended for 3 days. He still caries on regardless, mangling up around 20 or more Wikilinks a day. He has never commented on his own talk page to criticisms made by others and rarely uses edit summaries. He seems to operate on all topics throughout Wikipedia. He is obviously not a malicious vandal, but you have to ask yourself just what is the point of his Wikipedia career continually mangling Wikilinks at a rate of about 20 or more a day ? I doubt if he would take any notice of warnings or anything else on his talk page or would another suspension change his behaviour.--Penbat (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Has been dispatched for two weeks by another admin. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that this user's contributions are often not very helpful, but I also don't think it's great to describe another editor or their work as "autistic". WP:NPA, please. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

If you have a better term for editors who decline to discuss their contributions as Ccacsmss has failed to, please provide it. Over the last few years I've seen an increasing number of editors reported here who demonstrate similar symptoms which may be diagnosed as autism, & the best practice for dealing with them has come to be an indefinite block -- not permanent, just until the individual shows she/he can communicate. And calling them "autistic", regardless of the implications, seems to be the most appropriate term -- & far better than using a term like "jerk". -- llywrch (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We have a bunch of editors here who self-identify via userboxes, or otherwise, as autistic, or Asperger's, or otherwise. That may make their good-faith, although unusual edits a challenge to deal with. However, I don't think it is up to us to label editors or their edits in such non-neutral and pejorative terms. I've encountered many editors in my time here whose editing shows what one might call a "non-linear style"; but their edits, and their comments, have been (one you care to scratch the surface), valuable input. Care, please. Rodhullandemu 01:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that applying labels like "autistic" to editors is wrong. Even a real psychiatrist would not make such a diagnosis based on examining one's wikipedia behavior. However, I think it should be a requirement that one be willing to discuss one's edits with his fellow editors if necessary. Being unwilling or unable to do that, for whatever reason, is a major problem. One I'm addressing in an essay I'm working on. It's annoying to go to ones talk page and see loads of warnings, image copyright notices and various WTFs and the editor in question has zero edits to any talkspace.

That being said, I also acknowledge that there may be some with interactive communication problems who still might be able to make useful contributions. In such cases it might be useful for them to have a mentor who understands what they are doing to "speak for them" if anything they are doing is challenged. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That all may be the case. And if an editor self-identifies as being autistic or having Asperger's, while it might draw negative attention to the person doing so still puts them in a different category than these problematic editors. (I'll happily defend an autistic/Asperger's syndrome editor's right to edit. As long as she/he is willing to discuss her/his edits.) However, I hold that the problem is not with the label, but the lack of response to any attempts made in good faith to talk to them -- & getting a general approval to handle these folks appropriately. (The only problematic editor who was arguably autistic I can remember dealing with here was already indefinitely blocked before that fact came to light.) Give me a label for these kinds of editors, & I'll be happy. Otherwise, to avoid unnecessarily extending threads for using language like "this user is unresponsive", I may need to use this term because it is an understandable shorthand term for saying "I've been breaking clue-by-fours over this editor's head to get her/his attention & I still can't get a response. Can I block this person before more articles are mangled?" -- llywrch (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Can an article have two RfCs about the same topic?

I set up an RfC at Mass killings under Communist regimes requesting input into how or whether to discuss allegations of genocide against the Romanian leader, Nicolae Ceausescu, since there was a huge discrepancy between the figures used in his 1989 trial and figures accepted by historians. User:Marknutley joined the discussion at the RfC but has now set up a second RfC and reversed my reference to the first RfC when I added it to his RfC[10], and posted the following message to my talk page: "Per WP:TPO i have reverted your editing of my posts, please do not do this again. The issues are separate and your rfc has no place in the one i just started, thank you".[11]

There are now two live RfCs on Ceausescu, although phrased differently:

• Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#RfC: How should allegations that Ceausescu committed genocide be described?
• Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#Request For Comment

This appears to me to be disruptive. Is there any policy on two RfCs? Should the second RfC at least mention that the topic is covered by another RfC? Can additional editors now add a third or a fourth RfC on Ceausescu?

TFD (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two rfc`s as they are separate issues, the rfc i set up is to get input on reliably sourced content which has been removed, the one you set up is, well i`m not to sure what it`s for to be honest, you seem to want to talk about the uprising, my edit was about the actual killings over the course of the regime. So as you see they are separate issues. mark nutley (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean:

• Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#How should allegations that Ceausescu committed genocide be described?
• Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#Request For Comment

N/A0 03:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you were "not to sure what it`s for to be honest" about the first RfC why did you not say that when you responded to it? TFD (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What i meant is that you requested comment, i gave a comment along with reliable sources. You rubbished them, and continue to rubbish them even though one is the BBC so what i am saying is i`m unsure why you asked for comment when the sources clearly state something and yet you refuse to listen, why even bother to RFC? mark nutley (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

From reading the first RfC, it appears the disagreement is not whether figures the BBC (or another source) provide are reliable, but that the figures changed as time went on -- from 60,000 killed to as few as 97 -- & should the article cite the original numbers, or the later & smaller numbers? If you disagree with TFD's response, the proper thing to do is to work within the existing RfC (even if it is contentious), not to start your own, effectively identical, RfC. Doing so is not going to convince anyone to agree with you, but it will make you appear, at best, as if you don't know what you are doing. -- llywrch (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry no, TFD`s rfc is for how many died during the uprising, the one i did are sources which cover the entire regime. These are separate issuses mark nutley (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry no, you you would rather split hairs than listening to what I am saying. Which means you are being disruptive. You are walking on thin ice here, friend. -- llywrch (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(out) Actually the insistence that they are the same topic is where the error lies. One refers to a specific person, the other to the criminal convictions of others etc. Collect (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The first RfC refers to "Ceausescu" while the second RfC refers to both Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu. TFD (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The first RfC is ranging far & wide -- with the expected heated words which follow every time Communism is mentioned -- so it's hard to say exactly what it's about. But instead of trying to help herd that discussion into useful channels, mark nutley decided to start his own RfC -- apparently because TFD "rubbished" his "comment with reliable sources". I'd say the discussion on this article appears to be falling apart, & unless someone with the time & acumen steps in & gets it back on track, it'll only get worse. -- llywrch (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-identifying minor

