Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:00, 27 May 2009

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

User:Marcopronto

<transferring to ANI for visibility>

Fairly new account closing RFAs and AFDs

When did new accounts start closing Requests for adminship? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Afd's on the very same day they were started? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably no minimum time or edit count set to perform these actions, however, if one is snowing an RFA please ensure to follow the steps here: User:Enigmaman/SNOW, and NAC'ing AFDs, please ensure to place the {{oldafdfull}} template on the talk page of the article. –xeno^talk 14:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the AFD closure, it hasn't even been open 24 hours yet. –xeno^talk 15:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RfA is/was scheduled to end May 29. I don't think practically new users should be closing RfAs. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 15:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently there's been other issues with this user. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 15:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is likely a sock -- not problematic in itself, but the account (first edit May 10) seems to be getting used mainly to make deletion votes in AFDs and (recently) oppose votes in RFAs. Still, I agree that a brand new account shouldn't be closing RFAs. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the instructions Arma virumque cano (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not go accusing people of socks here. I also have concerns about inexperienced users closing RfA's, but if they pick it up quick and do it right, like this user did, I assume it's no big deal. However, I have a large problem with new inexperienced users closing controversial RfAs, as they have very little experience judging consensus. iMatthew : Chat 15:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, there are legitimate uses for sock puppet accounts. This user's knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia suggest they have longer experience here than their contribution history indicates. But as I also said, I agree that new accounts, socks or not, closing RFAs is potentially problematic. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So was closing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harish89 per WP:NOTNOW appropriate? It seems quite abrupt, and uncalled for. In addition, the user Arma virumque cano doesn't appear to be in good standing as suggested by WP:NOTNOW.Smallman12q (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does "in good standing" mean, exactly? Is it actually laid out anywhere? Exploding Boy (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means he's a consistent vandal, hes vandalized my userpage twice, put a fake banned user template on it, and deleted large blocks of sourced text indiscriminately with "I'm not a crook" as his edit summary, hes repeated the same "not a crook" nonsense in user/talk page vandalism. Him having knowledge of the workings of wikipedia is not a good thing if his only purposes for using them are disruption. Nar Matteru (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what s/he's done. I'm asking if it's actually laid out anywhere what "in good standing" means. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it doesn't mean repeated vandal. But I can't find that in policy, just from common sense. Nar Matteru (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNOW is (or last time I looked) discouraged for users with such a length of service to Wikipedia (talking about the candidate, not the closer). It would be better to suggest they withdraw rather than closing it. I'm not going to revert the closure, but others, or the candidate, may feel free. –xeno^talk 15:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to let the candidate know. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really wanting to defend Arma virumque cano but I did notice the AfD closure and was aware of the prior discussions on AN and still didn't see anything wrong with the closure, it was appropriate. I had more of a problem with one an administrator did the other day. Drawn Some (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reopened the RFA as per xeno's recomendation and because User:Arma virumque cano does not appear to be in good standing.Smallman12q (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that it? No measures, no warning? These actions were ridiculous, esp. for someone whose most notable contributions are the reiteration of "I'm not a crook." I criticized User:Eugene Krabs a little while ago for slapping a vandal-4 warning on Arma for one of those crook-comments, but now I'm wondering if Eugene didn't intuit that we are dealing with a disruptive user here, a user who needs to be watched. What moves one to start closing down RfA and AfD debates? Good faith? I doubt that. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone think that User:Cosmomancer is a sock of this user? He's doing the same thing (new account voting in AFDs, mainly), quite often within a few seconds of this account. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that account seems to have made actual article contributions to a single article in Oct 2008, and resurfaced for the apparent purpose of tagging articles and voting in AfDs. Perhaps he's the sockmaster, or more likely they are both socks of someone else. DGG (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until now, Arma virumque cano has had the appearance of a sockpuppet (too knowledgeable about procedure for such a new user) but one whose actions seemed mostly legitimate; his biggest problem seemed to be good hand, bad hand issues (using the sock to cast consistent pro-forma delete comments on AfDs). And the snow closure of the AfD, while probably best left to an admin, looks legit to me. But if Cosmomancer and Arma might be the same person, that's a much bigger problem, since they have both commented on the same AfDs (especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Command System). Worth looking into by a checkuser, perhaps? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same thing and just opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cosmomancer --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Which found that the two are unrelated. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmomancer was a sock of User:McWomble. (blocks noted on the SPI page). Arma virumque cano was unrelated, and doesn't share an IP with any other users at this time. --Versa geek 21:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Further investigation shows that Arma etc. created multiple accounts in quick succession. I've blocked the other accounts. It is correct that the other accounts were not related to Cosmomancer (as far as checkuser can figure), but account creation behavior of that sort is exclusively the realm of abusive editors. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I throw the wild idea out here of an editing restriction to the mainspace (ie. articles) on this account? Constant oppose-!voting on RfAs, delete-!voting on AfDs, being so obviously a sockpuppet but in denial, absurd early closure of RfBs, ludicrous repetition of "not a crook im not a crook" and a general tendentious style, are not conducive to anything here. I suggest that we put them on mainspace only for a couple of weeks, and see if they manage to do anything constructive — we are, after all, here to produce an encyclopedia. If they do, we can reconsider, and if they don't, they can be blocked as having no competence in either article writing or the processes. They certainly show no process competence now. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 22:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, albeit unusual, to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure limiting his disruptions to the part of the project most visible to the visiting public is the best idea. Then again, him screwing up in a more public fashion would be the quickest way to his removal. Nar Matteru (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essay

Just so everyone knows, he has now created Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet and liked to it from WP:Sock puppetry. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And created redirect WP:PARANOID to it. lmao - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straight to RfD it goes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I noticed that the article has quickly followed to MfD. — Ched : ? 06:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we actually either block him, or restrict him from Wikipedia-space now? He's just causing so much hassle for us all, and doing absolutely nothing constructive... ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 07:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked [Fairly new account closing RfAs and AfDs]

I have blocked the account giving the following reasoning: "I have blocked this account. It is impossibly clear that this is not your first account, and you have been nothing but disruptive since you got here. If you would like to 1. improve your behaviour and 2. come clean about any other accounts you may have used in the past then I will unblock. But until then...". Now I am usually very lenient on newbies but this one does not appear to be here for the right reasons (or appear to be a newbie at all). That said if someone feels they can talk some sense into him then go ahead and unblock. Viridae ^Talk 07:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support > this'll probably clear up a big headache for us all. Well done! ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 08:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this 'new' user is now disrupting stuff all over the place. I smell something fishy. KrakatoaKatie 09:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the reasons given above and per WP:DUCK Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the closing of AfDs / RfAs should probably be something the user is dissuaded from it is hardly a blockable offense unless he does so in a disruptive or pointy manner, from what I can see this does not seem the case,although of course the new 7 day guideline should be observed. I don't see what it is exactly he is being blocked for, and if it is the case that he is a new user then the terms of his unblocking are impossible to meet. The bad hand / good hand theory was shown to be incorrect, what has he done wrong? Lets not disallow us the opportunity to discover a platypus. Unomi (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support sockpuppet or not, account was made with the sole purpose of disruption and ill intent, I see no reason to hold this guys hand Nar Matteru (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support his pattern fits into the general principle of disruptive editing even if no one act was particularly offensive. His actions have served no purpose but to waste the time of others. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly a reincarnation of another user, we should not be having to spend our time dealing with this. Majorly talk 15:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd say give editor a second chance. If it continues, block. hmwith τ 15:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, if you've left an avenue of communication open (his/her talk page), let's see where it goes from here before we jump on any "indef" or "ban" topics. — Ched : ? 15:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He just got his talk page turned off for requesting unblock 3 times in a row. or the record, I would be open to giving them another chance after 1 week - 1 months time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support indef block for now. Fairly plain to see that the account was not here for anything constructive, even if they only toed the line and did not cross it. If the owner of the account can provide a satisfactory explanation for what's going on I'd be open to an unblock though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Impossibly clear as a phrase strikes me as potentially rather unclear - at least, it is awkward. Incidental in this case (thus far...) but with those prone to wikilawyering, hairsplitting, and general and sundry arguing-the-toss, it pays to be extra careful when stating reasons for such decisions. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per all above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Docu

Resolved

– xFD is not a vote-counting endeavour. That being said, WP:DRV is the proper venue to review decisions by closing admins. If, on the other hand, the complaint is that there is a pattern of behaviour that the reporting user is concerned about to which the admin has not adequately responded, WP:RFC/U would probably be a better venue than AN, to solicit a wider range of outside opinion and suggestions as to how to proceed. However, this does not appear to be the case. –xeno^talk 14:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you should leave it alone. LibStar (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to complain about some of the recent AfD closures this administrator has made on discussions involving bilateral relations. First, Docu is clearly biased in favour of keeping such articles. See for instance here, where, after I voted in very reasoned fashion, he dismissed my comment as irrelevant, implying I only participate in this sort of discussion, which was obviously false (I pointed out I'd recently written 4 articles). Second, let's review some of the closes he's made. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia–Finland relations: 6 delete, 4 keep, closed as keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Mongolia relations: 10 keep, 7 delete, closed as keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta–Slovakia relations: 6 keep, 4 delete, closed as keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgium–Malaysia relations: 8 keep, 6 delete, closed as keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations: 7 delete, 5 keep, closed as keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarus–Croatia relations: 4 keep, 4 delete, closed as keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Luxembourg relations: 5 delete, 1 keep, closed as keep, plus direct involvement by Docu here.

