Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Legal threat and COI: little vague to block over, but worth another warning
→Tendentious and disruptive editing by Pedant17: resolved - sanctions 1 and 2 pass, will enact
Line 110: Line 110:


== Tendentious and disruptive editing by Pedant17 ==
== Tendentious and disruptive editing by Pedant17 ==
{{resolved|Community sanctions 1 and 2 have significant community support and will be enacted and logged. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 03:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)}}


{{user|Pedant17}} has been engaging in disruptive editing for well over a year at a number of articles. Below is just one example of just how impossible it has been to deal with this behavior; the extra slow edit-warring and discussion are intriguing aspects in themselves.
{{user|Pedant17}} has been engaging in disruptive editing for well over a year at a number of articles. Below is just one example of just how impossible it has been to deal with this behavior; the extra slow edit-warring and discussion are intriguing aspects in themselves.

Revision as of 03:13, 15 June 2010


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    [edit conflict]That the images are being similarly misused by other websites and blogs is not a rationale for compounding that error by uploading them to Wikipedia. Since they have been published elsewhere, they are presumed to be copyrighted unless there is proof to the contrary. You adduced no such proof nor attempted to. Instead, you then falsely claimed to be the creator of the works (after they had been deleted for lack of permission from the copyright-holder). Did you suddenly remember that you had created them yourself just before you uploaded them the second time, but the first time you thought they were by someone else?
    Additionally, the claim that the article was deleted ("censored") for ideological reasons, which you have made repeatedly and which earned you a block for a personal attack on Italian Wikipedia, is false, self-aggrandizing and self-serving: the article was deleted because you could not produce adequate evidence of substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources to establish that the subject merited a standalone article (Hint: two guys and a website don't meet the threshold). Please see leave off the fantasies of persecution and see the General notability guideline and Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Given his recent note at his talk page, I suspect granting him the benefit of the doubt was an error on my part. He says, "I uploaded the same image multiple times just because I have tried several times between the different Commons Licenses available at the time of the upload in an attempt to satisfy the licensing requirements of Wikipedia." The first time he uploaded File:Leonardo Facco.JPG, he placed "Oriana.italy" ([1])in the "author" field and listed its source as [2]. The second time he uploaded it, he kept "Oriana.italy" as the "author" field, but listed its source as "own work." The third time he uploaded it, he sourced it as "I (Lib3rtarian (talk)) created this work entirely by myself" and listed under author "Lib3rtarian". This does not seem like he was attempting to satisfy the licensing requirements of Wikipedia. It seems like deliberate copyright fraud. The first two times it was deleted (on Wikipedia; it's also been deleted twice on Commons), he was told how to verify permission, if he was in position. (He was told that in conjunction with other images, as well.) He's been given several block advisories in the past. Given what looks like deliberate efforts to obscure the authorship of that photograph and what seems to be a lack of willingness to acknowledge the issue, is a block at this time appropriate? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this user is interested in getting as much information about this topic onto Wikipedia as he possibly can and is not terribly fussy about how that gets accomplished or very concerned about whether the additions conform to WP policies and guidelines. That said, I have encountered editors in the past who genuinely appear to think that the "work" of uploading a file makes it their "own work." A little implausible here, perhaps, but there may additionally be a language problem that might justify extending benefit of doubt -- if you're feeling especially charitable. There'd certainly be no excuse next time. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that his response below and the one I've quoted at his talk page make a good case that it was not ignorance that led to his repeated violations of our copyright policy (in spite of clear warnings, including two explicit block advisories from March). It seems evident that he chose to ignore them because he does not take them seriously. I have blocked for 31 hours. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The images are useless public walk around the installation procedures images in Wikipedia are not the least understandable, in addition to being inflexible, I do not understand where is the problem in reference to a widespread image in the public domain. I noted then as Oriana.Italy or other alleged owners of the image on Flickr or other holders are not at all certain of the picture, nothing precludes their use (and thus an alleged harm to the copyright) on these platforms or improper transfer unsanctioned . Also repeat the question as surreal as Leonardo Facco, Giorgio Fidenato and the ML do not pose copyright issues ever to their pictures by their respective board on Wikipedia. Also do not understand why Rrburke continue to defend the shameful censorship suffered by myself and the Wikipedia page ML Italy, he doesn't not know that history, nor can know how to block user has deliberately prevented the update and after comparison being teased by people clearly definable certainly not liberals and libertarians and the inability to implement a serious debate has quietly allowed. Rrburke not know how to repeat the question of which interest is to deliberately (perhaps to please a few friends of Wikipedia Italy) I repeat my opinion as user is equal to that of the Wikipedia censors Italy, which have seen a movement-political party of their ideological rating as a "gang of dangerous criminals". I assume that Rrburke not even know the criteria and rationale to justify its hasty exit cancellation. Try reading the ML article heading and the various links to references / sources and see how the ML is not a combination of only 2 people but a real political organization in the Italian Territory with links to a culture (libertarianism) present in many countries (example Switzerland). The ML is a real movement-parties not a fake or not existing as others parties-movements that doesn't exist in the elections and in the society (but they are presents in Wikipedia Italy only because they have got a relation with some politicians or special interests in Italian politics and economic reality), news and newspaper and many websites in the references show what I write here about the ML. I know better than Rrburke the political reality and the italian libertarianism, I live in Italy and I khow also as Italian Wikipedia works than its English counterpart. So stop talking about a scam copyright since the ML never made complaints directly to the question in Italy and in this question in particular, I also received further informed consent of Leonardo Facco and Giorgio Fidenato in putting their pictures on Wikipedia. Moreover you who accused me of colluding with the two characters, when I could just be a person informed about the facts. I think that level of interest between the owner and Oriana.Italy The two main characters there is a great difference. I say give me a contact email and inform the owners of the images sent all the material for the consent. Do not create hype, since I have not stolen any plan on the H-bomb... Bye.Lib3rtarian (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Lib3rtarian's responses to comments here and on his talk page, as well as in his unblock request, seem to indicate that he is unable or unwilling to accept Wikipedia's copyright policy. If he refuses to operate within our rules, I think he should be indefinitely blocked, at least until we have a reasonable belief that he understands the rules and is willing to abide by them. He's talking about obtaining permission for the images, which is good but there's still the underlying issue regarding his broad approach to copyright matters. We need to protect the project and I think it's completely unacceptable to allow him to resume editing as long as he's still refusing to accept that he cannot just copy material from elsewhere and post it here and then claim it's okay because the copyright owner hasn't complained. His comments about "proper usage" and such also seem to suggest that he doesn't understand that we don't do permissions that limit usage only to Wikipedia and once images and other material are uploaded to Wikipedia and Commons under free licenses, they can be reused by *anyone* for *any* purpose and that includes way that he might not consider "proper usage". Sarah 05:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. The responses by User:Lib3rtarian indicate that they are not simply someone who "does not get it" -- rather this is someone who understands Wikipedia policy but refuses to accept it. The example given by Moonriddengirl shows Lib3rtarian has actively attempted to subvert copyright policy through deception. If Lib3rtarian cannot be trusted to edit within the rules, than they will be need to be indefinitely blocked. At this time, I have seen no response from Lib3rtarian which instills my trust. — CactusWriter | needles 07:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly, me either. I will not myself extend his block, but I wouldn't think it inappropriate if somebody else did pending some plausible indication that he will abide by our Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor appears to be attempting to evade his block by editing anonymously as User:109.113.45.247. I opened an SPI case, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lib3rtarian. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Misread timestamps: withdrawn, with apologies. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the above discussion and the comments on Lib3rtarian's talk page, I have upgraded his block to indefinite. I don't have a problem with giving him another chance, but I don't believe that he should be unblocked until we have a reasonable belief that he's taking the copyright policies seriously. At present, with his various comments dismissing the policy, claiming that the organisation didn't complain so what does it matter etc, I have absolutely no faith that if unblocked he wouldn't simply dismiss this whole conversation and just resume editing as before. So to protect the project, I think he needs to remain blocked until we get a credible undertaking to abide by our policies. Sarah 03:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored this section as it's not resolved. I don't know what to do about this case. Lib3rtarian appears unwilling to address these issues and he has now resorted to using IPs to evade the block and continue editing the articles. I've semi-protected the articles and the response is to accuse me of "ranting", being a "hypocrite", a "fool", a "fascist", a "vulgar" provocateur, and something about me caring for "kangaroos and koalas, animals with a QI like (me)". He is also making some kind of reference to his organisation taking some "official behavior" towards me. His English skills are very poor but he refuses a translator (I have offered to find an Italian speaking editor or suggested he find someone at his end to help but he's not interested and insists his English skills are fine, that it's just some words not translating properly but it's clearly a lot more than that. Looking at the articles involved, they really are very bad and much of them don't make sense. I don't know anything about these subjects so I don't know if they should be sent back to AFD or if they should be re-written but they're not doing English speakers any benefit in their current form. Sarah 05:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that your offer to him to locate a translator was a very good one, but if he doesn't accept it, there's not much to be done. Given his last notes, I suspect that we'd be dealing with attempts at copyright fraud even if he was unblocked. I am particularly taken by this: "The Wiki users continue to believe that these images do not even belong either to the ML (but at a certain Oriana.Italy only because she has posted on Flickr) although such images are present on the official website of the party." It was Lib3rtarian himself who said that she was the author of the image, the first time that he uploaded it. "Author = Oriana.italy; Source = http://www.flickr.com/photos/orianaitaly/1268563873/". Only after he was told he needed her permission did he begin to assert different authorship and now he acts as though we've made her up ourselves. This leads me to fear that even if he does begin to follow the permissions process, he will do so fraudulently: placing any images on the website with which he is affiliated and claiming them. I think under the circumstances that the indef block is essential, and I think protecting the articles as you have done may be the only way to circumvent socking. I agree with you about quality concerns. I'll have at least a go at it when I get a chance. It's hard to tell notability at this point; many of the sources have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject but are supporting the digressions, such as the side box that purports to define "anarcho-capitalism" with seven sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    [3] suggests he may be sufficiently notable - Chronicle Books LCC do not seem to have any association with the guy, and publish a wide range of books. Article is a mess though - it's got enough coatpegs for a primary school! Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Elen, that book on Amazon lists the publisher as an rather anonymous "Books LLC". Although Amazon links it to Chronicle Books LLC, the Chronicle Books website doesn't have a lisitng for that title (unlike all its other titles listed on Amazon). I suspect it is a self-published book and probably not a reliable source. — CactusWriter | needles 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, in that case... That was my first thought, seeing the rather wierd blurb. Then when I checked on who Amazon said was the publisher, I thought it must be OK. I can find two other references to his crusade for GM crops, but only in Italian, and I can't tell how reliable they are as sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think this definitely needs an editor who is proficient in Italian to guide the way in cutting through the fluff at these articles. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone offhand, but if you or anyone knows someone who qualifies, it would be great to notify them of this discussion. — CactusWriter | needles 13:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Sarah's and Moonriddengirl's assessments: 1.) The editor refuses to acknowledge there has been any copyright violation but rather suggests that WP policy is wrong; 2.) The user acknowledges using IP accounts to edit during their block but refuses to accept this as sockpuppetry; 3.) Despite their obvious deficiency in communicating in English, the editor refuses to accept the need for translation help; and 4.) The editor suggests the problem is Wikipedia and its administrators -- and includes personal attacks and a veiled legal threat. I'm afraid that this is a case where the editor's ideas clearly run counter to Wikipedia policy. The indefinite block should remain and the articles protected as necessary. — CactusWriter | needles 15:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit conflict]I did a search for sources at the time of nominating the initial article for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Movement (Italy)). The conclusion I drew is that the organization's principals -- Facco and Fidenato -- might be marginally notable, but that the organization was not. It is mentioned in several published sources, so it turns up GHits when you do a news search, but when you actually look at the sources in detail, it turns out the organization is simply mentioned in passing -- and mere mentions are not sufficient to establish notability. Any publication in which the organization was given more than a passing mention did not appear to be independent of the subject.
    I'm agnostic on the question of whether Facco or Fidenato are actually notable. I note that neither has an article about him on Italian Wikipedia -- though, of course, Italian Wikipedia has a lot fewer articles overall than EN, so that may not be a fair measure. Many (most?) of the sources cited appear to be communiques from the Movimento Libertario or some other organization not exactly independent of the subject, and many of the independent sources cited do not even mention either man by name. There are zero English-language sources on them. Of the Italian sources I have managed to find apart from those cited in the article, many are not independent.
    I had a look at the Amazon link to the book Italian Libertarians. Possibly I've misread, but the publisher appears to be Books LLC rather than Chronicle Books LLC. I suspect Books LLC is a vanity press of some kind and I wouldn't be surprised if the work is a self-published pamphlet: it's 64 pages long and carries no author credit. I don't think this publication can be used to establish notability.
    On the other hand, the indefinitely-blocked editor who created all three articles appears to be belong to the organization and created them on the its behalf: he refers in a post on the group's website to having been thanked personally by Fidenato for creating Libertarian Movement (Italy), and complains that his block has prevented him from updating the page with information about their upcoming meeting. He evidently solicits input from the organization's founders on the content of the articles. To me this means the organization is using Wikipedia to promote itself and that the articles are spam.
    On that basis, I think Libertarian Movement (Italy), and possibly the others as well, could be speedied per WP:CSD#G11. They are classic coatrack articles whose purpose is to advertise as much of the group's platform as possible under the guise of an encyclopedia article. If some independent editor wishes to recreate an article on these topics at a later date, he or she would be free to do so. In my judgment, in their current state, they're unsalvageable spam. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious and disruptive editing by Pedant17

    Resolved
     – Community sanctions 1 and 2 have significant community support and will be enacted and logged. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pedant17 (talk · contribs) has been engaging in disruptive editing for well over a year at a number of articles. Below is just one example of just how impossible it has been to deal with this behavior; the extra slow edit-warring and discussion are intriguing aspects in themselves.

    Other examples (demonstrates pattern of conduct; lack of receptiveness to feedback; and so on)

    This behavior is unacceptable; it degrades the quality of articles and the editing environment - and burns out constructive contributors. Now...before we put our hands up in the air and run to ArbCom, this community needs to try to effectively deal with this type of problem. The most obvious solution is a ban proposal, but it seems giving a set of last-chance remedies may be more effective. Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Pedant17

    I would like to thank User:Ncmvocalist for bringing this matter before this august body of Administrators. I trust that fair-minded evaluation of the facts and circumstances will allow us to continue to improve the article in question: List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents, which has remained basically moribund for too long while I have attempted to discuss and make improvements and expansions..

    I agree that we appear to have a case here of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It concerns me that I have done too much listening and heard little but repetitious abuse. I have repeatedly appealed on Talk:List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents for my fellow-editors to provide some reason or justification for the disruptive wholesale reversions of my much-discussed proposals for improvement - hence my raising of the issue of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (2010-05-11) in the first place.

    The talk-page Talk:List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents currently contains, I believe, adequate justification for my editing and for its patterns in this article. In particular it includes:

    • Unrefuted discussion (dated 2010-01-29) of an alleged consensus against my edits - with an appeal for further discussion.
    • A response (dated 2010-04-29) to generic charges of "disruption" by contrasting the process of improving and expanding and correcting articles - with an appeal (unanswered) for explanation.
    • An appeal (dated 2009-12-09, and still awaiting a satisfactory response) for an explanation of alleged "non-constructive" edits.

    Such discussion as has taken place may well appear "brief" in that it has taken place one-sidedly. I have consistently called for discussion of details and sought explanations and reasons for the reversions of my edits - only to receive general accusations of generic crimes, seldom exemplified and never proven in any follow-through.

    The tendentious accusation that I have "threatened" to revert masks a clear statement of intent to revert - conditionally - in the absence of explanation and justification. (dated 2010-04-25).

    The accusation that I have acted "on the grounds that an absence of response equates to support" amounts to an unjustified interpretation. I have never claimed "support", but simply bolstered my arguments with logic and reason with a view to defining and re-refining consensus.

    I observe that the only specific charge of "disruptive editing" made against me in the opening of this ANI discussion relates to an alleged case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (as discussed above). The vague "all the traits we expect in disruptive problem editing" smears my behavior unjustifiably. If anyone has specific evidence to the contrary, lets hear it.

    Note that the quoted examples of ANI discussions and requests for comment on my alleged behavior have not resulted in any penalty, adverse consensus, or indeed any outstanding case to answer.

    I quite agree that we should regard behavior involving disruption and lack of consensus-building as unacceptable. However, an examination of Talk:List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents reveals me as the victim rather than the perpetrator of these crimes - my proposals repeatedly rejected, by attempts at discussion repeatedly ignored.

    I can see the danger of degrading the quality of articles and burning out constructive contributors. Thus I regard it as all the more important to defend good and constructive editing such as I have attempted to carry out. I welcome reasoned and reasonable criticism of my edits, but have a limited tolerance of unreasoned stonewalling and refusal to build consensus by discussion of specifics.

