Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Template removal & incivility...

Resolved

 – User blocked for 55 hours HalfShadow (talk)

17:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)}}

Restored from archive... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Again... still unresolved, silly Miszabot... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Once more, due to continued activity... - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
This timestamp will prevent auto-archiving. Please remove it when the thread is marked resolved. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2199 (UTC)

Back on September 20, 2009, Chao19 (talk · contribs) was blocked for removing article maintenence templates and incivility. He was removing {{fact}}, {{refimprove}}, and {{references}} templates from assorted Creed articles... he was given fair warning, and his only replies the the warnings were that no references were needed and I was an asshole for restoring the templates. After the block, that user was inactive for a while, although there were one or two IPs (67.167.33.47 (talk · contribs) and possible others) that continued the pattern, even going so far as to continue the incivility on my user talk page (this and the following half dozen revisions)... within a minute of the IP's last comment, Chao19 had logged in, and replied to his own IP comment (Chao19's first edit since the block)... Since that edit, the IP has not made any further edits, and Chao19 has continued the incivility[1] and removal of maintenence templates without reason... I filed a report at AIV, and was going to file a report at SSP, but was told it would be better brought to ANI...

It is obvious that the IP is a sock of Chao19, and it is also obvious that Chao19's original block did nothing to change his editing habits... his counter-productive editing and harassment of other users has become more than an average bother to me, and I would like someone else to look into this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes this behavior is pretty bad. Comments like "Why do you expect everything to be referenced? Jesus.." leave me with doubt that this person has the willingness to comply with Wikipedia's most basic editing rules. If this was a new editor I would suggest that a person have a talk with them about the necessity of verifiability but seeing that they've been an active editor for over 9 months with over 600 edits I'd consider any ignorance of rules at this point to be willful. -- Atama頭 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For the last month I have tried to explain this to him, and have been met with nothing but stubborness and incivility every step of the way... I just sat down to find his latest revelation, "And from what ive seen over the year and a half ive been on here, your the only once who truly gives a flying fuck about the unreferenced stuff."... Anyone that takes a look at my conversation with him so far, will see that this guy obviously does not care about Wikipedia's policies, and plans to continue doing what he wants with no regard for them. Add to that the incivility, and you've got the makings of someone who (while not a blatent vandal) will do nothing but cause harm to the project in the end... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Although, I am still looking forward to my Worst Admin Ever award... LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll get started on an excremental barnstar for you. :) -- Atama頭 19:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sa-weet... that'll be number three in as many years... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original comment, the editor in question has now begun vandalizing my user page, and continues the incivility on my talk page... Someone with tools please do something about this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Adolphus79. That last comment was completely out of line.--Crossmr (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. A block per WP:NPA would seem to be in order if this happens again. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

His being blocked a month ago for it, and coming back to continue harassing me isn't enough? Or the contsant and blatent template vandalism, which also continued after the last block? I can guarantee that the harassment and template removal will continue, it's not a matter of if... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long, I just sat down to find that the user had removed maintenence templates again on assorted creed articles, and continues to think that twitter, youtube, and blogs are reliable sources... I am really getting tired of having to constantly clean up after a user that thinks third-party, reliable refs are stupid... - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be stopped right now... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 55 hours. I'd ask you, Adolphus79, to give him a wide berth once his block expires - either he will, in turn, leave you alone as I've instructed him to do, or he will invite a longer (or indef) block. Edits such as the one you cite above are absolutely unacceptable, and as blatant a violation of WP:NPA as I've seen in the past few hours. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to do so, this user's edits that were done in good faith, and those that were beneficial to the 'pedia, have gone untouched by my hands... My only concern is the blatent template removal, the bad refs, and the incivility... I will certainly give Chao19 a chance to change his ways (just as I mistakingly did with the last block), but I can not help but keep an eye on his future edits, due to his editing history... I promise that when he comes back from this block, and shows evidence of an effort to follow Wikipedia policies, he will never hear from me again... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, you've acted properly - I did not mean to imply otherwise. Rather, it's clear that Chao19's anger is directed at you, so if you choose not to interact with him/her, then they either a) seek you out for further attacks, or b) let it drop. We'll see what happens. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Blogs used as references

For the last 2½ weeks or so, editors have been trying to remove links to a blog used as a reference in an article. The blog in question is http://mentalblog.com/ , an apparently defunct, anonymous blog, and the article is Menachem Mendel Schneerson. I brought the issue to WP:RS/N (see Wikipedia:RS/N#mentalblog.com), where it seemed the consensus was pretty overwhelming in favor of removal, but two or three movement members are insisting on the article Talk: page that the blog is nonetheless reliable as a source for Schneerson's will, based on their personal knowledge of Schneerson's signature etc. They refuse to allow links to the blog in references to be removed, and revert any such removal within minutes. Since article Talk: page discussion and WP:RS/N discussion appears to have made no impact, I've brought the issue here for wider review. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The assertion made by this editor is incorrect. The main argument is that there is no consensus to remove a source which contains what I and other editors know to be genuine copies of the original. I have explained so in a reply to this editor on my talkpage, please see there as to whether his removal reflected consensus. The blog source removed by Jayjg and restored by me and others is just a PDF copy of two pages from a book. I and others have seen that book, and it is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability. Several editors have reversed his removals and protested against them on the talkpage of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, but Jayjg insists he is right and keeps seeking other venues inside Wikipedia (first Wikipedia:RS/N and now WP:ANI) that would justify him, and is overly zealous on this subject (see the length and time frame of the discussions), which is also no appreciated by other editors. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If you've seen the book, why not source the book instead of the blog? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Debresser's post above is a perfect example of the issue; the blog is a reliable source because "I and other editors know [them] to be genuine copies of the original." In the same dispute, Debresser has refused to give page numbers for "the book" in question, though he has inserted it as a reference, explaining that he read it years ago, but is sure it contains the material somewhere. His co-members of the movement have insisted—based on their personal assessment of "the book"— that "the book", published by little-known rabbi on an unknown press, is more reliable than books published by a university professor-subject matter expert, on reliable presses. Debresser and a couple of others have refused to accept that Wikipedia is guided by WP:V and WP:RS, not their personal assessments of source reliability. See the RS/N or Talk page discussions for more details. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me lift the relevant part out of the previous paragraph for easy reading: it (the book) is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability Debresser (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your lifting words out of context is not appreciated. And nobody has refused to accept any Wikipedia guideline as you assert without any proof. It is just that editors disagree with you as to the reliabilty of certain sources. You seem to have a problem with that. That is not good on Wikipedia, which is based on consensus. And that is the real issue here with you. You just don't have consensus for your removal, as I explained to you on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS says that blogs are not reliable. Please explain why the defunct, anonymous blog mentalblog.com is exempt from this rule. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I refuse to enagage in this content-related dispute for the third time. You have had your answers on the talkpage and on that noticeboard. Now please calm down and accept the fact that people disagree with you. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"Calm down"? Please don't speculate about other editors' emotional state. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Stick to the issue please. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about reliable verifiable sources, not what you know to be the truth. Find a suitable source for the information, otherwise it should come out. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We have heard that before. You completely ignore the subject. Which, BTW, reminds me that I do not think this is a post for WP:ANI, since this is subject related. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a behavior issue, since you have ignored the consensus at WP:RS/N, and continue to edit-war the blog link as a reference into the article.[2][3] Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

People should have the decency not to revert in the middle of a wp:ani discussion. Not after being informed of that, at least. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. So stop reverting. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As I told you before on my talkpage, your so-called consensus is disputable. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, three members of the movement say it's reliable, 7 uninvolved editors say it's not. Not much that's "disputable" there. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a factual untruth, and ill becomes you. It is sad you have decided to resort to such methods. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see. I said it wasn't reliable, as did Fiflefoo, Itsmejudith, Squidfrychef, Dlabtot, Slp1 and Nathan. That's 7 editors who say it's unreliable, none, as far as I know, involved with the Chabad movement. Against that we had you and Zsero saying that the blog was reliable, and Bongomatic wouldn't opine on the issue, saying it was the wrong question/board. So, I don't think my math was that far off, was it? Which part was the "factual untruth"? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The part omitting Count Iblis here, Bongomatic, who is clearly enough in favor of keeping the blog, and Yehoishophot Oliver on the talkpage. Squidfryerchef and Itsmejudith are not clearly against on the noticeboard, as far as I understand. All of this are things you conveniently do not mention or alter. Debresser (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this whatsoever, as I've never even heard of the article prior to this discussion. But I am absolutely flabbergasted that a well-respected editor such as Debresser would even consider trying to claim that personal knowledge is an acceptable source. Blogs are not reliable sources for such material, period, find a reliable source. How difficult is that? Edit warring isn't the way to deal with a sourcing dispute. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the thread. I said "you have ignored the consensus at WP:RS/N". Count Iblis didn't comment there, nor did Chabad member Yehoishophot Oliver. As for Bongomatic, fortunately we are able to read his exact words on: "A primary source (such as a will) is appropriate in various cases—I am not opining on whether this is such an instance." I have no opinion in this particular case. As for the rest, the words of the individuals are plainly evident from the links I provided. So, yeah, 7 uninvolved editors said it was unreliable, 2 movement members said it was reliable, and 1 editor wouldn't give an opinion. All done here. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And rightfully so. That is why am I so happy I have not made such a claim. Please read my words carefully. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman, what you're missing is that while personal knowledge is not a valid source for facts, it is certainly a valid source for the reliability of sources. What "reliable source" do we cite for the proposition that the NYT is a reliable source? We don't, and we don't have to. The only personal knowledge Debresser and I (and others) are claiming is that the scanned page does indeed appear in the book. -- Zsero (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, since Jayjg has forgotten to do so, I posted at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson that this discussion is taking place. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors, please read everything carefully, and understand what the issues are. Has any of you had a look at the disputed footnote already? Debresser (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayig is ignoring one crucial fact: the blog is not cited as a source for anything. The will itself is the source; it is a primary source, cited for nothing more than what it says, and for that purpose it is the best possible source. (Secondary sources are only needed for interpretation, not for direct quotes or description.) The blog is simply a URL where a scan of the will can be found, for the reader's convenience. If the will were not to be found anywhere on the web, it would still be just as valid a source, but the reader would not be able to personally verify that it says what the article describes it as saying; linking to the copy at the blog solves this.

The scan itself is obviously genuine, which can be determined by anyone familiar with the subject's signature, which thousands of people are. It is also known to be genuine because it appears in the book which is cited as a source; that's where the blog scanned it from in the first place! Removing the link to the blog cannot possibly make the article better or more useful, and therefore is against the prime WP rule: to make a better encyclopaedia. -- Zsero (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I've got this right: 1-"anyone familiar with the subject's signature" has now become a reliable source. 2-"it appears in the book which is cited as a source", except the cite is to a blog, not to the book, which for some reason the proponents are reluctant to source to. Is this correct? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For the third time: it (the book) is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability Debresser (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you had that look at the footnote as recommended? Debresser (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Coming late to the discussion here, but we don't use "convenience" links. We site the reliable source. We don't provide unreliable sources to hold the information as "convenience" because we can't trust that the unreliable source is holding the correct information. You might assert it is, but no other editor can trust that. They are after all, an unreliable source. That means that we sometimes have citations without weblinks and that is fine.--Crossmr (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This is the point - the book exists, and will not be changed. The scan may be accurate now, but it may change later. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How can any .pdf file, which can be created by anybody with minimal forgery, be used as a reliable source? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We must have 100-250-500 thousand PDF sources on Wikipdia, as you well know. So your point of view is untenable. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

PDFs found on reliable sources are considered reliable. PDFs found on blogs are not. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the book and can supply the page numbers required for the source. To be sure the blog is not being used as a source, the source is the book. The question now is if we may link to this blog (which itself is undoubtedly not a reliable source) just for convenience sake. Is that a problem? there are actually many references in articles which link to blogs and private websites, should these also be removed? can we finalize what wikipedia's policy should be for these links (or has it been done already)?

About the book Heshbono shel Olam: It is written by Binyamin Lipkin and published by "Mechon Hasefer". Avraham Alashvili is the head of this Mechon (organization). Lipkin has written another book I know about callad "Al Hakavenet" about the Brooklyn Bridge terrorist shooting and the aftermath. This second book is published by " Hostzaot Toras Chayim" which I believe is well know publisher in Israel. Shlomke (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

All that is in the article already, apart from the precise pagenumbers. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In general, blogs are not acceptable sources. You'd have to give specific links as to whether or not the blog is a reliable source. If you have the book, if you sourced the claim to that, it would solve this entire mess. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. we have heard that ad nauseandum already. Debresser (talk)

And yet, for some reason, you are refusing to do the bare minimum needed to end this contretemps. Is it just a matter of bullheadedness, and that it has to be your way or no way? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Talking about "bullheadiness". For the fourth time: the book is already there as a source. Please leave this discussion... Debresser (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Without a dispute about statements made in the source, it is not ok. to remove the source, even if it is a type of source that you would prefer not to use in general. Count Iblis (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand which side of this discussion you're endorsing here. But I'm out of this discussion, I don't like beating my head against a wall and it's clear that nobody here is interested in trying to resolve this, they're just interested in getting their way. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me help you. He says: "keep the blog". As have many before him. Which is my point, that there is no consensus for its removal. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You have it exactly backwards. Zsero added the blog link on October 1. There was no consensus for its addition. There still is none. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the beginning there was chaos, then... How far do you want to go back? Debresser (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's go back to when the link to the blog was first added. I believe that was on October 1, 2009, by Zsero, was it not? And it was reverted in the very next edit, was it not? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the clear question here is as follows: Why does the blog need to be cited if the content exists in an identical fashion in a book already cited within the article? 100 words or less please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason why I included preprints links in this article and in many other articles: accessibility Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And how do we know that the material on this defunct, anonymous blog is an accurate representation? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The blog is not anonymous, he has stated his name many times: Tzemach Atlas living in the Boston area. Shlomke (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And what is the problem with it being defunct? Asimov is also "defunct": he is dead. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now inserted the page numbers of Lipkin's book. Those are the same copy's. You and anyone else can check them. I hope this this solves the problem as Who then was a gentleman? suggested.Shlomke (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

One would hope, but I have no doubt the blog link will soon be back. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if the issue has been resolved, why shouldn't it? Shlomke (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it has been resolved by providing a (somewhat) better source, so there's no need for the irredeemably unreliable one. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The link to the blog is a copy to what both sources are discussing, it's not being used as a source, it's there for accessibility. Shlomke (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review the discussion at WP:RS/N. Aside from the fact that WP:V and WP:RS specifically exclude these kinds of sites as reliable, the concern raised by seven editors there (and several other editors here) is that we had no reliable source indicating that blog pdf was an accurate representation of anything. Wikipedia editors, btw, don't count as reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, I've been in similar disputes before and my experience is that what you are doing here is unnecessarily causing a conflict. I think this is as far as you could take it. You could temporarily add the "dubious" tag and then try to get hold of the book or try to contact people who have the book to verify if the PDF file is bona fide. As I understand it, Shlomke has already done that. The problem with remove the link to the blog is that no one has raised questions about about the contents. This will then cause anger. It is a bit similar to how not sticking to AGF causes anger. You are a priori treating a valuable source of information as unreliable, even though it may well be 100% accurate. Count Iblis (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you review the consensus at Wikipedia:RS/N#mentalblog.com, which was exactly the opposite of your position? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You've won me over. Although I do not doubt these particular scans since I'm able to compare them to the book and I see them to be the same, as a rule if this practice were allowed, there would be many fakes on WP as anyone can make any image they want, put it up on a website or blog and claim it is a primary source. I will wait for this discussion to finish before editing. Shlomke (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, from a pure Wiki Law perspective you are right. But then Wikipedia is not based on rules. In this particular case, your objections to the blog link based on only Wiki Law has raised tensions. You can imagine that allowing the blog link for pragmatic reasons here and perhaps in other articles on similar grounds may lead to new rules for potentially unreliable sources. This case is exceptional because we have an editor who has verified that the blog link gives accurate information. Count Iblis (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, what you may not know is that even the source this material is allegedly copied from is not reliable. It's a book published by a nearly unknown publisher, written by a rabbi whose only other claim to notability is that he apparently at one time edited a small weekly haredi newspaper. And neither source is even necessary; the article already has links to a reliable book that contains all the necessary information, so there's no need for either the blog pdf or the book it allegedly comes from! So, tell me, what's the point in including them? We already have a reliable source for all the information, so why put in the unreliable ones too? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

About reliability of of Heshbono shel Olam: As pointed out above, it is published by "מכון הספר" ("Mechon Hashefer") a publishing organization run by Rabbi Avraham Alashvili. When doing a google search for "מכון הספר" 289 results come up. There seems to be another org. with this same name that is not connected, but there are still plenty of results for this books publisher. I have a book published by them called "Hefsek B'Tefila" written by Rabbi Yoav Lemberg. The Agudas Chasidei Chabad Library lists them as a publisher in a listing of publishers. About Binyamin Lipkin, I see another book by him called "Al Hakavenet" as mentioned above, printed by Hotzaot Toras Chayim 52,800 results. 40,600 for בנימין ליפקין. No question about reliability. The question is if this source is necessary, especially since we have an English source. But the English source does not have copy's of the will's, which the Hebrew one does. So if an editor is insisting on inserting it, then why not? Shlomke (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, "No question about reliability"? Is "Mechon Hashefer" a vanity press? Is it the personal enterprise of Rabbi Avraham Alashvili? Does it have a website? Is there any third-party information about it? Just publishing a few books doesn't immediately make this a reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bali ultimate

Bali ultimate is reverting on Menachem Mendel Schneerson, even after he was informed that this is the subject of a wp:ani discussion. In fact he removed my comment rudily from his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose warning this editor that this is unacceptetable. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And you keep reverting him in turn. Do you propose warning yourself too? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to add here every ill thought through comment that pops to mind. Really. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In particular, I was reverting to the version from right before this thread, and only his uncvivil edits. Uncivil in that they mix into a discussion. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's the subject of AN/I discussion or not, there is no reason to suspend editing of the article.   pablo_hablo. 23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I consider it a lack of decency not to await the outcome of the discussion. Perhaps you mean other edits, that are non related? That I agree with. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And it seems everybody else considers leaving it against our policy. Grsz¹¹ 23:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not considering your personal standards of decency, nor would I, just normal editing practice.   pablo_hablo. 23:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked for 24 hours for reverting while knowing full well an attempt to resolve the situation was being made here. In my opinion, that is clearly edit warring. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. the same will happen to anyone else who reverts, while knowing the situation here (after this message). I will happily unblock Bali is he agrees to join the discussion and stop reverting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

More tendentious editing

Here's an example of the kind of tendentious editing that I've been faced with, right in this very thread: I made a comment at 21:22 GMT, referring to "Debresser's post above..." A couple of minutes later, Debresser moves that post below another post of his. Well, of course, at this point my comment "Debresser's post above" no longer makes sense, since it's below a different Debresser post. Despite my moving it back, he moves it under his again, and even changes the indenting, so that it now definitely looks like I'm responding to the second comment, not the first! I try to put it back where it make sense, even explaining in an edit summary that the "Debresser's post above" I refer to is *not* the comment you inserted *after* mine. Nonetheless, he moves my post again, while claiming that I have "no right" to remove his post from its relevant place. This is the kind of topsy-turvy tendentiousness I have to deal with. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, let's not start a second edit war. Debresser just leave Jayjg's comment where he placed it or I'll have to block you for edit warring. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. But he is mistaking. There was an edit conflict here, and my reply ended up below his, and out of context. I tried to fix that. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You are both correct in that both of your posts refer to the post "above" and thus don't make sense out of order. Unfortunately one has to be out of order and yours technically came second because of the edit conflict. I have added {{ec}} to indicate this, which I suggest is a much better may to "fix" things like this in the future. :) That said, it is not something either of you should have been edit warring over as any intelligent person could figure out which post you guys were referring to form the context. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What is a blog?