Resolved

 – User:FiGhT 12 is deleted for containing personal information. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Some eyes on User:FiGhT 12 required. It's something of a vanity page with lots of identifying information for both himself and his family. I believe standard practice is deletion or oversight, but I'll let someone else be the judge of that.--Atlan (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:UP#NOT? "A weblog recording your non-Wikipedia activities"? We all have a bit of self-identifying hobbies or personal taste on our boxes, but this might be a little too much? There is nothing about Wikipedia on there. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing too personal. I've left a message notifying the user that they might want to remove it due to privacy concerns. Netalarm^talk 09:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Names and surnames of himself and family members who probably aren't aware of being mentioned here, along with the place of residence, is not too personal? I disagree. The Arbcom resolution states personal information of minors may be removed. This vanity page might normally be removed in spite of that.--Atlan (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Meh, probably because I'm older than the user in question, I'm more okay with information like that. CSD tag the page and counsel the user on Internet privacy? Netalarm^talk 09:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the page - my apologies (particularly to Netalarm) for short-circuiting discussion, but I think it's better to err on the side of caution where minors are involved. EyeSerene^talk 10:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Netalarm, It doesn't matter whether the minor is okay with the information being displayed. Deleting the page is a measure of protection for the minor. This is not covered by any speedy deletion criterion, hence I brought it here for discussion.--Atlan (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And while the kid himself might be perfectly fine with it, the other named people there - the parents, sisters, school etc - might have a completely different view of it! I support EyeSerene's deletion and Atlan did the right thing bringing it to admin attention; things like this aren't worth mucking around with and it's really better just to get rid of it. Sarah 12:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone might want to refer the editor to some version of the Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors page I once drafted. In my view, the importance of removing such information depends in large measure upon the age of the minor—11-year-old editors and 17-year-old editors are not the same thing. Also, in some instances, it may be appropriate to offer to re-post the deleted page, minus the identifying information, to reinforce that the step taken is meant a protective and not a punitive or unwelcoming one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Newyorkbrad, I'd forgotten that essay existed. I'll leave a link. I'm not completely convinced about offering to restore the page - as others have pointed out, it was perhaps inappropriate in other ways too (though I didn't mention that on their talkpage as I didn't want to hit them with too much at once). I have absolutely no objection to you or anyone else making the offer though :) EyeSerene^talk 11:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this specific page. It was just a general comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That was how I read it, but I wasn't sure (and even if you had, the other issues are subjective so nothing I would argue strongly against anyway). Thanks for clarifying :) EyeSerene^talk 11:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I was more lenient toward that user page because I felt the user knew what he was doing (the risks, privacy invasion, etc.), but I've already forgotten how old he was (I haven't slept for 24 hours - been on a flight xD). Yes, I agree that minors need to be protected on Wikipedia, but I also think they should be allowed to do what they want in regards to their information, as long as it does not put them at risk. Age is an important factor in this decision, so it would be different if this user was 17. I personally would also support deletion of the page, but with some coaching of the editor on the risks of doing that. I recall there was another editor that did this a while ago, but I probably just reported it on IRC. It seems to me that basic elementary school education would have taught these minors that revealing personal information is inappropriate - particularly in a public environment. Guess they aren't doing their job... Anyway, I'm going to sleep soon. Netalarm^talk 12:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Determined anon IP spammers

Can someone either block these IPs or initiate a rangeblock if appropriate? A few anon IPs from India keep spamming their website all over the wiki, wiping out inline references and external links in the process [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. I put a request in at the spam blacklist but there is a huge backlog going to May 25. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, looks like someone at the blacklist page is taking care of it after all. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: The same IP range, plus some throwaway accounts, are now spamming another URL, perhaps a mirror of the same domain. [20], [21]. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The articles have been protected, so it shouldn't be a problem now. Netalarm^talk 21:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? MER-C 05:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted and semi-protected it, MER-C. Sarah 05:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. This guy indeed spams a lot of articles... Netalarm^talk 06:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Rayovac Company article - reads like an advertisement?

I'm not sure that I'm in the right place to be asking this question, but I strongly believe that the current revision (as well as those immediately prior) of the Rayovac article reads a lot like an advertisement. I tagged it as such, although I wasn't terribly sure about doing so.

Today that tag is gone, and I think I ought to bring this to someone's attention, because I do feel that the article in its present form IS basically an advertisement and should be identified as such. I do not wish to start or contribute to an "edit war", therefore I am seeking guidance and assistance here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.251.100.162 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-added advert tag; that is not how a company article should be written. HalfShadow 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it looks like several editors are working on the article now. For the record, Christine.anderson (talk · contribs) appears to be an SPA account - its only edits are to turn that article into the previous mess. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks much better now, and doesn't sound so much like an advertisement. Good work to the people working on the article! —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I have proposed that Rayovac be merged into Spectrum Brands. – ukexpat (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User Mk5384

Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is currently on a 1-week block following up on a 55-hour block for various forms of contentiousness. Venting is one thing, but he's threatening to sock and "settle scores" with various editors.[22] His talk page access is currently blocked, but I have notified him of this posting nonetheless. I pose this as a question of whether he should be indef'd and/or banned. I'm just one of many that he had a run-in with on the Black Jack Pershing article, and his approach seems to have gone on from there after he lost that battle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I had intended to bring up MK's behavior at RFC/UC, but this has now taken a much more serious tone. MK has been involved in a string of disruptive edits, personal attacks, and harassment like edits for quite some time. The complete listing of evidence links (which I had planned to use for the RFC) can be found here. -OberRanks (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an RFC would be more productive than a discussion here. This editor clearly wants to make good contributions, but is having a really bad week. It must seem that everyone is against MK, and no one wants to talk about the real issues (as MK sees them). In my experience, "Unblock request / declined" is not a good venue for resolving such situations; nor is AN/I. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A bad week dating back to March? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, RFC would probably be best. In addition, if MK does return after his block and engages in even more personal attacks, it is likely he will receive an extremely lengthy block in any event. Same can be said if he uses sockpuppet accounts of ips while blocked during the next week. -OberRanks (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think an RFC/U would be a necessary first step here -- we shouldn't jump straight to a ban discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of holding off with the RFC/U until MK5384 is in a position to respond? Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How about we open a RFC/U, but let him have access to his talk page, so someone can post what he posts on his talk page to the RFC? Then he would be in a position to respond. If he abuses his talk page rights again, he can be reblocked without talk page access, and the RFC will go on without his opinion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I had not planned to file the RFC until after MK was unblocked plus a few days as well to give the editor time to ease back into editing and perhaps calm down a bit. It still might not be necessary if MK returns, agrees to work with others, and does not continue to engage in disruptive behavior. Its really up to MK at this point. And, in addition, we're not dealing with a vandal or a troll, we're dealing with a productive editor who needs some help. I truly believe there is hope here. -OberRanks (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that the threat to sock and settle scores was just bluster. If nothing of that sort apparently happens during the next week, maybe we should forget about that and just focus on future behavior issues, if any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would an RfC be a necessary first step? A block is to prevent disruption. We have an open ended threat of disruption. He should be indef'd until such a time that the community is satisfied there is no further thread of disruption. Has an RfC on a user ever solved anything? ever?--Crossmr (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

ObDisclose: I'm the "corrupt admin" that issued the initial 55 hour block, based on block record, and ignoring warnings and advice given to change approach. I have no strong view on what the appropriate next step is, just wanted to self-identify. Would be happy to see an outcome that ended up retaining a productive editor but lost the troublesome behavior. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Doubt so, read WP:OWB for more details. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block

Considering the unsettling behavior and threating of block evasion, this leads me to believe that sooner or later we will have to eventually block him indefinitely. I agree on Crossmr's statement that requesting for comment on a user's conduct will never fix anything. Rohedin ^TALK 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User Izsu

Resolved

This editor has been engaging in dubious editing on the article Hyuna, such as with this edit where he claimed that he was removing a dead image. When I try warning him, he leaves identical warnings on my talk such as here and here. I also have the suspicion that he is yet another sockpuppet of EunSun, but I can't be certain. Sorafune +1 20:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User Sorafune

See talk page Talk:Hyuna Izsu (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Note I've reduced the heading level, since this is the same incident (involving the same parties) as the topic above. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. What am I being accused of? And where was my notification? Sorafune +1 22:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This issue seems to be resolved, as the 2 editors have agreed on text acceptable to both of them. See Talk:Hyuna for more details. Netalarm^talk 06:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Remarks deserving of a block?

