Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Tag team editing on History of the race and intelligence controversy

This entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/History of the race and intelligence controversy to centralize discussion and to save space on ANI.

• Point of information: 120 Volt monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who initiated several subthreads, was a returning sockpuppet of banned user Jagz (talk · contribs), and has now been indefinitely blocked by Nishkid64. Mathsci (talk)
• Timestamp as still active: 69.228.170.24 (talk)
• Timestamp as still active: 00:17, 10 May 2010 A.Prock (talk)
• Timestamp as still active: 05:03, 12 May 2010 A.Prock (talk)

MiszaBot keeps archiving this section despite the fact that the discussion is ongoing. Is there a standard way of dealing with this difficulty? A.Prock A.Prock (talk)

I've suppressed the timestamps so that the bot doesn't archive the section. [1] –MuZemike

See also User:DoNotArchiveUntil. –xeno^talk 19:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin closure needed

Could someone please close this. It is unlikely that any resolution is possible and the thread is heading off in unhelpful directions. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that topic bans are unlikely for the "tag team", but the possibility of Arbcom or an RfC/U on the OP is still on the cards, so I request it remains open while a few unanswered questions remain. mikemikev (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Eric144

Eric144 (talk · contribs · block log) is adding defamatory content from a tabloid's opinion piece to the article of a politician elected today. It was removed. A short while later, he simply undid the removal.

He'd already tried inserting it in March, but it was removed by another editor. He readded it today with "[author] reminds us of the dark legacy of the Goldsmith family", which says it all.

I've reluctantly brought it here as a large proportion of the user's edits have been to pages on members of this environmentalist/politician's family:

1. He creates a section titled "Nazism" on the talkpage of one linking to a homepage.ntlworld.com webspace page [2]
2. Later he added a further unsubstantiated related allegation [3] (even though AN/I isn't indexed, I'm not even going to repeat what he said in his last paragraph).
3. Again he restores removed content about it saying "I put the ... information back where it belongs in the middle of what looks like a hagiography to me. Any attempt to remove it will see its immediate return." [4] Again in a subsequent month [5] saying "It reads like a nazi hagiography", with remark "would help if you were to reveal your identity" [6]. The edits to the accompanying article mirror the talkpage edits.

He's long made personal attacks against specific editors. [7] His past block history is for "making personal attacks and for reverting against consensus" with multiple unblock declines due to WP:NOTTHEM.[8]

Despite the edit summary explaining his addition was reverted because it was pov pushing and pointing him to the undue weight NPOV policy, as the article already covered the matter from all points of view using reliable sources including The Times, he simply undid it saying "vandalism".

It seems clear from their editing history the user is not here to collaborate, is unwilling to listen, and for whatever reason is especially focused on members of a particular family making non reliably sourced allegations they are nazis or "human chocolate bars".

I removed the poorly sourced pov material again [9], and placed a warning template on their talkpage. They responded with this screed referring to a completely different statement as "pathetic, laughable, and execrable"—the statement's sourced to The Observer and has been present in the article since 2008. They restored their defamatory material saying "vandalism" as before. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

some of the article on Edward Goldsmith at present does read like a hagiography: altogether too many adjectives of praise and an inappropriate separate list of links to "associates" and influences" . DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've not edited that article myself nor even read it all, so you may be right; glancing, I do see a few peacock terms in its lead. What I am saying is that the unsupported nazi allegations and defamatory tabloid namecalling insertions about the living politician are inappropriate. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

While that could be true (did not take the time to investigate), the IP editor who began this thread is also correct. I have notified Eric1444 about the inappropriateness of his edits, and I have left a reminder for him to reread the BLP and NPOV policies. NW (Talk) 05:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

DGG, that is a true text. I have removed some laundry lists from the article and would encourage better copyeditors than I to "edit mercilessly". Guy (Help!) 15:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't have the patience to deal with wikipedia troublemakers like 92.30.111.99 who don't even have a Wikipedia account. No one has addressed the pathetic and utterly crass "Young, gifted and Zac" article which remains untouched as "Goldsmith is described by his mother and reporters to be of a gentle disposition" in the article. That is an obvious bias by 92.30.111.99 . The Edward Goldsmith article was a very slimy hagiography by someone almost certainly connected to the family. The Goldsmith family are well known to everyone with the tiniest historical knowledge as being on the very extreme right of British politics. According to a Guardian article, they initiated a fascist coup against Harold Wilson, who subsequently resigned (see BBC documentary The Plot Against Harold Wilson ). It is relevant that a Guardian and NYT journalist uses Nazi symbolism against him. George Monbiot wrote an article called 'Black Shirts in Green Trousers' about Zac's favourite Uncle Edward. Could both of you please stop threatening me. It really isn't nice.

--Eric144 (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, this idiot seems to think the Guardian is a tabloid. He is no more than semi literate. Why are you backing him up ?

--Eric144 (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't help your case with Personal attacks. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As the diffs show, they've been warned for personal attacks before. They've been blocked for different ones and disruption.
After being warned by NW their actions related to the article were 'completely inappropriate', their very next edit was to comment here without accepting why their article/talkpages actions were unacceptable (as before), with bad faith accusations and claims both of us are "threatening him". His next edit removed longstanding RS-cited content from the article he disliked by misrepresenting the full length newspaper interview article as a "daft opinion piece" article. The edit after that was to make further personal attacks here on ANI as you can see.

The unsourced alleging of implication of a living person in what're among the worst crimes against humanity in history, in the 2nd diff, are exactly the sort of blp violation we don't need. The namecalling insertions on the article from a pov/attack piece are also unacceptable, as are the personal attacks. It's hard to see much else in order but a block. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the whole history, but on one thing at least Eric is certainly right. The IP and other editors have repeatedly insisted on the inclusion of an assertion that Goldsmith "is described by his mother and reporters to be of a gentle disposition", Eric has removed this. Even if the statement were in the source cited (it isn't), this would be a ridiculous piece of puffery. Some of the claims against Goldsmith may be inappropriate (I haven't yet checked), but this sort of statement has no place in any WP biography. RolandR (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's somewhat incorrect, RolandR. No editors myself included have "repeatedly insisted" on anything regarding that statement. It was inserted by a registered user in August 2008 during their partial rewrite, copyedited as part of the article by others since then, and unchallenged. The only time I've done anything related to it directly was to correct it to adhere to the reliable-source yesterday (per verifiability), removing the words 'his mother and', as the original user had confused it. Eric most certainly did not remove it as you say. He removed the fixed version while misrepresenting the full-length interview article source as an opinion piece. The statement is in the source: <quote>There is nothing flash or aggressive about the editor of The Ecologist. The first thing you notice is how gentle he seems.</unquote>. For whatever reason many interviews describe him as 'genteel', 'soft spoken' etc. That's probably why it remained. I've never suggested it Has to stay. If I had to guess (OR) it might be because he speaks in RP or similar; regardless, even if it sounds silly to us it's what reliable sources say. The claims and names the user's tried to insert are inappropriate, as is their conduct, and the user's been told by multiple people they're unsuitable in any WP biography. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The user has just posted the following WP:NOTTHEM/MPOV-style conspiracy tirade, acting exactly like they did in their previous declined unblock requests:

"the Goldsmith family are multi billionaires who can afford many servants ... all it takes is for one or two servants to gang up on a human being ... These people are well versed in Wiki robo language and can bully their way to success ... subterfuge"

including yet more smoke and mirrors talking about the wholly different Edward Goldsmith article, failing to accept -- choosing instead to talk about a statement a registered user added in Aug 2008 -- why adding "human chocolate bar" sourced to a pov/attack piece into the Zac Goldsmith article having made wholly unsourced accusations suggesting that person (of Jewish ancestry no less) is a nazi on a talkpage is unacceptable. They continue their personal attacks. This has to stop. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

^{Timestamp as still active: 92.30.111.99 (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)}

By the way, Eric144 (talk · contribs), you shouldn't treat IPs differently from users. Some people have their reasons not to register for an account, and they should be given the same amount of trust and politeness as someone with an account. After all, it's not only IPs that vandalize—many users do as well. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Some people have their reasons not to register for an account What reasons could those be? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably no one's reading because this thread has pretty much ended, but my question is serious -- what reasons can people have not to make an account? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This thread and probably the board generally isn't the venue for your meta/philosophical question. If you wish to discuss such things you may like to discuss it on each other's talkpages, on meta, or the village pumps. But please don't hijack this thread.
The thread is about a user's violations of the living persons content policy, personal attacks and disruptive editing. It is unresolved / unactioned, and there is a 'blp victim'. Thanks. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you for the advice, IP editor who has only edited under this address for the last week, but who has clearly edited before and who might be the same person as the other 92.xxx IP editors who have dominated that article for quite a while but I can't really tell because of the way their IP address changes with frequency (maybe, if that's the same person). I surely understand now that there's no reason to treat IP editors, who with great frequency it is difficult to hold accountable for their editing history, any differently from editors who register an account and can have their history checked relatively easily, unless of course they use sockpuppets, which is to say another account, a concept very similar to, but apparently much more frowned upon, than hopping (deliberately or not) from one IP address to another. I'm glad to have had you answer my simple and straight-forward question – in which I asked for a legitimate motivation for people to edit with an IP address rather than an account – with the royal blow off. I'm sure there's no reason for Wikipedia to ever consider banning IP editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

user:BruceGrubb and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on talk:Christ myth theory

