Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

Unresolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

This conversation concerns the handling of a prolific editor who has been found to have infringed copyright in multiple articles. Discussion is ongoing about the potential handling of this review, which will involved tens of thousands of articles. Participation in brainstorming solutions or joining in clean-up would be much appreciated. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

WT:BISE and User:Triton Rocker: indef block review request

Unresolved

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BISE to reduce space on the ANI page and to centralize discussion. Please do not add a timestamp until this reaches the top of the ANI page. –MuZemike

So where does that leave things now? --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've apologised (on my talkpage) for the indef block, and I'm happy to repeat that apology here (and leave timestamps in this thread, so it gets archived). As regards the future: avoid the behaviour that led to the past blocks, and you'll avoid further blocks. There seems to be a consensus that doubling block-duration is more appropriate than a "one day, one week, one month, one year" approach, and I'll certainly follow a doubling approach if necessary. I hope it won't be, however. TFOWR 09:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker seem to have not learnt anything from his block. See here for another insertion of BI against his topic ban. Bjmullan (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Bwilkins (talk · contribs) blocked Triton Rocker for this violation of the topic ban. TFOWR 16:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User:FellGleaming

FellGleaming (talk · contribs) is disruptively editing Challenger Deep and Mariana Trench in the middle of two different discussions about his poor use of sources, the first at Talk:Challenger_Deep, and the second at WP:NORN. Now, Slatersteven (talk · contribs) has showed up and started tag teaming for Fell and making blanket reverts.[1] After a discussion about Fell's edits began at Talk:Challenger Deep, I helped Fell find reliable sources for his claims because he was having trouble understanding how we use sources. No offense to Fell, but the user has a long history of misusing sources and not understanding basic policies and guidelines governing their use. It is not quite clear why this problem has continued for so long, but his poor use of sources resulted in an enforcement request warning in April.[2] The concerns expressed in that warning are the same here:

• Failure to exercise basic due diligence in reviewing the content of sources before making assertions about them.
• Failure to be scrupulous in the representation of sources and the use of purported quotes from them.
• Failure to respond directly to the substance of concerns about the use of sources and quotations.
• Continued aggressive posturing when asked the above.

In any case, Fell didn't like the discussion on Talk:Challenger Deep and took this dispute to WP:NOR/N. Not liking the responses he received there, he began engaging in extremely WP:POINTy behavior, and duplicated the same disputed content[3] that was removed from Challenger Deep into Mariana Trench.[4][5] The result, is that FellGleaming is ignoring the concerns raised about his misuse of sources on Talk:Challenger Deep, and disregarding the problems raised with his use of sources on WP:NORN, and has now managed to copy the same disputed content into two different articles for no reason other than because he can. This is extremely childish and disruptive and with the addition of Slatersteven demanding that I prove a negative, and with Slatersteven supporting FellGleaming's disruption with tag teaming over disputed content, I think it's time for administrative action. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Response from FellGleaming

A short history of events:

1. Viriditas blanked a section of the article: [6]
2. After talk page discussion, Viriditas allowed restoration of some of the material, but would not allow a Berkeley Law of the Sea Institute (a group of legal scholars specializing in international sea law) to support the text that "nuclear waste dumping is banned according to the UNCLOSIII treaty. As of September 2010, the US has not ratified this treaty". I gave some additional sources for this, such as a NYT article. He still refused, on the grounds that none of these sources "were about Challenger Deep specifically". He also began making threats and personal attacks on the article's talk page ([7])
3. To seek conflict resolution, I took the issue to the No Original Research noticeboard ([8])
4. Another editor (SlaterSteven) saw the issue there, and responded by restoring the text Viriditas removed. (I note that this editor, rather than being a "tag team" helper, is an editor who has actually conflicted with me regularly in the past).
5. Viritidas responded by attacking that editor as well, and posting snarky comments to the editor's talk page: ([9]). He also began canvassing other users to search for complaints to use against me (See links from Collect).

I believe Viriditas' edits to be disruptive, and his talk page activity to violate civility and harassment guidelines. I ask for no formal sanction against him, but do request an administrator acquaint him with basic policy in this regard. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already succinctly explained the problem in my original report, but I would like to clear up Fell's misrepresentation of basic facts. To refresh Fell's memory, I originally removed poorly sourced material from Challenger Deep[10] and placed it on the talk page per best practices.[11] This was done because the solitary source used, did not support the content. FellGleaming, without replying on talk first, quickly restored the material,[12] adding an unreliable source to Helium.com as his chosen source, a "peer reviewed citizen journalism website". FellGleaming then begin making a series of very strange claims on talk, arguing that "the Helium source is not being used as a WP:RS for a science claim, but merely to support that the location has been suggested as a waste repository." Fell began trying to reinterpret and reinvent the concepts of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR on the fly, so that they would support his edits. Because Fell was unable to find a reliable source that supported the content he wanted to add, I felt sorry for him and tried to help him out. I found the Hafemeister (2007) source[13] and Fell was happy.[14] However, things quickly devolved into Jekyll and Hyde territory after I helped Fell find a source. At this point, Fell began to go off on bizarre tangents, arguing that any reliable source is acceptable to use in the article, even one that is not about the topic. I calmly explained to Fell, that per the policies and guidelines, we generally only use topical sources, mostly to avoid original research and drawing conclusions that aren't found in the sources. As it stands, Fell will not accept this fact. So now, Fell has added the disputed material into two different articles, and continues to ignore the concerns raised about his edits on the article talk page and on the OR noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignore. CANVASS per [15], [16]. I have not seen anything nasty from Fell Gleaming. Charges of "tag teaming" should be weighed carefully, and discarded as chaff. Absent any real charge, and considering the CANVASS involved, I suggest the first word I wrote is correct. Collect (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been no canvassing, and MastCell asked me to "bring it up elsewhere" because he can no longer deal with FellGleaming on both a personal and administrative level. Screwball23 has nothing to do with this report. Viriditas (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

CANVASS occurs even if the people CANVASSED do nothing. It is the contact which is the violation, not the result of the contact here. Collect (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC) ::

A simple question for teh alledged canvaser, did you ask anyone who has not been in conflict with fell? A si8mple question for the accuseer, has the user asked for comment or asked what he should do in both cases?Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There has also been no tag teaming. I made Two edits, one imidialty after the other [[17]]. I ask that this blatant mis-representation is withdrawn.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And you blanket reverted my edits and restored Fell's. You tag teamed. And like Fell, you have not been able to answer the questions posed on the article talk page by myself, or on the NOR noticeboard by other editors. This is disruptive editing by the both of you. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

ONe making an edit you do not like (or restoring an edit you do not like) is not tag teaming (and I now belive this to be casued by the fact you cannot revert due to having used 3 reverts already, that you are attmepting to use this ANI to continue an edit war). Two I have answerd the questions, that you do not accpept the answers [[18]] (why this should be here) [[19]] (sources supporting the fact the nUS has not ratified the treaty) [[20]] (that the sectio with out the material about US nonratification mis-represents the situation) is not my problom.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I have filed this ANI because both Fell and yourself have ignored concerns regarding your misuse of sources on both the article talk page and the OR noticeboard, and have now duplicated the same, exact disputed edits in two different articles for no reason, which not only doesn't make any sense, but is a good example of the disruptive, POINTY behavior going on here. You can't just ignore talk pages and noticeboards that question your edits. You need to stop adding the disputed material and work towards resolution and consensus. Neither of you seem able or willing to do this. I don't know where you stand at this point, but I do know that Fell has some kind of difficulty understanding basic policies and guidelines, and from what I can tell, has no interest in understanding them. That's a bit strange for an editor active since January 2008. I mean, he's had plenty of time to figure things out, right? Viriditas (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If you care to check I have only edited the one articel. I ask you to withdraw the accustion I have done this on two artciels as well.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I was presenting that finding as a total, not as evidence that you yourself edited two articles, but you are correct, you have only edited one, but two separate articles between the both of you now contains the same content. Viriditas (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps also relevant, this discussion with FellGleaming about not so reliable sources for science articles on the Goddard Institute talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

GISS is not a "science article", and the text being cited is not a scientific point, but simply that a particular person works for GISS. Even worse is the fact that Ibis himself agrees the fact is accurate; he simply wishes to use a separate source for the citation. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

How can our article about the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) not be a science article? --TS 15:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The notion that the statement "Steven Schneider once worked for GISS" is some sort of scientific method, theory or discovery that can only be verified by a Ph.D-authored science book is rather odd. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is different, i.e. that you don't want to use a source which, while verifying the statement, covers the science related to the article's topic in a way that makes the book not a good source for the other information it contains. There may be cases where such a book is the only source available and you don't have a choice but to use that book. I think there exists a special tag for such references that indicates that one would rather have another source. But in this case we already have a better source. Count Iblis (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case we have an apparently perfectly adequate source for the late Stephen Schneider's association with GISS. I agree that the source proposed by FellGleaming is a little odd for an article about a scientific institute. --TS 15:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The source was proposed by another editor, not myself. As for the other source being "perfectly adequate", multiple independent sources are often used. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this in the article at all? As far as I can tell he was at Goddard as a post-doc for less than a year in 1971-72? (according to his own CV). What particular relevance the GISS article has his brief stop there to do with anything? Put another way -- rather than argue about "what" source for this information, a more important question would seem to be "why this information at all?" (The place for it would seem to be the guy's biography, you know "Early career and education.")Bali ultimate (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a very good point, Bali. I don't feel comfortable removing it myself because of this ongoing dispute, but if you (or anyone else) wants to excise it, I support the action. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Simple, but you need to understand the history. Cla68 is having a campaign to add as many facts to as many articles as he can, using Fred Pearce's book as a source. That is where this factoid came from [21]. See-also the next diff William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have encountered this editor before. He bears careful watching. Basically FellGleaming is so very strongly pro-nuclear power that he will bend or break WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR to get a pro-nuclear slant onto articles. Tenacious to the point of tendentiousness, this editor will likely require the attention of Arbcom eventually. A SPA with an agenda, who treats our project as a battleground. --John (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A question Is this about this specific iuncident or about Fells wider actions=?Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to Slater's question, but I do consider it pretty disruptive to copy-paste a hotly-contested section from one article into a new one when you're right in the middle of a discussion at WP:NORN about that section. And since FellGleaming will no doubt respond by informing the world of it, I'll mention that, like John, I've had my problems with this editor before, and that I agree with John's assessment. For example, I requested full protection for Linda McMahon a couple of days ago because FellGleaming, along with two others, was engaged in a smoking-hot edit war over that article. ( I wasn't involved. ) The article was fully-protected for a couple of weeks, but FellGleaming has been right back to the talk page claiming "consensus" with her his same-side edit warrior, to whom she he gave a barnstar for his part in that war after the article was protected, and suggesting they approach an admin to ask that an edit they'd been warring for be implemented through the full-protect. Not pretty stuff at all, imo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC) ( revised by Ohiostandard at 21:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC). sorry, FG, just habit from previous assumption, which I apologized sincerely for, as you know. this is the only time I've made the mistake since I was informed of it; you've no reason to think it was intentional: it was not. )

The "smoking hot" edit war consists of my making a total of 3 edits in the past week: [22]. Ohiostandard, by the way, has been following me from article to article, misrepresenting sources with his edits, just as he did in this one [23], where he claimed it for "fidelity with what the sources actually say". The only problem is, they say no such thing. If he continues this pattern of harrassment and source misrepresentation (and continues to misrepresent my sex as well, despite repeated corrections to the contrary), I believe action will be necessary. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, "smoking hot" was careless, and I'll retract the phrase. I was influenced, no doubt, by my great distaste for what you've been doing at Linda McMahon since the end of August. But anyone here can look at its history and decide whether you've been edit warring there, long-term, and whether the warring needed to stop. As to your claim that I have some kind of "pattern" of misrepresenting sources, people can take a look here for the facts, and refer to MastCell's enforcement remarks about your own "pattern" re sources. Further, I'm genuinely sorry if you feel "harrassed", but you're a very ubiquitous presence on boards like this one, I'm very familiar with your own "patterns", and I very strongly disapprove of them. So when I see you in places like this so often, up to your old "hijinks" (your word, since you like it so much), of course I'm going to comment. I'd rather not, actually; it's boring. But someone needs to. Anyway, my principal point in the post above was that I think it was disruptive to copy-paste a contested section from one article to create an identical new section in a different one, while you were in the middle of a discusssion about the section at WP:NORN. But as I said, this is boring; have the last word if you like.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have had run ins with thism user in the past but am not sure how relevant it is. I will say this on the current case. No one, it would appear, on Mariana Trench appears to have objected to this material being added apart from an involved user on the related page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Challenger Deep is a particularly deep spot in the Mariana Trench. The two articles are so closely related that it is hair-splitting to distinguish between them in this way. In case anyone wants to know my opinion (as an involved editor) about FellGleaming: This user appears to be an expert on nuclear power with a very strong POV, and a will to push that through. The user seems to be generally operating right at the edge of what is tolerated here, not unlike the way that some other editors are acting or have acted in the past to advocate mainstream, sceptic or pseudosceptic positions on articles related to fringe or pseudoscience. The main difference is that this user is now advocating positions that are very unpopular, overall. The main problem at the moment is that we don't seem to have an expert who can represent the other side and prevent articles from being skewed through highly selective information. This is the kind of explosive situation that is bound to end at Arbcom. Hans Adler 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Then (if they are that closely related) do a totaly different set of edds appear to edit one, but not the other, articel? With only a couple of edds on only one of those pages objecting to this aqddition? If the users actions are that out of order then would it not offend more then those with whome he appears to be (or have been) in content dispute with. I see this users actionsa as no worse then many otehrs who seem to enjoy huge amounts of indlugence, and I am operating from the posiiton of precidence. I agree that this users combative approach is problomatic, but no more so then (for example) the attitude of the accuser.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Update

After my agreeing to acompromise version of the text that did not state the US had not ratified the UNCLOSIII treaty, (his original objection) Viriditas has taken to simply repeatedly blanking the entire section. Fell Gleaming^talk 05:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming appears to be on some kind of campaign, going from article to article, making poor edits that distort the sources and push a single POV. For only one of many examples, today on endocrine disruptor, Fell made the following edit:

The theory of endocrine disruption has been dismissed as junk science by some scientists, and there is no consensus that the concept is valid.[24]

However, that is not what the source said. The source actually examined and presented both sides, not one side as Fell did. The source that FellGleaming cited said:

Where science has left a void, politics and marketing have rushed in. A fierce debate has resulted, with one side dismissing the whole idea of endocrine disruptors as junk science and the other regarding BPA as part of a chemical stew that threatens public health.[25]

This is not a mistake on FellGleaming's part. This is part of a willful, purposeful campaign of misrepresentation of sources in article after article, and something needs to be done. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This example seems to fit very well into my overall picture of FellGleaming: An excellently informed editor who is pushing an industry POV vehemently and with a strong focus on results rather than interpersonal conflicts. If the public relations departments of huge industry associations ever start paying people for editing Wikipedia, we are going to get a lot of editors here who will be behaving very much like FellGleaming. Come to think of it, it's amazing that we haven't reached that stage yet. Hans Adler 11:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Haven't we? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting data point: I asked FG here why he had added Being a subduction plate, the nuclear waste would slowly be pushed deep into the Earth's mantle. to the Mariana Trench article, as, quite apart from whether it belongs on the article at all (and I am officially neutral on the matter), it is somewhat poor English. He stated here that it is not his preferred version and I apologized for what I thought was my mistake, but then I checked and saw that he had indeed added the text. In fact he appears to have added this poor material three times to the article. Why would someone add text that they do not think should be added, then edit war over it? I am having trouble understanding what is going on here. --John (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• After reviewing his latest efforts, I now believe that FellGleaming should be topic-banned from anything related to nuclear power, in addition to his current ArbCom restrictions. This is a POV-pusher and a combatant in an environment which should be a civil and collegial one. At the very least we need a lot more editors watching him and his edits as I am now doing. --John (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

To respond to John's many errors, (a) I am not under any "current Arbcom restrictions". (b) the grammatical error he refers to in Challenger Deep was not added by myself. It existed in the article prior to my first edit: [26]. In restoring a section which had been blanked, I merely did not take the time to cleanup the grammar. As to John's complaint on the nuclear article, I'm sorry I don't see it. I took a vague "scientists and engineers" statement and replaced it with the actual descriptions of these individuals, taken directly from their existing WP entries. Calling someone a "scientist" in a nuclear power article is not only vague, but somewhat misleading, when they are in fact a biologist commenting on nuclear issues. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

But "restoring a section which had been blanked, ... not tak[ing] the time to cleanup the grammar." is the very definition of edit-warring. You should think about it; you are no longer a newbie and should not act like one. --John (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Got a bit of a situation here....

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

---

Got a bit of a situation with the Dr. Mario (video game) article. The two players are User:Odokee and User:Ryulong. Odokee apparently keeps removing the japanese characters from the article. Ryulong keeps putting them back. This has been going on since September 9th. No effort has been made to discuss the issue on the article's talk page but Ryulong has tried, several times, to talk to Okokee ([27] [28], [29] on his talkpage only to be dismissed and ignored. Both editors have apparently been blocked once this month for edit warring over another Mario Brothers article for the same reason.--*Kat* (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like each editor has 4 or 5 reverts total over the last 10 days, and at least some appear to be over different material. It doesn't appear to be serious enough for sanction at this point. Have you tried talking to the editors involved yourself? Fell Gleaming^talk 05:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

At present, both users are at 2RR today. Recommend locking the page down to force these two to the talk page. This has be done with other users and other pages and has worked successfully. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody removed any Japanese characters at all. - Odokee (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Japanese words then. Not sure what to call it. Romanji maybe? But you and Ryulong are clearly in an ongoing edit war over the existence of that text and you're not trying to compromise with him or even talk about it.

As for me intervening before bringing it here: I thought about it. Then I looked over the edit history (not just the summaries either, I looked at the actual modifications made), the talk page history, Odokee talk page's edit history and Ryulong's talk page and decided that it would be like banging my head against a brick wall. That's why I brought it here instead.--*Kat* (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy requires the users to be blocked before the page is locked down. Just saying....Basket of Puppies 06:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to discuss things with Odokee (regarding Dr. Mario (video game), Game Boy, Super Mario RPG, etc.). I have been civil. I have been blunt and not civil. Odokee keeps unnecessarily replacing the text "Dokutā" with "Dr.", and has now been doing that while simultaneously performing other large scale edits on the page. This is not the first time he has done this and I am fucking tired of his methods. I have attempted to bring up his behavior and inadvertantly bring up my own in response on this board three fucking times and the last time there was a ban suggested that I did not want to agree to because it would have prevented me from editing constructively in other subject areas. Odokee has been almost entirely unresponsive to my messages on his user talk. The only way I can communicate with him is apparently when we edit war over this style/content/whatever the fuck you want to call it. And even with his comment here he is trying to say that there is nothing wrong with what he has been doing by being obtuse and saying that he's not doing what you're saying he's doing, exactly. The last time, we were both blocked and he socked and performed a revert during the block. Odokee is a net loss to this project and needs to be given the boot.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

His latest response to my request. At least he attempted a response before removing my section entirely.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) On this board, we consider "making the beast with two backs" to be more genteel. In any case, the proper response to such acts is not to edit war, but to request conflict resolution. Requesting assistance from other editors is a much better solution. Fell Gleaming^talk 05:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary? It's called being correct. That's what I am doing: fixing the mistakes of others. - Odokee (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no mistake in my using the text "Dokutā" in the Hepburn romanization section of {{nihongo}} on Dr. Mario (video game). The mistake is you replacing it with "Dr." which is not a romanization.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong, you of all people should know that edit warring is bad, but to do so to make a POINT is just a double no-no. If the behavior is bad enough, take it to ANI or AIV, do not edit war.

Odokee, you need to chill. If you don't get your behavior is a problem by the number of times you have been to ANI, then you don't need to be here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to get outside input. The most input I got was in the third thread I made (first link) where it was suggested that both Odokee and myself be banned from doing anything regarding romaji which would severely hamper my ability to edit other pages I regularly edit. And I am not trying to make a point by edit warring as being the only method to talk to him. It was just an unfortunate realization on my part that it's the only way to talk to him, aside from the fact that he responded on his talk page for the first time ever this morning, but then proceeded to blank the entire section from his talk page before I would have any sort of attempt to respond.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a style issue right? And one currently before Arbcom? Don't you think that's not nearly a major enough issue to edit war over? Why (and this is a question for both of you) is a stylistic difference important enough to go to such lengths? Fell Gleaming^talk 06:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It was put up at ArbCom prematurely by someone who was planning to put it up before ArbCom because there is no grey area to make a compromise in in the discussion that stagnated two weeks ago. ArbCom is also not taking the case because there has been no outside mediation and the RFC was useless apparently.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And if this is how he responds, he should be banned. There have been de-adminings for the same behavior, if I recall correctly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a style issue in the least. - - Odokee (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ad populum? really? - Odokee (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming, you say above In any case, the proper response to such acts is not to edit war, but to request conflict resolution. Requesting assistance from other editors is a much better solution. I warmly agree. You are right. Allow me as an entirely uninvolved editor (I don't even play computer games) to assist, and to resolve the conflict.

And so: This is a unusually straightforward matter. Ryulong is right, and Odokee is wrong, simple as that. Reason being that Ryulong is compactly providing a small amount of useful and highly relevant information (the Japanese pronunciation of the Japanese name of a Japanese product), and doing so in full accordance with relevant guidelines. Now, Odokee may have some reason why these guidelines should, extraordinarily, be put aside for these particular articles; but until he puts this forward, lucidly and persuasively, we needn't trouble ourselves to try to divine his reasons.

(Oh, in case anyone is wondering, there's nothing personal here. I'd never heard of Odokee until a few minutes ago, and Ryulong is a user who I think was fairly recently in some dispute with me, though I really don't remember what it was.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC) [slight tweak 07:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)]

(We had been discussing the merits for and against the use of tildes in the titles of Japanese media; a matter I would still like to discuss because I feel that they have some use).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Providing the wrong info is the issue here. One I am trying to correct. - Odokee (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And what, precisely, is the "wrong info" here? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 06:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue is Dokutā/Dr. in the romanization section of {{nihongo}}. Hoary and I believe that "Dr." is wrong, while Odokee believes that "Dokutā" is wrong (and is a fake word).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the standard "everyone is wrong but me" defense. Odokee, just knock it off, move along and edit constructively. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and Odokee, it isn't a "fake word", see here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he can edit constructively.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm sort of inclined to agree. As I said above, the reason why I didn't try and intervene on my own before coming here was because, after reviewing Odokee's talk page history and the article's history and other stuff, I decided that it would be like banging my head against a brick wall. Odokee makes no effort to communicate with others. He just does things the way he thinks it should be done and to heck with anybody else's opinions. That would be fine if this was the Encyclopedia Britannica but it won't work on Wikipedia.--*Kat* (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you really understand what that means. But, needless to say, it doesn't affect this in the least. - Odokee (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember the underlying principle in WP articles isn't truth or accuracy, but verifiability. Do either of you have reliable sources that validate your interpretation? Fell Gleaming^talk 12:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong wrote the Japanese pronunciation. What has "interpretation" got to do with it? Do you want reliable sources saying that what he says is the Japanese pronunciation is indeed the Japanese pronunciation; and if not, what do you want? -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course. One user says the info is correct. Another says it's incorrect. But what do the sources say? If there's a RS for one interpretation, it should be used. If no RS at all can be found, the material should be excluded, whether or not we think it's useful. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You forgot an apostrophe. Also, there are plenty of reliable sources that say that the Japanese derivation of the English word "doctor" is parsed as ドクター which would be interpretted per our guidelines on transliteration of Japanese as "dokutā". The issue is that rather than saying "dokutā" is wrong, Odokee is saying that it is not a real word and therefore should not be used on Dr. Mario (video game). He is instead replacing it with "Dr.", because the Japanese title of the game does not explicitly feature the text of ドクター, despite that being the intended pronunciation of "Dr." in the Japanese market. He has arguably done the same sort of edits to articles on other video game related topics that also feature English text in the Japanese title (such as スーパーマリオRPG, ゲームボーイアドバンスSP, etc.). And while he performs these edits, he does not respond to criticism on his talk page, and generally continues to make these bold edits, despite being reverted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I previously recommended a 2 week topic ban for both editors which gained traction, but wasn't implemented. I further recommended and even longer topic ban from article space for odokee because of his non-communication. It's obvious he's continued that, and now I'd recommend he be blocked. The topic ban should still be in place, but Ryulong has at least tried to communicate. I recommend Odokee be blocked for a week, followed by a 1 month article topic ban on anything to do with changing the romanization (broadly construed) of anything to do with video games, japanese, etc. Ryulong should be topic banned for 2 weeks, and as I previously recommended both should write a well thought out proposal for the conclusion of this situation, including compromises. If one or both parties can't engage in constructive debate then they need to be removed.--Crossmr (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth should Ryulong be topic banned for a day, let alone two weeks? -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Because he's been edit warring and blocked over the topic. You can see the previous discussion we had about this, I believe it's linked above.--Crossmr (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree per Hoary. --*Kat* (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer requested temporary full protection at RFPP about ten hours ago, a bit after this thread was posted. Since then, the edit history has been fairly quiet, and discussion has begun here. Is this protection still needed? Airplaneman ✈ 17:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think, with eyes on the page, that protection is not needed at this time, but should be used if the edit war starts up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

I've never typed one of these up before, but here goes nothing.

One week full ban for Odokee (to get his attention) followed by a month long topic ban on Romaji and Mario Games. If Odokee wishes to edit in other areas during the topic ban and after the topic ban, that is fine, but he needs to find himself a mentor.