Resolved

 – KevinOKeeffe (talk · contribs) warned by Black Kite. Please, stop this drama, now. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 09:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On Talk:Taylor Lautner, User:KevinOKeeffe made this remark: "Here is a potentially useful link (catamite) for a Personal Life section for the article". This is clearly in violation of BLP policy and is possibly homophobic, coming from a user with a userbox that states "This user believes a marriage consists only of one man and one woman" (although less interesting than the userbox which identifies them as a white supremacist). At what point do comments like this cross the line into blockable offences? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, given that the diff is two days old, a block isn't in the running, but I'll warn the user. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I kinda went into troll mode that day (which I obviously shouldn't have done, and which really isn't characteristic of my activities here), because I was so tired of some other person mentioning that character in an annoying context (at another site). Although I didn't realize that posting goofy comments on a Talk page constituted vandalism (or that I was under some sort of formal obligation to be pro-homosexual marriage, as the complaint seems to imply; I'm merely one of over 52.2 percent of the California electorate that adhere to the opinion that marriage consists only of one man and one woman). Anyhoo, now that I know trolling a Talk page comes under the heading of vandalism, rather than merely "being a jerk," I will restrain myself in the event I decide I want to do something like that in the future.

By the way, posting a link to National-Anarchism, and then using a "|" character in order to mislabel it as "white supremacist," is dishonest bullshit. If you're going to make these kinds of complaints, Carbuncle, it behooves one not to pull shenanigans in an ethically similar vein while so doing. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand what "a revolutionary vanguard in the race struggle" means. Would "racist organizsation" be a more acceptable term to you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Signing another users signature

Resolved

 – editor unblocked and asked to cite diffs. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

At a talk page of a protected (for edit warring) page, one party actually impersonated the other. I actually took this as the person when reading the discussion and agreeing to a consensus edit-request. I was notified of some anomalies before finding this impersonation myself. I consider this to be very deceitful and the user has had a previous block for gaming disucssions. I have a strong mind to block the user but I realise blocks are preventative rather than punitive and perhaps I am not the best person to judge given the user made me look like a bit of an idiot. I would appreciate advice, and if an uninvolved and more experienced admin (wrt blocks) could take a look it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I blocked them for 48 hours, that's deceitful and unacceptable and just plain disruptive. Imo the block serves to prevent further such talk page disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you jumped the gun there. While not an optimal way to do it, it appears he is quoting Jason accepting this edit here. He seems to be moving a comment about the quote to the {{editprotected}} section. Worth an explanatory note about why this is a bad idea, yes, but on it's own, not a blocking issue, and doesn't appear to be an attempt at deception. It appears other things are going on at the talk page, however, so maybe leave to requested edit out for now? Suggest unblocking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with Floquenbeam who I edit conflicted with. I don't think their intent was to impersonate. It looks more like they were pointing out where Jason Riverdale said in the section above the edit request that he agreed with inclusion (of what I don't know...didn't bother reading the discussion itself.) --Onorem♠Dil

Looks to me as though they only need learn how to cite diffs. Hopefully an unblock will be forthcoming. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Per HJ's comment on his talk page that he's OK with an admin overturning his actions, I've unblocked. Tao's reaction was poor, but somewhat understandable, and I didn't want him to get more agitated waiting for HJ to see this, and say something he would regret. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for starting this misunderstanding in the first place, and thanks for cleaning things up, all. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

user Jimgrn

Resolved

 – Jimgrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef by Evil saltine. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimgrn (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA that started editing 28 April 2010. The majority of his edits have been to promote diabetic socks, copying content from http://www.diabeticssupportsocks.com (registered to a Jim Green with an email address that begins with "jimgrn") and from entries in the corresponding blog ( http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/diabetics-support-socks/7250bf2bd950fd40d680d049742d6401 and http://www.blogcatalog.com/blog/diabetics-support-socks/66c8e9abe1da085d4661c01db48bb9ed ). He's yet to respond to the coi, copyright, spam, and advertising notices on his talk page. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jimgrn has been indef-blocked. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Allegation of "puerile heckling"

• 19:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC): John made this edit.
• 19:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC): Nev1 accused John of "puerile heckling" in this edit.
• Discussion ensued on User talk:Nev1#.22Puerile_Heckling.22.

  — Jeff G. ツ 01:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the noticeboard for things which require immediate administrative attention, not the noticeboard to alert everyone that two editors got into a silly little fight over nothing. Incidentally, {{UV}} needs curly brackets rather than square ones: all you've done is linked to the UV article twice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Dawnseeker2000 Vandalizing Talk Pages

Dawnseeker2000 has vandalized a talk page [23]. I warned the user here [24] and it should be also noted that the user misused the minor flag when deleting my warning and called it ridiculous.

The user then threatened me on my talk page for mis-use of the warning template [25] TheZachDOTnet (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how Dawnseeker was vandalizing. Kindly explain? Kindzmarauli (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Dawnseeker2000 clearly made Discussion page vandalism, and Modifying users' comments both of which are listed in Wikipedia:Vandalism with this edit [26] TheZachDOTnet (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, our discussion of the Amateur Radio Emergency Service article has gotten out of hand. I am at fault as much as anyone here. I've been around Wikipedia for some time. The "vandalism" Zach is referring to is when I removed a link to a section on that page. I left an edit summary saying why, but that's the thing that is being called vandalism. Dawnseeker2000 02:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no vandalism here. The removal, while not the best idea, was justified in the edit summary. Now, forgive my lack of AGF, i must be getting tires, but how does one find ANI in their 8th ever edit? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

lol. yeah, that is a good one. I really did laugh out loud there. Well, again, we've been butting heads a bit, and he's being editing as an ip for a few days, and just got the account going an hour or so ago. Dawnseeker2000 02:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a real problem here, as Dawnseeker200's intentions were good. The edit summary clearly explains why that confusing link was removed. Regarding the reporting user, his actions are quite peculiar. I'm not sure how he found AfD on his first day as a registered user, but he's already made 3 nominations today, all with very simple reasons. Netalarm^talk 06:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, HJ's point is well taken. WP:DUCK if you ask me, AGF or no. Jusdafax 07:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

...and is a userid that advertises his personal website really valid anyway? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I ran across this after the editor filed a EW/N report on Dawnseeker over the same dispute. Good faith or no, it looks like an editor has found the process pages before the content pages. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the editor (I presume the same person based on behavior and account age) was editing as an IP for some time prior to creating the account. That's not a violation of any policy to then go and create an account. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Murderdan537 expunging information regarding Cuban communism

Murderdan537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I first became aware of User:Murderdan537 because he blanked without comment a section of an article I patrol. Then twice again. Looking back over his edit history, most of his edits are to sanitize information about Cuban communism, swapping existing information for his own POV. Many times this completely reverses the meaning of the intended passages. Terrorists are not always freedom-fighters, dictatorships are not always revolutionaries, and so on. Those terms and those articles have very specific meanings and don't need to be manipulated by this user. Someone please have a look. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

