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

Man

Unresolved

 – Topic Ban still under discussion for non-sock Editor and can probably be closed by an uninvolved admin by now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – A bunch of socks blocked plus an IP range. Let me or another admin or CU know if the disruption continues. –MuZemike 14:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong venue for this (and I expect plenty of people have seen this already). There has been a content dispute going on at Man over an image of a naked man for some time, with an RfC that petered out. In the past few days some of those arguing for the removal have been taking unilateral action by removing the image (one has been blocked, along with a sock), and now removing the {{censor}} tag from the Talk page.

I know it's a content dispute, but I can't help feeling it might help for an uninvolved admin to have a look, offer a judgment on whether any consensus has been achieved and whether the {{censor}} tag should be removed, and recommend the next stage for those who are still dissatisfied. I know it's asking a lot, as it's a very lengthy disagreement, but any who could help would certainly earn my gratitude. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I should just point out here that I haven't deleted the explicit photograph at any stage. SAT85 (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, those in favour of explicit photographs have been edit-warring them in, sans consensus, for several months. SAT85 (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

They really could use more opinions there so if anyone has a moment, please take the time to give an opinion. I've already done this for the record. I've asked them to calm down a bit to allow others to come and comment. I don't want this to get out of control which is possible. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll keep my hands off it now and see what others offer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Mostly Outside Observation

My only comment was a short statment in the RFC, but I have been observing it for a while. Its been two months of IDIDNTHEARTHAT and quite tedious editing. There may need to sanctions imposed here becuase its a brick wall of one sided dialogue of accusations of Nudist perverts controlling wikipedia The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, "Nudist perverts controlling wikipedia". What are you talking about? --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a fairly accurate summary of what the people saying the pic shouldn't be included are saying. → ROUX ₪ 15:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

@Crohnie: Didnt you know that being supportive of anatomical figure on the page means your a POV Pushing Nudist Pervert? You can see why exactly why i think some action needs to be taken as its been going like this for a while. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for info, the dispute goes further back than what's currently on the Talk page - see Talk:Man/Archive_3 too. My main desire here is really just to get the endless argument to stop, to stop the intermittent edit wars, and if necessary get people to progress to some future stage of the resolution process - that's why I was hoping for some reviews of what's gone on already and some opinions on whether any form of consensus was reached (I think the answer to that is obvious, but my opinions don't belong here). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of that comment. I guess I fall into that category. ;) I think an administrator needs to go and remove the problem editors. Some have been blocked I noticed but if this has been going on for so long than it's time to stop it now. Editor Boing (sorry name too long, hope this will do.) has been kind enough to stop responding to allow others a chance to read and comment. I didn't look at any archives when I commented. To me it was obvious that there is nothing wrong with the male image. I just didn't like the way the montage was set up which can be reworked once the problem about the image is resolved. The only editor still arguing about the nude image is SAT85. Would someone talk to him and get him/her to back off? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Since when do adult white males lack pubes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What Softball Lola doesnt like it shaved there? thats a rarity The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

She likes lotsa hare. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

As an update, we have just had another attack from someone else starting an edit war to remove the image, and the article is now protected. I really think we need someone to force this to a resolution by some means, as it cannot go on indefinitely like this - I'm open to any suggestions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I don't see any corresponding edit war at Woman. Maybe what's needed is a more clinical illustration rather than what looks like some show-off editor's self-portrait. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem strange, though there does appear to have been some argument about the images on Woman. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That was the first thing I checked on too. Double standards ftl. Resolute 19:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I posted this on the talk page, but then realized the discussion had moved here. I agree that a more clinical picture or perhaps a sketch could be a compromise. Here is my original statement:

Outside perspective: Saw this thread on ANI. The image is useful and has a purpose, and the article would NOT be improved if it was removed. The picture illustrates in a clinical, NPOV way that a men are visibly different from women, in that they generally have flatter chests, more muscular builds, and, more specifically, a penis. Note that the Woman article includes a picture of a naked woman. The Boy article has a picture of naked boys (non-clinical; they are swimming). The Girl article does not contain nudity. If anything, the picture is blurry and is not of good quality. Could a sketch or drawing of a nude male be a compromise? Still, the "does removing it improve the article" argument is going to be hard to overcome for the exclusionist camp. It seems to me that those wanting to get rid of the picture in this article would most likely be in favor of removing all nudity from Wikipedia. I am sure there is a forum for that discussion somewhere. If so, perhaps someone could link to it. The Eskimo (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems like all those things are addressed by the Davinci picture further down in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This is just a suggestion, but I think some of the recommended remedies at WP:PUSH should be employed with regard to SAT85 (talk · contribs) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

SAT85 was created a year ago, made a handful of edits, and then "sat" dormant for a year before becoming an SPA on this topic. Most curious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bugs (if I can call you that). I created my account a year or two ago mainly to make a couple of linguistic contributions. I haven't got myself very involved since then, but to me the nude photograph seemed to represent a deliberate step in the wrong direction--unnecessary in the non-anatomical article in question and below the standards of professional encyclopaedias for such pages (see Homo Sapiens in Britannica online). Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It clearly illustrates the subject, period. Objections to its inclusion boil down solely to prudery, period. It's a naked body in a wholly nonsexual context. Guess what? We all have naked bodies. Deal with it. → ROUX ₪ 02:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Heck, I'm naked right now. That was too much information, wasn't it? HalfShadow 02:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

All of these objections to deletion (or replacement with a diagram) have been discussed on the Talk:Man page. This is not about hypersensitivity or prudishness--it is about achieving an emphasis in the lead image that reflects the typically clothed state of men, and about the sort of standards expected of an encyclopaedia (hence see this policy). Regards, SAT85 (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In a word: bullshit. Define 'typically clothed' state of men? What is 'typical' clothing for a Kalahari Bushman? Or indigenous peoples in the Amazon? Or at a nudist colony? What is 'typical' clothing for a man in Minnesota, Yemen, Romania, Antarctica? This is entirely--as it always is--about prudes being terrified that other people might see OH MY GOD NO a naked human being. Period. → ROUX ₪ 03:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As a rule, men wear clothing (I can provide a reference if this is what you have a problem with)--Typically doesn't mean invariably. There is currently a silly and unencyclopaedic emphasis on nudity. And as I said earlier, I have no qualms about explicit anatomical diagrams in the appropriate places. SAT85 (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In an article about "Man", it is an appropriate place. Yours seems to be a "silly and unencyclopaedic" quest. WP:NOTCENSORED, get over it. Heiro 04:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is this "silly" emphasis? Just in this article, or more broadly in society? HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that sentence was a bit ambiguous--in the article. If it was in society as a whole I wouldn't bother with getting the image removed or replaced. SAT85 (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm lazy to check the history but the article currently includes multiple images most men with clothes on. I presume it has always done that. I agree it would be silly to fill the article with pictures of nude men and nothing else but I see nothing wrong with include one or more appropriate images of what a man looks like without clothes. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. There are three such images in the article already; this dispute is about the gratuitous photograph, and in particular its prominence at the top left of the collage. SAT85 (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute here. This is really all about the penis, isn't it? Let's call a spade a spade, and discuss if the model had underpants on, would we be losing something important to describe Man? It seems like everything else is just dancing around the fact that we are talking about penises. The Eskimo (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course we are. Nobody would suggest that cat not have a picture of a cat, or that chimpanzee shouldn't have a picture of an engine (and they're naked all the time, genitals hanging out and everything). Ergo, man has a picture of a man, without clothing, to illustrate what a man looks like. I find it tedious in the extreme, and depressingly predictable, that the people most concerned with AHMAHGAWD TEH CHILLUNS invariably see sex everywhere. Gives a clue to what's going on in their heads. The rational rest of the world sees a naked human being. Ho hum. Yawn. The regressive paleocons see OH NO A NAKED SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX. I see absolutely no reason why we should even pretend to entertain the notion that they have a valid viewpoint. Wikipedia is not fucking censored. Deal with it. → ROUX ₪ 03:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And, isn't there always Wikipedia:Options to not see an image? Saebvn (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Do have a look at the talk page, where we have discussed the fact that the lead image in Hermit Crab portrays a shelled crab. In my view the issue is quite straightforward, and the real tedium consists in having to go through the minutiae of what explict means in the OED, when an image looks dirty and when one does not, why private anatomy should not be considered exactly the same as other anatomy (just as, ceteris paribus, pictures of decomposing corpses would be uploaded less freely than pictures of live humans, non-censorship notwithstanding)--and so on. You obviously have a very different notion of propriety to me, so let's both of us defer to the standards of Britannica. Best Regards, SAT85 (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As the 3 above users have stated, agree. Especially Roux comments. Heiro 03:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, so if the image is used for encyclopedic purposes only--as all Wikipedia images should (i.e. used in accordance with Wikipedia policy), then its use in the article is justified. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason I hate situations like this: some guy visits one of those articles mentioned above (for example, boy) not expecting that there will be a nude picture (something other than an obvious anatomical diagram) there. He later takes his computer to another country and finds out they can search your hard drive as you enter. If he hasn't cleared his cache and otherwise scrubbed the image from his computer, he may now be in a legal mess over what may otherwise be an "innocent" image. Kcowolf (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Best reason ever for censorship. The secret police in another country might not understand why I have a picture on my computer. Heiro 04:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Just trying to say, some of us have reasons other than "Protect the children!" to prefer removing the image. Obviously consensus is against my opinion, and I respect that. Kcowolf (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously we all come from different backgrounds. I think it's worth describing my perspective. High school science teacher. A regular occurrence is a visit to our city's museum, a great place with 1000s of kids visiting every day. It has wonderful, life sized, naked, accurate models of humans of all ages which all the kids see, close up. It's just the culture where I come from. To do as SAT85 is suggesting and hide this image in this article is just kinda weird to me. The kids in my town would wonder why, as I do. In fact, to want to hide the non-sexualised naked body, presented for informational purposes, is in some ways obscene to me. While I accept that there are other views, I think that the knowledge that an encyclopaedia will likely contain nudity should be enough for those who want to avoid it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggest reducing protection level