How does this sound? --*Kat* (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it, but I would also add in that Ryulong will not edit war on any article....period. He should know better since he is a former admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I sort of thought that that went without saying.--*Kat* (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war and have a content dispute, and Ryulong does not have full consensus for his edits. So no, without a remedy applied to him to curb his behaviour and actually find a solution to this as I proposed above, it doesn't fix the situation.--Crossmr (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Odokee's behavior has been proven time and time again to be inappropriate. He needs a flat out ban. He is in the wrong and I am in the right. This has nothing to do with the arbcom shit. This is something else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that so? I don't really think you demonstrated where this supposed Japanese of "doctor" came from. It's a transliteration, not a translation. You can't go from japanese to english when there is no japanese. So yeah, it's a fabrication. I've proven this time and time again, and your behavior has clearly been disruptive. Does this mean you should be banned? - Odokee (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are all statements from users who (for the most part) are involved in the dispute. Adding neutral and verifiable content is not disruptive. Repeatedly removing it is. Several times, Odokee, uninvolved users have called you out on your behavior, particularly in this thread. And let's not forget that you were found to be socking during our last block to perform the same revert that got you (and me) blocked in the first place. And there was a link from Neutralhomer in this very thread that shows that "doctor" has been made into a Japanese cognate, which is rendered as "dokutā" in Hepburn. Seriously, stop trying to change the subject to make it seem that you are right.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All misleading and beside the point. You are hypocritically ignoring the inverse of bad edits. Simply adding material doesn't make it acceptable. Is adding any sort of trivia to any article completely acceptable? Can it not be reverted? You simply don't make a good argument here. And this is after the fact about how you've been purposefully going against the grain of consensus in the VG community. How many people said you were disruptive and asked you to stop? I guess in your mind it doesn't matter, since you just ignore everything around you and BRRR at every chance and claim good faith. How can I assume good faith when you deliberately edit war to keep in dubious content? I still haven't seen anyone agree with you where it counts. What I do see is that you keep making the same awful argument about a japanese word that does not exist in the article. Why should it be translated into something that isn't there? You have once again ignored your previous points in lieu of whatever fits you at the moment. - Odokee (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Granted it does take two to tango but Odokee was the primary instigator and perpetuator. Something should be done about him. If you would like to propose a separate sanction or remedy that will apply to Ryulong, then be my guest. But this is my solution for Odokee's unacceptable behavior.--*Kat* (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Your claims simply aren't true. I don't even need to go into it. - Odokee (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I added content in good faith. As we can clearly see from your edit summaries, you have constantly been removing content in bad faith: rv japanification vandalism, rinse, repeat, remove bad edit, lol japanification, Undid revision 383787215, undo japanifications, Undid revision 383787091 by Ryulong (talk) fake japanification, Undid revision 383787092, remove japanification and bad edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, simply dreadful. I don't know how you can sleep at night. Or maybe it helps that you try to game the system to remove competition and cuss them out when it doesn't instantly work? - Odokee (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support *Kat*'s proposal, with a reminder to Ryulong regarding warring. Any sanction on Ryulong should be discussed separately; as a number of us who are uninvoled here have said, on this occasion we can't find what Ryulong has done wrong. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support the ban proposal per the above suggestion by *Kat*. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support *Kat*'s proposal. With the proviso that Ryulong be explicit in his understanding that repeatedly "Adding neutral and verifiable content" can indeed be disruptive when it becomes edit warring, and as such should be avoided. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 04:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Strange Passerby. I think Ryulong's in the right here, but an edit warring reminder is appropriate. Kcowolf (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Although I don't approve of the edit warring from Ryulong either, the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT language I see repeated from Odokee is particularly troublesome. -- Atama頭 21:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So basically while a content dispute, something that no one has demonstrated to be incorrect as far as my edits went, none of that matters when one person cries louder than the rest and claims to be innocent/in good faith. I guess no one noticed how Ryulong's attempt to gain consensus with several users had ended in failure, considering there isn't enough substance to his proposals. How does that end in my actions being malicious? Seems rather counter-intuitive, but I guess assuming that people would be generally intelligent can result in the downfall of good intentions. - Odokee (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So your response is to continue the dispute despite being told that you should stop by people uninvolved in the dispute?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Based on the above broad community consensus, can we please get an admin to do the necessary? The fact that Odokee continued his ways (per Ryulong's diffs) even while being discussed for a community ban over it is not encouraging. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have requested that User:TFOWR, an uninvolved admin, review this and decide if it's time to apply the community consensus. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm happy to do so. However, I'm time-poor right now, and it's likely to be 17:30 UTC at the earliest before I can take a look (this is a discussion I've not been following, which I suppose makes me eminently uninvolved, but also makes me completely uninformed right now). So, if anyone else closes in the meantime I won't be upset. TFOWR 13:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Don't support - I don't see this as a solution to the problem at all. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a pretty clear consensus here. This resolution leaves open the opportunity to modify these sanctions, if required. Off2riorob, I hope this addresses in part your concerns. TFOWR 18:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Related issue: revert request

Ryūlóng has raised an interesting question on my talkpage. In light of the resolved discussion above, Ryūlóng would like to revert this edit. I've suggested that it would be wise to seek outside advice, in order to avoid any appearance of edit warring. This, obviously, is tricky: it's an extremely specialised field. What are the community's thoughts? Should this edit be reverted as an exception to the sanctions applied above? TFOWR 23:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To me Odokee's edit was little more than simple vandalism. I see nothing wrong with treating it as such. Dokutā is a real word. Google found over a hundred thousand results for it. Neutralhomer found an entry for it in some sort of dictionary. That is one, if not two, reliable sources. So yes, I believe that the edit should be reverted.--*Kat* (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've told Ryūlóng to go ahead with the revert, and I'll take responsibility for it. TFOWR 16:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Screwball23

User being reported: Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The issues are:

• Mis-attribution of vandalism: [30]
• Inappropriate canvassing: [31]
• Repeated personal attacks in article talkspace, calling people "clowns", "delusional", "lunatics", "you are slimy and insincere", and other abusive language: [32] [33] [34]

[35] [36] [37]

• Repeated reversions without talk page discussion: [38]
• Edit Warring to the point an article needs protection: [39].

I admit I am partially to blame for the last item, however I have a total of 3 edits to that article in the past week, whereas Screwball23 has 20+, the majority of them contentious reverts against multiple other editors. I am not asking for the user to be banned; I simply ask that an administrator reacquaint him with policy so we can continue work on the articles in question. This user has hardened his position to the point that discussion or compromise just isn't occurring; every action is a total revert, followed too often by abusive language. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: Several other editors here have noted other recent cases of Screwball exceeding 3RR and making personal attacks. He has also apparently been banned several times for similar actions in the past. I feel compelled to change my earlier opinion, and now feel action stronger than a warning is necessary. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Screwball does appear to have rather more then 3 reverts in one day. As to incivlity. Sorry but calling an edit or comment garbage is not a PA (however I may feel about this thats the rule) he does appear to call two eddds clowns, that may be PA but I doubt it. By the way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN3 is where you report edit wars (and this seems a very valid concearn).Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the vast amount of issues appears to be stuff you'd report here; the edit-warring is just the icing. HalfShadow 17:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that saying something is vandalism when its not is reportable (unless done on a very regular basis (and I doubt it would be even then). The canvassing is an issue, but I think we really need more then this for sanction here. Most of the PA accusations will fail to convince (only one actually seems to be about the users not his comments and half appear to be difs of a history page, and i can see no PA’s there. The edit warring (and blatant 3RR violation) appears to be the only real issue here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Screwball23 has, indeed, used grossly incivil terms repeatedly with any who fall into his path. He does not, apparently, understand just why NPOV is quite so important in BLPs. Further his edit history, amounting to hundreds of edits in single articles, shows him to be a very single-minded person when it comes to inserting material he wants in BLPs. Further, he inserted a great deal of improper material into the History_of_World_Wrestling_Entertainment article [40] , and asserted that WP:BLP did not apply there This is not a BLP article, and I have no idea why you think this page is a BLP was the claim Screwball23 made. See also [41], [42], [43] etc. Multiple warnings over edit warring. Multiple extended blocks. Multiple civility issues. In all of under 3K total edits - of which over a third are about a single person! Not to mention an extraordinary block history (three times in the past few months, not to mention civility and canvassing warnings, etc.). As many know, I always oppose draconian punishments here. I might not comment on one here. Collect (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, calling anyone "delusional" or "insane" is, by any logic at all, a PA. Collect (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Three blocks, plus additional warnings in the last few months? I had originally thought this was an isolated case, but it seems it may be part of a much wider pattern. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Better diffs are needed. I have had to dig to find him calling some one delusional (its not in the diifs above but is part of the discussion the difs relate to) [[44]]. It might help matters then if we see the actual comments.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

[45] if you think there is no support for it being in the infobox, you are delusional; [46] Collect is delusional to think that his view is unanimous on this issue. Sufficient? Collect (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I think its clear he has made PA on at least two users despite previous blocks. its not as if he is a new user either. He must by now kow his actions are unaceptable (or is unable to learn).Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If this isn't enough to warrant Admin intervention, I don't know what will. Frankly Collect, I don't know why you didn't just delete the section at its inception as clearly in contravention to WP P&G (WP:TALKNO) on talk page content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the record of the person. 3 major blocks in under four months is likely to indicate Screwball is a problem. That he used a section to attack me shows I have a fairly thick skin which he has finally breached. Collect (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

When an editor brings a complaint to ANI they should get their facts right.

• "Mis-attribution of vandalism" is a refer to an edit summary saying "POV vandalism" - not the same thing
• "inappropriate canvassing" is asking for advice by someone confused by WP dispute resolution processes
• calling people "garbage" turns out to be calling their arguments garbage.[47]
• complaints of edit-warring should be addressed at the edit-warring noticeboard

Based on the above, this discussion thread should be closed.

My advice to Screwball23 is to read all polices and procedures, and use content dispute resolution. That will bring in other editors who understand procedure. The article involved is the biography of a controversial politician running for office. The article must present the subject as they are being reported in mainstream media. If the media give little coverage of some aspect of her biography then that is what we do as well.

TFD (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall I have to agree. He has however called users delusional. There are also otehr PA's.

:*calling people "garbage" turns out to be calling their arguments garbage.[48] Read further down in that same link. To quote: "You're incredibly slimy and insincere". This is not an attack on an argument. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The cited edits are full of blatant personal attacks and edit-warring, and this editor has been blocked three times over the past few months, the most recent in July, for two weeks. A one month block would be appropriate at this point. Looie496 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, TFD, this does appear to be a part of a larger pattern and "garbage" does not appear to be even close to the worst things that have been said and directed at users, not arguments. Silverseren^C 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we can dismise "Mis-attribution of vandalism" and "inappropriate canvassing" I don't think these hold up really. The issue of PA is different and there does indead appear to be an issue here. He has called users Slimey, Delusional and insincre are PA. I also have to say that as the usre has been repeatedly blocked to do so again seems a waste of time, if he has not learnt by now he nevert will.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm INVOLVED, in the sense that 1) I've warned him for BLP violations, 2) He's called me "Collect's lackey", and 3) he's tried to start an ArbCom case against me on the basis of my cleaning up History of World Wrestling Entertainment. Diffs aren't that hard to dig up, and I can do so if desired, but I'm not seeing how this user is in any way, shape, or form a net positive to Wikipedia. I'll be happy to vote for a topic ban from the Linda McMahon or professional wrestling arenas if he continues to not get it, or an outright ban once he exhausts the patience of the rest of the community. Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Three reverts on Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010 just yesterday: [49][50][51] On the procedural side, the editor has already been blocked twice for violating WP:3RR. On the content side, the editor appears to be adding content to the article that doesn't match what the source says (e.g. the source states "person1 said..." but the editor adds "person2 claimed..."). I think at the very least another 3RR block is warranted. This has been going on for a while. As you can see by the contributions the editor had reverted six times on 9/16 alone. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Globalstatus

User:Globalstatus is a relatively new WP:SPA who for the last month and a half has been pushing hard a single point at Russia and Talk:Russia: to add a statement to the article lede that Russia is a recognized superpower. I feel that this is a fairly bad case of WP:PLAGUE POV pushing and the user's presence at the Russia article has become considerably disruptive. The relevant threads there are: [[Talk:Russia#Edit request from {{subst:CURRENTUSER}}, 8 August 2010]], Talk:Russia#Article is being abused request to close editing again, Talk:Russia#Superpower status, Talk:Russia#A proposal to settle down the superpower issue, Talk:Russia#Requestioning sources on Russia as great power. A number of other users in these threads have been engaged in working out a reasonable compromise but User:Globalstatus would not budge and keeps repeating the same thing ad naseum, even though objections to his position have been raised on several grounds (that there are a number of sources disputing designation of Russia as a superpower, that some of the sources cited by Globalstatus are themselves biased, that the term "superpower" is POV laden and its discussion may not belong in the lede, and others). User:Globalstatus has been engaged in attacks and questioning good faith of other editors, e.g. [52] and inserting his comments in the middle of other users' comments rather than below them (see the same diff). He has also been trying to ram through actual edits to the Russia article that do not reflect consensus at the talk page, e.g. his recent edits here[53][54]. I feel that this editor's presence at Russia and Talk:Russia has become seriously disruptive and threatens to derail the ongoing GA reassessment where more serious issues have to be dealt with, see Talk:Russia#GAR and urgent work needed. I think there is sufficient evidence of tendentious editing by User:Globalstatus to justify a block for disruption and/or a topic ban for a couple of months for Russia-related topics. In any event, I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a look at the situation. Nsk92 (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think Globalstatus' involvement in the dispute is disruptive, especially his edit warring. I hope an uninvolved admin will do something about it, but I'd like to remind that Globalstatus is a new user and in the spirit of WP:BITE we should not treat him too harshly because it could cause him to leave the project completely. I already asked him to step back from the dispute for a week and take a break, but I guess it did not help. Perhaps if an admin asked, it would have more effect? Or perhaps a short block is in order if he doesn't listen. Offliner (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As s/he is a new editor, I have tried reasoning with Globastatus on how to behave (see here). Others have tried similar approaches. But s/he will not listen at all. S/he continues to take matters all over people's talkpages, with a clear POV, and a lack of interest in working with others. The comments from Globalstatus are becoming more and more incoherent, suggesting a rather heightened emotional involvement. I think a block might very effective at bringing him/her to their senses, calming down and either realising that wikipedia doesn't work the way s/he thought, and so work differently, or find another forum.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a short block is probably in order. It should be supplemented with a note on how the user should improve his behaviour. After the block we will see if it helped. Offliner (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Response from User:Globalstatus

I am responding to discussion as User:Globalstatus- here is my side of the story:

I have mentioned this to User:Nsk92 here about the new intro version [55] and I have posted it on the talkpages here too [56]. The intro is confusing because I have asked and asked questions in favor for sources and no sources have been provided but only comments without sources instead[57][58] here I mentioned that there was no sources under United Nations Security Council by User:Greyhood I replied again to User:Nsk92 and User:Greyhood under the talkpages and ask before these questions by making a new topic of request for answers here[59] and before that I even provided my own listed sources[60] that really went unanswered, I even sent this over to User:Greyhood asking him for more answers [61] but simplying was not providing sources[62][63] and going back to the talkpages asking here[64] and I provided there sources here [65]

In my case for appealing this block I have tried to get the heart of the answers but the content in the intro was changed marely overnight without acedemic sources and not enough time to consensus [66] done. In most cases it should be given sometime to over the talk than rushing to change the intro as User:Nsk92 do not respond with answers but undoing the article [67] (but Nsk92 said it was before 1991 cold war that but there is current superpower status article in the earlier situation which is misleading the reader) even when the consensus was not final. Originally it was User:Nsk92 who wanted to call Russia a great power back in August 8th 2010[68] providing non-acedemic sources on to the intro page. I commented then [69]but I allowed it even though I disagreed with it.

Now that the issue has come back User:Greyhood first went changing the intro page before consensus [70] which stike my attention to stop. User:Greyhood carried on with the editing but less than 24 hours the intro is changed without a single source stating Russia is a great superpower, no one source. Between User:Nsk92, User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov, User:Offliner have not provided a single source of acedemic sources or even some sources to the article. It seems unfair that we have a open article that confuses the readers when Googling "Russia Superpower" [71] but under articles Superpowers, potential superpowers Russia is considered a emerging superpower and no sources but under great powers there is no acedemic sources Russia being a great power either as User:Greyhood said to find the information but he has refused me to look up acedemic sources but he has not replied anything. I even replied to look under United Nations Security Council but no sources of anything that says Russia is a great power which User:Greyhood said there was and nothing exist there either.

I am appealing as I think there is a misconeption here that as much as I have tried to ask I have been denied the answers from User:Nsk92, User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov, User:Offliner but editor User:FellGleaming undid the intro himself and admitted there was a problem[72] by agreeing with me[73]

I also asked User:Nsk92 to respond in providing sources here [74] but he did not respond in anyway.

Like post these sample sources to see my point on Russia as a superpower with titles dates, authors and media sources below here: "Will Russia Be the Superpower That Will Stop Iran from Going Nuclear" - The Middle East Media Research Institute By A. Savyon July 29, 2010[75], "Why isn't anyone taking Kyrgyzstan's calls"; Foreign Policy By Steve LeVine Friday, June 18, 2010 [76] or "Georgia: An Insecure Foothold for the United States" - The Globalist - Martin Sieff June 02, 2010 [77] or "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament by Sergei Karaganov" - Project-Syndicate News April 4, 2010 [78] or "Azerbaijanis, Armenians can be good neighbors" (Superpower Neighbor Russia) News Az - March 2, 2010 by Akper Hasanov [79] or "Perspective of Karabakh conflict settlement unreal in current conditions" - News Az - June 2010 by Vafa Guluzade[80] or "The dangers of nuclear disarmament" - TODAY’S ZAMAN News May 1, 2010 by Sergei Karaganov[81] or "Sergei Karaganov: Weapons that save us from ourselves" - Scotsman News: 05 May 2010 Sergei Karaganov [82] or "Obama restricts America’s use of nuclear arms" -San Diego Conservative Examiner by Robert Rische April 6, 2010 [examiner. com ] or "Right after the uprising" - Sunday's Zaman April 17, 2010 by Dogu Ergil Kyrgyzstan conflict [83] or "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament" - Saint Petersburg Times By Sergei Karaganov May 4, 2010[84] or "PM's visit underlines rising Indian interest in Ibsa", Bric - Business Standard News; Jyoti Malhotra / New Delhi April 16, 2010[85] or "Russia’s mission is Eurasian integration" - RIA Novosti by Xing Guangcheng August 8, 2010[86] or "Guam Back to Life" - RIA Novostiby by Bogdan Tsirdya August 3, 2010[87] or "Armenian base part of Russia's quest for 'superpower' status" - News.Az By Leyla Tagiyeva August 30, 2010[88] or Boost for nonproliferation - The Japan Times April 10, 2010[89] or "Syria asks Russia to lean on Israel" - Asia Times Online By Sami Moubayed May 14, 2010[90]

Now this is 17 sources, I have about 110 total on Russia being a superpower but what gets me is no one is replying to these sources as these are recent sources from this year. I am confused to User:Nsk92, User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov, User:Offliner they are imposing on me as asking too many questions but they don't supply back with any sources to say that Russia is a great power over what I have provided as Russia as a superpower for example. Seems very unfair to me but also to the readers this is confusing them and willing to provide sources to state my claim here.

So I ask is there needs to be either more consensus on this topic to have editors supply answers with sources. If you look at the article currently there is not sources Russia after the works Russia is a great power, not a thing said and User:Nsk92 erased my version when I added this recently twice [91][92] which said: Russia is a great power although such characterization is disputed by some analysts Russia is characterized as a superpower by a number of sources

User:Nsk92 said I was pushing the edits is not true when you see my discussions on the talkpages here[93] yet User:Nsk92 originally wrote this clause back in August 8 [94] by saying: although such characterization is disputed by some analysts.. Which I am writing what he put on the article intro back then applying it again but now he is opposing it. I think User:Nak9 is failing the complaint against me when he was originally apart of this edit conversion from Superpower to Great Power back in August 8, 2010. Seems he is blamming me for something he orginally wrote himself in August 8 but I provided sources to the text for example. You can compare the examples here - this is User:Nsk92 version [95] and mine here version [96]. I am questioning this as it seems User:Nsk92 is more concerned with Russia being called a great power than reading new sources on Russia being a superpower or even them providing sources to other editors vice versa on this discussion. I feel there is something is bothering in this intro because it says Russia being a superpower and User:Nsk92 User:Greyhood rightly oppose it but they did not provide any sources back to support their edits to the article to change Russian from superpower to great power.

I have not bothered anybody but tried to get realible sources using the talkpages (and talkspages on Nsk9, Greyhood and Offline) and I have been denied requested source from answers concerning this matter. I ask for is some from of resolution for a continuing this intro section on the talkpages so sources can be reviewed and able to see and agree in some fashion as there is no sources here and I rightly disgree to this article as it stands which should be addressed. Also the big issue too is allowing acedemic sources and media sources to support Russia being a superpower or even a great power in that in regards too. Can we simply then use sources such as media sources if any sources such as acedemic sources are not available to promote the article? I think this would probably give the article a chance to base it on its available sources to agree with or not depending who provides the sources if Russia is up for being displayed as a superpower or potential superpower or emerging superpower for example? --Globalstatus (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Global, you've made 10 edits to your response. I'd request that in the future that if you're making addendums to your comments, you not refactor what's already on the page as it makes it easier for other users to see what you've written without having to reread six paragraphs and figure out what the difference is by memory. Thanks. elektrikSHOOS 01:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Elektrik Shoos - Sorry I was only trying to fix my add ins I found on my edits I have added to my case for example. I also have made a few misspellings and some words I missed as examples.--Globalstatus (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Globalstatus is continuing to edit war, and I think he's over 3RR now. Can we get a block please? Offliner (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please. S/he's rejecting academic books published by OUP as sources, for Heaven's sake, and is spamming talkpages. Either a POV warrior, or through incompetence and pigheadedness is a bull in a china shop. There's a very productive GA-focused re-write/clearout of Russia going on to bring it down to an appropriate length, and Globalstatus' interventions are causing havoc. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My reply as User:Globalstatus

I disgree. I have seen some edits that were done without consensus, never broke the 3RR rule either. I am simply questioning some of the sources as seeing some edits made without valid sources to the article. I have posted on the talk pages requesting further sources and acedemic sources to see if the edits were necessary. No abuse at all here to protect the article from lack of sources and questioning the edits done to check if they have their information that's all.--Globalstatus (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My reply as User:Globalstatus

Replying to User:VsevolodKrolikov that I User:Globalstatus have not rejected any OUP sources, there no information that I did that I an object to that statement. My editing history is right here [97] and I have not been spamming the pages either. I have bought up new topics of discussions for editing done on Russia to question the editing when no sources were provided. I have replied to every comment on my talkpages and I have stayed within my own grounds to ask questions on sources. The main problem is there is editing abuse on the article Russia which I will report my information on this page for abusive editing that is a big concern to the viewers and Adminstrators. For now as my response I am not spamming and nor am I doing any 3RR either; I object to User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Offliner comments that is simply untrue.

--Globalstatus (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Here Globalstatus rejects OUP published (and other university imprint) sources without reason - those being the sources at the Great power article, which Globalstatus refuses to acknowledge (bear this in mind when s/he repeats the allegation that no one has offered sources - there are other occasions like this as well, such as here. S/he really is a bit deaf. Here, here, here, and here s/he spams usertalk pages with basically the same message. An inspection of the edit history of the Russia page will show the pattern of editing.

The basic problem is that Globalstatus does not understand that Wikipedia does not take sides in disputes - this one being whether one calls Russia a superpower or not. I don't think s/he understands the topic at all well (what is a "Great power", for example), and it's having an impact on his/her behaviour. S/he shows no signs of understanding how consensus works, and is currently trying to add multiple sources regarding the same speech given by Netanyahu ("one of the world's most important people") on a state visit and in the presence of Vladimir Putin, in which he says some very nice things about Russia. Such a source is superfluous, being the fourth (fifth and sixth) additions tagged to the same POV, and we're trying to cut down on the article's size. Editors have made several efforts to explain matters to Globalstatus, and nothing has had any effect whatsoever.

Establishing 3RR is technically messy, as it's been reverts to several different edits (in addition to fending off the POV attack, editors are also trying to excise material from a very long article), but there have certainly been at least five in 24 hours which undo other editor's work, and more edits that have been clearly against talkpage consensus. Please would an admin deal with this? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have again fixed your posts, Global, per WP:TPO; I've already explained to you that user pages exist in the user namespace, and that if you want to link to them, you must put in the User: prefix. Please either do it correctly or don't do it at all. Users pages are not articles, and are found in the userspace. It's just confusing when we all have to sort out when you are, and when you aren't referring to a user, and not an article. One reason amongst many userpages exist.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I as User:Globalstatus am replying to false information by User:VsevolodKrolikov

I object to User:VsevolodKrolikov comments to say about OUP pushing, to say that changing misspelling on by correcting topic title “Requestion sources on Russia as great power from Request sources on Russia as a great power”--Globalstatus (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC) is wrong[98]? I am doing him a favor by correcting the title so it can be read properly and that’s all. Second when the discussions pages have been ignored on sources to ask under Russia talk pages about “Requesting sources on Russia being a great power” [99] but the editing is going on the article at the same time with no sources to the article about Russia being a great power and no one is answering to the facts. The viewers have no information on Russia being a great power because this is no information there, nothing! I posted a topic on the discussions pages first here[100] but no one provided any sources. I asked User:VsevolodKrolikov the same question here[101] but nothing, no answers. I asked User:Offliner here[102] but nothing either. I asked User:Nsk92 here [103] and nothing not a single answer. I even asked User:Greyhood too but he didn’t provide any academic sources or any sources either. The issue is that User:Offliner , User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Nsk92 have all called Russia a great power but none of them have provided any sources to the article Russia but when I gave them some examples of my own sources they all rejected them for some reason. Hearing User:VsevolodKrolikov in his complaint about me above by supplying one of my own sources on Russia being a superpower by Prime Minister Netanyahu on a visit to Russia in Feb. 16, 2010 in this media statement source why Russia is a global superpower, here is the source I provided here [104] but reading User:VsevolodKrolikov his disruptive comments above in his complaint here - S/he shows no signs of understanding how consensus works, and is currently trying to add multiple sources regarding the same speech given by Netanyahu (one of the world's most important people) on a state visit and in the presence of Vladimir Putin, in which he says some very nice things about Russia. Such a source is superfluous. What a hurtful comment on a valid source and then User:VsevolodKrolikov goes on to say here - being the fourth (fifth and sixth) additions tagged to the same POV, and we're trying to cut down on the article's size. That is false too. If you look at the massive editing history on Russia ‘s article here [105] you will notice the massive changes in the last few days, especially by User:Greyhood who is editing and editing on the Russia article and doing so with not much sources to his edits. But then User:VsevolodKrolikov goes on and says here - Editors have made several efforts to explain matters to User:Globalstatus, and nothing has had any effect whatsoever. - Again this is another false statement completely. Editors User:Offliner , User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Nsk92 have been engage together on Russia article saying Russia is a great power without a single source of information and they refused to believe Russia is a superpower, refused the facts with valid credited sources, all refused to corporate with this matter. But when the terms were switched from Russia is a superpower to great power edited by User:Greyhood here [106] which editors User:Offliner , User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Nsk92 they all defended the article and refused the sources otherwise that Russia is a superpower. Even today when I tried to add a new area of Russia being a space super with this source [107] and what happens 3 minutes later User:Nsk92 erases it here [108] and says - stop your superpower POV pushing already! I find that very offensive because I edited a brand new source under a different area of the article and I am being threatened by User:Nsk92 which he even writes here on September 18 this comment here [109] which is really uncalled for. I have never called any of these editors anything but asked questions on facts but now I have been threaten by Editors User:Offliner , User:Greyhood , User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Nsk92 because of asking for questions on needed sources to the article Russia and they have all denied the truth. This is really uncalled for that the article Russia is being called a great power and they refuse to change the content and they refuse to give sources why. This is extremely unfair and I feel it is bullying the article because they are misrepresenting the article to the readers reading it and I am simply doing the right thing by asking for their sources and they will not provide anything. It is like they do not want to answer anything in regards to Russia being a great power but they take so much offensive for Russia being called a superpower through when the sources say that.