When I went to notify this user, note they have been blanking out warnings on their talkpage to hide them. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to providing any evidence such as diff to support your claims TheZachDOTnet (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Murderdan537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked 24h by Cirt for vandalism. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I may be a little late to the party here, but I still want to chip in. You accuse the user of POV pushing, but the articles he edits have an anti-cuban POV. For example his last edit to Scouts-in-extris is perfectly neutral and you are the person pushing a POV insisting on terms as "totalitarian" and "regime". [27]. The article Corruption in Cuba has a POV tag for a reason as it is extremely one-sided and Politics of Cuba should probably get one as well, looking at some of the statements made. Yes this is all sourced information and he deleted some of that without comment, I am not defending that. I think accusing him POV pushing is not fair though, as he only tries to obtain a NPOV in articles about Cuba. Further more blanking warnings is allowed per WP:blanking and your insistent re-adding of the warning template was totally uncalled for. Yoenit (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm... that doesn't make much sense. If there are lots of reliable sources calling it totalitarian, then it's not POV to call it totalitarian. And how exactly is "regime" supposed to be POV? It refers to a government or governing philosophy. Shimeru 09:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that certain countries (the USA for example) have a very different view of Cuba to the rest of the world. If you buy Bacardi in the US, it is labelled as Puerto Rican rather than Cuban, because there is an embargo on goods from Cuba. Referring to Cuba as a "totalitarian regime" comes as second nature if you've seen that sort of terminology used by the media all your life. Cubans are portrayed, if at all, only as people desperate to emigrate to the US. And so on. When one factors in the high proportion of American wikipedia editors, the current situation becomes more understandable, I think. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be thinking of Havana Club: genuine in most countries but a Bacardi copy in the US. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 13:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue with "regime" is that it has a negative ring to it. I know the dictionary doesn't say so, but have you ever heard it being applied to the US government? if not, than why should we refer to the Cuban government as such? Totalitarian is a term historically applied to Nazi Germany and the Sovjet Union under Stalin and is also very negative.Yoenit (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have heard the word "regime" applied to the US government, but mostly by the Tea Party movement, so I can see that it might be seen to have negative connotations. Still, "totalitarian" is clearly NPOV. Anyone got a neutral synonym for "regime" (unless, of course, that term is used in the sources.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

AAPS/ABPS Content Challenge

Resolved

Hi all. I have been helping out at the WP:EAR board, and the following inquiry came in today:

Dear Editor:

I am writing to challenge misleading information that we believe has intentionally been placed into the Wikipedia pages of the American Association of Physician Specialists, Inc. (AAPS), and its certifying affiliate, the American Board of Physician Specialties (ABPS). This information is intended to cause confusion among individuals and groups interested in physician board certification. Further, this information will mislead the reader to believe that AAPS/ABPS is “unique” and differs from the standards and qualifications of the other the four organizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Physician_Specialists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Board_of_Physician_Specialties

The current information states that ABPS will grant board certification in a particular specialty to a physician who has NOT completed residency training in that specialty. We have 17 boards of certification and all but one require an approved residency in that specific specialty. The only exceptions is emergency medicine because it involves other critical medical disciplines.

Here are some ways that ABPS does itself apart from the other nationally recognized bodies: (1) The first to incorporate public members into its boards of certification; (2) Only certifying body to require a full day of non remedial medical ethics course as a condition for recertification; (3) Never has provided lifetime certification; (4) Limits the number of certification and recertification attempts; (5) Requires non restricted medical licensure as a condition of annual certification. (6 ) Annual MOL Attestation of Full Unrestricted Medical License as a recurring condition for board certification (7) No membership prerequisite required

Please inform us on the next step of the process to correct the record on the information related to ABPS board certifications.

It turns out that all the sketchy material was added on March 13, 2010 by User:Awikiwalkermd. I think all this user's edits may need to be checked as it looks like they made about 20 unsourced changes to a whole group of medicine-related articles on that day and have not edited since. Perhaps all these changes need to be removed? I am not an admin but merely an interested civilian and not sure how to handle this request for help. Thanks. --Diannaa ^TALK 04:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted Awikiwalkermd's edits to those articles. I don't think this requires admin intervention, however, as it's really an editorial issue and should merely be handled as such, i.e. check his edits and remove them as necessary. What I've looked at so far have been completely unsourced so they can be removed on that basis. I will leave him a message on his talk page but he is not a regular editor -he has only made 19 edits and they were all done in succession on the same day back in March and he doesn't seem to have returned since then. He seems to have made the edits in good faith rather than with some kind of malicious intent, so as I said, I don't think this requires any admin intervention at this stage. Sarah 04:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah. Diannaa ^TALK 04:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I've removed the material from the articles and I've left the original editor a message and some introductory links. I've also left a message for the ABPS fellow telling him how to deal with content concerns, how to contact OTRS and use talk pages etc, so I've marked this as resolved. Cheers, Sarah 05:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Curious IP disruption from multiple addresses

I've been presented with a case on my talk pages that is getting a little confusing, having evolved from some disruption and pov issues raised at a previous ANI thread with which I dealt with.

• Here is the original complaint.

Here are the three IPs involved.

• 94.116.37.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - blocked temporarily
• 69.110.12.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warned
• 68.122.34.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - warned

The -43 IP was reported for [28] [29], the -49 for [30] and -189 for [31]. Originally I took most to be pretty tame apart from the -43, which was blocked. The others were warned.

Subsequently, -49 has left this innapropriate vandal warning to advance its agenda by implying counter-agendas are illicit. A new IP, 69.110.17.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has done the same here and 67.180.26.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has done this and this.

The IPs seem to be following Hertz1888 (talk · contribs · logs) and Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs · logs) around, reverting or changing content and disagreeing on articles relating to Israel, Palestine, Six-Day War and someone called Caroline Glick. I suspect there are ArbCom sanctions relating to Palestinian or Israeli topics, however I am not fully familiar with them.

The IPs are hopping all over the place, making warnings and blocks difficult, please advise. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone informed. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Two more IPs have popped up and I believe they are connected to the ones noted above. They are 69.110.8.85 and 99.132.106.62.

• These are 69.110.8.85 contributions. They focus on the Gaza War and Caroline Glick

• These are 99.132.106.62 contributions They also focus on the Gaza War and Caroline Glick and there’s also one edit on the Six Day War.

--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the IPs except 94.116.37.43 trace to California, so I'm assuming they're the same person. 94.116.37.43 traces to the UK. I believe assuming that the IPs except -43 are the same person would be beneficial in this case. Netalarm^talk 06:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

Please see User talk:XxxL0ST.S0ULxxx for a threat of legal action following the A7 deletion of an autobiography. The user has said "if I EVER see an article listing either myself, or D.O.T.S.; and full moderative control is not in my hands, then I WILL sue not just Wikipedia, but I will seek legal action against every one of you." Gonzonoir (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked pending withdrawal of the threat. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Stifle. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of gigantic nonfree image without fair use justification

Resolved

 – Blocked, block expired, discussion at talkpage ongoing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Horkana has, within the last day or so, three times added (eg [32]) a huge nonfree image (magazine cover) to Jessica Biel, without providing a fair use justification for including the image in the article, apparently on the basis thst calling the image a "reference" overrides any requirements for justifying the use of nonfree images; the user is also removing a related fact/citation needed tag, despite acknowledging that the image does not support the claims the fact tag relates to. The image, as displayed, is about the same size as the main article text, and makes most of the other reference listings unreadable; it is purely illustrative, and fails the nonfree use justification standards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Warned Horkana about edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

How could a non-free image rationale be required for a link, the image is not even being displayed, only a textual link? It is a waste not to refer to the image in some way or another, what is the best way to make it clear to readers this is available? I will use Template:External media instead. -- Horkana (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and have replied at Talk:Jessica Biel. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Horkana inserted it again, so I blocked for 3 hours for edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation headache

Hi. I know this probably isn't the right venue, but I need someone to have a look at a technical wikimarkup problem, and in the Venn diagram of wikipedia users and people who can fix my problem, administrators are most likely to be in that big group in the middle.

Would you mind having a look at the citation formatting on Chester Cathedral for me? For some reason in the notes, clicking the blue linked 'Nuttal', 'Home', 'Starkey' and 'Clifton-Taylor' correctly zooms you down to the relevant section in the Bibliography; but that doesn't seem to be working for the other references. Any idea why? - I've been slowly losing my sanity looking at the code and can find no differences between the two to suggest an explanation. I'm probably to close to it. Thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

See the second-to-last usage note in Template:Harvard citation no brackets. NW (Talk) 14:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful - many thanks NW. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dah - sorry to report that putting the space after the year doesn't seem to have worked...... any other ideas? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Truthkeeper88 has solved it for me. He's not an admin....you should probably make him one to stop you all looking foolish at times like this  :-) --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I should add my thanks to all who tried....but failed :-) --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Confusing behavor from User:SergeWoodzing - is this truly correct?