All of the registered accounts that have been edit warring the image out of the article [1] are blocked for abusive sockpuppetry or vandalism. For all of his argumentation, SAT85 has been well-behaved in mainspace -- he hasn't removed the photograph [2]. Since there's no reason to let multi-sock disruption lock everyone except admins out of editing, I suggest lowering the protection level to semi, and adding level two pending changes protection. Any almost-new accounts that suddenly appear to remove the image should be blocked per WP:DUCK; the accept=reviewer pending changes protection will ensure that even if the sockpuppet accounts manage to bypass the semi-protection, they will be unable to alter the article that most readers see. If we let them keep Man locked indefinitely, disrupting the normal editorial process, then the sockpuppets win. Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. The consensus that is emerging here and at Talk:Man appears to be to keep the image and not allow it to be censored, and the Talk discussion seems to be moving on to how best to present the collage. The only really disruption (other than endless arguing on the Talk page) is indeed from SPAs and socks who unilaterally delete the image. I don't believe they will accede to the community consensus here and won't go away. So yes, I think level 2 PC would be the best longer term approach here. I also think it would be good for one of the admins here to summarize the developing consensus, in the Talk page ANI section, at a suitable point, so if the argument carries on, we can point to that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what gives you the impression that the "consensus that is emerging here and at Talk:Man appears to be to keep the image". Most contributors seem to think that it looks out of place and that the entire collage should be reworked without it. Quite a few people have commented that Michaelangelo's David and the two other anatomical diagrams lower down are sufficient. SAT85 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is simply untrue that "most" contributors think it should be removed - you can't have been reading all the latest comments if you think that. Yes, many think the collage could be improved, so how about we drop the "Urgh, nasty evil nudity" stuff, which has been pretty roundly rejected, and just let people get on with constructive work now? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What Zebedee said, Heiro 13:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree to lowering the protection and using the pending changes as suggested above. I also think that SAT85 is behaving in a serious way of tendentious editing that needs to stop already. For this editor to claim that editors are saying to remove the image is just plain wrong. Yes, we have said the collage needs to be reworked and some other ideas but removing the image isn't one of them unless things changed lately. This editor has be relentlessly commenting and keeping the discussion going in circles which is not at all helpful in my opinion. I don't know who agrees with me but if you look at the talk page I think you can see what I am talking about. I am not a regular editor to this article. I went there because of the AN/i report asking for more eyes from Boing! said Zebedee. There has been a good turn out too to respond to that request which also can be seen at the talk page. It's time to stop the circular arguements and allow the regular editors to get on with improving this article. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. It would be more helpful if you addressed the substance of the dispute instead of engaging in this sort of commentary. It seems to me that your first reaction to the image was the correct one, when you said, "I am not offended at all by the human body but I have to say that the image looks out of place in that collage. What is the need for it there? There is a statue down in the article. I just don't think the image is needed in the collage unless someone has a reason I missed in the above comments." Best regards, SAT85 (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. We can not forget Help:Options to not see an image. Wikipedia is not censored, so if the image is used in accordance with Wikipedia policy, then its use in the article is justified, and thus, just becuase some people do not want to see it, does not mean that it should be removed from the article. Just choose the options necessary so that only you can not see the image, other people can still see it if they want to. I do agree with the proposed protection level changes. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the protecting administrator, Bongworrior, refuses to reduce the protection level in the manner for which there is a clear consensus here, because he believes that it would be unfair to to the abusive sockpuppeteer creating an endless supply of accounts (Special:Contributions/We233ws Special:Contributions/Smzugzwangerq Special:Contributions/Itiiti2itiitiitiitiitiitiiti) to remove the image. I encourage editors to participate directly in the discussion on his user talk page to help clear this matter up. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the protection should be lowered to PC, but I also see a possible benefit in leaving as it is for a little while longer - I've commented at Bongwarrior's Talk. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban?

SAT85 (talk · contribs) has been engaged in tedious editing at Talk:Man with a month of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CPUSH. Frankly after multiple editors in ANI and there have communicated with him. Its a rather large farce to engage in any more Dialogue. I honestly almost could mistake this for deliberate trolling at the rate its going.

Support as nom The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I wonder if, to avoid the impression of bias, you might also want to consider David Oakes, Boing! Said Zebedee, and others who have not only been doggedly engaged on the Talk:Man page longer than I have, but have been edit-warring over the photo as well (though I personally think that banning any editor here would be a silly case of censorship--and I have no issue with either of them besides a disagreement over content). Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverting the operator of some (now blocked) abusive sockpuppet accounts (Special:Contributions/We233ws Special:Contributions/Smzugzwangerq Special:Contributions/Itiiti2itiitiitiitiitiitiiti), and almost certainly the IPs as well, is not considered to be edit warring. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that sock puppet accounts have only been used recently, by a user exasperated at being banned for removing the controversial photo. If you follow the history back, I think you'll see that it has indeed been repeatedly edit-warred back in without consensus. SAT85 (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ony if by "edit-warred back in without consensus" you mean that respected editors have repeatedly reversed the disruptive actions of We233ws (who was actually banned, for amongst other things, abusive sockpuppetry), his army of IP socks, and a one edit single purpose account (the situation since September 28 of this year [3].) This deplorable behaviour certainly detracts from any claim that there's a legitimate editorial dispute here. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

We233ws was just one of many users involved. Moreover, calling supporters of the explicit photo "respected editors" (when they were edit-warring--do have a look at the history) and then lashing a disillusioned user for "deplorable behaviour" suggests a fairly substantial bias on your part. I would once again respectfully encourage you to focus on policy and rationale--"ganging up" with six or seven supporters and attempting to muscle through is a poor way to approach genuine content disputes. SAT85 (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, the suggestion that consensus is "ganging up" and "muscling through" when things don't go your way does, I think, say a lot here. Anyway, I have not been active in the discussion longer than SAT85 - I joined in the argument quite late to try to help it towards resolution. I have not been in breach of 3RR, and reverting the anti-consensus removal by a sockmaster and his socks in tandem with other editors seems like legitimate anti-vandal action to me. I have not refused to stop repeating the same arguments over and over again when there is clearly a consensus against me. Further, I have been happy to bring the issue here for help in resolution, to listen to the opinions offered by the people here who have been trying to help (and who have my thanks), and to shut my mouth for a bit and not approach it by trying to drown out everyone else. I have also made it clear that I am happy to abide by consensus whichever way it goes, and if the community decides to remove the image that's fine with me. All I want to do is get this argument stopped so people can move on constructively. I see nothing whatsoever in that which would call for a topic ban on me, but anyone is, of course, welcome to propose one and see how it goes. (As an involved party, I will not !vote on this proposal) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had forgotten that you (unlike David Oakes) joined this discussion at the RfC. I actually joined quite late in the piece as well--a little after you (see the RfC). And by "ganging up" I am not referring to a genuine consensus--the consensus over time has been to remove the photo. Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Does it at all concern you that a number of respected editors not only disagree with your claim that "the consensus over time has been to remove the photo", but are actually supporting topic banning you for endlessly and falsely asserting it? The human body has been considered an expression of beauty and the subject of art for millennia, such as this classical sculpture, and File:Bouguereau venus detail.jpg. Is a photograph really more "indecent" than a statue or full color painting? If you disagree with WP:NOT#CENSORED, then the Citizendium and Conservapedia, both of which have "family friendly" policies prohibiting photographic nudity, may prove to be more hospitable editing environments. Peter Karlsen (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't concern me in the least, or particularly surprise me--I have obviously stepped on some ideological toes. It is not clear to me why you think that I have been "endlessly and falsely repeating" the claim that the weight of opinion over time has been against the picture. As I recall I've made the observation once or twice, and if you consult the archives, you will see that it's true. For the rest, see the Talk:man page. Regards, SAT85 (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a censored David up on the page for a short time in September. —Soap— 18:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, my mistake, SAT85 and I did both start contributing at about the same time (Oct 2 and Sep 28 respectively). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the "Wikipedia is not censored" line has been repeated a lot more than the reasons for deletion (all quite straightforward, in my view). I accept that the recent consensus of six or seven chaps from AN/i--together with attempts to censor the rest of us--is making further efforts to improve the page pretty futile at this stage (though it does seem to be now generally recognised that the collage should represent men in natural costumes). Alas for policy, readership and professionalism. Anyway, it has been an interesting discussion, if a bit tedious at times, and I have found you cordial to deal with. Cheerio for now, SAT85 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support, as someone who keeps trying to get User:SAT85 to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Heiro 03:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support While, in his defence, he hasn't edit warred the image out of the article itself, the excessive and repetitious argumentation of a lost cause is disruptive. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Once an editor gets on the moebius strip and won't get off, some action is needed to derail it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - This has gone way past any honest attempt to support a minority view into talk page disruption. If SAT85 won't drop the stick, it's time to take it away from him. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - and would support the same in the future for any editor attempting to censor the encyclopedia. → ROUX ₪ 11:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Putting the claim about censorship to one side, this encapsulates the real motive behind banning: WP:IDONTIKEYOURVIEW. SAT85 (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - if ya wanna get a guy to be more cooperative, a topic ban will help. GoodDay (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from the Man and Talk:Man pages. There's only so many times you can tell a person something. If they don't want to hear it, they won't, and it's time to cut them loose. -Atmoz (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support There needs to be something in place to prevent further disruption. I would suggest a 1 year topic ban. Inka888^ContribsTalk 21:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion - It might be useful if those expressing an opinion here also indicate whether they support nude photography in the non-anatomical page in question. This should help to clarify the extent to which partisanship is involved. SAT85 (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support WP:IDHT ; Disruption Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Question: What's the scope of the proposed topic ban? I hope it's not "man"...see WP:TBAN. T. Canens (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oops yes that would be bad. Scope SAT85 (talk · contribs) is restricted from all articles involving media with nudity or from adding such media to ones where there is none. there that covers pointy additions as well The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support SAT85 has just lost credibility in my eyes by connecting the non-sexualised picture of an adult male with child pornography. A stupid and inflammatory contribution. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope I've cleared up this misunderstanding on the other page, Hilo. I was not connecting the two, just trying to offer an example of something we all consider to be inappropriate on Wikipedia; the point was that WP:NOTCENSORED is not absolute. If you browse back through the Talk page, you'll see that others discussed child pornography before I did. Best regards, SAT85 (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Is strange that only with man and never with woman, so for prevent he continue doing it (though I do not think so) he cannot contribute positively with only one pic. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think it should be noted that the editors who are against adding this image, there appears to be two now, with another who just showed up as a new account, is religious reasons. The quoting of the bible finally appeared when there was nothing left in policy to use. You can find the comments quoted in this section. I think the time has come to allow the article to be opened for editing and the editors arguing against the addition to be told to either stop or be removed from the discussions now. The arguements have also been that having an image of a naked man is the same as child porn to the taliban which shows how out of control this discussion has become. I don't want to have to remove anyone but the time has come for this to stop either by the editors doing so themselves or by force. I'm hoping for the editors to accept the consensus and stopping on their own. If they won't then I do support banning them from this article. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be a reasonable person, CrohnieGal, so I think it is worth clarifying here that in my view nothing has been advanced to counter the charge that WP:NPOV, WP:PROFANE and wikipolicy on what professional encyclopaedias include are triggered by the insistence on the nude photograph in its current position when three other nude illustrations are already included. Moreover, if you have another look at Ben Dawid's citation of the Bible, I think you'll agree that he was candidly elaborating on his own convictions (something we could do with a bit more of here)--not in that instance trying to get the picture removed. As I said earlier, though, with policy and rationale a fading force, and no fair attempt to find a consensus among the readership of Man, I have little more to offer here--banning or no banning. But thanks for the more neutral tone. Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Appeals to a silent majority cannot be used to override consensus. A consensus in an RfC is determined by the analysis of the people who actually contribute to the RfC. However, I will say that if there were such a silent majority, I'm sure we'd have heard about it long before now. —Soap— 18:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(i) The majority has not been silent. All of this was dismissed with the red herring that consensus cannot trump WP:NOTCENSORED. Now that we have an editorial clique from AN/i stampeding over the policy-based, rationally-defensible concerns of the rest of us, "consensus" is back in the ball-park. (ii) If you are genuinely convinced that the readership of Man now supports your view of the matter, conduct the experiment: put a neutrally-worded template on the page itself, indicating that the dispute is over photographs, not images, remove the partisan disclaimer (since "standards of decency", not "censorship" is the key phrase here), and see what unfolds. This would not be bulletproof, since quite a lot of people who unsuspectingly bump into the photo at (e.g.) work or school are likely to click back without further ado, but if there was a very clear majority in favour I would consider the reasons for removal not worth persuing. No doubt this suggestion is unnecessary, superfluous, unfair or even perhaps "deplorable", but a guy who stands back and observes a no will, I think, suspiciously scratch his head. SAT85 (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I see you've altered your previous arguments somewhat, as the "many editors" in the current discussion, which you had previously invoked for support, have now been reduced to yourself, and maybe one other... and a sock farm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You've spent a lot more time worrying about sock puppetry than focussing on the issues--you seem to have trouble with the idea that "IRL" there are a good many of us who find nude photography in commonplace areas ridiculous. A lot of the people from AN/i initially echoed this view about Man, but some of them apparently jettisoned common sense when they suspected that an ideological skirmish was underway. Anyway, you can have the last word. Cheers, SAT85 (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not a "commonplace area", it's the internet. If you don't like what you see on the internet, then don't use the internet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Draconian solutions do not work. And the precedent of banning anyone on the basis of their opinions is contrary to WP fundamental policy. We can tolerate dissent here if anywhere. And if we squash "wrong opinions" here, there is no way to prevent it happening everywhere on WP. Collect (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • We are not banning him for his opinion, but the manner he chose to express it. T. Canens (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I typically agree against such things, as a respectable minoritiy should never be silenced. But a month of Tedious Discussion make it clear this editor needs help Dropping the stick and backing away from the horse carcass The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to agree. This editor refuses to follow consensus and keeps talking in circles. The last few comments prior to my posting here shows the frustrations of other editors of the comments made by SAT85. It's time to stop it and allow the article to begin normal editing now. I am really sorry but it is time. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Slightly regretfully, as SAT85 has been unfailingly civil. However, as long as he continues to repeat arguments that do not reflect policy or consensus, and to misrepresent consensus on the Man discussion, this debate will never end.--Korruski^Talk 23:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