Most of these should at least have closed as no consensus if not delete, especially considering that many of the participants were essentially canvassed through the Article Rescue Squadron and brought little to the discussion. Moreover, the arguments for deletion were often quite compelling. Regardless, it seems apparent Docu's impartiality in this area cannot be trusted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the last one, all of these were within normal discretionary ranges - AGF, perhaps the last one was an error. I suggest you take that one up with Docu directly and if needed send it to deletion review. The other could have been closed as no census, but it would have the same effect. I also suggest you drop your claims of canvassing unless you have some actual evidence. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may want to consider your own bias before accusing others of bias. You have !voted delete on dozens (hundreds?) of these things, so I hardly think you are justified to judge strength of argument/consensus without any bias. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the practical effect of "no consensus" is the same, but still, most of these should have closed as such, as long as we're to have that option. Also, I did not say outright that anyone was canvassed, only that ARS had the effect of canvassing them, which is hardly an allegation I alone have made. Finally, aside from the fact that I've also voted to keep a few of these, your last point is a straw man: I've never closed a single one of these debates, while Docu has. And given both his bias and his participation on the "keep" side of debates he hasn't closed, a recusal may be in order. And yes, I certainly am qualified to judge whether a consensus has developed, both by looking at the arguments (far more cogent on the "delete" side) and simply the raw numbers.

Let's not shift the debate here. The point is that Docu strongly favours keeping this set of articles, and his closes as "keep" where that was evidently not the consensus of participants raises serious questions abut impartiality. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you miss the point here. It is highly improbable that you (or anyone else) can accurately weigh the strength of arguments when they already have a strong opinion themselves. Of course, you believe the delete argument is superior or else you wouldn't have !voted delete in the first place. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I'm not impartial here. That's not the idea of the thread. The idea is for those who are impartial to look at the facts and either concur that there is an issue of bias with Docu making these closes, or not. And I think most of the discussions I pointed out support the notion that "keep" was selected as the verdict where it should have been "no consensus", or "no consensus" where "delete" was more appropriate. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are in the wrong forum. If you think these discussions were closed in error, please use WP:DRV. I'd just like to note that administrators are not to my knowledge prohibited from closing deletion discussions about articles in the same subject area as other articles on whose merits they have expressed an opinion about in other deletion discussions. They're just required to close such discussions, like any others, in accordance with consensus and policy. "Having an opinion" and "being biased" do not mean the same thing. Sandstein 21:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying outright that Docu shouldn't close these debates simply because he's participated. I am saying that the manner in which he's closed them, as well as the rather strong opinions he's expressed where discussing them, raise questions about his ability to judge impartially. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random Section Break [Docu]

I think its highly unlikely any action will be taken against Docu because of this thread, as there is nothing actionable here. If you really think there is a consistent problem with his closures I would suggest taking it up with him directly and going to WP:RfC if that fails. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, I will add that it might be wise for Docu to voluntarily agree to stop closing these debates, though, as his impartiality can be legitimately questioned. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul, the elements you summarized and voiced as "who cares" in the first AfD you mention, I haven't seen you acting on the perceived problem since, while other participants did contribute since. I even had one of my contributions removed due to lack of referencing. It was an AfD that was closed with "keep". Obviously, you are free to open or participate in the DRV for that closing or any other.

Personally, I think it's an odd assumption that there would be another issue than to keep an article, if there is no consensus for deletion ("If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it." [emphasis added by myself]). It shouldn't be forgotten that each article was written by one or several Wikipedians who did take the time to research and write it. Besides, if one looks closer into the various AfD debates, one notices that some participants didn't just stop by to tag every article and debate with their "vote", but added pertinent explanations in relation to the specific article. Others didn't label their contribution with a recommendation for "keep" or "delete", but commented, refuting or advancing arguments, or even suggesting alternate solutions, clearly indicating that they care. Any summary that points out a mere count of votes ignores the core idea of the process. In general, I think it would frequently be more useful to {{prod}} articles than to walk them through an AfD. As I haven't set up the tools for this type of clean-up, I usually don't delete them (I'm a bit too busy with WP:CHECKWIKI). Naturally, when using the {{prod}} tag, this would require one to read and understand the process behind. One couldn't just insist on adding it to any article and dogde questions to why it was added by quoting its label. -- [[User:Docu]] [[07:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)]] This is the first time ver I've seen Docu sign with a date and time stamp. LibStar (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite requests recently by several editors on his talk page, Docu apparently still does not sign his posts with four tildes. Docu deleted that discussion from his/her talk page, which is an editor's right, but archiving of discussions is recommended. Edison (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two thoughts: 1) I encourage Docu to better sign his posts as Edison mentions above, but 2) most of those AfDs could easily have been justified as strength or argument keeps, because after all they are not votes. With that said, "no consensus" closures would also be reasonable, and in the case of the one under DRV, a much more fair read of the discussion. Nevertheless, those border ones with equal or more keeps that basically refute and therefore counter the deletes reflect either a "keep", because they refuted the deletes or a "no consensus" because they cancelled out the deletes, but clearly not deletes. I suppose given the way the DRV looks, that that one may be a bit questionable, but these others are really not that out of line with admin discretion and I have been in enough AfDs to see majority keep ones closed as delete somehow and upheld, so, in any event, we should give him the benefit of the doubt per WP:AGF, while encouraging more in the way of providing links to the talk page in signature. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment As someone who nominated many of these AfDs, I noted that Docu closed many as keep when it was clearly no consensus. the Estonia-Luxembourg was one of the worst decisions I've seen from a closing admin. see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_20. the issue is not deletion review here, the issue is the behaviour of Docu exercising admin functions. lastly, Docu has been repeatedly advised to sign with date and time stamp which he/she consistently refuses and also identify themselves as an admin which he/she consistently refuses. and vague responses like this when asked to identify themselves as an admin. [1]. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - LibStar, is there a particular reason why you nominate AfDs, but don't withdraw or revise your nominations? This could really save us time. Obviously, you don't have to do this, but you seem to follow the argumentation of other participants, commment on them, and even approach them on their talk pages. Instead of bringing your points to DRV, you seem to insist on posting them to ANI or user's talk pages. -- User:Docu 08:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

this is another example of poor judgement of Docu as an admin, trying to rename this ANI thread [2] to deflect attention from themselves. the thread is not resolved and the issue is Biruitorul's complaint of Docu's behaviour as an admin. If you wish to bring an ANI thread against me, set up a new thread. Docu, why is it after repeated requests you have not added a time and date stamp until this ANI thread? secondly, why haven't you identified yourself as an admin on your user page, this has caused confusion and other admins have alerted to you this. all admins I've encountered identify themselves as admins on their user page and always date and time stamp their comments. admins should lead by example in the Wikipedia project. LibStar (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, is there a reason that I'm missing as to why Docu doesn't have a a link to his userspace in his signature? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 10:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note my concerns over LibStar's civility regarding this issue, here (and subsequently deleted). ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 10:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this has nothing to do with the complaint of Docu's behaviour, the above is evidence that TreasuryTag is taking sides. Comment on Docu's behaviour not mine. this is the purpose of this ANI. I've never seen anyone try to rename ANI threads to deflect attention from the user in question. LibStar (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking sides, I am simply stating that I think you are an extremely rude user. I have provided quotes and examples to demonstrate this. I only renamed the ANI thread because Docu had done it one way, then you the other, so I went for a compromise. I'm sorry if my taking a neutral middle-line offended you. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 10:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

even if I am a rude user as you accuse me, how is this relevant to this ANI about Docu's behaviour as an admin? start a separate ANI if you wish. LibStar (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with my listing of your civility problems here, please start a thread yourself, or open an RfC or something. I think that my concerns are perfectly legitimate, and perfectly legitimately listed above. I invite anyone to scrutinise my actions to confirm that I am neutral, and not "taking sides" beyond quoting examples of incivility by one of the parties to this dispute. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 10:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how is this relevant to this ANI about Docu's behaviour as an admin? LibStar (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it should be noted that Docu is only time and date stamping his/her signature on this ANI thread (after it was raised as an issue of concern) but at the very same time in other forums they are still not using a date and time stamp such as [3] and [4]. This is of concern. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this relevant to this ANI about Docu's behaviour as an admin? ;) ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 14:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edison raised this first on an ANI. as an admin, they lead by example the Wikipedia project, it is difficult to track one's editing on talk pages without date and time stamp, as I've stated before I've never ever seen this from any editor. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been brought up before (see ANI archives) and referred to WP:RFC/U if someone felt it necessary. Docu has been signing this way for 6 years now and old habits die hard. Personally, I wish he would sign regularly, as ideally all users should comply with the WP:SIG guideline (and userpage links are convenient and timestamps are helpful to keep track of conversations). However, I realize that in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter all that much. –xeno^talk 14:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the noticboard archive, if anyone's interested. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 14:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar

Resolved

– Nothing immediately actionable, other venues may be engaged if there is a pattern of behaviour here that warrants attention and discussion with the user does not resolve concerns. –xeno^talk 14:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar (talk · contribs) — Let me add a separate section header and re-add my question:

LibStar, is there a particular reason why you nominate AfDs, but don't withdraw or revise your nominations? This could really save us time. Obviously, you don't have to do this, but you seem to follow the argumentation of other participants, commment on them, and even approach them on their talk pages. Instead of bringing your points to DRV, you seem to insist on posting them to ANI or user's talk pages.

This to avoid any confusion. -- User:Docu 11:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

the above is not appropriate for an ANI. I request that this matter be closed as an inappropriate use of ANI and discussed elsewhere. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's appropriate.

You are subject to the same scrutiny you vociferously insist that Docu be held to. Please also note my concerns over LibStar's civility regarding this issue, here (and subsequently deleted, naturally). ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 14:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above relates to TreasuryTag's changing of ANI thread title without consultation with the user who started the Docu ANI. I should note that on the same token TreasuryTag deleted message left on his/her page. Does Docu's concern require Admin intervention? that is the purpose of ANI. LibStar (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Docu's concern might not (stress might, as it could potentially—don't know for sure, haven't looked—indicate a pattern of disruptive deletion-related behaviour). My concern, relating to your complete non-adherence to the civility policy, may well. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 14:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to push this civility angle, please read top of page "If you are here to report a violation of Wikipedia's policies on civility or personal attacks, please instead raise them at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts." LibStar (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to "push" anything, I wish to air a legitimate concern about your mode of editing. My concern seems congruous with various other editors' disparate concerns about your mode of editing. Since numerous policies, civility, deletion and disruption, to name just a few, are involved, I think that this is the right place.

I'm not going to continue bickering with you, however, I'll let the community examine the issues that Docu and I have brought forward. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 14:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you say "My concern seems congruous with various other editors'" who are these other editors? and I stress plural...besides Docu, who else? LibStar (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are: Lankiveil (talk · contribs) and Drmies (talk · contribs) here, MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) here, Bwilkins (talk · contribs) here and Sandstein (talk · contribs) here. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 14:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you should acknowledge that there are separate avenues for reporting civility issues. you say you are neutral yet a phrase like "that Docu and I have brought forward" sounds like a team. and since you want everyone to see, other users should note your sudden interest in AfDs I've nominated immediately after you started communicating with me and posting on my talk page when I requested you to stop TreasuryTag (talk · contribs). I would say this matter between us would not have happened if you left the name of the ANI as is. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from TT (not directed at LibStar at all): I renamed the ANI thread in a compromise between the version of the title that two users, Docu and LibStar were edit-warring over. While I understand that that was obviously a highly partisan, disruptive and bad-faith move on my part </sarcasm> it wasn't intended to offend anyone.

My participation in three AfDs that the LibStar recently launched was due to me checking out his/her contribs (as I usually do after mentally labelling an editor as a "problem user"). In two of those AfDs, I provided substantiated arguments for the article to be kept, and in one, I agreed with LibStar that the page would be deleted. This doesn't seem like any form of stalking to me.

I object to LibStar's persistent allegations of bad faith on my part. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 14:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your ongoing participation in bilateral AfDs. I do wish you realise how others might interpret your renaming an ANI as not in the spirit (I wouldn't say "bad faith"). That was my main issue. LibStar (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish you would realise that if I see, in my watchlist, Docu renaming User:Docu to User:LibStar, and LibStar renaming it User:Docu, the logical thing to do seems to be a compromise and include both of them. It wasn't "disrespectful" – it was just the obvious way to resolve the dispute. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 14:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puebla F.C.

Admin help please!

I can't remember how I came across this article, but a fellow editor was having to revert IP edits that weren't verifiable, and could have been OR. They were also "unencyclopedic" - descriptions of matches and suchlike (is there a guideline on that?!). The edits seem to be in good faith, but I have repeatedly had to undo as they're not appropriate. I tried to engage the IP editor on their talk page - User_talk:76.235.130.49 and on the article talk page, but to no avail. There's now a slightly different IP making the same changes. I'm bored of trying to engage debate because they're clearly just insistent on inserting their "info". Someone tell me I'm wrong or take whatever measures are required to "fix" this, as I'm bored of it. I'd prefer it if they vandalised my userpage or something instead of just robotically making the same edits every few days!! Thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Bigger digger (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take this over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. They are experienced editors of footballing articles and well used to this sort of thing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Eseverance

<Transferred to ANI for visibility>

undoing incorrect edits of Oyster Bay material by a non-logged in user

A non-logged in user has deleted big passages (most of the material) in about twenty Oyster Bay, New York, related articles, with an edit summary "Removal of information which violates wikipedia policy". The edits are currently visible here at contributions of 220.1.48.46. The non-logged in user misunderstands the copyright status of material there and deleted material which in fact is covered by an OTRS copyright release. The user believes, incorrectly that a wikipedia article is being used as a source, which is not the case. I noted at Talk:Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Park that, while source attribution could be improved, there is no copyright violation. There are duplicative passages in a larger Oyster Bay article, but the articles where the non-logged user removed material do not rely upon that article, rather they rely on an audio tape which is like a book, not available on-line, but valid as a source. There is definitely no copyvio present.

Could an administrator using "rollback" or some other tool undo all of them please? I don't have the tools to do this easily. I did undo the one for Wilson House (Oyster Bay, New York) already.

Also, I don't know if administrators would recognize this IP address or type of editing as part of any larger pattern. It looks to me like the person is wikipedia-experienced but, by not logging in, is avoiding accountability. It seems disruptive to do a lot of big edits of this nature, not logged in. Perhaps the IP address should be blocked or the user warned or something? doncram (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need to re-read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. The editor without an account is wrong about the copyright issue. The content came from the source. The source didn't copy Wikipedia, as looking at the past revisions of the relevant articles clearly indicates. But xe is not acting in bad faith.
We don't require people to log-in to make edits (This is a Foundation issue.), and we don't make the assumption that you appear to be making that someone who is not logged in is automatically acting in bad faith. Only 23 articles appear to have been edited, which is far from an overwhelming amount, and the talk page comments accompanying each edit (example) raise valid questions of the reliability of these sources, which don't indicate what historical research they are based upon, or who their author is (and thus what the author's credentials and expertise are).
The edits are clearly good faith ones, with detailed talk page rationales accompanying each one. Your intended method of addressing them, with blanket reversions, blocking, and no attempt at all to address the reliability concerns raised, is not a good response. Assume good faith, and address good faith concerns properly. The editor without an account, from xyr talk page rationales, wants to ensure that Wikipedia's account of history is accurate, and is based upon proper historical research. That your reaction is to think that such a person should be prevented from editing is not a good sign. Uncle G (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your response. I was just returning here to give the update that i have undone all the IP editor's edits manually, and responded with an identical response for each of the IP editor's identical talk page explanations/accusations. (I don't think that is a good rationale, especially as it is uniformly incorrect.) And that the editor seems to have stopped. Yes, I agree now that the editor appears to have been acting in good faith and that perhaps I should have recognized that. But, I was mainly asking for help in undoing the person's edits which were indeed all incorrect, and would cause more work to undo later if not addressed promptly. It looks like there were further, unrelated, non-bot edits made only in one article, the Oyster Bay High School one, before I got around to undoing all the incorrect edits. Also, FYI i and a group of other editors are indeed investing a lot of effort in addressing this set of articles, with discussion centered at Talk:Oyster Bay History Walk.