A blog is a (generally non-notable) person's personal opinion, posted on a self-published site where the author is the the sole "editorial control". Thus, they are primary sources. When the blog author is an expert, blogs may be used as primary sources, within limits articulated in other policies. Likewise, when a blog belongs to a newspaper or other traditional media who exercises editorial control over the blog, then the blog is acceptable.

In this case, it appears that a PDF copy of a published source, hosted on a blog site, is being criticized solely because it's on a blog site. That's just silly.

• Would the reference be acceptable without the PDF? Sure seems like it.
• Does linking to the PDF help understanding? That seems to be the argument.
• Is there any editorial control exercised by the poster of the PDF? It seems not.

Thus, the real issues seem to be

1. Is this PDF hosted in violation of copyright laws? If so, it should not be linked... but the fact that it is hosted on a blog site has nothing to do with that.
2. Is the PDF a copy of a vanity press book, rather than an RS book selected and edited with appropriate editorial control? If so, then it should be limited to use as an unreliable source.

And yes, ANI is a silly place for this. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, what would make the blog author an expert? Shlomke (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone who has been cited and published as such. If an individual is constantly cited or interviewed on a subject, they can be considered an expert on it. We let reliable sources determine who are experts and who are not. Their self-published sources are usable only in the context of what they are an expert on. So someone who is constantly interviewed about military policy might be an expert on military policy but if he wrote a post about how his Toyota is a piece of crap we couldn't cite him on that.--Crossmr (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If they are a recognized academic expert in a field, who has published in third-party reliable sources on the subject. Deborah Lipstadt, for example, who is an expert on Holocaust denial, has a blog, which one could cite (with caution) on the topic of Holocaust denial. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do they have to be an academic to be an expert? I think not. Shlomke (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they have to be published and recognized as such. Their personal qualifications are immaterial if reliable sources are referring to them and using them as experts.--Crossmr (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have no evidence that the person hosting that PDF hasn't altered it or won't alter it in the future. That is why we don't link to it. An unreliable source holding "reliable" information isn't usable. Cite the reliable source. We don't use convenience links because we can't trust them. They can cite it without the blog link and its perfectly fine.--Crossmr (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Then should every Google Books link to content be removed? After all, Google isn't a reliable source. Your argument assumes bad faith on the part of the non-RS, that it would falsify material. If the blog site claims to reproduce a verbatim copy of a copyrighted RS document, the primary issue is copyright. If it's fair use, it would then fall to the person who challenges its veracity to demonstrate that the offline RS doesn't say what a (potentially) unreliable RS says. Your interpretation would provide the torturous outcome that I can claim an offline RS says XYZ and not be subject to challenge except through someone going to get a copy of the offline source, but that someone else can claim an offline RS says XYZ, cite a PDF of an allegedly verbatim copy on an unreliable website, and the document link can be challenged, but not the content of the assertion. That's just silly. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I also don't think falsification is the suspicion standing behind the policies. And this has been mentioned on the talkpage before. That a suspection of falsification is not acceptable as an argument, unless there exist specific reasons to suspect so. Debresser (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the blog isn't reliable is enough to make the copy suspect. A source which isn't reliable is unreliable by wikipedia's standards and we simply cannot link to it in a citation, because it isn't the source. The book/original document is the source.--Crossmr (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this can be an interpretation fo wp:rs. I find it hard to agree with this interpretation though. And with me other editors involved in this discussion. Debresser (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you really want to compare Joe blogger to google a public organization? The problem with the document link isn't whether or not you or I believe the document has been falsified, its that the average reader of wikipedia has no way of knowing who this blogger is and where these pages came from. It becomes a crutch and it misleads the reader into thinking the reliable source is the linked documents and not what is actually being sourced. Google is a public company and depending on what goes on behind google books, there could be a case made to consider what they scan and publish on to be reliable sources.--Crossmr (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Jclemens, it's silly this ended up here. It started on the article Talk: page, then moved to the RS/N board, where 7 people said it was an unreliable source (against the two editors who kept inserting it). When those two editors insisted that there still wasn't really a consensus against inserting it, it moved here, because that's pretty much the next logical step. While one could argue that it was initially—in part—a content dispute, once the RS/N consensus was clear, it became an issue of inappropriate behavior; see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Signs of disruptive editing, which describes this behavior pretty exactly (particularly "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability" and "Rejects community input"). Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he's looking for a wider audience (sometimes denigrated as "forum shopping"). I've seen far too many "we can't cite blogs" rote arguments, without understanding the basis for such an argument in the actual policies like V, N, and RS. I am not speaking to conduct issues, but failing to take an unreasonable answer and walk away is not disruptive editing. Frankly, I'm unimpressed with the responses in this section. You may all be ticked off at the guy for bringing it here, but calm down, have a nice cup of WP:TEA, and think through the policy bases for the exclusion of such a link. It's not as strong as the level of consternation would imply. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The one forum shopping is Jayjg, who started out on the talkpage, met unanymous disagreement, continued on the noticeboard to get support, and now came to WP:ANI to get it enforced. Isn't the talkpage where it should be decided what should and should not be in the article in this specific case? I find it interesting, that on the talkpage all editors apart from Jayjg want to keep the blog, while on the noticeboard almost all are against keeping the blog (counting again Jayjg with those against and the people who came from the article talkpage as in favor). It does suggest to me that those who know what they are talking about have a better understanding of the issue than outside noticeboards (that are notorious for being frequented by their respective hardliners). Debresser (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any forum shopping. It is perfectly reasonable to go to the reliable sources noticeboard for the review of a source. And no, the talk page of the article is not where it should be decided if a source is reliable or not, as not many editors would see the discussion, and it is prudent in such a discussion that uninvolved editors are present for the obtaining of consensus. Lastly, seeing as how you are so steadfast in refusing to abide by WP policy regarding reliable sources, he brought the discussion here for enforcement. Perfectly reasonable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Going there is reasonable in general, but in this case, where there was unanymous disagreement on the talkpage, that was forumshopping. Then trying to enfore his opinion by coming to WP:ANI, even though there was no clear consensus (although I agree a certain majority shares his opinion) was incorrect. I'm unwatching this discussion. If there will be any things that concern me personally, please contact me on my talkpage. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

By "unanymous disagreement on the talkpage", you must mean the three Chabad members who seemed to be unaware of or uninterested in WP:V and WP:RS. Taking an RS issue to the WP:RS/N board is not "forum shopping", it's recommended procedure. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The agreement of three editors does not give you rights to do whatever you want with a page. It was not, nor will it ever be forum shopping for Jay to have gone to RSN and here.

Agreement on an obscure article by most of the only editors that edit it does not give them the right to walk over policy. If that was the case, then several thousand articles that have been previously deleted wouldn't have been. I shouldn't have to explain why.

Secondly, there was clear consensus at RSN. Three dissidents who were trying to control the article don't count. Only uninvolved editors count in the matter, and consensus among those uninvolved editors was that the sources were not reliable. Consensus doesn't require that the original dissidents agree with everyone else.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Book

• We have two issues. #1 is the book reliable? Bring it to the reliable sources noticeboard. I suspect it is not. #2 is a link the to blog of a copy of the page unacceptable? Assuming that the book is found to be a reliable source, we have often linked to scanned copies of a page. Often. I'd say cite the book and provide the link. If the book isn't a reliable source, it might be reasonable to mention the book if a RS has discussed or at least mentioned the book. Otherwise, out it goes. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just put it in external links. Per WP:ELMAYBE, external links can include, "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Really, you're not trying to use it as a reference, because you already have a reference (the book). So put it in an external links section. Assuming that the copyright issues mentioned are found to not be a problem. -- Atama頭 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That makes sense, although if the goal is to let people find the will that might make it a bit harder. Ah well, it seems reasonable and within our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I already brought the book to the RS/N noticeboard. Unsurprisingly, the consensus of uninvolved editors there was that it was not reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any sanctions the community can take against editors why say blatant lies in WP:ANI discussions? Because if so, this is the time, and this is the man. Debresser (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • The consensus at Wikipedia:RS/N#mentalblog.com was mainly about using the blog as a reference (vs linking for accessibility which we are discussing here), not about the book. I've added additional information above about the reliability of the book which I think would make the book pass. Do you suggest I put that information there too (even though that was not the intention of that notice, as the name suggests), or perhaps start a new discussion? Shlomke (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I'd suggest starting a new discussion. Hobit (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I will leave it to those who want to use the book as a second reference. I'm fine either with or without it. Shlomke (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Jclemens touched on a good point above that no one seems to be discussing. Ignoring the fact whether this blog should be used a "convenience" for a WP:RS (which I personally think is ridiculous), if copies of pages of the book are copyrighted, we shouldn't be linking to them. Period. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• We link to material that is under copyright all the time. Sometimes to nyt.com. Sometimes to archive.org or googlebooks. As long as the selection we are linking to is legal (under the fair use doctrine) I think we are fine. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the question is whether the blog is a violation of copyright. In that case, we wouldn't link to it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Aye. For example, we might link to an official site with a film trailer on it; we wouldn't link to a site with a pirated copy on it. Black Kite 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but we might (and do) link to other sites that (for example) make fair use quotes of copyrighted material. And we often link to archive.org for copyrighted material that is no longer available on the original site. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the blog would not be in violation of copyright, because the will's in the book are not the original work of the author, they are copy's of the Rabbi's will's (perhaps public info?) Shlomke (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Above when giving some detailed facts, you wrote "why not?". It seems to me that Jayjg and everyone else should ask this question. It's time to write up a new wiki policy WP:Why not?, an extention of WP:IAR. Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not? becuase linking to this blog does several things, it gives the impression that the blog or the author of the blog are some kind of reliable source, it also drives traffic to a random blog. Allowing these kinds of links would not only imply credibility to unreliable sources they would end up being used to host content just to get traffic from wikipedia as holding convenience links. We currently don't have anyway to differentiate between a reliable source and a convenience link and I'm completely against putting any kind of unreliable source in a position to masquerade as a reliable one.--Crossmr (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. There's a reason we have WP:V and WP:RS. Heck, we're not even supposed to link to blogs as external links; see WP:ELNO, number 11. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

But it's not a link to a blog, is it? It's a link to a document being hosted at a web site that also hosts a blog. Now, I agree that the blog itself isn't a reliable source, but a link to the document should be allowable per WP:ELMAYBE if it's not being used as a reference. -- Atama頭 00:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can host anything on a website. Is that website a reliable source? Its not a citation unless its being hosted by a reliable source. Otherwise we're giving credibility to random websites, blogs, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr, my comment "why not" above was not about linking to the blog, it was about using the book "Cheshbono Shel Olam" as an additional reference. See above. I'm basically in agreement at this point with what you and Jayjg are saying. I would like to see what the final consensus is on this issue and apply it to similar situations in the future.Shlomke (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. If the talk from RS/N is properly quoted, then it would seem like the majority support not linking it, which has in the past been the agreement I've always worked under.--Crossmr (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Likebox and tendentious re-insertion of original research

I apologize for the length of this post; the incident has been on and off for several years, so a thorough description is necessarily somewhat long. Brief summary: this is essentially a case of "I didn't hear that" regarding WP:OR. Discussion has been attempted several times to no avail, and so I am requesting an uninvolved administrator to review the situation.

User:Likebox (talk · contribs) has, in several incidents since 2007, inserted what he calls "modern proofs" into the articles Halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. These were removed because they give original interpretations of the material that cannot be sourced to the literature on the subject. Likebox acknowledges that his motivation is that he feels that the literature should have been written in a different way:

• [4] "There is nothing wrong with the proofs, except that they are different than the usual textbook presentations."
• [5]: "I agree that textbooks do not often mention quines in this context, but I feel that this is a pedagogical mistake."
• [6]: "The modern "literature" is textbooks, which are written by a different process than research papers, and are not generally very well written."

These arguments are parallel to the arguments he made in 2007, such as [7] "Wikipedia is a place where certain questions need to be resolved. What constitutes a valid recursion theory proof is one of those questions. ... Textbook proofs are reworked by secondary authors, and they are, as a rule, the worst proofs in the literature."

Numerous attempts have been made to resolve this via discussion. Some of the older discussions are at:

• Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems/Archive 3 (November 2007, starting with the section "modern proof")
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#Formal statement redux (November 2007)
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#What Is A Rigorous Proof? (November 2007)
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#Likebox edits (March 2008).

Likebox acknowledges that, when he inserted this material before, it did not gain consensus [8]. He now says he is making the edits to make a point, to press his case for a proposed guideline [9] .

When Likebox inserted the material again this month, the matter was raised at

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Halting_problem_and_Likebox
• Wikipedia:NORB#Halting_problem_and_Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

Several editors in these two discussion pointed out that the novel proofs should not be added [10], [11], [12], [13] (not counting those who said this the last time it was added), and consensus is against including the material that Likebox has added. Nevertheless, Likebox reverted his edits again today [14]. Likebox has said he plans to continue doing this [15].

Because the consensus against adding this material that developed both in past discussions and in the more recent discussions has failed to convince Likebox to stop adding this material, I would like to ask some uninvolved administrator to review the situation. Likebox appears to be a productive editor apart from these two pages, so perhaps a topic ban would resolve the continued disruption he brings to those pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What is exactly the problem with including a novel derivation that is more accessible (apart from it violating the usual wiki rules)? Novel derivations, albeit usually quite simple derivations, are given in many wiki physics and math articles. Count Iblis (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC

The issue here is not that Likebox is expanding or rewriting proofs from the literature in his own words. The problem is that Likebox is simply ignoring the literature, and rewriting everything the way he wishes the literature was written, As I said, this has already been discussed at great length, which is why I am bringing this here, since Likebox has apparently ignored numerous explanations of WP:NOR over a period of years. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but what Likebox is not doing is modifying the standard proof that is in the article, he is adding a new section for a "modern proof". At least that is what I see here. The way this is written suggests that this actually is the modern proof, while in fact it is Likebox's proof. To me that would be the main problem with the text and not any OR policies (I've violated OR on similar grounds in many articles).

If it were up to me, I could live with a rewritten version of Likebox's text such that it is immediately clear that it is an alternative proof that can only to be found here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Right: the text suggests it is the modern proof, while it is really simply Likebox's original interpretation of how the theorem "should" be proved. But if this alternative proof can only be found on Wikipedia, then it violates WP:V and WP:NOR. This has been explained to Likebox by numerous people, which is why I opened a thread here. Simply pointing out that the proof is not permitted because of WP policies has not discouraged Likebox from adding it over and over. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, Iblis? That would make it a textbook case of WP:OR. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

CMB, I think Likebox would argue that the whole point of the proof is to make Gödel's theorem verifiable from first principles to interested Wikipedia readers. The proof itself is then not the main subject, it is merely an argument that shows why Gödel's teorem is true. That's also how I have defended including original derivations in other wiki articles. But you can make the proof itself to be the subject of the article that then has to be verifiable itself from citations to the literature.

I agree that a consensus needs to exist among the editors before this can be done. An alternative could be that Likebox creates a Fork of the article. He can then write up his proof there, but then in such a way that it is clear that the article is an accessible self contained proof that is not similar to what can be found in the literature.

JoshuaZ, In practice we do allow original derivations in wikipedia even though, strictly speaking, this violates OR. I raised the problem a few times on the OR talk page and I was always told that I could invoke IAR. The OR policy was not going to change any time soon to legalize what was going on on a small number of pages. Count Iblis (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if we were to allow OR in this case there's nothing resembling either a consensus to do so. Indeed, all the regular math editors who have weighed in don't want this included. As such an individual who has not weighed in let me add that I agree. Indeed his presentation if anything obfuscates what is going on in Godel's theorem. The primary issue that we should be discussing in this thread is what to do with this user not whether the content should be included. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We could tell Likebox to put his proof for the moment on a subdirectory of his talkpage so that he can work on it to make it acceptable from a purely mathematical perspective (disregarding OR). That would solve the immediate problem. The OR issue can be dealt with later. Count Iblis (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Count Iblis, 1) Wikipedia, including Wikipedia user space, is not a venue for developing original proofs of anything (some synthesis from published proofs is necessarily accepted, but that's not what we're talking about here). If Likebox wants to publish new proofs, that's what journals and textbook publishers are for. 2) As CBM says, Likebox's attempts to insert his own research into those articles has been going on for years, so a compromise involving writing them in userspace doesn't sound likely to hold up. 3) The basic problem with Likebox's "proofs" is that they are bogus (see the RFC response from 2007, particularly Hans Adler's remarks) in terms of both content gaps and presentation.