    Apart from any issues of behavior or procedure, lets look at the substance of the editing which other Wikipedians have labeled disruptive, quality-degrading and unacceptable original research. Take my latest offering in editing List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents:

    • I attempted to bring a little more precision to the opening discussion on the use of pejorative terms, toning down the lack of NPOV and providing examples of non-English terminology (as used in the article body). In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?
    • I inserted two "Request quotation" tags in an effort to get precise wording for citation. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?
    • I inserted citations for further examples of government document listings, as already discussed in the article body. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?
    • I inserted further cited examples of government document listings, as mentioned in an already-cited source. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?
    • I inserted an extra (sourced) sentence in the section on Australia with a view to mentioning a classic and well-known 1965 case of a government document addressing a "cult" issue. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?
    • I re-inserted a previously deleted reference (albeit tagged with "Failed verification") to match the orphaned heading relating to the Austrian government's 1996 document. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?
    • I added a sourced reference to the Austrian government's 1999 document, which also serves as a verifiable reference to the existence of the previous (1996) document. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?
    • I added a heading for the otherwise orphaned text relating to the International Religious Freedom Report 2006. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?
    • I corrected a French spelling of Énergo-Chromo-Kinèse. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?
    • I re-corrected the use of an imbalanced "{" to match a "]". In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?
    • I reduced POV in the characterization of Raffarin's circulaire by closely paraphrasing from the already-cited original. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?
    • I linked "Berlin" to Berlin. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?
    • I provided an extra translation of a German-language title. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?
    • I re-formatted the "References" section to one column with a view to making it more readable, better formatted, and sequentially scrollable. In what respect can we interpret such editing as disruptive, quality-degrading, unacceptable, or original research?

    In summary: show where I've gone wrong. If you can convince me - no problem. Otherwise, lets talk about the issues, based on the facts.

    -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Specific sanction proposals

    I propose that any or all of the following sanctions be enacted by the community on Pedant17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) due to the long term nature of disruption.

    Pedant17 is subject to the following terms of probation:
    1) Should Pedant17 make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator. The sanction will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator and logged at User:Pedant17/Community_sanction. Sanctions are at the discretion of the administrator, and may include page bans, topic bans, blocks, or any other restriction.
    2) Pedant17 is strictly required to discuss each change he wishes to make to an article on the page's talk page prior to making the edit (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations). This restriction may be enforced through blocks, and he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages, once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator and logged at User:Pedant17/Community_sanction.
    3) Pedant17 is limited to editing with a single account.

    NOTE: Please indicate whether you support/oppose each sanction. Eg; "Support 2 and 3 only", "Oppose all", etc. The rationale for #3 is to explicitly prohibit evading these sanctions under other accounts - something that certain tendentious editors have somehow argued as being non-explicit in the past. Hopefully, that sort of gaming of the system will as a result, no longer be an issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support all 3 as proposer. As an uninvolved user who is deeply concerned by the implications of this tendentious conduct continuing, I cannot think of any other way to resolve this issue, short of escalating or an outright ban. I have also looked at his response and there is no sign of change. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose All He was never blocked at all. I thought the proposal of a sanction was caused by getting in trouble into the same area of editing. Clearly, he was never blocked for any reason, as you can see in the block log, and I haven't seen any evidence of sockpuppetry either. Minimac (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You thought incorrectly then; the community response to this problem has been inadequate. That the disruptive editing is occurring in multiple areas suggests that this is a chronic problem that cannot be prevented by a mere community topic ban or timed-block. If this route isn't going to achieve sufficient support, the alternative and more nuclear route will be used. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question re: sanction 3. Has Pedant17 used alternative accounts, or is this merely anticipatory? TFOWRUnchanged since 1894 12:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. On the face of it, would the proposed sanction 2 make it impossible for the sanctioned Wikipedian to add any new articles to Wikipedia - in the absence of a pre-existing talk-page for a non-existent article? -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it is possible for you to create an article, provided the first edit or so is purely to satisfy minimum requirements (eg; notability). The key thing to remember is that if you seem to be toeing the line of your probation in the view of an admin, you will be sanctioned accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That interpretation ("first edit or so") would appear to conflict with the wording of "strictly required to discuss each change he wishes to make to an article on the page's talk page prior to making the edit (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations)." Do we have precedents for this sort of scenario?-- Pedant17 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • We don't operate on precedents. As the sole drafter of this probation, I've provided you with the most lenient interpretation that administrators might take in such a scenario - the more intelligent thing to do, as I hinted, would be to ensure you don't violate (or be seen to attempt to violate) your probation in any form whatsoever. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1 and 2. Much of my experience with this editor has involved him rejecting a clear and unanimous consensus, usually with an odd interpretation of WP:SILENCE or WP:CCC. It seems that he either doesn't understand or doesn't respect the process of consensus; requiring cooperation with other editors in order to apply edits seems like a useful direction to take this. --McGeddon (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. I wonder whether we can possibly regard the alleged consensus wielded on Talk:List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents as "clear and unanimous? - On 2009-09-03 a former Wikipedian (now no longer active on Wikipedia) wrote "Agree that the edit was not constructive [...]" with reference to a perceived problem with adding "empty spaces to templates". (I didn't fully understand what that meant, but subsequently found a piece of advice somewhere that has encouraged me to prune empty and non-key parameters in templates ever since.) No more "clear and unanimous" agreement. Yet one quibble about template-usage has stood for the following 9 months or so as some sort of reason for reverting every one of my edits to the List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents article -- all in the name of a consensus. On that "consensus" we have seen hung "edits that are inappropriate and reduce quality of the article" (2009-12-13) and "multiple different non-consensus changes" (2010-04-25), "there is not consensus for your disruptive changes" (2010-04-30) and "making non-constructive disruptive changes to the page without consensus". A flimsy enough basis, you will agree, for such spirited language. Yet I (perhaps foolishly) took the magic word "consensus" seriously and addressed the matter. On 2010-01-29 I wrote: " If we do regard such casual agreement as "consensus", I hereby dispute that "consensus". I note that that pseudo-consensus made no reference to "inappropriate[ness]" or to "reduc[ing]" the "quality of the article" (whatever "quality of the article" means...) It seems to me that the goal-posts keep shifting. -- If I have made some obvious blunder(s) that merit{s) the wholesale reversion of my edit then let's hear about it in plain language." I continue to await a reply to my points. Perhaps you can help to show us all where the consensus clearly and unanimously established something relevant to our current discussion. -- Let me add a word on my alleged "odd interpretation" of WP:SILENCE (as a supplement of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CCC. I have indeed quoted these elsewhere: I'll let the Wikipedia policy on WP:CONSENSUS speak for itself: "Consensus can change[.] Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions." And: "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner." And particularly: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion [...]". Here, as elsewhere, I regard this policy as relevant, applicable, and supportive of my editing. Can you prove otherwise? -- Pedant17 (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3 isn't necessary and isn't really helping; Pedant17 has shown a willingness to ignore conventions or consensus that he doesn't agree with, but that hasn't yet extended to socking and we shouldn't assume it will. 2 does not necessarily help as Pedant17 does not have a problem with "discussing" his edits, only paying attention to the replies. So only 1 needs to be enacted to prevent further time being wasted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyone can "ignore conventions or consensus" - and the system will clobber them. On the other hand, I sometimes question and dispute conventions and consensuses, paying too much "attention to the replies".. I suspect that makes enemies of editors unable or unwilling to defend their chosen ground on the basis of facts and policies. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support all three, although I think only #1 will really be necessary. I don't think this user's motives are bad, having dealt with this over the course of a number of years, so I doubt there will be sockpuppetry problems; rather, I suspect that the user truly does not comprehend the line between tendentious and acceptable editing. I will also say that #2 probably won't be of much help, since Pendant17 is perfectly willing to write volumes on talk pages and does not act in bad faith in failing to see that the community consensus is squarely against him. But the edits are disruptive and so an administrator may have to step in and apply temporary sanctions just to keep the encyclopedia running smoothly. RJC TalkContribs 13:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dignity

    The article Dignity - quite some time ago - went through a deletion process where the result was rewrite it and merge it with Human Dignity, which I took care of. Originally the article was a personal essay by Pyrrhon8 on the uselessness of Dignity as a concept in international politics, based on the writings of some minor academic named Aldegrove (Pyrrhon had originally started the article because he had been rebuff from making the same essay on the Human Dignity article, which was merged with Dignity as part of the deletion process). It was badly written original research, hence the AfD. Pyrrhon8 comes back periodically to reimpose parts of his old essay, and the result is always the same - I revert to the version that came out of the AfD process, and then the page devolves into a revert war where he either won't discuss anything with me at all or starts insulting the crap out of me in talk (look at the talk page and archives if you want some idea of what's happened in the past).

    I've way too many experiences lately with mindlessly tendentious, insulting editors, and I no longer give a fuck. If you guys want to allow him to reassert his idiotic personal essay, then fine, he can do that. I wash my hands of the page, because it's an utterly thankless task trying to keep it even marginally encyclopedic. I'm just posting this before I unwatch it in case anyone else actually cares. --Ludwigs2 23:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I care - but I may be a little busy in the coming weeks so I would like to suggest a course of action that might resolve this matter quickly. Has there been a RfC or other process regarding Pyrrhon8 (talk · contribs) and their editing? Has there been any admin intervention regarding their edits to the article previously? Notwithstanding the answer to the above, it is fairly obvious that - in this matter - Pyrrhon8 is a SPA who persistently reverts to their preferred version of the article, which details the philosophy of an academic who is not linked (not saying that a WP article is an indication of worth, but...) and might be served with a topic ban. I would invite other comments, and I would also like to thank Ludwigs2 for their previous efforts in this matter. I would note that I have not reviewed P8's edits to other articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just notified the editor of this thread. I'd support a topic ban, however, if it came to that: it's the only way, short of a block, we can ensure he no longer restores his version... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 00:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Only as a start, I've left a warning about edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems there's enough fault to go around, but judging by the talk page, Ludwigs2 is making a good attempt to discuss the article, while Pyrrhon8 doesn't seem to have discussed anything on the talk page in about 6 months. There's also previous discussion from this noticeboard about the same subject.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries about me - as I said, I am no longer interested in working on that page, at least while this situation pertains. Pyrrhon already left me this message; an unfortunate omen of things to come. I am not in the mood to go through the escalation of hostility that will most assuredly result from any action I make on the page, no matter how civil and reasonable I might be (and I do recognize that I am not very inclined to be civil or reasonable with him at the moment, which is another good reason to walk away from the page). The only action I might consider taking there myself would be to put it up for deletion again, as an intractable mess - I'll check back i in a few weeks, and if it's back to the sorry state it was in before the last AfD I'll nominate it again and see what happens. otherwise, sorry... I just don't have the stomach for it. --Ludwigs2 05:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems that there will be some fresh eyes on the matter, so you can step away from it now if that is what you wish. If there is any follow up issues relating to the editor and you outside of the Dignity article then you could note it here, or at my talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (shakes head) There are certain policies that always seem to be invoked by the people violating them -- & remarkably seldom by anyone else. (An example would be WP:AGF: it always seem that whenever someone is accused of some misdeed, when that person invokes "assume good faith", it is a confirmation of the accusation.) It would appear that WP:OWN should be added to their number. -- llywrch (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've interacted with the article now as an editor because I felt this version was an issue under WP:UNDUE. I've explained why at the talk page and proposed a compromise: an article for Aldergrove wherein his own views would understandably deserve prominence (presuming, of course, he meets notability; I saw about 100 hits at google scholar but only scanned them; he may). Leaving aside conduct issues for others to deal with, I'll list the article at WP:CN or WP:NPOVN if there is disagreement with my reasoning. Sometimes wider input can help more clearly define consensus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that. Hopefully this further input will lead to a resolution. I shall watchlist the article, but I am confident that any concerns regarding P8's editing stance will be returned here should other venues not address the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think Moonriddengirl's take, that the root editorial worry is WP:UNDUE, is spot on. P8 is moreover both edit warring over this, mistakenly trying to call GF edits vandalism as a means to claim it's not edit warring. P8's PoV seems verifiable and hence can be cited, but not by skiving out other other sources and PoVs, much less without consensus and edit warring over it. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated attempted outing