I think this is done. Thanks. doncram (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. You seem to have done exactly what Uncle G said was not a good response: namely reverted everything and assume the other user is incorrect. I've made a suggestion to the IP address as to a more neutral forum than your talk page. Frankly, I think a completely dismissal of a serious potential copyright concern (you seem to dismiss the possibility at Talk:Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Park, which I assume is repeated, that the audio tour is citing Wikipedia which isn't a copyright concern but a serious reliability concern). Hoonestly, I don't know how an audio tour qualifies as a reliable source anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

70.105.246.237

70.105.246.237 actively editing. Some of the edits have been uncivil but after requests not to do so, it has stopped. However more recently 70.105.246.237 has stated on a talk page "But I swore to never put my heart into this project ever again after having undergone that very process in the past and seen all my efforts dashed by admins -- who iced the cake by blocking me for complaining about their abuse."[5].

How are such incidents usually dealt with, and as I have already chastised the IP addr] for their uncivil behaviour, I would appreciate it if another editor would take a look. -- PBS (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this isn't the appropriate response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

70.105.246.237 does not mean that this IP address has been blocked they mean that their user account was blocked. So this is a user who is stating that they have been blocked but in making the statement are using an IP address to circumvent the block. --PBS (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This IP needs more eyes on it. It's been rude, abrasive, has an obvious POV in all of its edits, and appears to admit to being a blocked user. I'm tempted to block it for a while if it keeps up the attacks. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's not getting better, so onto someone else to lecture them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked them for 31 hours, denied ability to edit talkpage, and replaced content with a block template noting my actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science amended

The following motion was carried 9 to 0 (with 2 recusals and 1 abstention) further to this request to amend the Fringe science arbitration case:

1) Kaldari, Sceptre, and Durova are granted permission to act as proxies for ScienceApologist by making edits to the optics article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to the optics featured article drive.

The remedy has been entered onto the arbitration case page, at #Further motion following Request for Amendment (May 2009).

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 14:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming guidelines for placenames in West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Voting or commenting on each segment of the Proposed guidelines in relation to remedy 13.1 of the recently closed West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case. Please comment here on preferred usage in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria area, to determine consensus by July 13th 2009.

The more comments/votes/consensus, the better. We really need to firm up consensus by community input into some of these areas to reduce the drain on admin and editor resources in policing naming disputes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Voting"? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oh, yeah --> !voting, if you prefer...(sigh) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThuranX

ThuranX (talk · contribs) has been harassing me on my talk page for the last day or so. It began over an edit I made on a Hulk page, and along with Cameron Scott, he instigated an edit-war. Cameron Scott then accused me of having a sock account (it is my wife's account), and ThuranX proceeded to enter into the case page offering insults about my family life and presenting me with one threat after another about blocking etc, even though I have made several attempts to open rational debate.

He seems to have targeted me on the grounds of a mistake made by my wife on the Hulk page. She was aunaware of certain Wikipedia rules and has NOT made the same mistake since she has become aware of those rules now.

I have examined the discussion page for Hulk and it appears as though ThuranX treats it as if it belongs to him. I appreciate that he has put a lot of fine work into it, but this does not mean he has the final say as to what content should remain on the page. He certainly shouldn't simply delete people's contributions without first discussing his concerns with whoever edited, and he appears to have done this to other people besides me.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely fagged today but this provides a good summary of my involvement. If anyone had any questions, I'll pop by later with a G&T in one hand. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone coming out like a rose here. The only reason Cameron and Thuran didn't violate 3RR is because they were tag-teaming; considering there was no productive discussion on talk, they aren't any more absolved of wrongdoing than Pant and his wife. Thuran escalated things by applying {{test3}} rather than discussing comments on Pant's talk page. Rather than try and solve things and bring in the alternate account, Cameron immediately went to SPI (rather pointless, considering that by their own admission we know what the results are going to be.) There has been no extended discussion with the reverter, Lynn Header (talk · contribs), and no meaningful discussion on the Hulk (comics) talk page. This doesn't need admin attention. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk)

what's the point? I don't consider the reverter to a seperate person "my wife" is up there with "my brother" "my roommate" "my dog", especially when the account is created and used solely on one article. As for discussion, I asked him a number of times on his talkpage to start a discussion on the article page and also noted in an edit summary that the normal course of events is BRD. I also suggested that if he stopped meat/Sockpuppeting I would *not* file a report, he carried on, so I reported him. So you can take your troutslap and... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hell I did, David. I provided MULTIPLE explanations, links to policy, and so on, between his talk and the edit summaries. I went out of my way to be kind, and in return I've had nothing but flack for it, as he IMMEDIATELY labeled me a chauvinist for assuming that he and his wife are capable of discussions. He straddled the incivility/clueless line for a while there, and despite his attitude I AGF'd like mad to get him to listen, but all of his responses were of the 'i don't beat my wife like you say i should' confrontational nature. ThuranX (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I forgot to post back here that I am trying to mediate between Pwd and ThuranX. I think we need other neutral voices to diminish the potential disruption. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pantwearingdoom has co-incidently contacted me to advise that the content is, as far as he is concerned, resolved with Cameron Scott's explanation to him. I responded by commenting I would note this here with the suggestion that all parties take a break from the article until tomorrow, along with the usual respectful... collegiate guff. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog alert

Have fun! → Dylan 620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 16:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlon's signature

Resolved

– Signature tweaked to comply with WP:SIG. –xeno^talk 17:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlon (talk) has declined a number of talkpage requests to do something about his ludicrous signature. If you look at the wikitext of the sig, it's even worse (though he insists it has no linebreaks in it at all). Can someone stress to him the importance of this? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 16:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the liberal interpretation of IAR... I don't see how not having a fancy sig prevents one from improving the enyclopedia. I've wrapped the hidden text in noinclude tags [6], it violates WP:SIG. –xeno^talk 16:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[User:KoshVorlon|Naluboutes, Nalubotes]][[User:KoshVorlon| Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris]] 16:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC) ← Yeah, that's a bit much. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only in terms of the wikitext, but also how it displays on the page, it's huge and distracting. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 16:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not true. My signature was larger and bolder, after receiving two request to change it (at the same time) from "Weburryoursecretsinthegaren" and "Treasury Tag", I did just that. TreasuryTag continued to state there was a line break in my signature. I have explained to him that what he's seeing is the text that is subscripted in the first half of my signature, then superscripted in the second half. Yes, it looks like I'm using "br /". However, I'm not. I attempted to clarify with him that we were using the same terminology (page break = "br /", "br"). He did not and still has not responded to that at all and continued to state that it has a line break in it and now that's it too long. I have remained civil with him and attempted to explain again, that there is no line break ( "br /", "br") in my signature and that the printed portion of my signature is the same as it was before, (letter wise). I have asked him to refrain from posting further communications on my talk page, as I now consider his conducting, hounding-like. He disregarded this and has continued to harp on my signature. _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes}^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 16:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

You're using a 5px border every time you sign. Change your signature. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that your signature is overly large and thereby disruptive. Its purpose is to quickly identify you in discussions, not to perform signature art. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) NB:- I'm using Firefox, and this might make a difference. I can provide a screenshot if necessary. Though of course, sigs should be designed to look fine on all browsers, so – yeah, change the sig, sounds good. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 17:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice how your sig obscured what you have written? With this edit, your sig is within the guidelines. –xeno^talk 17:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed the hidden text, which seems to no longer apply, now that the character-limit is met. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 17:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And he's just re-inserted it, because I was "hounding" him. There we go :P ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 17:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Good lord, Kosh; your signature is so big that it's obscuring some of what you have written. I consider myself good at making signatures for other editors; I'll suggest a few for you:
KoshVorlon ^{(Wanna chat?)}