Hatting long list of sources which are causing sideways scrolling. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am a strong believer of sources in this matter and because the sources on massive general note what is mostly common source of information on Russia is that it is being called a superpower today in the media and not a great power. Here is a library of several sources of over 90 sources that say Russia is a superpower of the 21st century, here is my information right here to read my sources: [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172]

I remain defending myself here and I speak the truth of my questioning the article and I have done so in way to properly ask but this guys User:Offliner , User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Nsk92 have treated me with no respect in this matter to ask for the facts. I think personally the article should be closed for editing for a while until we can the facts sorted out but also the disruption of these editors User:Offliner , User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:Nsk92 have caused to the article and is simply unfair. Please if you can make some time to read my sources I have provide above and then read the intro section on article Russia under great power to see my point why it is completely misleading that should be fixed as there is no sources at all supporting it. Thanks--Globalstatus (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Will an uninvolved admin PLEASE take a look at the situation? The disruption and relentless POV pushing by Globalstatus is causing significant problems at the Russia article, in the middle of GA reassessment. A block for tendentious editing is long overdue. Nsk92 (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am reporting User:Nsk92 to admin for harassment and for making false accusations to this complaint, seems he is hiding the truth here and is contining to this disrupt edits and is lying by making false accusations on POV pushing. User:Nsk92 has been undoing edits and making threats to editors on Russia and refusing to work on consensus among editors. Requesting a block on User:Nsk92 for disruptive conduct on Wikipedia.--Globalstatus (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Subsequent to Nsk92's statement here, Globalstatus has placed a warning for edit warring on Russia on user:Nsk92's talkpage. This is a clear abuse of warning templates. Nsk92 has edited Russia twice in the last three days. It would be really, really, nice if an admin could address the issue of Globalstatus' behaviour. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am responding to these false accusations by User:VsevolodKrolikov defending User:Nsk92 for creating conflicting edits here[173] and here [174] and again here [175]. That fact that User:Nsk92 is pushing POV without reading the consensus first and leaves it like it is when there is an error on the article Russia. User:Nsk92 has blocked my edits without consensus and rudely defiant in his comments saying this -POV pushing edits against consensus at the talk page; in any event the sentence in question talks about USSR being a superpower while the refs added are about modern Russia stop your "superpower" POV pushing already and then sayaing this - rv POV pushing edit against consensus at the talk page and saying this - no consensus for such edit at the talk page. The fact is there is already consensus first but User:Nsk92 is ignoring them, as I put on consensus this[176] which User:Nsk92 has no comments but he acts like this [177] [178] [179] [180] is very uncalled for but User:VsevolodKrolikov is defending him because both User:VsevolodKrolikov User:Nsk92 have not comments on the talkpages with sources needed to defend Russia being a great power (which is not true because on reliable sources[181] say Russia is a superpower) to go over the consensus but User:Nsk92 is in reverting edits and that is unjust to the article.

The censensus on the talkpages of Russia has not been effective as the article remains misleading because User:VsevolodKrolikov User:Nsk92 have ignored sources any sources in that matter trying to pretend they have finalized that Russia is a great power when sources say it is not and the consensus is not finalized. I think the consensus should continue with more discussions and I think possibly putting a edit block on the article Russia because it has been numerous times blocked for editing vandalism in the past and I am seeing a pattern of this now how by User:Nsk92 , User:Greyhood User:VsevolodKrolikov , User:Offliner are abusing the article. I am going to make a case on a edit block on the article simply because the consensus is being ignored and the article is being edited against consensus at the sametime. I defend myself from these false accustions from User:VsevolodKrolikov User:Nsk92 as both are defending the misleading intro without sources. Please have an Adminstrator view the article Russia and the consensus pages on the to request for sources that are being ignored by the editors User:VsevolodKrolikov , User:Nsk92 , User:Offliner and User:Greyhood . There should be an Adminstrator come in the discussions on the article Russia and mention what kind of sources (with a new topic from the Adminstator explaining to the editors that what is acception for sources)if acedemic or different valid sources, such as imedia sources are ok or if media blogs if in case there is a limitability on acedemic sources to sort out this matter then what sources would be allowed for example. Because User:VsevolodKrolikov , User:Nsk92 , User:Offliner and User:Greyhood are making it a railroad block on saying they will only accept acedemic sources but when User:Nsk92 added his sources here [182] these are not acedemic sources at all. Then you have User:VsevolodKrolikov , User:Nsk92 , User:Offliner and User:Greyhood say I need to have acedemic sources to say Russia is a superpower but is ok for User:Nsk92 to use non acedemic sources[183][184][185] on the article to say Russia is a great power? That's the abuse on this article and it simply needs to have a Adminstrator outline what type what sources is acceptable for reliable sources because these editors User:VsevolodKrolikov , User:Nsk92 , User:Offliner and User:Greyhood are ingoring the rules of reliable sources[186].

Please have an adminstrator review this article and consensus as it is not working because there needs to be some alerts basis of editing abuse on Russia and talkpages.

--Globalstatus (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted image from GA with no explanation.

Hi. I was just wondering if anyone knew why File:Cheryl cole 3 words video.JPG was deleted, even though to my best knowledge it was properly accredited. It would be appreciated if when images like this from the music video section are deleted from GAs or FAs, someone makes it a point of courtesy to inform the user who took the article to GA. If not for this reason its at least good, for a user such as myself who contribute to lots of articles, to know the error for future reference. In no wat I'm I having a go at whoever deleted the image, rather the opposite. If there was a genuine issue its useful for me to know for the future when uploading images. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted on Commons, not here, so we cannot see the reasons for its deletion. Better to ask an admin there. Rodhullandemu 00:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware it was moved to the commons. Thank you anway. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm now not so sure about that; I can find no reference to that image even in your deleted contribs; but neither can I find any deleted uploads from you of similarly-named images. Do you have diffs to show that the image ever existed? Rodhullandemu 00:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Local log shows it deleted by Fastily, who is now retired. The specific reason he used was "Criterion 8, because the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding." If someone wants to dispute this further, an admin might as well undelete it; I don't think it's a huge deal if it was used in the appropriate section of the article. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a really rotten screen grab of a video. I really can't see what value that could possibly add. Out of curiosity why are we promoting articles to GA if there are issues about the use of non-free images in them? Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

GA has guidelines but not fixed criteria. Promotion is up to the people who conduct GA reviews, although it is subject to later review if there is disagreement. In any case many GA's have issues of one sort or another -- GA means good article, not perfect article. Looie496 (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I enjoy seeing as many images as possible of girls that look like that, the article looks fine as is with the other images. It might have been polite to give a heads up to the other projects that it was being deleted but these things happen.Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You're having a laugh aren't you Spartaz? We've promoted articles to FA before with non-free image issues, let alone GA. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether fair use images are used in a GA or FA, it's whether their use is appropiate and within policy. Exxolon (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That was Black Kite's point too, I think. Jafeluv (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Hence the word "issues". Clearly no-one is saying they should never be used in a GA or FA, that would be ludicrous. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not an image expert, but I don't think this was a speedy case. You could take this to WP:DRV for discussion if you were so inclined. My guess is that it would end up deleted anyways based on Spartaz's comments, but it might be worth a try. Hobit (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

either way this shouldn't have been made into a big issue. The image was present for a long timeand it was used in the music video section as a visual representation of Cole's platinum wig which features prominently in the music video of the song. Whilst i respect comments made about articles being promoted to GA and FA without images or when images have issues it is frequently brought up by reviewers, who often say "Why is there no image of the music video"? I think the current guideline is not clear enough. The judgement of "whether the image adds contextual significance" is subjective to each individual reviewing editor. What constitutes a contextual significance? surely "Cole dressing up in a platinum wig and using make-up to portray a pale complexion" has contexual significance because in the video she looks different to who she normally looks in real life. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And things that require judgment aren't good candidates for speedy deletion. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Its ok the image has been replaced with alternative and with a better description that has more of a position in the article and its significance has been better explained. I just want to end by saying that really something should be done when images like this are considered for deletion. As there is an element of judgement the controlling admin should have nominated the uploader and started a discussion. Anyway that is all. Thanks for everyone's comments/help. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:AJona1992

Ajona1992 has a long history of copyright problems and personal attacks on other editors, not to mention WP:OWN issues on the Selena article. He was blocked from 3rr a few weeks ago, and he refuses to listen to other editors advise. Now comes this edit, in which me and SandyGeorgia agree he should be blocked for that. He's just going to disrupt even more, especially once the Selena article gets unprotected. A block is warranteed, and a topic ban as well. Thanks Secret ^account 01:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I notified him for you, Secret... Doc9871 (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

She was attacking me. I only attack people if they attack me. First of all those pics belongs to my family and me just becuz u guys found 200 of the same pics on google.com doesn't prove your right. AJona1992 (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"They did it first" i not an excuse. IMO there's an inferable WP:TOV in the diff provided, and would support a block at least. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It's not a "threat of violence", I'm quite sure. It's a little "heated", but no way is it an actual threat. A block may happen for other reasons, however... Doc9871 (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Secondly I do take other editors advice! esp when people wanted to help me I LOVED it I was happy that they wanted to help me on wikipedia I needed it after being attack by all you guys telling me that my pictures are in violation, my magazines are fake, etc, etc. Once someone asked me if I needed help I always say "yes" except to you becuz all you do is this, I add a source from a magazine and all you do is REVERT IT becuz YOU don't have it or know about it. AJona1992 (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Also I am having issues with her on here (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Selena/archive1). So maybe this can help you guys decide weather or not I should stay here. Also you guys should look at my contributions as well. AJona1992 (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Also? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes also she keeps talking about me and the magazine that is not currently listed as an unreliable magazine, that's all she AND you keep bringing up. AJona1992 (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has come across AJona1992 more than I want to remember, I'm not surprised to see that his behavior hasn't changed a bit, nor his has his editing habits. His continuous addition of copyright violations text here on en.wiki and copyright violations in image form on en.wiki, Commons and throughout several other different language Wikis that have yet to be deleted is just the beginning of this user's edit history. His astounding immaturity and complete negligence of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, as well as his overall intolerance to admit he can be and is often wrong on multiple levels with multiple issues, whether is being sourcing issues, categorization, policies, etc., really makes me wonder if he'll end up being blocked indefinitely before the new year. His claims that his grandmother took these pictures are utterly ridiculous, as many of the admins who work with images and copyright here and on Commons are well aware of (note in point, he claims this image was taken by his grandmother and the quality of the picture is attributed to being scanned, yet this higher quality, high resolution and uncropped version was somehow published before the supposed scan, huh). You can offer him all the help in the world, but once he disagrees with you, he resorts to naming calling, personal attacks, incivility and the typical "HAHA lulz". Even with all this problematic behavior, I still haven't even begun mentioning his block for sockpuppetry and 3RR, as well as his attempt of meatpuppetry and inappropriate canvassing to push his Selena WikiProject proposal through. The community is simply wasting far too much time on this one individual. — ξ^xplicit 02:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Sockpuppetry as well, and claiming copyrighted photos was part of her family collection wow I'll endorse a indef block of the user right now, he's more trouble than he's worth. Secret ^account 03:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • User:CHICOGAGA should be blocked indef as a meatpuppet of Ajona. Secret ^account 03:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All I can say to you is "wow" I tried asking advice from you, yea I bet your saying again "stop the mellow drama" but I was really asking for some advice. Anyways I understand where your coming from but the thing is my grandmother/mother really did take these pictures I mean I am not going to let you guys get away with the comments you have said about it either. The sock thingy I only did ONE TIME and I didn't know about the rule to begin with. Secondly, the 3rr was to prove a point about me editing Selena and it being reverted becuz it's not up to your guys standards. I do have anger issues and nor should I talk about my life here becuz it doesn't involve in this. I like editing here but the thing is if you even try editing here all you get is being banned before you even know that you was doing something wrong (socking), (unreliable magazines). AJona1992 (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm another thing here the people who helped me and encourage me, I never disagree with them and even if I did we never argued! you can ask every person who was willing to help me and and I accepted it I got along with them very well, you know why? becuz they never talked to me the way you guys are, they are more calm and more pleasant to talk to they don't go around here sticking their heads up in the sky thinking they run stuff, no they actually, even though told I was trouble, stood by me and helped me. AJona1992 (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't live in California Secret! And my IP address confirms that, so next time go do some research before accusing me of something that I didn't do. AJona1992 (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, the 3rr was to prove a point about me editing Selena and it being reverted becuz it's not up to your guys standards—please take a look at WP:POINT. I like editing here but the thing is if you even try editing here all you get is being banned before you even know that you was doing something wrong (socking), (unreliable magazines). Well, you're not banned. And if you do something wrong, there is a negative consequence. Your talk page shows that many people have tried to help, but yet you have continued some of the things they have asked you to stop doing, like posting copyvios. You *yawn* at it here and then again (bigger) here. That's just counterproductive. If you treat others like that, who are also here on their free time, you will not be helped and encouraged much longer. It's just rude. So yea… Airplaneman ✈ 03:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, I read a little about it after my episode to prove that "Q-Productions" was a great external link. And what I was saying there was that I was banned from sock and 3rr and I didn't know there was a rule about socking I just only wanted to get my project approved. Yea I need to work on that but I don't want to abandon the Selena article because I feel that a "FA" should include and not limit itself. AJona1992 (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave him a strong warning, such a strong warning that I had to break WP:CIVIL in order to tell him the truth, but a WP:IAR could be used in my case. But with it I think he understands the situation now. I'll work with him. Thanks Secret ^account 03:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Ajona: You don't seem to understand sourcing requirements for featured articles, as evidenced by a review of the Selena talk page and FAR, and there seem to be quite a few other problems with your Wiki editing. Your participation has been disruptive, and your post to the Selena FAR was certainly a breach of WP:CIVIL, if not a WP:TOV. Wikipedia is not MySpace, and we're here to collaborate to (hopefully) produce high quality articles; editors who don't understand that might do better to spend their time on the internet elsewhere. If you don't learn and follow Wiki policies, admins will help you find another place to spend your time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, folks, WP:TOV "is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." See WP:VIOLENCE - do you think the local authorities should be contacted because of this "threat"? "Accordingly, if there is any possibility at all that a 'real world' threat has been made with genuine intent, the best thing to do is to immediately report it to authorities." It's not a real world threat with genuine intent... Doc9871 (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Doc, again SandyG I only edit the page Selena if I find something that should belong there (most successful singles of 1994 and 1995, Best Latin artist of the decade, best 1990s singer, now don't you think these belong on a article?) with sources from Billboard. If it's to revert to prove a point than yea I have done that but I was only doing that becuz I had sources and everyone was just dead against me expanding the article which is kinda dumb (in my point of view) becuz I believe that a FA article shouldn't limit itself. AJona1992 (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the guidelines people have cited say otherwise; it's not just what you think is correct. Please understand that this is probably why you ended up here in the first place: not taking in others' advice. Airplaneman ✈ 04:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I left some "friendly advice" on AJona1992's talk page and he'll hopefully consider it: and he seems to be civilly working with the same editor who reported this thread (and who intially called for a block and a topic ban). Hopefully this should cool down quickly, and time will determine if they can't work something out. His userpage (if accurate) is very open about his RL identity, and he is a young editor who hopefully can learn policy. His bad behavior is noted, and if he's disruptive again at all it will be dealt with swiftly, I'm sure. One more chance, maybe? Just my 2p... Doc9871 (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I will suggest mentorship to Ajona1992. Perhaps that will help. It's a tool that I think sadly doesnt get used often enough, especially for those people who seem honestly desiring to contribute, but simply cant grasp that things on Wikipedia are different than how one would write about or discuss them in the "real world" (wherever that is). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 07:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:AJona1992 has accepted my mentorship on 21:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC). He's got an article up for GA review (that he turned from a 3K stub into an article nearly GA ready), and I've spent a few hours tonight working with him on it (providing input here and there) and going over guidelines and such. A very productive night and I feel strongly that he'll turn out to be a valued editor. I've also written this for my adoptees (I've got two) and they are following along with it fine (anyone is free to comment or contribute to it. already made some revisions based on other editors and admins feedback).

Back to the ANI at hand, at this point, I cannot claim uninvolvement as I'm AJona1992's mentor, so my recommendation should carry less weight I would presume, but my feelings are this ANI can be closed as resolved with AJona1992 being mentored and productive with me available to help him avoid any difficult situations. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 08:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment/Question: I have seen users banned for far less than what has been going on with this user and that somewhat troubles me. Not that this user has not been banned but how quickly other users are for doing far less. In general this user has consistently "threatened" editors with variations of "You better watch out". One perfect example is when an admin tried to explain about OTRS in relation to the Grammy photo, and how to include a scan of press passes that would have allowed their grandmother into the media room. The issue actually started earlier when the image in question (File:Selenagrammy.jpg) was tagged with an {{otrs pending}} and a search turned up nothing. (File permission problem with File:Selenagrammy.jpg) The discussion quickly saw AJona1992 re-purposing the header by renaming it to "This user who is deleting the photo loves it as a hobby", and resorting to statements such as And she's not going to that at all because that's her personal information, oh well I guess the photo is going to be deleted, such a shame that Wikipedia is so lame HAHAHAHA.; I gather that your stupid; forgive me if no one told you that if ANYONE dares to talk shit or says something to me that is offensive then I will attack back.; Oh well no one told you that I dont back down, if you want to talk things through lets do it other wise I'm not going to let some girl I don't even know talk to me like I'm a peace of shit.; I don't take shit from no one if you want to talk then talk, dont come on my talk page bringing your useless comments. and I have been trying to show proof but f*** this you was coming at me very rudely. I will just upload a new picture another day. (August 21, 2010) That conversation alone would have gotten most people blocked, but combined with repeated like comments such as Talk:Selena#Merge_discussion: Also YOU need to know that YOU should NEVER threaten me EVER because I don't play fair nor do I back down from ANYONE as you can tell on my old talk page. I know theres rules and stuff like that but once you cross me I can be just as mean as anyone maybe even worse *laughs to the floor OUT LOUD*.; Formal Copyright warning: *yawns bigger* well this is my talk page and I understand the poiclies that you guys made up but if someone is going to attack me, don't think for one second that I am not going to respond.; dont cross me DA:I want to tell you off so freaking bad but I am going to tell you this, I am the type of guy that you don't want to cross... and Review commentary: re:...if the magazine said the funeral held more than 100 million so be it, so argue with them and not talk s about me.) I agree with Explicts summary of the situation. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (Poss COI: I'm AJona1992's mentor). Hi Soundvisions1, you bring up some great points, and I probably should have addressed them in more detail above where others raised them. Apologies for not doing so.
    • Besides working on the article I mentioned above with AJona1992, we also discussed these issues in reasonable depth. I also created the "Adoptee" page indicated above with Wikipedia's Guidelines. In addition to those Guidelines, I also posted rules I expect all of my adoptees to adhere to for as long as they choose for me to be their mentor. In this particular scenario, since this is all part of the ANI, I think AJona1992 doesnt have a choice about having a mentor (involuntary mentorship as noted on the mentoring page) - at least assuming that this ANI is ended with that as part of it's terms. If that's the case, he's bound by (and very aware of such) the rules I've stated for him and my other adoptees. I know that Wikipedians are generally bound by mostly guidelines and policies, but there are some things I personally will not tolerate - and AJona1992 is aware of that.
    • While of course, I cannot guarantee that AJona1992 will not violate my rules (and thus not violate Wikipedia policies), I do believe it's likely he will not do so again.
    • As for the copyright issue, I am waiting on resolution to the satisfaction of the editor above. If it turns out AJona1992 was in the wrong, he's already been somewhat taken to task for that, and I will follow up with a stern reminder of the importance of not violating copyright law. I already did so last night. I've made it clear to him that he needs to come back here and come clean if anything he did in this nature was wrong. I think his response in this matter (or lack thereof) will be telling of a few things: (1) whether he truly understands the issue at hand, and (2) if we can have any expectation of him doing it again.
    • As for the comments made, I for one will not tolerate such, and I clearly state that on my Adoptee page. Yes, they should never have happened. Yes, some people get blocked for less. Yes, some people get away with a lot more and never get blocked. But just as in article disputes, "someone else..." shouldn't apply. Based on this situation, and this ANI, one should decide what actions should be taken. My suggestion is, as noted, that AJona1992 be required to be mentored for (a) a certain period of time or (b) longer if he chooses to remain an adoptee once that period of time has expired. And of course, the other alternatives (which I am not proposing) are a block or ban.
    • As I stated in my adoptee doc, if one of my adoptees violates certain of my rules, I may be the first one to request their block. And I meant it when I wrote it. And he's well aware that I cannot recall any of my block requests having been denied to date (came up in an unrelated conversation).
    • From viewing his contributions, it appears he has a very determined and passionate intent to make Wikipedia better - even if he was off to a rocky start with some of his comments and actions. Hardly the first valued editor who has started on poor footing.
    • Many new editors run afoul of various guidelines here. From my experience watching and using Wikipedia as an anon for years, followed by this stint with a username, it seems the more involved the new editor is, the more likely they will violate those rules until things are explained to them (or they gain a mentor). Of course, I cant justify his actions based on other's actions - but I can say (was trying to say) I do have some sort of an expectation that such will happen with such new editors. Part of the reason I jump on user creation log and send out welcome templates when I've got the time.
    • As noted above, he decided he really wanted a mentor as his disappeared, and agreed to have me as one (without it being because of any sanctions here).
    • Thus, my proposal, at this time, is still that AJona1992 be mentored for a set period of time to be determined by all of you. I would like to think that I am pretty levelheaded and good with dealing with such situations in a beneficial way - but I am biased on such matters, so, in this, please feel free to review me or discuss my level of competency in such matters with the other editors and sysops I have interacted with.
  • That's all I have to add. Also, if I am correct about AJona1992, I expect he will be making a post soon. You all can be assured I have conveyed the gravity of the situation, and taken him to task for anything he has done wrong. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Side note, AJona1992 has agreed to every term/rule in my Adoptee's page, without any qualms. We also spent time going over the importance of various ones of them (no copvio, no edit warring, no bad remarks to other editors). He's also agreed to my imposition of a 2RR rule. The only thing he asked in return is that I'd be available for any questions to help ensure he doesnt unknowingly violate any guidelines - to which I agreed. This was done via chat (my chat info is on my userpage), and I am freely willing to (with his permission, which I suspect wont be a problem) post the whole transcript if wanted. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am deeply sorry for the rude comments that I have siad - I guess I let my passion ahead of my reason.

I have to be honest, the Grammy picture was copyrighted. I'm really sorry about that and the problems it caused. My mentor has explained the importance of never doing those things again, and I promise I wont. If I cant prove the other picture(s) are owned by me to your satisfaction, I understand and wont post them again.

My mentor has explained what edit warring is. He's got his own additional rule (that I cannot violate 2 reverts), so I wont do that again, and will instead get him or someone else involved instead of edit warring.