    Resolved
     – No need to round up the usual suspects. Toddst1 (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite being warned,[4] User :Breein1007 is repeatedly [5], [6] posting what he believes to be my real name on my talk page. I would like an admin to take steps to put a stop to this harassment. RolandR (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a ridiculously inappropriate twist of the truth on so many levels. First of all, Roland makes it appear above as if he warned me and then I posted his full name twice. If you take a look at the timestamps, you'll see that he is misrepresenting things. Let's assume he didn't do that on purpose. Moving on. If you take a look at his talk page, you will see other editors referring to him by full name. He doesn't have any complaints about that. Only with me, for some reason. It is worth noting that we have previous history and he has shown a repeated pattern of reverting my edits in the Israeli-Arab area on Wikipedia, often without edit summaries or discussions. Finally, it is important to consider that the username "Roland Rance" redirects to RolandR's page. Calling this an attempted outing or harassment is so ridiculous that it's funny. He might as well accuse me of tainting his name; that would have a better chance of being true. Anyway, I have better things to do. Have fun, Breein1007 (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You were asked to stay off his talk page and not to use his full name. You did both. Obvious disruption is obvious. I'd support a block until this user can ensure he's not going to continue with disruptive behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Outing does not support your analysis. "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." He can't demand that I don't use his name if he has made it public and kept it public... that's nonsense. Breein1007 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the second diff was posted after his warning. But I'm not sure it's outing when it seems to be a common assumption, going back to the first note on his talk page. See [7]. And at this writing, it is indeed posted higher on his talk page, here. And while only admins can currently see this, I wonder whether this edit (not oversighted or suppressed; deleted after an AfD found the article merited deletion) doesn't take "outing" off the table in the spirit of "unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information." He doesn't seem to have taken exception to claims about his identity here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this isn't a clear-cut case of outing, as Roland has previously posted his identity as pointed out above. However, it would be a clear case of disruption if any user were to continue using his full name after being asked not to. So I suggest Breein1007 stops this harassment (yes I'll call it that), and that this all gets cleared up asap, as the longer it stays here the more people (like me, not that I'm going to do anything with it) will know the original posters identity... Peter 13:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
    Posting to his talk page after being told not to is harassment, using his full name with that makes the intention very clear.--Crossmr (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I say that it had anything to do with WP:OUTING? No I didn't. I said you were asked not to use his full name and not to post on his talk page and you persisted in your harassment by doing both. Whether it's OUTING or just plain harassment it doesn't really matter. Since you don't seem to get it at all, I'd strongly suggest a block until you read up on the relevant policies and wiki guidelines on behaviour and demonstrate you understand them.--Crossmr (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    After a quick look at his block log and the fact that he apparently knows what it means to be told to stay off someone's talk page[8], I'd suggest at least a week as he seems to have had a little trouble getting it the last few months.--Crossmr (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "outing" comes into it via the header title: "Repeated attempted outing." There may be some harassment going on, but I don't think this is actual outing, given the circumstances. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Strictly speaking, that's true, but using someone's full name when it's an "open secret" or not readily and intentionally public has the same chilling effect as outing - it's as if to say (in my best 60's villain voice), "I know who you are". --B (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but so do we all. As User:Fences and windows points out below and Breen points out at Roland's talk page, User:Roland Rance redirects to User:RolandR. And until he archived it (well after the filing this report), the name was already in use on his own talk page. I'm afraid that I have to agree with Fences and windows on this one; a harassment block may be appropriate based on the overall pattern (I haven't looked closely), but there's no claim to protection under Wikipedia:Outing when you've already outed yourself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I think is relevant from the policy is this, "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing." So while RolandR did not (that we are aware of) make any effort to redact the information, he did ask the user not to refer to him by his (I guess we're supposed to say "alleged") full name on his talk page. That he did it again is what really sets me off. --B (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    However, I'll note again that his alleged full name was already in use on his talk page and had been for years: [9]. If somebody asked me not to refer to them by a particular name, I would certainly refrain from doing so. It seems like taunting to do otherwise. Again, perhaps a harassment block is appropriate. But, still, it is not outing, not even within the spirit of "their wishes should be respected", when they are still actively displaying the name. He had made no visible effort to distance himself from it before threatening to block Breein for using it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For some reason, Miszabot did not archive some old comments, but left them on my talk poage. Following the comments earliuer in this discussion, I have rectified this. RolandR (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Breein1007, now that you've been asked not to post what you believe to be RolandR's real name (and any other personal information) can we assume that you won't do this again? TFOWR 14:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And stay off his talk page, he's been told he isn't welcome there.--Crossmr (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support a block for continuing in the behavior after being asked to stop, as Crossmr says, breen just doesn't seem to get it'. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block - There is also a current arbcom enforcement request concerning this user at Wikipedia:AE#User:Breein1007. Though I had felt, when looking at that page before, that the issues therein did not warrant sanction, this incident makes it much less possible to view the user's behavior in a positive light. It is impossible to view in a favorable light using his full name in this particular incident. Even if you have a user whose real name is public, you address him as John or perhaps Mr. Smith under some circumstances, but not John Smith. I'm inclined to support a lengthy block and upon his return, either an outright topic ban or at least some kind of strong probation. --B (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • People who out themselves on Wikipedia don't get protection under WP:OUTING. User:Roland Rance redirects to User:RolandR, RolandR extensively edited the now-deleted Roland Rance, and RolandR said in April 2009 that "I edit using my own name" when his editing was raised at the COI noticeboard. RolandR can ask someone not to post on his talk page, but the name issue is a red herring. If he is blocked merely for "outing", I will unblock. Fences&Windows 18:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • While it's true that RolandR did out himself, WP:OUTING addresses respecting the wishes of people who out themselves, but change their mind. Roland asked Breein1007 not to use his real name, then Breein1007 responded by using it again. I'm sorry, but I don't consider that to be acceptable conduct. Whether we call it outing, harassment, or being disruptive, whatever it is I don't believe to be acceptable. --B (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Accounts are here are for encyclopedia building, citing sources, echoing them in article text and if need be, talking about those sources with other editors. Knowing a user doesn't want their name flaunted about, but doing it anyway, is harassment meant to sway editorial content, which is blockable. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked Breein1007 for 7 days. PhilKnight (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a ridiculous thread and one of the worst blocks I've seen in a while. I'll refrain from leaving comments on User talk:Roland Rance. Toddst1 (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion on whether or not the block was "technically right" but there's a little rule I follow that generally keeps me out of trouble. If multiple editors in good faith ask me to stop doing "X" then I stop doing "X". "X" could be anything. It could be a request to not use someone's real name. It could be a request to not change "$" into "US$". It could be a lot of different things. If "X" was something I felt strong enough about, then I would discuss the issue with those concerned but I certainly wouldn't keep doing "X" after multiple reasonable requests to stop. If it turned out that there was a consensus that I shouldn't do "X", (or in the case of using someone's real name, that editor alone) then I would drop it and go do something else. Follow such a rule and it's unlikely that one would ever come close to getting blocked, legitimately or illegitimately. (of course that doesn't excuse bad blocks) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please delve a bit more into why you think this thread is ridiculous? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for Todd, but I'd be happy to delve. Gwen, it appears to me you haven't been following the discussion. If what Breein says is correct, Roland does not object when people he likes or agrees with use his real name (if it indeed is -- I have no idea). When someone he disagrees with politically uses readily available info that RR put on his own user page, it magically becomes "outing." It's a hideously ill-considered block, using that rationale. As for harrassment, well, I've had a very nasty user post to my talk page repeatedly, and refuse to stop despite being warned. Block length? Nil. People tend not to care about that sort of thing here, unless things get political... as I think you yourself can attest, Gwen. IronDuke 19:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What? Politics? Here? I'm shocked... shocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Extremely unfair block. I believe that now PhilKnight should either unblock Breein or block an admin Toddst1 for this edit. Of course neither one of them done anything wrong, nothing to get blocked for even for a minute, leave alone 7 days!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With User:Roland_Rance an RD to User:RolandR, how can he be unhappy with someone calling him by the former? I was thinking he didn't want his name openly known, but he clearly doesn't care. This isn't outing, the block should be lifted. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely right Gwen Gale, and you are an administrator with the great experience and courage. So, why don't you lift the block yourself, and maybe even warn rolandr for filing false reports on AN/I and for his battleground mentality?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've emailed the blocking admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't object if you want to unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    PhilKnight, it might be a good idea to apologize to Breein for the unfair block. I understand mistakes with the blocks may and will happen, but in such cases an apology will be nice.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've unblocked, I think the block was a good faith misunderstanding, outing is a big worry here. I have no on-wiki comments for User:RolandR about this, but I do understand why someone said this thread was ridiculous, it was. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My objection, as I noted when I made this complaint, was that Breein's repeated edit and use of a real name, despite my request that he stop, was clearly intended as harassment. The removal of the block suggests that he is entitled to repeat such edits. I request that he be formally warned not to do so. RolandR (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You post was named " Repeated attempted outing", and not "harassment". Stop gambling the system--Mbz1 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He didn't gamble anything. The behaviour was part of his original complaint and I clarified the issue at the beginning. This was a clear case of harassment. A poor title choice doesn't give a user freedom to go harass someone.--Crossmr (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, nice catch on the typo -- pretty much obliterates Mb's point, doesn't it? And harrassment? I've had worse done to me and been met with yawns. IronDuke 01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Roland, you got the (bad) block you wanted, angering Breein and embarrassing Phil. I'd leave it alone. IronDuke 21:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Intentional harassment is a bad block? Wow.--Crossmr (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A 7 day block for a bit of unpleasantness? Please. If that was SOP, we'd be handing them out like candy. IronDuke 01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Given previous behaviour, yes, it is completely appropriate and several people supported it.--Crossmr (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    RR, in my unblock post I brought that up. Outing is not taken lightly here. If you have username worries you can do something about them by first having a look at Wikipedia:Username_change. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Since the editor has been unblocked, I have now issued them with a 4im warning not to refer to RolandR by their RL name since they have been requested not to. My RL name is readily available, but I would not take kindly to being referred by it and if I asked someone not to do so again I would expect that wish to be respected. If anyone can provide a rationale by which referring to an account, as against their WP identity and contrary to their wishes, by their real name is of a benefit to the encyclopedia then I will withdraw the warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can an official limit to useless pile-ons on Breein be instituted? Poorly conceived extra warnings will not help. Yes, Breein could have been a bit more attentive to Roland's new, special needs, but this was a block fishing expedition that, unfortunately, turned Breein into a victim (and Phil, too, though he is in part to blame himself). IronDuke 22:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Either way, the user has been both asked (by me) and warned (by LHvU) not to bring this up again, he knows now and I'd support a block for harassment (not outing) if this does stir up again. That said, I think the link between those usernames and the overall background on this show untowards sniping by both editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    @LessHeard vanU, I cannot provide "rationale by which referring to an account, as against their WP identity and contrary to their wishes, by their real name is of a benefit", but even less so I can provide rationale why addressing to an account by its widely available real name should have been reported as "Repeated attempted outing". Maybe you could fint that rationale, and if you cannot maybe you will consider issuing the warning to rolondr, just to be fair,you know.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to me to be more an issue of civility than anything else. There are many editors whose real life names are "known", accurately or otherwise, through being outed on other websites than this. However, if an editor expresses a wish to to have their RL name not mentioned here, we should respect that, and not argue the toss about policies and guidelines. Commonsense and the co-operative nature of this project should make that obvious. Rodhullandemu 23:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BINGO! --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rodhullandemu, the filer real name is mentioned on his talk page of this very site by the filer himself. But here's the point, if the filer filed the report to civility noticeboard, it would have been probably go with no any sanctions taken against Breein. As a matter of fact such report would have sound laughable. So instead the filer came to this board and filed it under "Repeated attempted outing". It was done to attract an attention, and to maximize the possible sanctions. Such behavior of the filer deserves at least a warning.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've just checked, and I don't see it there. But perhaps that's not the point, as expressed briefly but eloquently by Ron Ritzman above. I'm not saying that the parties here are entirely free of criticism, but I do stand by my previous comment. It's a matter of basic respect, elderly redirects and Talk page mentions notwithstanding. Rodhullandemu 23:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Breein shouldn't have been poking his buttons and Roland shouldn't have filed the report in the way he did. I think that both should understand that from reading the discussion and doubt anymore admonishment is necessary. If we are to switch gears to Roland I think it should be done as a separate report at AE. We could also just drop it for now.Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rodhullandemu It is here. @Cptnono, disagree with you. There's not enough material to file AE on rolandr,but a warning for his report at this board should be issued IMO, and then the matter should be dropped.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors should take the hint and stop sniping at each other now, because both will be unhappy if this spins up into more warnings, or worse. Would someone be willing to close this thread, please? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Gwen, I wonder if Phil would be willing to apologize, or at least admit he was wrong? I'd ask the same of Roland, but, well... IronDuke 01:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? I don't think he was wrong, and several other people don't think he's wrong.--Crossmr (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Gwen, I'm sorry but that was a horrible unblock. Regardless of whether or not Outing was an issue, Roland asked him not to use his full name and to cease posting on his talk page. He went there and intentionally did both of those things to harass him. It's a clear case of disruptive behaviour and he didn't show any indication of getting it even though he knew what being told to stay off someone's talk page meant (As demonstrated by him telling an George to stay off his talk page). Your claim on his talk page that the original block was uncalled for is false and only enables him, I'd ask you to retract that (and black kite agrees with me above), and in fact he still continues to not get it. Yes, outing wasn't the issue, but harassment was. The block could be invalid for that, but a block was warranted, if yo uwanted the right words on it he could have been unblocked and blocked again.--Crossmr (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Horrible?" Overstate much? If this behavior is disruptive, there need to be massive blocks handed out. Phil appears to have gotten fooled by a misleading header. We should all move on, but if blame were to be assigned, it would be 1) Roland, for a frivolous and misleading report 2) Phil for so easily falling for it and 3) Breein for not playing as nicely with others as he should. IronDuke 01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not at all. His title might have been misleading, but the report wasn't. Breein was told to stay off the talk page and not use the name, he then went and did both to harass him. Maybe outing wasn't the best title, but it doesn't give Breein a pass to do what he did.--Crossmr (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I see this descending into an unnecessary personal issue between two editors that, as usual here, has been blown out of all proportion. Comments about AE are irrelevant. My take is that if RolandR had wanted to hide his real name, that could have been more effectively handled, perhaps by WP:RTV; but I can't criticise him for not knowing that. However, if one editor asks another not to use a prior (and possibly RL) name here, it is only courteous to do so. It shouldn't matter whether the information is publicly accessible - and that is because we frequently reject publicly available information on the basis of WP:BLP because it it not reliably sourced. If we do that for our articles, it makes no sense not to do it for our contributors. Rodhullandemu 01:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems to me that a lot of people are trying to focus on the "outing" and ignore the real issue. [10] Breein was told to stay off his talk page and not use his real name. His response was to go to Roland's talk page and do both: [11].Whether we want to quibble over "outing" is irrelevant. It's harassment. Users being told to stay off another's talk page has a long history here of being respected and enforced. Breein demonstrates a couple weeks ago that he understands that concept [12].--Crossmr (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I can tell you from personal experience, most people care not at all when someone's precious talk page is invaded, much less do they hand out 7 day blocks. IronDuke 01:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And I can tell from personal experience that the opposing sides of wikpedia's I-P battleground will show up on AN/I every time to support their factions and oppose the others, regardless of the facts on the ground or the details of the case at hand. "My fellow partisan is right, and his/her/its opponents are wrong" carries the day here. I see it in IronDuke, I see it in Mbz1 above. This is the sorta thing that needs to be clamped down on by the community. Hard. This is why I have largely abandoned the topic area and no longer have a scrap of it on the watchlist. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only say that your comment, combined with your spotless history of anti-Israel editing, reinforces that you have chosen wisely. IronDuke 02:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot speak about Tarc's editing, but his general observation here is dead on. Pro-Israel and pro-Palestianian editors consistently act en bloc on various noticeboards and at ArbCom. I assume (but don't know at first hand, because I try to stay away from the quagmire of Israel/Palestinian-oriented articles) that they do the same on articles and talk pages as well. I think their actions do need to be curtailed, because their block-voting and -commentary makes it extremely difficult to ascertain what the rest of Wikipedia thinks about whatever issue is as hand. There may be a need for a blanket ban from Wikipedia space of a significant number of editors who are consistent in this behavior pattern, perhaps for six months or a year. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I can speak to his editing, so please do take my word for it. As for bloc editing, I'm sure that goes on on both sides, just as it does on many nationalist/ethnic subjects, as well as abortion, Scientology, climate change, etc. "Blanket" bans isn't a clumsy solution, it's part of the problem. The people who are the most passionate about these subjects are (certainly in the case of the I-P area) usually far and away the most knowledgeable. The best course is to control that passion, not ban it. Also, this is kinda off topic. If you want to come by my talk page and continue the discussion, I'm all ears (or eyes, anyway). IronDuke 03:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ken, my editing is best described as anti-stupidly-partisan, and starting with one of IronDuke's old cohorts, the famous Zeq, the Israeli fanclub seems to have no limit of that type. That topic area already saw one good sweep a year or so ago when many high-profile names were booted out by ArbCom. But this current case shows that the broom didn't quite reach all the nooks and crannies. Tarc (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your comments here belie your self-evaluation. If you must continue to vent spleen, could you do it elsewhere? The reboot below is a good reminder to us all. IronDuke 03:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I speak is the truth, and if you don't like being called out, rightly, for being a part of the problem, then by all means stop being one. Tarc (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @IronDuke: Under normal circumstances I would be all in favor of focusing on the specifics of this case, but, really, that is part of our current problem. If, in each new instance, we only look at the circumstances of the present case, without putting it into the context of what's happening throughout the project, we miss the forest because of our focus on the trees. These cases are generated by the animosity between Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestinean editors, and no amount of dealing with specific incidents is going to put a damper on the general problem. This is something that needs to be dealt with on a meta-level a step or two above the petty harrassment and outing and incivility and edit warring complaints. Failure to recognize the global problem will simply guarantee that local problems will continue to multiply. I would urge admins to start taking a firmer line against infractions by both sides of this issue, and start handing out some significant blocks to convince folks that Wikipedia is serious about their not inflicting their ideological differences on the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would urge sensible, careful talk, and good faith mediation. It won't always work, but it will be better than bans, in terms of improving article quality, which is what we are here for. It's too easy, especially on this board, to allow minor annoyances to cloud judgement -- to a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. IronDuke 14:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hardly a "minor annoyance", the stuff has been clogging up noticeboards and ArbCom pages for months now. I'm only suggesting that the problem be solved at the root instead of continually dealing only with the proximate problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that this particular instance was minor, and the IP problems have been at various boards for years, not months, as have many other hot button issues. Your "solution" is offered in good faith, I've no doubt, but will significantly degrade article quality. In the last arbcom blood sacrifice, we lost some of our best editors on both sides of the IP divide. I see no net gain from that, and apparently you don't either. IronDuke 22:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You assert that article quality in this subject area has been hurt by the sanctioning of editors. I would suggest that perhaps article quality has suffered (if it has) because the toxic atmosphere created by warring editors in that area drives away non-partisan editors, and that if ArbCom or the community of admins would take strong steps to suppress aberrant behavior, we'd have more people editing the articles, and better quality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reboot

    Being asked to stay away from an editors userpage, is that something which should be honored?

    Being asked to not refer to the editor by what is understood to be their real name, is that something to be honored?

    These are the questions that we should be considering. Unomi (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the focus, Unomi.
    Yes, one should respect requests to stay away from user talkpages, and those who fail to respect this should be warned once, then blocked.
    Yes, people should not refer to editors by a name they do not wish to be called, whatever that is. I just had an editor tell me he didn't like how I shortened his name, so I honored his request. That is not, FWIW, what happened here, AFAICT. I believe that Roland has publicized his own name here, and had friends call him by it, then demanded that one, and only one, editor not call him this name. Then, when that request was not honored, used it as a pretext to launch this frivolous thread with ensuing drama. (If I have facts wrong here, I welcome a correction.) People who abuse this process should, at the very least, be firmly told not to do it again. IronDuke 03:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A clearly blatant attempt by RolandR to silence an editor with an opposing view.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference in letting you co-editors know who you are and having every insult they wish to throw at you in a searchable database under your own name. Claiming that user pages are not searchable is disengenuious they are only non-searchable by the free search engines with very little effort anyone can aquire search engines that can search all pages of a wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.198 (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Breein could have said what he wanted elsewhere without doing it on his talk page and without using his full name. Doing so intentionally was an intent to disrupt.--Crossmr (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've seen this brought up here numerous times, and blocks and warnings have been issued for it. Breein has been blocked several times in the last few months for his behaviour and can't quite seem to bring it inline with the community. Escalating blocks is the only way to deal with that. Quickly unblocking and calling the block wrong does nothing more than enable him.--Crossmr (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and yes to both. The support for this Breein person to get away with doing what he has done generally comes from like-minded POV warriors who are bringing more heat than light to the situation. Tarc (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just tuning back in to this fiasco. It's clear that this was not outing and that the report of outing was used as a ruse to attract attention and garner a block. At first blush I might have blocked as well. However upon further investigation, it clearly was not outing and it's clear to me that both editors involved (Breein1007 & Roland) were being dicks. Perhaps some analysis:

    • Blocks warranted for this? Certainly not unilatarally. This is a symptom of much of what's wrong with drama boards here on WP. Drama brings action. I'm sure I've been lured into similar action on more than a few occasions.
    • Was Phil well intentioned? Yes, without question.
    • Did Gwen do what she thought was best? Again, yes, without question.
    • Are both admins fully competent? Again, yes, without question.
    • Should we all do something else now? Probably.