_koshvorlon talk ^edits

Kosh Vorlon ^{Shout it out loud}

KV ^{feeling lucky, are we?}

KoshVorlon _{(T · C · L)}

What do you think? → Dylan 620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 17:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan, I like your signatures! Yes, I realize part of my signature obscured my text. That was more or less to prove to Treasury Tag that there's really no line breaks in my sig. If there were, it would have move the sig down a line. And TreasuryTag, you ARE hounding me.
_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes}^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 17:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Click for full-size version.
(groan) It did have linebreaks in in the wikitext. The bits labelled (LINEBREAK), in red print, in the picture to the right are the linebreaks. You can tell this because of the fact that the text stops, despite there being more space, and continues on the next line. If you want to delude yourself that I'm hounding you, by all means do so. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 17:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Treasury, thank you for bringing this here, it may be best if you disengaged. –xeno^talk 17:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your padding at 2px. 5px is still obscuring text, as you can see, it obscured the tail on the g in TreasuryTag, making it appear as if his name was TreasuryTaq. –xeno^talk 17:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The signature is so large it obscures part of what the user has posted (I'm using Firefox). I'll admit to being biased against fancy signatures of any kind, but this is a particularly obtrusive example. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KoshVorlon indicated to me at my talk page s/he's amenable to the tweaks, so marking resolved. –xeno^talk 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On Firefox the border does overlap the last line of the preceeding text, blocking it from easy legibility. The main issue I have is that all the lyrics I've seen show it as Nalyubuites', nalyubuites', Aeria Gloris, Aeria Gloris :) Canterbury Tail talk 18:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chuck Marean
Current events
Please tone down Current Events. Those who censor out good news are engaging in terrorism, including in the Aussie newspapers. The public goes to current events. Current events are not things you could get in trouble about. The theme of Current Events should be “all is well.” Lists of tragedies and worries are insensitive to veterans and children. For example, making the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea out to be dangerous is unnecessarily stressful. There are versions of Dancing with the Stars throughout the world, and local non-troubling news is of global interest. Chuck Marean 17:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators do not control the content of this site; they deal with policy violations. Durova^Charge! 17:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? Current events should only contain good news, is that what you're telling us, and people who put in things that are not good news are terrorists? Really? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This edit by Ixistant, this edit by Chuck Marean, and this edit by Capitalistroadster, toning down Chuck Marean's phraseology, might shed some light. As indeed might this edit and this edit, where an editor without an account removed two of Chuck Marean's additions for the prosaic reason that xe is listing events that didn't in fact occur on the date specified. It seems that one person's "terrorism" is another person's simple quest for actually making the encyclopaedia correct. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Portal:Current events
I've been trying to put G-rated current events on Portal:Current events, but someone (maybe with dial up) has been removing them. For example: this edit. I'm really not sure what to do about it. Current events should not be a list of terrible things. --Chuck Marean 05:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why your edits were removed, this appears to have been vandalism. I restored it. I'll warn the IP. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of warning a good faith editor for doing the right thing, I suggest reading what is already on this noticeboard.
M. Marean was at it again, and the editor without an account was correcting his incorrect addition. The event that M. Marean was adding this time, to the 2009-05-26 page, didn't happen on that date. Go and read the source that was cited. It explicitly says "on Monday". Once again, the editors without accounts are correcting the editor with an account. Xe calls them "terrorists" for doing so. (See above.) They don't deserve vandalism warnings for that. Nor should the text have been restored.
Other recent current events edits by M. Marean, corrected by editors without accounts, include edits such as this one, where xe removed, for example, the inauguration of a windfarm and the declaration of a natural disaster, for being "improper" current events. And here and here M. Marean wrote about a current event for the 26th that isn't an event that occurred on that date, and which even xe xyrself knew about before that date. Again, an editor without an account corrected this. They don't deserve vandalism warnings for removing patently incorrect statements of when events occur. Uncle G (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been more helpful and easier to spot if this could have been explained by the IPs removing the material which WP:AGF appears to be duly cited to sources, instead of simply removing it with zero explanatory edit summary when doing so. Cirt (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks liky chucky may have plaxicoed himself, if I'm reading this correctly. Solutions? Ironholds (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary: It was easy (for me) to spot this because they did, in fact, give such edit summaries. Look at the accountless editors' edit summaries to the page of the 25th, whose diffs are above. One has the edit summary "Bolden removed, was nominated on Saturday", the other the edit summary "Thornton won on Sunday". The accountless editors weren't doing anything wrong, and they were even explaining what they were doing. We don't get to transfer the blame for this to them, not even to transfer the blame for our missing what they were doing. We don't get to automatically assume good faith of the editor with an account and at the same time try to continue to lay the blame at the accountless editors' feet with an automatic assumption of bad faith on their parts. The assumption of good faith applies to all of their edits, too, remember. Uncle G (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News shouldn't be anything rated, it shouldn't be censored and Wikipedia does not censor events or articles. I don't understand why Chuck thinks that news should be G-rated. Canterbury Tail talk 11:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best to have that discussion in the two sections on this at Template talk:In the news that M. Marean has already started, or at User talk:Chuck Marean#Portal:Current_events/2009 May 20. Uncle G (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pokista02

Resolved
– blocked and further warned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pokista02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Can someone please take a look at User:Pokista02? This user has continually adds album and single covers to Michelle Williams (singer) ([7] [8] [9]) despite one warning and a final warning. — Σ xplicit 18:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked for 3 days and left a very stern warning regarding the consequences of misusing Fair use material in future. I would suggest that similar incidents should be reported to WP:AIV, and then WP:ANI if the AIV patrollers are not inclined to deal with it, for a faster response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral admin needed
I'm fairly sure of how to deal with this, but I've been heavily involved in editing the article Battle of the Plains of Abraham so don't want to appear to be WP:OWNing it here.
A while back, an editor appeared on the talk page and expressed concern with what he/she felt was a British-centric viewpoint of the battle (often considered the turning point in the Seven Years' War between Britain and France and the last obstacle to Britain controlling the Canadian territory). Plains2007 (talk · contribs) brought some useful references to the article, which was great, but also expressed a fairly strong sovereigntist and anti-British tone to the situation. A look at his/her contributions will indicate the issue with this editor - some good contributions, but couched in some POV issues (this edit illustrates that}. The editor has dropped in sporadically, occasionally assisting in improving the article and others, but in recent days has been attempting to insert this poorly-written section regarding one of the unit commanders in the battle and pointing out this commander's later failures against the American Revolution. Useful information, perhaps, in the person's own article, but not in the context of this battle, as several editors have pointed out in reverting the changes. I tried to engage both on the article talk page and the user's talk page, to little effect; he/she was blocked for 3RR violation. Now, however, Remover2009 (talk · contribs) has popped up and made the same edit. It's a blatant sock.
Could an uninvolved admin please kindly take some time to explain to Plains2007 what they're doing wrong, and encourage them to consider POV and 3RR et al? They do make some reasonable edits, and their information has benefited the article in question, but their POV is showing pretty strongly. Thank you. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I first left a comment with the original blocking admin in case he feels like adding to that. I didn't go into 3RR or the like at User_talk:Plains2007#User:Remover2009 but simply asked him if he really thought his addition makes sense. Yes, it's interesting that the British guy leading the battle in 1759 becomes the general in the American Revolution 15 years later and eventually leads to Yorktown, but that's not relevant before the battle details if at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An author wants the AFD about him closed and the article deleted