I also would like everyone to give me another chance as I am only beginning to learn the guidelines and rule for Wikipedia and the causes that I have done, which I did not know of until now. I won't let anyone down! AJona1992 (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Good! You seem to be heading in the right direction. The offer for mentorship by Robert is extremely generous, and I hope this will have a positive impact for the encyclopedia as well as everyone involved. Airplaneman ✈ 22:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified the other participants in this ANI that I have forwarded a proposal. (I did not think it fair for this ANI to be closed or sit without their opportunity to respond, and didnt want to take the chance). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for reminding me to revisit and comment, RobertM. My experience with mentorship is that it only works (and still may not work) when there is a "good cop" and a "bad cop" on board. You can guide Ajona, but you can't block him when he ignores you or becomes disruptive. I applaud your effort, but in my experience, it won't work, and will continue to sap community time, unless an admin agrees to block according to a pre-defined plan. Good luck :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Sandy, and yes, I think parameters need to be added (repercussions), but I did not feel I am the person to decide those (partially for the reasons you mentioned, partially because of possible perceived bias, and partially because it still hinges on supporters (other than me) willing to agree to the mentorship proposal). Hoping you or others can propose such (and as I let him know, I may be the first person to request the use of such sanctions if a violation occurs... and mentor (good cop) or not, I already took him to task over the copyvio issue). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • You just have to find an admin willing to block, and ask Ajona to agree upon an escalating block schedule should issues recur (I see a suggestion below). It would be better if that admin followed his talk, so you (as the "good cop") don't have to "report" him-- your role is supportive. I was involved in one mentorship that turned a highly disruptive editor around, because I helped her, while an admin blocked her every time she backslid. I observed another mentorship that didn't work because the mentors were also the enforcers, no one would agree to block, and the mentee turned on her advisers, as their role wasn't well defined. It would also be wise to put an "end game" plan in place now, while everyone is cooperating :) What if the mentorship doesn't work? Cross that bridge now so you don't end up in protracted dispute resolution. Also, what if the mentorship does work? How/when do you end it? When do you decide the job is done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • AJona1992 has read and agreed to this (though I suspect it's binding even without that agreement). I am pretty sure that those admins I turn to for assistance for other things will be more than willing to enforce this if need be. In particular, I am sure I can count on User:Arbitrarily0 and User:Xeno and User:SarekOfVulcan in this matter. But as I dont want to speak for them with 100% surety, I will ask all three of them to review this and comment for themselves. Also, I've notified User:Explicit and User:Airplaneman about the proposed resolution and asked them to come here to provide their input. I'm guessing if they agree to these sanctions, I and others can turn to them for enforcement if needed. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Reply: I have some RL to take care of but I did want to make a note that I have received RobertMfromLI's courtesy notice and will respond here later today/tonight. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal on mentorship restrictions and consequences

Per the above, here are a few suggestions/my proposal on consequences for the user on violating any part of his mentorship:

• As mentor, RobertMfromLI (talk · contribs) is free to ask for admin intervention at any time for any situation(s) he may deem fit
• Incivility and personal attacks will start at a level-3 warning (he's already been warned), with the next a level four warning. This provides a three-strikes-you're-out rule.
• Further incivility or personal attacks beyond that point will be met by blocks, starting at 48 hours and increasing.
• Threats of any kind, regardless of (lack of) prior warning, will be met by a 48-hour block, and increasing for more.
• Any more copyright violations found uploaded will be met by an upload ban, which if broken will result in blocks (starting at 24 hours and moving upwards). an indefinite block.
• Copyright violations in text, if any are found, will be met by a copyvio warning, with further violations resulting in blocks starting at 24 hours. an indefinite block.
• Per the deal of the mentorship, the user is restricted to 2RR. Should he break this or engage in otherwise nonconstructive long-term edit warring (say, over a few days), blocks should be applied starting at 12 hours (for 2RR) or 24 hours (3RR/edit warring).

Seems fair to me, but comments? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support With involuntary mentorship (for 3 months?) ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: By request of SandyGeorgia (who brought up a valid concern), I have asked Arbitrarily0, Xeno, and SarekOfVulcan to review this and let us know if they are willing to impose the proposed accelerated sanctions if the need arises. 03:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Airplaneman has agreed to impose sanctions on the accelerated time table proposed above if the need arises. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would support this. He's going to be watched carefully by editors both for and against his mentoring; and if he breaks the rules, he'll answer for doing so. I say move forward (not ignoring or "forgetting" the misdeeds) - and see what happens. If he's sincere, it will hopefully work, and if he can't abide by the rules, we all know what will happen. Doc9871 (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm willing, since AJona seems eager to get things right. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• xeno has added AJona's talk page to their watch list (in the event intervention or accelerated sanctions need to be applied). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 16:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm all for second chances and support this generally, except that I believe the copyright restrictions need to be considerably stronger. Please note that he has now confessed to copyright fraud in falsely claiming ownership of images (taking it so far as to write to OTRS with unprovable claims of ownership and to edit war on the now deleted image to remove evidence), and he has repeatedly restored copyrighted text in spite of warnings to stop. I support the mentorship for civility issues, but I think we need to take a harder stance on copyright violations than that. Copyright fraud isn't misunderstanding; it's deliberate disruption. Seriously, read his comments here. I think we need to make clear that this is not a wrist-slapping situation. Per the provisions of OCILLA, we are required to make, communicate and enforce a termination policy for repeat infringers. I think the next instance of copyright violation (text or image) should lead to a block, and any subsequent instances should lead to an indefinite block. Mentees need room to learn, as I know very well, but copyright violation of the sort we've seen here doesn't happen by accident. Other than the copyright situation, the rest of the proposal seems fine to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

  I concur entirely. And I actually would not be as forgiving, I think that next instance of (net-new) copyright violation should result in an indefinite block. –xeno^talk 17:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support: and explained to AJona1992. I've revised the proposal above. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 17:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly related note: I advised him (before his admission of guilt) that he needed to come clean, but that doing so may result in an indefinite block now. He chose to come clean anyway. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 17:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's encouraging. Hopefully the issues won't repeat. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Admins willing to act if the need arises, and willing to impose accelerated sanctions

• SarekOfVulcan
• Airplaneman
• Xeno
• Moonriddengirl (copyright concerns only)

(I think three is sufficient?) ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 16:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Qwasty

Qwasty (talk · contribs)

Does anyone have prior experience with this user? Goes on bizarre campaigns of "reverting vandalism", dumps unsigned final warnings on my talkpage[187] (and apparently others[188][189][190][191][192][193][194]). Fails the Turing test: apparently revert-wars based on byte-counts (reducing article size = vandalism), does not appear to be willing or able to consider the issue or the argument presented.

Probably just an overzealous kid, but imho it's an ANI item because of the bizarre final warnings and the silly cries of "vandalism". WP:BATTLEGROUND. --dab (𒁳) 08:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing seems like a content dispute. The only problem is that User:Qwasty ignores WP:AGF and WP:DTTR. Instead of attacking everyone who reverts his edits, he should be told to bring his dispute to the talk page first. Ishdarian|lol^wut 09:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of dispute it is. So far, hundreds of edits that aren't even mine are being reverted without any justification (mostly bot formatting edits). Verbal abuse similar to the above does not constitute discussion: "Fails the Turing test", "overzealous kid", "silly", etc. It's tough to assume good faith from a fountain of insults and mass destruction of hundreds of edits from numerous editors, with no edit summary. Dbachmann SEEMS to have concerns worthy of discussion, but I haven't been able to get him to discuss them in the appropriate talk page sections. Qwasty (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

In regards to your complaints about the US and UK undue weight tags, they were discussed above your new sections.

Also, all the examples given of the improper use of warning templates, while inappropriate, are from four years ago, except for Dbachs. Ishdarian|lol^wut 10:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The undue weight sections weren't discussed. They were created immediately after the tags were placed, and they are still almost entirely empty. After that, the tags, the sections, and every edit in the days prior which were done by myself, the approved bots, and other users were all mass reverted to Dbachmann's last edits. What little "discussion" there is consists mostly of personal attacks and red herrings about subjects other than mass revert. No one has been able to focus on a single relevant topic of discussion yet. Dbachmann even went so far as to try to consolidate the discussion topics I created under a heading "Qwasty", which I find to be merely further flippancy that does not aid discussion. In essence, the only clear message I'm receiving from Dbachmann is his desire to dominate the article, including in such minor areas as bot formatting edits, by reverting all edits made after his own. The rest of his communications are so rife with angst and vitriol, it's difficult to extract further meaning from them. Qwasty (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not super-impressed with the accusations of vandalism and verbal abuse, nor the edit warring at witch-hunt. So far most of the discussion seems to have been about the abusive actions of dab rather than the edits themselves. It's possible the edits are justified and the references are there to support them, but so far I've yet to see them. Dab's actions are perhaps slightly controversial, but not outrageous and certainly not vandalism. I repeat here my suggestion made to Qwasty at talk:witch-hunt to calm down, present sources and discuss. It is possible there is information that could be included on the page, but that depends on the sources and I've yet to see them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So far, there's been little to no complaint about statements that are unsourced. On top of that, I have been doing the research and adding sources on my own. That process was halted in mass reverts. Dab/Dbachmann has provided no avenue of resolution other than to insist on destruction of all edits. Each communication from him is provocative in nature. Hostile, minimal communication immediately precludes a presumption of good faith, and combined with groundless wide-ranging destruction can reasonably be construed as vandalism. Perhaps vandalism targeted to me personally, or the bots, or the other editors affected - but still vandalism. Qwasty (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You really need to read the definition of vandalism. Seriously, you are quite, quite wrong.

I have now complained about a lack of sources. Dbachmann has engaged on the talk page, now it's up to you to do so as well. Despite claiming hostility and ridicule, the comments aren't particularly offensive - especially given your own behaviour. Please calm down, and assemble the best sources to substantiate your point. Then present it for discussion to the three people who are waiting to see the sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This diff seems like canvassing. Ishdarian|lol^wut 04:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is still interested, this has reached an edit-war level with a 3RR violation in the works. Over the past three days there have been no less than eight reverts ([195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202]) to the same version, with Qwasty being the only editor in favour while three have actively reverted the changes (myself, Dbachmann five times and Huon twice). Despite requesting "substantive discussion" on the talk page, the actual "issues" raised consist mostly of accusations of vandalism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo's pattern of problematic editing

• Prior AN/I, from 2009, which failed in finding any error: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo
• Prior RFC, from August 2005, regarding problematic behavior as Administrator at the Vietnam War article, which became an Arbcom case and resulted in desyopping: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Stevertigo
• Prior RFA, 29 August 2009, which became an Arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles, which succeeded in sanctioning several editors on both sides, including Stevertigo, currently active (June 21, 2010), one year topic ban and editing restrictions: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions

User:Stevertigo continues a pattern of problematic editing across several articles. Furthermore, I state that this is not a content dispute. This is about replacing sourced, referenced, and cited material, with WP:OR. Stevertigo argues as if this is type of behavior (and this position) is valid on the talk pages of several articles. Several other editors are invloved. The articles involved are Time, Time in physics, Punishment, and, I think one other.

First encounter with Stevertigo, here: [203] where I removed WP:OR and replaced it with content supported by references already in place. Please see edit history statement. Next, User:Stevertigo, reverted this edit and replaced with the unsourced and unreferenced statement, [204]. In addition, it is mostly incomprehensible. Also, this part appears to be cited, but some other editor had placed the this template: {{failed verification|date=July 2010|reason=much of this, the part Stevertigo sourced to "moi" (himself) is very clearly not in citation}}.

On the talk page Stevertigo had created a new section, with my User-name as the section title [205]. He quoted my edit summary, and gave what may seem like a level-headed response. However, he just replaced my edit with original research and incomprehensible wording. Next, is my response [206]. Also I changed the name for the inappropriate section title. Using my name as the section title is an indication of focusing on the editor (me), and not on the content. It has the appearance of a personal attack. See edit history statement for my response.

My response on the article talk page has been removed, and the title reverted back to my user-name [207]. I finally managed to successfully change the section title again so that it was not my user-name, [208]. Notice my statement in the edit history.

I reverted Stevertigo's article-edit. [209]. Stevertigo reverted my edit with his WP:OR, while sounding insulted. [210].

I was unable to actually add my response to the section formerly titled with my user-name. I ended up placing my response in another section [211].

The lede is where Steveritgo desires to place his edits. In fact, in these several articles it turns out that Stevertigo desires to place his POV content in the lede:

Punishment ---- [212], [213].

Time in physics ---- [214], [215]

Physics ---- [216]

Human ---- [217], [218] (see also "Addtion to my complaint" below)

Time is illustrated by the above diffs.

This assertion is supported by the following statement on his user-talk page [219] "My focus has generally been on writing good ledes, which set the tone for the rest of the article."

Also on his talk page: I strive through a conceptually organised approach to craft language that deals with the essence and substance of ideas, [220]. This is linked to his own essay Wikipedia:Conceptualization. He created this page. The signifigance is that he has given priority to concepts which are not based on reliable soures or verifiablity, on article talk pages. Then the conversation can become mired in challenging his WP:OR conceptulizing with the need for deriving facts from reliable sources. Here, [221], he plainly states: "The concepts relevant to time are (off the top of my head)". Also, the section is entitled "Concept cloud".

There is also a collapsible info box which opens to reveal, a list of concepts, i.e.,

• reality
• physical, physics
• transformation, change
• etc., etc., with about 18 more "concepts" following these (inside the collapsible box).

Perhaps Stevertigo thinks editing is about gaining the high ground when insisting on placing unsourced and unverifiable material in an article, as he does here - [222], and here [223] It changes the intended dynamics of the editing process. This creates a battleground atmosphere.

Jim Wade removes Stevertigo's WP:OR statement. See edit history comments. [224], [225]. And I agreed with him [226]. Next, Stveritgo, reverts Jim's article-edit [227], and then becomes argumentative on the talk page [228]. Notice how Stevertigo characterzes Jim's overall edting and attitude.

Stevertigo makes noises about participating in a discussion [229]. However, Stevertigo carried out this revert, without discussion [230]. He appears to be using a guideline to gain an advantage. However, editing is not intended to be about gaining an advantage over other editors to place original research material in an article. The original research material is not supposed to be there. And if it is, then the thing to do is to remove it, and it should make sense to all editors involved. However, over the course of three or four articles, where editing with Stevertigo is involved, it has been a constant battle. He is adamant about placing WP:OR in the ledes.

Before I came on the scene, this behavior appears on July 12, 2010. This lede is similar to his lede of August 2 and after. [[231]

On July 12 (before I arrived) Stevertigo did 23 unchecked edits in a row [232], cullimanting in [233] "rv polysyllabic uninformative POV jargonese".

Other relevant diffs: [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240].

Ultimately another editor also got involved: User:DVdm. It was a long process as illustrated by the talk page revision history [241]. Outnumbered, Stevertigo finally moved on. To where? I don't know.

However, around this same time, other editors and I, had to deal with Stevertigo at Time in physics. It was another running battle of WP:OR vs. WP:V --- [242], [243], [244], [245], etc., etc. There was also discussion on the talk page. It is not an overly long discussion [246]. However, on the talk pages of both articles Stevertigo was sufficiently informed about using only sourced material. From his responses and his editing he refuses to get it, figithing obstinately to have his WP:OR leading the articles. Once again he was outnumbered and he moved on.

In the article Punishment the story is the same (a running battle between WP:OR and WP:V) [247] , except he has not moved on. We (the editing team) established a consensus lead by August 9th [248]. I thought Stevertigo had moved on. Much to my surprise, I discovered that on September 16 he had obssesively edited the lede 16 times in a row, 15 of which were on September 16th [249]. The total edits made by Stevertigo on that day were 23. I characterize the situation on the talk page here [250]. Jim Wade stepped in after 16 edits, and began to counter Stevertigo's WP:OR edits. I noted on the talk page that "it appears to be the same situation as when I stepped in over a month ago - Jim Wade doing his best to counter Stevertigo's unorthodox editing style. By the third Stevertigo edit, two sentenes were added, which were a creation not supported by any added references or those references already part of this article." The next edits were Jim Wade diplomatically countering Stevertigos edits. Ultimately, I restored the consensus lede established on August 9th [251].

I was still not intending to go to ANI. However, when Stevertigo made an audio version of sometihing which he describes as "To better illustrate the problems with your writing, I've made a spoken version of the introduction" [252]. He is refering to me and my writing. I have no problem that he made an audio version of anything, and placed it on the talk page. The problem is this is the same old routine - WP:OR vs. WP:V - only with an audio device.

I also need to expand this complaint to show that Stevertigo is not likely to alter is behavior a result of normal sanctioning. He has had some issues (conflicts) all the way back to 2005. Yet, five years later he still operating as if guidelines and policies do not apply to him.

Apparently, in 2005, as an administrator he unblocked himself four times, threatened to block users who disagreed with him, reverted a protected page, blocked a user for reverting him, and blocked another user for blocking him. He also blocked an admin who corrected his revert on a locked page. [253], [254]. I understand that he was desyoped. Also, very recently, he was topic banned regarding Obama articles (it looks like this year) [255]. With this Stevertigo is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Stevertigo is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Is this editing restriction applicable to only Obama articles, or to any article that he edits? Because, if it is general editing restriction he has violated this with this set of articles. I have a page that lists ANIs where some only mention his name, while others are issues related to his problematic type editing. Therefore, I will not provide that link, but I intend to go through it for a more complete picture. The 2005 incidents were started with edit warring in the Viet Nam article. So I would like to do a more complete investigation, including checking out some of his edit history.

Also, his most recent edits (2:37 September 19, 2010) were in the Physics article, Here he started the same pattern of inserting WP:OR material [256]. It was subsequently reverted within 24 hours. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Its 2 am where I am so I'll keep this brief. I have not read all of the material that Steve Quinn has presented, and having scanned it, it looks substantial. At first sight, I am myself almost convinced of SQ's thesis that I am a "problematic editor" and should go somewhere else. However I've been a "problematic editor" for some eight years now, AIUI, five years longer than SQ. I note that I have faced ANI's from people before and they typically consist of the same generalisms and inuendo, always failing to substantiate the points expressed. Note that that after the two or three pages of comment above, SQ's way of informing me of this ANI note was "there currently is a discussion at [WP:AN/I] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved." -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 09:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: (edit conflict) As I state on my userpage, one of my main focuses for years has been on improving the ledes to articles. Examples from the last couple days include my my edits to the war, militarism and rights articles. My issues with SQ became centered at the punishment article, after my rewrite of the lede (the first edits there in months), another editor followed me there after losing an editorial debate at time, and SQ followed suit. I have been trying to get the point accross to SQ that his way of conceptualizing a concept and introducing the topic (punishment in this case) lacked the kind of cohesion and substance that I think articles require. He talks about keeping a fidelity to the sources, and I have no problem with this point. The problem is that he sometimes apparently parrots the sources such that what is being written doesn't actually make sense. I recorded a spoken audio file of SQ's introduction to the punishment article (File:RD250XJZizp4.ogg) because I think when read aloud, the inherent inconsistencies (in SQ's conceptualization) become rather obvious, and this negates any value that blind sourcing brings. I was expecting SQ to respond on that article talk page, not here. I will of course substantiate my view of his writing with a point-by-point critique. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 09:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Two very quick points for Stevertigo - we don't rank editors by either edit count or time active on the project so that's not very relevant and the "there currently is a discussion at [WP:AN/I] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved." is the standard notification template {{subst:ANI-notice}} so no foul there. One MAJOR point for Steve Quinn - admins are less likely to read long messages - can you summarise your problem here in one paragraph? Exxolon (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Exxolon, thanks for your suggestion. If I could I would. This complaint encompasses four articles, three talk pages, one user-page, and one essay page. Furthermore, there were three or four other editors involved. The admins are only human, like you and I, and it would be impossible, and time consuming, to sort through reams of editing, edting history, and talk page discussions. Hence, this compliant is like a road map. I use one article as an example of the editing pattern for all the articles involved. Then I briefly supply diffs for the other articles. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I interacted with user Stevertigo on Time in physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where, against talk page consensus, and against adequately sourced material, the user was pushing (in article and on talk page) apparent original research onto the lead.

The user's first edit on Time in physics was on 30-Jul-2010. At the point were Stevertigo had given up using the talk page (on (5-Aug-2010), he added his self-created nonce-template tag (Template:nonce), to the article, meaning essentially nothing more than "I don't like the lead and I want everyone to know." It was agreed on the talk page that this was highly inappropriate, so the tag was removed and the user notified. See also Wikipedia:Nonce_introductions and this request. Both comments were ignored without a comment a few days later.

A week later on 13-Aug-2010 the user made his most recent edit, essentially restoring his first edit as if nothing had happened before. This was prompty undone by Steve Quinn and nothing further happened.

In my opinion this was an example of problematic editing, and/but I assumed that the problem was solved at this point. I had not looked at the user's contributions since then, although it seems to me that this string of recent edits to Physics could be problematic, in the sense that they seem to be altering properly sourced statements with personal POV's. DVdm (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Adding to my complaint: On August 30th, in the article Human, Stevertigo began another campaign of inserting his WP:OR [257]. This was subsequently reverted two hours later, after five or six more Stevertigo edits, [258]. However, it did not end there. Within six minutes, Stevertigo reverted back to his version [259]. This was reverted by another editor eight minutes later [260]. As can be seen with the following diffs, an Stertivigo edit wars with at least four other editors, continuing until September 3rd anyway. It then appears to begin again on September 9th. Please see edit history. Also, a corresponding discussion took place on the talk page. I will send a notice to the editors involved in that recent edit war, so they may comment on this ANI, if they so desire. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As one of the editors involved, in a minor way, in Stevertigo's changes to Human, I have to say that his edits resulted, on balance, in an improvement of the article. I haven't looked at much of the wall of text above, so I will note that Stevertigo does appear to have a communication issue - his original changes to the Human article were not clearly understandable, and his explanations of what he desired were also not clear enough. Nonetheless, he was correct that there was a subtle POV problem with the article, and his actions have reduced that problem, albeit with some difficulty. I would very much counsel Stevertigo to communicate his ideas clearly; the best exposition of your thoughts will be as plain as a grocery list and therefore just as understandable. I don't know how much of the above is caused by communications issues, but I hope that Stevertigo's ideas are getting a fair hearing regardless - though, again, I have barely reviewed the large amount of material above; it may be that Stevertigo is completely off-base and I simply haven't yet seen it. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate this. The issue here is probably best described as a personal dispute between SQ and I, motivated largely by my spoken audio file I made to clarify how unclear and unacceptable his writing is (File:RD250XJZizp4.ogg). -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have interacted with Stevertigo mostly on the Time and Punishment pages. On both these pages he has repeatedly inserted and reverted to WP:OR material & repeatedly "justified" his doing so on those article talk pages. It needs to be crystal clear to him that he is not at liberty to put his "conceptualization" (unsourced & frequently quite incomprehensible) into the lede (nor anywhere else for that matter). Stevertigo is capable of doing some good work, but his attention to WP:V is unpredictable--JimWae (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My association with JimWae was largely at the Time article, which he has shepherded for years. My issue was that his intro was too simplistic and didn't talk about the subject in its most general terms: Continuum, change. We debated it and worked it out, and though less than what I wanted, the article now has a proper introductory sentence. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, Stevertigo has made extensive edits to Human generally against consensus and pushing his own, somewhat unclear, POV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

My issues with the human article largely dealt with its skeptical tone, which as Gavia noted above, amounted to a kind of systemic bias. My approach to that article began quite differently than the resulting compromise: I wanted a very philosophical introduction that made clear the distinction between human being and an animal creature/organism. This set up a rift between philosophy and scientific oriented editors. What resulted was that the article lead now includes a passage referring to "person." The human article had not even contained the world "person" until I came along. To further my point, I repeatedly beat people over the head with this basic fact that what they thought was a perfect article hadn't even made the connection between human and the idea "person." I continue to, apparently. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't watch him or those other articles, but I do watch Human pretty closely, where, it's no secret, I have come to the conclusion that he's nuts. I wouldn't mind, because I feel confident that he's under control there, so I don't think anything has to be done about him. But again, I don't know what else he gets up to, you might want to keep an eye on him. But so far as Human goes, as I see it, the answer is not to humor him on the discussion page. Stop entertaining his suggestions, and you'll stop entertaining him. Then he'll get bored and go away. Where he goes; I don't know, but someone (not me please) might want to follow him and revert every violation he does without discussing it with him any more than the minimum and he'll either eventually get with the program and become a good contributor or quit and go start a blog or some such. So I don't know what you're suggesting be done about the problem, but my solution for Human is for everyone to stop humoring him and he'll go away. Chrisrus (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So, the gist of your comment is: You think I'm "nuts" and that I should be stalked article to article (by anyone of your noble constitution) and my edits should be reverted "without [..] any more than the minimum" of discussion on talk. What part of WP:TRI don't you understand? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 02:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Adding OR is a long-term problem with Stevertigo. I can honestly say I have never seen him do anything else. There have been several discussions about this, including Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo, but it made no difference. He turned at Animal rights not long ago wanting to add his own opinions about sentience to the lead, though it was clear he had no knowledge of AR or issues surrounding sentience; no knowledge of the sources, no effort to find any; see here on talk. He kept the discussion going—a discussion entirely about his personal views, with not one reference to a source that I recall—from May 3 to May 24. His posts are often difficult to respond to, because it's not clear that they mean anything, e.g.

First of all there is a clear definition of sentience, that does not consider simply that sense = sentience. Yours is an argument that belongs at the sentience article, perhaps. To say that a major fulcrum of an animal rights argument, that sentience equals sense (why not just say "sensing"), and that all sensing creatures are sentient, is "taken for granted" is simply a POV. Animal rights activists have had a difficult time at the sentience article as well, where they argue for a lower consciousness definition of "sentience" that defies all other definitions that go beyond merely sensing. And yes, I understand there are some unusual scientists who argue for animal equality/personhood.

At some point we may need to bite the bullet and start applying blocks, or perhaps go to ArbCom, because he's harming quite a lot of articles. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. This editor has been a problem for years, and shows no signs of improving. An arbitration case may be the best option. AniMate 03:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been editing here since 2002. If someone has a problem with my edits, they can always put forth their best argument, and I am more than happy to put forward mine. If SQ and other's here want to sticky this ANI and keep it going, fine.

I've dealt with these kinds of things before (WP:ANI/SV), and I'll point out that these typically act as magnets for complaints of little substance, and ultimately end in failure to achieve their goal of limiting my editing. Ive said it before, I welcome any ANI, RFC, Medcom or Arbcom case regarding any specific edits I have made.

SlimVirgin, no stranger to criticism for her editing patterns, states that I am "harming quite a lot of articles." It should not be difficult for her to give us a list of articles which I have supposedly harmed.