See also the declined arbitration request involving Likebox (and yourself) just a couple weeks ago [16] where User:OMCV, a knowledgeable chemistry editor, proposed a long term block against Likebox. Likebox is highly intelligent and is fairly small fry compared with Wikipedia's worst problem editors, but he disrupts several specialized areas whose editors really have better things to do than deal with him. Some kind of editing restriction definitely seems to be in order. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The "declined arbitration request involving Likebox (and [OMCV]) just a couple weeks ago [17]" was declined because an amicable resolution was achieved. Likebox's derivations are useful and no different from hundreds or thousands of proofs elsewhere in Wikipedia. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael, if Likebox and OMCV have worked out their differences, that is great, though I'd be more assured if OMCV said so directly. Likebox's derivations are not the same as "hundreds or thousands of proofs elsewhere in Wikipedia"--can you identify a single other proof in Wikipedia that so radically departs from published proofs of the same fact, in both substance and style, and has been rejected repeatedly by consensus of knowledgeable editors, but has still stayed in WP? It's true that math editors often (sensibly) go along with it when a math article says something that isn't in a textbook, as long as what is said is correct and is generally fits the standard approaches. That doesn't even slightly describe Likebox's "proof", whose basic motivation (that the textbook proofs are no good) is fundamentally wrong, in addition to the proof itself being mathematically wrong, and whose presentation in the article was just plain ugly, and was found by consensus to not be appropriate for the article. The proofs of the incompleteness theorem found in logic textbooks are perfectly good, and they are studied and understood without undue trauma by many thousands of undergraduate math and philosophy students every semester. Their only problem is that Likebox doesn't like them. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

<-- As an involved administrator I wish to make a point. This is not an isolated incident. Likebox has been doing the same type of thing in a totally unrelated article called History wars. Another article where he has expressed a strong opinion on the, and rather than attempt to compromise over the issue and work through the edits he would like to add sentence by sentence, he has resorted to re-adding the text every so often with comments on the talk page such as

• "This means we need to have a big change, and go on from there. I have made an attempt at a big change. I will do so periodically until it sticks. Likebox (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)" (see Talk:History wars/Archive_2#Large Changes/Incremental Changes, Talk:History_wars/Archive 3#Large Changes, Incremental Changes,)
• "Listen, those sources don't google, and I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books many times over. This statement is designed to comply with undue weight. I am not adressing my comments to you, because it is not possible to convince people like you of anything, you must be suppressed by force of numbers Likebox (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"[18]
• "Again, there is no point in talking to people like you. You must be put down by force of numbers.Likebox (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"

No only has he made these threats but he carries them out by periodically making large changes to the article: e.g., and by insisting that large amounts of material that he has written to the talk page is not archived but each time is copied back to the start of the talk page, [19], he is disrupting the usual development of new conversations on the talk page.

These two disputes on articles about very different subjects are not about content, but are about how Likebox fails to handle consensus building and is disrupting the project. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Rossnixon also behaves in a similar way on the Global Warming page and perhaps also on other wiki pages. But he is not editing there very frequently, so it is not really a problem. No one is arguing that he should be banned. He is not behaving like Scibaby, neither is Likebox. Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually Likebox seems to be a very nice guy and generally seems to have very reasonable opinions. (Which doesn't mean that I always agree with him about everything. I don't.) He just seems to be a bit too stubborn when he realises that he is pushing against a consensus. But he is open about this and I haven't seen him use any dirty tricks. Hans Adler 16:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-nagging

Since some people are talking about my edits, let me try to explain. There are three accusations above about my nagging:

1. Godel's incompleteness theorems/Halting problem
2. History Wars
3. Quantum mysticism

3 was resolved by a fork, and everyone seems to be OK with it for now. OMCV has said "I can live with this text" on the forked quantum mind/body problem page. So that's done with. No more nagging.

2 is a big issue. Wikipedia needs to be mindful of racially offensive historiography. On U.S. history pages, this is dealt with reasonably well. On Australian history pages, there are cases where a Eurocentric point of view is presented without counterbalance. This means that I periodically nag the editors on that pages, leaving behind a trail of sources. I only do it when they archive the discussion, because the issues are not resolved. The nagging is just to alert any interested editor that if they wish to contest this historiography, they will find at least one supporter.

1 is the main issue, and it has come up before. Why do I keep nagging here? One reason is that I can't be sure what consensus will be once people understand the proofs. This is the third time I've put it up. The first time, it stayed for months. The second time, it was deleted, but at least people understood it is correct. This time, the issues have been clarified to the point where I know everyone's position.

I don't like this consensus, not because the text I wrote is so great, but because I am pretty sure that if Wikipedia can't give a simple proof of Godel's theorem, it's going to be a problem for other logic articles. There are a ton of proofs in the literature that are more obscure today than they should be, because the language has not been properly modernized. The method of injury/priority is by now over 50 years old, and still is obscure enough that people are discouraged from using it.

The only editor who pretty much fully understands the text and strongly opposes it is CBM. His position is that text on Wikipedia should follow the consensus of textbooks. Needless to say, I think this is an absolutely terrible idea. Other editors have opposed the proof for other understandable reasons.

I do agree that there might be a some issues with the proof as written. The reason I wrote it in exactly this language is mainly because I have been "talking" this proof to people for many years, and it has ossified in my mind, but also so as to prove the Rosser version of the incompleteness theorem easily, which I don't know how to do easily in other ways. As Michael Price has said, the real issue here is that the proofs in the literature are never self-contained. They always refer you to some other theorem, and some other theorem, and this is a disservice to someone who wants to learn the proof quickly.

In these cases, the policy of WP:ESCA suggests that text that only fills in intermediate steps in a proof is OK, so long as the statement of the theorem is OK, the main idea is sourced, and the intermediate steps are verifiable from first principles. This is true of the proofs I am suggesting. I could place them somewhere else, but there is no guarantee that they will stay up. Also, I am hoping that someone who likes the proof can speak up. There used to be supporters in the past, who have drifted away (also opponents).

I believe that this issue will be resolved one day, when a clear proof of the theorem is up. Until then, I nag a little bit, very infrequently, to keep the issue alive.Likebox (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox, your statement "I can't be sure what consensus will be once people understand the proofs" presupposes that people don't understand the proofs now. That is bogus: 1) if your proofs are so hard to understand, what business do you have claiming them to be better than the textbook proofs that people do understand? 2) Your notion that people other than CBM don't understand your proof is wrong. I'm sure Hans Adler understands it. I understood it (the 2007 version, I haven't bothered looking at more recent ones). I'm sure plenty of other editors involved in that article understood it too, and found it unsuitable for the article. If your proof is so great, why don't you send it to (say) American Mathematical Monthly, and if they publish it, Wikipedia can cite it? The issue here is not that you have bestowed on us a new and wonderfully clear proof foolishly rejected by Wikipedia's hidebound bureaucracy clinging to stupid rules. Wikipedia's more active math editors are smarter than hell and they are quite capable of ignoring rules with the best of them, when that's the right thing to do. This is not one of those times. There are other online encyclopedias like SEP, which don't have Wikipedia's policies against original research, because they rely on recognized expert referees to make content judgements similar to how a journal does. I don't think SEP would accept your proof, so I don't think Wikipedia should accept it either. If you submit it there and they accept it, then we can revisit the issue. Otherwise, stop beating the dead horse. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue of "experts" is a red herring. This is mathematics, and it is trivial to check when a proof is correct. Correctness is not the issue anymore, it is originality.

I apologize for interspersing comments: while I agree that most of the mathematically minded editors (including Trovatore and Hans Adler) did understand the proof very quickly (Trovatore noted an error in the original version of the Rosser proof within a few minutes, which I quickly fixed), there were also several very loud voices that did not understand the proof, and the debate with them drowned out any reasonable discussion for a long time. All these people are gone, and the people that remain understand that the proof is accurate.

While the proof is very easy, this is exactly why many non-mathematical people thought it must be wrong. It's too simple to be correct. The reason I started editing the page is when I saw a comment on the talk page from years ago that said "The lay person will never understand Godel's incompleteness theorem". And I thought to myself "Why not?". I expected that a simple proof would make people angry, precisely because it sidesteps a lot of notation and terminology that people who write about the theorem would like to pretend are necessary.

The question of originality is difficult to address. I know that this proof of Godel's theorem by itself is not original. The Rosser proof is borderline for Wikipedia, but it is not original either for a journal. You can go on, however, to prove a few new theorems in the same style, and if enough of these are found, the result might be suitable for a journal.Likebox (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your post above is mostly wrong:

1. Your proof of the incompleteness theorem is in fact not correct, in that CBM explained that it has a large gap.[20] While it doesn't actually prove something that's false, a famous description that comes to mind is that it's not even wrong. That is, your "proof" is not a proof.
2. Checking when a proof is correct is certainly not trivial (as your own inability to do so shows), except possibly for the case when the proof is completely formalized and can be checked by computer. Quite a lot of undergraduate math education (e.g. introductory real analysis) is mostly geared towards teaching how to write and check proofs, and at this point I don't have the impression that you are so hot at it. See Thurston[21] p. 8 for more discussion of the cultural acclimation process necessary to understand what an acceptable unformalized proof is. That acclimation is what Hans Adler was describing in his RFC response, I think, and it does not seem to me that you have absorbed it enough, thus the resistance you get. ( Remember also that Gauss famously gave the first "rigorous" proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra in 1799, only to have a gap discovered in it ~150 years later. Checking proofs is also (part of) why math journals have those referees that you sneer at. A lot of the early development of mathematical logic was precisely an attempt to pin down exactly how to check a proof. Don't trivialize that which is not trivial.)
3. As an aside, formally proving the incompleteness theorem is in fact rather complicated: see [22]. You will see the formalization cited spent considerable effort addressing the issues CBM described and which you simply handwaved.
4. Showing non-OR-ness on the other hand is trivial: just cite a textbook or published article giving a similar proof to yours, and establish notability for it by the usual means. That you haven't given such citations is a strong sign that your proof is OR.
5. Even if your proof was completely fleshed out and checked, the amount of space you want to devote to it in the article is ridiculous. If it were published in a journal, I'd support adding a sentence to the article like "Likebox has given an alternative proof using Turing machines" with a citation, but anything more than that would be undue weight since the proof is so unorthodox. Of course that would change if textbooks and journals started switching to your style of proof in large numbers, but not until then.
6. I am glad that you acknowledge that mathematically-oriented editors other than CBM also understood your "proof". I just looked at the current version of Talk:Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems and not a single one of those editors supported inclusion. Trovatore, Zero Sharp, Arthur Rubin, and Paul August all spoke against inclusion. Hans Adler didn't weigh in, so I assume his view didn't change since last time. While a few editors like Count Iblis liked your proof, none of them as far as I can tell have shown any familiarity with the existing logic literature including the usual published proofs. With no disrespect intended to those editors (we all have our own areas of interest), the notion of deciding what to include in Wikipedia based on such uninformed judgement is squarely in WP:RANDY territory and is precisely what the NOR policy is designed to prevent. We are trying to write an encyclopedia whose contents are acceptable by professional standards, so while I can understand a case for inclusion if someone like CBM thinks it's ok, it's completely different if only some less informed editors (anyone unlikely to be given the responsibility of refereeing such a proof for a journal) think it's ok.
7. Also, your continued harping on the proposed ESCA guideline to shoehorn your bogus OR into Wikipedia is shaping up to be a strong argument against accepting that guideline. If the proposed guideline supports including your OR when informed consensus says it's bogus, the proposed guideline is no good and should be rejected.
8. Finally even if your proof is correct and backed by citations, there is more to the suitability of a given proof than mere correctness. It was a big deal when Erdős and Selberg found arithmetic proofs of the prime number theorem when there was already an existing proof, because the old proof used complex analysis which while correct was considered mathematically unsatisfying. It's of course a subjective matter, but your own proof's excursion into Turing machines for something that can be done directly with arithmetic could be seen as similarly unsatisfying. I am confident that the logicians who wrote the existing textbooks that you don't like, knew perfectly well what Turing machines are and could have written machine-based proofs if they felt like it. They used the approach they did because they found it more tasteful or appropriate. It is not persuasive seeing you attempt to substitute your own judgement for theirs. You are trying to override not only the NOR policy, but the neutrality policy as well, in wanting to present a fringe-ish proof in place of a mainstream one. That, I think, is what CBM is getting at by staying to stay with the consensus of published sources. You cannot be the arbiter of what the best of the available correct presentations is, never mind that you want to use an incorrect one.

You are one of the reasons why I lost interest in editing the incompleteness theorem article a couple years ago. CBM has a fact-based writing style where he rarely expresses personal opinion about anything, and I can't speak for him, but that he finally brought this issue to ANI after all these years makes me theorize that he is quite fed up. So, I continue to support his call for an editing restriction against you. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) Hey, Mr. anon. you are totally wrong.

1. CBM's "explanation" is totally unfounded. The gap"he pretends to find is the exact embedding of a computer into arithmetic, meaning, how do you take statements like "R halts" and turn them into statements about integers. This "gap" is not a gap at all, but a painfully obvious statement which is easy to prove. It is precisely because this is much easier to prove than anything about logic that I chose the presentation that I did. CBM is resistant to doing things in any way but the textbook way. That's legitimate. But even he doesn't pretend that there is any inaccuracy in the proof anymore.
2. Perhaps it's not trivial for you, but I don't find it difficult at all, and neither do any of the editors at Godel's theorems. They have checked the proof, and all of them agree that it is correct, with the exception of Arthur Rubin, who might or might not. N.B. Gauss's proof does not have a gap in it. His proof is that the winding number of the map z->z^n + lower order is n at infinity, and winding number is additive under bisection of a region. This proof was correct, and has stayed correct until the present day, ignorant opinions nonewithstanding.
3. Proving Godel's theorem is easy--- provided you do it exactly the way I showed.
4. Blah blah OR blah blah. No proof of Godel could be considered OR today. Period. It's too well understood.
5. The amount of space is just right, since it is a complete, self-contained, easy-to-understand proof of the theorem. That is important on a page called "Godel's incompleteness theorems".
6. Yeah, yeah, but all of them now agree that it is correct. Other editors in the past have criticized it 'because they thought it was incorrect. Many of the editors who like this method are just keeping quiet. With time, consensus will become "include", because that is true. It's just a question of when.
7. Yeah. It's not obvious. ESCA takes a little while to appreciate.
8. Dude, all the current textbooks use Turing machines to prove the incompleteness theorems. You should not edit the page if you don't understand this elementary fact. It is good that you were driven away.

In fact, one of the nice things about rephrasing proofs in different ways is that it lets you see if you really understand the theorem. If you truly understand the proof, then it doesn't matter how you phrase it. In this case, the proof I am giving is just a minor restatement of the usual proof in textbooks, but making it self-contained, and not shying away from using explicit computer programs.Likebox (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox (re item 2), Stephen Smale, one of the foremost mathematicians of the past century, wrote:

I wish to point out what an immense gap Gauss's proof contained. It is a subtle point even today that a real algebraic plane curve cannot enter a disk without leaving. In fact even though Gauss redid this proof 50 years later, the gap remained. It was not until 1920 that Gauss's proof was completed.

(Citation: Smale 1981 here). Of course the gap is very famous and many others have written about it too, as you are apparently well aware. That you would consider someone like Smale to be "ignorant" and yourself to be a better evaluator of proofs shows the boundlessness of your arrogance and incompetence. As far as I'm concerned, it establishes that you have zero credibility about anything. So I've had enough, and will not bother replying to the rest of your similarly erroneous crap. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Smale is talking about the Jordan curve theorem, which states that a closed continuous curve in the plane has an inside and an outside. This theorem can be proved using the winding number of a continous curve, much as Gauss proved the fundamental theorem of algebra. To say that Gauss did not prove the Jordan curve theorem in his winding number argument is disingenuous. It is applying standards of what 20th century mathematicians find interesting to 19th century work.

In the 20th century, the Jordan curve theorem became a subject of intense study, because it was related to the formal axiomatization of topology. The proof of the Jordan curve theorem for differentiable curves is not difficult, and can be done using mathematics available to Gauss. In fact, this proof is just the winding number of Gauss. A point is on the inside of a differentiable curve if the winding number of the vector from the point to the curve is equal to 1 (or -1). The point is outside if the winding number is 0. The definition of the winding number, the proof that it is additive, and the division lemmas were well within the standard mathematics of Gauss's day.

But the proof of the Jordan curve theorem for continuous curves without assuming differentiability, is more subtle, because continuous curves can be complicated. They can have positive lebesgue measure in the plane for instance. To prove the theorem for continuous curves requires a good axiomatization of topology, which allows the winding number to be made into a homology or a fundamental group. These advances required the late 19th century axiomatization of limits and calculus, which were unavailable to Gauss.

When Smale says that Gauss had a gap in his proof, what he means is that the Jordan curve theorem, and the notion of winding number, were not properly understood in the broadest possible context until the early 20th century. But it is uncharitable at best to call this a gap in Gauss's proof. Gauss was only dealing with the winding number of a highly differentiable object, and he could have defined this winding number by an explicit integral. It is not right, in my opinion, to blame a mathematician for not focusing on the broadest possible statement of a lemma used in his proof, especially since Gauss's proof was a stimulant for the development of topology in general over the next hundred years.Likebox (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Like box you wrote: "On Australian history pages, there are cases where a Eurocentric point of view is presented without counterbalance. This means that I periodically nag the editors on that pages, leaving behind a trail of sources." In this ANI we are discussing a page called "History wars" which is about a debate taking place in Australia. As you threatened you would on the talk page you periodically revert the article content to a version of the text you wrote. Such threats and the actions are considered on Wikipedia to be disruptive, particularly when you have consistently refuse requests to go through you additions sentence and address the issues raised in those discussions. You have been asked on numerous occasions to produce sources eg:

If you have sources that you can cite showing that comparative genocide scholars have been using Tasmania as a defining example of a genocide "ever since" the 1940s, i.e. they were saying it in the 1950s, the 1960s and all the way through to the present day, let's see them. Not just vague phrases like "repeated in several sources" but give us verifiable citations, otherwise, how about you just admit you can't support your preferred wording with appropriate sources and we go on from there. Webley442 (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Listen, those sources don't google, and I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books many times over. This statement is designed to comply with undue weight. I am not adressing my comments to you, because it is not possible to convince people like you of anything, you must be suppressed by force of numbers.Likebox (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

— Talk:History wars/Archive 3#Genocide debate

But instead of doing so you threaten and revet to unsources versions. It seems to me from reading what 66.127.54.181 has written that your behaviour over several unrelated articles is similar. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, and in doing so after it has been pointed out to you that you must produce sources to back up all your controversial claims precisely (i.e. with no synthesise), you are sill inserting disputed text into articles. -- PBS (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To PBS: You are talking nonsense. It is absolutely true that everywhere outside of Australia, the Black War has been a defining example of genocide all through the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and today. The source I gave you "The Last of the Tasmanians" should have settled the issue as far as the inaccuracies in Windschuttle. This is just the latest source, in addition to Lemkin's notes, the detailed analysis of Lemkin's notes by another scholar, Rashidi's book, the countless web pages, the academic articles by Madley, the academic articles by Ryan, and the textbook on Genocide by Tatz. All these sources, and on the other side is Windschuttle, and a couple of right-wing Australian revisionists, most of whom don't contest what happened.

I urge anyone here to look over the page, the discussion, and the archived discussion. It is painfully obvious that there is no proper coverage of the majority of sources on the Black War, and there will not be so long as several editors gang up on whoever inserts it.Likebox (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox I note (and I hope others have) that you do not deny that you have repeatedly edited in your large changes to the article history wars after making threats (more than once) on the article's talk page that: "I have made an attempt at a big change. I will do so periodically until it sticks." without any support on the talk page for the edits.