Resolved
– Article deleted. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's a WIP and the backlog will get handled eventually, but user:RFStapelberg has requested Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rudolph_Frederick_Stapelberg this AFD be closed and the article about him be deleted (request here). AFD is 8+ days old and appears to have consensus to delete. I can't vouch that that user is in fact the author, but that point appears to be irrelevant because there is consensus. Thanks.    7  ^{talk | Δ |}   23:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. There was already a consensus to delete, even without the nudge. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.    7  ^{talk | Δ |}   00:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A little caveat here. If WP:BLP is followed, whether or not a famous person wants to have an article about them on Wikipedia is rather beside the point. Notability is not removable. We should not be bending to the will of people who wish not to have articles about them on Wikipedia. The consensus was to delete, but the consensus should not weight based on the subject's wants. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While notability is not removable, it is very often arguable whether they are actually notable. In the cases where notability is borderline, the wishes of the subject should certainly be weighed - since these are the articles least likely to be maintained, therefore most likely to include under the radar BLP violations, and most likely to be of non-public persons. – Toon ^(talk) 02:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict - but I agree with you both) Completely agreed, and perhaps I mis-worded my subject here. The reason I put that in my subject is because usually we are used to seeing people who want the article about themselves saved, not deleted. I can't speak for him, but I think this was more a case of the subject of the article endorsing its deletion and reminding us to get it done per consensus because it appears he agreed with the problems that existed in the original article (which some speculate may have been autobio). I agree we don't need his endorsement or permission and should make decisions based on consensus, and in this case I don't htink we were bending to his will, but perhaps accepting his reminder.    7  ^{talk | Δ |}   02:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to express my agreement with Toon and my disagreement with Hammersoft, both in the strongest terms. Toon, please let me know when you require my support in editing the relevant policy page(s). --Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV, criticisms and controversies
Hi there friends. I've been trying to sort out why our Barack Obama coverage is being allowed to violate our WP:NPOV policy. In case anyone is unfamiliar with the policy it states that: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Yet significant and notable criticims, controversies and perspectives are being deleted from our Obama coverage. No I'm not talking about fringe craziness, although it should be included appropriately, I'm talking about the 44% of the United States, and the people on the political right and far left, who are having their views and media coverage of their issues excluded in violation of our policies (ie censored). I understand the decision was made to eliminate most criticism articles, but the content is not being integrated into any of the articles. So what then is the alternative? Help, suggestions, and ideas welcome. Thanks for remembering to assume good faith and for keeping the personal attacks to a minimum. Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give any examples of where you think policy is being violated?    7  ^{talk | Δ |}   03:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by examples. Do you want examples of the content that's being excluded or examples of the objections to it? To generalize, every possible policy is brought out in objecting to any addition no matter the phrasing or the source. Saying it "may" belong in "some other" article is also a familiar meme. If you clarify I'm happy to respond with specifics, but I don't want to burden the discussion with details that you're not asking about. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean diffs where properly cited, reliably sourced, NPOV information was censored or objected to or removed. I think it will be very hard for anyone here to stop the problem without knowing exactly where it is happening or who is doing it. In general I think everyone will agree that, per the policy you quoted, all significant views of his presidency should be expressed.    7  ^{talk | Δ |}   03:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at [10] for example I would agree with you, that you added a properly cited comment. I'll let an admin reply, because I was just really looking for a clearer picture of what your concern was.    7  ^{talk | Δ |}   03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume ChildofMidnight doesn't know the answer. Here's the short version: Wikipedia policies (meaning policies or guidelines) that have no enforcement mechanism are something closer to aspirational essays than actual policies. Unlike WP:NPA and WP:BLP, which have enforcement mechanisms, after a fashion, there is no enforcement mechanism enforcing WP:NPOV if a group of editors successfully camps on a particular page or group of pages. WP:CANVASS, an asinine policy that goes way beyond what's needed to prevent over-spamming of user pages, actually discourages you from going out to find a larger group of editors to overrule the POV fanatics who camp out on particular pages. If you do get that larger number of editors to overturn the campers, the definition of "consensus" will be expanded by the campers to try to deny that you have such a consensus, and since there is no set definition of it, you'll have to argue about that. Along the way, the campers will snipe at you for any procedural problems with your proposed consensus, helped by the fact that Wikipedia has vague strictures on procedures for developing a consensus, so if someone is motivated to argue about something, they can usually argue it for a long, long time. As you're trying to do all this, expect to be sniped at, continually, by campers trying to get your goat so that if you snap back in a way that steps over a behavioral guideline, admins will slam you with a block as AN/I commenters attack you mercilessly. These are, in fact, the rules as they now stand, and they are pretty much iron rules. We really ought to have a set of written-out real rules to help editors through the actual challenges of this website. The way it is now, it's kind of like a Congressman trying to get a bill passed only by reading some "How a Bill Becomes a Law" pamphlet, rather than by realizing that a certain committee chairman needs to have his ego stroked or a certain lobby needs to be mollified -- except when trying to get NPOV there are no unwritten rules, either: unless it's the unwritten rule You Can't Get There From Here. Extreme cynicism on this is the wisest attitude.

Can it change? Glad you asked. It's next to impossible to get any policy change on this website. SlimVirgin has a proposal still under discussion: Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. That proposal isn't my preferred way of going about it, but you and I and anyone else frustrated by Wikipedia's enormous failure in this area should probably discuss the matter there or somewhere. Keep in mind that, like any proposal, you'd be fighting ignorance, stupidity, complacency, bad-faith bias and a number of other problems I'm probably forgetting about on your way to establishing consensus for some proposal that probably hasn't been created yet and which might or might not work. Personally, I prefer to edit List of mammals of Connecticut. -- Noroton (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet one must consideer how 'out of bounds' the situation in an article may really be. CoM, for example, wants to see more in the BO article focusing on both the Ayers/Acorn/Wright stuff, and on criticism of his policies and presidential actions. The former are covered in a proportion which finds consensus, and doesn't become a tarring and feathering, which most of those opposed to the current proportion want implemented, and as to the latter, there's an article for that already. On highly contentious topics, like Obama, Wikipedia suffers as much from POV warriors as it does from apathy. We get a set of editors as regulars at that page, and unfortunately, they spend a great deal of their time fending off POV pushers. Regretably, the people inclined to 'drive-by' edit in a contentious edit aren't your average person, they're people with a seriously adhered to set of beliefs. They aren't going to be interested in hearing our policies, and they aren't interested in 'neutrality', though they shout that word a lot. They're interested in smearing the topic. A few of those may learn some policy, and shout it out, hoping that like whack-a-mole, they'll hit an effective argument. Unfortunately, that presents a misrepresentation of 'consensus' and 'neutrality', because they've simpyl gone from POV Vandals to the 'Civil POV Pusher'. They still aren't serious, reasonable editors. ThuranX (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regretably, the people inclined to 'drive-by' edit in a contentious edit aren't your average person Neither are the people camped out on the article. Both groups tend to be POV warriors. You can't solve the problem of POV editing by bashing one type of editor over another. (In fact, no one can actually "solve" it anyway, all we can do is ameliorate it.) One idea is to have some mechanisms where we attract a broader group of editors to an ongoing dispute, so that advocates of one POV or another will need to appeal to a group that is, overall, likely to be a bit more neutral. Another idea would be to conduct some ongoing disputes more like XfD discussions with set periods to discuss, and a third party to make an ultimate decision in a process where there are some well-understood procedures. These ideas would build on what we already do, so they innovate as little as possible and might, eventually, sometime, somehow, get consensus. Just a couple of thoughts. -- Noroton (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for comment is right over there; that would be the appropriate forum. Keegan^talk 07:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is NPOV a core policy or not? How can we make sure it is enforced? And as far as what particular criticisms and contrary perspectives are the most notable in regards to Obama, I am very flexible and interested in collaborating on phrasing and sources. But certainly there are notable issues and concerns that have been widely reported on and that are that are appropriate to include. Excluding this content violates a core policy and it needs to be addressed. I don't think RfC provides an answer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can find answers about this at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and there is also a notice board for such questions here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which is pointed out at the first link right on top.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
some requirements and policies can be specified more exactly than others. NPOV is always going to be a matter of judgment. Nobody is actually neutral on any important controversial topic. Even when one edits intensively on something one does not care about in the least -- some dispute for example involving two groups neither of whom one has the least interest in., it is almost inevitable that one will become of the opinion that one side is more in the right than the other, or that one has more sympathy for one position than another. We can try to repress the grossest expression of our biases, but we cannot do so completely. Nobody can. Most of us realise that there are so topics we care too much about to work on in an objective manner, or at least, that the strain of trying to do so is excessive. A reporter will always have the tendency to turn into an advocate. Inevitably also, the mix of people here is not uniformly distributed among all possible viewpoints. No work can be done totally objectively. All encyclopedias, all histories, reflect the views of those who write them. all group works reflect the group. The older encyclopedias reflect the cultural views of the time. This one will inevitably reflect the general views of those people most interested in contributing to a work like this. Given the nature of the work, there are going to be several general tendencies: one is towards general political and social liberalism, the other is to a somewhat libertarian attitude, both left and right. given the possibilities here, there will also be people of very extreme positions on all sorts of issues. the hope is to find some sort of balance. The general run of people here are not zealots; the y will normally give a very wide tolerance to opposing positions. I'd say, in fact, that of all works of this sort, Wikipedia gives an extremely wider tolerance than anything else I can think of. The sort of people who who support Obama here are by and large not going to be extremists about it. They'll accept a good deal of material from the other positions. And remember, there are people here also who oppose him--from the left. They too will help keep the fans from running away with things. The practical attitude, expressed rather cynically but not inaccurately by Noronton, is that you will get a good deal of what you want if you do not ask for too much. DGG (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comment. I will try again in the next few days. But we've gone from having criticism articles to having criticisms "integrated" out of existence for Obama. I believe it is an issue of censorship and it goes to the heart of Wikipedia's integrity. Many editors find the criticisms objectionable. They simply don't want them included, just as many of our articles on overt sex acts are objectionable to many, but we aren't confronted with them because they aren't topics that most of us work on regularly. But the policies seem clear.