As a final note, its usually quite clear that people who use the terminology of WP:DISRUPT such as "problematic editing" are using such terms as minced oaths in place of the word "troll" (now that "troll" is regarded as pejorative and unacceptable). Still, their arguments are generally baseless, and reduceable to namecalling. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've had run-ins with Stevertigo elsewhere, leading to a protracted Arbcom case, and this seems to fit an ongoing pattern of disrespect and poor interactions, and rather quirky content positions - basically iconoclasm with fangs - summed up best in the observation that this is not 2002. Wikipedia is much more consensus-driven now and gives deference to rules, process, collaboration, and civility, not the idiosyncratic efforts of groundbreaking editors to shape the Internet to their vision. If you're going to edit articles on important subjects like "time", "human being", and such, you have to respect that the many hardworking editors who regularly work on these articles have achieved a consensus as to the basic subject of the article, and not take it upon yourself to single-handedly reframe the article to fit your personal beliefs about the nature of things. Whereas deciding what time is may have been appropriate in the early days, today a bold edit is to add news of a labor lawsuit to an article about a local restaurant chain. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You know Wikidemon, that even though weve had our differences, I respect your opinion. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the goodwill is nice. There's no disgrace in being an early trailblazer having some difficulty adjusting to a later era of trail-minders. I would say the same of Jimbo. His infrequent edits sometimes create interesting conflicts. For what it's worth, here is the beauty article as of October, 2001. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I resisted commenting here for some time - Stevertigo will accurately say I stopped assuming good faith on his part some time ago. It did not start that way. When Tigo first started editing wikipidia I gushed good faith. That was a long time ago when he insisted that the article on antisemitism say that it is hatred of Arabs. everyone tried explaining that this was not so. This was long before NOR but his method of argument then was simply to use a dictionary definition that Arabic is a semitic language Arabs = semites, anti-semite = anti semites, anti-semite = antiarabs. Today tat would clearly violate NOR. After editors finally convinced him that the anti semitism article would not say that antisemitism = anti-arabs, he started to create articles on things that didn't exist except in his mind - editors had to explain to him what a "neologism" is and eventually we reached agreement that articles should not be on neologisms. A year or two ago I admit I lost all patience when he started editing articles on Hebrew names that indicated that he really did not understand Hebrew. His MO was: edit to install his opinion, wait to hear all the objections, and then start parroting the objections on the talk page, so editors who showed up late thought he knew what he was talking about. The fact is I have never seen him make a valuable contribution to an article. I admit/affirm right now that I am sure he has made valuable contributions to some article, it just is inconceivable to me that an editor can be active here for eight years without making at least a few good edits, if only the laws of chance apply some have to be right ... don't they? Nevertheless, the fact remains: Stevertigo is at best a nuisance and at worse an insidious POV pusher who thinks Wikipedia is his own little cafe table where he can bloviate with a couple of bottles of wine and a sophmore or two who might be seduced by his ignorant blather. I am not criticisimg Stevertigo, for all I know he is a swell guy, I am commenting only on his behavior. Once people catch on he just moves to another Wikipedia article. The more editors we attract, the sooner people at any given article figure out he is just making stuff up or really does not represent what he has read accurately. Alas, as we attract more editors, we also increase in articles, and there are more places he can run off to where no one knows his MO and he can push his POV or invent stuff again. I wish this would stop. But an univolved editor needs to do the right thing. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well, he's plowed through animal rights and antisemitism topics as noted above, along with quibblings over Holocaust denial and the ever-charming Obama and socialism MfD. It's hard not to see a pattern here. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And Beauty and God and Time, and a host of other articles where he feels his personal opinions have to take priority. It has been going on for eight years, and I think we really need an admin to step up and be willing to act. I would suggest at a minimum a ban on changing leads; on adding content unaccompanied by a reliable source; and on adding sourced content that violates SYN. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this calls for Arbcom. Tigo is a classic disruptive editor. That is not name calling (although Tigo recently attempted to rewrite that guideline ... gee, I wonder why?) He boasts of having been the object of numerous complaints in the past, in his response to this thread. He mistakes Wikipedia's ample patience for encouragement. We should not mistake his smugness for righteousness.

Okay, I found the "neologism" my mind had blotted out. After days at the antisemitism talk page, with several knowledgable editors doing triple lutzes trying to explain again and again why his edits were what would later be called NOR, in error, and violating NPOV, Stevertigo wrote a whole new article here, on a term of his own invention, whether in spite or the product of a bizarre logic (HAL 0001 with some weird virus) I do not know. I invite - no, in this evening's loneliness, I beg - you all to take a stroll down wikiwackiness memory lane, and follow the link, and anostalgicize with me. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That diff was from Februray 2003, before the Iraq War got started. It was also before Arbcom and even the Civility principle were established - something that Anthere and I cobbled together. Remember that the Civility principle came about in large part due to accusations of "anti-Semitism." I can recount more of that history if you like. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

But your editing hasn't changed since then, which is the point of this and previous threads. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think my editing has improved. I think yours has also, as has Slrubenstein and others amongst us second-wave editors. Perhaps you can attempt to be objective, and give us a list of those articles which you say I have 'harmed' by editing them, along with a brief description of how I have 'harmed' them. Since this 'harm' is something you claim to be inherent to my editing in general, you can look at some of my most recent edits - in fact I will put forward an example: the War article lead is largely mine. You can compare the before and after versions and tell me what 'harm' I have done. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment I've been watching this unfold since SQ posted the link to here on Talk:Human, and I'm not really sure I have much worth saying since my impression of Stevertigo is pretty neutral... but I guess a neutral opinion will at least dilute all the negative some?

My interaction with Steve (hereafter meaning "Tigo", not SQ) has predominantly been over at Rights, where most of the talk page is our ongoing (on-and-off) discussion about revisions to the lede of that article from over the past few months. While I don't find Steve's contributions there to be especially productive, he hasn't been particularly disruptive either. His views do seem a little... I don't know if I'd say "idiosyncratic" since I'm not entirely sure what his views are, so I'll say "poorly formulated". He seems to strongly want to include something in the article, but it's often difficult to tease out what exactly that something is. But, he has been civil and respectful of my criticism of his edits on the talk page, and has not edit-warred about their inclusion, but rather refined his position and compromised, and the article has genuinely improved in some minor ways because of this process.

Over at Talk:Human I saw pretty much the same process play out, except that people's reactions to Steve were less patient than mine have been at Talk:Rights, and Steve seemed to respond understandably negatively to that more hostile reaction; and even that minor hubbub settled down quickly enough. So overall, I don't think he's a particularly problematic editor; any harm he does to articles is usually minor and easily corrected, and he seems to respond positively to people who are clearly knowledgeable on the subject calmly stating why his edits were reverted/adjusted and asking for clarification on what point he's trying to make.

The only real complaint I have is about his style of editing piecemeal (e.g. many edits to a single page in a row within a few minutes of each other, instead of previewing and rethinking the edits until they are to his liking), because I have my watchlist set to show all edits, not just the most recent, and that kind of editing floods my watchlist. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Theres a wikien thread about "little edits or big edits" which relates to your issue. An interesting point someone made is that editing contentious articles is best done in small edits, with each edit labeled with a specific comment. Non-contentious articles can be edited in larger strokes. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to this at your (Steve's) talk page since it's a bit tangential from the subject here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• comment I have only met with Stevertigo a few times at Talk:Language and Talk:Linguistics. My impression is that he is a very creative person with a very wide scope of interests. Unfortunately his creativity does at times conflict with presenting data in a conventional and neutral way as Stevertigo seems more interested in reinventing and redefining the topics he work on - a process I believe he refers to as "conceptualizing". This often leads to Stevertigo introducing neologisms and non-standard terminology into the articles with the result of obscuring the topic rather than clarifying it as I believe is his intention. It can also be difficult to reason with him using sources as he seems to rely more on his own reasoning and intuitions of how best to define and describe topics. I don't know if this merits administrative action, but I think it would at least be valuable if Stevertigo is informed that his editing styles alienates other editors and is not generally seen as conforming to the desired pattens of behaviour in encyclopedia writing, the aim of which it is to present existing knowledge in a conventional form - not produce or redefine existing knowledge - If he chooses to change his behaviour as a result of being told of how others view his it that will be even more valuable. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate Maunus' comments, and I'll note here that in retrospect, looking at his version of Language (most of the current version), I have to admit his version is quite strong and in certain ways an improvement over mine (viewable here). But I think the point should be made, and I think Maunus will agree, that the article would not be what it is without my critiques on the talk, and my proposed version which attempted to be as high-level as possible.

It is moreoften the case however that my writing is of higher level than that of my opposition, as looking at articles like Punishment will show. In contrast with what Steve Quinn is doing, which is to try and make his editorial critiques into behavioural ones (ie. this ANI), Maunus stood his ground and kept putting forth incrementally improved candidates until I conceded that his approach to the subject was superior. I was more than happy to leave that article alone for the simple reason that it had been improved, through process of debate and refinement, to a satisfactory level far above what had been there before. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't share that understanding of how the language article developed, and I certainly don't think that the lead version currently there is mostly my version. I also remeber trying to stand my ground but failing - I became so frustrated with your way of arguing that I left you and Andrew Lancaster still going at it and finally nothing came out of it and the lead that was there to begin with was left standing. Trying to read the debateon the talk page archive 3 I can't even read what happened because of the way your formatted the discussion by cutting statements and lead versions into pieces and organizing them by numbered points in a very odd system. To me it was a very alienating experience - even moreso than reading the Human article.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• What about sanctions imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions, in June 2010, which appears related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles. To wit (as they say): " Stevertigo is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Stevertigo is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Stevertigo is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Stevertigo exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Is it because of these sanctions that you are so adamant about having discussions pertaining to neoligms, and non-starters, which turn out to be generally WP:OR and WP:POV? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No Steve, its it not. It is my general intent to improve the quality of articles I encounter out of my own interest. What I do is actually read articles, starting at the top and working my way down until I'm satisfied I've learned something about the subject. If its acceptably well written, I leave it alone. If its not, I edit it starting from the top. Remember it was you, along with JimWae, who followed me to the punishment article after we had resolved debates at the time article (a debate in which JimWae notably lost to me, and in which you were of occasional help). If you (and JimWae) had not followed me around to punishment - an article you had no prior interest in (in fact it had been months since anyone else had edited it) - we would not be having this discussion. Since you did follow me there, going out of the way of your normal editing pattern, I was fully in my rights to react to your reverts and removals. It was you and JimWae who chose to make that article a battleground, and it is quite clear that you did so to be adversarial towards me. This is what we call WP:HARASSment. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The following is a list of other articles, with diffs, where Stevertigo follows the same pattern delineated above. In other words, he comes along one day and inserts WP:OR into the lede. This is usually followed by a group of other editors having to contend with him to keep the original WP:V statement in place: ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Animal Rights: [261]. After several edits he clearly inserts his POV into the caption of an image, [262]. And another conflict with editors begins, replete with frustrating talk page discussions (see archives).
• Rights (perhaps the most recent Sept. 19, 2010): [263]. The original has been restored.
• Rights (an earlier incursion, in April, 2010) [264], and related discussion [265].
• Holocaust denial: Here: [266]. Reverted: [267] on the talk page a section entitled with one of his favorite concepts: Conceptualization.---- 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo writes above that "my writing is of higher level than that of my opposition." This shows a lack of insight that explains why the problem persists. The fact is that all these topics (beauty, truth, rights, God) require research and education. No one can write about them off the top of his head, which is what Stevertigo tries to do. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - that is very insightful. I believe you have described the issue in a nutshell. Bravo. Too bad this does not become an A-HA! moment for him. He's too busy starting from the top down, etc., etc.. In any case, if I have a reccomendation for sanctions, where do I communicate this? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This would be the place to make suggestions and ask for community support. Or there's WP:AE for ArbCom enforcement if you want to focus on the 1RR sanction or whatever it was. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Animal Rights: Steve Quinn wrote: "After several edits he clearly inserts his POV into the caption of an image" - The caption she mentions related to the concept of anthropomorphization. SlimVirgin happens to be an animal rights enthusiast who at times allows her biases to inform her editing of articles. See for example her edits to the Person article, attempting to overgeneralize the concept of "person" to include animals. She relented at the person article, hence that introduction is largely my own. I decided to give it up at the animal rights article, and it still I think bears the marks of pro-animal rights POV.
• Rights: As Pfhorrest said above, he and I are working at the rights article, and all of my edits to that article have been constructive and, to some degree or other, incorporated into the article. The current version is about 40 percent my own writing. SlimVirgin, once again, is talking about something she doesn't know anything about.
• "Holocost denial" [sic]: This was a heated debate over a technical issue with the definition and scope of "The Holocaust." I found it interesting to note that until the sixties, "The Holocaust" was not confined in definition to just Jews, but it applied to another 11 million non-Jews who were murdered by the Nazis, albeit not in the same systematic way. I simply suggested that articles that refer to the Holocaust not assume the more common definition. I argued that on any article that mentions the Holocaust, it was POV to promote the narrower definition to the negation of 11 million other victims. Incensed editors reactionarily slandered me as a bigot, and began an ANI as a referendum on my editing. It went nowhere, and instead of talking about recent issues editors started listing edits from 2003 and earlier - readers can look at the closing comments at that ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo). -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to step in, as a completely uninvolved non-admin who has never interacted with any of the participants in this thread, but who nonetheless reads AN/I avidly because it's entertaining. In my opinion you are going to find it almost impossible to effectively manage this editor. Any restrictions on editing the opening paragraphs of an article will have to include spelling corrections, punctuation etc, which would be draconian and wouldn't work. There would also be the problem of defining the opening paragraphs; everything before the list of contents, or including the list of contents and the first paragraph of the first section? The first paragraph of each section?

Any restriction to inserting original research will flounder on the definition of original research. A total ban would struggle to find broad consensus; and unlike the chap last month who communicated only in ludicrous hacker shorthand - I forget the name, he supposedly had RSD - this editor (a) engages with his opponents (b) does so within the boundaries of civility.

Selective blocking from certain articles will not work because the scope of the editor's genius is vast; he will simply go elsewhere. A ban on reverting will not work because the editor can simply rewrite his opinions in broader or alternative terms and present them as a fresh edit, rather than a revert.

The ideal solution would be to give the editor a Wikipedia of his own that he can edit to his heart's content; perhaps the big articles on significant topics could have a /stevertigo subpage that is only visible or editable to himself. Perhaps that would keep him happy. It seems to me that this is his ultimate goal; a world of his own. But of course this is not possible. It will be interesting to see what you come up with. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo's problem editing is unfortunately not limited to opening paragraphs of either articles or sections. See, for example, this OR extravaganza, which he dumped in the human article with a cleanup tag. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions

Other comments are still welcome above. In this section, I would like to begin proposing sanctions that are considred appropriate to the issue. Feel free to propose sanctions, and others may agree or oppose.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• The same disruptive editing has gone on for years (seven or eight years), without regard for guidelines and policies. This type of editing has created conflict, and edit wars, again for years. It has affected both editors and articles. I propose a total block from at least six months to one year. If when he returns Stevertigo picks up where he left off, then an indefinite block, would then be appropriate. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support a block of any length for now to get the message home and prevent further damage. And when he returns I would suggest a ban on adding any content not accompanied by a reliable source that clearly supports the material he adds. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by an anon user

An anon user has made a lot of troubles during the last week in some articles, using several IPs and probably his account. His edits have almost always to do with Piraeus, he adds or removes it in these articles according to his personal point of view, he has started several edit wars reverting any other user. The IP address he has used recently are 79.107.161.144 (talk · contribs), 79.107.65.171 (talk · contribs), 79.107.4.49 (talk · contribs), 79.107.39.246 (talk · contribs). There is a suspicion that he is Pplatis (talk · contribs), edit warring mainly as an anon user to avoid punishment. User:Pplatis has a long history of disruptive editing and edit warring in the same or related articles in the past, he has been warned a lot of times by different users (see his talk page) and his account was blocked for a while. He obviously has some kind of obsession that Piraeus is neglected in wikipedia articles in favour of Athens, while it should be treated as the centre of its own metropolitan area, not as a suburb of Athens (he has stated in the past that he lives in Piraeus [268]). He had the same behaviour in the Greek wikipedia, he used alternatively his account or IPs to revert the others in the same articles, thus his account is permanently blocked [269]. Another IP address (109.242.142.28 (talk · contribs)) helped him in an edit war ([270], [271]) and posted a weird message in his talk page [272], which means "Mate we'll upset them". The articles of his interest are:

• Piraeus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he constantly renamed the Athens urban area to Athens-Piraeus urban area or denying that Piraeus is part of the Athens urban area reverting other users ([273], [274], [275], [276], [277]), until the article was semi-protected.
• Patras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he changed the part that Patras is the third largest urban area in Greece, since in his opinion Piraeus is a separate urban area and larger than Patras ([278], [279], [280], [281]). The article was semi-protected.
• ISAP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he always renamed the Athens metropolitan area to Athens-Piraeus as well ([282], [283], [284], [285], [286]). The article was semi-protected.
• Athens Metro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He moved in an inappropriate way this article twice ([287], [288]) to Attiko Metro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which was eventually deleted, because in his opinion the article should be called Attiko (from Attica) instead of Athens Metro, since it serves the metropolitan area called in his mind Athens-Piraeus. The correct name of the metro system is "Athens Metro" [289], while "Attiko Metro" is the company that operates both the Athens and the Thessaloniki Metro.
• Olympiacos F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He constantly removes the word "Athens" from the leading paragraph, according to his view that Piraeus doesn't belong to the Athens urban area ([290], [291], [292], [293], [294], [295]).
• He has also posted an abusive message here, while he named himself an expert in my talk page, both in Greek. Another offensive message [296] was posted in the same talk page during a discussion by another IP (91.140.87.179 (talk · contribs)).

Could anyone help with this? - Sthenel (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

After the recent edit war that he started in Olympiacos F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the page was semi-protected. Now he uses another IP address 79.107.187.145 (talk · contribs) and began the same work in Olympiacos CFP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). - Sthenel (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Herostratus

This is an odd one, User:Herostratus has recently made this edit [297] - basically adding a bunch of smiley faces to an image of a sex act. I can personally see no reason for making this change yet the user has attempted to justify the change on the talkpage Talk:Creampie (sexual act)#Upgrade to image in what I read as a tongue-in-cheek post (with a sprinkling of maliciousness - the user dropped in a link to some weird wiki-like site). I was just wondering if I'm missing something here, maybe it's all in my head? At any rate, the user has reverted my revert and I'm not interested in getting in to an edit war so would like some sort of intervention, though I'm unsure what options are available. raseaC^{talk to me} 22:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's supposed to be a bedspread. I wouldn't have known that if I hadn't read the talkpage, though, so I'd say if Herostratus wants this image maybe he could try to draw it better and then start up the discussion on the talk page then. —Soap— 22:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

How is a bedspread relevant? This is obviously an editor who is childishly trying to vandalize a sexually explicit article. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 23:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think he meant well. There was also a similar discussion a few years back, anyway. I agree we should stay with the plain background image though; if someone wants to add a bed it should be in the proper perspective (which is not easy to do with SVG). —Soap— 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus seems to have issues with sexually explicit visual media on Wikipedia - this looks like another manifestation of this. Exxolon (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is this not an ANI matter. ANI is not generally used for discussion of details of article content, and ANI is not RFC for content. Don't you folks have enough to do? If not, I would be glad to direct you to some backlogs and stuff where admins are needed. I am surprised that you didn't direct the poster to the dispute resolution process (beginning with, say, a note on my talk page before going to ANI). I have responded to the poster on his talk page, and I would suggest that anyone interested in this article go to the article talk page.

Thanks a bunch for the dig, Exxolon. I would ask you to explain your remark, please. Can you show me a diff that supports your remark? Of course you can't. In my opinion, the fact that the admins let mooks like you hang around here and pollute this board -- and render it practically useless for its intended use -- is beyond my understanding. Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Please knock it off, "mooks like you ... pollute this board" is a personal attack, and any editor may post here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll knock it off when he knocks off uncited remarks like "ha[s] issues with sexually explicit visual media", OK? Yes any editor may post here. That does not mean any editor can post anything here. I hope. If you people were doing your job you would have told the original poster to at least, I don't know, drop a note on the article talk page (or my talk page) first, maybe? Herostratus (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, Herostratus...I'm going to ask, then, what are you at here? First you change it to what really doesn't appear to be anything that's particularly relevant, and then when someone objects, you remove the image entirely, claiming it's in "dispute", though you never really did seem to dispute the original image (just changed it some). It does seem very odd, and it does look like it's already been discussed on the talk page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not remove the image, another editor did that. I agreed that while the content of the image is in dispute this seems like a reasonable move. Herostratus (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I was the editor who removed the image, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the ersatz "dispute" created by Herostratus' disruptive behavior. I removed it because the quality of the image is poor, it does not adequately illustrate the act involved, and it adds nothing to the text, which is more than sufficient for the reader's understanding of what is meant. This was not done for the purpose of censorship, another image could well enhance the article in a way this one did not. Thus, the basis of the removal for me was strictly editorial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy to explain my remark Herostratus - your recent posts on Talk:Gokkun on the RFC about using an image on the article where among other gems you called me "catspaw for this ongoing campaign to disgrace and degrade and the Wikipedia and damage its reputation (and drive away women and young people to boot" because I supported having an image in the article (and linked catspaw to useful idiot as well in a veiled attack), cited Wikipedia:If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas in your argument and accused me of bad faith by wanting the image there. "Mook" and "polluter" now - that's nice too. Given your stance on Talk:Gokkun and your strange edit to the image discussed above I think it's certainly arguable you have issues regarding sexually explicit media here. Exxolon (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's you. You are still mad that the RFC you initiated didn't gain the result you wanted? It happens. You have to move on. As to the rest... look, let me give you a bit of advice. It's a free world and free internet, and we have freedom of speech (and, in America anyway, the First Amendment), and the Wikipedia is not censored. However. None of that means that normal people are going to like you if you are a pornographer. I mean, you certainly wouldn't be welcome in my home, and you probably wouldn't be too popular in my town generally. But that's OK. I'm sure I wouldn't be welcome with the sort of people that would find you admirable. That is called "life". If you don't like being called a pornographer, the solution is simple: don't be one. But if you want to be one, don't worry about people like me. You're free to revel in it if you like. Get a T-shirt, whatever. You are never going to get the approval of everyone in this life. Choose whom you do want the approval of, and act accordingly. I'm sure that users 75.88.127.62, 24.143.15.253, 68.34.31.108 and so on would think that you're a fine fellow. You're never going to be short of friends like that if you push stroke pictures at the Wikipedia. So don't worry about it. Herostratus (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Raises Eyebrow* - The RFC is still running, and I'm quite happy to abide by the result so that charge is spurious. The images is question are not for titillation but are designed to aid understanding of the subject - they support our core aim of encyclopidic articles on all relevant subjects. Trying to sidetrack the issue by suggesting I'm a pornographer is poor form. Maybe I do work in that industry, maybe I don't but it's not relevant - my aim is to have illustrative images on sexual topics that help understanding of the subject. That doesn't strike me as a bad thing. Exxolon (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The image activity and comments on the article talk page and here on ANI constitute disruptive behavior - disrupting Wikipedia to attempt to prove a point. I AGF that Herostratus didn't intend to push to the point of blockable behavior, but he's bordering on that at the moment. I have left him a final warning on his talk page. This needs to stop. Activity like this is supremely disrespectful to the other editors around. One can argue the points of whether the image is appropriate or not and useful or not without playing silly buggers with content or with other editors'. Chosing to make the point disruptively is not OK, and has never been. If it happens again I will issue a block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have also warned Herostratus for violations of WP:NPA both here and on the article talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I can't believe that anyone is even arguing with Herostratus about this. It's so stupid. What relevance could a bunch of pixellated smiley faces possibly have with respect to an illustration of semen leaking from a woman's anus? It's clearly vandalism, and I'd suggest ending this discussion, so as to not feed the trolls. SnottyWong ^prattle 05:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, I also can't believe anyone is arguing about this. The (original) graphic is being discussed now at the article talk page, and here's a couple of different editor's takes: "...looks, quite literally, like it came from a 7th-grader's sketchbook..." and "...image is of exceedingly poor quality (like something off a men's room stall)..." I'm a big boy and can certainly take "Your graphics skills are not up to Wikipedia standards" or "Your graphics skills suck" if you prefer, but It's not like I was trying to improve the Mona Lisa for chrissakes.

Anyway, just to finish of, three things:

• I wanted to get clear in my own head the sequence of events preceding the ANI post, so I picked through the diffs. They're here with my comments, If anyone cares. Which I doubt, which is OK, I wanted to get this clear in my own head.
• As to the events (and my behavior here) following the ANI post, well, obviously I lost my temper. I am overly sensitive to allegations that I have "sexual issues" since I do get that from time to time and it does push my buttons. However, Exxolon didn't say that (although what he did say was bad enough) So, utterly inexcusable, and I am ashamed of myself.
• However... In my opinion there is a problem (sometimes) with this page. A user came here asking for advice and assistance ("I'm unsure what options are available") and the next thing you know we're gossiping about "Herostratus seems to have issues with sexually explicit visual media". And this is allowed. So let me set this off in bold type:

If this page is going to be run like an unmoderated Usenet forum, then people are going behave on it like people behave on an unmoderated Usenet forum.

If no one is going to chastise users like Exxelon, then their targets are going to have to defend themselves, and maybe it won't be so pretty. It's pretty much human nature to defend oneself.

Meh. I have more to say on this, along with a specific proposed solution. I'll take it to the talk page. Herostratus (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Incredibly Obese Black Man

Resolved

 – IOBM apologized, Jpg accepted. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 01:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Two days ago, Incredibly Obese Black Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted a request to rename My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult. After receiving some oppose !votes, he comes back and posts a long, abusive rant where he says "fuck you" to everyone who disagrees with him. Can somebody block him? Thanks. jgpTC 03:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): If anything, that would be a block for a mass personal attack, but since it was two days ago, it would be punishment at this point in my opinion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you directed him to WP:NPAand WP:CIVIL? As a relatively new user, he may be unaware of Wikipedia's policies and conventions and perhaps it would be good to refer him to those policies? Except in the really eggregious cases, we generally don't block without warning. His rant is certainly inappropriate, but is it inappropriate enough for an instablock, with no warning or chance to fix his behavior or apologize? --Jayron32 03:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The edits by User:Incredibly Obese Black Man were not made two days ago, but were in fact made three hours ago. I recommend a block for a mass personal attack. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...didn't realize he was new. jgpTC 03:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Overt troll...probably a previous ban...see "first edit"...doesn't even know how to fudge a new user account.--MONGO 03:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have warned the user about NPAs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Might want to alert him to this discussion...maybe he'll come here and make nice-nice like he did earlier.--MONGO 03:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I do believe he is aware, he has posted on my and User:Jgp's talk pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Jgp had already warned him. David Biddulph (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I;m aware. Not a troll. I started to contribute to KMFDM's discography and some other bands. Even wrote some software to help. I wanted to contribute to a topic that a lot of people aren't familiar with. Sorry you guys disagree. Maybe I'll put this behind me in a month and finish contributing to the discography I was working on. Incredibly Obese Black Man (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

See, the deal is, we want your contributions. There's nothing wrong with them, on the balance. What happened here is that you made a suggested change, two people disagreed with that suggestion, and then you went off on a curse-filled rant over what was essentially two good-faith opinions over your proposed move. That was way out of proportion to what was going on there. There's no need to pitch a fit, and its counterproductive to working with others when you do that. If you have things to add to Wikipedia, please do so, but you can't say "fuck you" to everybody as soon as they disagree with you. You just can't. Try to be more civil and try to work with others, not in opposition to them. --Jayron32 04:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

He's not a troll; he was editing as an IP for a week or two, and I suggested he get an account to edit with. He's been a good contributor, and has done a lot of tedious clean up on a lot of pages in the last few weeks. Definitely no need for a block. He just needs to chill out and get back to productive editing. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 10:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well--since he's apologized, and I accept the apology, can this be marked resolved? jgpTC 01:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What determines backlog?