Thread withdrawn; filer is drafting a RFC/U. NW (Talk) 19:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

BruceGrubb has been editting the Christ myth theory article (I.e. the view that Jesus simply never existed) for a long time. Sadly, his contributions at this point are little more than a never-ending parade of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the talk page. Bruce objects that the article is poorly defined, that the definition used in the article is synthetic and the product of original research and that it therefore violates WP:NPOV. To support his claim he refers to a few books, notably The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, editted by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. This book, which was published in 1982, states: "Over the last two hundred years or so, some skeptics have sought to explain the New Testament witness to Jesus and the rise of Christianity in terms of the Christ-myth theory." It then goes on to describe how advocates of the Christ myth theory argue that Jesus' miracles depicted in the gospels can be explained as early Christians just copying from other works available at the time, an argument anticipated by Lucian, a second century writer who accepted Jesus' historical existence but felt that the gospels exagerated his biography. The Bromiley text goes on to discuss more of the theory's history and then moves on to mention that other thinkers, such as Bertrand Russell thought Jesus' historical existence was an open question. Bruce, however, has misunderstood this source and thinks that Lucian and Russell are both classed as examples of Chrst myth theory advocates proper though they accept that Jesus existed. On this basis, Bruce claims that the definition Bromiley uses differs from that found in the Wikipedia article (which is currently supported with three different sources all written by university professors and published through major universities). He's raised this objection over [10] and over [11] and over [12] and over [13] and over [14] and over [15] and over [16] again--for more than a year. He's been corrected every time (I can get diffs if needed), by a variety of editors, but he presses on regardless, refusing to drop the WP:STICK. I've recently informed Bruce that if he didn't stop this nonsense I'd submit a report to the ANI seeking some sort of censure for disruptive editting as WP:DISRUPT mentions this sort of tedious, time-wasting, consensus obstructing talk-page behavior [17], [18]. Not only did he not stop [19], but he then said my statement that I was coming here [20] constituted a "personal attack" [21]. Please, do something about this so the Christ myth theory page--which is contentious enough without Bruce's shenanigans--can have a better shot at making progress. Eugene (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC) I am not involved in this article directly, but I participated in its good article reassessment which has just ended by removing that status and delisting it. The majority of the GAR comments were that the article is not NPOV, that CMT is poorly defined, that it appears to be a POV fork of Historicity of Jesus, and that a couple of editors appear to be behaving in violation of WP:OWN on that article. It seems to me that these issues need to be addressed before anyone is reprimanded for insisting that the article become more NPOV and policy compliant, which appears to be a majority view, as is clearly seen on its GAR page. Crum375 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Could we have some evidence that you (Eugene) has listened to those who feel that the article needs POV attention? Looking at the GAR review and the talkpage it doesn't seem as if the consensus is in fact behind your interpretation of what is neutral POV and that Bruce's concerns have not been duly adressed. That might be why he feels he needs to repeat himself.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC) I've been willing to make a number of concessions to those who've cried "POV!": the most obvious example is that in mediation I agreed to a compromise in which certain material was removed from the lead and a few marginal quality sources were removed [22]. But the issue here isn't the article's POV/NPOV status; it's that Bruce is factually misrepresenting a source over and over and over again on the talk page despite numerous attempts to correct him and that this sort of thing is prohibited by WP:DISRUPT. As for Crum's concerns, it's precisely Bruce's sort of disruptive talk page obstructionism and obscurantism that impeeds more meanignful conversations which could potentially resolve the questions concerning neutrality and so on. Please help us. Eugene (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC) It is not just Bromiley (who as I pointed out before requires some WP:OR to shoehorn his definition in the the Jesus wasn't a historical person position the article has taken) but also Dodd, Richard Dawkins ("The only difference between the Da Vinci Code and the gospel is that the gospels are ancient fiction while The Da Vinci Code is modern fiction." (The God Delusion pg 97)); Price, Doherty AND Boyd, Gregory A. (2007) all regard Wells' post Jesus Myth position as Christ-Jesus Myth one which agrees with the first part Welsh's definition ("The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory"); and I could go on with the many sources some of which are just notable (like John Remsburg that show the definition the Christ Myth Theory the article mainly uses is the product of WP:SYN as well as WP:OR and by excluding those definitions that don't support the one the article present there are always going to be major WP:NPOV issues (which it has been tagged with yet again). I once agreed with Akhilleus that there was a definitive non-historical hypothesis that we could form an article on but after reading much of the material I honestly can't see any real support for that position. Dodd is so vague as not to exclude a historical Jesus, Bromiley's story of as well as his use of Lucian and Bertrand Russell without one single mention of Drews or any other 'great' of the "formal" non historical position seems to leans more toward a 'gospel are accurate history' position definition than the man never existed at all. Price, Doherty AND Boyd all calling Wells with his mythical Paul+historical Q Jesus = Gospel Jesus a Christ-Jesus Myth position only adds to the mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC) This probably isn't the place to do this, but perhaps correcting you here (yet again) will show the adminstrators what exactly the problem is. Bruce lists a number of works that he thinks undermine the very clear definition of the "Christ myth theory" that the article currently sources with university publications; here are a few of Bruce's ostensible counter-examples: (1) Bromiley's ''The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (2) Dodd's History and the Gospel, (3) Dawkins' The God Delusion, and some inspecific references to (4) Price and (5) Doherty. It's like deja vu all over again. As I've already indicated, Bromiley (or an anonymous contributor to his volume) doesn't say what Bruce wishes he said. Bromiley states on page 1034 of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia that the Christ myth theory has only been argued for "the last two hundred years or so" and that the advocates of the thesis employ an argument similar to that used by the 2nd century Lucian. Also, Bromiley deals with Russell's Jesus agnosticism only after wrapping up his overview of the Christ myth theory proper. Dodd never actually defines the Christ myth theory so there's simply no way to set his non-definition against the actual definition currently used in the article. Dodd's book simply includes little superscripts at the top of each page to help roughly orient the reader, such as "occurence and meaning" and "historical and supra-historical"--they aren't section headings or anything, the text just flows from one page to the next with no breaks. At the top of page 17 the superscript reads "The Christ myth theory" and on that page Dood speaks of the theory that some people just made Jesus up as the symbolic representation of a mythic god. He then goes on to say, "Or alternatively", and then sketches out a different view that Jesus may have been some totally obscure person dressed up in a ready-made myth. Does Dodd think that this "Or alternatively" information is part of the Christ myth proper or does he think that he's moved on to a totally different option? To what material does the superscription apply? We don't know; as I said, he never actually defines the phrase. Dawkins never even uses the phrase "Christ myth theory" in his book at all! Price writes of Wells on the back cover of The Jesus Myth, "Wells has now abandoned the pure Christ Myth theory for which he is famous..." If Price contradicts himself later on, that doesn't undermine the article's definition, it only undermine's Price's reliability. Doherty is an online self-publishing amatuer who's statements are manifestly inadmissable as reliable sources. This is precisely the sort of nonsense that Bruce has been burdening the page with and while a few editors have tried time and again to correct his mistakes, he just keeps on posting the same references over and over and over, confusing the new comers and forcing us to have the same arguments time and again. Please, stop him. Eugene (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Since you didn't, I notified BruceGrubb for you. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you. I had thought the talk-page notice would be sufficient; but you're right. Eugene (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Sadly part of the problem is the source material is a mess. Before the GAR (which really surprised me) there were no less than four attempts across two noticeboards even even define what the Christ myth theory even was: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_8#Jesus_myth_hypothesis.2C_part_7295 Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Jesus_myth_hypothesis Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_15#Christ_myth_theory_and_Historicity_of_Jesus Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Christ_Myth_Theory_definition and none of them answered the concerns much less formed a consensus. I should mention that before I called him on it User:Eugeneacurry was calling editor Kuratowski a liar [23] and given his statement of pastor being a First Baptist Church of Granada Hills so there are possible WP:COI issues here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Please take Bruce's claims of COI with a very large grain of salt; he once made the same accusation against books published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press at the page in question [24] [25]. This only further illustrates the problems with Bruce's editing here. Eugene (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC) As I pointed out Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press both have exclusive contracts to print the Authorized KJV and it is in their best interest to kept the head of the Anglican Church (ie the King or Queen) happy which means supporting the idea Jesus was a historical person by default. As I said later on it would be akin to expecting a totally unbiased paper out of BYU regarding historical accuracy of the Book of Morman, the Pontificia Università Lateranense to put out an unbiased study on abortion or the viability of having married priests, or any US university putting out an unbiased study on Communism c1951-1960. To believe university presses are totally immune to pressures is to live in a fantasy world. Even the most respectable of medical journals are not immune to this--why else do you think Lancet put out an article in support of homeopathy in 1997? Also going over the delist of the GA I seen several charges against Eugene for POV issues providing independent support for my WP:COI concerns.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC) I find Bruce polite and extremely patient, indulgent even, towards those who don't share his view. I share his view about the inadequacy of the definition, but am concentrating on the article's comment that the scholars who argue for this decidedly fringe theory are pseudoscholars, and haven't had time to concentrate on the definition issue. But I occasionally read the discussion on that issue and am amazed at the pure unkindness of Bruce's opponents towards him, their inability to see there is a problem, and his perennial humanity in return. 17:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Anthony (talk) There are times I have lost it (if you go though the talks pages I do make a few first class blunders but as the Japanese say 'even a Buddhist priest will get angry if you smack him in the face three times') and I actual left the article for a while because the constant POVing was driving my blood pressure through the roof (sadly I had similar issues with the Multi-level marketing article but at least there I was able to pull one reliable source after another to clearly make the points I was making.) I came back and while I didn't like where the article had gone I thought it was going somewhere and stayed out of it for a while until it became clear the somewhere it was going was off the NPOV cliff (again). The only peer reviewed journal that I could find that even tangentially touched on this issue (and was thrown out because it was felt to be outside the journal's expertise) was Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness) Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16 which said "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." (abstract) "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived."(body text).