I did not raise the issue of edits to the history wars to open up another forum to discuss the rights or wrongs of the sources. I did it to highlight a pattern in your failure to act within the acceptable methods of consensus building in the Wikipedia project, which appears to span several different subjects and involve several different groups of editors. -- PBS (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. You are (and have been) consistently editing against consensus in a number of articles. As Hans Adler quite generously and correctly points out, you are doing it 'in the light' and not resorting to (for example) sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry to push your agenda. That is, doubtless, to your credit. Nonetheless, you have by your own admission continued to edit against consensus and what's more pledged to continue to do so. Despite how much you would like to portray yourself as the Innocent Victim of the Big Bad Wikiocracy, (and, as an added bonus, portray those people who disagree with you as idiots who Just Don't Understand You. The very arrogance!) you are quite simply being disruptive. Period. Therefore, it's time (long past time) for sanction, an edit restriction, something. You've managed to exhaust even Carl's legendary patience. Enough is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.145.148.154 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have invited User:OMCV to comment here.[23] 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Its true that I reached text "I could live with" when trying to edit with Likebox but the process took far to long. It was a little more than two months for something that should not have taken more than two days. Honestly I think it was the threat of arbitration that ultimately pushed him into a reasonable frame of mind in line with WP policy. The text we disputed currently exists as a compromise, a compromise which I believe still contains implied OR that Likebox has "owned". Its a compromise because it isn't worth fighting over. I mostly definitely found Likebox's editing style/comments disruptive and exhausting. I made my case against Likebox's activities on quantum mysticism and it was declined in the given context. If anyone wants to review my concerns when exploring or establishing an editing pattern or history they only need to look here. I offer this comment because it was requested and my interaction with Likebox have been discussed in a few places. With that said, I do not wish to participate in the discussion further. I plan to do my best to avoid Likebox now and in the future.--OMCV (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Editing against consensus" means that I have brought the issue of Godel's theorem up once every year and a half, to see if consensus changed, and made an argument on history wars every time they tucked away the previous talk page discussion into premature archive. That's not particularly inflammatory.

OMCV and I have no more dispute.Likebox (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still editing against consensus if you add it, even once, after it's reverted. Shall we reach an agreement that you are subject ot 1RR every 2 years in regard the material you continue to add against consensus, or as to "testing the consenus". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's editing against past consensus with a goal of changing this consensus in the future. I only persist in doing this when consensus is absolutely ridiculous, and must change if this project is not going to become a joke. I shall not reach any agreement with you on anything.Likebox (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed editing restriction

When I started this thread, I was not aware that there were similar issues on other pages. Now it appears that the same sort of problem has happened on other topics. Given the number of editors who have commented here that Likebox should pursue a different method, perhaps an editing restriction would be enough to resolve this thread. I would suggest the following:

If Likebox adds material to an article that is later removed with a claim that the material is inappropriate, Likebox is prohibited from adding that material again until clear consensus in favor of the material is established on the talk page of the article.

This would still permit Likebox to edit normally and discuss things on talk pages, but it would address the primary difficulty, which is that Likebox continues to insert the same material long after it is clear there is no consensus for it. Moreover, the proposed restriction still allows consensus to change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a pity. I would be in favour of an article on for instance the computer program approach to Gödel's proof. But sticking in 8k of own's idea of better pedagogy is just not right. One needs to stay reasonably close to what is actually done in published sources. He should go an write wikibooks or wikiversity if he wants to do that. And by the way I believe writing a long spiel obscures the points if any in an argument. Dmcq (talk)

I think this 0RR restriction should be limited to articles on philosophy and to articles on mathematical logic. I don't think it is necessary for articles on ordinary physics topics, like e.g. quantum field theory, special/general relativity etc.. On those type of pages, someone like Likebox repeatedly reverting the page would be ok., because from time to time cranks appear who add (subtle) nonsense and for outsiders it is not clear to see what the consensus really is (the pages are not always frequently edited). I think Likebox' professional working experience lies more in this theoretical physics direction. Perhaps the disputes we've seen with likebox is the typical case of the "arrogant theoretical physicist" trying to lecture philosophers and mathematicians (just joking). Count Iblis (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox's tendentiousness on talk pages is disruptive in its own right and I'd be happy if the restriction included it somehow, but whatever. DMCQ: Wikibooks doesn't want bogus OR either. If Likebox wants to publish his proof, he should write a journal article about it, I'm serious. (I think his present version needs patching up though). Count Iblis: I'm not involved in any physics articles but I see Likebox's antagonism of OMCV as an alarming thing, and the restriction should try to prevent recurrences of that.

Note: it looks like I inadvertently posted to this thread under two different IP addresses (my ISP connection must have reset yesterday without my noticing it), which I hope didn't cause confusion. 66.127.54.181 and this current address are both me. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this nonsense? There are two pages in question, both of which are shoddy. One page, History Wars presents a racially biased version of Australian history, the other page Godel's incompleteness theorems does not present a proof.

The 8k discussion is just the latest expansion of a very short text. The short text is found on User:Likebox/Godel_modern_proof. If you like it, write a short version. The reason I keep expanding it is because people keep deleting the short versions with silly comments.Likebox (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of Outlaw motorcycle club

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) is repeatedly reverting legitimate edits to Outlaw motorcycle club on the flimsy excuse of some unspecified "formatting" problem.[24], [25], and [26]. After long discussions at the article's talk page (and more), the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and then here at ANI (for outrageously deleting talk comments), several editors agreed that this information belongs in the article, and that the only question was one of what the wording ought to be.[27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32].

Delicious carbuncle ignored every request to offer any compromise wording or to collaborate in any way, Instead, they stonewall. Today, Delicious carbuncle is simply reverting edits, and has refused multiple requests to specify what the formatting errors are, or to simply go ahead and fix the supposed formatting problem.

What this comes down to is an editor who refuses to get the point. Bluffing about formatting errors is silly, childish, and disruptive. I'm requesting that this user be banned from Outlaw motorcycle club for a reasonable period of time as a means of encouraging Delicious carbuncle to edit constructively and to respect the consensus reached by other editors.--Dbratland (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And can this be reverted back to the way I left it without me also being dinged for a 3RR violation? Thanks.--Dbratland (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance at the recent history of the article and talk page will show that Dbratland has completely misrepresented the situation in his comments above. Formatting is not the issue, as Dbratland should be very well aware at this point. This diff and this diff should shed some light what is really happening. I've grown rather tired of Dbratland's tendentious methods, so I'll likely not comment further unless compelled to defend myself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Four separate statements about formatting problems: Here it says that my edit made"...no attempt to format them correctly." Then here you called my edit a "text dump;" i.e. there was some phantom problem with the of raw, unformatted text? Note that the edit summary says they don't wish to edit war; within an hour they violate 3RR. Again "text dump." That was a reference to my fifth offer of a new revision, and Delicious carbuncle again did not try to constructively offer any changes. Here, for the fourth time they said "There is somewhat more to this than the formatting..."

But now formatting is not the issue? You can't collaborate with an editor whose bluffs have be called on the Administrators' noticeboard just to get them to take half a step towards working constructively. --Dbratland (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be continued differing opinions over sources. Disruptive is a mischaracterization, though both editors need not edit war. Consensus (if there is any) isn't justification for warring. Grsz¹¹ 21:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a reading comprehension problem.

Delicious carbuncle read WP:TALK and apparently believes somewhere in there it says he is allowed to delete talk page comments. It makes no impression how many editors tell him you can't do that, and WP:TALK does not say what he thinks it says.

When told these three edits [33], [34], and [35] are a violation of 3RR, he simply denies and denies.

It goes a long way to explaining why he clings to the belief that I'm biased and trying to slant articles to make motorcycle gangs look good. I have this editor disputing with me what sources say, but this person will not listen to anyone who points out his reading of the words is mistaken. He decides it means what he wants, and then digs in and will not listen to anyone else.

That is why a ban is called for. Discussion does not work with Delicious carbuncle and consensus means nothing if it doesn't agree with him.--Dbratland (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbratland, I suggest you drop the whole "deleting talk page comments" accusations. There are legitimate reasons to remove other users' edits on a talk page, I've done it multiple times. DC thought that he was right to do so on that talk page, others disagreed, and he hasn't done it since. Bringing it up over and over again makes it look like you're just stirring up trouble to punish him, which isn't going to strengthen your claims. You're both edit-warring, and the way to resolve this is not through administrator action, but dispute resolution. -- Atama頭 22:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm bringing it up to point out how many times he had to be told he was wrong about WP:TALK. I can put up a half dozen diffs of how many different editors it took if that will help. My point is that I'm being told to work out my differences with a person who does not listen to sense. What am I supposed to do with him? I offered many variations on how to word the article, and it made no impression. I went ahead and made my changes without his input, and he reverted. We've had 3rd opinions five or six times. What's left? Can you talk to him? If you or anyone can make him be reasonable, I'll be happy. But again and again and again he has shown that he won't listen.--Dbratland (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'll get involved, I was going to suggest you take it up with WP:MEDCAB but since I volunteer there anyway I guess I can just give it a try. I can't help but feel there's a way to compromise without having to escalate this further. -- Atama頭 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC

I would appreciate it if you would like to try.--Dbratland (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Dbratland has evidently decided to continue to edit war even while this is at ANI and no further discussion has taken place on the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Even replacing one fact tag with three solid citations is a problem for you? Have you even looked up "Hollister riot" at Google books or the Google news archive? Ever? Books, articles and documentaries that say the so-called riot was sensationalized are a cottage industry. They quote a half dozen living eyewitnesses who say it was not a riot. Would you like 20 citations to support this single statement? I can do 20. Can you find even one source willing to defend the reporting of the incident? Even the SF Chronicle and Life magazine don't even try to make excuses for their abysmal coverage back then. I'm beginning to think you are totally unfamiliar with this subject and have not read the sources that go with it, which calls into question what business you have accusing me of bias or making blanket revisions to sections of this article. This is going beyond absurd.--Dbratland (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbratland, I owe you an aoplogy - I saw the edit summary of "replacing deleted citations, adding Yates1999" and didn't look closely enough at the diff. I assumed you had made yet another attempt to revert. I have no problem with your additions other than to suggest that it might be better use of your time to improve the main article at Hollister riot and direct readers there. Your tendency to include long quoted passages in citations is unusual and, given that I have already noted your tendency to selectively quote references, probably not a good idea. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your complaints are the only reason for the quotes.--Dbratland (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you were doing that well before I arrived on the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the "disruptive editing" of this particular article has been going on for quite some time. Anyone can skim over the history of the article and see a slow pattern of Dbratland pushing a POV of his onto this article. Slowly removing or altering sections dealing with the criminal aspect of the content, while selectively and misleadingly using references to push a pro image. Hooper (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And you are selectively ignoring all of my edits on many articles dealing with outlaw motorcycle clubs that do the reverse of what you accuse. Stop repeating this rubbish unless you are prepared to back it up. Find the diffs that prove your accusation and I will then proceed to bury them in diffs that show the opposite. You don't get to just go around making accusations against people without proving it.--Dbratland (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. That article's entire history is my proof. Hooper (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF does not work that way. You are blatantly, repeatedly violating the policy of AGF, and it needs to stop.--Dbratland (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, AGF states that it is fine with proof. This article is my proof. Hooper (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thousands of editors were putting quotes in {{Citation}}'s quote= field long before I came along. But the set of citations you were complaining about had no quotes until you decided to make an issue of them. The quotes in this case were for Delicious carbuncle's benefit.--Dbratland (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff V. Merkey

Resolved

 – Jvmphoto blocked for making legal threat. Guy looking into any relevant article/BLP issues. Best to handle this through email etc. Abecedare (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some more eyes on Jeff V. Merkey? There seems to be some tag-teaming going on to remove maintenance tags and insert self-promotional info. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP has been warned for 3RR violation and has refused to AGF as indicted by the comment above. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a sockpuppet account of the SCOX trolls. Leave the photos in the article is better with them. People need to know all sides of me, not just the opinions of the Merkey-hating trolls from Yahoo SCOX. The whole point of biographies of living persons is to enhance the content of an article. PLEASE. Thaknk. Jvmphoto (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Where are your sources, Mr. COI? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not what should be asked. Why did you delete the sources and content? QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What sources? I didn't see a single source in your edits. Never mind, I didn't see the primary sources at the bottom; that section is decet. Still, is there a reason why you're editing your own article again? And adding an unsourced DOB, unsourced spouse, unsourced unsourced unsourced? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You did delete several sources including sourced text. For example, you did delete this reliable secondary reference. "United States Attorney Press Release Mooney indictments".

Why are you saying I am editing my own article. Please strike you comment or run a checkuser. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidently Jvmphoto (talk · contribs) is Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is indefinitely blocked. Unless something has changed that I'm not aware of, Jvmphoto should be blocked on that basis. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I did some cleanup of the article, unaware of this discussion and JVM being indef blocked. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat, protected

Subsequent to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's block and FisherQueen's decline, Jvmphoto posted "everytime you block me or post more of these lies, you are violating a Court Order.", which seems to me to be unambiguously a legal threat. So I've protected his talk page (but not blanked it; another admin may choose to do so) to prevent further threats. Evidently he's au fait with the arbcom, Jimbo, and the Foundation, so he knows where to go to ask for an unblock, and he should be doing that on his main account anyway. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh FFS. Jeff always talks that way. He's also pretty much incapable of working with the Wikipedia community, so I will send him email asking him if there is any error of fact that needs correcting. He's not evil, actually he's a great guy with many good and steadfast friends in the tech industries who really respect him, but he is very passionate about some things and he has been royally trolled because he rises so readily to the bait. Oh, and that photo is the same as the one on his FaceBook profile, so is probably OK even if it was a joe-job (which it probably wasn't). Guy (Help!) 22:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've received a few unpleasant emails from JVM, but I'm keen to agree that he means well and just reacts badly to not being in control of a situation. I'd appreciate it if you let him know that personally, I have no hard feelings against him, but obviously on-wiki there are rules, etc. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this guy the one who said "I will sue you in a COURT OF LAW in Trenton, New Jersey"? Regardless of whether he means well deep down inside, we shouldn't give him further opportunities to go make legal threats on Wikipedia, not even if they're unintentionally hilarious. rspεεr (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That was someone else, the threats to sue and legal liability made by this guy aren't specific to location. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Epigraphist

More about the user page than the user (who is mostly retired): are lonely hearts ads appropriate for user pages? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:NOTMYSPACE. Tan | 39 16:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable outcome, but MFD would have been more appropriate. Stifle (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, outcome was inevitable. No need to be bureaucratic about it. Tan | 39 17:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think doing this was extraordinarily bitey, since only the last of the three paragraphs met this description--the first two were just quiet & polite complaints about feeling unwanted at Wikipedia. I'd like it undeleted and sent for RfD, where I will suggest giving him a chance to delete the paragraph. His last comment to article talk space was just 3 days ago and earlier edits were helpful. We talk about not discouraging new editors. This was the diametrically wrong response to an existing contributor who has done nothing else wrong here. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC) .

"I've pretty much given up on editing Wikipedia because it's a huge scam where the Big-Business-Government pays off head Wikipenazis to distort all knowledge to keep the public uninformed." This is quiet and polite? We have very different notions of "polite", then. If you want to take it to MfD, go right ahead. Tan | 39 18:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with DGG: the sentence Tan cites is the most venomous line on that page -- which, when all is considered, is mild for an "I'm outta here, lusers!" rant. Although I think he's wrong about us regulars being paid to edit here -- or else I'm the only one who hasn't received any remuneration for all of my work. (Then again, I do regret giving my bank account information to that guy in Nigeria; never did see any of the $650 million dollars his uncle needed help getting out of that country.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, DGG. Wikipedia is not a dating service. The person has some obvious issues, and we should not be encouraging such behaviors by restoring his user page. WP:THERAPY is a good essay explaining this sort of thing. MuZemike 18:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Epigraphist has been contributing for more than two years, and it is precisely his exposure to Wikipedia's rules which led to the current state of his user page. If I'd considered that he's likely respond positively if questioned I'd have gone nowhere near the dramaboard with this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing and propaganda by User:Ketabtoon

Resolved

 – article fully protected for 1 week - editors to attempt to reach consensus, I will remain on standby to assist.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ketabtoon (talk · contribs) is once again propagating WP:POV and WP:OR, this time in Afghan Mellat. He is deleting sourced and relevant material, proving that the "Afghan Mellat" party is considered ethnocentrist, nationalist, and racist. He removes a relevant source (from the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung) which explains that the founder of the party was fascinated by Nazi ideology. He also removes a relevant link to the homepage of the Socialist International, proving that although the "Afghan Mellat" party calls itself "social democratic", it is neither a member of nor accepted as such by the Socialist International. Tajik (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the article's discussion page. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

I already have. And I am not interested in any "discussion", when there is a clear act of propaganda for a fascist and ethno-nationalist party and ideology. It's already a shame that you knowledge the party's (and its founder's) liks to the NSDAP regime of Adolf Hitler's Germany, yet you say: "the source does not mention by which aspects of Nazi policy he was fascinated." So I am asking you here: is there any aspect of Nazi policy that YOU support? Tajik (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked the admins (or other parties involved) to refer to the talk page. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

User:Tajik is very disruptive, a racist and he should be banned. [36], [37] He has been blocked so many times but is still edit-warring, POV pushing, vandalizing pages and meatpuppeting. [38], [39] Since he's restricted from making over 1 RV, he instructed another Tajik to come to Wikipedia to revert pages for him. He may also be borrowing his account/passwords and using it. Tajik is engaged in ethnic war, he's obessesed with hating Pashtuns and he should be banned so Wikipedia can improve. Everything he edits is about ethnicity, he should be at least be restricted from editing Pashtun related articles.--119.73.4.170 (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

119.73.4.170 is the IP of banned User:NisarKand. This has been confirmed by admin User:Alison here: [40]. However, it's not really a surprise that this banned user is coming to support User:Ketabtoon. He did the same in Ghurids and Muhammad of Ghor (and of course vice versa). Tajik (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have fully protected Afghan Mellat for one week whilst you are both edit-warring over the content of the article. I have also reverted the obvious new vandal edits by IP 166.205.131.88 at that page. I have ignored the comments of the suddenly arrived 119.73.4.170 who does appear to be here only to disrupt. I will be watching the talk page for any supported consensual requests for addition/deletion of material to the article. I ask that you either reach agreement of NPOV content which does not provide UNDUE coverage of any particular area - or you walk away from each other to edit at articles with a different theme.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me for being disruptive. You're helping a racist editor to spread his racism. All I did was comment on Tajik and his actions here, this was not directed only to you but to all editors. Racism is just going to eat you live, it'll make your life very short.--119.73.6.149 (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Testing the waters

Hello there. Some of you may remember that a week ago, I was here asking for a summary reinstatement of my Twinkle rights. After a while, some level heads intervened, some explanations and suggestions were traded, and I decided to give it a two weeks and ask for a reassessment. All of it is here or in the archives for this page, if you are interested.