Unresolved

 – I would like some comments here, before this is archived.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Currently I have set {{AIVBacklog Notice}}(this was awhile ago) to show the bottom-left notice box if AIV is 6000 bytes or more. Should this number be lower? I'm asking you all here, because it affects you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The AN* boards' talk page would probably be a better place to discuss stuff like that. Usually when it comes to this noticeboard, if the thread doesn't involve either torches'n'pitchforks or a legitimate incident needing immediate admin attention, it'll receive little—if any—attention. --slakr^\ talk / 07:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

RevDel on Saxo Bank ?

Resolved

 – Editor blocked, all contributions rev-deleted. TFOWR 08:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Note sure where to request Revdel, but this edit and its edit summary looks potentially libelous as it contains an unsourced allegation against a named individual, together with unsourced allegations against the bank. (I've reverted the edit). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at recent edits on that article, I sense the presence of ducks, I can certainly hear quacking... --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The fowl has been throttled. Favonian (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is the place where you request Revdel, because I just deleted all those revisions. -- Atama頭 16:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Sv1xv (talk · contribs) and Sthenel (talk · contribs)

Vandalism Sv1xv (talk · contribs) and Sthenel (talk · contribs). Sthenel and Sv1xv removes from Piraeus, ILPAP, ISAP, Olympiacos F.C. etc the Athens-Piraeus urban area or Athens-Piraeus metropolitan etc. There isn't Athens urban area where included Piraeus urban according to laws of Greece State (ΡΣΑ and 3852/10 etc). Sv1xv also made troubles in article ILPAP together with a anonymous user, even if Zappeio is not written on the trolleybus and in official ILPAP website 21-trolley-[298].--79.107.161.144 (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Pplatis (talk · contribs), who is hiding behind this IP address, insists in adding a reference to the city of Piraeus, Greece, in any article he likes, whether it is appropriate or not. Frequently he edits or reverts anonymously. He is permanently blocked on el.wiki for sockpuppetry [299]. Since then he protects himself by editwarring anonymously. However the pattern of his edits is clear enough and his identity is obviously confirmed by this post above.

Last year he created a mess with greek rapid transit articles ISAP and Athens Metro, because Piraeus is not stated in the latter article they way he would like. FYI Athens Metro and ISAP are (at least for the time being) completely separate rail systems, under different ownership. This is clearly explained in both these articles and also summarized in Athens Mass Transit System. ISAP predecessors serve Piraeus since 1869 while the two lines of Athens Metro do not (yet).

He regularly replaces anonymously the entry for ILPAP line 21, removing routing via P. Ralli avenue, disregarding the official source.

He is also involved in aggressive war editing articles about soccer clubs in Piraeus area, in which I am not involved. I cannot comment whether his soccer related edits are accurate and based on sources or not.

SV1XV (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Im not together with Skgxt, Pplatis and the anonymous users.

I do not have no relation with the recantations in article ILPAP. The user was changing Line 21 to Zappeio-Nikaia, you was changing to Zappeio-P.Ralli-Nikaia and the right according to the official web page of ILPAP in Athens-P.Ralli-Nikaia [300].

You must stop the counterfeit and you harmonize as to norms and laws of State.

--79.107.187.145 (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Rev Del request

Resolved

 – Revision deleted, oversight requested. TFOWR 08:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Could an admin please look at [301], I believe this qualifies for RD#2. Thank you for your time - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've zapped it, but I think that it's also oversightable. I've already submitted it, but for future reference, oversight can be requested via oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. —DoRD (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive activity at AfD by User:Figmentary

Figmentary (talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose account adding almost textbook-case against-policy and deliberately vague (or even nonsense) !votes to AfDs: they've hit 3 AfDs with the only three contributions they've made, at the time of this writing. For example, they said that wikitruth "only lasted a couple of years and did nothing important" and that Goatse Security "only ever did one thing, and even the article says that was hardly newsworthy", which is patently false upon reading the article. The user appears to be a troll, and given their familiarity with AfD, may also be a sock of another user. I'm not sure what exactly could or should be done about this, but perhaps someone else is familiar with another user that this might be a sock of. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Personal attack by User:Figmentary removed GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not something I recognise, but I agree that their post here (since removed) was unacceptable. GW has issued a WP:NPA warning, but I'm not confident that this editor is here to be productive. A new editor who heads straight to XfDs...? Stranger things have happened but it tends to be a bad sign. Coupled with their post here - very troubling. TFOWR 19:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with the user making policy-based arguments, whether I disagree with them or not. In fact, I don't even have an issue with them making arguments against policy; they'll only be ignored anyway. But using their first three edits to state blatant falsehoods and arguments in three different AfDs with no grounding in policy at all, strikes me as simple trolling. The comment left here which I redacted seems to make that all the more likely. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of derogatory term to describe Irish Catholics

Resolved

 – Editor in question has removed the term and pledged not to use such language here anymore. No further action seems to be required. –xeno^talk 18:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please ask User:Marknutley to stop referring to Irish Catholics as "Micks", which is a derogatory term according to among other sources The color of words: an encyclopaedic dictionary of ethnic bias in the United States.[302] Here is the history (on Talk:Libertarianism#The Workers Solidarity Movement):

• User:Marknutley: ... they are a mick anarchist group.[303]
• User:Iota: Mark, what do you mean by the adjective "Mick"?"[304]
• [my comment]: It is a racial slur for Irish and I am removing it.[305]
• User:Iota strikes though the word.[306]
• User:Marknutley removes strike through with no comment.[307]
• User:Marknutley: No it`s not TFD, i` m a mick. Do not assume to speak for my people, thanks.[308]
• User:Iota: Mark, I'm sure you didn't intend any offence but please think again about using that word on talkpages. A random reader of this page would just see the ethnic slur, and would have no idea that you're Irish, until you were challenged and pointed it out.[309]
• User:Iota strikes through word with notation "Refactoring ethnic slur"[310][311]
• User:BlueRobe: As for marknutley's use of the term "mick", I am certain that he was using local colloquialism and intended no slur (especially given that, by his own admission, he is a "mick"). Let's not be too precious about our language in here. We already have enough things to argue about.[312]
• I redact struck-through word.[313]
• User:Tmorton166: Can we call this point made. Mark may have not meant harm, but here on the internet with no way of verifying any claims about oneself it is best to shy away from controversial terms.[314]
• user:Marknutley restores word in capital letters with notation, "do not redact this again, i am fucking proud of my heritage",[315] and writes on my talk page, "Oi Do not edit my comments again, we do not need anyone to take offence on our behalf and should i wish to describe myself and my people as micks then i will. Any further editing of my comments in violation of TPG will result in a report to ANI."[316]

Some other editors had also observed that the use of the term was unhelpful. I see no reason why mark nutley needs to use this slur, and even if he is an Irish Catholic, it does not excuse disparagement of them.

TFD (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD you do not have the right to take offence for the use of mick on behalf of the irish people. If i want to describe myself as a mick i will and it is my god given right to describe myself as i see fit. That is all i have to say on the matter mark nutley (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So if I were discussing things at the Black Panthers talk page, I could refer to them as "a nigger anarchist group" and get away with it since I am black? Tarc (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm on board with your right to not take offence, but what exactly gives you the right to decide what others might take offence too? There's no free speech, or god given rights, here. Are the words you choose to use necessary for article improvement? --Onorem♠Dil 17:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am Irish, it is a derogatory term and should be removed. Mo ainm~Talk 17:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Marknutely, you weren't "describing yourself as a mick." Instead, you called another group of people a "mick anarchist group". Claiming you have a god given right to use an ethnic slur in such fashion makes it obvious that you're the user with the attitude problem here, not TFD.

(edit-conflict)Agree with Tarc and Onorem, just because you take no offence at using the word doesnt mean that there arent possibly millions who do. I'm not Irish, but I am Jewish and I would be highly offended if someone used the words "kyke" or "JAP" (Jewish American Princess, has nothing to do with a Japanese person!), both words were begun by Jews about other Jews (kyke by German Jews refering to Russian Jews whom they felt were less educated and backwards and with a totally non-Western culture). There has been alot in the news lately about the Jersey Shore and other such shows using the word "Guido" for Italian-Americans, this is a national debate about ethnic/racial groups and how they coopt hate words for pride. A group self-identifying does not justify the use of the word. Especially on Wikipedia. Which it has rightly been pointed out- we do not have a freedom of speech nor does the US Constitution's First Amendment apply to us (Wikimedia Foundation is a non-governmental entity, a private non-profit organization). I dont feel any derogatory words are necessary to refer to any group, whether you belong to the group or not. If there is not at least a guideline that spells this out perhaps we need to bring this before the Village pump and start along the process of discussing the merits of adding that to WP:Talk page guidelines.Camelbinky (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you'll pardon a slight digression, why did "Catholic" gain a seat at this particular table? JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are refering to the original complaint using the word "Irish Catholic" I am not sure but it may stem from American's hearing the word most commonly used against those Irish that are Catholic and less likely to hear it about Protestants (from Ireland or N. Ireland). Historically in the 1800s during the large waves of Irish immigration starting with those to Upstate NY to build the Erie Canal in the 1820s to the building of the eastern section of the Trans-continental RR in the 1860s and the Potato Famine and such, the Catholics tended to be the ones who assimilated slower due to ethnic discrimination "No Irish need apply" signs in NYC as example. Those that were Protestant assimilated quicker because in America the discrimination against Irish tended to be because of American's (and English/British) long-standing anti-papist sentiments. (See: Al Smith's presidential run in which Long Island was burned end to end with crosses; the KKK's anti-Catholic sentiments, even the fears of Americans that JFK would "take orders from the Pope).Camelbinky (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Some quotes:

together with the explanation in OED that mick is 'applied jocularly to an Irishman' and '[a]lso sometimes applied derogatorily'...This occurs most frequently in OED, where many essentially 'negative' words (e.g. mick, clot, bird, hussy, minx, jade, bounder, skunk) are said to have also a playful, jocular, friendly or familiar application.

— 

The hurt inflicted is all the more painful when the individual is a member of a minority or suppressed group. Chink for Chinese, Wop for Italian, Spic for Hispanic (Spanish-American), Yid for Jew, Mick for Irish, Hunk for Hungarian—all are words more or less insulting. The newer dictionaries have, in fact, accepted this viewpoint, and now, if they list such words at all, indicate that they are offensive.

— 

For example, in the United States, a list of DELs [derogatory ethnic labels] would include the following, among others: “beaner,” “camel jockey,” “chink,” “frog,” “gandhi,” “gook,” “guinea,” “honky,” “jap,” “kike,” “kraut,” “mick,” “nigger,” “nip,” “peckawood,” “polack,” “spic,” and “wop.”

— Smitherman, Geneva (1988). Discourse and Discrimination. Wayne State University Press. ISBN 9780814319581. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Therefore, while it is understandable (per the first quote) that Mark might not find the use of the word "Mick" offense, it is also unrealistic to assume that other editors will not. (A black editor referring himself as a "Nigger" might be a similar analogy). Therefore, I would strongly advise Mark to refrain from using "Mick" to describe himself or anyone else. NW (Talk) 17:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I already said on my talkpage [317] i will not use it again. A fact TFD was well aware of when he posted this complaint here [318] mark nutley (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Except you came to this AN/I and said it was your "God given right" to continue to say it. So please understand if we were a bit confused.Camelbinky (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What about the removal of the racial slur Xeno? Mo ainm~Talk 18:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky i said it was my god given right to describe myself as i see fit, i said on my talkpage i would no longer use mick. See the difference there? Mo ainm, it is not a racial slur mark nutley (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It may not be in your eyes, but it is in the eyes of others. So yes, don't use it again, and yes, any usage that isn't specifically referring to yourself gets removed. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is, I listened to right wing fascist arseholes in England use the term to describe me and I for one am not happy with its use to describe a group of people from Ireland. Mo ainm~Talk 18:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

@Mo ainm, seeing as it spawned a long conversation about the use of the word on the talk page, removing it outright would be confusing and I will not strike someone else's words (but do encourage Mark to do so in the interest of harmonious editing). –xeno^talk 18:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, Mark has removed it though it remains in the followup conversation. Removing the entire thread seems pointless if Mark has promised not to do it again. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats fair enough. Mo ainm~Talk 18:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the conversation is interleaved with on-topic talk about the article, so the thread should not be removed wholesale. Mark has removed the word altogether, so this seems to be even more resolved than before. –xeno^talk 18:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Kerrist. I was raised as a 'Mick' and if 'Proddies' took the mickey out of 'us', we laughed and gave as good as we got. We took pride in it, and used it among ourselves as a term of self-identification. What happened to the good old days of English humour where Steptoe and co., made us laugh at prejudice by laughing off the stereotypes? What is scandalous here is not people plying the worrybeads of politcal correctness, by now the disease has set in, and everyone seems infected. Rather, I'm worried that some Micks appear take offence these days. They didn't in the past. We musta been made of sterner stuff, with tougher ribs for ribbing. We're going to the dogs, fast.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Either that or the world has changed. English humo[u]r is one thing, but this is not a English people-only site--others participate here as well. Some of the things you might call political correctness are what I might call civility, and more civility and fewer racist and ethnic slurs, that is a good thing in my book. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for NPA: [319], A bee up someone's ass. Toddst1 (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, as someone who supported Mark being blocked for 24 hours if he didnt understand what he did was wrong and thought it ok to continue to use the word I feel dirty now opposing this 72 hour block for NPA but in all fairness I must. The bee in his ass comment is hardly a personal attack, and definitely not one needing a 72 hour block... can another admin please review that block. Doesnt seem right.Camelbinky (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I work with a bunch of Irish people. "Bee up his arse" is about as offensive as "Got his knickers in a twist." There is no personal attack there; this is a bad block. → ROUX ₪ 22:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The comment may or may not be offensive, but, more certainly, mark nutley's insistence on deflecting any blame and speculating on the motivation and disposition of another editor is clearly not meant to de-personalize the issue. BigK HeX (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Require someone with more patience than me at the moment....

Resolved

 – Blocked for 2 weeks. -Selket ^Talk 19:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor User talk:68.7.231.244 has just returned from a one week block for harassment and has 'hit the floor running' so to speak. On September 14, this editor was twice warned by me for re-adding unreferenced BLP list material to articles. Their response was a series of postings vandalizing my user page threatening an "edit war" [320]; indulging in a bit of gratuitous 'gender slurring' [321] threatening to "UNDO ALL YOUR EDITS. INDEFINATELY"(sic) [322] and several subsequent and equally sordid postings [323] [324][325] [326], all in the context of vandalizing my user page; not my talk page. I attempted to communicate with this editor via both warning templates and a more personal 'note' [327] on their talk page and was met on September 14 in both cases with more vandalism. The editor was subsequently temporarily blocked. This editor has resurfaced today and has begun again re-adding the same unreferenced BLP list materials to articles without benefit of an edit summary. I'd appreciate it if someone with less bias than I have in this case have a look at the matter. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with this; it's genuinely appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Another incident on Talk:Halo: Reach that needs redacting as per RD#2 [328]. KaySL^talk 19:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

More on these requests at AN, where it seems a useful conversation needs to be held. Pedro :  Chat  19:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry if this is the wrong place to post such requests; lacking knowledge of anywhere else to go, here seemed the most logical. KaySL^talk 19:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all - ANI seems to be currently the best place. Pedro :  Chat  20:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

PMAnderson and Civility, Again

Last week I posted this complaint about User:Pmanderson's incivility at Talk:Aorist. He was warned by admins User:Georgewilliamherbert here and User:Maunus here. While every other editor is being careful to avoid incivility (as here), PMAnderson is diving right back in as here and here. I politely warned him again here, but I would appreciate if the admins pay very close attention to him at Talk:Aorist (which, according to his contributions log, seems to be where he spends most of his time lately.) --Taivo (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This is yet another attempt to settle a content dispute by a factitious civility complaint.

Taivo is one of a pair of -er- enthusiasts who have pushed a point-of-view for weeks now: that their pet field within linguistics includes all others (including poetics and rhetoric); that it has the only correct terminology; that all others must defer to it whether the readers will understand it or not. . Follow the links and see if I could have described this point of view any more temperately than I have.

I have offered to leave the article as long as the two of them will; I have offered space for their preferred mess of obscurities at aorist (general linguistics); neither is acceptable to them.

They are two editors; their ideas are opposed by Radagast, Akhilleus, Dbachmann,Wareh, and Cynwolfe. They now seek to equalize numbers with this bogus complaint. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The only diff that concerns me at all is this one, where PMAnderson said, "It is quite true that Taivo and Kwami revert-warred against the clear statements of a source they have not consulted - because it did nbot support their point of view." Is there evidence of this behavior? Unfounded allegations of misbehavior can be construed as personal attacks. -- Atama頭 21:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly true, only allegations not made in good faith cold conceivably be considered disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That kind of philosophy works for vandalism but not for personal attacks. Personal attacks can be made in good faith; you might really feel, sincerely, that another editor is a complete and utter bastard and you're being sincere in saying so. That doesn't make it less of an attack. Regardless, accusations without evidence are defined as personal attacks (read the link I'd provided) and it's hard to call an allegation "good faith" when it's made of whole cloth. I digress, but I felt the need to respond. -- Atama頭 22:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This edit is one of a series of such edits; since this one put the reverter beyond 3RR, it was self-reverted. But this was one of several efforts to remove sourced material because the two editors disagreed with it. There are more reversions listed here, ending in the latest of several protections arising from their behavior. That has largely stopped; but the comment in question was a response to the suggestion that the respected linguist in question had been ejected by consensus - which is only true if the two of them are consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that the alleged edit warring was responsible for the protection of the article is a falsehood. The article was protected by Maunus because PMAnderson three times moved it without getting consensus, twice against the express warning of the admin User:Maunus. It was PMAnderson's move-warring that led to the locking of the article. My recollection was faulty. --Taivo (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, as you are alleging "falsehood", here is the diff for the relevant protection, which was not the one arising from the move war. David Biddulph (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my recollection placed the move war immediately before the protection--all these things were happening very close together. But this present complaint isn't about the edit warring or the protection or what happened to initiate the protection, that is just PMAnderson's attempt to deflect attention away from his incivility and place the blame for the discussion problems entirely on others and not shoulder any of the blame himself. This is PMAnderson's usual method in these AN/I complaints--take no responsibility for his own incivility and blame others for all the problems arising in the discussion. Notice the progress of this AN/I complaint--I documented nearly a dozen instances of his incivility in a 24 hour period, but his comment in defense was "It is true that I tend not to back down when faced by revert warriors with an agenda" after which he listed his charges of edit warring. He later pulled up two examples over the course of two weeks of my incivility. This is PMAnderson's way of defending against incivility charges--to deflect. --Taivo (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link to PMAnderson's previous complaint about Kwamikagami and myself. Note that the complaint was deemed "frivolous" by the admin User:Maunus and that PMAnderson's claims were false. This complaint isn't about edit warring, but about PMAnderson's continued incivility. Note that after this stern warning from User:Georgewilliamherbert, PMAnderson offered neither contrition nor apology for his uncivil actions and personal attacks. This AN/I is not PMAnderson's first. Here he was warned that future incivility would result in penalties. This is not a content dispute, as there are editors that disagree with me on content. But only PMAnderson crosses the line into incivility and personal attacks. --Taivo (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And I have not been uncivil - except in the view of an editor who thinks blocking me will reduce the opposition to his exaggerated claims for his obscure subfield. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I truly believe that you don't recognize incivility, PMAnderson. Accusing me of edit warring when the claim had already been called frivolous, calling me a pedant, and labeling my opinion as blather, are all cases of incivility. If you are unable to recognize incivility or couch your comments in a polite way or show contrition when two different admins sternly warn you against incivility, then perhaps your presence in Wikipedia is inappropriate. --Taivo (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is uncivil to mention your revert warring against Rijksbaron's Syntax and semantics of the verb in classical Greek , when this edit from last week shows your exact reversion removing a mention of the book in question? Are you pleading in Wonderland? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

When your unjustified claims of edit warring were called "frivolous" by an admin, then continued reference to your accusation as if it were relevant can be considered uncivil when it is used as an ad hominem argument, as it was in the case I cited above. The point here is that among all the problems that the previous discussion at Talk:Aorist ran into, there were only two specific warnings issued by admins directed at an individual for their actions--both were directed at you for incivility. Everyone else has been able to discuss the issue civilly. --Taivo (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(←) All due respect to Maunus (and I really mean that) the interpretation of WP:3RR in the report linked above is flawed. As stated in our policy, "The four or more reverts that constitute a violation of the rule may involve the same or different material each time." Having said that, the overall determination of the situation seems solid, and the decision to just protect the page rather than to block is one I agree with. So it looks like my question was answered; yes, there is evidence of edit warring behavior. There doesn't seem to be any personal attack, but just the same I still see too much of a focus on what other editors are doing or have done wrong, and not enough attention to the content. Whether or not a person has edit warred in the past, yes it is uncivil to bring it up.

PMAnderson, I have another question for you... You've claimed that in this dispute there are only two editors with a particular viewpoint, who are countered by more than twice as many other editors who disagree. Why then is it necessary for your language to be so aggressive? They are at a disadvantage, so is it necessary to belittle them? Generally, in a content dispute if one "side" is in a disparate minority then they have a greater hurdle to clear in order to convince a reasonable number of people in order to achieve a compromise that satisfies their viewpoint. It shouldn't be necessary for you to criticize them personally if you already have overwhelming support. Is there a reason why you need to respond as you are doing, especially since it is bringing such negative attention to yourself? -- Atama頭 22:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not deem the complaint frivolous because it was not true that Taivo and KWami had reverted more than they should according to the letter of 3RR - but because they had clearly been put in that situation by deliberate gaming by the complainant who instead violated the spirit of 3rr by repeatedly intorudcing edits that he knew would have to be reverted.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what I totally agree with. It's easy to count reverts and block, but to look at the overall situation and make a judgment takes a lot more wisdom. My only complaint was in the suggestion that for 3RR to apply, the same information has to be reverted, but our policy clearly states otherwise. Again, I agree that the edit war was a two-sided one even if one side was clever enough to avoid the letter of the policy. One thing to remember is that even though the policy states 3RR as a bright-line rule, it's not an entitlement, edit wars of any kind are discouraged and administrators will do whatever is prudent and necessary to stop them. Provoking someone into 3RR is as bad as doing it yourself. -- Atama頭 15:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for sake of completeness, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson is a relevent read. I am officially neutral on this issue. --Jayron32 23:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside opinion: I don't see incivility in the two diffs in the complaint. In one, The use of terms like 'provincialism' and 'blather', while harsh, are fair use as rhetorical devices. Democracy in Britain would be long gone if such terms were considered uncivil. In the second diff, Pmanderson states his belief that the two editors have not read the source. Again, it is up to those editors to show that they have read the source, perhaps by quoting relevant sections from it, rather than bringing this up on ANI. Repeatedly accusing an editor of incivility does not incivility make but does lead me to question the purpose behind these accusations. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This process began with others here and is an ongoing examination of PMAnderson's behavior in Wikipedia. There he was warned that his behavior would be subject to very close examination in lieu of sanctions at that time. He has since been warned by admins of his uncivil behavior at Talk:Aorist here and here. PMAnderson has neither shown contrition in the face of these warnings, nor taken responsibility for his part of the negative aspects of the discussion at Talk:Aorist. His behavior at Talk:Aorist is in very sharp contrast to all the other editors there, no matter what position they take in the content issues--all are civil and strive to keep the discussion at the level of the issues without making personal attacks or implications. Unlike Parliament, incivility in Wikipedia cannot be tolerated or else the discussion devolves into a polarized quagmire without the possibility of consensus-building. --Taivo (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark, it's funny because my first reply to this thread was originally going to be exactly what you said. On the surface, the diffs provided didn't appear unduly uncivil. My only problem was the accusation of an edit war which the other side denied, and I questioned whether it happened (it did). But while not the kind of diffs I'd usually look twice at, they are antagonistic and not helpful. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy, because a democracy thrives on conflict. Opposing sides keep each other in check, and it works because most decisions are decided with a vote. Wikipedia doesn't work that way, voting is very rarely used anywhere, and conflicts can only be decided when people agree, not when one side "defeats" the other. Language that works in a democracy doesn't work here, nor do tactics like trying to belittle someone you disagree with.