    Good night folks. Toddst1 (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Roland told Breein to stay off his talk page and not to use his full name, Breein did both. Can you provide diffs of any behaviour from Roland that would warrant a block or action? While Roland was blocked a few times 3 years ago, he's only got 1 recent block and that was months ago. Breein has had monthly blocks for several months now. In the context of him, he's an editor who has had issues getting along with the community and is continuing that problem. Forget the mistitling of the thread, and instead look at what actually happened, far too many people are obsessed with the title and are basically using it to give Breein a pass on what he did.--Crossmr (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    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.[13] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A bad week dating back to March? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Well, sure. But I still would be happy to see it. (and it's actually more probable than me winning the lottery, which I would also be happy to see!) ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    If there were evidence of block evasion, that would be different (and would be covered by WP:EVADE, which says that e.g. a reset of the block might be in order). If there has been any disruption since the block began, please post diffs. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No evidence thus far, however MK stated he was going on a trip for 2 days and would return [14]. If there is to be sockpuppet and/or evasion tactics with further disruption, over the weekend will be the time that it occurs. Based on MK's behavior, I too am beginning to believe that eventually this user will be indef blocked, but I will still file the RFC after MK is unblocked in the hopes that it does some good. -OberRanks (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason for an extension to indef at this time. Let the block go to completion and see where things stand then. ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What Lar said. Keep paying out the WP:ROPE for a while, the result might even be reform. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The biggest fear that I (or any editor has) have is that he will come back, make socks, harass, and waste time of all editors involved. Maybe an indef block is not the best option now, if anything continues, I would not oppose. Old Al (Talk) 17:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was pretty upset at how fast Mk went from zero to nasty with me over a minor capitalization issue, but that said, a person actually CAN have a bad couple of months, things like losing a job, or death of a loved one, sickness, or lots of other chronic things can get someone off kilter and they may not want to discuss a personal matter publicly on wiki, yet the emotionality comes through nonetheless. So maybe we should give him one more chance. I'm in favor of seeing if he will accept a mentor or something like that. However, that does need to come with a clear understanding that threats of disruption and such are not acceptable, and neither is use of personal attacks and insults. Montanabw(talk) 00:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The block is due to expire Tuesday, I believe, so I guess we'll see what happens. My projection based on past experience with this user is that MK will probably immediately file an ANI report again me, Lars, and anyone else who participated in this block. While MK might very well calm down and be civil, the underlying issue is that MK truly believes he is doing nothing wrong. And I also agree this is probably tied into real world events and/or who MK is in the real world. MK has advertised that he is British but also has stated openly he lives in the United States. I believe we may be dealing with an exchange student, or perhaps someone who is young. That is of course rampant speculation on my part and I do not wish to pry into MK's real world identity - just an observation. -OberRanks (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose an indef block (I get the feeling that "permanent" is meant by indef). Let's not jump the gun here. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is normal behaviour for Mk, unfortunately. He can be reasonable but he can also be completely unreasonable and that has caused significant trouble. He really needs to understand that it's time to stop the aggression. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would have to agree with Guy. I've worked with him before, he's a bright editor but just a bit stubbon sometimes if things don't go his way. I think maybe just point him towards some helpful Wikipedia guidelines but I think an indef block is a bit extreme unless he actually makes good on his threat to evade and starts to cause trouble. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think filing an RfC is an unnecessary step: this editor initiated a dispute over an amazingly trivial matter (which ought to be added to WP:LAME), & as a result was banned several times. It would be difficult not to conclude he has been sufficiently warned about his inappropriate behavior. And I agree with Chris Cunningham's comment above -- trying to explain his behavior as "a bad week" is needlessly bending over backwards to accommodate the guy. If everyone wants to wait to see how Mk behaves once his block expires, that's fine by me; handling problems like this works best when the least amount of effort is needed. Maybe he's had an epiphany & will start being far less adversarial after this last block. (I actually am always hopeful about that these kinds of changes could happen.) But if he immediately returns to his old ways, then the only thing left to debate is whether an indefinite block or a community ban is the appropriate solution for this individual. -- llywrch (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. Montanabw(talk) 17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It might benefit this situation if an administrator posts a message on MKs talk page before tomorrow (when the block expires) cautioning MK to avoid posting on ANI, attacking those who blocked him, and asking for punishments against other users with which he has had disagreements. If MK does in fact engage in that behavior, and shows up tomorrow looking for vengeance, then I would say that would be grounds for an immediate re-block on the grounds of disruptive editing. At this point, MK is well aware that his own behavior has caused most of his troubles on Wikipedia - he has been counseled, cautioned, and warned at one time or another by no less than seven administrators (at least by my count). The best thing for MK to do now would be to go back to peaceful editing. -OberRanks (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if I'm the best person to do that, but if no one else has posted that friendly advice OberRanks suggests on MK's page in the next few hours, I will do just that. The idea is to nudge worthwhile editors towards civil/professional behavior on Wikipedia -- which will only help good-faith editors in their off-Wiki activities -- not to get rid of volunteers just because they are incivil without knowing better. -- llywrch (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TreasuryTag

    Resolved
     – Nothing actionable here. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 09:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user keeps being on my back about edits, not allowing them to be compelted and saying that you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia for making very simple, and quite reasonable edits. The user seems to revert whilst I am in mid-edit, seeming trying to create an edit war. Another example is that, even though a request for deletion has been denied for a vote on a page such as File:The Time of Angels illustrative image.jpg he has just re-instigated it.

    I have been a Wikipedia contributor for over four years, and this user treats me like some two year old. It does rather appear that he/she wishes for a certain point of view on certain pages and won't let anyone else near them, spouting rules that seem to require inaccuracy, and over content he/she seems to have never seen.

    If there is some rule that I have missed I apologies, but it does not seem sensible that Wikipedia can't actually have accurate information because one editor decides not. Thank you.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you provide some specific diffs to what you're concerned about? TT is well known around here, and while perhaps stubborn at times (I've disagreed with him/her before), I haven't known TT to be reckless with things like this. Shadowjams (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He may be referring to when I objected to him adding an unencyclopedic copy-paste from the BBC website. Or perhaps he's confusing me with the multiple editors who had problems with his edit-warring to include rampant original research – really don't know what he means... :P ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 09:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    About a month ago, the DRV discussion on the image in question closed with no consensus, though the closing admin clearly noted that the image could be relisted at any time. I relisted it, waiting a tasteful few weeks first. Briantist (talk · contribs) seems to think that is acceptable to remove the {{ifd}} tag, and he used the semi-literate and rather unclear edit-summary of "delete already denied" – I have no further comment to make on this ridiculous issue. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 09:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You are not permitted to remove an XfD tag from an article or file while the discussion is in progress. Editors are entitled to relist files, especially as it has been some time and the closing admin of the DRV was specifically open to relisting... so with regards to the only example you gave, you're wrong as far as I can see. What admin action are you after here? Ale_Jrbtalk 09:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed. This is a case for Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...well, it might be a case for WQA if he raised any substantive problems with me other than his own "delete already denied" intolerance... ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 09:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no point especially commenting on the merits of such a case here; in the event that a WQA is opened, comments can go there. I don't see any significant problems myself, but then I haven't gone through all the contribs and BRIANTIST may have other issues he wishes to bring to light. Ale_Jrbtalk 09:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Done ;) Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 09:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Cala-boca-galvao joke

    Resolved
     – Speedied per G3 (as hoax) by Gwen Gale. Thanks! Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems there is a joke going around the Internet (Twitter, blogs, etc.) regarding a certain "Cala Boca Galvao". This is being reported as an endangered bird species but means "Shut Up Galvao" in reference to a Brazilian sports commentator.

    In any case, I just noticed a new article on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cala-boca-galvao that adds credibility to the joke and is clearly false (as the Cala Boca Galvao is not a bird).

    I wanted to bring it to your attention, as the article might help spread the joke and give it credibility.

    88.3.33.170 (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've deleted it as v/hoax. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, you beat me to it. Thanks to the anon contributor who spotted this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Same anon here, I just found another article highly suspicious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galv%C3%A3o_(Bird) it was created a few hours ago. 88.3.33.170 (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and we have another extinct species. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Very much ex parrots, methinks I smell sockies, no inexperienced editor can spin up flawlessly crafted articles like that. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The "flawlessly crafted" articles were probably created by taking an existing article about some other parrot and just changing a few sentences. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the beans :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Coren's bot seems to have stumbled onto something, we'll see if the autoblocks stir something up. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, 88.3.33.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)! —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for an admin to close an unblock discussion

    Resolved
     – by HJ Mitchell: nothing more to be said at this time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I'm looking for an uninvolved admin to close and summarize this discussion on AN about whether to overturn the community ban of Peter Damian. Peter has e-mailed me to say that he wants to withdraw the request for now, as it's clear there's no consensus to overturn the ban. However, quite a few people said they would reconsider in a few months time if Peter avoids socking and agrees to certain other things. I'm therefore looking for an admin who will give a detailed summing up of the views, so that Peter has a clear pointer for a way forward. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Falls of Cruachan derailment AfD

    The Falls of Cruachan derailment AfD has been reopened by MickMacNee (talk · contribs). This is the AfD I referred to in the AfD etiquette thread above. MMN knows full well that WP:DRV is the way to go if the closure of an AfD is disagreed with. The reopening of the AfD is approaching WP:DE as the article had been listed for WP:DYK and had been approved and placed in a queue following the successful "keep" closure. Would an uninvolved admin please take a look at the situation? Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, first off, a big thanks to administrator Roots for informing me he was having a chat about me in the section above this one. Secondly, if I may be allowed to tell people what I "know full well" in my own words, that would be grand - as far as I knew, if you don't agree with the appripriateness of a non-admin closure (a detail which Roots seems to have omitted from his report), all you need do is revert it and wait for an admin to close. If I'm wrong, and I sincerely don't believe I am, I'd be happy to trundle over to DRV and have it out there. As for the DYK issue, maybe if he had bothered mentioning it at all at the Afd or on the article talk page, I might not have risked exploding Wikipedia by restoring an Afd tag to a queued article. As it is, I knew nothing about it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    MMN, if you read the thread above, I never mentioned which editor was being talked about, nor which AfD as I was not after sanctioning you over that AfD, but trying to establish some ground rules for the future. This is not the first time you've badgered editors who hold an opposing view to yours, nor is it the first time your editing has been raised at ANI. I see nothing inappropriate in the closure, there is no way the article was going to get deleted following the debate. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From - Wikipedia:Non-admin closure - Inappropriate early closures will either be summarily reverted by any administrator or almost certainly will result in a successful request to redo the process at Wikipedia:Deletion review.. - I'm not aware that MMN has been granted the privileges of an Admin yet. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I say I reverted it for simply being an early closure? MickMacNee (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you didn't revert for early closure, then the only other rationale is that the closure decision of keep was incorrect. As this has been endorsed by an independent admin, the decision was correct in the first place. I can see no reason to take this to DRV in that case. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to read the policies. A non-admin closure is, if not for technicalities, is only appropriate for uncontroversial decisions that will not be a delete outcome (and yes, we can skip the reply where you will state you don't think it was controversial to close it as keep, that's a given). A non-admin closure is not appropriate just because they think they will get it right, otherwise they could try and close any Afd they fancied on good faith. The fact that an admin has now closed it as keep is absolutley not an endorsement of the idea that a non-admin closure was appropriate in any way here, and I have my doubts as to how much thought he put into that closure, given the impression he simply jumped on it and closed it to avoid the drama you kicked off here. The one line rationale is unconvincing, which is why, with his agreement, it will be going to DRV. MickMacNee (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It has run its seven days as far as I can see, if not to the exact hour, and consensus appears to be keep. I have closed it as an admin. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    When I had an AFD nomination I was involved in and it was closed by a non admin closure I went to the editor and asked him to reopen it, which he happily did and I would have also if been given the opportunity. I was perhaps on or over the line of non admin closure there, it was about 15 keep type comments and five delete type comments. The discussion had stalled for about a couple of days and after a good read of the article and the discussion it seems clear in my mind that there was only one outcome and so I closed it as keep. I think I was correct in the closure and that was the way anyone would have closed it. From my side I will take care in future not to close similar AFDs. Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Now at WP:DRV. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crash (1984 TV series) (2nd nomination) as speedy keep by User:Ktr101

    Resolved
     – I reopened it and issues have been resolved. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I nominated this article for deletion first on the the 29th of May. The discussion was closed reasonably by a non-admin as keep, with "no prejudice against a quick renomination if sources aren't found". After a day, no sources had been provided by any other editors, so I looked for myself using English/Danish google, and found no citable significant coverage. I therefore renominated the article for deletion. After a few indignant Keep !votes, Ktr101 closed the debate with the following rational "this page won't be deleted so please accept it. "Just because sources aren't there doesn't mean it isn't notable," seems to be the effective argument here." I feel that this closure was extremely premature just under six and a half hours after the discussion was opened, and the user concerned, while an experienced contributor, may not be impartial and is not an administrator, so should not close potentially controversial AFD discussions. The closure was also unjustified due to the comment made by the user closing the debate previously and, in my opinion, the weakness of the arguments behind the keep !votes, as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources around. Therefore, per WP:NPASR, the debate should be relisted. I've notified Ktr101. Claritas § 18:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I requested the AFD to be shut, since there's "quick renomination", and there's taking the piss. A renom within 23 hours of closure of the original one I'd say is the latter. Just to say, that just because you can't find any reliable sources, doesn't mean someone else wouldn't be able to. Sources don't just exist on the net, they're in printed material, books, etc... I'm sure that with some patience and some work, it can be verified to the point of being able to keep it. For now, let's see what we can do with it. BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 19:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am impartial here and would've never even stumbled upon it if it wasn't brought to my attention. Basically I can see where you are coming from here. The problem is, you renominated it the day after it was closed. I have never seen an AFD renomination occur so quickly before and you should remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress so people don't normally fix articles in 24 hours. I agree that my closure rationale was a bit wrong but I also was basing it on the fact that the original ran for two weeks until it was closed. Clearly if more people wanted it deleted, they would've voted but usually when people see a sleu of keep votes, they don't bother because it would really be just restating the obvious. Also, you should seek help at the Danish Wikipedia as I'm assuming a few of them speak English and they might be able to help you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has a source - IMDB. Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a reliable source which can be used to substantiate claims of notability, however. It simply verifies that the series exists. Claritas § 19:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If it isn't reliable, then why is it on thousands of articles and used as a primary source for many of them? Surely an unreliable source would be blacklisted by now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IMDB is not a reliable source, nor can it be used to indicate notability, as it strives to list all productions regardless of notability.—Kww(talk) 19:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Kevin, for the same reason that Wikia and other non-reliable wikis haven't been blacklisted: they aren't reliable sources because it is still user-driven information, but it may still have value as an external link. IMDB definitely falls within this category...there is little to no editorial oversight, probably just enough to ensure blatantly false info isn't added, though I've certainly found a tremendous amount of inaccurate data over my years of using that site. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh okay, I guess I have been inept about the site all this time. Sorry for the accusations there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That really is a quick renomination. It would've been better to wait a couple of weeks, at least. That gives others a fair amount of time to make the improvements, and it also makes your argument a lot stronger if they don't. Win-win. If you really think it needed to be reconsidered sooner, WP:DRV would seem more appropriate. Shimeru 19:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NPASR, "the closer may specify no prejudice against speedy renomination. In such cases, if anyone wants to immediately nominate the article a second time, he/she is free to do so." I think my actions were appropriate per all policy I've read. Claritas § 19:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I'm not saying it was inappropriate. Just that it might've been better to wait a little longer first. You seem to be well within your rights. Shimeru 21:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This close seems completely inappropriate to me: a "speedy keep" only applies if the nomination was purely disruptive or if the nominator withdraws and no delete votes have been registered: neither is the case here.—Kww(talk) 19:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Should it just have been a keep even though it was open less than 12 hours? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No. You shouldn't have closed it at all. Your closing of the AFD was simply the wrong thing to do.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't have been speedied, they should have asked the nom to withdraw and wait a week or two. The close was inappropriate. It would have been better if the nominator waited a bit longer, but I see no reason to abandon WP:AGF based on a simple reading of the previous close. Verbal chat 20:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, "this page won't be deleted so please accept it" is unacceptable in a closing statement, especially when the article is highly likely to be deleted unless significantly improved. Verbal chat 20:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've undone everything. I only wrote the rationale because I really couldn't think of anything at the time as I viewed it as a bit too soon. I was wrong and I am sorry for causing this drama. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Kww, I asked for it to be shut, since I feel that the original closer quoting WP:NPASR was wrong - the policy is misleading, since it states it can be used on "No consensus" closes, nothing else. I don't feel the closing editor was right to use it. The original one was open for a fortnight, obtained no delete votes, and I simply considered that the immediate renom within less than a day after closure was too rapid. I support the closure entirely, since it would help if the nominator gave people more time to find sources, than assuming they were the only one who could find them. BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 20:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there was one delete vote in the original one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, missed it :) Well even then, there was enough keeps for it to be shut as a keep after 2 weeks... Either way, NPASR shouldn't have been quoted in the close. BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 20:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree that it shouldn't have been reopened so soon as well. It was a good-faith nomination, so it remains up to the nominator to withdraw it, though.—Kww(talk) 20:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the first AfD, it should have either been relisted or closed as a delete. There wasn't a single valid keep rationale presented. Verbal chat 20:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have significant doubts that this is a good faith renomination, given the nominator's practice of creating utterly unsourced articles -- eg, Muhsin ibn Qaid, Colegio Anglo Americano Prescott, Buluggin ibn Muhammad, Ángel Calderón de la Barca y Belgrano, andKar-Mulla -- him- or herself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) I am the "non-admin snout counter" who closed the first AFD and I would like to apologize for indirectly starting this drama. The first AFD was what is sometimes called at DRV a "defective debate". Almost all the !votes were "keep" but they all were pretty weak. However, the last 2 keep !votes made a valid point about the possibility of significant coverage in Danish so I closed it keep in order to give some additional time to find and evaluate these potential sources. By "quick renomination" I didn't mean the very next day. I meant "weeks" instead of "months" as is the usual custom with "keep" closes. Since it wasn't a BLP I thought this was reasonable and still within the spirit of WP:DELPRO#Non-administrators_closing_discussions. I also do a lot of WP:NPASR closes where I say "speedy renominate" so I should have elaborated further and not just said "quick". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You shouldn't have closed the first one as keep. If an article is on the chopping block and no one can provide the sources, as far as we are concerned at that point in time they don't exist. While we normally don't have a deadline, I would consider an AfD a deadline and if someone can't provide sources in 7 days to establish notability, it probably doesn't exist.--Crossmr (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree if the AFD were on a "high risk" article such as a BLP or a completely unverifiable subject (WP:HOAX, WP:BALLS, or WP:MADEUP). The subject in question is a Danish TV show from the 80s which is a "low risk" article. If an admin closed that AFD as "delete", it would be overturned at DRV. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Long standing content editors to be disenfranchised by any passing Admin!