This is my one week "testing the waters" request. It is not a request for reinstatement (although that would be nice,) but a request for advice and guidence. I want admins and other skilled users to look over my actions in the past week and show me where I need to improve.

In the last week I made a few adjustments that you should be aware of.

1. I have been spending significantly less time in recent changes, only popping in occasionally after doing something else, and rarely spending prolonged time in RCP.
2. Instead I have been working with Featured Pictures, Valued Pictures, and Picture Peer Review. The regulars there have been showing me the ropes.
3. I am interested in GA nominations and to a lesser extent FA nominations for articles in the fields of East Asia, Politics, East Asian Politics, Video Games, and Role Playing Games. When I have longer periods of time (I.E. when I'm not using Wikipedia as a study break for midterms) I will be delving into that.

Please confine comments to edits happening in the week, I don't need to be chewed out twice over things I already have decided I made mistakes on. Also, please confine the discussion to one place, so I can copy it and save it. Thanks.   Nezzadar ☎   18:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not violently opposed to it, for one thing I think your picture work is fantastic and a big boon to the project, and I also think you mean well even when you made mistakes. I've looked at your interactions with new/anonymous editors over the past few days and I don't see any communication that was out of line. I'm still concerned about what occurred in this ANI incident, and your interaction with new editors in that situation. That did occur less than a week ago. But I don't see any problems after that time, so my only suggestion would be to keep doing what you've been doing. -- Atama頭 22:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, that was handled rather poorly. It was my first incident where it was almost entirely in a gray area. Was the user a sock? Was there bad faith? Ironically, the message I left on the talk page was my attempt not to bite the kid. I was trying to give him a message that would encourage him to contribute without jumping right into the chaos that that incident was. However I see where you are coming from, and I see how it could be biting. Another irony is that the reason I had to wing it was that I didn't have the warning bank from Twinkle. I know the warnings are at WP:WARN but Twinkle explains them much better and allows me to choose the best option. Thanks for the feedback Atama. Domo arigato gozaimasu!   Nezzadar ☎   23:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

836-character sig

Resolved

 – MFD closed as delete, user advised not to use signatures over 255 characters as this is considered disruptive and carries with it the risk of being blocked. –xeno^talk 14:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Launchballer (talk · contribs) has a signature which is based on an unsubstituted template. After numerous warnings and threats on his talkpage, from myself and a couple of admins – Rd232 / Stifle – (stretching back well over a month!), he was finally induced to change it. Whereupon it became 836 characters long, taking up 9 lines of my widescreen computer. He also insisted on using the (bright yellow) tag as the subject heading of every thread he started.

I informed him of this on his talkpage, where he responded with: My signature is [...] a measly twelve characters, and Don't tell me a five-line string of characters is nine lines long [...] HOW DARE YOU try to fool me. This message was signed with (you guessed it!) the unsubstituted template.

Given that he has ignored and quibbled with repeated requests to shorten his signature length so that it is fewer than 255 characters, and fits in the box at Special:Preferences as per WP:SIG, and that he has not edited Wikipedia at all (save for arguing about his sig) for over a week, may I request that he is blocked until he explicitly agrees to start obeying our policy? I'll inform him of this thread. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 19:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I used language like "HOW DARE YOU" because I can't believe for one minute your computer is widescreen when it takes up nine lines (Mine's also widescreen, and it takes up five lines) which means either yours is not a very good widescreen or you are lying through your teeth. Also, the reason for the truncation is to prevent too long an end result (which is what I've done). Given that, I'm not sure what I'm here for, especially that I cannot get that any more condensed.--Launchballer 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this is his trick... keeping the template and manually substituting it afterwards. And, for your information, it is taking up nine lines of my 1280x800 screen. If you want a screengrab, I'll take one. I am not "lying through my teeth". Block still requested. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 19:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

They're screendumps, not screengrabs. Here's mine:

File:Signature (Launchballer).jpg

Only 4+ lines

--Launchballer 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing five-and-a-half lines of code, and that's at 1650x1050 widescreen - clearly too much. Please reduce your signature to something that fits within the 255-character limit, or else someone may have to do it for you. Thank you in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you can find a way of shortening it WITHOUT touching the implemeted effects or removing the links, I'm happy to change it. But I don't know of any way.--Launchballer 19:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood what I've said. The code is far too long and has to be trimmed. You need to create a signature that fits within the limit; that may well involve giving up some of the features and links you've implemented. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm counting 8 on this standard-res monitor. I was pushing four when I started my RFA and was criticized there for sig length. Do yourself a favor and trim down the code. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Click for an enlargement.

(edit conflict) Well, here's my screengrab (don't be so petty about the term, Launchballer, and read this webpage). Count the lines yourself... I took the liberty of numbering them in the diagram to help you. And every other Wikipedia user manages to have their signature at a reasonable length, you are not a special case, you can too. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 20:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's seven and a bit here. Launchballer, your signature has too many links. Too many effects. There is no need to "condense" your sig - cut it down, because it's disruptive. A block is coming from someone if you don't respond constructively.  GARDEN  20:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts, not helped by the fact that adding a template and then substituting it afterwards doubles the number of edits you make to a page, which is itself ridiculous). Launchballer, you don't need all of the following (a) a fancy font (b) colours (c) class=explain (d) links to your contribution page (e) links to your email. Simple links to your user and talk page will do to start with; then add anything else you want until you reach 255 characters; then stop. It's simple, really. Otherwise, you will be blocked until you agree so to do. Bencherlite^Talk 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC) whose signature is the least fancy of all of those on display...

(stop edit conflicting already!)I have a 1360x768 resolution, and it takes up 7 lines of text for me... that's extremely excessive... I subst my sig, specifically from here, but I actually make an effort to keep it 255 characters or under... Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 20:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your current sig is more prominent than the text itself; Wikipedia is primarily about content not contributors, and your apparent ego is interfering in our writing of an encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about mine, or Lauchballer's? Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 20:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Was talking about Launchballer's, sorry for unclear antecedent. DMacks (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There's definitely a consensus here that the signature needs to be shortened; Launchballer, shorten your signature immediately or you will be blocked until it is changed. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, I would be the first to admit that my signature is long; I use a substituted template to manage and preview the code, it stands out, and probably takes at least four lines on a standard resolution such as Jeske's. However, my signature is still under 255 characters, nor do I sign with a transcluded template, which is expressly forbidden by the signature guideline. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yours takes up more like 3 in toto. Mine's 208 characters, and takes up 2½ lines.-Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec x3)Lauchballer, when you have to call out the end of your sig so others know where to start editing, it's too big. Besides the fact that it's not very useful. I'd make an attempt to contact you on your talk page but it's pretty hit-or-miss to click on your sig to find it. So, not only is it over the char limit, it fails to be a useful addition to the talkpage. Padillah (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And sorry if I've just triple edit conflicted anyone, but I've left a notice on Launchballer's talk page telling him to change his sig or be blocked. With unanimous consent here, it seems there's more than enough support for such a block if he continues to refuse to change his signature. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Block, change the template he's using to standard sig, then protected it until it can be bot-subst'ed. Wikipedia is not designed for WP:PEACOCKs. Physchim62 (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's possible he stopped editing; his last edit was over an hour ago. I would hold off on a block until we see him edit without chainging the sig. Other than that, I agree with my esteemed colleagues above - when you need a warning within the sig, it's too much. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Recently I have also had to change my signature, here is some advice. You do not need to declare the same colors four times, only once. Same with bold. Also, use the words red and cyan instead of the hexidecimal codes. See my sig if this confuses you.   Nezzadar ☎   20:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Try something like this:

Launchballer

• Or, even better, something like this: Launchballer (talk). The more outlandish the signature, the less likely it is that people are going to take you seriously. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Disagree I know of plenty of admins and trusted users with funky signatures. Atama, Tinuchurian, raeky, Durova, NuclearWarfare, etc. He is entitled to his quirkyness as long as it follows the rules.   Nezzadar ☎   23:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Actually a few years back with this basic sig the idea was to have something just a little bit different--slightly different shade of blue from the usual signature, different font that still displays well on most browsers. Eye-catching rather than flashy. And fwiw, a bad sig is more worthy of a trout than of a block. Let's get back to work. Durova³³² 02:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've taken this to MfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Launchballer, it might be a good idea to get one's name noticed for the quality of one's contributions and insights, rather than the length of one's signature. ;) Durova³³² 02:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the user's signature code page down to 270 characters (the software limit is 255). The appearance is maintained but the mouseover effects, email link, and html comments are gone. I think the MfD can be ended if the user can live with this change, and agrees not to make the code any larger. Perhaps protecting the signature page could enforce that somewhat. Equazcion (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The MfD seems to be heading for an outright delete anyway, which is probably for the best considering that it's crept back up by about 50% since you pared it down. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh and this is why I keep this page on my watchlist. I love the smell of chaos in the morning. Good luck solving this without a few MfDs, I tried. Equazcion tried. Durova suggested a trout instead of a delete, and... drumroll please... nothing.   Nezzadar ☎   13:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have since taken it down. Not to 255, but please bear in mind how high it was to start off with.--Launchballer 15:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just remember ... it must fit within the box on your My Preferences page. To paraphrase a famous trial: "if the sig don't fit, you must MfD-it" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The sig he signed with above is 247, so it's acceptable (we don't include the timestamp in char limit). –xeno^talk 15:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

TreasuryTag's signature | isn't so short either.

_{Naluboutes, Naluboutes}Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 17:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to use complicated markup as long as the final product is under 255 characters. Also, I don't think you're really one who should be talking about distracting sigs! –xeno^talk 18:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:TrueColour

Could somebody please block or firmly admonish this user? For the past several days, he has made hundreds of unilateral page moves without any consensus or discussion and likely against MoS. It's gonna take ages to clean. Several users including myself have already explained to TrueColour why what he did is wrong and needs to be reverted straight away. TrueColour disagrees with the concerns, which is fair enough, but when I start reverting the mess he reverted me back and is now accusing me of unconsensual page moves and edit warring. Could somebody put an end to this? I prefer not to block the user myself as I am Portuguese and his disruption has mainly affected articles on Portuguese municipalities and districts. All such articles, to be precise. A lot to clean. Thanks. Húsönd 19:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is in progress. I've asked TrueColour to stop his moves pending the outcome of the discussion. Can you hold off on moving any back yourself, Husond?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you offering to move hundreds of articles back after the discussion ends, plus redoing the changes made to those articles by other users while the discussion was taking place? It was an undiscussed non-consensual mass move, everybody discussing with this user agrees that it shouldn't have happened. If the user persists, it's disruption. The longer it takes to fix it, the harder the task will be. Húsönd 20:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving after edits doesn't remove those edits, so that argument doesn't apply.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately in this case it does. The editor didn't just move the articles, but also edited the first paragraph to have them conform with his moves and the subsequent duplication of the subject. Cleaning will involve moving+reverting. Húsönd 20:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph doesn't necessarily need to match the article title, though it's generally desirable. As long as he discusses and doesn't move anything else, I don't see that further action is needed. I've hinted that editing articles to match his desired naming scheme might be a Bad Thing as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not just that, but also insertion of sentences directing to new articles that the user effectively split and which shouldn't exist as separate. Hundreds of them. Again, the longer the changes stay in place, the harder it will be to fix. You can't protect hundreds of articles while a discussion is in place. If you really want to help, check the magnitude of his edits, investigate what he did and what needs to be undone, calculate the work that will take for that, and then maybe you'll realize that leaving everything as it is while a non-discussion takes place (because nobody else agrees with what the user did) is probably not a good idea. Húsönd 21:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be surprised if bots, redirects, and WP:AWB can't clean things up effectively enough. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Feel free to bring them on later. Húsönd 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The user doesn't need to be blocked and I'm not sure what you mean by admonish (sounds like some sort of official warning or reprimand, I'm not aware of anyone on here with that sort of authority short of going to RFAR). The move issue is a name (read "content") dispute. True Color's responses were a bit defensive and difficult but the comments that led to them were a bit bitey. Both sides should back off, cool off, and discuss the naming convention. A third party, maybe Sarek, may be able to help the two sides see each other's points of view as both sides have merit and deserve to be understood before anyone goes further or reverts all. The fixes are relatively simple in the event everything eventually needs to go back the way it was. Recommend close this thread and consider WP:MEDCAB if Sarek can't break the deadlock.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDCAB? Sorry, fixing this problem is already too much work, I don't think I would need a week of unproductive and insanely boring discussion on top of it. No, let's reach this compromise instead: I will not bother with this "content dispute" anymore, and Wikipedia has just gotten a few hundred disruptive-useless-split articles that damaged the original ones. All happy. Húsönd 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I must concur with Husond's opinion (I assume he asked me as somebody who does not cooperate with him, most of the time). This seems a remarkably useless series of splits, which move the articles on the actual towns to such unEnglish forms as Resende Municipality, Portugal, to make some point about there being an administrative division of the same name on a different level. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Doug, you found this to be "bitey"? Really? Maybe if you are going to go to the trouble of commenting here, you could be a little more specific about exactly what you are talking about. --John (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not find that comment bitey. I did find bitey: ignoring that editors are charged to Be Bold, listing a half-dozen or more places that the editor should have gone for consensus, most of which are rarely used for such discussions (I've never heard of posting an idea for a rename at the Village Pump), etc. But most importantly, my point was that ANI is not the place for this discussion. This is not the place to debate whether page moves were necessary and proper, even if they were were against consensus, past practice, etc. This is a WP:Dispute resolution matter and should be closed and taken elsewhere.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a dispute resolution. All users are welcome to be bold, but when the boldness is damaging and reported as such, persisting in this boldness counts for no less than plain disruption. Disruption that needs to be halted and fixed, not to be hindered by bureaucracy and complacence. Húsönd 06:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been halted, without blocking or admonishment. TrueColour has created Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Portuguese-related articles)#District names to discuss the subject, but I haven't seen you there yet.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

a) I got a life outside Wikipedia; b) I'm not joining any discussions unless his mess gets reverted. You can keep hundreds of damaged articles for as long as I care. Húsönd 18:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And I suggest that next time you look with a bit more attention because I'm actually there - Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Portuguese-related articles)#District names, on the thread right above the one you linked. Two seconds it would take to notice, but I admit that I should know by now that the time conceded by ANI peers is strictly reserved for deliberations. Húsönd 18:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I read that first, and in enough detail to see that you had not yet addressed the issue you're urging that TrueColor be admonished for.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Another evidence that you treated this case like a dead raccoon. Next time I won't bother to come here and I'll just get the job done. The WP:MEDCAB part was funny though. Húsönd 18:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors PhilthyBear and ScottRios being disruptive at Toronto

After a lengthy (2+ month) discussion involving pretty much every editor that showed on the talk page, a new skyline photo was chosen by an almost unanimous consensus (Though few editors participated, there was plenty of time to do so for those who chose not to). Upon attempting to change it, two editors (User:PhilthyBear and User:ScottRios have repeatedly undone the edit claiming it against consensus (which they did not participate in). I have reverted twice, and am temporarily withholding a third at this point until I get a go-ahead (Though I feel strongly that this should count as vandalism and not 3RR). The editors have failed to even comment on the talk page, and only revert the edits despite both my edit summaries mentioning the talk page discussion.

Diffs

• [41] My addition of consensus per talk page discussion
• [42] first revert by PhilthyBear with summary of "No one agreed to this picture. It's terrible"
• [43] first revert by myself with summary of "Actually all but one person in the talk page did. Please take comments there."
• [44] second revert by PhilthyBear with summary of "Actually it was only 3 people discussing the change. Hardly a consensus." (and continued to not participate in the discussion)
• [45] second revert by myself with summary of "Stop reverting against CURRENT consensus and take this to the talk page please. You don't discuss, you don't get your say." (which is true, if they will not discuss on the talk page then their say should be ignored as undemocratic)
• [46] revert by ScottRios with summary of "This is not a dictatorship User:Floydian. You have been reported for 3R's" (a rather snappy summary, without any comments on the talk page (the user did not report me for my 2 reverts)

• User:PhilthyBear has not participated at Talk:Toronto, and very few other talk pages, which shows a lack of cooperation with other editors
• User:ScottRios has only participated in discussion at Gangs in Canada, and never at Talk:Toronto

I am notifying these users now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • User:Floydian has committed 3R's and is disrespectful to other users. The Toronto page main image has been used for some time and is perfectly good. User:Floydian removed the picture after a lengthy incoherent discussion with 3 other editors most of which was personal chat. The image which he replaced the good quality image looks of poor quality and resembles a 1982 family photo quality. A coherent conversation on the talk page should take place and not personal chat with dozens of images posted. PhilthyBear (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

After having a quick look through the talk page I'd like to say that it appears that User:Floydian is in the right here. There is clear consensus (it's not his fault only a few users took part in the discussion) and despite anything else, that trumps all. There's no point in coming on to this noticeboard and saying he engaged in 'personal chat' when one can go to the discussion and see that is simply not true, I think there was a good quality, in-depth discussion about the subject in hand between editors that seem to take a keen interest in it, I think if anything it is one of the better talk exchanges I have seen. Also, if User:Floydian did revert the 3rr rule (I would argue he didn't, he was combatting vandalism, i.e. editors going against consensus) or was disrespectful then don't simply make that your response to this post because it simply looks like you're grabbing at straws, if he has played unfairly then start a new thread about his conduct. In summary, there is concensus to change the picture and what it should be changed to and therefore PhilthyBear and ScottRios should accept that and take any concerns to the talk page. RaseaC (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The point was also to draw more conversation in to the talk page, a point which PhilthyBear clearly missed (and given the quick removal of my post from his talk page (which is technically against policy I believe), has no interest in persuing). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is (although this is a source of controversy) acceptable to users to do anything they like with their talk pages, there's not much that can be done about it. However, it is gernally the sign of a poor editor. The user in question seems to have a history of clearing his talkpage due mostly, it would appear, to other users raising concerns about his questionable behaviour, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. RaseaC (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Also possibly not entirely relevant to this discussion, but are users ScottRios and PhilthyBear the same user using sock accounts to get around the three revert rule? Yes they are both Canadian editors so do share some article editing history, but their manners and turns of phrase sound identical, especially when it comes to mistakes. For instance ScottRios's edit summary here [47] is more than a little similar to Philthy's edit [48] here where they both accuse him of 3R's (erroneously I must add.) I think this bears looking into, though I'm willing to admit I could be wrong and go with AGF. Canterbury Tail talk 01:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Try to keep your points clear, the issue is disruption through multiple reverts and apparent refusal to discuss. Consensus can and does change and the fact that a perceived consensus existed is only important for supporting the need to discuss; in other words "we've had a discussion, so BRD isn't an appropriate method for editing here". A discussion between a small number of people does not "trump all". Also removal of comments on the user's talk page merely means that the user has read them.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally feel that if you don't speak, you don't get your say. Reverting is not a method of communication, and trying to have your say through reversion summaries is totally inappropriate behavior. I also feel I was pretty clear as I make the claim of vandalism and lack of communication in the first paragraph, before the diffs. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me just clarify two of my points you raised. Firstly WP works on consensus, and therefore if a group of people reach a consensus, then we work with what that group decides (in most cases). Simple. Secondly, an established, respected editor blanking their talk page of valid comments (lets forget vandalism here) is one thing (I personally would still consider that person a poor editor and not give them the time of day, but I would bare in mind their experience) an editor who devotes most of his time on WP to be disruptive and incivil who then goes on to blank their talk page is obviosuly a different matter alltogether. RaseaC (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruption at Race and Intelligence

Resolved

 – Nothing requiring admin intervention here. Manning (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor has claimed that he has problems with my edits at Race and Intelligence, but won't tell me what they are. Instead, he has offered to be wp:POINTY.[49] He complains that nobody else reverts me while making wild accusations that I want to circumvent consensus.[50] He also complains that I am a troll and a sock puppet. This has gone on for quite a while, but specifics are never offered.[51][52][53] Can someone step in and explain these issues to this editor? T34CH (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's add some balance here.