I am not sure if I am doing the right thing, but I have noticed some issues with a user, whom I have encountered myself on various occassions. The user has frequently behaved in an offensive manner on talk-pages :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richeza_of_Sweden,_Queen_of_Poland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eric_Goodyear_of_Sweden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.44.13 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Countess_Palatine_Eleonora_Catherine_of_Zweibrucken

A part from this way of communicating, I have noticed something which may indicate another form of misbehaviour. I am not sure what the wikipedia-term is, so I am not sure were to put this report. I will not describe the question itself, as that will be handled (I hope) on the article in question. But I will describe the acts made:

A contemporary caricature was resently removed from the article: Sofia Magdalena of Denmark.

The difficulty with this act is, that the presence of this drawing has been well and thoroughly discussed and debated on Swedish wikipedia, and the descision was keep. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Sofia_Magdalena_av_Danmark

The caricature was removed from here with the given allegations : it is “porno”, and it was first published in 1987.

The same reason was given when the caricature was questioned on Swedish wp also, and there, those reasons were voted down as insufficient.

Here, the removal of the drawing are likely to cause much less opposition than on Swedish wp, were there are of course more people likely to become engaged and have knowledge about the subject, as it is the country native to the subject.

It was removed from here with the claim, that the caricature was first published in 1987. This claim was also addressed and voted down in the discussion on Swedish wp.

No reference were given for this : the claim is referenced, not with a book, but with a claim, put in the reference section, to make it look like a reference.

The drawing has only ever been questioned by one person sv:User:EmilEikS.

sv:User:EmilEikS has left Swedish language wp. He was there suspected of having been the same user as sv:User:SergeWoodzing. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bybrunnen/Arkiv/2009/Augusti#EmilEikS.2C_SergeWoodzing_et_consortes

When he left, he claimed to have left his watchlist, etc, to .

In English language wikipedia, en:User:EmilEikS has been blocked for sock-puppetting http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&oldid=276769373#Requesting_wider_block_for_block_evading_sock_puppet

And: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive519&action=edit&section=79

When questioning this image on Swedish wp, sv:User:EmilEikS made the very same claims to why it should be removed, as en:User:SergeWoodzing has now given to its removal from the article on English wp. These reasons were not considered adequate on Swedish wp, but the matter is not likely to arouse the same engagement here, so it may therefore be easier to remove it from here without drawing any attention, while it would be much questioned had it been done in Swedish wp. There, the descision is to keep; here, it has not even been discussed. EmilEiks was also reprimaned for his offensive way of communicating, and his emotional arguments, such as the claim that the drawing should be removed because it is offensive to the memory of the royal couple, which is not an argument in accordance to NPOV.

Does the above break any rules? I am not familiar enough with the rules to know this, or to know if this is the right place to put this report. I willingly admit myself to be ignorant regarding the rules of wikipedia. I do edit quite often, but I am ignorant, som maybe I overeact and nothing wrong has been done: I do not know. If I have overeacted, I hope I have not caused any trouble for this user, as he has also done many good things in Wikipedia. I also freely admit, that I have had heated discussions with this user in both Swedish and English wikipedia, and therefore, I may be bias without being aware of it myself.

I am not quite sure that I have reported this correctly. I hope it is correct for an IP to report a user. If I have broken any regulations by doing so, I offer my apology, but I could not help to find this somewhat peculiar. I hope I have done the right thing. Thank you. --85.226.44.13 (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Block review: User:Valkyrie Red

Valkyrie Red (talk · contribs)

I've just reblocked the above user for continued violations of WP:BATTLE, disruptive editing, inappropriate canvassing as well as a personal attack here on one of the users he opened a battleground with. My action and intent were focussed on Talk:Trojan War, and it is only after I blocked that I took the time to read his submission at WP:WQA that appears to be about me (without him having notified me).

I affirm that my block was issued in good faith and in ignorance of his claims against me, but as he started action against me, I request a community review of the block, as leaving it standing unreviewed under these circumstances would not be proper. Thanks. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see more diffs supporting the month-long block. I'm entirely willing to assume your good faith here, but reading the past couple of days worth of diffs, I'm not seeing grounds for a one-month block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Compiling... Note that the length is due to repeated previous blocks for the same offenses. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm involved at the dispute at Talk:Trojan War. I don't think that Valkyrie's participation has been all that constructive, but I'm surprised to see a block. I see violations of WP:BATTLE, perhaps of WP:CANVAS. The personal attack listed here is small potatoes. Valkyrie has previous blocks, and in general seems excessively combative and unwilling to let matters drop...but I'm having trouble seeing how this justifies a block, let alone a month-long one. I would recommend unblocking, with the hope that Valkyrie understands certain elements of his editing are unhelpful. Perhaps a time-limited topic ban from Trojan War should be considered, but uninvolved editors should comment on whether that's necessary. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Diffs:

• Opening a new battleground straight off his previous 2-week block for similar offenses.WP:ABF on the rest of the editors
• [33] Another battleground at Talk:Kesha
• disruptive removal of several other users' comments
• [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Hostile and antagonizing replies to reasonable objections
• [39] [40] [41] (after one of the contributors previously roughly agreeing with him moved to a compromise) [42] Inappropriate canvassing and further violations of WP:BATTLE
• PA on one of the editors in the opposing camp, the final straw.

While none of these taken individually may appear particularly damning, this is a long-standing pattern of disruption.

If you go back to his contrib history beyond his previous block, you will notice that this user always uses similar tactics: picking up a (seemingly) minor issue on which there was a previously standing consensus, aggressively arguing while assuming bad faith and casting aspersions, canvassing others with biased statements, refusal to hear or acknowledge arguments, misstating other editor's positions, claiming consensus where there is none, but beyond that, every single time, it's not about doing what's good for whatever article he's fighting on, it's about winning. When he doesn't get his way, he eventually resorts to PAs.

After a block expires he moves on to other articles and resumes the same style of disruption with other editors. As there is a consistent refusal to get the point, a month-long block after multiple previous blocks for similar reasons appeared appropriate (and in-line with a prior warning, see lower part of his talk page here if you still have the patience). MLauba ^(Talk) 17:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That last link was the most-useful one, actually. I'd recommend letting someone else block next time, but I think this one was indeed justifiable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Still doesn't see that it's his problem. The points he brings up aren't all that outrageous, but it's his continued aggressive behavior and his seeking of arguments that's really getting old and disruptive. I'm going to mark the Wikiquette alert as resolved now. Netalarm^talk 18:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

With the additional diffs I'm less surprised by this block, but I have to say that I see other editors getting away with this kind of behavior all the time. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Need help with disruptive and antagonistic Wiki user

User QueryOne‎ has, since March 2010, been acting and editing in a disruptive and uncooperative manner, which I believe to be at odds with Wikipedia's goals, the goals of his fellow editors, and the welfare of the larger Wikipedia community. This user has repeatedly gone on disruptive editing sprees, resulting in the following ...