whack a puppet?

Resolved see SPI for more information The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
One just popped up on Talk:Man the number of SPA on this topic is quite annoying. sock or meat? dont know dont care The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC) For the record see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/We233ws The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Pumpie's talk page

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

As I'm sure many of you know, or at least, those of you who participated in the indef-block discussion, this user has a very large competence problem, which is in the area of their understanding of English and Grammar.

They have been recently blocked indefintiely, until such time that they can show a dramatic change in their understanding of English.

Although many editors have offered their good faith to this user, it seems it has gone unwarranted. That it has been wasted. They were in fact just waiting for a 'newbie' administrator to come by and unblock them.

Per the above diff, and their persistent denial that they need to take a year-long break from wikipedia, I am requesting that their talk page and email privileges be revoked; from the above diff, it is in my honest opinion that they cannot be trusted with either. I do not think it would be wise to give them access to their email, when in the above diff, they stated they were waiting to trick a new administrator into unblocking them.

This request is not to last as long as the block; it is not to last forever. Only a year from the day their block was issued.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to shut out a good-faith editor from the project even on grounds of competence, without offering mentorship first, specifically from an experienced Greek/English bilingual editor prepared to take the time. I'm not impressed by the appeal to a "newbie Admin", but cultural values differ between countries where corruption is the norm, and those where it isn't. Absent anyone wishing to take this editor on as a protege, on balance a year's block might be enough to get this editor up to speed. Rodhullandemu 01:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It might not be easy to see in the fog of verbiage on that page, but it's been established that Pumpie is also incompetent in Greek. It has yet to be established what his native language actually is (or whether he understands the term). This alone gives mentorship a slim chance of success, and there are also issues of willingness. FWIW; I really hoped we could help him to improve, but he's just in complete denial/incomprehension. Back to claiming his genius will overcome all, talking about social class, etc. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This may be a totally stupid question, but as you say the fog of verbiage over there defies comprehension and sapped my will to live... anyway. Has anyone asked, directly, what language Pumpie speaks? Has Pumpie ever edited from an IP which geolocates somewhere a reasonable guess of a primary language could be ascertained? → ROUX ₪ 03:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, at least 3 times recently. He first said he would answer later, then he replied that Greek was his native and English his speaking language. Unfortunately apparently his grasp of Greek is also non-native. He's been here since at least 2004; early on, he edited a lot as an IP. There's a statement on the talkpage from someone saying that back then his IP geolocated to Canada. Since then, things he has said imply Greece, but he has also been referring to plans to travel to the US and to a knowledge of every street in Picardy. In short: another citizen of the world, native language unknown. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see this previous discussion from October 28 which may answer some of your questions Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646#Pumpie including why the block was restored. MarnetteD | Talk 04:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only is this editor incompetent, he/she has repeatedly made promises and then broken them. This editor really just needs to go away for at least a few months. Looie496 (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

So what of my proposal then? Revoke talk and email access for a year from the day the block was issued. Since they still believe they are going to be unblocked, and since they will try tricking others(newbie admins) in order to achieve that end, I do not believe they can be trusted with either, and the only way to drive through the point that they cannot come back(until the other conditions noted in the original indef block thread are met) is through those restrictions.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My non admin opinion is to aqree with your proposal. Heiro 04:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If Pumpie claims a knowledge of every street in Picardy, then I'd hazard a guess that he may understand French. Maybe a French-speaking editor could leave a message in French on Pumpie's talk page and see if there is a response (this being per IAR re English language on En-Wiki). Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

And if they just post more of the same?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Several of us can vouch for Pumpie's poor knowledge of French, and he admits himself that he understands it (and German) less well. He's been leaving out non-repetitive passages in his translations of French stations because he knows he can't render them. This is why I and others have breached etiquette and asked him what his native language is. He has not demonstrated competence in any. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

AGF does not demand we ferret out a language in which a user is competent when the user himself is unwilling or unable to declare it. Either his English, French, and Greek are all roundly abyssmal and the user simply cannot comprehend the request to name his native language (unlikely), or he is playing us. Either way, there is simply no justification for additional effort being expended here. Absent any compelling argument to the contrary, I suggest we simply block indef, revoke talk page access, and give him the "standard offer", though obviously contingent on competent communications rather than adequate behavior. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Pumpie is already blocked indef. My proposal was to revoke talk and email access for a year from the day they were blocked indef, per the single diff linked in this report, showing that Pumpie was going to try and trick a newbie admin into unblocking him.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, I feel WP:AGF has run it's course. There is always email. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My proposal included revoking email access, again per the diff above, we can't trust him with either. This would only last a year from the day of the block, though.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I ran across Pumpie some considerable time ago. I would imagine the questions about his native language are related to encouraging him to contribute to that languages projects. If my recollection is correct, one of Pumpie's goals was to "know every language in the world", which I respect, even if it seems a little tricky sans transhumanism of some kind. I too had difficulty of some of his edits, the best thing would be to find some substantial WP project or task to which he could contribute his energy without causing problems. Any suggestions? Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC).

Commons with photography? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have reblocked with talk page and email disabled, for the reasons given above. If someone wants to advise Pumpie about constructive contributions elsewhere that would be fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... one question. Pumpie has over 45,000 edits since 2003-09-17. This hasn't seemed to be a problem until recently (first block was 2010-10-13). Has anyone done any research into (a) this being intent instead of incompetence? (reminds me of another editor in that respect... "Bad edits..." blocked not too long before this started... but anyway...) or (b) that the account has been compromised? ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about A, but I'm pretty sure it isn't B.. although his last contribution to his talk page has sewn doubt into my being.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Query: 45 of edits since 2003 isn't really a lot, is it? I ask, becuase if there was a substantive gap, wherein the user left as a constructive editor, and came back a nonconstructive one, maybe we are seeing an account being hijacked (of course, blocking works for both instances), Secondly, I would submit that if the user is using broken English, his comment about waiting for a newbie admin might not have been him trying to pull a fast one. He might have just been asking for an uninvolved admin (ie., a new one to his situation, without preconceptions). I've seen that asked for before in proper English without anything sinister implied. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. I'm sure you guys have this all figured out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The date of the first block isn't really relevant in this case. Just look at this from way back in 2004 [4]. The same problem of mass translations from and to languages that aren't sufficiently understood, and the exact same reaction from Pumpie when challenged about it, even using the same grammatical constructs ("I will..."). Seems pretty clear it's not a compromised account. It's also beyond my imagination why someone would intentionally play stupid for seven years (but I guess it's possible.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I admire everyone's work to assume good faith but is there a point at which it becomes reasonable to wonder whether we're dealing with another Borat Sagdiyev? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that Pumpie's last post to his own talk page is interesting. He states "I am a first generation foreign born Greek" which is at least a partial answer to the question he's been asked repeatedly for months now. If his parents mainly speak Greek, he's mainly learned English from TV programs as he suggests, and (speculating slightly) in some parts of the country that his IP suggests he's in, he would also be forced to learn French in school - then he may be something approaching tri-lingual resulting in his not having a sufficient grasp of any of the three languages. That could also give him distorted ideas of his own linguistic abilities and how translation should be handled (and thus the problems with German, Portugese, etc). If true then we should still be AGF but when it comes down to it, we just aren't able to communicate effectively with him so what's been done is the correct course of action --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds the idea of someone lacking a first language, or full competence in any language, to be heartrendingly sad? ClovisPt (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would find it sad if it were true. I find it vastly difficult to believe that it is the case; I grew up in Toronto, one of the most multicultural cities in North America (if not the world), and went to school with a lot of kids whose parents were immigrants and spoke only X, then had to come to school and speak English. Not to mention mandatory French classes! I find it extremely, extremely difficult to believe that Pumpie grew up without learning a primary language. → ROUX ₪ 19:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Persistent trolling is sad in a whole other way. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I gave the impression I was at odds with the block. I'm not, and I think it well warranted. Was more than anything, simply curious as to how much "leg work" others put into looking into this considering the 45K edits, and if no one had, I was going to, simply to satisfy my curiosity - or if others had, it would save me the looking into... just seemed strange if it's been going on for so many edits, but that's been covered above (and my curiousity satisfied, thanks). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Pumpie's been noticed in the past. Have a read of his Talk page where other Wikipedians were complaining about his translations, & if you have a taste for schadenfreude have a look at his unsuccessful RfA -- allegedly his 9th attempt! I figure he went a way for a while between 2005 (when contributors of his quality were ignored, not banned) & 2009 (when they were blocked & eventually banned). -- llywrch (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Have we not suggested to him that he go over to simple: if we are so concerned about his fluency?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it has been. The problem is that this user insists on editing here, regardless of their poor grasp of language. This is likely going to be another indef block on a user who just doesn't get it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that a poor grasp of English is a good qualification for writing encyclopedia articles in simple English. We shouldn't shovel our problems onto other projects. Would image work be a better place to redirect those with poor language skills? Bovlb (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be a prerequisite for him being allowed back here. If he is able to constructively contribute to the Simple English Wikipedia, thereby showing that his language skills are improving, then he could feasibly be brought back here. If they ban him, then it just shows that he's not good for any English language project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

From Simple's An English Wikipedian's guide#What Simple English Wikipedia is not:

"Simple English Wikipedia is not a place for banned users to try and get unbanned from another website. In fact users banned on other Wikimedia Foundation wikis can be banned here without warning (see: here). Simple English Wikipedia is a separate Wikipedia in its own right and we encourage editors to join who believe in our goal of a simpler to read project."