• I've never claimed T34CH was either a "sockpuppet" or a "troll".
• The "wild accusations" were on the basis of T34CH's own words.
• Rather than explain - which I have tried on numerous occasions - what I found to be "wrong", I simply edited the section in question. Thus, T34CH can see for himself.

There's no need to investigate anything here, as far as I'm concerned. But if an "investigation" is found warranted, I willingly submit to a full and impartial inquiry. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it was Occam and Fixentries who called me a troll. You simply thought I was a sock.[54] I'm confused how stating that I will "hopefully get consensus to rename it to something more meaningful and descriptive" is working to circumvent consensus. I'm not sure what there is to investigate. It's just that I keep asking for examples of your accusations against my edits and consistently get nothing. I hoped that someone here would be able to point this out to you as you don't seem to trust the other editors at R&I. I'm off line for a while now. T34CH (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I called you a problematic editor, not a sockpuppet. Regardless, can we stop with this here? I thought this was for informing admins of conflicts, not bickering between those involved. --Aryaman (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Mufka

What a big surprise!

Resolved

 – The only one with a big secret here is the OP, and even then it ain't a secret. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This user User:Mufka has a big secret. I asked one of the checkusers to scan Mufka's IP Address. That checkuser told me that Mufka has 2 sockpuppet named User:ISWAK3 and User:Peparazzi.Those sockuppets have very similar edits to Mufka. I reported this to Wikipedia:Sock Investigations but they did not believe in me. Please block these 3 users please. Thanks Kontrabida (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This is quite an allegation. Do you have any proof? Shared interests among several editors does not indicate sockpuppetry. Basket of Puppies 22:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Obvious trolling is obvious. A new user out of the blue seems to know what sockpuppetry and checkuser are? Fishy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud, an army of socks of User:GMA Fan have been raining down on Mufka's userpages as well as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mufka (which I had to semi-protect for blatant sock disruption). This is another one of those socks. Can we get a checkuser, please? It's obvious GMA Fan will not stop. MuZemike 22:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree with User:Kontrabida . Mufka is an administrator who blocks user that did not do anything wrong. I believe that Mufka should not be an admin at all. Especially, when Mufka has 2 sockuppets 166.129.142.64 (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • Speaking as a checkuser, no checkuser would state to a random user that an admin has undeclared sockpuppets. We'd email ArbCom and keep our mouths shut on the issue. However, I will be checkusering the both of you, Kontrabida and IP editor, shortly. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Really?! I have lots of proof that Mufka is ISWAK3 and PEprazzi. Mufka also blocks people that did not do anything. This user really needs to be block forever now!!! Kontrabida (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Liar. I'll be by shortly to block you for trolling. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ne'ermind; Hersfold whammied 'em. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Foster

Resolved

Not sure where else to go with this one, so I'll post it here... Can someone with a bit more experience than me cut back this article to something more encyclopedic, and talk to the article's author without standard templates. It's an article about a missing teenager, apparantly written by the teenager's mother. If notable, it probably doesn't need to be deleted, but I'm not sure how to explain it properly to the author... Singularity42 (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Meh. I prodded it. I don't think this would have a chance in hell even with cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This should be speedy deleted. Not only is it soapboxing, it's an egregious BLP violation concerning claims of criminal activity on the part of a third person, and just far too much linking to YouTube. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I did leave a note on the author's page; see here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll deal with this. Don't worry chaps! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's been dealt with by someone else, it seems. Resolved, anyway. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the article as a G10 right after I was blockblocked by Hersfold above :P -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

ChinaUpdater

Collapsing post

User:ChinaUpdater's repeated BLP violations ChinaUpdater (talk · contribs) continues to post BLP-violating rants at every venue he/she can possibly find. I have repeatedly tried to explain why they should stop, their screeds on multiple users' Talk pages have led to those users telling ChinaUpdater to quit posting them there, or on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied Artists International page, and I issued ChinaUpdater a final warning that if there were any more BLP violations, I would bring their conduct here, and yet, just as soon as I left the warning, AND after he/she replied to it, they posted this, a cut and paste rant which they're putting all over the place. ChinaUpdater got reported once already to the 3RR board for their repeated edit warring on Allied Artists International and SEVERAL related pages, but the page wound up getting protected instead of the user being dealt with. It's time for this to come to an end. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Can you provide more diffs of the BLP violations and what in those diffs is a vio>? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC) I can. Here [55]. ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC) China posted his screed on my talkpage. However he and I have been able to resolve that issue co-operatively and constructively, without the need for either of us to go blubbing to the Administrators. Crafty (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Death Threats, and Email requests Re "Can you turn on your email, even if temporarily, so you can email me? It's very important. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)"', I have received death threats, recorded by the LAPD, and in posession of the SFPD. I reported them to Agent McClatchy at the United States Secrete Service, Division of Bank and Wire Fraud, as well as to Detective Level II Barragan in the same office, both of whom I met with in person. Because of KDR's past "solicitation to commit murder", and other crimes to further his Allied Artist misrepresenations, I do not feel comfortable with giving my email, as I know from personal experience that there are problems with at least two admins related to something else entirely. ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC) ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Using Wikipedia to Commmit Fraud, other Death Threats I also called the number, which is in the links I put on the article page, for Robert L. Brosio, United States Attorney, Major Frauds Section, United States vs. Kimball Dean Richards, before the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case CR 88-411 (A) –R, about WarriorBoy85 and Wikipedia editors locking the phony company page of his in place, while people are purchasing shares in his company by being defrauded using the information on Wikipedia. ALL WARRIORBOY85 EDITS IN ARTICLES SHOULD BE BLANKED OUT FOR TWO WEEKS., before anyone is hurt in these coroporate frauds, and associated crimes, using wikipedia articles on Non Notables as a means of defrauding. There can be no harm done in blaning out even the Allied Artists Pictures Corporation article, even though it is owned in part by a 93 year old, computer illiterate man, who has done nothing wrong, but the article is in fected with WarriorBoy85 edits promoting the company of Kimball Dean Richards. I have already called, and reported in person, legal threats, "I warned you" threats, 'death threats, and other matters related to bank and wire fraud, and other frauds. The attempt to use Wikipedia to commmit stock fraud by creating the illusion of one company being another, as outlined in my many edits. I suggest that the VERY HIGHEST level of Wikipedia admins write these articles on these criminals, editors who are identity protected. It would be very wrong if the public information of the convictions would be allowed to be kept off of Wikipedia, as this ommission would in itself be a form of aiding and abetting. I provided links in many places to the New York State Corporations where anyone can see that Allied Artists Pictures Corporation is not linked to the '93 year old man I have written about on talk pages, nor in any way with Kimball Dean Richards or his Allied Artists, Allied Artists International, or any ohter of his criminal conspiracies to appear to be something that he and his companies are not. It is inexcusible that these NON NOTABLE articles should be locked in by Admins, which will only lead to more people being defrauded in stock purchases of this phony company, which is not Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, as can be seen by going to the links I have provided.ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC) ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC) "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit" Abce2|This isnot a test 00:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC) That's can, not should. Rodhullandemu 01:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC) I meant it for this comment, "I suggest that the VERY HIGHEST level of Wikipedia admins write these articles on these criminals, editors who are identity protected." Abce2|This isnot a test 01:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) Yeah, "The encyclopedia anyone should edit" just seems awkward. What would that even mean? Anyway, I don't really understand the OP's issue. Hopefully someone does. Equazcion (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia rules are not being followed, and the pages for these fraudulent, nonnotable companies, should eb blanked out before anyone else gets defrauded. Allied Artists Records is the company of a convicted felon, who has committed solicitation to murder, by his own admission in a plea agreement, as in th newspaper articles I provided. ChinaUpdater (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC). Why? Why don't you just remove the false info? Why delete an article that you just provided sources for?Abce2|This isnot a test 01:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC) You try going to one of the pages, and try to add or remove info on this convicted felon, who admitted to SOLICITING MURDERS [56] , and when I posted the newspaper links, the edits were massively deleted, and so was the whole article, leaving only the appearance that Kimball Dean Richards, or his Allied Artists, Allied Artists International, Allied Artists Records, etc., were really Allied Artists Pictures Corporation. Wikipedia is being used to commit Fraudulent sales in exactly the same way, but a much larger scale, as this gang did in the 80's, before going to the pen in the 90's. The guy got off with only three years probation for paying someone to murder his employee, being the son of a sheriff as he was, then commited mass fraud. Now he is with a company AGAIN posing as Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, using Wikipedia to promote and ADVERT his NonNotable company.ChinaUpdater (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC) What the hell is going on? Can we have a sane explanation for those of us not savvy with the facts? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC) I'm warning ChinaUpdater to 'tone down' his edits. This is simply disruptive. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Comment ChinaUpdater had been blocked indef by SarekOfVulcan for WP:DE. Best, Mifter (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC) If he can tone it down long enough to write a coherent unblock request, I won't oppose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of {{discussion top}}

I believe a note needs to be made in the edit notice for this page, along with other noticeboards. I just finished cleaning up a mess created by improper use of this template. It is placed below the section title, not above it, as if it is placed above it, then when the archival bot archives the thread above where the template was placed in, it takes the template with it, basically disrupting how the archives for the page look. Because the discussion top template was removed by the bot, we now have several unrelated threads hatted together as if they were related. This cannot be stressed enough.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600: continued problems

Between 20 March and 21 June, ArbCom took on a case examining the Obama articles in detail, and ended up finding (among other things) that Grundle2600 (talk · contribs)'s edit-warring was problematic, and as a remedy, imposed a revert limitation (1RR) for 6 months on him here. On 25 June, the community were still finding problems with Grundle2600's disruptive conduct, which resulted in the community imposing a 3 month topic ban on him from all articles relating to US politics and politicians (although explicitly allowed to comment on talk pages). [57] Unfortunately, his conduct has continued to be a problem, particularly after the topic ban has expired.

He was making test edits on his talk page to measure to the minute when his topic ban would expire ([58] [59] [60] [61]) which was deeply concerning. The moment it expired, he returned to editing those articles. Since then, he's reignited old battles, and continued to disruptively edit war, making pointy edits along the way too:

• 25 September 2009: [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]
• 26 Sept 2009: [67] [68]
• 26 & 27 Sept 2009: [69] [70] [71] [72]
• 5 October 2009: [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]
• 12 October 2009: [78] [79] [80] [81]
• 13 October 2009: [82] [83]
• 19 October 2009 (even after the request for ArbCom amendment/clarification was filed, reinserting contentious material previously removed and discussed): [84]

He has also continued tendentious editing in its other forms, like refusing to get the point. [85] [86] [87] [88]

Clearly, further sanctions beyond 1RR is necessary, and those sanctions would need to be greater than 3 months (somewhere between 6 months and indefinite). ArbCom have suggested that the community use its tools to sort it out. A single uninvolved admin can end this disruption by invoking Obama probation. However, I can also draft something that goes beyond the scope of that probation, if the community needs to impose a broader remedy on him that covers all articles/pages relating to US politics and politicians. Based on the above (and any further evidence that comes to light), any thoughts on which way to go? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no point putting up with such crap when there are plenty of other good editors actively working on the same subject. Impose a permanent topic ban as broad as you see necessary. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. If the editor has shown that they cannot work under the restrictions imposed, then it is better that the are not allowed to edit in that area. An indefinite topic ban is in order, unless the editor would prefer to be blocked indefinitely as an alternative. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, the first alternative would be "Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing pages related to US politics and politicians." The second alternative would be the same as what's written here, except it would read as "indefinite topic ban - he is" and would omit the "for a period of three months" part. Can you (and others) explicitly clarify whether you prefer to include or exclude talk pages in the ban? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I should allow this to be entered here but for the record, here goes... I'd rather lose one capable gung-ho staff (but he is always late) than to lose a bunch of average performing staff (but they take their work seriously and are always on time). It's bad for morale if that one gung-ho staff is allowed to carry on misbehaving and I risked that fact affecting the others due to my oversight or turning of a blind eye to. Having said that, Wikipedia is a community and as such is a collaborative effort by many individuals, its time to stop such nonsense once and for all. Out. --Dave1185 (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban including article and talk pages on all articles reasonably seen as related to current United States politics. John Carter (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite politics topic ban (including article talk pages), if only so we don't see him counting down in a year to see when he can start making problematic edits again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all US politics topics-related issues as I did previously. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban, ban to extend to talk pages. PhGustaf (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban on politics related articles, and temporary ban from related talk pages.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all politics related articles, and I think including talk pages is a must (the problems—particularly in terms of extreme tendentiousness—continued under the previous three-month topic ban when Grundle2600 was allowed to comment on talk pages). If agreed to this should be implemented as a community imposed topic ban, not something done under the terms of Obama article probation, since the latter does not allow an admin to ban an editor from all political articles, but rather only from those relating to Obama. I have no idea whether Grundle2600 is actively trying to be disruptive at this point or whether he is simply incapable of "getting it" when it comes to the problematic nature of many of his edits, but by now is doesn't really matter since this is a very longstanding pattern which is disruptive either way, and since there have been at least a dozen or so editors who have spent many, many hours trying to work with him and explain the problems with his editing, but to no avail whatsoever. Finally, while at the moment there appears to be a developing consensus for a topic ban, I think this thread needs to stay open for another day or so to allow further comment, and we certainly need to give Grundle2600 a chance to reply here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• For the love of god, support, and please make sure it is for article talk pages as well. We had to put up with this behavior during the only-banned-from-article-page topic ban, and it wasn't pleasant. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all politics-related articles and their talk pages. The never-ending disruption wasting countless hours of other editors' time must stop once and for all. Newross (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Grundle2600

1) Most of the people in this discussion who are saying they want be banned are the same people who keep erasing the information that is critical of Obama that I add to articles. I think they just want to censor me from adding information that is critical of Obama to those articles.

2) The reason I made those test edits on my talk page was to make absolutely 100% certain that I did not violate my topic ban. There is no rule against me editing my own talk page. The fact that people want me punished for this says more about them than it does about me.

3) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government.

4) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

5) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

6) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use, and avoided reporting the statutory rape of a 15 year old student?

7) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

8) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable?

9) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars?

In every one of these cases, people want me banned so they can stop me from adding information that is critical of Obama to the article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The less nefarious explanation is not that people are "censoring" you, it's that the content you try to add often does not conform to our policies about NPOV, undue weight, reliable sources, original research, etc, and that your editing really is problematic (hence sanctions from both the community and ArbCom in the past). You have provided no evidence whatsoever that you are being "censored", while there is clear evidence (see some of the diffs above) that at least some of the people reverting you are giving policy-based reasons for doing so. If you assume good faith you'd have to assume they are not out to get you, but rather that they genuinely believe your edits are not appropriate. As you are well aware, there have been numerous times in the past where you proposed some addition and then, upon objection from other editors, even you came to admit that adding the content was a bad idea, so there's a precedent for this "good faith" reading of objections to your edits.

Also while I've had no involvement with your editing since you've returned from your topic ban, I know you are framing some of the issues/questions above in a rather biased manner. Finally, I know part of the problem in the past is that you often simply do not get your facts straight. That is evident again in number 6 above in a rather egregious fashion. The incident in question was not statutory rape since the minor in question was at the age of consent (16 not 15, see this), and furthermore said minor has come forward and said there actually was no sexual contact at all (see again the linked article). So not only are you wrong, you are actually defaming a living person (without naming them explicitly here). Editors who attempt to put in only negative or positive information about a given subject tend to run into those kind of problems. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose block. Grundle's explanation and the discussion above makes clear that this editor is acting in good faith and seeking to have the encyclopedia abide by the core NPOV policy. Editors should be encouraged to work with him to make sure notable content is included appropriately in the appropriate articles so as to abide by our policies. The content he's discussing is certainly notable, so it's really a question of how and where to include it with the proper wording. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Having your personal history in mind you should (and probably do) know that you're not helping Grundle but again trying to start another drama-thread that is about you and not the editor in question. Could you please restrain yourself from doing so for the good of Grundle? Thanks.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose for the reasons cited by CoM. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We sure pay attention to anonymous socks that don't have their own reasoning.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you obviously know so much about me: who's the sockmaster, Clean-keeper? 64.208.230.145 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Blablabla. You're repeating yourself already (and in the wrong place).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits - request for block

Resolved

 – Content dispute, doesn't require admin intervention. Equazcion (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I call admins to block this user

user Hxseek did a lot of distruptive edits in the article of kosovo history edits including Dardanian Kingdom, territory etc You can see history [89] of the article he removed the text a couple of times and reverted

I warned him to stop these reverts check his talk page Hxseek talk

You can verify that this kingdom existed just go to google books and type dardanian kingdom you can find hundreds of books about this kingdom.

thanks-- LONTECH  Talk  08:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As it says at Talk:Kosovo, all editors are subject to 1RR on that article, and are to discuss any content reversions on the talk page. I see some discussion on your user talk pages, but nothing on the article talk page. You should get a discussion going there so that other editors can weigh in. And stop reverting each other immediately, until the dispute is resolved. Head to WP:Dispute resolution if you need guidance in resolving this. So far this is a content dispute, and doesn't require any admin intervention. Equazcion (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User Lontech is a new user, a has been inserting unsubstantiating edits, changing the previously established status quo in the article. Moreover, he blatantly misquoted a reference, given that it did not state anything resembling what he claimed. As evident from his above statement, he appears to have little grasp of how proper referencing works or how Wikiepdia etique runs Hxseek (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hxseek, please take it to the article talk page. I notice your name is conspicuously missing from that page. New user or not, you still have to collaborate with Lontech if you want to continue contributing to that article. Good luck. Equazcion (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

he keeps reverting and admin intervention is required-- LONTECH  Talk  13:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Both editors reminded of 1RR probation, Hxseek warned about personal attacks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember this sockmaster

[[::User:Yousaf.john|Yousaf.john]] (talk · contribs) is a sock, but I don't remember the name of the sockmaster. He has recreated wikiprojects that were deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Small_Pakistan_wikiprojects as POINTy creations of a sock. A clear WP:DUCK case. Please look at the deleted versions and post here the name of the account. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe I know which case you're talking about, but I can't remember the name either, let me search through my watchlist and archives and such.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Investigations concerning the above conducted by myself and mainly Redvers(mostly Redvers) have turned up five accounts, all blocked by Future Perfect. I however need some sleep, but I'll be contacting him, and filing an SPI, tomorrow.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the account you both have in mind is Teckgeek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No comment as to the question of whether Yousaf is a sock puppet. AGK 11:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually the account I had on my mind was a similar sounding username.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI filed, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Entlínkt ist doof! 22.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

IPs and page creation

As far as I know, IPs cannot create new pages. However, it seems that they can create new talk pages. Twice this morning I've deleted new talk pages created by IPs where there is no corresponding article.