    This looks like a very serious incident to me and I very much hope that all editors are watching this closely. It's their own fault if they suddenly find themselves banned from pages they have written and watched for years, if they are not.  Giacomo  20:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sadly Giano, there's no such thing as a lowly editors noticeboard, and so this is like asking turkey's to vote for christmas. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (I don't mean to butt in but I felt like adding some humour to this) A lowly editor's noticeboard? What would it be? Wikipedia's version of a historic version of the House of Commons and this noticeboard would be the Wikipedia House of Lords? (With good old Jimmy Wales as the Monarch!) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that's what the Village Pump was. Or that WP:AN & associated pages were a bad imitation of the Village Pump. -- llywrch (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, WP:AN is currently protected and on "autoreviewer". Does that mean that under the new system those arguing at what passes for wikipedia's small claims court will have to have their contributions approved unless they have this privilege? Fainites barleyscribs 20:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it does. It also means "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" is dead and buried.  Giacomo  21:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? It is s-protected, meaning that right now, nobody who isn't autoconfirmed will be able to edit it at all. The new functionality is not live yet. Once it is live, if AN were set to use it, if I understand it correctly, registered users will always see the latest version so unless the target audience for your complaint is an IP user, it would be moot. Other than a sandbox page for testing the feature, nothing outside of the mainspace would ever need to be protected with pending changes. --B (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But target audience's and commentators often are IPs at AN/I. I may just be being thick here, but currently, on semi-protect, non-registered users can't edit it but can see everything. Under the new system, non-registered users could edit but their edit would have to be approved by a registered user. And, registered users with rights would see the proposed addition but unregistered users would not? Or have I got that completely a..e about face? Fainites barleyscribs 21:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If it works the way it does on the German Wikipedia, if you are not logged in, you will see the latest approved revision, but you can always go to the history tab and see all revisions. So in the case of one IP user discussing with another IP user on ANI, if one replies to the other and there are no other edits by editors with reviewer, the IP user could use the history tab to see the current revision. This is hypothetical, though, because we're not going to use it on ANI. --B (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia:Pending changes protection is not for protecting pages like AN or this page, they will not benefit from the new tool, semi protection will still be used here and on other such pages. Also there will be no disenfranchising through this introduction. If you are a vandal you will get the right removed and probably be blocked anyway (if you had managed to edit correctly for long enough to be given the tool) It won't affect any good faith editor at all. (apart from the extra work reviewing the articles with the protection) Off2riorob (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Thanks for the explanation. So on an article, a passing IP editing on a protected page can edit but his edit doesn't appear on the page but only in the history - whereas now he can't edit it at all. Anyone with "rights" can approve the edit or not. So from a passing IP's point of view this is an improvement? The concern remains the granting and/or removal of "rights".Fainites barleyscribs 21:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will be abused by admins and its removal held as a threat over all editors. It is absurd that editors have to go cap in hand to admins to ask for this in the first place and even worse that it will make admins, adjudicators on the value of edits to subjects about which they have no knowledge. Within a few months this "protection" and censorship will have spread from BLPs to FA, GAs and any page an admin fancies.  Giacomo  21:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I don't think you can say that. It is to be a limited experiment for the time being, and not limited to admins. Additional rights such as AWB and rollback are only given to editors who have demonstrated some level of competence and seem to exhibit common sense. Same with the reviewer privilege; I would expect reviewers only to intervene and not approve edits that clearly do not comply with our policies. And as with rollback and AWB, these rights are removable for misuse, yet appealable here. It's a non-argument, in my opinion. Rodhullandemu 21:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm. If it's going to be some sort of status that's more difficult to revoke, then shouldn't it also be more difficult to grant? But we already have something like that: WP:RFA. Is there really a need to limit granting/removal to Arbcom, as initially suggested? That sounds kind of ridiculous. Shimeru 21:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We have seen quite enough thuggish Admin bullying lately to realise that the system will be constantly abused.  Giacomo  21:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Granting will be almost automatic to auto confirmed users, if you vandalize and you will probably be blocked. If you are blocked for a couple of days you will not get the right removed, once you have the edits to get it you will not need it removed. If you repeat your vandalism you will be blocked again for longer as per usual now. As I see it there will be no need for the right to be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This statement above, I would expect reviewers only to intervene and not approve edits that clearly do not comply with our policies seems at odds with statements elsewhere that it is for use against vandalism and spam and the like. I can see a substantial grey area developing where someone with rights decides someone without rights is not in compliance with NPOV or something. Particularly as many protected pages are the controversial ones. Is there some clarity somewhere as to whether this is meant for vandalism and not NPOV or content disputes? Fainites barleyscribs 21:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll clarify that I do not expect reviewers to engage in content-based edits; other venues and remedies exist for that. However, when a change to an article is unsourced, I might expect it to become unapproved, and a note dropped on the editor's talk page. Twinkle and other tools will not vanish because of this innovation. Rodhullandemu 21:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What you should look for is here Wikipedia:Reviewing Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. For example, the review page does not indicate "unaccepting" because something is unsourced. Fainites barleyscribs 21:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now, admins and others are warned about reverting or restoring material that may violate BLP, since such material ultimately becomes the responsibility of whoever added it last. I wonder if reviewers will likewise be considered responsible for material they approve. If so, that could slow down the process considerably.   Will Beback  talk  22:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I might be dense, but could someone break down this argument? Under this proposal, IP edits will have to be approved by admins (or those with "the right") before it goes live? This is to reduce vandalism, yes? We currently remove it on sight, now tyhey want us to screen for it? That takes more time and the end result is we piss off positive IP contributors and shrink the pool of users who want to take part in vandal fighting. S.G.(GH) ping! 22:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah I see, it is applied to specific pages? S.G.(GH) ping! 22:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two levels. One is semi-protected and the need for reviewer approval will apply to edits by IPs and (very) newbies. The other is fully protected and applies to autoconfirmed users (all but the above) unless they are an admin or a reviewer. Fainites barleyscribs 22:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Yes, it can only be applied on articles which would otherwise be semi protected so not possible to edit by IPs and new users (or fully protected for level 2). Also, rollbacking an edit automatically accepts the new revision so there's no need to manually accept it. Cenarium (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If all administrators are assumed to be corrupt, then not only this, but every function of Wikipedia, would soon cease to function. I'm not sure I agree that's a reasonable assumption, though- and if I thought all of Wikipedia's administrators were corrupt, I probably would resign and leave. This software has been in process for a long time, and it seems like a good alternative to semiprotection that would still allow new and ip editors to make edits. Maybe we should wait until it becomes active, and then see whether corrupt admins do in fact disenfranchise long-time editors with it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and I agree. Let's not scaremonger before there is a scare. Doubtless in the early days, mistakes will be made, and we should not assume them to be malicious. It's a big step forward for Wikipedia, and has been thrashed out on many levels, to which the poor devs have had to cope with accordingly. Please remember that Rome was not built in a day, and some tolerance would be worthwhile. Rodhullandemu 23:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rome was built at night! S.G.(GH) ping! 23:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I proposed at the VP a little while ago the option of removing "autoconfirmed" status temporarily from trouble-users to avoid full protection when semi-protection would do, and to give a sanction that was short of blocking to give admins more options. It seems this new proposal sinks that! As for what FQ said, I do agree that "We have a stringent selection process for administrators, they should be trusted to know what they are talking about." I almost ponder writing an essay on it. </shameless self promotion> S.G.(GH) ping! 23:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Digvijay Singh (politician)

    Digvijay Singh (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Two anons came in removing the Controversy section of this article, both editing from Houston, Texas. The second IP then started removing material claiming to be Digvijay Singh. When I asked why Mr. Singh would be editing from an account in Houston, all of a sudden, they changed their tune and provided an email address to contact in order to get "proof" for their edits. When I reverted them again, issuing a b3 warning, I was reverted by another editor altogether. What's the view on this? Should those last edits stand? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair what was removed was uncited on a BLP. The email he gave does not match the name, and I doubt it is him, but a message about COI/AUTO/RS etc encouraging him to provide suitable sources wouldn't go amiss. S.G.(GH) ping! 22:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which I have done now. S.G.(GH) ping! 23:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, SG. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:71.139.29.193 on BLP of Bob McDonnell

    Bob McDonnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    71.139.29.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    The above user has violated the 3RR purely to push POV, see nature of tags on his summaries. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    An edit war has taken place on Bob McDonnell. I've invited all to a new discussion but this issue must be handled externally otherwise there be be edit conflict for the next few hours. Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am slow on the draw, I just filed another ANI on the same anon 20 minutes later. This anon either needs a topic ban or some time off. (full disclosure, the same anon has filed a SPI against me, it can be viewed here) - Schrandit (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP has been blocked by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I don't see anything that violates BLP about the IP's version of the article and would have either protected the article or blocked both. The edit filter tag is because of the repeated use of the word "gay", not because there is an actual problem. If there is a BLP problem there, maybe I'm incredibly dense. --B (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I also see nothing that violates BLP. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IP 173.53.60.89 has been making disruptive edits since February 2010. He has consistently deleted any content that he views as detrimental to the image of Bob McDonnell. He has also shown far more familiarity with Wikipedia than would be typical for someone who has only started editing in February 2010. I suspect that he may be an established user who decided to edit just the Bob McDonnell article on an IP-only basis, so 71.139.29.193 may be only a part of the problem. Racepacket (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talula's Table

    Hello there. Can an admin please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talula's Table, as I've withdrawn the AfD request, and there are no delete votes? Thank you. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Doing... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Already done by Floquenbeam! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My first time using an AFD script; that's like 10,000 times easier... --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Taric25

    Resolved
     – Uploader consents to deletion, image is at Commons. If they delete it and the article is moved to the mainspace, we can restore it and retag it as fair use. --B (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Extended content
    The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.

    Hi all. When cleaning out C:SD the other day, I came across a file, File:Tokyo Electron Logo.jpg, which had been inappropriately moved to Commons and incorrectly tagged for deletion under WP:CSD#F8. The file was originally uploaded as non-free and later flagged as not having a fair-use rationale. To circumvent this problem, Taric25 removed the fair-use rationale and changed the license to a Public Domain license, falsely claiming that the logo consisted geometric shapes, and effectively creating a copyright violation. I subsequently reverted Taric25's edits and have nominated the copy on Commons for deletion but Taric25 has reverted me several times on both projects. I have made attempts to engage User:Taric25, but have not received a workable, intellectual response. Instead, I have received an egregious threat to report me to WP:AN3. Help on this matter would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, FASTILY (TALK) 07:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The following is a copy-paste of commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tokyo Electron Logo.jpg as of 07:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC) with an indent :, omitting templates that didn't work well in preview on Wikipedia, {{Keep}} and {{Vd}}:
    Collapsed for space
    This does not qualify for speedy deletion, since it consists of simple geometric shapes and does not meet the threshold of originality. If the person requesting the speedy deletion objects, then it should be a regular deletion, so I listed it here. Taric25 (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep as nom. Taric25 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep like Taric25 states, it isn't original enough and would be put to good use if kept. QwerpQwertus (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete The design at the beginning is unique and not a simple geometric figure. The file was inappropriately transferred from en.wikipeida where it was always tagged as fair use (see File:Tokyo Electron Logo.jpg and [15]). -FASTILY (TALK) 19:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fastily, do not change licensing tag on Wikipedia to support your own argument. This image is free, and it is not fair use. There is no assertion of the image being non-free, and the rationale is not a fair use rationale. In fact, there is no fair use template on the page at all. In addition, the rationale is out of courtesy, and the words “non-free” and “fair use” do not appear anywhere on the page. Taric25 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I linked the file's history on en.wikipedia for a reason. See the very first revision at [16]. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fastily, your actions are growing more and more specious. You provide the link to the image's history on en.wikipedia? Fine, I’m going to discuss each edit now and expose you for what you are. When the QwerpQwertus uploaded the image to en.wikipedia, it had both the both fair use and PD tags and gave a fair-use rationale. Since QwerpQwertus tagged the image with a Fair-use tag but didn't have it in a main space yet, Melesse tagged the image for deletion, so I fixed the licensing, because this should not be categorized as non-free and marked that I moved it to commons. You decline, revert my edit and mark the image for speedy deletion for no fair use rationale. Well, that's odd, because when you reverted my edit, you conspicuously did not restore the original fair-use rationale QwerpQwertus wrote in the first place. I find this most disturbing, since you obstructed process by willfully disregarding it in order to propagate you own agenda to delete the image, and do not even bother to say that you didn't know that QwerpQwertus wrote the fair use rationale before I moved it to Commons, because you dug your own grave when you just wrote above “it was always tagged as fair use”. I then restored the PD tag and added a free-use rationale. Notice, I did not use any fair-use template to write the rationale, and it is not a fair-use rationale. The rationale I wrote does not mention the words non-free or fair use anywhere, and the only link in the rationale I wrote links to en.wikipedia's logo policy, which explicitly discusses use of free logos, which this logo is: free. You revert me a second time, and then you write here with a link to the image on en.wikipedia as "proof" the image is fair use. I restore the free license, and I asked you to discuss it on the talk page. You revert me a third time and accuse me of “disruptive editing” and “The file is non-free and you know it.”, after I had already asserted this is a simple geometric shape and is free. Do not revert the page again, or I will not hesitate to report you for violating 3RR. Taric25 (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. I've reported you to WP:ANI. Cheers, FASTILY (TALK) 07:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]
    Taric25 (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fastily, I am now going to point out your malfeasance in this very ANI.
    1. Do not state the image was originally uploaded as non-free. QwerpQwertus originally uploaded it with a dual-license under both fair-use and {{pd-textlogo}}.
    2. Do not state the image was flagged as not having a fair-use rationale. Melesse flagged as an orphan.
    3. Do not assume bad faith and state I attempted “To circumvent this problem”.
    4. Do not state I changed the license to a Public Domain license. It was already tagged with this as a dual-license when originally QwerpQwertus uploaded it.
    5. Do not assume bad faith and state I am “falsely claiming” anything.
    6. Do not state that I am the one who was initially “claiming that the logo consisted [of] geometric shapes”. It was already tagged with this, and I did not upload it.
    7. Do not assume bad faith and state I am “effectively creating a copyright violation”.
    8. Do not make a personal attack and say my response was not an “intellectual response”. I am not stupid, and I don't like being called such names. My responses were intellectual, although not workable to your liking, you should apologize.
    • For the sake of the project, I now request you withdraw your statements and walk away from this situation in its entirety. Taric25 (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Attempting to eschew this argument right now (which basically everything you said here is over the top and you need to dial it back a few notches), why not just delete the image and let Commons handle it? Either Commons is going to keep it because it's not copyrighted or they are going to delete it because it is copyrighted. It is not in use here, so if it is copyrighted, we're not going to keep it around anyway. --B (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree with B. The community consensus on Commons should decide the threshold of originality, and it should be tagged {{db-f8}} as it was since the exact same file now exists on Commons. Taric25 (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, this really has gotten a bit out of hand. I had originally uploaded it intending to use it as fair use as a logo with low resolution which would be used in the infobox of the article I am making for the company and we decided that it may fall under a logo of simple geometric shapes. Both Taric25 and I had good intentions. I think we should delete it here and see what commons thinks. If they find a criteria to keep it under, I can bring it back under that criteria. QwertyQwerpus (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with QwertyQwerpus, since our goal in the first place was to simply improve the Wikipedia by adding an article about this notable company, Tokyo Electron, and our actions were in good faith to do this. Taric25 (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have deleted the image per the agreement of the uploader here. If/when Commons decides that it is not an appropriate image AND the article is moved to the mainspace, you can either re-upload it or ask me to restore it (or ask at WP:REFUND for any admin to restore it) and re-tag it as fair use. --B (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much, B, we appreciate your assistance. Taric25 (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks B. QwertyQwerpus (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Marking every edit as minor

    Resolved

    Editor has altered their settings so that edits are not automatically marked as minor.