--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC) This misdirection only further illustrates the problems with Bruce's edits to the talk page. I never complained about civility issues. The talk page has often become heated and I'm in no position to pretend to be "Mr. Manners" here. This has always only been about Bruce's disruptive editing. Further, Bruce has now reverted, as he often does, to using the discussion of the article per se as a forum for discussing the subject of the article. Please, admins, take some of the distraction out of this article's existence by taking Bruce out of it, at least for a little while. Eugene (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Eugeneacurry, you are the one doing misdirection with the "The Christ myth theory is..." or "The Christ myth theory, namely the belief that..." word games you are trying to use to ignore what Dodd is saying. You have called another editor a liar (removing it only when it was point out to another administrator), verbally smacked down Crum375 who chastised you for it, Sophia and SlimVirgin both claimed you were POV pushing the article in the GA delisting, and were pushing for calling Drews an Anti-Semitism even though editor Paul B indicated that the term meant a totally different thing than it does now (ie not a hater of the Jewish people) and yet the term links to the hater of the Jewish people article. While were at it there seems to be a problem with the New Testament Introduction: The College Press Niv Commentary reference used to back this up as the 1994, 1997, 2008 version that is searchable via google books doesn't have Drews in it at all So why did this reference only appear in the hardcover version?--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Admins, please not that Bruce is trying to obscure this report through a number of pointless diversions; this is precisely the sort of thing he continually does on the talk page. If Bruce would like to complain about my supposed POV issues let him do so, but that's not the subject here. And as for David Fiensy' NT intro book, it's simply one more attempted distraction. The book appears once in the article and isn't connected to Arthur Drews at all but to another person, Bruno Bauer. Bruce is attempting to draw a false equvalency here. Please don't be distracted by it. Please block him. Eugene (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC) No, him. —^ Seriously, are we in kindergarten here? I always thought Wikipedia was a community of late teens living in basements. Hans Adler 20:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC) That was a little harsh, Adler. I have to admit, I did confused by the stuff on Drews' own page with what was on the Christ myth theory but he is called a "religious anti-Semite" on his page without really explaining what that means; I through the previous reference Arthur Drews (1865 – 1935) Professor der Philosophie an der Technischen Hochschule Karlsruhe, Vortrag von Dr. Bernhard Hoffers, Lehrte, im Geschichtssalon Karlsruhe, 24. April 2003 at google translator and found out that was a majorly bad idea as trying to pull any sense out of "First you should in fairness, after I one of Drews and Nazism had made allusion just say that Drew's publicly against tremendous growing anti-Semitism in the twenties has pronounced itself." gives me headaches though I can see who ever put it there thought it demonstrated Drews was not an anti-Semite (unless they knew German then they knew exactly what it meant). It still seems off to use terms that have certain meanings in 2010 that may have had totally different from those in 1927 based on one and only one reference that really doesn't explain what those terms even meant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC) In such cases just ask a German for a better translation, such as: "For justice' sake [I] should first, after I have made these hints about Drews and Nazism, also say that Drews has spoken out publicly against the enormous rise of antisemitism in the 20s." You should generally be careful with what German scholars say about Nazi era scholars. Most are their academic descendants and are either uncritical or hypercritical. – Unsurprisingly, the term "religious anti-Semite" was added by Eugeneacurry. [26] Here is something more detailed translated from elsewhere: "To understand Drews' own position during this time more clearly, it is necessary to draw on his convictions which he voiced publicly at the time in the journal Freie Religion. On one hand Drews positioned himself unambiguously against antisemitic stereotypes. On the other hand he also expressed thoughts that correspond to a racial religiosity. For example Drews asserted that Christianity was the expression of a 'sunken time and the mindset of a race foreign to us'. He stressed that 'Christianity [had] absolutely nothing to do with Germanhood' and therefore a 'German Christianity'would represent 'nonsense'." [27]. Hans Adler 22:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the translation. My late mother knew German fluently and I still remember one of her examples of just how awkward translating the language was: 'I throw myself down the stairs a bucket.' Conan-Doyle even had his creation say "only a German is so discourteous to his verbs." Back to the point at hand: "Wells has now abandoned the pure Christ Myth theory for which he is famous, moving closer to the recent theories of Burton Mack." (please note the part pf Price's that was left out) Back in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_18 there was a lot said on this matter and going over Price's Deconstructing Jesus on page 228 he actually defines the pure "Christ Myth Theory" and states "According to the Christ-Mtyh theorists "Jesus had first been regarded in the manner of an ancient Olympian god" which does not exclude Wells mythic Paul Jesus concept. In the conclusion Price states "The gospels Jesuses are each complete syntheses of various other, earlier, Jesus characters." and there there may have been a historical Jesus behind any one of these versions or none at all. "Christ-myth theorists like George A. Wells have argued that, if we ignore the Gospels, which were not yet written at the time of the Epistles of Paul, we can detect in the latter a prior, more transparently mythic concept of Jesus,[...] The Gospels, Wells argued, have left this raw-mythic Jesus behind, making him a half-plausible historical figure of a recent era." [...] Is it, after all this, possible that beneath and behind the stained-glass curtain of Christian legend stands the dim figure of a historical founder of Christianity? Yes, it is possible, perhaps just a tad more likely than that there was a historical Moses, about as likely as there having been a historical Apollonius of Tyana. But it becomes almost arbitrary to think so. For after one removes everything that is more readily accounted for as simple hero-mythology or borrowing from other contemporary sources, what is left? (Price, Robert M (!999) "Of Myth and Men A closer look at the originators of the major religions-what did they really say and do?" Free Inquiry magazine Winter, 1999/ 2000 Volume 20, Number 1) "G.A Wells is the eminently worthy successor to radical 'Christ myth' theorists..." and after about three sentences a direct reference to Can we Trust the New Testament? is made. (Robert M Price back cover of Can we Trust the New Testament?) The entire "Review of Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005)" article which in part says "But there is nothing arcane about Wells's suggestion that two different sects with "Jesus" figureheads found it advantageous to merge, and so merged their Jesuses, reasoning that each sect had part of the truth." [...] "Wells specifically addresses the parallel cases made by Earl Doherty and myself to the effect that the Q source need not go back to a single teacher at all, much less one named Jesus." In short Wells' current idea is that the Gospel Jesus is a composite character made of at least a preexisting Christ Myth (accounted by Paul) plus one or more historical teachers whos actions were record in the Q Gospel. Last time I checked a composite character was by definition non historical as no one person did all the the things the composite character. "Far from being a radical, Wells is simply mainline scholarship taken to its ultimate limit, engaged in dialogue with his critics, and with copious references to topical writings. He accepts much that is normative in NT historical scholarship, and but for his "radical" view that Jesus is a composite figure, could easily be mistaken for another conservative apologist drone, grinding out defenses of the position that Paul's companion Luke authored Acts, or that the Tomb was really empty. Wells is the last in a long line of men like Robinson, Loisy, and Drews, scholars who trod the mainstream paths to show where the mainstream had gone wrong." (Turton, Michael (May 16, 2003) The Jesus Myth and Deconstructing Jesus) These are the true WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATs that tend to happen in the Christ Myth Theory article--anytime you get one of these examples which present even the possibly that the "Christ Myth Theory" could include a historical person you get a kind of hat over the eyes, fingers in ears, la la la I can't hear you tap dance and it has really gotten old.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC) As I've said before, at most this just means that Price, the non-professor extremist self-publishing here, is inconsistent and thus not a reliable source on living 3rd parties according to WP:IRS on three different counts. We've been over this before--many times. Eugene (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Eugeneacurry, you clearly are missing (or ignoring) the "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As I have pointed out several times by publishing articles in Journal for the Study of the New Testament ("one of the leading academic journals in New Testament Studies"), Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith ("The peer-reviewed journal of the ASA"), Themelios ("international evangelical theological journal that expounds and defends the historic Christian faith"), Journal of Ecumenical Studies ("The premiere academic publication for interreligious scholarship since 1964"), Evangelical Quarterly, Journal of Psychology and Theology, Journal of Unification Studies, etc. Price fits the "work in the relevant field" requirement (Please note this does NOT say on the topic of the article and wouldn't make sense if it did so don't even waste our time going there). Also Price's position on Wells is independently supported by other sources like Boyd, Turton, and Doherty so it is not like he is the only one saying this. Per the order presented on the WP:RS it would seem Boyd being published through Baker Academic is of a higher 'rank' than Wells' Open Court book. Wells may not consider himself a part of the "Christ Myth theory" but Boyd does and as the more reliable source we would have to go with Boyd for how "Christ Myth theory" is defined especially as it is independently supported by Price.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I've said all this before: WP:IRS says "Questionable sources ... include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist ... Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." Price's views are widely considered extremist so his self-published stuff can't be used to define other people. Further, WP:IRS goes on to say that "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer;" Given that Wells is still alive, this further indicates that Price's blog articles cannot be used to categorize him. Ditto wth Doherty, only more forcefully since he's not an academic at all. Double ditto with Turton, another non-scholar whose self-published web review article you yourself once said was "somewhat useless" [28]. These absurd attempts to grasp at straws perfectly illustrates Bruce's disruptive editing on the talk page. It's nice to see that you finally concede that Wells doesn't see himself as part of the club any longer; I'll save the diff. It's also nice to see that you now feel that Christian scholars publishing through real publishers are more authoritative sources for this article than even the Christ myth advocates themselves; I'll save that diff too. But I note for the admins here that both these points represent major shift on Bruce's part; he's argued the exact opposite on the article's talk page (E.g. re: Wells [29]) and seems to have only reversed himself here as he's been progressively backed into a corner. The book by Boyd and Eddy would be worth considering, but they clearly support the definition of the "Christ myth theory" currently used in the article: "As we have noted, some legendary-Jesus theorists argue that, while it is at least possible, if not likely, an actual historical person named Jesus existed, he is so shrouded in legendary material that we can know very little about him. Others (i.e, Christ myth theorists) argue that we have no good reason to believe there ever was an actual historical person behind the legend." Paul R. Eddy & Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: a Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) p. 165 Please admins, don't allow this thread to go stale or become nothing more than one more go-around on Bruce's tendentious carousel; please intervene. Eugene (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I do see some evidence for concern here, but I am unclear what you are requesting. Is it a topic ban, a block, or something else? NW (Talk) 22:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure that a full-blown topic-ban is neccesary. A short block would be fine. All I want is for Bruce to knock off this broken record routine. I think that if some sort of official action is taken against him, even a minor one like a 24 hour block, he'd get the message that he can't just go on bogging down the talk page with his tendentious edits month after month after month, confusing the new comers and making a ton of needless work for everyone else. Eugene (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC) One issue is that ANI threads don't necessarily lend themselves to fair examinations of the evidence. Perhaps you could file an WP:RFC/U? NW (Talk) 01:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Okay, NW, I'll do that; thanks for the advice. I suppose that means I withdraw this. Eugene (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC) FYI, this is the fifth thread Eugene has started at ANI in two months. ^^James^^ (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC) That could be viewed as evidence of a possible WP:GAME violation.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing by HairyWombat