They most certainly do not want our problems. Furthermore, writing bad English is even more inappropriate for a project where people already have English comprehension issue.

I think editors here would be incensed if they thought another project was steering their banned users to us.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If I understand Ryulong's intent, it is not to "dump" Pumpie on Simple English, but to send him somewhere he can improve his skills while being useful. There have been cases where users banned from one project go to another, successfully reform themselves, & are able to return to their original project. It's obvious that neither the Greek or French Wikipedias will take him, & were he to go to one of the other Wikimedia projects, it'll only end in frustration & anger for all involved. But regardless of the reasons for sending him there, I suspect if Pumpie goes to simple English, he'll just end up being banned from there -- not helped in any way. -- llywrch (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI: some concerns expressed on other projects:

• w:pt:Usuário Discussão:Pumpie
• w:nl:Overleg gebruiker:Pumpie
• w:la:Disputatio Usoris:Pumpie
• w:el:Συζήτηση χρήστη:Pumpie
• w:de:Benutzer Diskussion:Pumpie (blocked also on de.wikipedia; see this earlier talk page version)
• w:af:Gebruikerbespreking:Pumpie

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have left a courtesy note on Simple Wikipedia informing administrators there of this discussion:

• w:simple:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Fresh start on Simple for a blocked en.wikipedia editor? (permanent link)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am an active user/administrator at Simple, and I do ask that we take care in avoiding the appearance of using it as a "rehabilitation center". In the past, it was expressly used for that purpose as if it were a test wiki and not a legitimate wiki in and of itself (some administrators used to openly send banned users over to Simple). I share A.B.'s concerns with Ryulong's proposal. We welcome any editors who can cluefully contribute in a good faith manner, but I personally ask that they not be sent over as part of a "trial". Kansan (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, from w:simple:Wikipedia:Blocks and bans#Reciprocal Bans:

"Administrators also have the option to block users who have been banned on other Wikipedias or other Wikimedia Foundation projects. This is decided on a case-by-case basis. Usually, a user who broke the rules on another project is not blocked unless they also break the rules on the Simple English Wikipedia. They can be blocked if they break the rules here even once, and do not need the same amount of warning as a new user. This is often called the "one-strike" rule. It is made to stop bad users, who have a history of making bad edits, from disrupting this project."

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So he doesn't fit in anywhere. Why not take this to a global level then until he tells us the language he speaks at home?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As a comment from someone who writes for different levels of comprehension in real life, writing Simple isn't simple. Writing simpler English for those with less developed grammatical abilities still requires a good command of grammar. Pumpie's writing would be baffling to many Simple users, and would be damaging for people using Simple for developing their own English comprehension. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Where did Keith Olbermann attend college?

Yeah, that again.

BuboTitan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to have but a single interest in Wikipedia, ranting endlessly at Talk:Keith Olbermann about how wrong it is that the article doesn't mention which of the many colleges at Cornell University Olbermann attended. He also seems to think that MiszaBot (talk · contribs) is an Olbermann fan who's in on a conspiracy to hide this vitally important discussion because it archives old threads. This is getting rather tiresome and I was wondering if there's anything that can be done on an Administrative level to help BuboTitan understand that it may not be in his best interest to continue on his present course. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh man ROFLCOPT award. Why not just cite which one and be done? This is obviously Good faith question (Though WP:STICK might apply). The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue seems to be that the college he attended is a state, not private one - but according to the Cornell article, the University consists of 9 private and 4 state colleges. So what? Why does it matter whether it's mentioned or not? is this some big class distinction thing in the US that the rest of us are not aware of? Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be political point-making thing. Conservative Ann Coulter said Olbermann didn't "really" go to the Ivy League Cornell,[5] leading to Olbermann showing his Cornell diploma on TV. [6]. --Slp1 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone asked the editor in question, "Why does it matter?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for anyone who doesn't know, this all started when some pundit mentioned the Ag School in an effort to denigrate Olbermann's education. Since then there have been periodic flurries of talk page disruption advocating to put this in, in spite of the fact that no other bio on Wikipedia contains similar information. Is there anything an admin can do to help Bubo get it? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There's pages of this stuff. See archive 5 as well. BuboTitan is involved from here onwards, (January '10).Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. The fact that someone would be taking an implicit shot at the Ag School is fairly offensive in itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any reliable source indicating that there is some significance in having attended this college rather than any other college in Cornell (not as yet produced) this insistence looks pointy and disruptive. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree. The vast preponderance of reliable sources refer to him as a Cornell graduate. The Ag school RS mentions, and they are few, occur only in relation to Coulter's comments. I'd suggest making a FAQ section on the talkpage, with links to the key discussions in the archives, so that editors can be pointed to that. If it continues to be a problem, then having a new RFC is probably a good idea to show that consensus has not changed. It's been a while since the last one. --Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yes, we established at the talk page long ago, that this doesn't belong in the article. I wasn't asking to relitigate that here. I was just hoping for some kind of admin help in getting this through to Bubo. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Fainites. What Ann Coulter says has little bearing on how we choose to write our article on Mr. Olbermann. If these users are unwilling to follow the intent of WP:SOAPBOX/WP:BATTLEGROUND, they need to be asked to cease and desist, and should be blocked if they are unwilling to listen. NW (Talk) 01:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a member of WikiProject Cornell, I can assure you that Mr. Obermann received a Cornell degree. See the article statutory college for further details. Each college at Cornell has a separate admission process and separate graduation requirements, but a single set of intercollegiate sports teams draw their players from all of the colleges, including the NYS College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Hence, all of Cornell is a part of the Ivy League. Racepacket (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly those kveching about Olbermann are not using "Ivy League" in the technical sense of the members of the sports conference, but more in the colloquial extended meaning of "old, elite East-coast private university". (You know, "Ivy-covered professors, in ivy-covered halls," as Tom Lehrer sang.) Why they think it matters is beyond me -- it's not like MSNBC is going to pull his show because his degree is from a state college within an old, elite East-coast university. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll jump in here for a moment since my position has been grossly misrepresented. I'm guessing that Steven J. Anderson came here first because he figured I was going to request admin help after he lost his temper on the page and resorted to ad hominems (look at his remarks there 02:08, 5 November 2010). Enough said! Now let me point out a few things:

1. The official name of the school is actually the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University and in spite of what "Baseball Bugs" thought above, I NEVER said that it was academically any different than the rest of Cornell.
2. I also never insisted that the full name of the school be included in the article. In fact, I've never even edited the article!! EVER. I wanted to discuss it on the talk page before doing any editing. I did argue that the issue should be discussed in some manner in the article, since it is a controversy in and of itself and Mr. Olbermann himself has addressed this controversy on the air. I was looking for some kind of compromise. In spite of what Steven said, there is no consensus on this issue; the robust amount of discussion on it is proof of that. The issue for the previous RFC was only whether or not to send the Cornell link to Cornell page directly or the the Ag School instead. It had nothing to do with mentioning the issue in the body of the article.
3. Is this even important? Actually, my bigger objection here is the problem of Ownership of Articles. It's telling that I've been away from this article for 6 months and when I come back, the same three people are there within minutes if any comment is left on the talk page. You can also look at the old discussions, such as here, or here. The same users (usually Blaxthos) put "hats" on discussions in the archives and label them as "irrelevant" or "trolling" or whatever in order to hide discussion of this particular subject as much as possible. So it's obviously very important to someone. The point is that this small group will not allow any edits at all other than their own, and get outright hostile over any contrary opinions even on the talk page. That's not what Wikipedia is about.
4. Bottom line is, the article could really use a new pair of eyes away from the usual editors. Not necessarily mine, but someone new. As of right now, the article could almost be described as a fan page, even considering the subject is a living person. Certain editors on the talk page there, such as Blaxthos or Steven Anderson could also be strongly reminded of Wikipedia policy regarding civility. Thanks. BuboTitan (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

See what I mean? It never ends. I made some intemperate comments, which I have no intention of redacting because they're substantially accurate, and in all fairness, I came here looking for help before it got to that point. Somethings gotta be done to stop this shit. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Do other articles about Cornell graduates make a point of specifying whether they went to the Ag school or whatever? (I don't know the answer, which is why I'm asking.) Also, everything Ann Coulter says is designed to cause controversy, so what's special about this? And why does her dissing of the agriculture industry have anything to do with Olberman's career? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Bugs your first question that's been answered dozens of times and the answer is no. Check Category:Cornell University alumni and check the talk page archives. There are over 1700 articles there and not one of them contains that kind of information. Including it in the text would violate WP:UNDUE because we never mention that sort of thing and virtually no one except Coulter has considered it worth mentioning in any citable source. Bubo knows this. Now what he wants to do is create a surprise link so that when the user clinks on Cornell University he goes to the article on the ag school, thereby getting the information to the reader through subterfuge.Oops, I misunderstood what he meant by "compromise". I guess he has no real ideas for improving the article and is disrupting for it's own sake. A Can anyone here honestly say that they believe he's acting in good faith when he does this?

What bothers me about the question, however, is that it's a question about a content dispute that was resolved a year and a half ago, which Bubo knows. What he calls ownership is what everyone else calls consensus. There's no ownership. A wide variety of editors have no trouble editing that page without any problem. There are a few disputes but they are generally handled in the normal course of things. But, every time one of the trolls and POV pushers gets started on the talk page it turns into a complete, fucking shambles with hundreds of thousands of bytes on this subject alone. We don't need any more discussion on whether that bit of trivia belongs in the article. That was handled long ago by consensus. What we do need is some kind of consensus on how to deal with the disruption on the talk page, which becomes unusable every time the trolls start in on it. Blaxthos has tried hatting these discussions from time to time, but then, guess what? the trolls start to piss and moan about that.