    Namiba (talk · contribs) appears to be marking every single edit they make as minor, including those which clearly fall under Wikipedia:MINOR#When not to mark an edit as a minor edit (eg. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21])

    I left them a very polite message about this, which was immediately removed – as were the two left by John (talk · contribs) [22] [23] (the latter with the edit-summary, "enough already") and the non-minor edits still continue [24] [25]

    So my question is: what's to be done? ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 07:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps if you have a problem with minor edits, you should seek to have the "Mark all edits minor by default" box on theadvanced settings removed. If I could, I would mark this issue as a "minor" issue. I think all of our time is spent better editing articles then arguing about whether it is appropriate to check a box.--TM 07:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What? I've not got a clue what that means. No—if you are using that box, you should be more careful. Your actions are your responsibility, you can't blame them on "mark all edits minor by default" – at all. However, as per clear policy, please stop persistently marking non-minor edits as minor. This is not complicated. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I will speak more simply so you can understand. If you look under the advanced options of the editing preferences tag on the user profile, a box exists to "mark all edits minor by default". Since you seem to have a problem with most edits being marked as such, I think you should take your problem elsewhere. I've been a regular editor on Wikipedia for more than 4 years and you are the first editor to bring up this issue. If I remember to uncheck the box when I edit, I will. If not, I am not going to concern myself with it. This is an extremely minor issue to me. I suggest you find another issue to focus your energy on.--TM 07:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do understand what you are saying. But it is nonsense. (Incidentally, I'm not the only person this week to comment on it, though, am I?) ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 08:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) TM, it can be an issue, because minor edits are filtered out of many peoples recent change patrol screens, and they are often overlooked or missed when looking for major changes. I'm sure you understand. S.G.(GH) ping! 08:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He has just reverted it from his talk page, as is his right, hopefully he has taken it in. S.G.(GH) ping! 08:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) ANI notification and final warning removed, by which we understand that the warning has been read and is understood. Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually didn't realize that the edits were sorted. Anyway, I've removed the all minor edits tag, but this is a ridiculous issue to considering here. I hope everyone, especially the user who brought this here, will find better and more productive ways of improving wikipedia then paying attention to all of my edits and judging their impact.--TM 08:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously it was productive to bring this to your attention otherwise you would've continued on in your ignorance of why certain edits are marked minor and others aren't. -- Ϫ 08:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously some would like to continue this discussion. Very well then. How has checking the minor edit tag hurt the hundreds of articles on under-represented people, places and things I have written? How has it hurt the thousands of stubs I have sorted? the DYKs I have written? The answer is that it has not. Ultimately, those are the most important features of Wikipedia, not the bureaucracy like this. ANI has a place and is important in some situations, but this is a petty argument to continue.--TM 08:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually you are the only person arguing. And I already told you some of the reasons why it's important. Read recent changes, edit review, page history and so on. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and one would expect that based upon your vast experience at Wikipedia, you would have understood the importance of minor vs non-minor edits, and also have been more free and willing to amend without having an ANI report to actually force it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblock

    moved from WP:AIV by HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? at 09:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I would take this to AN or AN/I if a rangeblock is needed. We need to know the upper and lower edges of the range, plus have it checkusered so we know in advance if we'll be needing IP block exemptions for any editors in good standing in the range. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: A 75.223.0.0/16 block would, indeed, hit a range of IPs using Verizon Wireless, so on that basis it would be OK. But we still need to know re legit accounts ... who would be blocked? Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked J. delanoy if he can take a quick look. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears to be both 75.233.x.x and 75.223.x.x? DMacks (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Take this to AN/ANI if you think we should discuss a range block first, I say just block both IPs--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    the only admin I know is Edotker, i don't know if he is online at the moment.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make range blocks :) The page is now semi-protected. Are there any other examples to justify the rangeblock over semi-protection? -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    only the warnings on the IP's talk page, I've notified the IP of this discussion--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As it's dynamic that's unlikely to help, but fair enough. There only seems to be the one article affected, in which case semi-protection is preferable to blocking 65,000 IPs. In my experience people generally blank BLPs when there are problems with it, so perhaps someone could check it over to make sure it's fully policy-compliant. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok we will keep an eye on the article and the user to make sure they don't continue vandalising.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh yeah, I remember blocking these ranges. Note, this vandal uses 3 ranges, not 2. The ranges are 75.223.0.0/16, 75.228.0.0/16, 75.233.0.0/16 . Elockid (Talk) 13:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    @Zzuuzz. Semi-protecting does not work. Once a page is semi-protected, they move to a new page until that page is semi-protected also. The cycle keeps repeating. Elockid (Talk) 13:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BLPs are not the target page. I'm speculating that they just pick a random page to vandalize. Just to name a few Super Bowl, and Paper Cup. Elockid (Talk) 13:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah thanks, I can see a few more now - some on 4th - 6th June, and today. I wonder if 75.228.226.35 (talk · contribs) is related? Either very short rangeblocks as you did before, or a temporary edit filter to stop blanking by the ranges would be the best ways to go if it reoccurs. The ranges look otherwise fairly decent. Perhaps if I keep checking the ranges over the next week or so and block them for a week if it happens again? -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah try an edit filter or block them, can we close the thread now--Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    75.228.226.35 at glance doesn't look related. I think a filter would be better since this seems like this is going long-term abuse. We could do short rangeblocks again in the meanwhile. Also Filter 3 catches them pretty well. Elockid (Talk) 19:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Need an uninvolved admin to deal with an IP editor

    Since I'm involved I should not act but an IP editor is edit warring to include an external link to cordwainersmith.blogspot.com/ on the page Cordwainer Smith. The problem with the link is that the page is a blog and the blog contains excerpts from the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction which is a copyrighted publication. Per Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #11 and Wikipedia:C#Linking_to_copyrighted_works this is not an acceptable external link. The IP is throwing around legal threats and has broken the 3 revert rule. [26] [27], [28] & [29]. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 13:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking into it. The last diff should be this, I think? TFOWR 13:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not any more, I ain't ;-) JohnCD has blocked the IP. TFOWR 13:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks folks for the speedy response. Spartaz Humbug! 13:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 31 hr for edit-warring. I don't think the legal threat is serious, and I think {{uw-ewblock}} plus the explanations already on his talk page make things clear enough. JohnCD (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Captain Occam Unblock

    • On June 10, editor was blocked for a period of 2 weeks by User:2over0 for "edit warring, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, disruptive editing, and assumptions of bad faith".
    • On June 11, 2over0 unblocked - based on an unblock request, specifically "Unblocked to allow participation at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence and associated pages only until expiry. It looks like your participation is vital to that case, and it would be unfair to prevent you from presenting your evidence. I have unblocked you for this purpose. I will make a note of this over there". This is therefore a de facto topic ban / editing restriction from everything else but that Arb case
    • On Jun 13, Captain Occam requested an unblock - as he was not blocked, I declined and pointed him here, to WP:ANI - the same place he has been advised multiple times to come.
    • On Captain Occam's behalf, I am requesting a review of the restrictions in place, with what I see as 3 possible solutions:

    Option 1 - Complete Unblock

    • Support until and unless specific evidence is brought forth to substantiate caims which seems to be lacking he4e. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Precisely because of this ArbCom case, it is now better to let him edit all of Wikipedia and only block him in case of very disruptive editing. Any mildly bad behavior which would normally prompt some form of intervention (warning on his talk page and then a block if this behavior persists) can now best be tolerated as how he behaves when not constrained is also relevant evidence in this ArbCom case. Count Iblis (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry, but that seems that argument would result in absurd results. An editor named in an ArbCom case has a "free pass" except in case of "very disruptive" behavior? I'm not saying that I necessarily support the original block. but I can't really support overturning it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for the same reason as Hell in a Bucket. Admin 2/0 has failed to provide any diffs illustrating edits by Occam that he finds objectionable despite the fact that several uninvolved editors have asked that he do so. David.Kane (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Based on the below, the user seems to have been obeying the terms of the unblock, seems like there is no problem. Looking at the user's edits prior to the block, he had not edited the article for 48 hours before the block. I see no justification for a preventative block. --B (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. My assessment of this issue would be the same regardless of my opinion about the editor. An admin should not be able to block someone and refuse to provide specific examples and diffs of the user's behavior that led to the block, especially after being asked multiple times by a variety of people. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really none of your business. You already asked me if I know him outside Wikipedia on my userpage, I answered honestly; anything involving personal details about how we know each other is irrelevant. It's not something that has ever been stated by us on Wikipedia or any page we've linked to, so I hope you're not trying to engage in WP:Outing here.
    If you think I'm voting this way because of my personal feelings toward Occam, rather than that the block itself is unreasonable, then you need to realize this is exactly how the votes from several other editors in favor of keeping the block look to me. A lot of these people have been involved in content disputes against Occam, and as far as I can tell this is why they approve of him being blocked, even in the absence of diffs and specific evidence from the blocking admin. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Information and links to the fact that someone named "Ferahgo the Assassin" is/was the girlfriend of Captain Occam have been posted by Captain Occam multiple times on wikipedia, and is still in the archives: [30]. If you don't want this information on wikipedia you might consider contacting WP:OS to have that page (and this one, and any others where it has come up) scrubbed. aprock (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been explained so many times already, I’m not sure what the point is in explaining it again. But I’ll do so anyway:
    The only information that I’ve ever provided about my girlfriend’s identity is that my userpage used to contain a link to a DeviantArt community that I said was “my and my girflfriend’s”. The community has over 100 members, and there’s nothing on the page that I linked to which specifically identifies my girlfriend as having this Wikipedia account. However, by searching through this community as well as well as the personal DeviantArt accounts that Ferahgo the Assassin and I have linked to, Mathsci has claimed to uncover evidence that this user is my girlfriend.
    If you think I’ve ever stated this myself, post the diff. All you’ve done is link to an entire 380 KB AN/I thread, and said the equivalent of “it’s somewhere in there”. I’m quite certain that the only people who’ve ever claimed this are Mathsci, and the various people who repeated this after Mathsci said it, which doesn’t give you permission to keep repeating the same thing yourself.
    And incidentally, I have contacted oversight about this, and in response they’ve told me that it’s not possible for them to remove anything from AN/I threads. The fact that Wikipedia’s rule against outing can’t be properly enforced here doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to ignore it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, based on what you've posted to Wikipedia, it's pretty clear that someone named "Ferahgo the Assassin" is/was your girlfriend. Whether or not the wiki editor of the same name is impersonating your girlfriend is a separate issue. I've suggested this before, but if this is stuff you're not interested in having on wikipedia, it's probably best for you (and Ferahgo) to just ignore requests to verify your relationship status. If there are issues with scrubbing this from wikipedia, that's even more reason to ignore any such requests. aprock (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. There was no reason given for a block in the first place. The argument to continue it is that people didn't like the manner of the complaint about this? Stop the madness. The only thing being achieved here is the exposure of some serious favoritism, which warrants investigation. mikemikev (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Per Mikemikev and others above. Providing no diffs and then accusing an editor of "not hearing it" serves no useful purpose. I am involved (as of recently) at the R&I article and had seen no recent behavior which would precipitate a block--and is that not what a block is supposed to be about? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin - The !votes in this section come almost entirely from those supporting Captain Occam's position in the referenced ArbCom case, and they constitute a good example of the complaints filed by Mathsci of predictable en bloc behavior and tag team editing from these folks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By "almost entirely" you mean David.Kane and mikemikev, right? Because only 2 of the 7 "support" votes here so far are involved in the ArbCom case. In what universe is 2 out of 7 a majority?
    Even if what you're saying was correct, how is it any different from the votes against the unblock? Muntuwandi and Arthur Rubin are both opposing Occam in the ArbCom case, and you’ve brought up your content disputes with him in several past AN/I threads even though you’re not involved in the arbitration. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I mean pretty much everyone in this section except Count Iblis. I didn't say they were involved in the ArbCom case, I said they supported Captain Occam's position in the ArbCom case, a claim that is easily evidenced by their editing and commentary throughout the many noticeboards and talk page discussions on Race & Intelligence. The closing admin should be aware that these !votes are here for reasons other than neutral evaluation of the circumstances, but instead are probably motivated by personal connections and ideologically-based sympathy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t even know who B and Hell in a Bucket are. The past day is the first time I’ve ever interacted with them. I also had never interacted with Vecrumba before around a week ago, and I have no idea what his viewpoint is about this topic; he’s stated a few times that he has no idea what mine is either.
    This is a rather lame attempt to try and disrupt the consensus which seems to be forming, coming from one of the group of people who appear (based on their comments in past AN/I threads and on the R & I talk page) to have long-term grievances against me, which make up more than half of the votes in favgr of keeping thm ban. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Occam. Beyond my Ken should be commenting on the opinioins given not the id of the people giving it. WOuld this somehow be more valid if he brought this up? Just saying.....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, block !voting -- the core subject of the ArbCom case under consideration -- is akin to meatpuppetry, and does not legitimately establish a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support complete unblock, unless or until there is some explanation for the original block. This block seems to go against the basic notion that blocks are practical and not punitive. Further, it really looks like this was an admin making a statement about the parties to the ArbCom case (which concerns, among other things, whether "editors in good standing" deserve special treatment); there is at least as much cause for blocking User:Mathsci. Whether the appearance of favoritism is accurate or not, the block severely undermines faith in admin neutrality. Rvcx (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No administrator has so far shared your views, even though you have posted them now in many forums. I believe I'm in good standing with 8,200 content edits and about 40 articles created. Because I've participated in various ArbCom cases, I'm also known to various members of ArbCom. Most administrators can distinguish between an WP:SPA and an editor who adds quite a lot of content in a wide range of areas. As far as WP:CPUSH is concerned, here is a classic case. What you have written above verges on a personal attack and I would ask you please to refactor your comments. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your content-free claims to special privilege on the basis of number of edits (which, I should point out, would be reduced by a factor of five if you'd ever learn to use the "Preview" button and stop littering Wikipedia's live pages with typos) have no relevance to the matter at hand. Thanks, Rvcx (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support complete unblock unless the original block has any evidence to it. Blocks are not punitive, but preventive, so if the blocks don't prevent anything, the block is not valid. The restrictions put in place seem pretty harsh—only edit the ArbCom pages? Until he disrupts Wikipedia or evidence for the original block is provided, a completely unblock should be put in place. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support complete unblock until admin who issued the block deigns to give his reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin - Two of the three editors who have !voted since my comment above are also members of the block in question. I make it that there are only two three !votes in this section from non-aligned editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC) (miscounted) Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Option 2 - Reblock for remainder of original block

    • Support. (1) It prevents further spilling out onto pages covered by the topic ban, and (2) It gives Captain Occam what they want - an opportunity to request an unblock, and contest the original block. TFOWR 14:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Part struck, re-signing. TFOWR 15:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that it should get reset to a new two weeks. When you evade a block, it starts over. --B (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC) User had permission for edit, does not seem to have violated terms of block. --B (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This not the first time Captain Occam has edit warred over race and intelligence articles. He has been doing so since October 2009. This 3RR noticeboard archive report shows Captain Occam made 10 reverts to the race and intelligence article within 24 hours and continued edit warring 3 days after his block expired (diff to report). Occam is fully knowledgeable about edit warring and the consequences but was edit warring on Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ according to the article'srevision history. Furthermore the administrator Georgewilliamherbert placed race and intelligence articles on a 1RR [[31]], which Captain Occam was fully aware of, even citing it in this diff .[32]. I see no reasonable excuse for edit warring. Unblocking him would set a very bad precedent and would be a punch in the gut to those editors who while being bold, have avoided edit warring. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - The complexities of this situation are entirely the result of the attempt by the blocking admin to show latitutde to Captain Occam so that he could participate in the ArbCom case on Race and Intelligence. Instead, Captain Occam chose to post on Jimbo's talk page, in contravention of his unblock conditions, and has refused multiple suggestions that he take his appeal here. In addition, only in the last day has he taken advantage of the purpose of his unblock and posted to the ArbCom case. The easiest way to reduce the uncertainties of this situation is to restore the physical block and have Captain Occam's participation in the ArbCom case continue by proxy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In reading this over, I realized that my comment may be taken as criticism of the blocking admin, but that was not my intention. I think 2over0's actions were an admirable attempt to be very fair to Captain Occam. It's not his fault that CO has taken advantage of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Option 3 - Remain unblocked, with original editing restrictions intact for the duration of the original block

    • Support 3 Although the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT has continued on Jimbo's talk page, requiring Bwilkins to bring this here against Occam's wishes, I support the restriction until the expiration of the original block. Would change to 2 if problems persist, and editor could post AC comments on his own talk (as has been done before). CO has been extended a lot of good faith here. Verbal chat 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per verbal. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 14:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Confirm community ban for remaining duration of original block length (pending explanation of original block - I might disagree at that point).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per Verbal; I agree that allowing him to appeal to the God-King is a extension of the original relaxation of the block. I don't yet agree with option 2, but I could be convinced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Just reading this made me dizzy. You keep asking the same thing over and over and kept getting the same types of responses but you would reject what information you were receiving. I don't think that there is any single dif to show the behavior. I think it's the overall way you react to things. You really WP:IDHT. I think the block should stay and if this behavior of ignoring what other's say is repeated then I would say to make the block again without assuming good faith that you will stop the disruptive behavior. Sorry, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    CO Unblock Discussion