I regret to see that HairyWombat (talk · contribs) has been selectively notifying people involved in a particular image deletion discussion about its deletion review. Specifically, different but equally strongly-worded messages (one identified me as "seeking to change the WP:DPR#FFD policy" – a false accusation) to EncycloPetey and J Greb (both editors who expressed opinions on the same 'side' as HaryWombat in the discussion) but to none of those who were on the opposing side. In my opinion, this is a clear case of votestacking and campaigning, both violations of the behavioural guideline WP:CANVASS—which has a convenient table at the top identifying the various factors.

HairyWombat has not been notified of this discussion because they have instructed me not to post on their talkpage. If someone else wouldn't mind? ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 18:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Notified. Deor (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made a note at the DRV. However, since I had already commented there, another admin should be the one to warn or sanction HairyWombat. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply. On reflection, I accept that I was guilty of canvassing. I will accept whatever sanctions administrators choose to impose. What else can I say; it was dumb and I should not have done it. As for User:TreasuryTag "seeking to change the WP:DPR#FFD policy", I stand by that and explained it here. It is not just User:TreasuryTag seeking this, but this user did initiate the Deletion Review. Finally, on my Talk page I request all users not to clutter it up. HairyWombat (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I had never ready WP:DPR#FFD until Mkativerata (talk · contribs) linked to it on the DRV. I had only read the (admittedly contradictory) sentence on WP:FFD which I quoted in my DRV statement. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 19:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As User:TreasuryTag had not read WP:DPR#FFD then the user was unaware that they were seeking to change it. But they were still seeking to change it. HairyWombat (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

But you agree that your statement accusing me of "seeking to change" the policy was false? ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 15:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:DPR#FFD states "If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the file is kept by default". In their Deletion Review, User:TreasuryTag wrote "The result of 'no consensus' should, therefore, be ... where there is no real consensus, the presumption is to delete the image."[30] That seems very clear. HairyWombat (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:FFD states, "Files that have been listed [...] for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them." That's all I read; I never knew that the other page existed and was contradictory. Your refusal to retract your false accusation is inappropriate and not conducive to collaborative editing. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 06:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Review of actions

I have just protected Bishop Hill (blog) following my reverting of a merge redirect of the article to that of the blog's author. There is an ongoing merger discussion, which was formalised a couple of days ago by the creation of a RfC. This is the second time in 24 hours that consensus for the move has been "declared" by one of the proponents, and in this instance the action had the following edit summary "The RfC can keep running for 30 days. It does not override current consensus for a merger in any way". I have been attempting to admin this Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation related article these last couple of weeks, and had previously protected the article upon reviewing the editing history and determining that there was a slow edit war. I had lifted the protection upon request, and had then blocked three editors who then made major edits without apparent consensus. As well as protecting the article, I have also banned the editor who redirected the article last from editing the page until the RfC has concluded. I invite review of my actions, and suggestions on how to proceed further - I am assuming a redirect is the likely outcome of the RfC, and would appreciate pointers as to how to ensure the determination that there is consensus after a reasonable period (and how long should that period be). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
There is also related discussion at my talkpage, particularly Talk:LHvU#Blog again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are not permitted to edit a page back to your favoured version and then protect that - this is a clear abuse. Nor are you permitted to "ban" PG - he has as much right to "ban" you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not his favored version, his action was as an administrator not as an editor. He has also not banned User:Polargeo only temporarily restricted him to the talkpage of the article after Polargeo attempted to merge the article in what looks like an out of process edit. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

With any block under this regime a key question is about uninvolvement:

• ...an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions...

Nobody is commenting on this so I assume that LessHeard vanU qualifies. Another requirement is that the user be warned:

• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions;...

Was such a warning issued?  Will Beback  talk  21:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather busy just now, but would note that LHvU blocked me without warning after my only edit to the article, which I made in response to talk page discussion of content which in my opinion was (and, as now restored, is again) a coatrack based on a passing mentions in news reports, giving credence to blog claims involving a living person. While I did note my action on the talk page, giving reasons, the proposal that I follow 0RR on the article to be unblocked was no big deal, and I agreed accordingly. LHvU is evidently giving priority to stopping an edit war which I wasn't really part of, which is a judgement call. My concern about the paragraph remains, and I note that the current version as reverted by LHvU claims that the radio "interview was first posted on the Bishop Hill blog" – the "first" appears to be unsupported by the reference, which merely refers to "The interview, posted on the Bishop Hill blog" without saying that this was the first posting. Others may care to review that wording. . . dave souza, talk 22:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(resp to Will Beback) All editors are under a general warning, given when I noted the lifting of the previous indefinite protection on the article talkpage. I subsequently blocked 3 editors for making unilateral removals and redirects following the lifting of the protection, and then declined to do so when WMC again redirected the article in a merge attempt - citing consensus on an RfC he inappropriately closed - per AGF and also Cla68 for undoing same. I gave my rationale at my talkpage, of which PolarGeo was a participant. To consider that PolarGeo would not be aware of the consequences of reverting the undoing of the redirect would be a great stretch of imagination. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Since it's difficult keeping up with the levels of restrictions and precise state of all the articles, it doesn't seem to me to require any stretch of the imagination to accept that editors have good faith differences in being "aware of the consequences". However, I accept that LHvU was using his best judgement in taking actions to stop slow edit warring, and acting within policy. The preservation and restoration of dubious content seems to me to go against normal policies, but this remains a judgement call in unusual circumstances, and LHvU is entitled to hold a different opinion on that. . . dave souza, talk 14:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The revert was apparently to remove a page blanking that was improperly done. It's not like LHVD chose specific content; he simply restored the content that was previously there. I see no problem with his actions here. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The ban would appear to be out of process. Per the banning policy, "Users may be banned as an outcome of the dispute resolution process, or by uninvolved administrators enforcing Arbitration Committee rulings." Perhaps I've missed it -- I'll admit just doing a quick scan -- but I don't see any cases involving Polargeo and this article. Shimeru (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The general sanction is linked above, here it is again. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, can't imagine how I missed that. I'm not sure I'd agree it was a disruptive edit, but I won't fault LessHeard's judgement on the matter. Shimeru (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding LHvU's spin on the issue (which I find misleading), you don't revert and then protect. Sure, there are a few exceptions to the rule, like obvious BLP violations. But as an admin you have to choices - either revert or protect. You can't do both. Especially over something as trivial as whether an article should be split or merged. Guettarda (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not true. "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." Arkon (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As people are pointing out elsewhere, it's standard practice to revert and protect when there's been an abuse of process or inappropriate editing. William Connolley and Polargeo have both tried to pre-empt the results of an RfC that was posted only a few days ago and where comments continue to arrive about whether to merge the pages, and if so in which direction. It's too early to close the RfC, and neither of them should be involved in doing that anyway. Therefore LhVU reverted their merge and protected the page so they can't do it again. It's unfortunate that he had to do that, but that was their fault not his. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The real abuse of process here (IMHO) is that a merge discussion that had started on April 21 and had pretty much reached consensus was unilaterally turned into an RfC at the last minute, and now certain editors insist that the RfC run a full 30 days before any action is taken. Some editors (myself included) consider this an unnecessary delay, perhaps even a deliberate stalling tactic. This is discussed at Talk:Bishop_Hill_(blog)#Slapping_an_RfC_on_top_of_a_merger_discussion and Talk:Bishop_Hill_(blog)#Done. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