Are we to believe there are no perspectives or criticisms that should be included in a U.S. president's biography? Are the criticisms about his approach to economic policies, foreign policies, associations (yes those!), not worth a couple sentences? Clearly there are sources discussing these issues. Clearly they are mainstream opinions even if they aren't majority opinions. If NPOV is a real policy, I don't see how it's acceptable not to include perspectives that are critical of Obama. We certainly include perspectives that identify his popularity, speaking ability, charisma, awards and recognition etc. And if there are more notable criticisms or controversies then lets include those instead. I'm flexible. But let's not have such an important article on Wikipedia that contains only the narrowest of perspectives and that violates one of our three core policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know you're dealing with POV pushers when they object to numerous criticisms, each of which has been made by significant, reliable sources, often many such sources that represent significant points of view on a subject. You know you're dealing with an area in which Wikipedia just doesn't work well when you bring up the problem and no one has a real answer for you. But you're not going to change a thing until you change your focus from your particular problem with the Obama article to the problem of POV in general. By focusing on Obama so much, you undercut your own case by making it appear that you're only interested in promoting your own POV, not promoting NPOV across many subjects. You seem to expect a greater level of intellectual and emotional maturity on the part of editors here than is justified by Wikipedia's history. Editors in general, and admins as admins, seldom respond to pleas to help other people with promoting their points of view when it's a POV the audience doesn't share, and a majority don't share the general outlook you and I do when it comes to Obama. Therefore, in their immaturity, they don't view the POV problem with that article as a particularly bad problem. They also view it as a knotty problem (because Wikipedia makes resolving POV issues incredibly hard to do when there's a determined group camping on the article, and everybody with experience on Wikipedia knows this). In other words, you're wasting your time by complaining on this page. I assume this thread hasn't been archived just yet because there's a bit of sympathy for the fact that there really is no adequate spot on Wikipedia to air this particular basket of dirty laundry. -- Noroton (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, The fact that we can't be perfect (or even nearly perfect) in terms of NPOV doesn't mean that we couldn't make enormous strides toward fair coverage. WP's free-for-all atmosphere on article talk pages is fine for typical discussions, but it tends to favor editors who aren't being fair but who have enough allies to push their own viewpoint. So far, the game has been to get editors on the other side to commit behavioral violations because that's the only way admins will eventually ban them from the topic. It seems to me that the best solution would be to create incentives for editors to be on their best behavior -- not just in terms of civility, but in terms of reasoning calmly and striving to be as objective as possible in their own thinking. By bringing more third parties to the page, POV pushing editors realize they need to provide adequate arguments to promote their view, and they tend to respond with arguments that are as reasonable-sounding as possible. When a discussion is subject to more rules and when there is someone there to enforce those rules, discussions tend to be more productive, more reasonable and less emotion-laden. I think even the worst XfDs are seldom as bad as the very contentious article talk pages for just that reason. Court trials and our own ArbCom cases have more rules and enforcers, and, despite the fact that very contentious subjects are discussed, they seem to work better than our free-for-alls on controversial-article talk pages. I think that's the direction WP needs to go in, and, I think, eventually it will. -- Noroton (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree with you about the problem. I think required decent manners even from devoted content writers would help tremendously. But I do not think formal process at Wikipedia works very well; if it did, why do we have repeated arb cases over the same issues? They don't lead to closure either. And neither do XfDs. I've been arguing the same topics for 2 years now. But yes, greater participation is the solution to many problems here. We can;t prevent a general trend that way, but we can prevent a few people dominating a subject. DGG (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An FYI for transparency
I undid the non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet as the closing user also !voted in the discussion and it's my understanding that if you !voted, you can't close such discussions in which you did so. If I'm wrong, feel free to revert me. Also, if an un-involved admin feels it should still be closed, please do. The nom has withdrawn his nom, but as I understand it as well, once there are delete !votes, (Or is it participation by the community in general?) a deletion should run its course. Either way, I'm making notice of it here and why I did what I did. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, since others have !voted to delete and the nom withdraws, essentially the delete !votes can now be considered as noms, per Wikipedia:Speedy keep item #1. However, the essay that was nominated is no longer the essay that is being discussed, the whole MfD seems out of process and should be closed and re-nominated in a few days, IMO, if anyone so chooses to do so. --64.85.215.85 (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudo edit war on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, moved here from ANI
DeltaT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Lebob-BE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:DeltaT is apparently waging a pseudo-edit war(no one has broken 3rr, one warning was issued), several editors is engaging him in a heated dispute over his edits. Primary opponents are User:Lebob-BE and User:Will Beback, the dispute is apparently over the correctness of sources and plagiarism and verfiability. In my opinion as a "innocent bystander", this is growing out of control with at least DeltaT saying:

I'm adding to the article what seems appropriate according to encyclopaedic standards. Please do not delete my edits again.

I view that last sentence quite alarming. Gsmgm (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Could you notify the relevant parties of this thread, please. Jehochman ^Talk 13:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done twice Gsmgm (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like DeltaT has been edit warring against consensus. Multiple editors have been reverting their changes:
Lebob-BE

Will Beback

Pekayer11

J.delanoy

In addition, DeltaT has recently vandalized Antisemitism [11] and on at least one occasion has used a deceptive edit summary.[12] They've also made arguments that "pro-Jewish" sources shouldn't be used.[13][14] That seems to be a very bad argument. Sources can have a point of view; they just need to be reliable. I especially am concerned that DeltaT equates Jews to neo-Nazis. To me this looks like a case of disruptive editing. Before taking action, I'd like to hear what DeltaT has to say. Jehochman ^Talk 13:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia promotes voluntary contributions - maybe some administrators have forgotten that principle. My [contributions] have been consequently removed (editing by me in those contributions has been done to some words only[[15]]).