Is there anything an administrator can do about this or do we need an Arbcom ruling that allows this shit to be deleted from the talk page on sight the way it is with similar idiocy is at the Obama-related talkpages? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So Steven Anderson, I guess the strategy here is to sling enough ad hominems at me and make stuff up until something will stick? Are you going to make a comment about my mother while you are at it? I probably shouldn't even bother to address you directly, but I would really like to know where did I ever try to put a surprise link to redirect the link to Cornell??? Where did I even suggest that?? Put up or shut up. If I'm going to try to assume good faith, then the most generous I can be is to assume that you have argued this issue with so many others that you are confusing me with other people. But that still doesn't excuse making false statements about me. If you are so confused, and there is still so much arguing over this, then that alone strongly suggests that: 1) Maybe it's time for some of the page "owners" to take a break and recuse themselves for awhile, and 2) The issue does not have a consensus (see my comment below). BuboTitan (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

POV Pushers who play WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and keep rehashing old discussions by claiming they are not resolved are violating WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT and should be instructed to stop or they will be blocked. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. However, the RFC that is constantly being referring to here, was only over the issue of redirecting the Cornell link to the AG College. It didn't address including the controversy between Ann Coulter and Mr. Olbermann elsewhere in the article. There is no consensus on that anywhere. That might also solve a lot of the bellyaching over this issue - if anyone tries to change the Cornell link, just revert and point out that the issue is already addressed in the body of the article. Or another idea, as someone suggested above. Simply start a new RFC. BuboTitan (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a pointy disruption that has been explained to BuboTitan multiple times. This is most certainly not a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia. Since he's a low-contribution editor who brings this up every few months, and refuses to acknowledge the points from the megabytes of discussion on the matter, can we please start moving towards a stern warning, potential topic ban, or some other form of injunctive relief? Good faith editors shouldn't have to repeat discussions ad infinitum because of a few determined POV trolls... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There plainly is consensus in wiki terms. No sensible argument or or suitable source has been put forward to justify including this pointy point in the article despite the many inches of discussion. BuboTitan, please desist this campaign and consider yourself warned, otherwise a topic ban or block will be seriously contemplated. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Faintes, we can settle this right now. If you or anyone else can do this, then I will stop making any comments at all on the article. Simply give me one single link or a reference that shows consensus on the issue of including the controversy in the article. Can you do that? (*sound of crickets chirping*). And consider this a "warning" as well, from now on, anyone who insists on making untrue statements about me, assigning quotes to me which were not made by me, disrupting the talk pages to hide disagreement, or making personal attacks will be reported. Fair enough? I can't assume good faith if this still goes on after repeated requests to stop. BuboTitan (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Teach the controversy" is not a good argument here. There is no controversy. The original arguments made by editors and Coulter that Ag isn't part of Cornell proper are plainly wrong. Coulters view is not a controversy - just media posturing. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So in other words, your statements are all empty air you can't produce this "consensus" for us. And you may think there is no "controversy", but Olbermann sure did (since he publicly addressed it on his show), and the article is about him, not you.BuboTitan (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The most recent one is Talk:Keith Olbermann#Edit request from 98.201.172.146, 13 August 2010, preceded by Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive_6#Keith's real college..., Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive 5#Cornell redux. Seems that there's been quite a bit of trolling over this topic over time, much the same way the Obama page gets attacked with birther/Muslim junk every so often. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there ought to be a sockpuppet investigation to find out if this is one person pushing the same POV and trying to make it appear as multiple people. Additionally, BuboTitan's particular brand of WP:TE bears more than a passing resemblance to Grundle2600 (talk · contribs). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Burpelson, first of all, since I've never even edited the article WP:TE doesn't apply. It's getting very tiring that users here are lumping me in with other people!!! The problem with ownership of articles is so bad on the Olbermann page that there are edit wars on the talk page. I'm not kidding. Moreover, this is the only Wiki account I have ever had, although I don't do a whole lot of editing with it. If you think I'm a "sock puppet", then give me a way to contact you, and I'll be glad to call you myself. I am only me. Additionally, I notice you just undid a small edit I made to an unrelated article. Coincidence? I hope this isn't leading to wikistalking. BuboTitan (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

On the content issue itself, I find this all a bit mystifying. For UK universities that have a college system, it's totally standard to state which college at that university a person attended, if it's known; I don't see why the same thing doesn't apply. Apart from anything else, it is interesting that a sportscaster attended an agricultural college (Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences). By contrast, controversy about the college's source of funding seems pointless and manufactured, and eminently ignorable. Rd232 ^talk 15:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Because there's not the same kind of relationship between colleges and universities here, with some rare exceptions in some of the oldest American universities, such as Harvard and Columbia. Rather than the university being a (for lack of a better word) confederation of semi-independent existing institutions, as I believe is the case for Oxford and Cambridge, colleges in American universities are, by and large, completely subsidiary to the university. It's most often the case that the college has, in fact, been created by the university as a sub-unit, rather than having had a pre-existing identity. (And, yes, it does indeed happen that a university and an existing institution will merge, in which case the new "college" or school will carry on having a somewhat separate reputation, but this is not the norm in American universities.) Bear in mind that even our oldest institutions are very much younger than the Oxbridge ones -- and I wonder, does the model of OXford and Cambridge carry over to newer UK universities, or are they more on the American line? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and rest assured that when Coulter and her ilk bring this up, it's not because they find it "interesting" that a newscaster (he hasn't been a sportscaster for a while) went to an agricultural college. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The only other university that is very much college based is London which is a conglomeration of different institutions of different ages, far more so than Oxbridge. To people who haven't been to Oxbridge they would just say someone went to Oxbridge. It's mainly only people who went there who would care whether it was Kings or Balliol or whatever. However, at London, if you go to UCL or Imperial College, that is where you go and probably have nothing to do with any other aspect of London University at all.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be as specific as possible. The other extreme would be that "Mr. Olbermann attended a university in the USA, but Wikipedia refuses to mention which one". பின்லாந்துF (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's a degree of specificity which is appropriate, and "Cornell" is the answer to that question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Take another of the America's most prestigious universities for example, Washington University in St. Louis. It's a relatively new university, just over 150 years old. It includes a number of substituent schools: College of Arts & Sciences, the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences, University College in Arts & Sciences, Olin Business School, Sam Fox School of Design & Visual Arts, School of Engineering, School of Law, School of Medicine, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, and a former School of Dental Medicine. However, any graduate of Wash U would refer to themselves as a graduate of Wash U, not of Wash U Arts & Sciences or of Wash U's Medical School. I understand that in Oxford, for sample, one would say say that they attended St Edmund Hall at Oxford rather than just Oxford University. Is that correct?

I must confess, I don't see the big deal with adding something like this to the article, but that isn't a discussion for here. What is up for discussion is a persistent IDIDNTHEARTHAT. NW (Talk) 17:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

With respect to Oxford (which may or may not be a good analogy for the Olberman issue), I describe myself as an Oxford graduate, but I am a member/alumnus of Wadham College, Oxford - the reason being that at Oxford and Cambridge students most closely associate themselves with their college, colleges are separate legal entities and all teaching is centred around the college, but degrees are awarded by the University. – ukexpat (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The opposite is the case here (again, with rare exceptions) - identification would be with the university and not the college or school. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well here, if someone said where did you go to Uni and you said "Balliol" that would be fine if you were talking to an Oxford man but probably considered pretentious by anyone else. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

BuboTitan edit warring

Unresolved

• BuboTitan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After several stern warnings by administrators in the thread above, and a direct warning on his talk page, user BuboTitan has resorted to edit warring to un-{{hat}} the closed discussion at Talk:Keith Olbermann. Evidence of 3RR violation:

1. Revert at 08:43
2. Revert at 09:44
3. Revert at 09:48
4. 3RR warning was issued by Burpelson AFB at 10:49
5. Lengthy discussion/warning from Fainites
6. Revert at 17:35

Additionally, please note all the C&D's above. Administrative assistance appreciated. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If he has indeed broken the 3-revert rule, I suggest you post your findings on that page, since there seems to be no willingness to take care of it here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This kind of thing is taken care of much faster at WP:AN3.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I will be glad to discuss this in any forum, and let Blaxthos dig himself deeper in a hole, since I have never even edited the Keith Olbermann article. The only thing I am "guilty" of is removing "hats" that were placed on the talk page to hide the discussion, since certain user's own mudslinging had become embarrassing to them. These weren't "reverts" and didn't remove any information from the page. On the contrary, I merely unhid the discussion - a discussion that is currently an issue on this admin noticeboard, no less! BuboTitan (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the issue is not Olberman or what's-her-face or the college - it's YOU that's the issue. ¿Comprende? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, so you are admitting this is a personal vendetta? You are embarrassing yourself and wasting people's time on this admin board. I advise that you cease and desist this nonsense. BuboTitan (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, I brought it here because it's not a singular incident of 3RR violation, but rather a demonstration of this editor's willingness to violate Wikipedia policies with a pointy disruption after several admins told him to stop (and said continuing will result in topic ban discussions). I'm sure you don't speak for all the admins here when you say there is "no willingness to take care of it here". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well following the warnings BuboTitan has rather lost his cool and responded by edit-warring on the talk page about a hat, implying I have some personal issue in this matter (Maybe you had a traumatic experience arguing with other users), accusing Bugs above of having a personal vendetta (!) and implying bad faith all round. Whilst it is true that a number of editors are quite bemused as to why it should matter in the slightest whether the college is mentioned or not, the problem here is WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT and WP:TE. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

MSNBC Suspension

If this story is accurate, it's about a thousand times more important than the question of which college he went to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's already in both Keith Olbermann and Countdown with Keith Olbermann... why is that at all relevant to starting a new subsection at WP:ANI? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

To illustrate the magnitude of importance (or lack thereof) of the issue in question here, vs. the real-life situation he's gotten himself into. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on the subject of your pronoun "he", I think you're confused (no offense) as to the purpose of this discussion at ANI. The issue at question here is the tendentious editor hell bent on disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point after being warned by several administrators; the issue is not whatever you think about the underlying content. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I know what the purpose of this discussion is - it's to decide what to do, if anything, about Abdul the Bubo. I'm simply trying to make the point that even if he stops harping and finds reliable sources who think it's a big deal that Olbermann went to an ivy league's ag school - it still doesn't belong, because it's too trivial. Getting suspended for donating to candidates is not trivial. I've always liked Olbermannn, but this was an incredibly stupid thing that he did. So what I'm saying is that if Bubu wants to edit something about Olbermann that's a criticism, he should drop this college nonsense and get some good sourcing on something that matters. And in the process he should also stop acting like a troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. What does "Abdul the Bubo" mean? Is that supposed to be a racial remark? And you guys still don't even understand the real issue. I'm not pushing a POV and am not out to "criticize" Mr. Olbermann or anyone else. You still have me confused with someone else. The only thing I want, is to be able to discuss the issue of including information in the article without being flamed, insulted, edited, or censored by having the conversation hidden under "hats" so that no one can discuss it. IMHO, this is the result of vested editors who believe they own the page, and can't stand any dissention. This is against wiki guidelines, and is not healthy for any article. You have already accused me of multiple sins, but none of them have stuck. But it's your life, so you can keep spinning your wheels in the ground if you want. Good luck with that. BuboTitan (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it's just playing with your user ID, since I didn't remember the whole thing, just the "Bubo" part. Seems to me the issue already has been discussed and you did not persuade. So drop it already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, who is "Abdul the Bubo" ? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Image question