An RfC is a formal, established, and accepted step in the content dispute resolution process. One important element in an RfC is that it invites participation by previously uninvolved editors because the RfC is listed on the "open RfCs" page. I think we should welcome input from previously uninvolved editors as they could very well provide new ideas or suggestions about the dispute or examine it with unprejudiced opinion. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That all sounds good in principal, and that's why I've initiated RfCs myself in the past, but is this case, for the reasons enumerated immediately above and in the linked takepage threads, the RfC was used improperly. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

YS, I started the RfC, and I've not been involved in the discussion for weeks, so your arguments don't apply. I started it because it looked as though a small number of editors were being unnecessarily aggressive about the issue, so I felt fresh input might help. That page has the appearance of having certain editors assume control of it, with any new person arriving at the article (who doesn't agree with them) being attacked and undermined, told they must read and adhere to previous discussions, told they're not allowed to open a new RfC because discussion is already taking place among the people who matter. That's exactly the atmosphere that calls for an RfC. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC does not override consensus. Also the RfC tag was slapped on to merge discussions that had been going on for weeks and had reached what I judged to be a fairly clear consensus (at least as clear as it is ever going to be). I didn't realise that peoples' comments could suddenly be made part of an RfC. I had not edited the article itself before this. I was simply trying to enforce consensus. LHvU has banned me from editing the article, when I had no previous warnings what so ever. I would like clarification on why he feels he can do this and whether it has any weight. I have no intention of reverting any of his edits myself and he could simply have asked me not to and I would have of course complied, he does not need to be heavy handed with me although I can see that he probably needs dealing with heavy handedly himself (because his view of others appears to be based on himself). Also I would keenly like to know what offwiki contact brought SlimVirgin into editing this because the conversations I have seen that she occasionally is mentioned in, or comments on, are very one sided rants indeed. Polargeo (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway LessHeard appears to be using his admin tools and powers in any way that he can to stagnate an article at his favoured version and against consensus and is using the fact that a belated RfC was slapped on the talkpage when those wishing to avoid a merge found they were losing the argument. RfC is an informal request for outside comment, it is not a policy that can be used to stagnate development of an article or wikipedia against consensus. Polargeo (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There is some remarkably poor behavior from all parties on this one. Reverting to a previous version and protecting is a red flag and should not be done lightly. Unprotecting an article one has edited is a red flag and should not be done lightly. Perhaps very long topic bans for lots of parties should be handed out liberally - but then, who am I to suggest that admins actually step up to solve the problems as opposed to just push them down the road. If any admin has the courage to step up and deal with this, please contact me and I can give you various sized balanced lists of people whose substantial absence from this topic area would help. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I unprotected the article but my only ever edit on the article was reverted and the article was then immediately protected by LessHeard. I did not undo his edit, only his protection, because he claimed that the protection was against me. There was no need for this as I would never undo his edit. When LessHeard then explained the protection was for other reasons I immediately reinstated it. I don't understand how Less Heard is acting as an admin when he is enforcing content decisions of a minority whilst I am simply trying to enforce consensus as an editor. Polargeo (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It does appear that Less heard is reverting the article to a POV he agrees with (which is against consensus) and then protecting it at his prefered version. This is based on the fact that someone started an RfC when there was already consensus to merge. He is then "banning" me from editing the article after I have made a single edit which I thought was enforcing consensus. He not only undoes my edit but bans me and protects the article. This appears to be based on nothing more than the fact that someone started an RfC. I have yet to find the rule that an RfC underway in any way prevents editors from following consensus. Polargeo (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I`m seeing a lot of "Reverted to his prefered version and locked it" here, Would someone bo so good as to explain how LHVU can have a prefered version of an article he has not actually edited? mark nutley (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a very silly question. But to explain the obvious: you (or I, or LHVU) can have a POV about many things. That POV may or may not be declared. Or LHVU may even have made unverifiable assertions about his POV. Whatever: the lack of edits to the article is irrelevant to the "having a preferred version". That LHVU *has* edited it back to a given version rather indicates that he prefers that version, for whatever reason William M. Connolley (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. Muddled thinking on your part. Preserving the status quo against disruptive editing does NOT indicate a preference either way on his part concerning the content thereof. I suppose you could argue that it shows a preference on his part for honoring the spirit of the underlying policies but that's another matter entirely from the content issue. --204.11.245.203 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a very silly statement. To explain the obvious to you, an uninvolved admin can take an action which he believes was taken in bad faith or which he believe subverts an ongoing process. This series of edits is certainly the latter, and likely the former too. Do you get it now, or do I need to explain it further? :-) ATren (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Very bad form. This gives a strong impression of the "Wikipedia Review cabal" tag-teaming against William "the Antichrist" Connolley and other common targets. That said, this is a most unusual lapse of judgement for LHvU so I don't think it needs to go any further than the chorus of tutting we see here, not unless it happens again anyway. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I back this. I think it was a lapse of judgement. I also had a laspe of judgement in my response to LHvU's actions. I am really trying to assume good faith in that LHvU is not trying to take sides (I have already stopped assuming good faith in the case of Lar) but I do find this AGF more and more difficult when incidents like this occur. Polargeo (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editor on Apple TV

Resolved

 – Blocked 24 hrs by Department of Redundancy Department (talk · contribs). –xeno^talk 19:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Awhile back, I answered a 3O on Apple TV. AshtonBenson (talk · contribs) was inserting text that used Apple forums, Apple FAQs and other sources to synthesize a section together, and the other editor disagreed with it. I sided with the latter, saying that it was inappropriate. A fourth editor came to the page and agreed with me and the other guy. AshtonBenson accused the three of us of meatpuppetry (side note - first time I've ever seen a 3O accused of meatpuppetry), and there were heated words. After several reversions, AshtonBenson was reported for a 3RR violation, but the page was fully protected. Benson then counter-reported the three of us for meatpuppetry, but that was declined.

Fast forward a week, and the page's protection expired. AshtonBenson is, once again, reinserting the text. I don't think this is an issue for dispute resolution; there's a fairly clear consensus that the text is wholly inappropriate, and it just seems that we have one particularly tendentious editor. As I'd rather not see this escalate any more, I've brought the issue here. It seems to me that AshtonBenson is particularly combative; he has reverted multiple warnings from his talk page, and he's repeatedly changedheaders on the talk page to reflect his beliefs about us being meatpuppets. Further, he created Digital Monitor Power Management, a one-line article about the same text that he's trying to add to the Apple TV, which seems to be a step towards WP:POVFORK. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The additional section is clearly WP:OR "sourced" to forum posts, so I have removed it. In addition, the accusation of meat puppetry is completely baseless, so I have warned the editor against making personal attacks. Whether admin intervention becomes necessary is entirely up to AshtonBenson. —DoRD (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DoRD, you seem to have mistaken the term "meat puppet" for an insult. It is not. It is a recognized Wikipedia techincal term. Thank you for your interest. AshtonBenson (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

DoRD is an administrator; I'd like to think they know what a meatpuppet is. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

HelloAnnoying, your version of events is quite strange. Could you please clarify which words were "heated"? Also, as I recall, you reported me, I reported you, and both reports were resolved via protection of the page. You somehow seem to imply that your report was officially verified and mine was not -- this is not the case. Although I may be tenacious, I must take issue with your use of the word "combative"; there is no evidence to substantiate this personal attack you have made. And, last of all, I fully admitted that creating a new article for DMPM was unnecessary and voted in support of merging it with DPMS, so I can't see how the contribution of that material is in any way relevant to this discussion. AshtonBenson (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with HellowAnnoyong: I had hoped the the temporary page protection would have provided a needed break and for the most part AshtonBenson seemed to be more cooperative. But with the recent reversion against what was, except from his efforts, a complete consensus that the material in question was not supported by reliable sources. Given the accusations of meatpuppety, as a good faith effort at dispute resolution I asked contributors on the reliable sources noticeboard here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_64#Apple_TV_and_discussion_about_Digital_Monitor_Power_Management where a participant on that board also agreed with the consensus. One would have through the weight of at least four independent editors would have convinced AshtonBenson to find a reliable source for the content (if available) or leave it alone, but instead he just went back to reverting. Mattnad (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus among meat puppets is not consensus, per WP:MEAT: "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity" AshtonBenson (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what a meatpuppet is, AshtonBenson. Furthermore, this does not justify your edit-warring. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. AshtonBenson, neutral third opinions have nothing to do with meatpuppetry, and repeatedly asserting that they do is disruptive, and could lead to a block, whether or not you continue edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. A meat puppet is (usually) someone the other puppet know in meatspace. It certainly isn't some random editor found via 3O. –xeno^talk 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as an update, the tendentious editing continues. Just now, AshtonBenson yet again changed the title of a thread from "AshtonBenson and Apple discussion forums" to "AlistairMcMillan's Meat Puppets and Apple discussion forums". This clearly isn't going to stop anytime soon, and it's just becoming increasingly disruptive. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And as I previously warned AshtonBenson against making unfounded accusations, they've been blocked for 24h for changing the section heading once again. —DoRD (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Update: I've deleted Digital Monitor Power Management per the deletion discussion (it has been merged). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Creation of WikiProjects by User:Kingjeff