In the meantime, NPOV template has been removed, while there is an unresolved neutrality issue. The NPOV concerns this: there is no proof, only opinion, about the plagiarism between [Dialogues in Hell] and the [Protocols]. DeltaT (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted when removing the template, this does not appear to be a content dispute. It looks like you are edit warring and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, in addition to soapboxing. If you will not agree to stop, then technical means will be used to prevent further disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 20:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that DeltaT behaves as a typical POV pusher who wants his point of view reflected at all costs in a wikipedia article no matter whether this POV is justified or not. In that view, his two first (not motivated) changes of this (featured) article made on 22 May clearly show (see this and this) that he removed sourced material and that he dos not want this document be acknowledged as a forgery and a hoax. Whatever his motivations, substantial changes with no reason at all like these could almost be regarded as vandalism. since these initial changes he has been repeatedly trying to push his POV in this article despite the opposition of several contributors (I am only the last one in the chain). As he has also constantly put forward that there is no proof that the protical are a forgery and a plagiat, I have put a short note in the talk page explaining that the forgery has been demontrated since 1939 by a French author, Henri Rollin, in his book "L'Apocalypse de notre temps, written and published in 1939 when the protocols were the master piece of the nazi antisemit propaganda. This book has since then be republished a couple of times and is still available. The only answer I got to my statement is this one, which only shows, at best, that DeltaT has little knowledge about the debate and the scholarship work regarding the protocols. At least twenty pages (and probably more) pages of Rollin's 600 pages book are devoted to a thorough comparison between the protocols and Joly's plagiat and clearly show the evidence of the plagiat. If this is not a proof, nothing will be. The article only shows of few examples of this comparison (taken more would have raised copyright issues). In conclusion I this that DeltaT's only objective on this article is to push his POV. I let to the administrators the care of deciding what must be made in that respect. --Lebob-BE (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delta T.: Here's a principle you maybe aren't aware of: If you don't want to see your work edited mercilessly, don't edit Wikipedia. You aren't granted the right here to have your edits remain against consensus. You are forcing through changes that several editors disagree with, and you've yet to convince anyone different. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<< Jehochman: I am extremely concerned by the diffs you've presented. I think they indicate an immediate apology and promise from DeltaT to cut it out, or failing that a block, is necessary. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 16:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They don't seem to be backing down. Here's the latest disruptive edit: [16]. Block, yes, but for how long? Jehochman ^Talk 20:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing anything from publications from Liberty Bell Publications as if they are a neutral publisher is probably Not A Good Thing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For avoidance of doubt, who did that, and where is the diff? Jehochman ^Talk 20:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[17]. Hipocrite (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, that edit is problematic in the extreme. What are we going to do about this? Jehochman ^Talk 20:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And this by the user who objects to other sources as being unreliable. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see the same change to the article being put back repeatedly. Editors who make controversial changes are expected to make a good-faith effort to persuade others and respect consensus. Although DeltaT has commented here, I see no effort at persuasion. I suggest a 48-hour block for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would provide a break from disruption, and if they were to resume upon returning, a longer block could be employed next time. Jehochman ^Talk 20:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Due weight; the preponderance of academic thought and literature is agreed that the "Protocols" are an anti-semitic forgery, and therefore if follows that the article upon the subject should, neutrally and in accordance to the available sources, reflect that. Delta.T, and any like minded account, needs to understand that and edit to that consensus, or otherwise endeavour to change all the very many reliable sources that declare the tract a pile of Jew blaming nonsense. This would of course entail a long break from Wikipedia, and I for one am happy to encourage them on that undertaking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A 48 hour block is too kind in my opinion, but it's a place to start. I suppose someone might want to warn DeltaT before the block is put in place? I'm a bit skeptical that the block will help, though; DeltaT's perspective seems to be fundamentally incompatible with the goals of the project. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a 72hr block, to be very quickly and permanently reapplied if DeltaT just comes back and carries on. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 07:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which particular 72 hours do you think should become permanent? --Web Hamster 07:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion was that he is blocked for 72 hours. If, after they have lapsed and the block expires, he continues editing in the same vein that he has been, he is blocked indefinitely. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 07:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable. They get a second chance, one second chance, after the block expires. Jehochman ^Talk 08:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm not an admin, someone else'll have to do it—I was just making the suggestion!) ;) ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 08:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after having read what stays above I would have expected DeltaT to be blocked by the administrators for a while. Now I realize that not only he is not but that he keeps editing the article The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as can been seen here and there. This is even more surprising when one realises he has just the same behavior on other articles --Lebob-BE (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He does seem to have a history of removing reliably sourced criticism from articles on fringe theory and taking said theory on face value. [18] is an older diff showing degrading of an article to favour the fringe material. --Peter cohen (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the referral from the article discussion page[[19]]. Some contributors forget that there are five pillars [[20]] on which Wikipedia is built. There have been two infractions on those principles in the [Protocols article]:
1. My relevant [voluntary contributions] are censored, while they have been adherent to the neutrality and good referencing standards
2. [achieving consensus]: there is no reason whatsoever to even suggest a 'blockade'. I hope this unnecessary dispute can be solved in a civil manner.
In response to Peter cohen: I have a Master's degree in Philosophy, which taught me one thing: source reference well, or your content is unvalid. DeltaT (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never edited The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article and I not involved in that debate, but DeltaT is doing the same thing to the Bob Lazar article. He is removing sourced criticism from the LA Times, Newsweek, and even the government in order to leave a positive biography of a UFO conspiracy. This editor's actions is a troubling pattern of disruption. Just look at this edit. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aradic-es
After warning User:Aradic-es on his talk page, he continues to support his Croat pov by reinserting symbols and names deemed unconstitutional. The symbols in Canton 10 and West Herzegovina Canton were deemed unconstitutional as they only represented one group. Despite this Aradic continues to push his pov even going as far as inserting "Herceg-Bosanska Županija", a name found unconstitutional. PRODUCER (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a content dispute. If the user is edit warring, please report him at WP:3RN. Administrators do not settle content disputes, and I do not know of any Wikipedia constitution. Could you be more specific about the nature of the dispute, state what policies or guidelines you believe this user is violating, and post DIFFs to demonstrate these violations? If the user is not violating Wikipedia rules, then please consider following the normal dispute resolution routes (WP:DR). Admins do not settle content disputes. Community consensus is what drives those.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I investigated this further and saw a history of edit warring on these two articles. Accordingly, I have locked the articles for one week. During this time, please attempt to resolve your dispute. If you come to an agreement between the parties, you can request for unprotection. I've also warned 3 users of 3RR: User:PRODUCER, User:Aradic-es, and User:Journalist 007. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I have notified Aradic-es about this thread. In the future, if you bring a complaint about someone to a noticeboard, please inform them of it. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew!
I just wanted to mention that issue with these articles is that users Journalist 007 and PRODUCER keep removing the flag and alternative name for Canton 10 (“herceg-bosanska županija”). Thes flag of the county is used by local government and there is no any “alternative” or “official” (imposed from the federal level) –so I believe there should be the flag and coat of arms. The dispute about flag and name should be mentioned in the articles-I do agree. But simple removing-I do not think it is nice. And POV-pushing. Like it or not these names are present and used-as well as the flag!
Regards!--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suspicious new users
I happened to be looking at the new user creation log, and in a few minutes the following new user accounts were created:
User:RP Singapore

User:NP Singapore

User:NYP Singapore

User:ITE Singapore

User:SP Singapore

User:TP Singapore
They keep coming... Suggestions? Exploding Boy (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(non admin response) I would suggest a checkuser to make sure there aren't any other accounts out there by this obvious same user and then watch them to see if they cause a problem. Cause right now, the only thing they are guilty of is having "Singapore" in all their names. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those unfamiliar with the acronyms:
RP Singapore == Republic Polytechnic

NP Singapore == Ngee Ann Polytechnic

NYP Singapore == Nanyang Polytechnic

ITE Singapore == Institute of Technical Education

SP Singapore == Singapore Polytechnic

TP Singapore == Temasek Polytechnic
Block them on the suspicion of being role accounts. MER-C 08:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. They probably would have kept going but they were stopped at 6 account creations in 24 hours. Suspect if they aren't blocked they'll be 6 more tomorrow (or after they find a new IP). 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 08:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a single IP, with no prior contributions/users that I can see. -- Luk ^talk 12:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've left them all a warning that role accounts aren't allowed and they are liable to be blocked if used as such. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jpuligan 12
Jpuligan 12 (talk · contribs) is already blocked for a week for repeatedly inserting copyrighted material into Pasig Christian Academy after repeated warnings. While blocked, he used 222.127.33.212 (talk · contribs) to repeat the misbehavior (I warned the IP account about block evasion), and then used Jpuligan 012 (talk · contribs) (which has since been permablocked}, to repeat the same behavior. The only acknowledgment that they have received these warnings is here. The original account is still blocked. I reported this to AIV, but a Helper Bot removed my report, since he's already currently blocked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 416: / Line 416: @@
 In response to the referral from the article discussion page[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion#Bad_references_2-9_to_.27plagiarism.27]]. Some contributors forget that there are five pillars [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars]] on which Wikipedia is built. There have been two infractions on those principles in the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion Protocols article]]: <br />1. My relevant [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold voluntary contributions]] are censored, while they have been adherent to the neutrality and good referencing standards<br />2. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus achieving consensus]]: there is no reason whatsoever to even ''suggest'' a 'blockade'. I hope this unnecessary dispute can be solved in a civil manner. <br /> In response to [[User:Peter cohen|Peter cohen]]: I have a Master's degree in Philosophy, which taught me one thing: source reference well, or your content is unvalid. [[User:DeltaT|DeltaT]] ([[User talk:DeltaT|talk]]) 17:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
-: I have never edited ''The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'' article and I not involved in that debate, but DeltaT is doing the same thing to the [[Bob Lazar]] article. He is removing sourced criticism from the LA Times, Newsweek, and even the government in order to leave a positive biography of a UFO conspiracy. This editor's actions is a troubling pattern of disruption. [[User:BBiiis08|BBiiis08]] ([[User talk:BBiiis08|talk]]) 17:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
+: I have never edited ''The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'' article and I not involved in that debate, but DeltaT is doing the same thing to the [[Bob Lazar]] article. He is removing sourced criticism from the LA Times, Newsweek, and even the government in order to leave a positive biography of a UFO conspiracy. This editor's actions is a troubling pattern of disruption. Just look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Lazar&diff=prev&oldid=292705352 this edit]. [[User:BBiiis08|BBiiis08]] ([[User talk:BBiiis08|talk]]) 17:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 == Aradic-es ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 18:00, 27 May 2009

User:Marcopronto

Fairly new account closing RFAs and AFDs

Blocked [Fairly new account closing RfAs and AfDs]

User:Docu

Random Section Break [Docu]

LibStar

Puebla F.C.

User talk:Eseverance

undoing incorrect edits of Oyster Bay material by a non-logged in user

70.105.246.237

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science amended

Naming guidelines for placenames in West Bank - Judea and Samaria

ThuranX

Backlog alert

KoshVorlon's signature

Chuck Marean

Current events

Portal:Current events

User:Pokista02

Neutral admin needed

An author wants the AFD about him closed and the article deleted

NPOV, criticisms and controversies

An FYI for transparency

Pseudo edit war on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, moved here from ANI

Aradic-es

Suspicious new users

User:Jpuligan 12