This has been uploaded by User:Chronos2010, an obvious Liberal Democrat activist, whose edits mostly consist of attacking Phil Woolas, a Labour Party politician. He claimed when uploading the poor-quality image that 'This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Joseph Fitzpatrick on behalf of Philip Woolas.'. I seriously doubt that this is true. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As a point of information, there is an ongoing legal case involving Phil Woolas. The image uploaded appears identical to one shown on the Guardian website here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It's quite possible they relied on the (presumably false) public domain tag on the image here. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is PD: see the gallery in the guardian, they won't just make that up, but will have checked. A similar case is this pic I uploaded previously. If you want to dispute it, nominate it for deletion via Wikipedia:Files for deletion. SmartSE (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

A bit of Googling confirms that a Joseph Fitzpatrick was Woolas's Election Agent, though that doesn't help much either way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You're telling me newspapers don't take false statements on Wikipedia at face value? This statement can be proven to be false. The Guardian image post-dates the Wikipedia upload; if it was the other way round I'd agree with you - clearly newspapers and other media sources use images found online, and the identical folding/crumpling on this suggests it was taken directly from here.

Why would Woolas' agent release the image into the public domain? So his opponents can use it to smear him? Not a chance. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

But what about the other images in the gallery? Where are you suggesting they got them from? More likely, is that they both got them from the same original source. I'm going to email The Guardian to seek clarification, over why they consider these to be PD. SmartSE (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• - That pic should be speedied, claiming that jonny who owns the copyright asked you to upload it for them is not a correct copyright claim at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It was listed for speedy deletion but the tag was removed by someone who said that Chronos appeared to be claiming to be Joseph Fitzpatrick. Something which is 100% not the case, as can be seen from Chronos' numerous edits attacking Woolas and other Labour and Conservative figures. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Notice the little PA at the end of the caption here? That means the image came from the UK Press Association. Which means its copyright to them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Racially motivated changes of nationality

This user, Special:Contributions/Koorja, has been tampering with the nationalities of non-white Britons.
I don't wish to violate 3RR. Varlaam (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Warned, happy to block if this continues. For future reference WP:BLP is a valid defense against WP:3RR. --John (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Without checking the specific edits (although I will, if asked, and it turns out I would be sufficiently uninvovled), reverting unequivocal WP:BLP violations is a valid defense against WP:3RR. A claim of WP:BLP violations is not enough. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Intervention needed in spreading LGBT rights POV dispute

There is an ongoing dispute between what I will characterize here for convenience sake as stridently pro-LGBT rights and stridently anti-LGBT rights factions of Wikipedia editors, although the situation is likely far more nuanced than that. There is a slow but continuous edit war at such articles as American Family Association, Arthur A. Goldberg‎, National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, and several others. Recent edits to Equality Mississippi caught my attention due to the involvement of User:Allstarecho who "retired" in August 2009 with the words "This user is sick of the bullshit and is now officially retired. Don't believe it? Watch" but seems to have returned in earnest. Allstarecho has an acknowledged conflict of interest as the founder of that organisation which has prompted previous discussions at ANI ([7], [8], & [9] for example). I would prefer not to see the disputes over that particular article start up again, but it is actually just part of the larger pattern. The involvement of more editors who are not polarized on LGBT rights issues would be appreciated. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I support this, a greater participation by less-involved editors would be of assistance over a wide swath of such articles. National Organization for Marriage and the deleted-in-contradiction-to-AfD-result Category:LGBT rights opposition, are another two examples that come to mind, but this is as Delicious carbuncle describes a slow, consistent burning war across a wide swath of articles, made worse by the paucity of less emotionally-involved editors. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

So... what's changed? I've seen tug-of-wars on any number of LGBT-related articles over the past several years. The topic is obviously contentious in the non-Wikipedia world, and some amount of spillage into Wikipedia space is unavoidable. What's new this week? Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there have been disputes in the past is not a reason to ignore the current situation. In other contentious areas there are various remedies enacted ranging from increased scrutiny (watchlisting troublesome articles), discussion, article probation, formal or informal dispute resolution, all the way up to blocking or topic banning individual editors. I'm not sure why you would treat this set of articles any differently when an escalating dispute has been pointed out to you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no ongoing anything here. I've made 3 edits, 2 of those edits removing {{tl:dead link}} tags because the links in fact aren't dead. The other edit was restoring content that wasn't a BLP issue but spoke to the fact that the organization did something, send out a press release, and they did as supported by the source link. Before these 3 edits, my last edit to this article was August 12, 2009, a whole year and almost 3 months ago. This only proves Delicious Carbuncle is babysitting this article looking for drama. The only "ongoing dispute" here is that apparently Delicious Carbuncle hasn't gotten rid of the chip on his shoulder regarding me and our past experiences well over a year ago. He of course fails to mention my page says I'm semi-retired and instead resorts to histrionics of only pointing out what I said when I retired back in August. Why is/was it even necessary to include my retirement message of a year and almost 3 months ago, in this complaint?? Seriously?? Grow up and move on. This will be all I have to say on this matter. Thanks.   allstar✰echo  07:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Allstarecho, I mentioned you and Equality Mississippi here because of the past issues with that article, but there is a wider issue that should be apparent to anyone who has watchlisted any articles dealing with LGBT rights issues. Your conflict of interest remains, however, and, as I recall it, your retirement came at a time when you were on the verge of being banned for repeatedly violating a topic ban relating to Matt Sanchez. Your last edits to Equality Mississippi were actually in April of 2010, not in August 2009. Nonetheless, your role in this larger POV dispute seems to be reactive rather than active, and I brought this here to deal with the larger issue, not to single out any particular users. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Donkey

• Böri (talk · contribs)
• Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

I feel a little sheepish bringing this to your attention, but I seem to have gotten into a minor edit war with this user who repeatedly ([10] [11] [12]) deletes another editor's talk page comment. This comment quotes Atatürk using the word "donkey" about a vaguely specified group of people, and apparently that's a Bad Thing. Now, I don't think that word is particularly offensive, and certainly not if it's a quote from a source, but as can be seen from User talk:Favonian#Eşek = Donkey!, my opponent thinks otherwise. I am not entirely sure whether the escape clause 3RR applies here, so rather than revert again I've chosen to bother you all with the problem. Favonian (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Sheepish", huh? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to be an ass, but we do have guidelines against removing other user's talkpage comments. I'm not sure that Böri has made a convincing case that Donkey is an insult in Turkish. Without a better rationale from him or one of our other Turkish speaking editors, I'd say the comments should be restored. Syrthiss (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No comment on anything else. But it's highly offensive to call someone a donkey in Turkish, and in Arabic as well. I suspect a few other languages.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This kind of reminds me of a topic a couiple of months ago, where an editor had a statement in kanji in his sig which was offensive to the native speakers, but not to anybody else. IIRC the consensus then was to remove the offensive statement. a_man_alone (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In this case, it is not the editor's own statement, but a sourced quote from Atatürk (I assume it's correct, but cannot verify it), and removing it from the talk page would amount to censorship. Favonian (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Just be careful who you call what; mule not hear the end of it if you aren't careful. HalfShadow 19:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I should have foreseen the horrors, which my feeble pun would unleash. Favonian (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall now reinstate the original talk page comment, but I foresee some trouble as Böri has been spreading the word: [13], [14], [15]. Hope others will watch the talk page while I sleep. Favonian (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This user, Böri, evidently has a rather inadequate command of English, and has shown some difficulties in Getting Things here on Wikipedia before. The quote that he's so upset about is a from an anecdote where Atatürk is reported to have himself made that self-deprecating "donkey" joke about his own name, as reported by somebody from his entourage [16]; as such, there can of course be no question of it being somehow offensive. (And even if it were, there is no reason we should maintain the quasi-religious taboo surrounding this historical figure, which unfortunately is fairly common in Turkey). Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles Whitman article

I am not sure even how I got involved, but I have tried to intercede in what is turning out to be a WP:COI issue, and I am now appealing for help.

The discourse involving 98.94.163.97 (talk) seemed to deteriorate rapidly, I did remove two taunts/incivility: mild and name calling, but I am not invested in this article to go any further.

The editor, 98.94.163.97 is apparently a John Moore, one-time Houston McCoy's "power-of-attorney" and a puppet master controlling sock puppets: Subwayjack (talk · contribs) and Organizedconfusion (talk · contribs), also see more sockpuppets. By his own admission, he has been blocked (he calls it "banned") twice already for his actions on this article topic. This is starting to become more sticky that I had thought.

He also has a propensity to use racial slurs... See: example

Now, this has entered another dimension as the individual named above seems to have not only personal knowledge but also an ulterior motive for editing the Charles Whitman article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

• Blocked 31 hours. --John (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I haven't been involved in the talk page discussions on this, but I share Bzuk's concerns. I am much more immediately concerned by this series of edits to the talk page, where the IP removes comments by a number of other editors with edit summaries that deprecate those editors' opinions. In my opinion the editor behind this IP ought to be permanently restricted from editing on the topic of Whitman, Ramiro Martinez, and especially Houston McCoy, though if the sockpuppetry allegation is true the next step is probably a siteban instead. Post edit-conflict comment: I still think we should pursue more than a short block. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Jimbo Wale's involvement in this issue here that conclusively identifies the problem and the recommendation that a siteban or even an IPrange ban is probably the only solution. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC).