In the last couple of weeks, I have noticed that User:Kingjeff has created two full-blown WikiProjects without the approval of the WikiProjects Council. As I understand it, consultation with the Council is required before the creation of a WikiProject. Is there anything that should be done about this? – PeeJay 17:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What are the two WikiProjects? The "council", as far as I can tell, doesn't have any actual authority, and is just there to help out new projects. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the council was there to decide whether a Project is a good idea or not. After all, if every Tom, Dick and Harry created a WikiProject whenever he felt like it, we'd have thousands! FWIW, the Projects that Kingjeff has created are Wikipedia:WikiProject Association Football competitions and Wikipedia:WikiProject Bavaria. It was later decided at WP:FOOTY that the football competitions Project should be redirected to WP:FOOTY's season article task force. – PeeJay 20:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

EVula is right in that the Council is more of a 'best practice'; it's not mandated. But it helps to ensure a project isn't already covered, or best covered as a task force of a parent topic. –xeno^talk 22:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I never created WikiProject Bavaria. I merely help upgrade the project to a position where they can formally use the project pages. So, I think we should keep WikiProject Bavaria out of this. From what I see from from the seasons task force, it doesn't have as broad of a scope as I intended. Kingjeff (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, it belongs to the bold. Kingjeff should be given a barnstar for his initiative, ANI threads. Association Football competition can be turned into a taskforce of the Association Football project, but ANI ain't the place to discuss this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, policy is quite clear that failure to adhere to the letter of a process or policy in the attempts to do something legitimate does not invalidated either a post, an action, an edit, or any manner of things an editor tries to do. A wikiproject being "good" or not depends on the actions of those involved in the wikiproject in increasing the number of articles, increasing the number of non-stub articles, fighting vandalism, helping newbies and others find information and each other for help, and a host of other REAL EDITING criteria; not any council's opinion on whether or not it technically meets any preset determinates that are subjective or meaningless anyways, like "how many editors can you get to join?" "is it a distinct topic?" "does it overlap another wikiproject?". The more wikiprojects we have the better, editor interaction and support is much needed. Everyone needs a friend and to know they arent alone in editing.Camelbinky (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

point is other WikiProjects don't have problems with decendant WikiProjects. Why is this an issue with WikiProject Football? I am willing to take WP:SEASONS into the WikiProject Association Football competitions.

1. WikiProject Association Football competitions looks like it fits a broader scope.
2. What WP:SEASONS are doing can easily be broken down into Task Forces making what they do more simple and more efficient. Kingjeff (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the trend lately has been to consolidate wikiprojects into single projects with task forces, which is what they are trying to tell you is already done. There is no point creating a new project when there is already a task force that does what you are trying to do. I don't edit soccer articles so I don't particularly care either way. But it seems to me like you are trying to prove a point, why would you want to alienate the editors that are going to help you achieve your goal? Wikiprojects usually work better when there are less talk pages to have to watch for discussions, spliting up a task force even further beyond what they have already done is not efficient and would probably actually lead to less progress on your subject matter.-DJSasso (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

But what I am telling you guys is that I'm still willing to make this a sub-Project. Yes, it would still be a seperate WikiProject, but it still would work with WikiProject Football. In fact, I already had links to some manuals of style of WikiProject Football. Kingjeff (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the scope of your Project overlaps that of the season article task force by quite a long way, and you have even tagged a few articles that don't seem to fit with the title of the project. – PeeJay 17:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Long Term Vandal at 72.37.171.52

Resolved

 – 72.37.171.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is blocked for one month. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Back in April, I noticed an editor from this IP 72.37.171.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been adding nonsense and deliberate misinformation while reverting attempts to undo his vandalism. While this IP has been tagged as an SharedIP, looking at the IP's edit history and look over diffs, its been made clear that a good majority of the edits dating back late 2009 are by the same user who continues to vandalize articles, ignore warnings, and stretch his edits between days or weeks to evade blocks.

Edits like these follow the same m.o. as the chronic vandal edits from all throughout April and last night and show a pattern of long term abuse by single user from this IP:

• [31] -adding deliberate misinformation
• [32] - undoing removal of vandalism

• [33] -adding deliberate misinformation
• [34] - adding deliberate misinformation
• [35] - undoing removal of vandalism

When this user was given a 4im warning on April 28, he resorted to using alternate IP addresses from a different host to evade a block and resume his vandalism. (See ANI report) When those alternate IPs were rangeblocked, he continued his vandalism again with the 72.37.171.52 address. (diffs:[[36], [37]) I reported this IP to the vandalism noticeboard a couple of times, but no action was taken.(the reports were just tidied up, and I was eventually recommended by an admin to file a report here.) --GD 6041 (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And the disruptive behavior from the same user continues... At this point, its obvious he's not going to stop. Can someone please block this guy already?--GD 6041 (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Blockage needed, indeed. --Elvey (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 01:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Block anonymous edits from student gateway

Resolved

 – 64.85.181.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is blocked for five years. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to request a block for all anonymous edits from my student gateway ip address (64.85.181.66). I'm trying to teach them to be good stewards of this resource, but for some it is just a joke and I'm tired of being partly responsible for adding to the workload of the folks trying keep the articles clean.

Thanks,

Splarfage (talk) 20:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This one? Only 3 edits, only one recent ("hi mom") it's hardly taxing our resources! :) SGGH ^ping! 20:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're responsible for the IP (i.e. a school authority), you can email info-en-swikimedia.org to progress this. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the information. While there are few incidents at this point, I'd like to nip this one in the bud before it gets out of hand. Keep up the great work. Splarfage (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Pedant17 disruption, after two RFCs

• Pedant17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pedant17 has engaged in a pattern of disruption at the WP:GA-quality rated article Outrageous Betrayal, repeatedly reverting to a poor-quality version of the page pushing out his POV for E-Prime - despite not one but two WP:RFCs which do not support his changes.

This has gone on long enough. There were two attempts at dispute resolution, and ample talk page discussion. Consensus did not support the changes by Pedant17.

At this point in time, a block would be appropriate.

I have been involved in quality improvement on the article, and so would appreciate it if another admin could act here.

---

Dispute resolution

1. RfC: Recent wording edits to article -- August 2009
2. RfC: Removal of words Is and Was -- February 2010

Disruption by Pedant17

Here are prior edits on the same article by Pedant17 that are not supported by the consensus of the two prior RfCs.

The edit summaries given by Pedant17 are noted as well.

• 01:06, 13 May 2010 -- "update, especially in the light of talk-page discussions"
• 04:58, 13 December 2009 -- "revert in the light of archived talk-page discussion"
• 02:11, 9 November 2009 -- "copyedit; especially in the light of archived talk-page discussions"
• 04:07, 12 March 2009 -- "copyediting"
• 01:40, 24 April 2009 -- "copyedits"
• 08:24, 4 June 2009 -- "improve style"

Prior admin comment

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive577#Pattern_of_disruptive_editing_by_Pedant17 -- An admin commented at this prior ANI thread, and advised Pedant17 that the edit pattern was not constructive, and to address individual changes on the article's talk page.

---

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Cirt asked me to take a look at this offline; having reviewed the edit history, article talk page, RFCs, and ANI archive, I have a preliminary opinion that Pedant17's edits are disruptive in the sense that they are repetitive and against consensus on the RFCs, article talk page, and the prior ANI thread from six-ish months ago. I don't think they're vandalism, but they are controversial (stylistic changes that many editors object to and which have been consistently undone by other editors).

Pedant17, It's not considered acceptable behavior to keep trying to end-run consensus by coming back every few months and re-doing something that others have concluded should not be done. I understand that you feel that this improves the article, but Wikipedia is not a project anyone can edit, it's a project that everyone edits, and everyone must be able to edit together and in cooperation. Continuing to try to sneak changes back in, after this degree of controversy and criticism, is disrespectful to the idea of consensus and to the other editors who have objected to your changes.