    Discussion and !votes above would be appreciated. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not want to discuss this here. And it’s not because I’m afraid of being blocked again; it’s because every recent thread here that’s involved me or the race and intelligence articles (which the subject of the ArbCom case for which I was unblocked) has turned into a mudslinging match about the content disputes over these articles. Several other (uninvolved) editors who’ve commented on the thread in Jimbo Wales’ user talk understand this also. If this thread is allowed to continue, it will likely turn into nothing but a colossal waste of everyone’s time, just like every other recent thread here on this topic.
    Is it permissible for an admin to force me to appeal my block here when I specifically have a desire against that? If I’m being disallowed from continuing to discuss it in Jimbo Wales’ user talk, I can bring it up at the Arbitration Committee Clerks’ Noticeboard, per EdChem’s suggestion. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, another question: if this thread degenerates the way I’m predicting, am I going to be accused of forum shopping if I attempt to appeal my ban in the ArbCom case? If so, I want this thread closed right away. An administrator does have the right to essentially take away an editor’s right of appeal, by using it against the editor’s will in a channel that the editor has specifically stated that he does not want to pursue. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wish to appeal your block, you can email the blocking admin or use the {{unblock}} template. Your block was removed soley for the purpose of participating in the arbitration. Editing here and Jimbo's talk page are is not permitted. --B (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    B, he was already denied on unblock based on the grounds that he wasn't blocked, and told that he would not be blocked for participating here. Catch up, please. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed --B (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If CO continues down this path, I'd change my support to option 2. As B says, he can then request an unblock. However, I would expect his refusal to participate here (not that his participation s required) would look bad to any admin. Verbal chat 14:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    B, the blocking admin also has specifically given me permission to request information about how to appeal my block in Jimbo Wales’ user talk.
    He gave that permission retroactively, after you had already violated the terms of your unblock by posting on Jimbo's page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If people are going to be voting here without being familiar with the details of this situation, I recommend that everyone also read the discussion about my block in 2over0’s user talk. (2over0 is the admin who blocked me.) Since he did not provide any specific examples of what my block was based on, four different users have asked him to please explain in detail the justification for my block, but he’s failed to respond to any of them. As explained in ImperfectlyInformed’s comment there, a single admin also does not have permission to enact editing restrictions without any community discussion; to do so would be an example of discretionary sanctions, which is a failed proposal. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, editing Jimbo's talk page was a relaxation of your restrictions, showing exemplary good faith by 2/0 as you had already broken the restriction by posting there. Verbal chat 14:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Verbal if this case was as clear cut as you claim, Occam would still be blocked and there would be a flood of diffs to prove this was a prudent course of action. I for one would like to see the diffs proving the allegations. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't said it was clear cut. He's been given a lot of leeway, and decided to continue his WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Verbal chat 15:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're repeating yourself without proving anything. Can you please show us why these are needed? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ecX4) Indeed, I don't feel that we require CO's additional participation here if he does not wish to: this discussion and !votes can be made based on the contributions that are visible to everyone. In effect, it's a group response to an unblock request, only it will remove any and all doubt. Indeed, he was told that he would not be blocked for filing this, nor for commenting here. I was tired of seeing the lack of direct action, and am otherwise uninvolved in the entire situation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the community isn’t able to come to a consensus either way (which is what I’m predicting will happen, and that’s another reason I suspected that discussing this here wouldn’t be productive) what will that means in terms of my editing restrictions? Since there was never any community consensus for these restrictions in the first place, it seems like this would just leave open the question of whether the restrictions are valid. (That is, whether 2over0 had the authority to implement discretionary sanctions on an article where Arbcom hasn’t authorized them, and whether it was acceptable for him to do so without providing any diffs of objectionable behavior from me, even when he was asked for them.) --Captain Occam (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Conditional unblocks are extremely common - yours was a conditional unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You will ultimately lose that appeal The only person other then 2/0 to remove it would probably have to be Arbcom if no consensus can be made here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I need to apologize to Captain Occam. I was looking at this strictly as a question of whether or not the editing restrictions were obeyed, rather than as to whether or not the underlying block was appropriate. He hadn't edited the article for two days before the block. Blocks are preventative, not punitive and once I looked at the actual edits, I don't see a reason for the block at all. The editing restrictions should be removed. --B (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note Just in case no one looked, 2over0 has not been here since 6/11.--CrohnieGalTalk 16:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He was still online and editing other Wikipedia pages while people were asking him for an explanation of why he blocked me, though, as well as for a few hours afterwards. The fact that he went offline shortly after this doesn’t explain why he never responded to anyone’s questions about this in his user talk. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Living dead

    Per a recent bot request, I have been doing some digging, we have about 365 people in Category:Living people who are actually dead. I've created a list of all articles in LP category and checked other language's death by year categories and created a list of those who have died on other wikis but are still marked as living on en.wp, any assistance in cleaning this up would be welcome. User:Betacommand/Sandbox is the list βcommand 15:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "those who have died on other wikis"? I've heard it's rough on the German Wikipedia, but I did not know it was that bad! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon my grammar, those who have been marked as having died on other wikis. βcommand 16:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry β, was just being mildly humourous ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns about User:CUNYTruther

    (I'm writing here because this is a bit too complex for AIV but too simple for WQA or other venues.)

    Can someone else please investigate the actions of User:CUNYTruther and drop him or her a line? Personally, I think that he or she should be immediately blocked because he or she repeatedly claims to be intent on edit warring (he or she has written "You delete, I restore." several times on the talk page of the only article he or she edits) and then backs up those claims by repeatedly reverting others' edits. Of course, there are also significant problems with the material he or she is repeatedly edit-warring to maintain, mostly WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE. ElKevbo (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    CUNYTruther has posted statements which are well-documented and critical of the institution LaGuardia Community College. These have been deleted by people either with no explanation at all or with entirely false explanations (that they are using a single tainted source, for example, or that they are being used to steer the viewer to a personal website or that criticism is by definition out of line.)
    CUNYTruther welcomes constructive criticism, but will not submit to being censored. CUNYTruther (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to follow Wikipedia policies, whether you think they're censoring you or not. This is a collaborative effort, and we need rules in place to make that collaboration possible.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    CUNYTruther, given your stated aim on your user page (this version) is to "exposes corruption in CUNY in general and LaGuardia Community College in particular" I a minded to think your presence here (with due consideration for WP:AGF) might be to further your aims and not that of the encyclopaedia. Codf1977 (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Garrett, tell me what rule I'm violating and I'll stop. But isn't there also a rule against having friends of an institution deleting criticisms of an institution? CUNYTruther (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's the same rule that prevents enemies of an institution from adding criticisms without sourcing them properly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    you are quite clearly and blatantly violating WP:NPOV - which is one of the basic policies. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The userpage itself is disturbing, as is the insistence on speaking in third person. There's a pretty clear WP:COI here, as well as edit-warring and a pledge to continue edit-warring. There's also an assumption of bad faith. I'd be inclined to block, myself. Enigmamsg 17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - see above. Codf1977 (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    OK, educate me. I'll cop to being a muckraker. So for that crime, I'm banished from Wikipedia? Now let's turn this over. The LaGuardia CC brass posts a blatantly self-congratulatory page, but that is acceptable? CUNYTruther (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering the article is now down to "LaGuardia Community College is a two-year community college in Queens, New York City and is a component of the City University of New York. LaGuardia is named after former New York City mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia. The college offers associate degrees in the arts, sciences, and applied sciences. The school also offers continuing education programs." I'd say the answer to your question is "no". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The username CUNYTruther is offensive in British English (although missing an N, it's a common misspelling). Verbal chat 17:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a reasonable objection here, as it's a common abbreviation for City University of New York.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be a single-purpose account that is here for the purpose of advacacy, and, according to the OP above, is editing disruptively. To me, that sounds like grounds for a block, unless they can learn to collaborate, and fast. At the same time, the number of "new editors" in the page history is grounds for concern. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Sarek of Vulcan, you left the following message for me: "Sourcing an article to a blog, especially when the information is unfavorable to a living person, is a violation of our Reliable sources policy. Please do not do that in the future. Thanks" My sourcing in this matter was not to a blog, but to ABC news and (in an earlier incarnation) to the New York Times and (in a later incarnation) to the Queens District Attorney's Office.

    Another warning to me: "Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors." I will comply with that.

    I am also accused of edit-warring. This is technically false. I did not use the "undo" feature. But if I violated the spirit of the law, I will cease and desist.

    POV and UNDUE violations: The original article was purely self-congratulatory. It made a number of unsourced claims. I added material which would provide balance. The sources I used were mostly non-controversial. In extremis, where there were no other sources online, I made reference to a partisan blog. This involved uncontroversial facts (that the faculty had had a gag rule imposed on them, that the registrar had been removed). It is hard to see how this is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

    I refer to myself in the third person: Does this belong in a serious conversation about Wikipedia policy?

    I am willing to be educated in Wikipedia policy. But please let's be precise all around.

    What you have done is taken a puff piece about a severely flawed institution and reduced it to a stub rather than allowing a balanced perspective on it. I offer you my balancing information. If there are specific instances in which my additions are over the top or a violation of Wikipedia policy, let's work together to correct it. But deleting the entire section hardly seems to be in line with Wikipedia policy. CUNYTruther (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring has nothing whatsoever to do with the undo function, and neutrality does not mean there must be a counterbalance for every positive (or negative) thing added to an article. If you're editing on Wikipedia in an attempt to get the TRUTH out, you're in the wrong place.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You: "Edit warring has nothing whatsoever to do with the undo function"

    Wikipedia: "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). This says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. Policy generally forbids edit warring, and editors who engage in an edit war are often blocked, whether or not the edit war does or does not involve any violations of 3RR." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit_war

    Educate me, I'm confused.

    You: "If you're editing on Wikipedia in an attempt to get the TRUTH out, you're in the wrong place."

    But I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth. And, if the criterion is verifiability, I annotated all my statements with neutral sources, as I explained, to the degree that they were available. The only time I used a partisan source was when it was in reference to undisputed facts. You do not take issue with this.

    In any case, I laid out about a half dozen answers to the objections raised by yourself and others who want to bounce me out of Wikipedia in order to end this animosity. I would hope that you would reply in the same spirit. CUNYTruther (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: "undoing" -- you can undo an edit without using the "undo" link. Re: "putting words in your mouth" -- looked at your username lately?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In any case, I at least propose a softblock due to the blatant username violation. --Smashvilletalk 19:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Since consensus here seems to be in favor of blocking CUNYTruther for disruption, I've gone ahead and done it. If anyone disagrees with the block, please feel free to unblock. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First time I've seen "undo" interpreted so literally. I hate to mess with policy pages, but maybe this argues for some other word choice, to remove the possibility of anybody else getting the same mistaken impression. — e. ripley\talk 19:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support the block, as I also feel there was grounds for one. Enigmamsg 20:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm waiting for someone to defend a personal attack by claiming that they didn't personally attack them...they attacked them on the internet. --Smashvilletalk 19:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. In this case, the guy was trying to use semantics. I doubt he/she was so thick that he/she couldn't figure out what 'undo' means. Enigmamsg 20:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't think that requires a preemptive policy change. We need to be able to use common sense to be able to edit here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't propose changing the policy in any substantive way, but a simple wording change might be worth considering. — e. ripley\talk 19:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How about something along the lines of, "This refers to [[wikt:undo|undo]] in the traditional meaning of the word as well as the Wikipedia [[Help:Undo|undo]] function." as a footnote to "undoing"? ;) —DoRD (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me. Enigmamsg 20:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hippo43

    The latest block against User:Hippo43 has just ended and already he's already announced his intention to resume his disruption[33] and has launched a personal attack against me, accusing me of being dishonest.[34] I warned him about resuming his disruption[35] and the PA[36] but he doesn't appear to be interested in getting along nicely with his fellow editors.[37] Given his history of disruption and repeated blocks, can someone just block him again? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've notified the editor here.[38] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hippo43 has a history of being blocked for edit warring. They have been told that their next block for edit warring is likely to be indefinite. I can't see any reason to rush to block them for saying something is "dishonest" and then immediately explaining why they think so. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I have no intention whatever of being disruptive, and have said no such thing, as Quest knows. While I was blocked, he re-inserted text for the fourth time, against a clearly-established consensus. ([39], [40], [41], [42]) Surely this behaviour is edit-warring on his part? After my block expired, instead of simply restoring the version supported by consensus, I re-engaged in the discussion. [43] I am entirely open to discussing this, but said that if no consensus emerged within a few days I would remove the disputed text. This is obviously not disruptive at all and seems more than fair to me.
    Given his previous hostility toward me, I was no doubt naive to describe his edits as 'dishnesty'. I'm genuinely sorry if he felt that this was an attack on him - that was not my intention. However, as I explained in my reply to him at my talk page, some of his actions have been dishonest - his representation of the disagreement, his failure to inform other editors that he started a thread at RSN, and his discussion comments, and now his false claim that I "announced my intention to resume my disruption".
    Again, to be clear, I have no intention of being disruptive and have actually sought discussion with Quest on this very point. Given his repeated reverts to a version clearly opposed by consensus, who is really being disruptive here? --hippo43 (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a need for immediate action here. Hippo43 is perfectly capable of being productive if he chooses, and his opportunities for choosing not to be have pretty much run out considering the scrutiny his edits have attracted. If he keeps his nose clean he's benefitting the encyclopedia; if not, I doubt there will be much uproar following an indef for persistent edit warring. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see hippo as a good user, who has got a bit stuck on one article. I interact with him on football articles and he seems pretty sensible there. He should probably avoid that one article for a while. Certainly hasn't done anything wrong since his last block. --John (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Doncsecz

    Resolved

    WP:NPA. The user already got 5 blocks in dewiki, 3 of them within the last 2 days. The latest block for 1 week was because of a personal attack. Now he continues on my talk page here (and at commons too, but that's another story). --R.Schuster (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I carried over his one week block to this Wikipedia, since it's the same sort of disruption against the same editors. Also issuing WP:DIGWUREN warning, since the editor combines a fixation on Eastern European ethnolinguistic minority issues with a poor command of the language of the Wikipedias he edits, which is seldom a good sign.  Sandstein  22:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Harrassment of Arthur Rubin?

    Someone ought to take a look at this.[44] USER:WillBildUnion is tag-spamming and edit-warring on the article Arthur Rubin apparently in retaliation for some sort of content dispute at Cleopatra VII and Son of God. Not sure what's going on but it doesn't look good. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WillBildUnion is a new user and might not realize he's doing something wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I placed a Wikiquette alert regarding his behavior. After attempting to insert unsourced and potentially controversial material in articles such as Abraham, he got angry when Arthur Rubin removed it. More details are in that report. He has been pointed to WP:AGF multiple times, and accused Arthur Rubin and me of vandalism for trying to clean up after him, and of "dominating" Wikipedia for pointing him to and trying to hold him to guidelines like WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:AGF. He has been told repeatedly that his behavior is unacceptable. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the AfD notice since it linked to an old discussion. There have been three previous AfDs for Arthur Rubin, all resulting in "Keep", and since notability once acquired, is not lost I have advised WilBildUnion not to replace it without very good reason. I'm perfectly prepared to block for disruptive editing in this case. Rodhullandemu 20:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't touched Abraham article and I haven't posted anything controversial. I did however post on talk page of the said article. My time here have been nothing else than to assume good faith but I got bitten, hounded, harassed, vandalized, terrorized and dominated by useradmin(s). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:WillBildUnion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Caesarion_section
    I beg pardon and hopefully things will sort out smoother in on due, as is future.
    WillBildUnion (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This wasn't something you were intending to bring in the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen posts to a number of talk pages by WillBildUnion such as [45], others asserting that the Hyksos were Hebrews - the problem being that he is not just doing this on multiple pages but is not providing sources (although he says they exist) even when he has been told that this is OR. He hasn't been vandalised. terrorized, dominated, etc although I think people are understandably getting impatient with him. Dougweller (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by Nutriveg

    Nutriveg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and I are in dispute about the proposed wording for the section Abortion#Health risks. Nutriveg is a long-time contributor to the page and I came to the page two weeks ago following a request from MastCell (talk · contribs) at WikiProject Medicine for more input. My impression is that there are two rough groupings of editors: those who have a pro-life perspective and those who object to favouring that. I'm sure that each grouping sincerely believes that they edit in line with the neutral point of view, but a conflict has been underway there for a long time before I came into it.

    After an edit-war on 8 June, editors were cautioned and one editor was blocked temporarily. On 10 June, Nutriveg was blocked for 24 hours following an ANI report (for edit-warring over his removal of reliable sources that he questions), and the page fully protected.

    Since then the dispute has moved to the talk page (currently 365 kB), and I have concentrated on trying to get editors to find sources related to the issue. Doc James put forward six sources, but Nutriveg is always able to find an objection to any suggested source. He eventually accepted one source (that didn't mention the figures for maternal mortality rate) and crafted a piece of text that reflected that source alone. I have consistently objected to discarding other sources, as they raised other issues, but Nutriveg has now unilaterally decided that the scope of the text should be just that which his preferred source covers, and then claimed that I was the only editor holding up consensus. This is a manipulation of the fact that most of the editors found all of the sources reliable, including his preferred source, allowing him to claim that that single source had the approval of all editors. I proposed an alternate text that I believed covered all of the issues raised by all of the sources, and suggested mediation of an RfC to to resolve the dispute between us.

    So far this is a content dispute, but Nutriveg then, without discussion, posted an informal "request for comment on the talk page", phrased in such a way to define the scope of the dispute in his own terms, and making no mention of my proposed text. He then notified the participants on their talk pages, asking them to express their opinion on his text. When I responded by adding further questions to present my side of the dispute, he removed them from the section and created a new section for them, thus marginalising my side of the dispute. His claim is that they are a "different discussion". I replaced my proposals into the original section and cautioned Nutriveg that I regarded his refactoring of my talk page contributions as disruptive and that I would seek sanctions if he repeated that. He then reverted me, putting my part of the RfC back into the section he wanted, and removing my warning. I will not further an edit war by reverting him, but I cannot accept the degree of ownership that Nutriveg exercises over both the article and its talk page. It makes it utterly impossible to work in a collaborative manner while he feels he can dictate the terms of any dispute resolution. I am now unable to exercise any further AGF and request that uninvolved eyes review the conduct of editors at Abortion (mine included) to find a solution.

    I request that action be taken be taken to prevent Nutriveg from edit-warring on the talk page in order to marginalise those he disagrees with; and that, if necessary, he receives a topic ban to allow consensus to be formed. I will now step away from the focus of this dispute and will not edit the article or its talk page until such time as the dispute is settled. --RexxS (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a warning. I agree that the ownership needs to stop, and that the refactoring of your comments was quite unjustified. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (As an involved editor): There is a behavioral issue here, which is fairly pronounced ownership and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the part of Nutriveg (talk · contribs). He's pretty much checked off every tickbox on WP:OWN, been blocked for edit-warring, and swamped the talk page with impenetrable repetitions of the same arguments. Refactoring others' talkpage posts would be a logical progression. The wellspring is what I think is a fairly deep misunderstanding of sourcing policy on Nutriveg's part, combined with a resistance to taking on board outside input.