• Deleting factually correct information that is supported by reliable inline citations—particularly musical genres in infoboxes (see "Eight Miles High", "Walk Away Renée" and The Left Banke).
• Falsely accusing other users of Vandalism on multiple occasions (see QueryOne‎'s talk page and various edit summaries).
• Refusing to seek consensus with other editors regarding controversial edits and thus, perpetuating edit wars (see the edit summary and talk page of "Eight Miles High").
• Persistent wikihounding of Freshacconci, in an attempt to keep reverting his edits (see J. G. Ballard and "Walk Away Renée").
• Generally failing to assume good faith and be civil to other users (see User Talk:QueryOne‎).

Furthermore, a cursory glance at QueryOne's contributions over the last few months shows that his edits are limited to a fairly small number of articles and this (perhaps unfairly) leads me to conclude that he enjoys repeatedly annoying and antagonizing certain editors, rather than getting on with the business of improving Wikipedia. QueryOne has been warned about his disruptive conduct numerous times in a overwhelmingly helpful and polite manner by a number of different editors, including myself, Freshacconci, Collectonian (now known as AnmaFinotera), and Wwwhatsup. These warnings have been ignored and, in Freshacconci's case, have been met with vague hostility.

I propose that this has gone far enough and that the Wikipedians involved have done all that they can to resolve these problems themselves. I would therefore like to ask an administrator or administrators to step in and resolve this ongoing and intolerable situation. I hesitate to call for QueryOne to be blocked from editing, but I'm afraid to say that I believe that this may be the only option. I eagerly await your comments. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I don't feel I can really add anything to what Kohoutek1138 has clearly put forward. What started as a dispute over genres of music has escalated into what appears to be disruptive edits for their own sake, including continuously calling editors vandals for edits that are clearly not vandalism and making incorrect edit summaries in a disruptive manner. freshacconci talktalk 16:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Also agree with Kohoutek1138's summary. User:QueryOne first appeared removing a statement from the lead of Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins, calling the view unnotable.[43]. When he was reverted, he redid the edit, calling it vandalism and clearly copy/pasting my own edit summary and replacing the names, as it is a Twinkle summary rather than the norm[44]. We had some back and forth on his talk page,[45] and some of his statements made me suspect that he is not the new editor his account purports.[46] As I wasn't sure who he might actually be, I just left it and figured it was done. He returned March 24th when he followed my contribs to Promised Land (TV series) where he corrected a typo in the article but used an edit summary of "reverted possible vandalism by Collectonian"[47] and Touched by an Angel where he removed a valid and properly sourced statement.[48] I left him a warning for the false statement[49] and removing sourced content, which resulted in more back and forth where I repeatedly pointed out the statement was sourced and he clearly didn't care.[50] His responses are consistently hostile and antagonistic. He left again and returned April 3, where he apparently decided to move on and soon noticed that he was doing the same wikihounding of Freshacconci, only being more unrelenting. I debated posting about it at the time, but honestly I just didn't want to have him bugging me again cause I had enough to deal with. I honestly think a check user should be done to see who this guy really is, I cause I doubt he really is a "new" editor, and even if a CU can't be done, administrative attention to his actions is appropriate. Thus far, I haven't seen him make a single useful contribution, and he seems to be randomly changing articles just to change them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Malcolm Schosha

Resolved

 – Obvious sock blocked for a year

Been having some trouble with a trolling IP for a few weeks now who was clearly a sock of somebody. Finally got aggravated enough to to open an SPI earlier today. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/173.52.182.160. Before i did so, i stupidly forgot to check the IP's global contributions, which i've just done. Here's a case of Malcolm editing logged out as the IP and correcting it.[51]. Malcolm is currently indef blocked, and has a long history of similar behavior under the username. Given his pursuit of me, i would have thought we had some history; but can't remember if I'd ever encountered him before. At any rate, this is a duck, and CU now seems unnecessary. It's a pain that so much sleuthing has to be done to confirm the obvious.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There are at least two members of arbcom who I gave my IP numbers (they change from time to time) and who saw no reason to intervene. Anyone who looks at my edit history will see I did nothing that was not useful to WP. Bali ultimate's complaints are base on problems he caused himself, and have nothing to do with my contributions. Ciao. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed block evasion. Thanks. Would love to know the names of the arbcom members who are enabling you though, Malcolm, before you go. Care to share?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Little more info. Here's the indef/ban discussion for Malcolm [52] which also says that Malcolm was, in turn, a sock of indef-blocked User:Kwork.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not ask at the arbcom noticeboard? There is nothing unusual in my editing. Many blocked users make useful contributions, and as I have said there is nothing in my IP edit history that has not been useful to WP. Bali ultimate's only basis for complaint about me is that I got in the way of his editing goals. Bella ciao, I must go and have other things to do. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Any reason a block should not be forthcoming? ClovisPt (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Block means block, yes this too should be blocked and the edits reverted per policy. If the editor wants to return, do it the right way and go to your account, put up the template and state your case. Why block or ban an editor if they only come back reincarnated as IP's or another account? This is not acceptable. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

TnXman blocked the IP for a week; however since it is so obviously a block evading sock and has been since at least the middle of April, on the basis that it's static I've extended the block to a year. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

copyios by User:Lib3rtarian

Lib3rtarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an SPA whose aim to promote the Movimento Libertario and its founders Giorgio Fidenato and Leonardo Facco on Wikipedia brooks no opposition -- certainly not Wikipedia's pesky copyright policy, anyway: the editor has uploaded File:Giorgio Fidenato.jpg and File:Leonardo Facco.JPG three (woops, four) times, despite multiple warnings on his talk page about the copyright problem. After they were initially deleted for lack of permission from the websites and Flickr account he'd snatched them from, he recreated the files, this time claiming they were his own work (somewhat implausibly, since he sourced them to third parties the first time he uploaded them).

He has since uploaded the copyvios File:First sowing GMO maize in Italy.jpg and File:Movimento Libertario rally in Pordenone.jpg, which, barring some intervention, will no doubt likewise keep reappearing as many times as they are speedied.

And just why, exactly, is EN hosting a bloated article manifesto about an Italian political movement and a pair of coatrack bios, authored by an editor affiliated with the organization, when the subjects aren't considered sufficiently noteworthy for Italian Wikipedia? Yeah, not sure either. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Answers' by Lib3rtarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorry Rrburke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but I have just questions on the legality of Article-entry at Wikipedia English, now I do not think that you are within the project or Wikiproject Libertarianism and Wikiproject Liberalism to judge with the necessary knowledge and skills content of this page. In addition, the page has already been approved as a permanent discussion above. What happened in Wikipedia Italian is regrettable, unfortunately for political and ideological reasons tied to the users of the Italian version of our page and its content was deemed inconsistent with the present zeitgeist among users. L736E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that I remember how his approached in the past is not an authoritative source nor fair to have an objective version of events. I want also note that the presence of links to bibliographic reported refer to content on newspaper websites and third and authoritative information sites, outside the site of the Movimento Libertario. So I think your arguments are very disrespectful of myself and realized the purpose of the ML page. Bye.Lib3rtarian (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have deliberately violated the copyright because these images don't have any copyright itself. I also followed the instructions for compiling the most appropriate license for the photos, considering the examples already on Wikipedia without objection. ByeLib3rtarian (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Images which appear on the Movimento Libertario website are copyrighted. They are not in the public domain nor are they released under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. (See for example, the bottom of this page which states Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved) Copyrighted images such as these can only be used if they meet Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline. They do not. (See #12 of unaccepatble image uses). The only other method for allowing the use of pictures is for the copyright holder to give an official release for licensing by the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Unless that permission is obtained at the Wikimedia Foundation WP:OTRS office from the original copyright owner, the images must be removed from Wikipedia. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The images have been deleted. I suspect from your note above, at your talk page and on the image's talk pages that you are profoundly misunderstanding the copyright law that governs the Wikimedia Foundation, User talk:Lib3rtarian. As our copyright policy points out, "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." Even if you find an image on a site that does not indicate it is copyrighted, as User:CactusWriter rightly points out these are, you would not be able to import them without verifying that they are free, not simply widely used. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No opinion about other issues. Given plausible misunderstanding of copyright policy and law, I have issued a clear warning. I believe if this contributor persists in uploading images without verifying that they are usable, a block will be necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the reference to the website "2009 Copyright Rights" text refers to the kind of web structure of the site but not in particular to the articles or images contents, so that the articles and image in particulars are freely copyable on blogs and other sites (example http://liberalismoonline.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/giorgio-fidenato-contra-el-estado-italiano/ and this this site http://www.pnveneto.org/2010/01/pordenone-una-fredda-mattina-d-inverno-riscaldati-dalla-liberta-per-giorgio-fidenato/ is of another political party very close to the Movimento Libertario but the presence of this images don't create problems to the Movimento Libertario, the same images there are here in this blogs http://lasentinelladellalaicita.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/la-rivolta-di-atlante/ and in this http://www.buraku.org/2009/11/19/tuti-i-schei-in-busta-paga/ Where is the problem if the Movimento Libertario don't protest (and it doesn't protest for the use of the image in the correct context like this)?. Then if the problem is their bureaucratic permission, tell you to me that address the Movimento Libertario should send official email to Wikipedia English to request permission to usage the image so I can notify to them the next day. However, the contents of the article is also in line with the criteria of Wikipedia Project Libertarianism (I forwarded the application), so I hope that there are no other issues at least on the content of the article. Bye Lib3rtarian (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The post by CacturWriter included a link to what is needed to get the needed permissions for the images. Ravensfire (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