I don't believe that an instant block or other immediate sanction is called for; however, I agree with Cirt that this has gone beyond talk page and RFC and is now something meriting administrator attention. Pedant17, I invite you to respond here and engage with us on the topic of editing cooperatively and how consensus works on Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If you see my edits as stylistically controversial, you'll have noted that while I have given reasoned justifications for individual proposed changes (see especially the talk-page archives), the opposing viewpoints tend to come in peremptory declarations without explanation: even when I ask for details. -- I don't know that I fully understand your reference to "end-run[ning] consensus by coming back every few months. A glance at the talk-page history demonstrates my ongoing involvement in debate on the points involved - attempting to work out a consensus before I (occasionally) edit the article. But consensus-building does become difficult and protracted when other involved editors ignore points made and when they keep appealing to (artificially-defined) RfC break-points. Wikipedic consensus may tolerate such behavior, but the WP:CONSENSUS policy does state that "Discussions should always be attempts to persuade others, using reasons" and "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on" and "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. Editors decide outcomes during discussion [...]". -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I was also asked to comment. I'd be interested to hear what Pedant is hoping to achieve. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to improve the article in accordance with the discussion which has unfolded on the talk-page. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest putting the editor under probation. I recall a similar concern about this editor's conduct which was raised in March 2008. I wasn't receptive to the concerns at the time and favoured content dispute resolution, but given that content dispute resolution has been tried and the concerns still exist, I'm more receptive to the idea of community imposing a sanction (perhaps in lieu of an administrator imposing a block). What do others think? Cirt, do you think that would help? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, I'd agree that a sanction is warranted but how would you define this probation you suggest? I'm not certain that would be adequate or sufficient in this case. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd word it as "Pedant17 is subject to the following terms of probation. Should he make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page, set of pages or topic(s). The ban will take effect once the administrator has posted a notice to his talk page and logged it at User:Pedant17/Community sanction." The way I see it, a block might be overkill, but if the concern deviates from this one article, then it'd be pointless to just ban him from this single page. This conduct concern affects pretty much the editing of any page on Wikipedia (the concern in 2008 was over the Friedrich Nietzsche article IIRC), yet sanctions might assist him in understanding how Wikipedia (and wiki consensus) work in practice, even if it might take a while. Administrators would have broad discretion in deeming whether Pedant has made an edit which is disruptive, particularly with respect to sneaking changes against consensus. And of course, should he not comply with the ban(s), enforcement would occur via blocking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nod, that sounds agreeable, but the issue is that he has exhibited similar behavior at other articles, including [38], [39], [40]. (Repeatedly revisiting the same sets of articles, using deceptive edit-summaries to cause disruption, etc. etc.) However, the remedy you propose might be a good start to an appropriate solution. -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Before we discuss sanctions, perhaps ((if only as a matter of natural justice) we should determine whether any disruption has taken place and (if so) who was perpetrated such alleged disruption. I'd like to see some examples of any alleged "sneaking changes against consensus" before I get the opportunity to defend myself in detail.And what appeal procedures would one have against the proposed powers granted to Administrators? -- Note that the issue is NOT "that [I] have exhibited similar behavior at other articles" (allegedly), but (in terms of this incident-report, what to do about the editing of the Outrageous Betrayal article. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is a very relevant issue if you have exhibited such behavior at other articles too. SlimVirgin very gently tried to steer you in the right direction, and Cirt has been extremely patient, but there comes a point where disruptive edits, even when driven by good intentions, are still disruptive to the project. That has brought about the need to consider putting you under probation. Where special appeal procedures are unspecified, standard appeal procedures apply - you can appeal to the admin who imposes the page ban, and if that fails, to the community, and if that fails, to ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In response to the original incident-report:

Describing my edits to the Outrageous Betrayal article as "disruption" misrepresents the facts. Ever since becoming aware that some disapproval of my edits existed, I have edited the article in line with the flow of discussion on the talk-page.

Characterizing my edits as "repeatedly reverting" misrepresents the facts.I have enhanced the article in different ways in the light of discussion, reverting only (as on 2009-12-13) when other editors disreguard that discussion. "Repeated reversions" of the article have occurred only at the hands of other Wikipedians: see 2009-12-13, 2009-11-09, and 2009-06-04.

Calling the outcome of any of my edits "a poor-quality version of the page" mischaracterizes my work. I have repeatedly justified and defended my edits of the talk-page, explaining their advantages. In response I generally get vague assertions about poor quality and "non -constructive" contributions.

To characterize my edits as "pushing out" something misrepresents my efforts. My isolated attempts at increasing accuracy and improving style in various sections of the article (all explained individually on the talk-page whenever disputed) have met with dogged and unreasoning resistance.

Representing my work as my "POV for E-Prime" mis-characterizes my editing. I strive to improve all aspects of style and presentation, and sometimes this involves re-casting existing material in a better form - and sometimes that results in sentences conformant with E-Prime. Wikipedia policy encourages accuracy and eschews ambiguity in encyclopedic style - yet some fellow-editors even seem to regard anything which one might label "E-Prime" as inherently undesirable!

Claiming that "not one but two WP:RFCs do not support" my edits misrepresents the facts. Discussion (as opposed to assertion) in the two RFCs resulted not in condemn my edits, but in the emergence of improved wordings which I have attempted to implement accordingly.

Characterizing the talk-page discussion as "ample" misrepresents the situation. The talk-page contains repeated examples of pleas of explanation and questions as to justification. I've asked for such, and seldom received it. Only in their absence (after months of waiting) have I returned to editing the article.

Claiming that "an admin" advised at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive577#Pattern_of_disruptive_editing_by_Pedant17 that "the edit pattern was not constructive" mis-construes the discussion there, where User:SlimVirgin and I dealt with what he called "a few other changes [...], where it's not clear that the writing is being improved" and which I then proceeded to explain in context.

All in all, I stand firmly by my edits and the lengthy point-by-point discussions made on the talk-page and its archive (to which User:Cirt has kindly provided somewhat restrictively-targeted links: compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal/Archive_1#Lead and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal . I have tried to follow procedures, to promote debate and to move towards a better article. I invite (as ever) comments addressing individual edits on the article talk-page, where we can see clearly that consensus can change - even despite some evidence of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. In the meantime I still await what I asked for in summary on the talk-page on 2010-03-03: 'Who established the alleged consensus over lack of support for changes by User:Pedant17? and where? and when? Who established any consensus that changes proposed by User:Pedant17 "push out E-Prime" from the article? and where? and when? Who dreamed up the WP:OR that changes proposed by User:Pedant17 appear "seemingly [...] disruptive"? and where? and when? Who proposes an alleged consensus based negatively on the lack of "support for these issues" when some such issues received no or little discussion, let alone reasoned discussion, in one or more of the two RfCs on this article called on specific (and other) topics? Would some evidence - precise, verifiable and quotable evidence - prove more useful than unsupported (even though repeated) assertions?' -

-- Pedant17 (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cirt has quoted evidence at length. Multiple uninvolved admins here have reviewed and agreed.

You're arguing generalities; Cirt provided specifics, and we've concurred. You can rebut specifics, if you chose to.

It's not original research for admins to make conclusions in behavior cases. It's our job. Cirt argued that case, we reviewed evidence, we've discussed our conclusions which concur with those claims.

This type of argument you are making is not aligned well with Wikipedia's process, or appropriate discussion or debate tactics. The issue is quite simple: your changes are controversial, many other editors (a clear consensus of those participating in those articles) revert them when you make them, and you keep making them over and over again. You can't keep doing that. It's not ok.

If you actually want to talk to us, that's fine. Please do so. The particular arguments you used here were not useful discussion and were in their own way disruptive.

Even if you mean the best for the encyclopedia, if you keep doing disruptive things and you cannot work with other editors here in a constructive way, and cannot discuss things with other editors here in a constructive way, then you are a problem editor and you may be warned, sanctioned, or blocked to prevent more problems. I would prefer that this be resolved by discussion, but your responses so far do not appear to be good faith discussion on point.

Please come to the point and discuss in good faith. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Political soapboxing originating from 69.116.82.228

Resolved

 – 69.116.82.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is blocked for six months. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

69.116.82.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly adding the same two or three political essays to talk pages related to International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Radovan Karadžić and a few others. They have been blocked twice but seem to have slowed down recently, last time keeping it to three edits presumably to avoid another block as a result of accumulated vandalism warnings. Since the same edits have also been carried out by blocked users Lpcyu (talk · contribs) and Lpcyusa (talk · contribs), and have been spammed across the internet (see this Google search, for example), could something a bit more permanent be done, a longer block or maybe something as simple as an edit filter. Many thanks. Astronaut (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Six month block applied to IP, and the accounts linked to the IP for sockpuppet tracking purposes.

If they come back, we can semiprotect the articles and talk pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Astronaut (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Indef block needed

Resolved

 – Uber Pula (talk · contribs) is blocked indefinitely. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Uber Pula is a username violation, meaning roughly "super dick". Like that wasn't enough, he added a libelous piece here [41]. The referenced article (in Romanian) doesn't even remotely support the paragraph. Can we have those flagged revision now? Pcap ping 05:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Whacked. No comment on FR1070. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, what happened? (new features)

Resolved

 – Somewhat.