    It started with Nutriveg removing material from The Lancet and other mainstream medical journals, because some of the authors were affiliated with Guttmacher. The talk page thread is here; notice he also dismisses the WHO as a reliable source in the same thread. It goes downhill from there; this heroic effort, in which literally dozens of reliable sources are rejected by Nutriveg on various goalpost-moving grounds, is typical but not unique.

    RexxS and others have actually been much more patient than I, but I think everyone is reaching the limits of their tolerance. I think progress can be made - in fact, the article has enjoyed periods of relative calm when Nutriveg has been away from it or blocked. There are a number of solid editors working there right now. I would strongly favor asking Nutriveg to leave the article for a few weeks, because I think that will lead to a lot of constructive progress. I'd actually be happy to stay away too, if people are concerned that I'm pushing to have a "content opponent" sanctioned. In fact, if something is not done about Nutriveg's editing, and soon, I'll leave the article anyway in the interest of my own sanity.

    Again, please take this as the input of an involved editor, with whatever grains of salt you think are appropriate. MastCell Talk 21:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not a long time contributor to that article. You joined that discussion answering a call from MastCell where he did so in a campaign tone: "I will say upfront that I personally think that the interpretation of WP:MEDRS being pushed on the talk page is extreme and divergent from the actual content of the guideline" What basically guided your contribution to the article so far, taking lightly about WP:MEDRS and pushing for the use of all sources.
    In another moment yourself also decided to campaign in that same place using the same kind of biased messages.
    You joined that discussion redoing a change of MastCell early did, what eventually lead to an editing war and the blocking of that other user that reverted once.
    Later you started raising minor issues, like complaining of any source ever "removed" from the article without caring about in what context they were (re)moved or having a good argument to support of how they should be used. In the between you kept asking for the interference of a specific administrator who had earlier showed disagreement with me (SheffieldSteel above), which finally led to an ANI open by that same administrator and my blocking.
    Later you took the same strategy, this time more careful about the content of the sources you were pushing, to decide to push for the use all the sources in the article, instead of the one that better fit MEDRS and was commonly agreed to fairly represent the problematic issue in discussion, except for you (RexxS) and your fellow MastCell, that changed his former minor restrictive opinion on that issue to a completely different one, maybe after seeing you pushing so much for that position.
    You make claims that "your discussion" was moved when it was you who created a new section in the middle of an existing section which already had comments from another user and me addressing the issues immediately above in a serious provocative action of disrupting that consensus building process. You repeated that action, when that discussion had further evolved, to move that discussion section, reinserting your questions in the middle, at the same time you also commented in that same discussion section so I had to have the extra work of readding that commentary beyond reverting your discussion section move.
    Now you create this ANI about that discussion you were a minor voice at the same time you call other users who had problems with me in the past (Doc James bellow) to join this ANI discussion.
    Your way of handling these content issues to lead them to administrative actions in a scenario yourself is a major problematic actor is what I truly call disruptive!--Nutriveg (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I say that (Lloyd, 2005) "satisfies our needs for sources" this in no way means we should limit ourselves to only this source. And while the second suggested wording is okay it can be improved upon / clarified.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nutriveg, I have no "dog in this race", and I thought I was trying to paint a fair picture by referring to you as a "long-term contributor". You have 56 edits to Abortion, while I have one, where my edit summary was "please don't remove sourced content without good reason". My apologies if I have misled this forum. I hope than anyone reviewing the links that Nutriveg has provided would be able to conclude that I have acted in good faith throughout. I have tried to be reasonable, while maintaining my stance that reliable sources are the solution, while removing or rejecting them is the problem. Nevertheless, if anyone here feels that I deserve censure, then I will accept that, and look to improve in the future. I now see that Nutriveg still does not believe that moving my part of the RfC to a new section twice is both refactoring and edit-warring. Please note - it's not entirely clear from the diffs - that I added my questions at the end his questions (below a level 3 sub-heading, "Another option"), while his action was to remove it from the section he created and make it in an entirely different level 2 section with a new title. The ownership of the talk page continues and there is a real need for uninvolved administrators to review the situation. --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your behavior so far is one of trying to create administrative problems. I started editing this article just a few weeks ago. While recently you're the only one stopping article progress toward a commonly agreed solution for a specific problem by insisting in using all sources and lately insisting for the discussion of many new unrelated issues (developing countries, unsafe abortion) in the middle of an very problematic unfinished discussion about a restricted point that is taking several days. You may have had the opportunity to make few edits on the article, but in the last two days you've been the single loud dissident voice, since the very moment we were almost reaching consensus.
    Now you create this ANI under false claims I moved a discussion section, when it was you who initially moved that discussion section to the end a section you created, an action I had to revert for the sake of continuing that discussion that already started, but you inserted unrelated questions in the middle of the existing one, that I had to properly attribute their authoring to you.--Nutriveg (talk)00:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: looking at other (pseudo)science-related articles I feel we have a widespread attempt by the anti-science crowd to teach the controversy, which may need a general approach. Include all science (inclusion criteria?) articles in the original ArbCom case?--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 00:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nescio, make yourself clear. Abortion is medical practice not (pseudo)science, as isn't epidemiology the subject of the (so) problematic sentence we have been trying to address. While my suggestion for that sentence was the one which reached more (if any kind) of consensus so far, so I'm clearly interested about the better representation of that issue. There's no disagreement about the essence of that sentence, the only problem is a couple of editors trying to give more attention to a issue than the (few) sources themselves, felling exempted to follow WP:MEDRS criteria for something if they believe that's true and deserved of exceptional attention. And a specific editor (RexxS) trying to WP:WIN by destructing the discussion process when consensus is being reached and forging situations that he can later call for administrative interference. Please keep bias outside of this discussion!--Nutriveg (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (Pseudo)science = pseudoscience + science. Iow, my suggestion is that the ruling on pseudoscience might/should be applicable to science-related articles such as abortion. --- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 00:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's sometimes called edit conflict when two editors are still editing their comments and other write something. It's not my problem if you analyzed and answered my comments so fast, at the same time I saw problems with my commentary and was fixing those. If you likely want to complement your former answer I'll likely understand that as good faith.--Nutriveg (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Verbal and placing tags on community-approved articles

    Resolved
     – Editors doing the whole congenial atmosphere thing.

    I am concerned at this user's behaviour at two articles, Old Souls and Life Before Life. Both articles have been discussed for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Souls and here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Before Life. The overwhelming consensus at both was that notability had been established sufficiently and that sources were adequate. It is also worth noting at this early stage that he voted to delete both articles. Now, he is tagging them as not meeting the notability guidelines, despite consensus. His rationale is that WP:NOTE overrides this consensus. My argument is that as consensus has already found the articles to meet both WP:NOTE and WP:RS, he has an axe to grind as he wanted both to be deleted. I do, however, agree that both could benefit from extra sources, yet this should be reflected by appropriate tagging.

    He also seems to harbour a grudge against the AFD for at least one article, calling it small and bad faith at Talk:Old Souls. Apologies for not knowing how to post diffs. His opposition to both articles seems to be arbitrary, and keeps requesting to be shown how it meets WP:NOTE instead of showing how it fails it, thus attempting to put the burden onto me.

    Finally, I do not wish this to be seen as an attack on Verbal. He is evidently a good editor and has not been rude at any point, our dispute seems to be stuck in a rut with no way forward, and could benefit from an experienced eye being cast over it. I will appreciate either outcome as a learning experience, and thank you for your time Valyard (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see why this needs attention here. Rather than airing the disagreement here, why not concentrate on finding sources for the articles which show they meet WP:NOTE? Also, it's my bed time again (why do ani threads always start at 11?) My opposition is based on WP:NOTE not being satisfied. I've been polite and shown good faith in this discussion. The nominations were to my mind bad faith as no one was calling for the articles to be deleted, only improved. I suggest this is moved to the appropriate venue, WP:FTN. Or Mediation. Verbal chat 21:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems premature: I don't see any recent discussion with Verbal on his talkpage. At the same time, I fully agree that Old Souls does not seem (at least to me) to meet notability guidelines, and it's very poorly referenced. So, based on that, I don't see any issue with Verbal's actions so far. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is the kind of repeated disruption from user verbal then it could be dealt with here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked if Valyard will consider closing this until tomorrow or moving to WP:FTN. I have to go now. Thanks, Verbal chat 21:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We are all editors here and we know the elephant in the room and should not ignore repeated POV disruption from users brought again and again for similar issues. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BWilkins- I agree the sources could be better but note seems established. Saving on my userpage for today Valyard (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I undid the removal of the section, feel free to archive it, I have no bone in this. Unomi (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) As Valyard just tried to remove it, could an admin do the honours or close it in a box or something? Thanks, (Unomi, you have a bone in everything!)Verbal chat 21:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with user verbal is a repeated issue. Does one need diffs or is it enough to mention the elephant in the room? Off2riorob (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Verbal and I are in agreement, could this be removed? Valyard (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it is a bit hard to hide an elephant Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ShalomOlam

    User:ShalomOlam has made two blatant reverts to Gaza flotilla raid which is under a WP:1RR protection, in contradiction with the long discussions and consensus on the talk page. The diffs are [46] and [47]. The user received multiple warnings from other users regarding his recent POV edits and reverts on the same article, both on the article's and their own talk page. Please note that it is a sensitive semi-protected article about a current event. Numerous users already received a 24-hour block for violating its 1RR restriction. Thank you. --386-DX (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bg007

    Resolved
     – Bg007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked indefinitely. Wikipedia is not a religious battleground. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive user Bg007 has consistently removed sourced information from various city articles (among other articles) that contain a Bosnian war history section: Banja Luka [48] Foča Doboj. After warning him about his most recent related edit he responded "Go fuck yourself Turk" [49] and has accused me of spreading "islamic propaganda" [50]. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 21:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinitely blocked - attempting to wage religious or ethnic warfare on Wikipedia is absolutely not OK here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on that - in 2008 they were previously warned, and then blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise, for doing this same type of activity. Going back to it blatantly (even with the large gap) is unacceptable. Wikipedia isn't here to be a battleground. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:No More Mr Nice Guy

    Resolved
     – edit self-reverted. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:No More Mr Nice Guy has been reverting Gaza flotilla raid which is under a WP:1RR protection. The diffs are [51] and [52]. The user was warned numerous times during the last few days, and received warnings from other users regarding his recent POV edits and reverts on the article, both on the article's and their own talk page. They also received similar warnings from administrators in the past. Please note that Gaza flotilla raid is a sensitive semi-protected article about a current event. Numerous users already received 24-hour blocks for violating its 1RR restriction. Thank you. --386-DX (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops. Didn't notice. Undid my last revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's go on, please. We all make mistakes. Suggest someone else please close this topic as "resolved". —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange edits that I did not make appear in my contributions.

    This is Rohedin, what I am about to tell you has been happening for some time, but I feel that someone else is editing in my account to make contributions to soap opera lists. I did not report this right away because who ever is editing in my account has not done anything that leaves me unable to use the account.

    Even though the answer might seem obvious and simple to make, I am still pondering on if I should just let this guy continue to make harmless edits to my account or if I should ask someone to provide me with a list of IPs that might have been using my account. What do you think I should do? Rohedin TALK 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please change your password. Is there an example of a particular edit that you did not make? Is it possible that a roommate, family member, or coworker is using your computer or that you left yourself logged in on a public computer? --B (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    List of All My Children cast members. Rohedin TALK 23:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Perhaps you saved your password on a public computer or friends computer and they are editing without realising that they are editing on your account? It is possible that your password has been hacked but this seems less likely if the edits are constructive. Perhaps changing your password would resolve this issue? Have you tried doing this?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're saying this is not you? That's from today, so that probably points to either you stayed logged in somewhere or someone guessed your password. Either way, change your password to something secure (letters, numbers, and symbols). --B (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I believe someone was editing via my account. Rohedin TALK 23:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Just change your password, it's the easiest way if you still have access to your account. If you don't, but you have an email set, you can email a new password, then change your password. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You may also want to check your email address, under "My preferences", to ensure that it hasn't been changed. MastCell Talk 23:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And also, you should set a hash and leave it on your userpage to prove your identity, in case you lose access to your account; see the bottom of my userpage as an example. (For more information, see Template:User committed identity.) That way, you can prove you regain access to your account if you do so through other means (such as emailing a new password) if you are blocked, as admins typically block compromised accounts indefinitely. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A checkuser would be able to tell if more than IP had edited using your account. Looking at the difference in topics, I have to ask if there is a female member of your household who could be using your account by accident? My partner is also a wikipedia editor, and we have to be careful that we switch to our own user settings every time we use the pc, or we could end up editing as each other. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Changing your password would be no help if you use a password list, and someone in your house is using the computer.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you change your password, it logs you out of any other computer where you are logged in. --B (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm thinking that if Rohedin uses Firefox, it automatically stores the changed password. He hasn't come back to us to say if there is a possibility that his sis/mom/gf is using the computer. If they are, changing the password won't fix the problem.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I use Firefox and Ubuntu 10.04, no one in my family has an understanding of Linux. Rohedin TALK 23:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    They wouldn't need to - in fact, it's more likely to happen if they don't. Does each member of your family have a separate logon, or do they just turn the computer on and load up Firefox? If it is the latter, then what is happening is that Wikipedia routinely holds a logon for 30 days. So if your partner/sister or whatever goes to Wikipedia, it's automatically logged in as you. If she takes a look at the cast of whatever soap opera she's interested in and makes an edit, it will appear under your account. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please request a password change immediately. From what I can tell, the edits you claim you did not do are done from a different geographical location (Near Milwaukee). I'll keep an eye on your account, and if it edits from that location again I will block it as compromised. — Coren (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you run a CU on any users that were blocked in Milwaukee? I would really like to know who this guy is. Rohedin TALK 00:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if I did, I would not disclose that information. Sorry. Please simply fix the problem by changing your password posthaste. — Coren (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have, but I am going to search and find a person with a similar editing style and see what I can do from there. Rohedin TALK 00:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    94.170.26.123

    94.170.26.123 (talk · contribs) has added false information to many articles since May 2010 replacing people's names with Phillip Westwick (presumably the vandal's name), and the IP should be blocked and all false content removed. Logan Talk Contributions 23:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 31 hrs for now. If they resume that behavior bring it back up here; a much longer block would be called for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RohanMalik1999

    RohanMalik1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I'm not really sure where to go with this. The editor repeatedly uploads non-free images without descriptions/licenses and moves pages using edit summaries like "because" or "cuz i said so". They have been left numerous warnings and notices on their talk page, but never respond to them, nor do they seem to amend their ways. While I believe there may be an language barrier issue involved, it gets old having to "clean up" and/or correct their edits (add licensing etc). They're trying to honestly improve Wikipedia, but how much is an "improvement" worth, when it only creates more work for other editors. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 00:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I also believe they may be a sock of blocked user MrRohanM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ... --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 01:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Now he's just straight engaging in sock puppetry. RohanMalik1999 indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. –MuZemike 02:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic IP user

    A few days ago a vandal added to the Sherri Shepherd article that she had died.[53] The same editor added a number of perhaps non-vandalism edits relating to the parents or other relatives of subjects.[54] I reverted all the edits. Today, another IP address added to the Sherri Shepherd article information regarding Sherri's parents death.[55] It may be true, but I can't find any support for this claim in sources. Both IP addresses originate from Staten Island, New York, according to the Geolocate tool. Thus, it's most likely the return of the original vandal. Today's IP editor has similarly made numerous edits adding non-sourced information relating to parents and other relatives of article subjects.[56] I would revert all the IP edits en masse but first wanted to gain input from other editors before taking such action. Thank you, --PinkBull 01:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The first IP's edit saying Sherri Shepherd died (with enough detail to clearly be a hoax, instead of a misunderstanding) is evidence he's a vandal. Thus, all his other edits are suspect and should be rolled back. The extreme similarity between the first and second IP is evidence they're the same person. Thus, all their recent edits should be rolled back too. Sherri Shepherd seems to be a focus, I'll semi-protect for a little while, and roll back the edits if they haven't been already. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I presume the IP address should be blocked. --PinkBull 01:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I got distracted by something shiny. I mass rolledback the IP's edits a while ago, and blocked for a short time. After review, this looks like a very long term thing from this IP, so I assume it's static, and am going to {{anonblock}} it for 6 months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I just read a talk page post by User:Sven_nestle on talk:Violence_Against_Women_Act. He claims to be involved in legal action to appeal the Violence_Against_Women_Act law and stated in his talk post:

    "Anyhow I do not appreciate technocrats nor feudalism. Leave my words alone. If there is better criticism fine. But deleting all criticism might just get you sued."

    Now, I've advised him of WP:COI, WP:TGP and WP:NLT but should he be blocked until he withdraws this? Since the threat is not directed at a specific user I haven't blocked him but I'd appreciate input as if he does not withdraw the remark I will.
    Also, since this person claims to be involved in a case related to his law, he should not be editing this article per WP:COI - I'd appreciate mor eyes on the page in case my advice is ignored. Any input would be welcome--Cailil talk 03:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That was a little vague to block over, but I'll go reinforce your warning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=368100438"