All that aside, though, ultimately I think this post on ANI is premature. I do think that commenting on another editor's perceived flaws is at the least not civil, if not entirely uncivil, and PMAnderson should make a better effort to compromise. But I also think that there's nothing actionable here, and there already seems to be eyes on the conflict, and I've probably already spent way too much time talking in this thread. :P -- Atama頭 16:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Atama that Pmanderson does come across as unduly harsh. However, clearly this is an ongoing content dispute, and in the context of an ongoing dispute, these words, while harsh, don't, I think, constitute incivility. My larger concern is that, even though this is a clear content dispute that should be resolved in other channels, the matter is repeatedly being brought to ANI. Along with statements like 'Civility, Again', they appear to give the impression that pmanderson is a problem editor. Which, I don't think is borne out on an examination of the diffs in this report (as also in the previous report). Not that I'm implying that Taivo is such an editor, I don't know enough about the dispute itself to do that, but this ANI bombardment is a common tactic used by some editors when they fail to get traction in the content area. I think Taivo would do well to take this dispute elsewhere and, perhaps, open an RfC if he/she feels that there is a pattern of hostility in Pmanderson's editing behavior. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It's always difficult to know when the time is right for X action or Y action regarding civility issues. One person's outrageous incivility is another person's acceptable behavior. PMAnderson has already been the subject of another RfC (cited above) from the early summer so the time is probably not ripe for another. The difficulty in discussions on Wikipedia, as alluded to by Atama, is how quickly a discussion can become hopelessly polarized when one party becomes uncivil, as it did at Talk:Aorist. PMAnderson reaches for the sarcastic remark, the cutting innuendo, the personal accusation too quickly. This AN/I wasn't intended for action or decision (see my first post above), but more of a request that senior people keep an eye on Talk:Aorist to nip any further incivility in the bud. User:Maunus is already looking in, but more than one pair of clear eyes is welcome. --Taivo (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I think you're acting in good faith here. But, repeatedly posting incivility notices on ANI is probably not a good idea. It gives the impression that you're unable to deal with content disputes and that you might be attempting to create a negative aura around the editor you have a dispute with. You might want to consider taking the content dispute to WP:3O or opening a WP:RFC on the dispute itself. Attempting to get more eyes on content is always better than attempting to get more eyes on an editor. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Meco

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

This user first came to my attention after they edit warred to include a weird category in the article on Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, making 1 addition and 3 reverts to the article. Another user posted a link to a post at WP:CAT, the other user and I tried to have a rational discussion with Meco but were basically told that we didn't know what we are talking about, then he went on creating them. After one warning here, Meco edited other pages for a bit, then posted this to my talkpage, which basically consists of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, again reiterating that I didn't know what I was talking about, followed by the rapid creation of more of these categories. I gave a {{uw-disruptive4}} warning with additional text pointing at the WP:CAT discussion that had been against the inclusion or creation of such categories, to which Meco then decided to canvass other users to try and get them to go to the discussion. The text that he left on their talkpages indicated that they all had special interest in categorization, despite the fact that none of the 3 canvassed had made any substantial edits in the last couple of years to either the project or talk page. I don't think that Meco should be blocked for a long period of time, but refusing to follow consensus, edit warring and canvassing are not things that we should be encouraging.--Terrillja _talk 20:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• When did he last edit that article? Have you advised him of this ANI filing, as required? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

  Prior to the final warning, left the page alone after the discussion was started on the cats talkpage. He was notified within 15 minutes of this posting.--Terrillja _talk 00:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Your reporting such category creation as vandalism wasn't particularly well-judged. Nor was your devolving the discussion into merely throwing warning templates around. And the idea that people who have never edited a page are thereby disfranchised from third opinion requests is somewhat strange, as well. You're making great leaps from "I disagree with this category." to "You should have obtained consensus before being bold." to "You're going to be blocked on another wiki.". Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

  "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." If two editors have said that something makes no sense and that the category structure is poorly names and unneeded (WP:CAT talkpage), ignoring them and going on with whatever you feel is right is compromising the integrity of consensus. if everyone did whatever they felt, this place would be a mass, people would be deleting the mainpage...oh wait, already happened. As Meco had discontinued any discussion and gone on creating the categories, I didn't see much else to do except template him. Thought it might bring about some actually discussion beyond saying other users didn't know what they were talking about. And I didn't say that he should have obtained consensus first before doing anything, however once it was clear that I wasn't the only one who saw that the categories were unnecessary and poorly named and he did not continue any further discussion, continuing to create the categories while ignoring concerns raised by editors is disruptive. I'm not saying that the sample size was significant, but given the scale of the proposed category scheme, once a few editors have raised concerns, the creations should have been stopped and figured out before creating another 10K or so categories. As for the canvassing, leaving a note on the talkpage of Wikiproject Categorization would have been logical and could have encouraged some responses and is absolutely allowed. On the other hand, "Posting messages to users or locations with no particular connection with the topic of discussion ("talk page spamming")" is not appropriate, and posting on the talkpage of users who do not have any particular connection to the subject is canvassing to try and get a view passed. If outside input was needed, we have multiple processes that could have been utilized rather than cherry picking users who do not have any particular connection to the guideline of note, in violation of WP:CANVASS.--Terrillja _talk 00:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is by my assertion User:Terrillja's inability to work in a cooperative spirit, instead adopting a combative and offensive posture. The "consensus" to which he refers is him and another user which were in fact the only people to comment or indeed object to the category hierarchy which I have attempted to develop as an offshoot of Category:Establishments by year, and for which I assert there is clear precedent. However, WP:AN/I is not likely to be congenial towards discussing the merits of this category structure, so I shall avoid opening up a path of substantive arguments for and against that on this page.

The core of the problem is the inability of User:Terrillja to approach the appropriate forum for his grievances. Had his strong objection to the creation of this hierarchy been expressed through a CfD nomination of these categories, clarity would surely by now have descended on the community without all the unpleasantries exerted by User:Terrillja. I direct the attention of interested parties to recent postings both at mine and his talk pages for samples of his offensive and belligerent tone towards me. I also think same parties should appraise themselves of the dialog at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Category:Establishments by country. And I also want to point out the blatantly inappropriate report filed by User:Terrillja against me at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism shortly preceding the complaint on the present page. I have edited the English Wikipedia since February 2006 and have more than 33,000 edits to my name, still in his addressing me User:Terrillja chooses to act as if towards an oblivious, unruly newcomer. That sort of behavior, assuming I'm not the only editor subjected to it, is sure to create entrenched conflicts rather than facilitate constructive dialog. I mention this here because User:Terrillja has expressed an interest in becoming an administrator, an office which I find him wholly unsuited for.

Finally I want to point out that the alleged canvassing was a directed and limited approach towards three seasoned editors which in my experience have shown particular responsibility with regards to maintenance and policy-related issues concerning Wikipedia's category structure, a general interest which I obviously share, and its aim was to attempt to fulfill the request by User:Terrillja for an explicit consensus opinion on the existence of the disputed category structure. These three users are User:Occuli[329], User:Vegaswikian[330] and User:Good Olfactory[331]. Most surprising to me, my inquiries were promptly reverted by User:Terrillja[332][333][334] with the aforementioned claim of inappropriate canvassing. Perhaps this reaction rather than any of the other actions from this user shows an absence of a motive to find a community consensus, but rather a zealous objective of making himself respected through threats and litigious behaviour. __meco (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments – there was nothing inappropriate about Meco's note on my talk page as I am a regular at cfd and have no history of unbridled enthusiasm for the relentless intersecting of every conceivable pair of categories. In contrast Terrillja's deletion from my talk page of Meco's note was highly inappropriate. There is nothing here to detain administrators: if Terrillja objects to Meco's categories then cfd is the place to go. And Meco should take Sea Shepherd Conservation Society off their watch list. (I probably agree with Terrillja about the particular edit, but certainly not worth edit-warring about.) Occuli (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• The specific category involved is Category:1977 establishments in the United States. As we have had Category:1977 establishments for several years there is nothing remotely controversial about Category:1977 establishments by country. But on the other hand I don't see that there is much point in doing it: I look at all the subcats and the prospect of intersecting them all by country is profoundly depressing (and this is just 1977 - think again, Meco, there is more to life than this). Occuli (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Price is Right related articles

Good afternoon administrators!

I'm writing this afternoon to report a number of issues regarding at least two individual editors, perhaps more, on the following pages: Michael G. Richards, Rod Roddy, Rich Fields, Johnny Olson, and Syd Vinnedge and any other Price is Right-related page with a succession box.

Yesterday, I standardized the succession boxes amongst these articles. User:Sottolacqua reverted my edits, removing those boxes. I attempted to have a civil discussion with him, only to have my discussion removed, and my edits reverted. I placed a discussion on the talk page for Mike Richards to start a discussion regarding these talk pages. Sottolacqua expressed that if we were to have succession boxes, they should be standardized among the articles, which I did.

However, now users User:WikiLubber and User:MegastarLV have not participated in the discussion and have unceremoniously removed these succession boxes. Additionally, both users have vandalized my talk page numerous times now.

Additionally, it seems to me there are a few select editors attempting to exercise ownership over these articles, perhaps even through sock puppetry.

I have attempted to report this as a civility problem, but it is obvious that administrator intervention is needed on these articles. --70.242.164.14 (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Price is Right related articles (part 2)

I have been told by User:Sottolacqua that these succession boxes are unnecessary & already mention the information in the article. Also, I did NOT & would NEVER vandalize anyone's talk page. The IP user 70.242.164.14 has been re-adding the boxes over & over. I posted on his talk page that he needs to stop & he wrongfully considers it vandalism.

If these succession boxes are indeed necessary, I would need a VALID EXPLANATION (from an administrator who knows about these boxes) of why they should be added.

-MegastarLV (talk) September 2010

User:Sottolacqua does not own the articles and you should not listen to him as the end-all in regarding what should be featured in an article. There is an active discussion at Talk:Michael G. Richards regarding the succession boxes and their purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.164.14 (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been in edit wars with him before, and I dealt with his way. I'm afraid Sottolacqua is right. WikiLubber (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiLubber is a known sock puppet. --70.242.164.14 (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not anymore. WikiLubber (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This issue has far exceed my interest level. Leave 'em in, take 'em out, do whatever either three of you want with regards to succession boxes–leave me out of it. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What you guys need is some sort of uninvolved party to take a look, but the way I see it, consensus at this moment seems to be to remove the boxes.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If I didn't think it was the same person or collusion between two editors to "own" an article, that might be a fair assessment. --70.242.164.14 (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:DEW? Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 02:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

IP 123.198.8.94 at List of Donkey Kong characters

• 123.198.8.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• List of Donkey Kong characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can some administrator kindly look at this IP's behavior? Every one of their contributions revolves around the addition of a hoax character to the list, and they have repeatedly reverted attempts to remove the hoax. At the moment, they haven't quite been warned enough for AIV, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hrs; welcomed with an anon-vandal welcome template. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

IP editor edit warring

Can I get some fresh eyes over at Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008? An IP editor, 76.168.205.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been edit warring[335][336][337][338] to add the claim that Hillary Clinton made racist statements during the campaign,[339] a personal opinion found nowhere in the sources they cite. They've continued after multiple warnings to discuss disputed content on the talk page [340][341] If you look at the editor's activity on other pages, most all of it gets summarily reverted. It's nearly always to add poorly sourced POV content to the encyclopedia - they've racked up a number of warnings for original research and civility, and seem not to have learned anything to date about collaboration. Thx, - Wikidemon (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• You should be thinking of not using repeated wholesale reversion as your only editing style here. The part of the content that you disagree with for not being in the source is apparently the "The Obama campaign and others accused Clinton of …" part, and not the "Clinton vowed" part (otherwise you'd be taking it out of the following paragraph, too). So why not edit instead of reverting? I remind you of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Editors encouraged and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Wikidemon admonished. Edit, do not revert war. Uncle G (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll assume the above is just hasty, not an attempt to snipe, but my edits are not at issue. Please take my request at its face - we have a tendentious IP editor whose contributions consist almost entirely of POV edit warring and incivility, and who has declined all invitations to discuss and seek consensus. I'm asking for some help dealing with it. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Your edit's are at issue. You're the other party in the edit war. I repeat: If you had taken a more constructive approach to editing, and had edited the precise thing that you had an issue with, instead of approaching another editor by just reverting everything wholesale again and again, you wouldn't be here. You were encouraged to do this very thing, with these very articles, last year. Learn the lesson, for goodness' sake! Uncle G (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, sorry. I assumed you were being sloppy, and still do. You're gleaning all of this from my making two reverts as one of three signed-in editors who has reverted this IP? If you're truly trying to help the project as an administrator you need to take more care to understand a situation like this before you start scolding established editors who are dealing with problem IPs. Do you actually think that quoting a botched old Arbcom decision is going to make me realize the errors of my ways? Please don't get patronizing - I have no patience here for the blame-the-messenger game. Can we please deal with the disruptive IP? We're in the middle of a sock swarm and trolling on some of these articles, so either help or not, but don't muddy the water. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • The problem here is now twofold. First, you aren't realizing the errors of your ways, and explicitly rejecting the good advice given in the arbitration case. And second you are unhappy with the boomerang coming back to you, and trying to force your own mis-framing of the case. We're not in the middle of a "sock swarm". We're in the middle of you revert warring with 76.168.205.230 across multiple articles. I repeat: Learn the lesson, for goodness' sake! You could have avoided an edit war, by editing instead of repeatedly reverting; and you were already engaged in dialogue with the other party. Uncle G (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Are you here to grandstand or to keep the encyclopedia functioning? I have to wonder what your game is here. You have a reasonable point that the other established editors and I could have made further attempts to engage the IP before reverting, or should have allowed the least objectionable portion of their content proposals to stand in order to find a middle ground. I disagree with that, and I am sure other editors disagree as well. Having reviewed the entire contribution history from that IP address, as I did before reverting and as I did again before filing this request, I am convinced that the editor has resisted all attempts at engagement, that they have ignored cautions about consensus, original research, and civility, and that some intervention is necessary if we are to get things back on track. Therefore, after due notice I brought a request here instead of edit warring. Please note that in my request I asked for "fresh eyes" on the situation rather than asking for a block or article protection, meaning I was soliciting constructive suggestions. Your suggestion is noted, but not particularly constructive. If that were the end of it and nobody else commented, I could say "oh, well" and go back to whatever I was doing. Instead, you launch a broadside trying to prove through rhetorical flourishes and a distortion of the record that I am edit warring, I am the source of the problem, I need to learn some kind of lesson from Arbcom, and other stuff that I regard as complete rubbish. Whose benefit is that supposed to be for? It is certainly not going to convince me of anything. For reasons I do not wish to discuss here, the Arbcom case is of no bearing - Arbcom got it completely wrong. One thing I will discuss is that we are far from that case, and that this IP's editing issues are only partly related to the encyclopedia's Obama content. In any event, I reject any attempt to badger me over the old Arbcom case. So again, if you have some suggestions I am open to them. If you just want to accuse me of things, no thanks. He who quotes the boomerang essay while personally being the one to toss the boomerang back in the opposite direction, does not seem to understand boomerangs. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Um, Wikidemon reverted twice, pointing out in his edit summary that the content addition was disputed by himself and other edits (he wasn't the first to revert it). He also brought the issue up on the talk page, though got no response from the IP. His edits are of no issue here. Time to step off you box, please. Grsz¹¹ 05:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Wrong. It is ironic that this comes rapidly on the heels of Wikidemon trying to make out that people that don't accept xyr limited and one-sided framing of the case as not having looked. If you think that Wikidemon has made two edits only here, it is you who haven't looked. Wikidemon did half of the edit warring, by reverting instead of editing, at Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008, two thirds of the edit warring at Bill Ayers, and half of the edit warring at Jeremiah Wright. Whereas in stark contrast at Eleanor Holmes Norton, where 76.168.205.230 is involved but Wikidemon is not, there's talk page discussion with 76.168.205.230 and forward progress on the article content.

          I remind you of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Editors encouraged. That's editors encouraged. Wikidemon is the largest offender here, but all of the editors warring here could have simply (a) edited out the duplication, (b) used the newly cited source to support the "Clinton vowed" content (which was not and still is not linked to a supporting source), (c) refactored the quotation into a shorter explanation of why "Clinton vowed" (which the source supports, in its very first paragraph no less), and (d) challenged and removed the one part of the content that you had actual disagreement with. Instead, the only thing that anyone did was just blanket revert, again and again, as if that were the only method of editing available.

          I repeat for a second time the good advice that is given elsewhere many times over in Wikipedia (including here for example), and that is given in a directly on point arbitration case: You all had a constructive way out of this that you should have used, that would have meant that you wouldn't be here in the first place. Instead you knee-jerk reverted, and are trying to blame 76.168.205.230 for something that you all caused. Edit, don't revert war. Uncle G (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

          • Please cut out the obnoxious scolding. If you support the IP's tendentiousness, please come out and say so. If you support a content position the rest of us do not, you can take that to the article talk page. But don't badmouth earnest editors trying to deal with a real problem. Nobody has misbehaved here except the IP, who is not getting the message about consensus, BRD, and civility. I brought this here because it seems to be an ongoing problem we have been unable to fix. Perhaps you can encourage the editor, if possible, to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia instead of validating their aggressive behavior. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User Wikidemon is smearing me

User Wikidemon has been deleting my edits on the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary page. All I did was quote Clinton talking about "hard-working Americans, white Americans"; I didn't characterize her statement as "racist" anywhere on the page. Rather, I characterized it as "racist" on Wikidemon's user talk page, which I am free to do. In addition, the statement was well-sourced (I cited reliable, neutral sources), relevant (the topic was Clinton's vow to continue her campaign), and notable (it was national news). Lastly, Wikidemon has been using pretexts to delete my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.205.230 (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Have you attempted any methods described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution before coming straight for mommy and daddy the admins? --Jayron32 03:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That's fairly unfair, since it was Wikidemon that brought this here, not 76.168.205.230. In the very act of doing so, Wikidemon cited at least one diff where 76.168.205.230 edited User talk:Wikidemon, and was in fact engaged in one of the very first stages of dispute resolution, namely talking with Wikidemon directly. 76.168.205.230 was also already engaged at Talk:Eleanor Holmes Norton, as pointed out above. Wikidemon isn't "smearing" anybody, but this is a limited and one-sided mis-framing of the case that xe is presenting. Uncle G (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I thought I was supposed to come here to discuss this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.205.230 (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• You'd better read WP:DR if you still don't understand the process. (And you were advised yesterday on your talk page to read WP:EW and WP:3RR, as well as WP:CONSENSUS). By the look of the edit history of the page that you were trying to edit, it's not just User:Wikidemon that has reverted your edits. 3 different editors have reverted your change, so it looks as if you have failed to achieve consensus. David Biddulph (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• And another thing you were told a week ago was that you should sign your messages on talk pages by typing 4 tildes ~~~~ (or using the signature button). You're still not doing that. Please bear in mind the common courtesies of Wikipedia. David Biddulph (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Interactions between User:SlimVirgin and User:J Milburn are getting out of hand.

{{resolved}}Users have reached an agreement not to interact with each other anymore. As such, admin attention is not necessary. If interactions resume and get testy or out of hand, bring it back to ANI. Otherwise, move along folks, nothing to see here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Struck/reopened, see below-DePiep (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)}} Interactions between these two administrators are getting out of hand. There's a hell of a lot of heat developing here, and it's boiling over. Threats to report, personal attacks, accusations, you name it. This has spilled over into several places:

• User_talk:SlimVirgin#Your_campaign
• Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/J Milburn Bot 4
• Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_September_14#File:GermanPoliceTormentingJew.JPG
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive638#Fair-use_images_of_the_Holocaust

and probably a lot more. I'm not recommending an interaction ban at this point, but it might be a good idea to ask both administrators to undertake efforts to avoid each other, at least for the time being. Would some other administrators please take a look at this? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am talking to SlimVirgin on her talk page about our interactions generally. I would be happy to keep this between the two of us, if she is. I don't think either of us want this here. J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, what goes on between two consenting administrators need not be brought into the public spotlight unless dialog breaks down and they start flinging bodily excretions at eachother. –xeno^talk 22:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that picture in my mind, Xeno. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we've reached a conclusion of sorts- neither of us has any intention of interacting with the other any more, and we have had some discussion about the underlying issues. Perhaps this thread could be closed? J Milburn (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Xeno agreed above that no admin attention was needed, so I will close it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The underlying dispute (on fair use) is generating a lot of heat, as seen in Talk:Battle of Berlin#Free equivalent of the Reichstag photo. I think if J Milburn or someone should open a centralized discussion on fair use of historic photographs. With all the concurrent discussion going on, each with only a few participants, it is likely to turn personal. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm not sure how an intention to avoid eachother will help if the underlying dispute continues. –xeno^talk 23:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we need some central discussion about Holocaust images. They are almost never free. Even when on the Commons, even when given us by the Bundesarchiv, they are not free because of their age, and because we almost never know who the authors were, or if we do know, releases aren't possible. Every so often an admin with strong views about non-free images will pop up (Rama last time, J Milburn this time) and try to have them deleted, always unsuccessfully so far as I know, leaving long discussions, RfCs, AN/Is, and so on in their wake. It would be great to get it resolved in general terms without the personal issues. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a general discussion about WWII images. Far fewer of these are free than people think, because changes to copyright laws in the last 60 years has generally extended copyright for everything. Having at one point had an interesting discussion with one of the guys who was originally involved in the policy (or so I believe), it is not meant to prevent the use of historic photographs because of copyright issues - something Paul Seibert has also picked up on in the Battle of Berlin discussion. The aim was to restrict the use of commercially available images of current events/people/objects by encouraging people to go out and make free alternatives - something that cannot be done for photographs from WWII.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the potential dispute is related to images of the Holocaust. While I appreciate the copyright related work J Milburn is doing on the 95% of Wikipedia content that is not included in the "actually usefull stuff", I can see problems arising on all images that are or could be labeled as {{Non-free historic image}}. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Erm, Elen, as someone involved in the Battle of Berlin discussion, I'm going to totally agree we need some type of centralized discussion if that's the current thinking on things. The idea of NFC is to minimize the amount of nonfree content we use altogether, not only to encourage free photos of current things. This is a free content project, so we should always look to any possible alternatives (including prose alone with no image, existing free alternatives, etc.), before concluding that an image is so essential to comprehension of a subject that it's worth compromising one of our core goals (being free content) to include. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that many editors would find the position that we can't use Holocaust images because they compromise our non-free status to be a reductio ad absurdum of the non-free stance. What use is an educational project that won't allow itself to educate? Hence the need for the discussion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I struck the "Resolved" since the talk is continuing here afterward.

Which gives me the opportunity to chip in two questions, back on-topic. First: OP by Hammersoft: two administrators are getting out of hand. Why is it relevant that they are admins? Second, maybe they can do this among each other, but the list Hammersoft mentions has three out of four debates not in Userspace (And indeed, there are more). I recall describing how a discussion was spoiled by this. -DePiep (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I do see some substandard cluefulness in some of J Milburn's participation, such as the BRFA (CBM's comments in it are correct) and that pedophile thread. J Milburn is certainly entitled to form any opinions s/he likes about pedophilia or any other topic, but per NOTFORUM and NOTFREESPEECH, Wikipedia is not a venue in which to debate those opinions. Re the WW2 images, SV is being a bit heated, but if she wants to propose adjustments to the NFCC policy regarding them, she's entitled to do that (I'm not convinced it's advisable). Re the SV-JM conflict, voluntary disengagement for a while is surely the simplest thing. If SV really wants to pursue dispute resolution she's going to need more evidence than I've seen so far (not that I've looked very hard, but I did click the diffs and looked over the BRFA). Anything like that should be done in a central place like RFC, not multiple arguments scattered all over the wiki. Right now what I see doesn't warrant formal remedies, but is enough to express a general view that both should ease up a bit. 66.127.54.226 (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, would you look at that?