Indeed, I recommend that people not waste too much time on this. Revert, block, ignore. This nonsense has been going on for years, and I think it will continue for years. Known problem user.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we have a clear and explicit siteban ruling, please, so others can revert on sight without warning or fear of sanction? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've lengthened the IP block and removed all the BLP vios I could find. Please keep in mind, any editor is free to rm BLP vios on sight. Likewise, given all the sockpuppetry and disruption, if/when he shows up again, all an editor need do is let an admin know about it. Meanwhile, this looks like enough support for a community siteban to me, so I've added ban tags, so anyone who stumbles onto this later will be aware of the background. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Eugeneacurry requests unblock

I note that User:Eugeneacurry, who was blocked for creating an article about an editor with whom he was in an edit-war on June 19, has posted a third request for unblock on his talk page. Once again, this is an unblock that might require a little consensus-forming, so I place it here: you may discuss amongst yourselves. I have put the unblock request on hold.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• - note - here is the last unblock discussion at ANI, closed as no consensus to unblock a little over three months ago. Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I think it's a bit soon to be considering unblock. I'd be interested to see rationals supporting unblock and User:SlimVirgin's opinion. Tiderolls 23:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I emailed SV hours ago, right after Eugene posted the request. No idea when she'll see it, though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock- It's been four months, and Eugeneacurry has agreed to not repeat the problematic behaviour. Indefinite blocks are not supposed to be the same as infinite blocks, and are only supposed to prevent disruption. If Eugeneacurry acts up again, he can be blocked again. Reyk _YO! 23:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry made that identical commitment three days into his block. I agree that his actions in the short term will be under intense scrutiny, which is the main reason I'm not strenuously opposing unblock. However, harassment is a practice that must be suppressed with diligence. That's my main concern. Tiderolls 00:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that's fair enough. I've never had anything to do with Eugene but per WP:AGF I'd prefer to believe that they were sincere three days into their block and sincere now. Reyk _YO! 00:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• I feel obliged to oppose an unblock. The actions of creating a nasty attack page (which had to be oversighted) making all sorts of allegations about an editor with whom he was in a minor dispute are not the actions of somebody well suited to a consensus-based project. Eugene is intelligent, he knew exactly what he was doing and, I believe, how egregious it was when he wrote that attack page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• We do not and should not usually indef ban (which this essentially is) editors for one-off offenses. Yes, he made a mistake. A terrible one. But I think he understands how tight of a leash he would be on, and I would highly doubt that anything like this would happen again. NW (Talk) 00:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• I oppose unblock as well. This isn't the one-off event all the people above are claiming; besides the sheer nastiness of his attack page—which frankly AGF doesn't apply to, as it can't possibly be explained away as a misunderstanding—since then Eugene's also been using his talkpage to engage in some rather spiteful bitchiness, and to canvass for people to POV-war on his behalf. I see no good from allowing someone who thinks this is appropriate back to stir the pot again. – iridescent 00:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Both of those are from the end of July and the beginning of August. It has been over four months since then. Perhaps things would go better with a topic/interaction ban on top of everything else? NW (Talk) 00:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Still oppose; a topic ban would be effectively meaningless in his case. He only has one interest—more than 50% of all his mainspace edits are to Jesus myth theory, and the rest are almost all to related pages—and that's the one page he's certain to remain topic-banned from, given the way he behaved on it in the past. – iridescent 01:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think anyone wants a repeat of that last kerfuffle, frankly this user's been given way too many chances and we can only WP:AGF so much... insulting a user is bad enough but creating a MAINSPACE attack page is just pushing it. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:06pm • 01:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No opinion, but the last thing the pages dealing with the historicity of Jesus needs is a disruptive editor. A topic-ban might be a good compromise. Let him prove he can edit other topics in a collaborative way, before going back to the extremely controversial topic that got him blocked previously. Noloop (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Per Noloop, what indeed are these editors intentions should they be unblocked? Apologising for the singular incident, and promising not to repeat it, is fine, but what do they intend to do were the block to be lifted? LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment- He didn't get blocked because of anything to do with historicity of Jesus pages, so that point is irrelevant. Since he has been strongly opposed to your POV, Noloop, as I have, your comment seems to me in all honesty to be self-serving and should consequently be rejected as not having any bearing on his matter. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't he blocked for disputes arising from Jesus-related articles? I've never edited with him, so I don't actually know his POV in depth, or whether I oppose it, or the detailed history of the dispute. And since I gave no strong opinion on this question, but expressed weak support for unblocking, you're seeming a bit catty, Bill. Noloop (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock- per NW and Reyk. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the man is an unreconstructed POV warrior. MtD (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Never Not just no, but no until after the heat death of the universe. What he did was absolutely unforgivable- you do NOT create an attack page about a fellow editor trying to out them. No, no, no. The only thing this behaviour merits is throwing away the key. Whenw e're done here, can we lock his talk page, please? Courcelles 02:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

  Oh, get over yourself. The issue should never be that he was less than gentlemanly to SV. Seriously, she can chew through metal. A little old attack page is beside the point. The real question is can we trust this strong holder of odd beliefs to be a constructive editor? I think not. MtD (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• A "(redacted)"? Ok, let's see...in the past, he has been falsely accused of being an anti-Semite (in which case nothing was ever done; the person got a free pass), there has been an implication of him being ok with pedophilia, and now he's a "religious loony". Why do I get the feeling that Eugene is not going to get a fair hearing here? Hmmmmm.... Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You're supposed to say "Ack"! Remember? Doc talk 03:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL, you made my day! (So few people are familiar with the user name I have chosen.) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, but can we be careful with language please? --John (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose -I have great difficulty believing that there's been a sea-change in his view of the world, and that's what it would take. I see no reason that we should expose ourselves once again to the problems this editor caused, and is likely to cause again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

His "view of the world"??? How about we put a condition on his unblock? If he just denies that there is a god (especially the "Christian God"), becomes a "faithful" militant atheist, or at the very least a quiet agnostic, then he can become "one with the body" again. Is that what you mean? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, a little AGF, please: His "view of the world" is that a certain truth has to be told, and as long as he holds this view and sees Wikipedia as the medium through which he can promote his views, he should not be unblocked. All editors have to edit from a stance of NPOV, no matter what their views, and he has shown himself to be incapable of doing that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock with a full indefinite topic ban on issues relating to Christianity, broadly construed (to include article pages, talk pages, as well as userspace), as well as enhanced civility requirements (like those put on BI restriction). If the editor violates those restrictions, then xe will then be reblocked and directed to the WP:STANDARDOFFER. If xe is nothing but a POV warring SPA, than xe will obviously be unable to follow the restrictions and be rapidly re-blocked, with little likely harm done to the project. If the editor could show something like 6-12 months of productive work on areas outside of the topic ban, as well as no incivility anywhere, then the topic ban could be re-considered. But right now it seems like Eugenacurry got de facto banned without a full ban discussion taking place. If what xe did was so egregious that xe's never welcome back on the project, then we should hash that out at WP:AN and make the ban official. But it seems improper to me to essentially dangle the option of unblocking in front of the editor with no intention of ever actually unblocking. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No one "dangled" anything. He asked to be reinstated almost immediately, and it's been clear since then that he hadn't done or said anything sufficient to convince the community that he had changed. It's called an indefinite block - there's no set length, and there's also no guarantee that it will necessarily end. Whether it does or not is up to the blocked user. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

By definition, an indefinite block implies the possibility of unblocking--that's the whole reason we distinguish between bans and indefinites, right? And so if it's up to the user, what is xe supposed to do to demonstrate xe belongs back in the project? If it's "go edit another project and prove you're capable of being nice," then we should say that. If it's "explain exactly what you did wrong and what you will do to ensure it doesn't happen again," then we should say that. But if it's just "do some more hard thinking, because you what you did was very very wrong..." well, it's hard for me to read that as punitive rather than preventative. Or if you/others have come to the opinion that "since xe requested unblocking too soon, xe's blown xs shot," then say that. Note that I'm expressing no opinion on whether or not xe should be banned, as no case has been made regarding that yet--perhaps this person deserves to be permanently shown the door. But my reaction comes in large part because a number of people posted above that they will never or probably never accept this editor returning. Well, that's not really leaving it in Eugeneacurry's hands, is it? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If he's not made any real effort to show that he understands what his problems were before -- not just the attack page, but his entire Wikicareer as a POV-pusher -- than how is anyone supposed to believe he's changed in order to believe it won't be harmful to the project to give him another chance? Wishful thinking isn't such a great criteria for a community to run by (AGF doesn't apply here, he's blown that already and needs to earn it back). No, things are definitely in his hands. He's got to work to convince the skeptics that he should be allowed to come back, and that's going to be difficult, because he's put himself into a deep deficit situation. Not impossible, though -- but it is true that it probably will never happen if all he does is ask again at intervals, so if that's his chosen course of action, he might as well give up. In the meantime, there's no reason to community ban him, as he's not a threat to the peace of the community. As far as I know there's no evidence of socking, or editing with an IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

He seems contrite in his comments. We need to hear from SV, the target of that page. But before considering unblocking any editor who goes way over the line, it's a good idea to watch this short feature (try to ignore the ads) and consider the question, Does this[17] fit the situation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• support unblock We spending time here discussing an Unblock. the beauty of Block are is there is no need to have a lengthy discussion. Any admin can block him the moment he steps out of line. Lets give him a chance. I am would be interested in hearing from Slim Virgin as her comment is much needed and will affect my position The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the adamant "NEVER" of Courcelles and others is that it is not enforceable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Ultimately, if this editor decides he's not going to succeed working through accepted channels, he may very well just decide to sock-puppet. In that case, we've further alienated an editor and incentivized disruptive editing over collaborative editing. Giving 2nd, 3rd...8th chances isn't just a Wikipedia philosophy, it is mostly necessary due to the privacy policies. Noloop (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment On his talk page, Eugene has acknowledged the attack page was intended to destabilise SlimVirgin and expressed regret. If blocks were punitive or exemplary I'd recommend it not be lifted for 15 years. But they're meant to be preventative. He has also undertaken to treat other editors with respect in future, and agreed to submit to civility restrictions.

  I found him so difficult to work with in the past, and find it so difficult to forgive him for the attack page, that I cannot bring myself to support unblocking, but I won't oppose. However, if the block is lifted, and he continues ad hominem editing, I will take action to have him permanently banned from this site. Anthony (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock - He has promised not to let us down. Let's give him a chance to keep his promise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock But if there is more bullshit it should result in an indefinite hardblock. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 18:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent, but if we really must unblock then a topic ban as suggested by Qwyrxian would appear to be a prerequisite. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Give it a year from the original block and I will swallow my misgivings, but for now I see no reason to consider this. Even Wikipedia:Standard offer suggests six months, which would be early next year. This is not a case where a generally sensible, respected, and productive editor made a particularly egregious mistake. This is a tendentious inveterate edit warrior who has engaged in extensive gaming of the system and shows long term disregard for the standards of civility and collaboration expected of editors here. Leaving aside religious myths and historicity, we have:
  • Posting to AN/I with an unwarranted assumption of bad faith. This is an attempt to game the system against SlimVirgin back at the beginning of May.
  • Edit warring a vast misunderstanding of the standards of scholarship in science and unwillingness to deal productively with other editors (see talkpage at the time). This included adding {{dubious}} to the statement While the detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is not known, the basic picture makes a number of predictions that have been confirmed by observation. See also related AN3 report.
  • Edit warring an op-ed attack piece into the {{Press}} template on a talkpage despite clear talkpage consensus that the link would be inappropriate ([18], [19], [20]). This piece contains claims that would violate WP:BLP against editors here had they been written onsite. This is a very disturbing pattern that I hope will be considered by those supporting an unblock above.
  • The AN3 report filed just before Eugeneacurry created that attack article is also instructive: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive133#User:Eugeneacurry reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result:_moot/indef). - 2/0 (cont.) 19:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I was asked to comment here. I can't see an unblock working at this time. The attack page was just the tip of the iceberg, though it was illustrative of Eugene's desire to use WP as a battleground. Before that there was serial reverting, strong religious views that brooked no contradiction; an attempt to transport those ideas to at least one physics article; and regular personal attacks against other editors and living sources. I could perhaps support an unblock in future with mentorship and a topic ban (at least for a time) on anything related to Christianity. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Salting deleted articles