Is this a loophole that needs closing or something we just have to put up with and deal with as and when it happens? Mjroots (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There are many legit reasons for IPs to create talk pages - to comment on an article, for instance. In addition, the Articles for creation process depends heavily on IP's ability to create talk pages. Submissions are created in the Wikipedia Talk namespace, and, if accepted, moved to mainspace. Tim Song (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question, because I have noticed a lot of orphaned talk pages being created about the place tonight (like Talk:Elysha Pinkstone Queensland Author, for instance). Some new form of obtuse vandalism? A coincidence? A bad set of help pages somewhere? I'm really not sure. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

Better idea, instead of allowing IPs to create any talk page, restrict the creation to articles which exist, so that IPs cannot create talk pages which have no corresponding article.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that also prevent them from creating the talk page for their IP? Or would you make an exception in that case? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That would totally mess up AfC. Tim Song (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

How so?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at CAT:AFC. Most, if not all, of the pages are in WP talk exactly because IPs cannot create project pages. None of them have corresponding project pages. Tim Song (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be a great idea to create some method so IPs could not create new article talk pages without an existing article. But say they reverted and then wanted to warn a new user without a userpage or talk page. Then it would be appropriate for them to be allowed to create user talk pages, provided such a user existed. (I have no expertise in the area of technology and maintenance, so I don't know if this is plausible or not.) A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 12:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

Various IPs are blanking user talk pages and replaceing them with "YOU ACTUALLY THINK I SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR RETALIATING AGAINST WIKIPEDIA'S LIBEL AND HARASSMENT? YOU TRULY ARE A BRAINWASHED IGNORAMUS.".

• 141.209.57.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 69.156.98.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 206.116.6.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 198.189.57.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 141.151.201.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.229.2.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Similar vandalism also by 98.168.193.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

One talk page has been semi-protected by another admin, I've asked Fred Bauer if he wishes to have his semi-protected. Mjroots (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I posted the above, further IP vandalism has occurred to DarkFalls talk page. Not sure what is going on, but it seems to fail WP:NPA at the least. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just grawp having his daily fun. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis —Dark 09:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Jarl tends to target not articles, but users. Just say the three magic words, though, and he'll scram. (You may only need one, but make sure I'm not on the page as well.) -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 09:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged all the IPs as suspected socks. Also semi-protected DarkFalls talk page as I feel that the vandalism is now excessive. Mjroots (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Now DarkFalls unprotected the talk page, but it's his decision to do that as "the idiot might decide to vandalize the mainspace instead". He "would prefer to keep the theatrics in one page, and on a page where it does not cause much damage". Quotes from my talk page.  Merlion  444  10:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, how best to deal with this then? An immediate 1 week block for all IPs who perform such vandalism? Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page Mjroots (talk) Commenting here because ANI is protected: you should know that you are apparently dealing with a bunch of 4chan idiots [90], i.e. there is more than one vandal. I don't know what to suggest doing about it other than letting the recent change patrol know what's up, so they can make sure to revert it all. I don't know who "Dark" is. Maybe it's worth finding out, maybe not. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

69.228, "Dark" is User:Darkfalls. Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 15:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Channers? Semi all associated articles; don't bother tracing the IPs because they're all one-offs. Wait until they get bored, and then unprot. One thing /b/ is not known for is a long attention span. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on English Defense League

Resolved

 – Discussion returned to talk pages Leaky Caldron 22:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am reporting this here based on my understanding of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and in particular Dealing with disruptive editors.

In the English Defense League article a consensus was reached yesterday on the lead sentence in which the previously disputed use of the word “political” was agreed to be dropped. Consensus and reasoning are here: [91]. There were clear issues concerning WP:NOR, WP:Weight, WP:Synth & WP:Verifiability relating the insistence that this group is, in its present form and structure, a political group.

Verbal has strenuously argued against this in the past but did not participate in the most recent consensus discussion. Nevertheless, a previously strong supporter of the word (Snowded) did agree to drop his opposition in the discussion referenced above. Only following that agreement with a previous antagonist was the disputed phrase modified (by Snowded himself) clearly reflecting the revised consensus [92]. The previous consensus had been weak and was confused by the use of the expression "far right" which is no longer at issue. The latest consesus is strong - especially as it is backed by a previous opponent.

Today Verbal maintains that the use of political is “factual and well supported content” in this dif. [93] and maybe had not read the amended consensus before reverting what he judged to be an unapproved change. I therefore changed it back per consensus here [94] pointing out the new consensus. However, he has since changed the lead back at this dif: [95] claiming consensus, RS and bizarrely, “dictionary definition and the fact this is an encyclopaedia,”

He has strenuously argued about this previously. Without providing a source he has relied upon the interpretation that political is inferred in the use of “right wing”. That in itself is a taut rendering the use of the word “political” redundant. However, the main argument against using “political” remains most importantly the lack of any source. Given what is reliably sourced about EDL it would currently be unduly prominent in the lead for an organisation characterised as a street-based, football hooligan-based mob.

If there is a more suitable venue for this please advise.

Leaky Caldron 12:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, so this is the wrong venue. Also, it is not my editing that is disruptive and there was no attempt at following WP:DR before bringing this to ANI. A "new consensus" has not yet been established. For these two reasons at least it is premature to bring this here, especially as there has been no edit warring. However, I would welcome the input of more editors at the article and would hope more people get involved and add it to their watch lists. Verbal chat 12:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Verbal, this is edit warring [96] but I'll not revert it until guided. However, the consensus (even without you) is very clear. I've played everything by the book here. The content dispute was resolved by consensus and your edits were therefore out of line. Dealing with disruptive editors point to here and I cannot find a more suitable forum unless the NPOV noticeboard is preferable. This would have degenerated into 3RR in a matter of minutes. Making false claims of a personal attack does nothing to help either. Leaky Caldron 12:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Two reliable sources (Reuters and tv press gazette) have been added, many many more could be added - but that would be pointless, and this discussion should return to the article talk - where people are still trying to get "far right" removed despite nearly every report describing them as such! See also recent attempts to get the BNP labelled "left wing". This area needs a lot more eyes. PS that isn't edit warring for technical (not more than 3 in 24hrs) and practical reasons - I added the requested RS in a two edit block. Please report me to WP:AN3 if you disagree, but I'd ask you bring it up on my talk page to see if we can reach a compromise first. Thanks, Verbal chat 13:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the sources verify that EDL is a political group. I have brought it here because you are insisting that your consensus of last week cannot be replaced by a fresh consensus in which you did not participate and you will not allow the revised consensus to stand. If you accept the new consensus and are willing to discuss on the talk page then that is clearly the right place, but you cannot keep restoring "your" particular consensus - especially in view of the strength of the new one. Leaky Caldron 13:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Please take your concerns to the article talk page. Verbal chat 13:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem in doing so if the article is returned to the consensus. The new material which was requested last week and not provided, still fails to advance your opinion that EDL is political and needs wider discussion before being accepted. As will the obvious taut. The status quo is the concensus version. You insisted on reversion to consensus last week regarding "far right" and I agreed. I am asking you to show those of us who disagree with you (about "political" in the lead) the same courtesy. Leaky Caldron 13:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Following your suggestion to discuss on your talk page you have advised that if I revert the article to consensus you would “think if you reverted again without discussion, you may well be blocked. Consider this your edit warring notification. Wikipedia doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour”.

Anyone reading this, together with the article talk page and yours, will see that what you accuse me of is completely without substance. Your allegation (that I am promising future disruptive behaviour) is reprehensible. I think you are stepping close to breaching policy on conduct and would urge you to stop and ideally retract that statement. Leaky Caldron 15:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect and misleading. The other editor has stated he wont debate the issue until I remove sourced information. There is also not a consensus for his version, even before the new sources were added. I reverted him once and then added sources and started a discussion on the talk page. I don't see why you have to reply to a post made on my talk page here. Reverting without discussion now sources have been added and a discussion added would be disruptive. I just counted up the opinions on the talk page, and didn't get a majority for removing political. I saw a few "don't care", some "remove right wing" and only two "remove political" - before the sources were added. Now sources have been added that changes the debate again, and discussion should continue. You boldly removed the phrase you are objecting to, for reasons I still don't understand, and I reverted and added new sources. I also started a discussion. Following the WP:BRD process, that discussion should continue. I has been my experiance that Wikipedia doesn't take kindly to people setting conditions for debate, and promising future disruptive behaviour (I stated this as the other editor stated they would only return to the debate if I restored his preferred version, and he asked what I would do if he did that himself). Please engage on the article talk page and show a clear consensus there to remove well sourced factual information. Verbal chat 15:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the benefit of doubt I have refactored the section concerned. It is here [97]. In that section 5 editors concluded that “political” should be dropped. They are: Gabagool, Ghmyrtle, BritishWatcher,Snowded and me. Each one made the comment “support” or “agree”. No editors joined to say they did not agree. You obviously would have and have now done so. 5 editors supported the change which Snowed then implemented, not me.

The new material is not supportive and I’m not obliged to discuss it at anytime, much less when there is a dispute bordering on incivility. Last week you forced a reversion to consensus during the “far right” dispute. I agreed and eventually supported the consensus. Why am I in error following your good example and insisting that the new consensus should be adopted while discussion takes place? Snowded has just made a commendable suggestion and you should consider it. Leaky Caldron 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

⬅Its a content dispute and should not be at ANI. The EDL page is controversial and for some time Leaky C attempted to argue against both the right-wing and the political labels. The claim has not been reduced a bit to accept right-wing but avoid political. Some of us think that the political label is not the most important - it self evidently is political but its not vital to state it. If a direct citation can be found then its use is uncontroversial, for the moment organisation should be good enough. However the history of this article is not good, and Leaky C has been edit warring and using drive by tagging at times. Best to cancel this thing from ANI all together, issue an RFC and let everyone calm down a bit. Its meaningless and unnecessary escalation to bring it here. Oh and Verbal is not edit warring against consensus. I made the change based on a talk page discussion before he had a chance to get involved. He is thus fully entitled to revert it - I was being bold. Leaky C is just wrong there and the blocking threats are silly and provaocative--Snowded ^TALK 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant "now" not "not" (4th sentence). I haven't made block threats - the other user has against me - let's just be clear here. As for consensus - how is 5 editors agreeing something not a consensus? I have not edit warred. I have made 13 edits including tags and have reverted the other user 3 times over 2 separate aspects. Lets not throw stuff around not supported by the facts. I'm no bandit. The other editor has done many more reverts than I have. Leaky Caldron 16:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually its two editors (of that 5) being prepared to accept a compromise but not agreeing with you, now with some new editors its changing. Whatever, you should not bring basic content disputes to ANI against another editor who acted properly. I was bold (in support of a compromise) they reverted. That is fine, they are allowed to do that. I meant "not", he is not edit warring against consensus he has restored it, as he was not happy with my compromise edit. --Snowded ^TALK 17:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:TJ Spyke using wikicleaner to bypass redirects contrary to WP:R2D

TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've brought this up with the user directly and was seemingly unable to successfully explain to them why it is generally unhelpful to "fix" redirects that are not broken (especially en masse and without regard as to whether the redirect might one day become an article - this is explained at the WP:R2D guideline). However, they continue, and often use a misleading edit summary of "Repairing link to disambiguation page". I invite additional scrutiny and comments as to how best to proceed. –xeno^talk 14:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Using misleading edit summaries is disruptive. Can you provides diffs where the user has done so?--Crossmr (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[98] as an example, but pretty much every edit they make with this edit summary: WikiCleaner 0.96 - Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help! - as they are bypassing redirects, not doing WP:DPWL work. They are also bypassing redirects on talk pages and in archives (e.g.) which should really never be done. –xeno^talk 14:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Example: [99]

There is at least one actual disambiguation fix (South Park Elementary), though it's questionable whether it should have been fixed like this, in addition to the redirect bypasses (some just useless like Earshot (Buffy episode) to Earshot (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), some actively harmful like Lunchlady Doris to Springfield Elementary School). If he continues, block him. If this "WikiCleaner" is unable to be set up to not bypass redirects, it needs to be fixed or banned. Popups is a nice replacement that will disambiguate links, and bypass individual redirects when desired, such as on navboxes.

If the triviality of this pop culture example disinterests you, imagine one like Brattleboro and Whitehall Railroad to Central Vermont Railway, where the former is definitely a valid topic for a separate article ([100][101]). --NE2 14:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your bypassing in this very thread. --NE2 16:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't use misleading edit summaries on purpose, I just sometimes forget to change the default edit summary (the majority of times my summaries are correct). I don't get Xeno's problem, I am not doing anything wrong. Instead of wasting time attacking me and going around reverting my edits for no reason (which is NOT acceptable, reverting valid edits that improve an article), maybe he could be constructive for once. TJ Spyke 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no vengeance here. You are making edits contrary to the WP:R2D guideline. If these edits have consensus, then the guideline should be changed. –xeno^talk 15:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not like it's a policy, just a guideline. I see plenty of other people fixing redirects as well, so why you seem to focus on me makes no sense. Even if you disagree with my edits, you have no rights to revert them (and if you do, I have the same right to revert right back, although I have not done this for articles). The only reason you seem to be going after me is because once in awhile I will fix a bunch of articles in a row. As for your earlier comment, the majority of the links won't get separate articles (for example, changing [[Duff Beer (The Simpsons)]] to [[Duff Beer]] or [[Mr. Burns]] to [[Montgomery Burns|Mr. Burns]]. Even though it's just a guideline, I do agree it should be changed so that you would stop complaining. TJ Spyke 15:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines should still be followed absent a good reason not to. To do otherwise is disruptive.

FYI it's never a good idea to continue with edits under dispute while they're being discussed at ANI.

The Duff beer change is ok (actually beneficial) but these Superintendent Chalmers changes are not. These are exactly the kind of redirects you should not be fixing. Why do you feel redirects need to be fixed in the first place? –xeno^talk 15:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Those 2 examples are moot as the guideline you love some much specifically says that templates are exempt from it (and userboxes are considered templates). As for redirect fixing, it depends on the specific link being fixes. It could be something like making sure it's spelled correctly (fixing Super Mario RPG so that the link goes to Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) or episode names (like $pringfield to it's full name). The vast majority of those Simpsons minor characters have consensus to be merged into one article (do you see Scott Christian ever having a article? He's had speaking parts in 2 episodes and both combined are about 6 lines, he hasn't even appeared on-screen in over 10 years). TJ Spyke 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The guideline speaks to navigational templates. Userboxes are not, and users may have linked to the redirect for a reason, you should not change it. –xeno^talk 16:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The main problem is not with the edit summaries; it is with the bypassing of redirects. Stop. --NE2 15:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Do NOT delete my comments like you just did, that is vandalism. TJ Spyke 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism is deliberate. You're 0 for 2. --NE2 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the fact that you may have read WP:R2D but you don't seem to understand it. "That GUIDELINE says templates ARE allowed to have redirects fix (and userboxes are considered templates)" gives this away; please read it again and understand why bypassing redirects on some templates can be beneficial. --NE2 15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not doing anything wrong. At least while this is still a issue, I will not edit a article just to fix redirects. If I need to edit the article anyways (like to revert vandalism or add to the article), I don't see the harm in doing some other fixes at the same time. As for your last comment, fixing links on templates is allowed, so I will continue on that (especially fixing "D'oh" to "D'oh!". TJ Spyke 16:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The title of the section at WP:R2D, "Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken" makes it plain by using quotes around fix that what you consider beneficial fixing is not actually beneficial, so as long as you claim you aren't doing anything wrong by "fixing" things, there is a problem. Sswonk (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not enough. Unless you understand why redirect bypassing is normally bad, do not do any. --NE2 16:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

recreating Edward McMillan-Scott, Michal Kaminski and the Observer

Note: This thread was archived but I'm moving it back here as there still seem to be some unanswered questions about this.

Original thread

I was reading the papers this morning over breakfast with my wife, and read the article in today's Observer.

Given the article in today's Observer: [102], might I suggest that an admin looks into the following accounts:

Special:Contributions/John_of_Gaunt23

Special:Contributions/Xerxes23

Special:Contributions/EPP_fanatic

Special:Contributions/Yorkshire_Bumblebee

Special:Contributions/Saer1957

All of whom seem to solely edit McMillan-Scott's page, in a similar manner to Special:Contributions/Strasburg who is named in the article. They also seem to show evidence of some POV pushing, and may all be the same account. I was talking to my wife about this and she said it was important to let you know. Thank you for your time, Mr Hands. Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting that. I have raised a report at WP:COI/N quoting the original Observer article. Stephen! ^Coming... 14:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The edits of User:Strasburg, User:194.60.38.198 (which comes from the British Parliament) and User:136.173.162.144 (which comes from the European Parliament) should be looked at, as well. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A sockpuppetry case has been opened here but it's waiting for clerk review. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed 136.173.162.144 (talk · contribs) wasn't listed in that investigation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

end of archived text

The original sockpuppetry case revealed some accounts, but User:Xerxes23 or User:Saer1957 don't seem to be listed or blocked. Can someone please confirm if a) these accounts are unrelated, or b) there is a COI problem from another source. Certainly these accounts seem to be carrying out the same disruptive and POV pushing behavior as the other accounts, but are currently unblocked. The checkuser case has been archived, but I'm concerned that there are still accounts which have been disruptively editing the edward mcmillan-scott page which this investigation has not revealed. Can the checkuser (or any checkuser, for that matter) confirm the status of these accounts, and whether any other accounts have been involved in sockpuppetry - best we sort this out on-wiki before the Observer gets hold of it! Many thanks, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please make this stop.