As I made clear, I do not make a habit of watching this board, so, please, whether you're opening or reopening or whatever, notify me. I think this has to be said- SlimVirgin is a drama lover. She's not happy unless she's in the middle of a fight. I am very much the opposite; I do everything I can to avoid a fight, despite what SlimVirgin would have you believe. SlimVirgin's love of drama can easily be observed by her interactions with me- immediately after saying she wants no further interactions with me, she comes to this thread and talks about me (so, I guess that's our mutual no-interaction idea out of the window...). Despite being a long-time very active editor working in often controversial areas, you'll note that my appearances on the noticeboards have been very few and far between- yet, since starting my interactions with SlimVirgin, I have found myself here twice. SlimVirgin has made it quite clear that her issue is with me, personally, and not with my conduct- take for instance, her first reply to that damn deletion nomination, here. She for the most part completely ignored the NFCC, instead implying that I had an issue with, or was part of some campaign against, "Holocaust images". She also couldn't wait to bring up my participation in the discussion on paedophilia, because, obviously, that was so relevant. Take the bot discussion- she opens with "I don't understand bots and bot approval" and then goes on to oppose purely because it's me. She later used it as yet another place to attack my character, despite the fact I had just invited her to discuss it with me privately. She felt the need to bring up paedophilia and the Holocaust. I wonder if she could have thought of any worse things to imply? I think "private discussion" is a little boring for SlimVirgin, because where's the drama in that? SlimVirgin has a ridiculously jaundiced view of me, and she has made clear that it is her intention to wander around slandering me whereever I go, repeatedly threatening me with "taking it higher" unless I "change" to be more like her. She has even criticised me for not taking part in ANI threads and taking time off Wikipedia (something I did once) when, in the same breath, she accused me of seeking out drama and being the cause of a lot of it. (In response to some points made in this thread- 66.127.54.226, the paedophilia issue was relaated to Wikipedia, it was a discussion about Wikipedia policy, not some kind of discussion about paedophiles generally. Here is absolutely the place. Petri, the non-free content criteria, it may alarm you to find out, applies to all non-free content. Not non-free content in articles that Petri has not determined to be "actually usefull stuff", and not non-free content other than non-free content that someone has decided is "historical"). J Milburn (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad block of User:marknutley

Resolved

 – I've unblocked; see User_talk:Marknutley#September_2010 for detailed rationale Rodhullandemu 00:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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

In a thread above we discussed Mark's use of a derogatory word. He was not blocked for that. He was however blocked for 72 for saying the editor who brought him there had a "bee up his arse" about him. This is equivalent to be saying to another user- you have a bee in your bonnet. It is saying someone is upset. There was no personal attack. At least one editor in that thread agreed with me. Can a NON-INVOLVED admin please review the block. I informed Mark on his talk page and as I assume that is being watched by the blocker that he has been informed as well.Camelbinky (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I was the user who agreed. There is no personal attack there whatsoever. Admins who are unfamiliar with UK and Irish colloquialisms should refrain from blocking when such colloquialisms are used. Marknutley should be unblocked immediately. → ROUX ₪ 23:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• While not one hundred percent civil this is no where near a "egregious" personal attack and warnings should've occurred rather then a hasty block IMO. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I originally declined the unblock. My reasoning in the unblock decline is clear, and I encourage looking at that before anyone comments here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say taking everything into account, a block was jutified, but in this case could've been shorter, 24 or 31h. (Non-administrator comment) --Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 23:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 2) The diff in question is clearly not a personal attack and he shouldn't have been blocked for it. BWilkins, I noted your decline reasoning before commenting here, but I hardly think that saying that someone's annoyed at him (which is essentially what the phrase means) can be called a personal attack. There's no doubt that there is a lot of tension between the two users, and I don't see how that statement could be construed as anything other than a harmless statement to that effect. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• A poor block, and a weakly-reasoned decline IMHO. Saying "User X appears to be annoyed with me" is not a personal attack against User X, and employing a colourful but non-offensive colloquialism to express the same sentiment doesn't turn it into one. Thparkth (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• The statement was rude, and an editor with nine blocks in the past year (not counting the one withdrawn as incorrect) has hit the zero-tolerance point. Looie496 (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, all those blocks are for edit warring. –xeno^talk 23:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Blocks are preventative, not punitive: the user's block history may serve to aide a blocking admin in deciding how long a block is appropriate to prevent further disruption to the project, but it doesn't mean that we block users for something which no one else would be blocked for. Rude is one thing, a personal attack is quite another. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Block not necessary. Marknutley would have been way wiser to have gone for a beer at that point (as he once advised me in similar circumstances), but he had already backed down from the original issue, and it was definitely not a personal attack. Does the US not have an equivalent expression "got a bug up his bum"? I'd reduce it to time served and a warning to mind his gob (as the saying goes). Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Block inappropriate. Escalating disruption that needs to be dealt with is one thing, but this was an extremely weak rationale for an NPA block (or any block for that reason) and it wasn't a particularly disruptive thing to say, especially considering it was to their own talk page and taken in context of a euphamism.   Thorncrag  23:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Strong expressions of opinion are not uncommon here. They are part and parcel of the discourse between editors, but we are not a senior common room in some college somewhere. However, when the line is crossed between rough and tumble debate is grossly exceeded, warnings and sanctions should follow. It's unfortunate that the editor in question here has an unenviable block log, but that is IMO no reason to block for a strongly-worded opinion which does not personally attack an opposing editor. People might accuse me of having a "bee in my bonnet" about enforcing WP:BLP, but I wouldn't take that as a personal attack. Similarly with content disputes, which this board is not intended to resolve. Unblock, forget, and move on, please. Rodhullandemu 23:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'm here on other business, but I would remind people whose particular flavor of English involves colloquialisms referring to people's private parts or comparing them to animals, that they may wish to use less colorful expressions in the interest of international understanding. :) - Wikidemon (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "A bee in one's ass" is indicative only of commitment, arguably misguided, but not necessarily. Rodhullandemu 23:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Having a pointy stingy animal there is not a pleasant thought. I would avoid all object-up-the-rectum comments about other editors. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Unless you're being satirical for comedic purposes, and it is late where I am, I can only say "Jesus H. Christ in a bucket"; see metaphor. Rodhullandemu 00:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• BTW - my bad on the IP blanking, was trying to fix the teplate in my comment but used the wrong mobile browser (I use one to compile edits and one to save them). Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 23:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• It would behoove an oft-blocked editor to be scrupulous about word usage, especially when using colloquialisms that could be viewed more seriously in some places, but this isn't a close call. Not uttered in anger, not directed to the "target" but mentioned in passing, and on his own talk page. A friendly "this could get you in hot water" might be in order, but that's about it.--SPhilbrickT 00:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Broken redirects

Someone deleted a talk page and consequently there are now nearly 300 broken redirects[342]! Would someone be able to easily and quickly delete them all (or do something else with them)? Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.240.4 (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Why were nearly 300 user talk pages being redirected to a single user talk page? Socks? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Account renamed; subpages were moved. Subpages deleted; Xbot fixed redirects. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Still, 300 accounts? Nevermind, I see, sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Carrite

Is something like this acceptable? Just a few minutes ago he blanked his talk page and replaced it with "Due to ongoing harassment by Trolls and their Minions, I will be neither reading or responding to User talk messages. Those with Wikipedia business interested in contacting me may do so directly at MutantPopaol.com" Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• He's free to blank his talk page, although I do agree it's not conducive at all. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • He's not free not to communicate on-wiki with other editors. Such behavior has gotten others blocked in the past. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • And similarly, others have been allowed to blank their talk pages in the same vein without getting blocked before, so... I think it's fair to say it's not conducive to the wiki to do so, there's no consensus on whether or not to act on something like it. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I was unclear. Carrite has every right to blank his or her talk page, that's true even of IPs (although I don't agree with policy in those cases), but if an issue comes up, and an editor tries to communicate with Carrite, and Carrite refuses to answer or insists all communication has to be off-wiki -- that kind of behavior has gotten people indef blocked in the past. So, there's nothing for admins to do here, there's been no breach of policy at this time, and quite possibly by the time something comes up, Carrite's attitude about communicating on the talk page may be different. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• What is concerning is that Carrite is basically refusing to address any concerns on-wiki. This also goes against the open nature of the wiki to refuse to address any concerns anything on-wiki (that is acceptable to discuss on-wiki, that is, to separate from privileged communication between two users via Special:Emailuser or other sensitive information). –MuZemike 01:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• This approach clearly didn't work the last time that Carrite tried it. So stop worrying about it. This isn't what this AN/I report is really about, anyway. There's an unstated core to this report.

  This just isn't pretty in any way. The personal attack in the edit summary by Carrite is not good. But your part in it wasn't good either, TenPoundHammer. Yes, there are people with bad rationales at AFD. That's not the way to go about changing their minds. Uncle G (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict times about 50) I let Carrite know about this discussion on their talk page. As Ken says, though, it probably isn't something to worry about now, but if later this user needs to be discussing and isn't, blocks may be in order at that time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess he can be blocked without any warnings then, since it's pointless giving warnings to someone who has said they won't be reading them? (a bit tongue in cheek, but still...). And last time he didn't flat out say he wouldn't read his talk page, he said it would be quicker to email him. I'm not emailing warnings to anyone. Normally of course we escalate warnings, but that wouldn't work here. Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that reading this as we-can-now-block-without-warning, just to make a point, wouldn't be the best course of action. The request was ignored last time. It will be ignored this time, and already has been once. If Carrite decides to cut xyr nose off despite xyr own face if it should ever come to the point that interaction via xyr user talk page is warranted, then the outcome is fairly obvious. But this isn't really the meat of the issue, here. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive638#AMuseo, this, this, this, and (now) this. (I'm particularly drawing attention to the contents of the discussions.) Carrite obviously feels beleaguered. (If xe thinks that that's bad, though, xe should stand in some administrators' shoes some time.) Carrite's response is not the best response in such a situation. We all know that it's not going to be an effective one. Uncle G (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• I stopped short of leaving any templated warnings on Carrites talkpage, preferring instead to remind him about civility (here and here ). One reason for this is that I don't like to template regulars. Another reason (the second time) is that TenPoundHammer isn't exactly the least confrontational person on wikipedia in the first place. Trouts all round if you ask me. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• I find the complainant's conduct here far more deserving of censure, if not sanctions, than the target's. TPH announced rather clearly a few days back that he's ready and willing to defy policies like WP:CIVIL when editing disputes aren't going his way [343], and this appears to be nothing more than a case where TPH deliberately, even petulantly, annoyed a user he was in conflict with until he succeeded in provoking an untoward response. It's certainly also relevant that TPH refused/failed to notify Carrite of this discussion as required, but shortly thereafter restored a deleted post to Carrite's talk page with a profane, uncivil edit summary. I have great doubt that the complaining editor's recent behavior genuinely complies with our good faith standards and note the repeated number of warnings and cautions from experienced editors posted recently on his talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Like it's any frakking better to IGNORE ME OUTRIGHT when I ask you a simple question. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Long-term sock puppet issue involving deliberate factual errors

I've come across multiple IPs from multiple ranges making very similar edits, but with a distinct pattern (below). After looking into it I discovered links between the IPs and an old SPI case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/190fordhouse/Archive

Some of the main ranges were blocked and a few specific IPs were blocked for longer in early September, but the user's used at least 5 ranges, all of which geolocate to the same area. More recently I came across more IPs, and discovered a few more similar edits also from user accounts and in previously unreported ranges (some of which had been warned extensively, but without the connection being made). One of those is a user account that's been on the site since May 2008. That user, User:Miguelg, has made over 1600 edits, many of them (from what I've sampled) involve the same sort of edits at concern in the 190fordhouse case (190fordhouse had over 2000 edits at the time of the indef block) (User:Statmo1921 had 1683 edits at the time of that indef block). Starting in March of 2008, a variety of IPs and accounts (mostly named in the SPI history) made the same sort of edits. All in all, I can quickly find over 4,000 edits by linked accounts or IPs.

The edits in question have a pattern. They almost all involve changing, or in some cases adding, specific dates to music articles, none of which are verifiable. Some of those are verifiable wrong, but most aren't easily available or published. Most of the music articles are hip-hop or modern R&B artists, although there's some cross-over with older mid-90s R&B and latin music. From what I've seen, almost all of the known IPs locate to the Houston, Texas area. There are also some linked edits to schools around the area. The editing time-frames are consistent as well across a few that I've sampled (approximately 3pm - 11 pm local time). The date changes appear to be the vast majority of the edits.

I did find one additional question that's unanswered. Early on 190fordhouse made some changes to music articles involving the track-length. I discovered User:Limmerine (account created July 2008, a similar time) editing some similar articles, and whose almost exclusive edits history involves altering the length of tracks or albums. That SPI report is stale, but it opens up the possibility of other varieties of vandalism. I don't have any other indication they're linked, but I would be cautious of unverified or unexplained changes to similar facts on music articles.

The Miguelg user has a host of very recent edits of the same type that haven't been rolled back. I have held off in lieu of this report, but if others share this concern they should feel free to roll those back. One issue is finding latent changes that have persisted in articles. Due to the scope that's going to be nearly impossible (many edits were undone by regulars on those pages, but there was never a connection made that the edits were related), but especially with the recent ones, if others would help review that would be appreciated. I'd much rather have a vague, but accurate date than a made-up date. Shadowjams (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Pamela Geller

Just to note that I reverted a new account on this article which was inserting unsourced information and opinion (I have no opinion on the subject, but it's on my watchlist because of previous edit warring and BLP issues), and when they reached the 3RR limit, a brand new account appeared to continue. I have thus semi'd the article despite having made the last revert, and am blocking the account. I don't think this is controversial, but just pointing it out. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I extended your block on what you considered to be the sockmaster; I don't think it is. I'm running through my mental database of individuals now, but I think it's pretty apparent this is not the first. Especially based on the note on the sock's talk page, I think it's better we get a response from the editor anyway, first. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In passing...

I thought Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned from Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and under some kinfd of injunction against pages like User:Abd/Sandbox where he constantly restates his side of everything as fact and refuses to accept anyone else's POV as valid? Guy (Help!) 07:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure his topic ban expired earlier this month per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#Abd_banned_from_cold_fusion_article. AniMate 07:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No ban (expired). No injunction relating to this. User:Abd/Sandbox? Eh? That page was used, and stands since Sept. 18, as a copy of Talk:Cold fusion, with all of my prior comments removed, and those of another editor, to measure edit volume in various ways. JzG, if you want to edit my Sandbox, fine. Say whatever you want! Permission granted. But bringing this to AN/I? --Abd (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Rev-del question - "... is openly gay"

Resolved

 – No, they shouldn't be revision deleted. IP blocked, and their edits here have been deleted. TFOWR 10:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

66.69.210.3 (talk · contribs)

OK, quick question. The above user has gone through a few articles adding either "...was openly gay" or (more troubling) "...is openly gay". The claims are - naturally! - uncited and have been reverted. So far, so good.

Should these be rev-del-ed? I tend to think that criteria 2 does not apply, but I don't regard "openly gay" as "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" - the BLP subject may beg to differ. What does the community think? TFOWR 08:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I've noticed that the pages he added that to were of people of a conservative persuasion so I think they would take issue with that if they saw it. In my opinion calling someone that is kind of insulting but not grossly, I think it is degrading as it could be classed as a slur and I don't really think in context it is too offensive. In the end I think redacing may be best. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that this noticeboard may require revdel as well as he's hit the same claim at TFOWR here. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I've rev-del-ed some of the edits. I can't be bothered deleting the IP's refactoring of my post. I don't personally regard the claim as offensive, but I understand that other editors may well be offended, and have deleted several other refactorings by the IP. TFOWR 09:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:RBI – Rev-del all of those edits, block the IP. HeyMid (contributions) 09:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note IP blocked for 24 hours. HeyMid (contributions) 09:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid that there's no reasoning with him. The comment he did with my sig I find very insulting. I must request that his comments be redacted with haste and I think a block wouldn't go amiss. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Done and done. I've revision deleted the refactorings of your signature and posts, and another admin has blocked the IP. TFOWR 09:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Thank you The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Yes, I've already mentioned the block in my above post. Also, I am getting tired of the ANI ECs. HeyMid (contributions) 09:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Reginald de Dunstanville, 1st Earl of Cornwall is not a living person, by any stretch. ☺ George B. Hartzog, Jr. is another not living person, who'd probably object more to the statement that xe was fired, if it were false. But it's (a) supported by his obituary and (b) supported by his obituary. Shahbaz Khan Bugti is also very probably dead, given that he was created Knight Commander of the Indian Empire in 1901. Whilst this is vandalism, this is not BLP vandalism in most cases. Uncle G (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Erring on the side of caution, I've revision deleted two instances ("... is openly gay") and left the rest ("...was openly gay"). I'm sure the articles' subjects are above all this: as a society we've pretty much reached the point where trying to disparage people by calling them gay is... well, gay. And that's the only time "gay" works as an insult. Review, as always, is welcome. TFOWR 09:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Too much revdel in my opinion. We usually just revert stuff like this, in part to make the actions of vandals easier to follow. There seems to have been a real increase in revdel lately (policy change I guess) and it doesn't seem good. More drama, and the stuff getting revdel'd is just run of the mill crap. 66.127.54.226 (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Being a frequent huggle user, I revert quite a lot of edits to BLPs stating that the subject is "gay". I think it would be unfeasible to have to rev-del each and every one of these. --Stickee (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I agree; and would add that it doesn't really seem to meet either RD2 (speculation about one's sexuality is often unwelcome, but certainly not "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive"), or RD3 (while it probably has little or no merit to the project, the examples it describes are significantly more serious: malicious websites, threats, etc.) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Stickee, 66.127 and GW. I've un-revision deleted the two articles' edits. @ 66.127: revision deletion is still fairly new, and I think we're all a little unclear when it can and can't be used. Threads like this - and input from editors like you - are extremely useful in helping to define the "cans" and "can'ts". TFOWR 10:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The rev-del feature (the admin one), isn't it only 1 year old? I believe it was added in October 2009. HeyMid (contributions) 14:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Even more recent than that, I think. I'd need to check but I think it's been introduced since I became an admin, and that was only in ... June? July? of this year. TFOWR 14:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hugely off-topic, and we should probably continue this on my talkpage, but May 2010 at the earliest is my current best estimate for the rev-del rollout. TFOWR 14:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, on or about May 18 (as evidenced by the deletion log for our most active non-oversight revision deleter). –xeno^talk 14:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for ban IP

92.70.53.99 - Permanent vandalism, perhaps it is only one person, possibly from the Netherlands.--Oleg Abarnikov (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• 1. AIV is thataway.
• 2. If you bring up a topic here, you need to warn any involved users, for example using {{subst:ANI-notice}}.
• I would recommend that you read the information at the top of this page. David Biddulph (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was looking for some page like AIV, but failed --Oleg Abarnikov (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't indef IPs, even if they are static, since it is an inappropriate thing to do. If they change ISP, then someone else may have "taken over" their previous IP. And this IP hasn't made so many edits. In this case, I believe WP:AIV should be more than enough, assuming that you have correctly and sufficiently warned the user, including a final/only warning. HeyMid (contributions) 11:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Maria_Theresa

Can somebody take a look at this requested move closure please. Four editors wrote in favour of a move; three editors wrote against a move. User:Born2cycle closed the requested move as "The result of the move request was: Moved". Does this really seem like consensus? Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember, consensus is WP:NOTVOTE, it's strength of the arguments (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Texarkana Symphony Orchestra

I created this page way back when because I saw a red link, so I did some research and etc etc etc. It has recently been modified by someone who obviously has an interest in the organization, even going as far as to state things like "our mission is to..." in the article. Shoul it be reverted? Should the individual be blocked? It's been turned into an advertsement. Andy Johnston (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like the public affairs office of the organization has found the article. If I were you I would warn them of their obvious conflict of interest and clean the article of the most outlandish of statements. I would then offer to work with them to improve the article so you won't alienate a potentially useful editor. Good luck. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Texarkana Symphony Orchestra has been reverted, & the editor warned about advertising and WP:COPYVIO. Andy, you ought to remember that if you raise a topic here you need to notify any affected user, for example by the use of {{subst:ANI-notice}}. David Biddulph (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Eversman

User:Jayjg suggest I post a notice. I'm following up on User:Eversman, whom I understand has a long history of mal-edits, his talk page regularly blanked, multiple blocks and much disruption. Since April 2010 at least he's been amending BLPs to state the people are practising Catholics and adding a "Roman Catholic" categories, based on their parent's religion, misquoting sources. Most of these hundreds of edits stand unamended, as far as I can see. He is still reverting attempts to modify or balance what is written as at Pierce Brosnan. He is still going strong. Please advise. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You should have notified him, but I've done that, and noted on his talk page that he never responds on his talk page. You might want to see WP:BLP which says "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This bothers me a bit coming so shortly after the notice, but it's hopefully a coincidence. 115.164.72.70 (talk · contribs) Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

User Spanglej should have responded the issue of Pierce Brosnan on his talk page, where I have posted a message. And it is not true I have been adding a "Roman Catholic" categories based on the parent's religion, anyone can see that in every article I've changed. Also, I have not been been amending BLPs to state the people are practising Catholics, I have been adding info that they where raised Catholics and every time I have provided reliable reference. So, it is not nice that Spanglej is misleading the admins in hope that they will take actions against me. P.s. I don't have multiple blocks set against me, only 2 which all where made by User:Jayjg to whom you have made a complaint. So, another lie you have told. With regards --Eversman (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: I think it is only to my concern what I do with my talk page. Anyone can see history edits of my talk page, so It is obviously that I got nothing to hide, but why I do it is only up to me.--Eversman (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

S-VHS

Their is a problem right now. Someone is adding a teamplete that says "It does not site any reffereneces" When the article does. Somebody do something about this. Hinata talk 13:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the article in question, and added refimprove to the existing {{articleissues}} tag. The article unquestionably needs more references, but it does have two (the quality of which I did not evaluate). Hopefully that will defuse the situation? SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hinata is misrepresenting the situation. It was in fact Hinata who began by removing[344] the "unreferenced" parameter (which had been there for a long time), reverted[345] my first revert[346], and summarily declared[347] on my talk page that that was the end of the matter. Now it is true that "unreferenced" was not a perfect fit (I was unaware that refimprove was valid for {{articleissues}}, having missed that one among its dozens) but certainly two references for a 20-paragraph article, neither really on point for the article subject, are insufficient; leaving the article with no notice at all regarding references is far worse than the slightly overstated "unreferenced".

I explained this on the article talk page[348] and changed the parameter to "citations missing"[349], as the text for that is a better fit; Hinata removed that too[350] with the comment "It does site [sic] refferences [sic]; add more refferences [sic] needed templete [sic] if you want to", having completely ignored the article talk page. Why not just make that change, instead of insisting on removing the parameter completely?

And then Hinata has the crust to open an ANI and ask that "something should be done" about my edits? But referring only to "someone", thereby avoiding notifying me of the discussion. Nice.

I consider the specific matter of the template in S-VHS closed, but I believe Hinata should be advised that a more cooperative attitude would be both more appropriate and more productive; and in particular, that "Hinata has decided" does not mean that Hinata gets Hinata's way, and that running to ANI when Hinata does not get Hinata's way, particularly when Hinata has not even bothered to engage on the subject article's talk page, is not how editors are expected to behave. Jeh (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to evaluate and close a merge request so we can begin to move on an issue

For those who don't follow Twinkle and Friendly, there has been discussion of a merge between the two tools lately, with the proposal being to merge the two tools as Twinkle. Discussion has been going on at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Merge Twinkle and Friendly into one tool? for more than a month. At least to me, the result seems fairly straightforward, but as the initiator of the request, it would be somewhat untoward for me to close it. Would someone please evaluate the discussion and close it so that, if the result is to merge, we can start making the necessary changes? SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no input from those who have developed and maintained those tools. Could that be gathered please? NW (Talk) 13:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Regulate (song)

Someone has created a "hip" plot summary of this song, full of inappropriate language and original research. The "summary" is thought of as hilarious by various external websites who keep linking to it, and every time the non-encyclopedic material is removed, some "helpful" editor restores it again. The issue has been brought up repeatedly on the article's talk page, but the advocates for the removed language just dismiss the rest of us as tired rigid oldsters who are against "fun" edits. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• I was linked to this on one of those said external websites, and my response was, "On the one hand, I want to delete it because it's unencyclopedic; on the other hand, I don't want to destroy something beautiful." (Though, I'm not seeing any inappropriate language. Verbose wording, too much wording, but nothing inappropriate...) --Golbez (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I consider "verbose meme" style grossly inappropriate, as being totally non-encyclopedic. This is Wikipedia, not The Onion. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• While the other concerns raised may have merit, I don't think it's original research as it does not "[advance] a position not advanced by the source". It's simply an explanation of the lyrics in (frankly hilarious) verbose meme style. –xeno^talk 14:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of unsourced assumptions about plotline, character motiviation, etc. in the summary. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Did this editor write those "unsourced assumptions" himself, or do they come from the cite he references? Fell Gleaming^talk 15:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The "references" are primarily to the lyrics themselves, and to a footnote in which he explains the reasoning behind his original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is "someone" Cander0000 (talk · contribs)? Because xe's done the same thing at Boyz-n-the-Hood (edit, from a draft at User:Cander0000/Boyz). Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • It's clearly intended as a joke. The old "let's apply clinical/academic language to the analysis of a gangsta rap song! Lots-o-laffs" bit. Cander0000 has been given a final warning for creating and restoring these synopses. Regulate has been protected; will protect Boyz in the Hood if the meatpuppets descend upon it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandal Cleanup requested

118.136.156.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This IP user has been changing the information in F1 articles to show incorrect details. The edits to 2010 Spanish Grand Prix were undone yesterday by Bretonbanquet and earlier changes were fixed by Cs-wolves but the history shows many more changes since. I have corrected errors introduced at 2010 Hungarian Grand Prix and 2009 Belgian Grand Prix today but further changes have been made at 2002 European Grand Prix, Minardi, and 2009 Japanese Grand Prix. This is clearly an ongonig vandalism campaign, yet no one has een warned the user. I will post a notice to this discussion, but meantime, will an admin please look at systematically cleaning up the mess (I think there are tools that allow it to be done much more quickly by you than by me), and issuing a block or a very vehement warning? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted his edits on two of those articles; another editor caught the third, and the IP has been given two warnings. I'll keep tabs on the IP address in case of more vandalism. KaySL^talk 15:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It may or may not be significant that a number of the pages concerned had been targets for Fooied123, indeffed a week or 2 ago. David Biddulph (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea who the IP editor may be, but I think multiple vandalism edits to 12 different articles in two days warrants more than warnings, but then I'm not an admin. I do appreciate that the edits have now all been cleaned up, thanks. EdChem (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Two days? Six hours on the list I'm looking at, but I'm surprised that it went for that long with edits being reverted without anyone warning him. David Biddulph (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a 4 h gap in edits that crossed midnight in my time zone, so they were on two different days, hence my mistake. You are right, it was 6 to 7 hours total. I too was surprised at how many reverts hhappened without the IP being warned, that's why I came here rather than just issue a warning. EdChem (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would have gone straight to a final warning, but that may have been seen as excessive by some. Regardless, he need only make one or two more ill-advised edits and he'll be fair game for an IP block request. I'm a little surprised too that nobody warned him before now. KaySL^talk 16:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There have been at least two other IPs making vandalism edits like these recently: Special:Contributions/109.154.108.230 (Geolocates to London, England) Special:Contributions/94.196.234.160 (Geolocates to Sheffield, England) Maybe we have one vandal hopping IPs? EdChem (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Quantum666 (talk · contribs)

I've got two conflicts with this user and if we not decide them now, there will be much more conflicts.

First conflict is not hard. In the article about the city Karvachar (recent name in enwiki Kalbajar) he is deleting images, making vandalism and violating a rule of Wikipedia:Edit warring and 3RR, making three deletions: 1, 2, 3. This conflict is the easiest one.

And now about the more harder conflict. The conflict is really more wiser than one article about the Agdam Rayon, where have took place a conflict. There were a discussion in the my talk page, but as I see he don't want to gain a compromise. He repeats his arguments on which I've already answered and don't give new arguments repeating old arguments. I think that the discussion is at a standstill as he is not going to have a compromise.

About the problem (shortly). From the 1991 there are an independent Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR), while Azerbaijan things that it is their territory. Azerbaijan doesn't control a majority of the territory of the NKR. According to the legislation of the NKR there are one administrate divisions, while according to the Azerbaijan legislation there are other divisions. Here is a conflict about the quantity of the population. In this territory before the last war was an all-Soviet census in 1989. Results are available in Russian in the official Russian web-site. There were also two other censuses. In Azerbaijan was a census in 1999, but as Azerbaijan don't control Nagorno-Karabakh, there were no census at those time. Other census was in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in the 2005. The results can be found in the pdf file from the special web-page of this census (census in NKR in 2005) from the official web-site of the National Statistic Service of NKR.

Three quarters of the Agdam rayon since 1993 is under the control of the NKR, while one quart is under the control of the Azerbaijan. According to the legislation of the NKR, Agdam rayon was abolished and included to the territory of three other districts: northern part to the Martakert district, western part (with Agdam) to the Askeran district and southern part to the Martuni district. Eastern part is under the control of the Azerbaijan.

The problem is that Azerbaijan try to increase a number of population of the regions which has loosed in the war. They make falsifications for artificial increase a number of refugees. For this they are saying about a million of refugees and making falsifications on the state level. For example on the official Azeri web-site You can find an information about the population of this regions for 1993 which is more than during the census in 1989 from 20 to 30%. There were no any census in 1993 in this region at all and more than that there was a War and for 4 years of war it is impossible to have growth at all, especially in a quart. Even in the best region of the world it is impossible to have a growth of population for 4 years in 20-30%.

According to his contributions he is actively making edits in disputed articles mostly having a conflicts with other users. He already has got warnings on his talk page but he continues his behavior. Please make something as he is not going to reach compromise and I don't want to participate in edit wars with him. Also I want to add that in ruwiki he has been already indefinitely blocked. I'll notify him just now. --Ліонкінг (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)