New editor's experience as evidence of guilt

Unresolved

I wanted to mention that I find the discussion on User talk:Inniverse disturbing. Inniverse was blocked as a sockpuppet by User:Kww on what seemed to be quite circumstantial evidence.

While I've had minor altercations with contributions and found him annoying as an extreme inclusionist, I felt that his edits weren't deliberately disruptive and didn't rise to the level of needing a block, so I rose to his defense. As did a few other editors.

I am disturbed by the block admin Kww's blatant disregard for assuming good faith:

• Kww implies that a new account can get into trouble if extensive Wikipedia experience is demonstrated from the start, and that this is evidence of sockpuppetry.
• Kww assumes that a new account showing experience and knowledge of policies must have had prior accounts in the past (rather than anonymous edits, or gaining experience through studying policies), and that this is evidence of sockpuppetry.
• Kww assumes that stale checkuser evidence revealing a geolocation similarity is enough to equate a nondisruptive account with a previously blocked sock.
• Kww asks questions of Inniverse in a "witch hunt" fashion such that, if Inniverse is indeed innocent, no acceptable answer is possible.
• Kww has created a Catch-22 situation where if Inniverse wants to make constructive edits as a registered user, he has no choice but to create another account -- and then be blocked because the Inniverse account has been branded a sock.

Inniverse may or may not be a sock of an old blocked account. At this point, I don't think that's relevant. There is insufficient evidence, only a circumstantial "possible" returned by checkuser. The point is, blocking this editor doesn't have the desired effect of preventing abuse, and Kww has demonstrated a "guilty until proven innocent" position that creates a difficult situation for the accused. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look at the situation. However, a checkuser "possible" plus behavioral similarities are usually quite sufficient to justify a block under normal admin response standards. See among other things WP:DUCK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

More often than not, an account that comes out the door know how our system works (especially the use of tags and such, though I merely use this as an example) tends to be a sock. I myself have never witnesses an 'experienced' new account that wasn't a sock. HalfShadow 18:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page, you'll see at least one other user contending that Inniverse's behavior is not similar to the behavior of the previously blocked sock. I just think this editor hasn't gotten a fair shake. My account "came out the door" with similar experience, although I concentrated more on article content than Wikipedia maintenance. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not for me to say, really. I have no actual interest in the subject, I'm just explaining the admin reasoning. George'll find out what's what, I'm sure. HalfShadow 18:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is going to take some time - there were 18 named accounts and dozens and dozens of IPs involved here, so doing an in depth user history comparison is not a simple task.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Saj2009

• Saj2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

This user appears to have a history of tendentious editing. He definitely has a history of copyright violations as most of the pictures they have uploaded were deleted.. however, that is not what I am here about. I am here because this user is quite capable of user communication, yet they refuse to discuss when their own edits are brought into question. Rather instead, they slow edit war over a period of weeks, if not months. I have repeatedly tried to get this user to stop, yet they continue to ignore, and add the honorifics in violation of WP:HONORIFIC again, again, and again. The actor's own website doesn't even use the honorifics, nor do any reliable sources outside the country they were given in, as is the requirement for them to be posted.

Editor notified.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

disruptive editor - Sulu redirect

Resolved

 – per my reasoning below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

While seeking to fix what appears to be patent original research in a dab page for Kato, I discovered a redirect from Hikaru Kato to Hikaru Sulu. There isn't any notable references noting the Hikaru Kato term; it's likely fancruft/OR.
I've never worked with speedy delete templates before, and might have used the wrong one when I removed the redirect and placed the template in the HK (empty) article.
User Gogo Dodo has apparently taken it upon himself to begin edit-warring about the redirect, reverting right up to 3RR (1, 2, 3). I've sought discussion, both in the user's talk space(4), and the HK redirect article discussion(5). His belief is that my removal of a bogus redirect is vandalism (and therefore not subject to 3RR) - this after having reverted three times without discussion, either as to the proper template to use for deletion of the false article or taking steps to prevent the edit war he seems interested in escalating. Clearly, I disagree. Is it just me, or is it wrong for me to expect an admin to avoid these sorts of clearly club-footed mistakes where discussion would be so much more effective? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's controversial, then speedy-deletion is inappropriate. You should instead nominate the redirect for discussion. Don't edit-war over it. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 18:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I said, TT; the admin should have mentioned that before the third revert. Why the hell is an edmin edit-warring in the first place? I mean, thanks for the advice, but my problem is with an edmin who apparently forgot the job description. Edit-warring is what we get from anonymous vandals, not admins with years of experience. His behavior was - at best - ill-advised. At worst, it was dumbfoundingly stupid. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

2 points - (1) I believe what you intended was to mark it as CSD R3 - an implausible typo or misnomer. (2) It takes two to edit war, and you reverted at least once before trying to communicate with Gogo Dodo. Wet troutslaps all around, then. Syrthiss (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I told you to go to RfD, but you didn't appear to listen to me, but now that another editor told you the same thing, you went to RfD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The original redirect was tagged as CSD#R2, which I declined because that CSD does not apply in this case. You then blanked the redirect, which I reverted because blanking the redirect is not the correct way to handle it. You then blanked it again with the edit summary of "rvv", which is incorrect and I reverted you again. I told you what you should do regarding the redirect on your talk page, which you then shifted the conversation to my talk page where I told you again my reasons for reverting your blanking. If you are going to link to my talk page, then please link the entire conversation. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As noted, I admitted that I likely used the wrong template; instead of reverting three times in a row, maybe you could have pointed out now what you should have done after the first revert. Calling my removal of a spurious redirect vandalism and then edit-warring about it what landed you here - the third revert coming after I warned you that doing so would precipitate this action. Maybe you could work on defusing situations like this - it would appear to be part of an administrator's duties to cut down on the drama inherent in your edit-warring. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