What's the actual technical process to salt a deleted article that keeps getting disruptively recreated again? I haven't ever had to do that, that I recall... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SALT. ;) —DoRD (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Click the redlink, click the "protect" tab, and then set your "create protection" settings. Don't forget to leave a detailed rationale :) –MuZemike 23:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Indexer bot is logged out again

See here for example. Thanks, Access Denied – talk to me 00:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've soft-blocked the IP as bots editing while logged out is against the bot policy. I'll drop the operator a line. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This isn't new; it seems to happen every few weeks. Access Denied – talk to me 00:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

So I see from User talk:Krellis, the operator of User:HBC Archive Indexerbot. Any bot people care to weigh in on what to do next? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The operator should be instructed to add &assert=bot to the end of the urls through which the bot submits edits, which will prevent logged-out editing and editing on a non-bot account, as well as automatically shutting the bot down if it is ever de-flagged. This feature is further documented at mw:Extension:Assert Edit. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't this url addition mandatory on all bots before approval?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Krellis shows no edits since 22 September. 26 October I mailed this via Special:EmailUser/Krellis:

I have blocked 71.244.123.233 twice at the English Wikipedia for making bot edits while logged out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.244.123.233

Is this HBC Archive Indexerbot operated by you? I posted to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Krellis#HBC_Archive_Indexerbot

I don't know how it works but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Configuration_tips says: "To avoid unnecessary blocks, the bot may detect whether its account is logged in, and cease editing if not. This can be done using the Assert Edit Extension."

I have not received a reply. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

RevDel request/question

Could an admin please take a look at the edit summary for this diff? It seems borderline to me, but it is directed at the subject of the article, a BLP, so it might qualify to be RevDel. I'm not quite sure that it rises to the level of "grossly offensive," but I figure it's safer to bring it here for admin eyes. Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Borderline disruptive, but this is a BLP and the removal does not effect the edit otherwise. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attack

• User:Turco85
• Personal Attack

Turco 85 obviously abused Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Takabeg (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed him. But he abused again. Takabeg (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you develop a thicker skin. He vehemently disagrees but I am not so sure that it qualifies as a personal attack. Someone else might disagree and that's fine. JodyB _talk 16:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's definitely not a personal attack. Not even uncivil. Just a disagreement. Access Denied – talk to me 16:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we use such expressions in English Wikipedia ? If possıble, I'll use them. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Just don't go over the top. Access Denied – talk to me 16:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

100% not a personal attack. Vodello (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV-title and NPOV-section tags

An involved editor/administrator believed that a NPOV-title tag was not needed and has removed it [21]. There was also a NPOV-section tag for a different dispute, which he removed it twice [22][23]. As attempts to resolve the NPOV-tile dispute, a compromise was proposed [24] without success and mediation and other solutions were suggested [25][26][27][28][29], but editors deny the need for it. I can provide diffs for the NPOV-section dispute as well (the section is the Intro). Despite long discussions these disputes are still not resolved. See [30].

Notice sent to the concerned editor/administrator: [31]. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute, no abuse of tools or anything else to do here. Discussion at Talk:Transcendental Meditation#NPOV-Title and NPOV-section (intro) Dispute. Editing seems to have been light over the past few days, but consider requesting page protection if normal discussion is insufficient. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you noticed the dispute, but this is not about the content dispute itself, but about the systematic removal of the NPOV tags. I only refer to the dispute to explain the need for these tags. Page protection is not a solution since there is no edit warring. However, no edit warring does not mean that the dispute is small. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Editor continuing slow edit war at date articles

After an incident that was discussed at ANI see section "Editor repeatedly inserting entry at 2012 despite being reverted" and led to a block later [32] Das Baz (talk · contribs) is continuing a slow edit war at September 18 adding this [33] yesterday and today. This will be about 19 times now over the past 14 months and despite being reverted that many times he not only continues to add it, he continues not to use edit summaries or the talk page for this, despite the ANI discussion we had and his block. I'm not sure whether a longer block or a topic ban is most appropriate here. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug, my suggestion would be to use escalating blocks. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I should note that as I've reverted him and have been involved with him before on other issues such as OR, it would be inappropriate for me to block him. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible victim named, may need revision deleted

I brought this up on the BLP noticeboard with no response, figured I'd try here instead. I earlier reverted an edit by an anonymous editor in the article John Todd (occultist) that claimed to name a victim of one of his crimes, and I'm wondering if we can get that IP editor's revision deleted, as naming this person (especially without a source as far as I can tell) seems to be against WP:BLP. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it, and another admin can review it. It looks a bit like plain vandalism, but either way.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, BLP violation on the alleged victim - good use of that function. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring and POV by موريسكو / Morisco

Hi,

I'm reporting here a contributor who, since he joined the English WP [34], started edit-warring, justifying his actions by the fact that "it has been discussed on the French WP" [35][36] , and editing articles by removing any reference to French Algeria, which are, in my opinion, POV edits [37][38].

I think that what is happening on English WP shouldn't be linked to French WP and that this kind of POV edits shouldn't be tolerated (I can even mention that this user had already been blocked many times on the Fr.WP for POV, personal attacks and references tinkering, but as I said before, what happened there shouldn't interfere with the Eng.WP) ; this user's contributions are meaning that, in my opinion, he's not here to contribute to the WP, but to "act on other user's contributions".

Thanks.

Omar-Toons (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I will issue a warning, per your correct understanding of the relation between different language wikipedia's. If they ignore it, we determine whether the English language wikipedia sanction function differs from that of the French... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Banned user returns

Balubz (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely for copyvios on 21 February 2010. Their almost sole area of editing was Phillipine shopping malls operated by SM Prime Holdings, Inc.

• They appear to have returned on 1 May 2010 as Balubz123 (talk · contribs), editing the same articles and still making cut/paste copyvios. See this edit diff where the text (word for word) originates from www.smsupermalls.com
  Note: they have not edited since 21 October 2010.
• These articles on SM operated malls read like adverts and are poorly or not referenced.

Regards, - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Balubz123 has been informed of this discussion diff - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 19:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the blatant copyvio shown in the diff. To think that this person actually added the website that he cut-and-pasted from to the article is... mind-boggling. Doc talk 19:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked indefinitely for block/ban evasion, and noted the original account accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Doc, I have also made a post at wp:Copyright problems/2010 November 6 as there is a pattern of similar copyvios on SM Prime Holdings shopping malls. There seem to be several editors who have a disturbing interest is shopping malls! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 20:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, LessHeard vanU too!- 220.101 talk^\Contribs 20:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Xander134 (talk · contribs) seems to be one of these "interested" editors for sure[39]. What a mess... Doc talk 20:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Copy paste move 10GPON, 10G-PON

Resolved

Self descriptive, this edit changed the page into a redirect, this edit pasted it in the new article. --Muhandes (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Repairing ... - 2/0 (cont.) 19:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, editor notified of WP:MOVE. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

possible suicide threat

Handled. Thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Dying. I just thought it should be brought up here. --Ludwigs2 19:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, this could probably use the attention of WMF staff, they generally handle contacting the relevant authorities in cases like this. They're probably just trolling, but generally it's best to be on the safe side. It's a little disappointing that it seems to be generating some rather poor-humour replies on the reference desk. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I believe there's an e-mail like emergency@wikimedia.org to contact to inform WMF, but I'm not sure if that's the correct e-mail. I'm sure someone else will know, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I believe it is that email. I fired off a message. Better safe than sorry, and it's not like I'm calling 911 or something. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 20:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks everyone, we're on it. Christine Moellenberndt, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attack

I've been equated to being a racist, and the owner of the talk page is attempting to retain the remark even after redaction. Can this be RevDel? Statement was applied here, redacted here and restored here. I believe there are also a few other revisions in the page history where the comment is edited, I can dig those up if necessary. Will notify users of this AN/I after submitting. Akerans (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If an admin has any questions, please let me know on my talk page. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally, as long as they do not violate policy the "owner" of a talkpage pretty much decides what is kept and what is removed from it - the question is whether you said those words, and if so are they being so taken out of context as to change the meaning and disparage your reputation. You may need to make that case here if you want admin intervention. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a plenty, but I definitely won't sweat this one, and have gotten adverse to wiki litigation even when I have cause. Unless there is a persistent pattern of abuse, such as block evasion, or disruption, I'm cool with letting anomalies slide. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• LessHeard vanU, the comment in which 82.135.29.209 considers an "unfortunate and baseless smear" was in reference to a disparaging remark against single purpose accounts. 82.135.29.209 notes that I would "defend" such a comment, even if racially worded. She/he is more than welcome to say I would defend remarks against single purpose accounts, but race has absolutely nothing to do with this. Akerans (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I proudly claim credit, and was properly quoted by IP209, for saying"unfortunate and baseless smear." I gotta go and fight terrorism now that WP is safe from another instance of silly litigation.

Okay I understand the context, now. No, it is not a personal attack - because you are not being represented as a racist, but as someone who would find a reason under which a comment, possibly harsh, could be construed as uncivil; in fact, if my understanding is correct, further than being equated to a racist you are possibly being compared to someone who is overly "politically correct" and taking umbrage accordingly... You might politely request that the editor finds a less sensitive metaphor for their opinion, but I don't think it necessary to remove the edit if they do not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess we're understanding the comment differently. To me, s/he's saying I would "defend" a racist remark by another editor. So, no, I'm not being equated to being racist. Rather, I'm being equated to someone who condones racism. Akerans (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

It must be a stretch if you need to explain it, regardless of my limitations, and it is possible that your perception of the comment is not that which was intended (and in fact may be the point the editor is trying to make). I don't think this is going anywhere, so my suggesting you make a request to have that wording changed seems the best route. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:86.154.83.210

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

At 12:55 today, I was sent this lovely message from an IP:

Don't worry Kthnxbye, he and Tbhotch are cut from the same cloth, they're a pair of wankers, who have threatened the entire Wikipedia community going back to the beginning of this year. You can be horrible to them as often as you want- hope this is a consolation for you! So Chasewc91, fuck off. 12:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why this was posted to my talk page as it was directed at another editor, but I responded with a 4im warning as these were some pretty nasty comments and the IP likely knew better. Surely enough, they revert at 21:51. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. This was pretty straightforward, and might have been dealt faster at WP:AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Wasn't sure if AIV was the appropriate venue. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)