PennySeven (talk · contribs · count) has just has just left this long series of messages on my talk page. They are, in my opinion, personal attacks, eg. 'Have you lost your head or what?', 'Whats wrong with you', 'You deserve to be banned from Wikipedia'. I would like someone to talk to him and ask him to stop.

What started this all was this message that I left on his talk page, where I informed him that I was planning on reverting his changes to Inflation, and why I was going to do so. I left this message as Pennyseven has a history of pushing those exact same edits on the Inflation article, but I had hoped that he had stopped. He transferred my message and his reply to the Inflation talk page and then left a long complaint there about me.

I left this reply on the Inflation talk page, and then removed his recent additions to the Inflation article.

PennySeven then left this series of messages on my talk page. I left him a short reply on my talk page, thanking him for his message.

He then went on the article talk page, and left another long series of complaints, with my name featured prominently in the section headings (against guidelines I believe), accusing me of various wrong doings.

I did not reply to his talk page posts, as I did not want to further provoke him in any way, and hoped that he would stop by himself. But I did leave a Wikiquette alert , asking for someone to please talk to him and ask him to stop putting such posts on the talk page.

Since then, even though I have not replied to him at all, he left again this series and then this series of posts on the talk page of Inflation. This is what the talk page looks like now.

Which brings us to the present series of posts on my talk page. (I may have left out some other posts made by Pennyseven, he's so prolific, I can't be sure.) As far as I can tell, I have not in any way provoked this last few series of posts. I'm not sure if this is just his personality, or if he's losing it, or if this is calculated to scare me away, or calculated to scare anyone from contradicting him in the future – at this point, I don't care. I would just like him to stop.

I hope someone will take appropriate action. Thank you, --LK (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Does seem a bit over the top.Abce2|This isnot a test 16:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

deleted content discussion pasted from Talk:Inflation

And this has to do with the current discussion how...?Abce2|This isnot a test 16:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I proposed on the Inflation talk page to change the word erode to destroy in the article. No-one disagreed. I changed it. PennySeven (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)~

Yes, but this is about your behavoir.Abce2|This isnot a test 16:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I also added new content to the article. No-one disagreed.

Now, weeks later LK disagree with changing erode to destroy. He told me right from the start that he bans me from changing it. He stated he will take any disagreement from me as edit warring - right from the first disagreement. That will be edit warring - that is what he stated. PennySeven (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of your content disputes with LK, spamming him with dozens of one-line posts on his talk and on the inflation talk page is _not_ acceptable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting my example instead of telling me how to put the link.

Yes this is about behaviour: LK´s behaviour in telling me from the first moment that he will not take any disagreement or discussion from me. He will regard it as edit warring. That is his behaviour. He also threatened me that he will take this to higher authorities if I disagree. Then he deleted all my current contributions - even examples I added to his examples.

Do you agree that I should start this discussion with you stating that if you disagree with me I will regard it as edit warring immediately and take it to higher authorities? Is that what I suppose to do? Follow LK´s example? PennySeven (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, that was wrong. I admit. Do you agree that it was wrong for LK to state that I am not allowed to disagree with him? More exactly, do you agree that he can state from the beginning that ANY disagreement, right the first disagreement - one sentence - will be regarded as edit warrring and will lead to further disciplinary actions? One sentence is edit warrring? Are we allowed to tell other editors what LK told me? Do you agree with his opening statement to me?PennySeven (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

PennySeven found LK's message rude. That's understandable. But the spamming of LK's talk page and the Inflation talk page was a completely disproportionate response. Under normal circumstances, of course PennySeven would be able to discuss disagreement on substance on the talk page, but this hasn't been helpful. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, yes, I do agree with his opening statement. His exact words were:

I've just noticed what you have been doing on the Inflation page this last few weeks. I'm here to inform you first, but it's my intention to change back many of the things you have changed. You should know that many of the revisions you've made :

1. Are against consensus. Many editors have reverted similar edits by you before.
2. Violates neutral wording, which is a basic policy for Wikipedia.
3. Is not consistent with proper weight - it overemphasizes issues not mentioned in a standard textbook presentation on inflation.

I'm going to ask that you do not edit war with me on this. The outcome eventually will not be much different, but it will cause much wikidrama if I have to call in the members of Wikiproject Economics to review the article.

So, since you're claiming he said things he didn't actually say, I'm going to have to ask you to stop this discussion right now and focus on content, not editors. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree the response was disproportional. I did that in response to the disproportional removal of all my subsequent contributions to the Inflation article after he changed destroy back to erode. His actions in deleting additions that were previously discussed, changed and correcte and then finally added to the article, just because I was that one who added them, was disproportional and had nothing to do with the discussion about erode or destroy.PennySeven (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should re-read what Sarek said.Abce2|This isnot a test 16:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"I'm going to ask that you do not edit war with me on this." So, it is abundantly evident, fact, clear and logical that I was going to edit war with LK? Please explain that deduction to me especially with reference to the fact that I have not changed one of his reverts in the article. PennySeven (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so he must be wrong because he said that. What does this have to do with it? Abce2|This isnot a test 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

*reads Special:Contributions/PennySeven* Um, yes, actually, given your past contributions, it wasn't an unreasonable assumption.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

His wanton vandalizing the rest of my contributions to the article which had nothing to do with erode and destroy was the main reason for my disproportional response on his talk page and on the inflation talk page. You all ignore this very important fact. If he had simple changed destroy back to erode I would not have responded as I did. When he deleted an extra example to the item cars to which I added inventory I realized he was not editing in good faith. He removed quotes that were corrected and edited by Arthur Ruben, etc. You ignore that. I responded as I did because he deleted everything I contributed - not just destroy in place of erode.PennySeven (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, re-read what Serak said. Your contributions were not nuetral, against consensus, and others. Abce2|This isnot a test 17:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

...and PennySeven, there is never, ever any valid reason to react the way you did towards any editor whatsoever. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What is not neutral about inventory being the same type of economic item as cars? Who disagrees that inventory is a non-monetary item like a car? Do you disagree that both cars and inventories are non-monetary items?PennySeven (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss the content itself. Even though you may not agree, please realize that other editors view things differently (see this), and, though it may be admittedly hard to accept their views sometimes, you must respect them all the same. There's no reason to slander LK and call him a vandal, in any case. I'm sure LK doesn't have anything personal against you; you're welcome to take this up with him, but please be sure to maintain a civil manner. Master of Puppets 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. So, what do you do when LK not just reverts the word destroy 3 or 4 times back to the word erode, but in the same token deletes other statements agreed by other editors besides me as well as deletes two full paragraphs in the article with about 10 lines of script - especially when he has already taken it for granted that I am going to edit war with him : I'm going to ask that you do not edit war with me on this."?

Beside changing the word destroy back to erode LK at the same time deleted all this:

deleted content pasted from Inflation

"Accountants choose to implement the stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation when they value constant items in fixed nominal monetary units. Accountants´ choice of implementing the stable measuring unit assumption instead of measuring constant items´ real values in units of constant purchasing power results in the real values of these fixed constant real value non-monetary items being destroyed at a rate equal to the rate of inflation when they are never maintained during low inflation because inflation destroys the real value of money which is the monetary measuring unit of account. Constant items are treated like monetary items when their real values are never maintained as a result of the implementation of the stable measuring unit assumption as part of the traditional Historical cost accounting model. “The Measuring Unit principle: The unit of measure in accounting shall be the base money unit of the most relevant currency. This principle also assumes the unit of measure is stable; that is, changes in its general purchasing power are not considered sufficiently important to require adjustments to the basic financial statements.” The extremely rapid destruction of the real value of the monetary unit of account is compensated for during hyperinflation by the rejection of the stable measuring unit assumption in International Accounting Standard IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies. IAS 29, which has to be implemented during hyperinflation, requires all non-monetary items (variable items and constant items) to be measured in units of constant purchasing power."

You say I must just quietly accept that and accept that I cannot disagree with him since it will be called edit warring?PennySeven (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Don´t you think removing all the above is vandalism?PennySeven (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not the forum to discuss the content being disputed. However, you could have disagreed by discussing it with him. Edit warring is different from discussion. Master of Puppets 17:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, we don't. Pasting it here, on the other hand, is disruptive, and since I warned you previously about continuing to disrupt the encyclopedia, you have been blocked. Since your block log shows a previous 2-day block, and immediately afterward, you continued edit warring and accusing editors of off-wiki collaboration, this block is for one week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And PennySeven, would you learn how to use quotation marks? When you wrote above "I proposed on the Inflation talk page to change the word erode to destroy in the article", I was baffled for a few minutes (how the heck can one "change a word erode"? & what is a "word erode"?) until I realized you meant to write "I proposed on the Inflation talk page to change the word 'erode' to 'destroy' in the article." -- llywrch (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

llywrch, its not really necessary to belittle him on his grammatical skills. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Llywrch seemed to be belittling PennySeven on the basis of his punctuation skills, not his grammatical skills ... though both could use a bit of work. :-) 64.208.230.145 (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved observer checking in. Was a block warranted in this case, as it seems to be an editor simply trying to plead s(his) case? Perhaps redirecting the discussion was needed, but there did not seem to be anything other than WP:PUSH and a bit of tendentious editing at play. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Kolocho Kitler

Resolved

 – Deleted, salted, blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at the contributions and deleted contributions of Kolocho Kitler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should reveal the problem. He doesn't seem to grasp that he should not be continuously creating self-promotional articles. His earliest versions of the article described his album as "imaginary", (here's a copy) which seems fairly accurate. Now, he describes himself as an "international singer", which would prevent a strict application of A7. My efforts to discuss resulted in him plastering his biography into WT:Record charts.—Kww(talk) 16:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User has just had two recreations of the autobiography deleted per A7 and has been given a final warning. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Now he's recreated the article again! Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, salted, blocked one week. Better check any articles he's created that aren't yet deleted... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I deleted and salted, but I do note that he hasn't had a notification of this discusssion, and I wasn't going to block until he'd had a chance to comment here. Rodhullandemu 17:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering his talk page contains eight page-deletions, the fact that he doesn't seem to have figured out he's doing something wrong suggests he either doesn't care or he has some sort of mental deficiency. HalfShadow (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And Special:DeletedContributions/Kolocho_Kitler is quite lengthy. This block was preventative -- if he makes a persuasive case for unblock, I have no objections. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to the block; the frequency of unhelpful recreations made it inevitable. Rodhullandemu 18:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

IP at Earth Song

From two different IPs (86.134.94.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 80.177.99.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) this user is restoring the following to the Earth Song article: grammatical errors, factual errors, original research, unreliable sources and links to copyright material. I've already reported this user here twice, and he received edit warring warnings. He continually fails to heed them, as well as refusing to use the talk page to resolve the issues he has. His disruptive behaviour cannot continue to be met with warnings. I feel that a block or article semi-protection is the only way to stop the unconstructive edits of this user. Pyrrhus16 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, the link to the copyvios need to go , but as far as I can see both versions being warred over aren't perfect in terms of original research - the IPs edit, whilst introducing typos, also does wikilink some useful links and fixes a run-on sentence at one point. This is effectively a content dispute and should follow the dispute resolution path unless the edit-war becomes more problematic.Black Kite 18:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Reversions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)

I'm posting this here rather than the edit warring noticeboard as it's a wider issue also concerning an RfC. Following this RfC I made this change. As the RfC had been stale for a week I closed it and made the change proposed despite it only being agreed by one other editor as both of us agreed it was a fair representation of the wider consensus (where there had been several comments). User:Francis Schonken has now reverted my edit, originally it would appear because it contradicted Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) despite both being guidelines and neither having primacy. I pointed them at the RfC and they have now said they don't think it's a fair reading of consensus. I both opened and closed the RfC (as no one else was coming along to do so) and so am afraid of a conflict of interest despite closing against my preferred option. Both of us are now close to the three revert rule so would appreciate someone else to take a look at the whole situation. Dpmuk (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Boovaloo

Please ban this user indefinitely. It is a vandal. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Boovaloo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made 3 edits. After the third edit he recieved a level 2 warning. I don't see any edits after that. With a few exceptions we usually give users a chance to respond to warnings. If he continues he should get a at least a final warning, if not a level 3 warning first. Then if he continues WP:AIV would be the best spot to report.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And as I post that he earns himself a final warning...---Cube lurker (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked by accident, thinking there had been another edit past the final warning, but unblocked when I saw that wasn't the case. The autoblock is still active -- I figured if they wanted to get in that badly, they could follow the instructions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Block review of User:Nipple37

See User talk:Beeblebrox#User:Nipple37 for details. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Would also appreciate feedback over whether this constitutes wheel warring or not as that is also a disputed point. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not. Even if a declined block counts as an administrative action, someone has the right to revert it. (Now if somebody reverted over that, it might be a wheel war, depending on the first premise.) See WP:WHEEL. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not wheel warring. There is only one administrative action done afaict with respect to this account. Syrthiss (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. (still it would've been nice if they'd discussed it with me before blocking, but I see how it does not constitute wheel warring) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not technically wheel warring, but also a fairly bad block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not Wheel warring, however I disagree with the block At least wait till (s)he edits and then discuss the name on their talk page?--SKATER ^Speak. 19:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something technical here... but is this really hardblocking? They are blocked with autoblock active, and with account creation blocked. IIRC that means that if they try to access the wiki with the account it will also autoblock the ip for 24 hours, and that they cannot create another user account while logged in with this account. If they come back after 24 hours autoblock as their bare IP shouldn't they be able to create an account if they wanted to? Syrthiss (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sort of a moot point in this case; the block was 10-11 hours ago. After being blocked for this long, much less with no explanation, I doubt they'll ever return. HalfShadow (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not wheel-warring, though I think the rule needs work and have brought this up in the past. It is so, but a bad block in my view, unless little cloth coverings for piano legs are on their way back. This is 2009. Nipple is not an offensive word. It just is not. I don't even think nipple was, back in the day, but certainly it is not such a word today. Even John Ashcroft probably wouldn't have a problem with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Anthony Comstock? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Between here and my talk page, it is apparent that there is a strong consensus that this was an overly harsh block. Although the damage is likely already done, I think it would be a good idea for some uninvolved admin to undo or at least reduce the block. That is, unless Rschen would care to acknowledge this consensus and undo it themselves... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That was an over-reaction, especially the hardblocking. Changed to a softblock; see User talk:Nipple37 for my message. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I see a softblock in this situation is "That's not how I'd do it, but I wouldn't override it" sort of thing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad block all around. Toning it down to a softblock and leaving an explanatory message on the user's talk page is a step in the right direction but blocking these sorts of things on sight is a hypersensitive reaction to what might be offensive. This is precisely the sort of scenario in which engaging the editor personally is the proper way to go about things. At this point there isn't much to be done about it, however; the damage is done. Shereth 20:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious what ought to be done about, but equally obvious that nobody's got the balls to do it. The block should be reversed, the blocking admin given a serious talking to, and if (s)he persists with these kinds of blocks then (s)he should be summarily desysoped. Easy. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with "The block should be reversed".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Too soft. Administrators who make blocks like these chase editors away, when they ought to be chased away themselves. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Malleus, I left my Draco (lawgiver) hat someplace.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Too bad. I found my uniform though. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I unblocked, left welcome message fwiw. Hope all parties are okay with this course of action, and hopefully all is settled. Let me know if not. -- Samir 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, I'm rather disappointed in rschen for blocking User:Ádmins masturbate to linux recompiles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMFAO! Simonm223 (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Samir. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Uh, he should at least be told to change his name? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Why? Everyone else says that it is fine. Keegan (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Nipple 37 might be a half inch galvanized pipe fitting in bin 37. Even if it refers to an anatomical nipple, there is still nothing wrong with it. It will be disturbing to some who have body-taboos, but the wp:NOT-censored is pretty important. *shrug*- Sinneed 21:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what you need to understand about this. Nobody but you sees this name as even marginally offensive. If it was User:I bite nipples or User:Showmeyournipple you'd have something, but there is no context here that makes it offensive. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there were people on your user talk who could see asking him to change the name. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

By that reasoning, User:Penis is acceptable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And by a "no body parts" reasoning, User:BigToe43 is unacceptable? There's a difference between a penis and a nipple. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And a difference between a nipple and a big toe. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really -- you see both of them exposed on every single beach in the world. Granted, you only see about half as many nipples as big toes...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(triple edit conflict)If somebody is such a dim-wit that they want to be called Penis (talk · contribs) all the (idiotic) power to them. It's just a piece of anatomy. Simonm223 (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• This admin needs to be whacked with a trout. Right on the nipples. HalfShadow (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What I'm finding ironic here is that if they hadn't come to my talk page and made an issue of it, I probably wouldn't have noticed the block at all since I had declined to block it already. And if they hadn't rejected the arguments of everyone on my talk page and said I should report it here, I probably wouldn't have done that either. What's next my friend? Would you like to go to RFC or ArbCom with this? How far do we have to go before you will acknowledge that you made an error? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't acknowledge that I made an error because I honestly don't believe that I made one. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, ok, how about "acted against consensus?" I think it should be abundantly clear that you did by now, given that there is unanimous agreement that the block was an overreaction. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus at that point when I made the block. I still believe that the username is grossly inappropriate. Do I believe it's worth bringing it any higher? I don't have the time for that (picking my fights carefully). But I refuse to admit that I made a mistake when honestly, I don't believe I made one. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't serious about ArbCom, but it's important that you understand why so very many users object to this block, whether you agree with them or not, and that you not be so hasty to instantly hardblock such cases in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You hardblocked for a username offence. Really, unless the name is "Killallniggers" (which does warrant an instant permanent block) you discuss first, and block as a last resort. (Of course, if the person goes on to edit and is a vandal you're in luck, because it's easy to block them then. ) And when you block you give a soft block, with a link to username policy, and ask them to come back with a different name. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said. At around the same time this was reported last night there was a user with "kkk" in their name. At first there was nothing solid tying them to the Klu Klux Klan, so I held off and watched for a few minutes, and bam, they made several racist edits inserting the initials "KKK" into Black Panther Party among others, and I could justify blocking them as a vandal and an inappropriate name. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is this so hard for Rschen7754 to understand? Is he a new or inexperienced administrator? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been an admin since 2005. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Lets face it, if something has 37 nipples, chances are it's a steam locomotive Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ali Rana, User:Yousaf.john, and User:Skepticfall

• Ali Rana (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Yousaf.john (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Skepticfall (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

All three of these users are the same person, with Ali being the possible sockmaster. This information was confirmed on IRC through the CU Brandon, who will comment here in a moment to confirm this. Yousaf has been engaging in disruptive page creation, in that they are recreating several wikiproject pages for non-existant wikiprojects that were previously created by the sockpuppet of a banned user, and subsequently deleted per a deletion discussion. I don't know exactly what to make of the other two users' edits, so I would like more eyes upon the situation to better understand what is going on. Thank you for your time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)