- It appears to be a valid search term for Sulu, and a valid redirect, per memory alpha which states that, in Japan, the character's last name is Kato not Sulu, so it should stand as it is. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't appear to be, SGGH, according to a pretty basic Google search. And Memory Alpha - at best a dodgy source of fancruft - doesn't cite its sources either. Every other use of this term would appear to come from a blog or a fansite or fan forum. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And, not really trying to Sherlock this too much here, but the character's first name of "Hikaru" wasn't even created until 1981; there is no way for the Japanese-translated program to have used the name until after that point; indeed, there is precisely zero citation that it was ever used at all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a source for you: The official Star Trek Japanese site (via Google Translate) names him as Kato. —DoRD (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• This looks like an excellent conversation to have... at Wikipedia:RFD#Hikaru Kato. As far as the other issues:
  • Jack, you are not supposed to restore the tag when the speedy is declined by an admin (I think it says that on the tag)
  • I can't see how 3RR can apply to an admin repeatedly declining a speedy request by the same person; that's an admin's job, to accept or decline a speedy delete request
  • it looks like Gogo Dodo was counselling you on the right way to do things; please listen.
  • You complain that he called your blanking "vandalism", (which, you're right, it wasn't), but I note that you reverted him with an edit summary of "rvv" before he said that, calling his edits vandalism too. Please don't play that game.

This looks resolved to me, and I'm marking it as such; content issues at RFD, Jack's learned something, and jack and Gogo Dodo both should be a little more careful using the "v" word, as it excites people unnecessarily. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

SPA account(s) repeatedly adding personal opinion to article

• Aat3cr (talk · contribs)
• Goatfukr (talk · contribs)

I'm not sure where to post this, since it's probably too complex for AIV, and it's not really vandalism anyway. A user has been adding this bit of personal commentary [53] to the same article for the past two months, even after receiving escalating warnings (it's technically two different accounts doing this, but the second is pretty ducky; it appeared as soon as the first account got a level 3 warning). Block time? SheepNotGoats (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The first account has been blocked indefinitely, as they are obviously not here to contribute. The second account has been blocked as a violation of our username policy, among other issues. TNXMan 19:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the prompt response. SheepNotGoats (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Talk:Barack Obama

There's a slow edit war on Talk:Barack Obama based on an an anonymous user's comments (my reversion re-including them) being repeatedly removed by talk-page regulars who saw the comments as a form of trolling or disruption. However, I disagreed, and actually replied to the user pointing out that he did have a point where Obama's statement contradict the article, reality, and/or both. The discussion is currently live at Talk:Barack Obama#Proposal to update FAQ1, but there's still a dispute on whether the comments should be removed or kept; I believe they should be kept, as they do not violate any of our rules and they're actually productive (if a little incivil); however, other users don't think so. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an obvious and clear case of disruption by the anon ip.(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) And that is not even all the mass postings by the anon ip. The ip was blocked, and just ip hopped over and over. The talk page was protected, the disruptive portion of the posts removed, but the editor who started this thread reverted two other regular editors to re-include the uncivil attacks and disruptive posts. Dave Dial (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Verbal's insulting language, and lazy ignorant and incompetent behavior of admins

I'd like to apologize here at AN/I for mischaracterizing User:Verbal as a fool. I intended to do it on yesterday's thread, but it has been auto archived. Verbal is clearly of average intelligence.

Background

I had collapsed a thread with this as the hat note: "Copied to COI noticeboard."[54] and 10 seconds later, copied it to the COI noticeboard.[55] Ten minutes later User:Verbal undid the collapse with this edit summary: "it wasn't copied there."[56] and this on the talk page:

Please stop trying to collapse this section, especially with a misleading note... Verbal chat 20:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)(red added)

If you take the trouble to follow the above diffs you will see that my hat note was accurate - I had copied the thread to the COI noticeboard - and, ironically, Verbal was doing the misleading with "it wasn't copied there." Now, this is a very mild libel. But it is libel.

libel, n. In popular use: Any false and defamatory statement in conversation or otherwise. Oxford English dictionary.

In saying I collapsed the thread with a misleading hat note Verbal is implying something about me, that I am deceptive. I figured I would call Verbal on this tiny little bit of sleazy, rude, deceptive, disrespectful behavior toward me and, using English, my first language, economically and precisely, challenged him to back up the "misleading" slur with

Misleading. Mmmm. That seems... libelous? rude? ad hom? PA? How do you mean "misleading" exactly? Anthony (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC) (red added)

Rather than justify the slur, Verbal slapped a template on my talk page which said the above

"could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself."

No one but a fool would think the above could be construed as a threat of legal action. No one, but a fool. But a deceptive manipulator might say it. Which Verbal did, on my talk page and at an ANI thread he started about the incident. In the second sentence of Verbal's ANI thread he refers to my words as a "threat", and says he left an "educational warning" on my talk page. This educational warning linked to a page that said

"It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion."

Since my words were not a threat, and no one but a fool would construe them as such, what was I meant to make of this?

The next sentence said

"A perceived legal threat is not an immediately blockable offense. Instead, admins have to seek for clarification of the situation."

This was not done in my case. After 18 minutes "discussion", an admin posted this on my talk page:

"Really, responding to an "accusation" of being misleading with a claim of "libel" is over the top, whether or not you actually intend to take legal action. Dial it down a bit next time, ok?"

This is of course ... unreasonable. An accusation of being misleading (when it is false) is libel. That is the very word for it in English. It is not over the top, it is perfect, apt English expression. And "...whether or not you actually intend to take legal action. Dial it down a bit next time, ok?" was baffling. I was being rebuked but did not know why. So, I asked "What have I done wrong?" Another editor responded with a home-made definition of "libel" and

While there is no legal threat made, per WP:NLT, there is still the implication of an attempt at intimidation.

But WP:NLT only refers to language that could reasonably be interpreted as a legal threat. "Only a fool would interpret my language in that way." I'm sorry. I said it again. But I am explaining my thought processes at the time. Now I was being accused of intimidating someone. Still no admin, though several were watching the thread, had followed the guideline and sought clarification of the situation. No one asked me "What did I mean?" "What did I intend?" They were warning and rebuking me for the perfect use of the English language; acting as though the word "libel" is outlawed at Wikipedia, when, in fact, the guidelines simply say, if you think a threat is implied, "Seek clarification."

At AN/I I briefly outlined events leading up to the templating and followed with a statement (beginning with "I object to being called misleading...") telling the admins that Verbal's behavior demonstrates that he is a fool and, as they had now rebuked me and accused me of intimidation, their behavior warrants an apology to me.

An admin then blocked me. Another admin then called me an egotistical fool.

Remedy

It needs to be pointed out to Verbal that low level insults, like implying another editor is deceptive, are personal attacks far more toxic than "Fuck off, troll". He needs to know that smearing talk pages with that kind devious insult drives away many more good editors than frank rudeness. Actually, I think he knows. The community needs to acknowledge it, and tell him that we don't approve.

The admin who rebuked me on my talk page for using the word "libel" needs to acknowledge that he made a mistake.

The admin who accused me of "implying intimidation" on my talk page needs to acknowledge that he made a mistake.

The admin who called me an egotistical fool needs to acknowledge that he made a mistake.

The admins who watched the farce and did not ask me to clarify my meaning need to be aware of what the guidelines actually say.

The Template Verbal slapped on my talk page must only be used for people who can reasonably be seen to be making or hinting at a legal threat. Never for people who just use the word "libel". Perhaps a new template could be made that explains how, in the past, editors have waved the word about in order to intimidate others; that is, perhaps a genuine attempt could be made at "education". Anthony (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)