The tabs are all rearranged, and worst of all, on my home PC the print is tiny. So what happened, and who do I talk to about getting it fixed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a "take me back" link at the top of the page? Click that to go back to your preferences. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I felt the same way about this change. Luckily we're not stuck with that terrible format.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Good thing, too; Vector busts the wikimedia+ addon. I tried it two weeks back and quickly switched back because of this. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

When I encountered the new format, I clicked on the "take me back" link and I got a database error message, but the "take me back" seems to have worked. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully that has been fixed. Prodego ^talk 06:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything's fine for my screen now. Seems like this all is an example of the old saying, "If it works, it's production; otherwise, it's a test." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The other old saying "nobody likes change" couldn't be more applicable here, and really we should embrace and adapt to such changes with a smile on our face. You can't stop progress! However, having said that, I gave up after 2 minutes when I noticed the scripts weren't working and the block/delete/protect buttons were hidden or missing. I don't like change... ;) – B.hotep •talk• 07:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind change, as long as it's an improvement. I like the search box on the left rather than at the top as the new version has it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Me too! - I fixed it by creating the css code at User:Begoon/vector.css - if you'd like to copy it, feel free, but I haven't tested it much, yet :) Begoon (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just a warning as to a change I've experienced. Used to be that when I went back and forward, it kept what I was working on. So, if I had a draft, and had previewed the draft, and then went to check my watchlist, and returned ... my draft was still there. Not in this new version (as it warns may be the case). Lost half an hour of edits. (though I think that will please a certain IP out there...). Caveat emptor. (btw, I was using Mozilla Firefox)--Epeefleche (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • • I've had that problem for years, on both home and office PCs, both of which use IE. I always do a swipe of whatever I've just been working on before hitting "save". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Try Chrome or Firefox -- they are much better than IE in preserving edits when you navigate away from a page. I use Chrome predominantly and I can almost always find my edit page in the history (even if I close the tab by mistake, Chrome has a "reopen closed tab" that has saved me) ATren (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Had this prob on Firefox 3.6 where it randomly refreshes and "forgets" what I have typed. You'd think they'd actually bother to test the thing before launch. Orderinchaos 16:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't have this problem at all (using Firefox). By the way, if the warning gets on your nerves you can turn it off in Preferences. Hans Adler 08:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Nor do I- I still do it all the time, and it's fine. Weird. I really like Vector, especially the dropdown menus. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 08:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also a little more trouble now to cancel what you were doing. And "watch" is hidden. Maurreen (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "watch" the star in the upper right corner? When it's an outline, the page is not watched, click on it and the star is colored in to indicate that the page is watched. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

←All I'd say is, if you do turn off the new features: fill in the feedback form! – B.hotep •talk• 08:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how much the new logo cost them... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the new, 3D, logo only available to those of us who didn't run away screaming from the new skin? I went back to monobook before I was aware of the new logo (not that it would have affected my decision, but I'd like to have something to complain about, and being denied the shiny new logo sounds like just the kind of thing I can whinge about ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 09:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Now I can't find any of the tools I had downloaded, for dates, dashes, unlink common words, and the like. Am I not looking someplace I should be looking?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Can anyone work out why twinkle isn't working in Vector? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, it's all scripts including something as basic as pop-ups, but I'm sure someone is working on these compatability issues... – B.hotep •talk• 08:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • @B.hotep: if your scripts are in a /monobook.js subpage, you need to make a new /vector.js subpage (lower-case V) and copy them into that. They should have put out a warning about that. JohnCD (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah, that'll do it, John! Cheers. Will give it a go. – B.hotep •talk• 10:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Horrible alterations. What I object to most is the creation of a "TB" (talkback) interface - that's only going to encourage the annoying spammy practice of people putting that annoying template on the page. An optional script for this is fine - but there should not be an alteration to the basic user interface without a consensus that this is good practice.--Scott Mac 09:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Where's that talkback thing? I didn't even see that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've gone back to the old interface too. The new one lost all the additional tags in the toolbox apart from anything else. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 10:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You would probably keep those tools if you copy over the contents of your "/monobook.js" to a new "/vector.js". The need to do this is apparently something that wasn't well enough advertised. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I'll try that. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I went back too. Now if only we could also choose to go back to the old logo. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait - I'm confused. I think I've got the old logo, but I'm guessing I'm an idiot I'm wrong. Are there examples of old and new logos anywhere so I can Get Clue Fast? TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

compare File:Wikipedia-logo.png (old) and File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg (new). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I think. The difference is too subtle for my poor old eyes - I guess I probably do have the shiny new logo after all. I'll just have to find something else to whinge about ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't be so hard on yourself. :) As for something else: well, the "watch/unwatch" button (as someone above pointed out) is just a graphic. I have the "load images automatically" option unchecked in FF3 (for reasons I won't go into unless someone asks!) so it is just a gap. – B.hotep •talk• 11:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I am embarrassed to say I went back also, I guess my feelings for now is if it's not broke don't fix it...Modernist (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Logos: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#New_logo Dragons flight (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Only to say so, I've gone back to Monobook. Also, the new logo is too blurry, as is the text below it. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So what happened to the trial with real live editors before unleashing it? Jeesh. And my first irritation is to have to click on the left to get the lowest level of buttons: it saves no space at all. Tony (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate to come back here for another gripe, but... having just come back from lunch where I invariably surf the internet on my old Sony Ericsson mobile phone, I can confirm that Wikipedia does not work on devices using OperaMini. That includes the Nintendo DSi as well! ... Why are you all laughing at me? :p – B.hotep •talk• 12:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, really, seriously – it doesn't work. The drop down navigation doesn't work, the search box has no button to either "GO" or "SEARCH" with. I had to go to Google and use that to get to pages on Wikipedia. :D – B.hotep •talk• 12:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been using it for a week or two and prefer it. I like the search window at the top, the * for watch. But then I don't use any weird tools, because the first thing you know about software upgrades is that they always break non-trivial user configurations. It works fine on the N900 :-) 78.32.170.90 (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you need a /vector.js? I don't have one and Twinkle works fine. My only problem is that the search button no longer has the option to search but just goes directly to the page. And Tony1 the "Try Beta" and the option to give feedback has been there for a while. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 13:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Some people activate Twinkle through the gadgets preference, but some still import it manually through their .js files (I, for instance, prefer it that way because I can pick and choose which parts of Twinkle I want.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's possible you've loaded Twinkle through gadgets (as well as having it in your monobook). I suspect most of your monobook scripts won't work, though. –xeno^talk 13:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah!. It's checked off in the preferences. Hmmm! Looking at the monobook.js I suspect that I'd have no idea what they did if it wasn't for the headers. It's a good job breathing is automatic or I would be in trouble. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 13:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• At least you can turn the new system on and off at will. That's pretty damn polite, actually. HalfShadow 16:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This always happens when we have change. I think a change was definately needed, I think it'll grow on people. I do think it is a little plain actually and the front page could also do with a makeoever but I think it is an improvement. At first I was unconvinced about the logo but if I see the one on German wikipedia now it just looks so dated.. I quite like the hidden columns actually, I'm glad now you can have the option to display languages or not as I like them to be listed. I still think though that the developers should allow people the option to shrink the side bar and have a full screen. I have this as coding but it might be a good idea to allow in in preferences options so if you are reading rather than editing you can hide the side bar. I do think though there should be the options for more page designs and the option to customise your own layout/graphics. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Blah. The new toolbar looks like something Microsoft designed in 1997. I spent about 2 minutes trying to figure out where they had moved all my stuff before I gave up and went back to my preferred, tried and true oldskool interface. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Now all of you know why I have stayed with the Classic skin: it provides me with everything I need online. All of the important stuff -- researching, writing, etc. -- I can do offline with the existing tools on my computer. Like vi. (:wq!) -- llywrch (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes the computers at my school load pages slowly. Makes me glad that I turned off the new features with my account. Plus, like CBW said, the search button was moved from the left to the top. Shotgun5559 (Talk) (Contrib) 16:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How to import old settings into new skin

I believe this page should have been advertised more widely, at least during the switchover. A sitenotice of some kind (can we do it on just talk pages yet?) wouldn't be ridiculous, even now, for a few days or a week. How do I import my monobook settings. Rd232 ^talk 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I turned the darn thing off for that very reason. That took less effort than migrating all the scripts I'm using. Pcap ping 05:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Old SPI case needs closing

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guildenrich has been sitting unprocessed after an inconclusive CU result for more than 10 days. I recognise it's a difficult case to judge just on "DUCK" criteria, but I urge some fellow admin to take a good look and give it serious consideration. In my personal view (having first hand experience with the field, including interaction with both the sockmaster and the suspected sock) this is still a compelling case on behavioral grounds, and the sock account Stupidus Maximus (talk · contribs) is clearly disruptive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Truly an ugly case. I'll wait until this evening (about 12 hours), and close it out as unconfirmed if no-one blocks before then. If this were Vegas, I'd bet on a match, but I'm not convinced enough to indefinitely block an account. Other admins may well feel differently.—Kww(talk) 15:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There's been some new activity on the case, with a new checkuser pending.—Kww(talk) 05:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Trolling and Inflammatory attack page

Resolved

 – Matt has agreed to stay away from Bali ultimate and Giano, thus I have unblocked. AniMate 03:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

{{resolved|User:Matt57 blocked for one week for edits, some highlighted by others during this discussion, that are simply not acceptable in a congenial environment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)}}

{{discussion top|Closing with an offer that if he agrees not to discuss or refer to Giano or Bali for the next six months he will be unblocked, otherwise the block will run the given length. MBisanz talk 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)}}

• Clearly this was a deeply misguided effort by MBisanz to stifle conversation that is evidnently ongoing and on the same subject. As his efforts, whilst in good faith, were clearly misguided and of poor judgement this is not archived. Pedro :  Chat  20:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

---

This editor, User:Matt57 with whom, before yesterday, (as far as I'm aware) I have had no previous interaction seems to be hell bent on antagonising me and attempting to cause trouble and disharmony. My attention was drawn to him yesterday on Jimbo's page when he felt the need to cite me in an argument while forbidding any other editor to respond; he has since been pursuing me on my page and elsewhere. He has now transformed his user page into an attack page. I have removed the inflammatory comment once and it has been re-instated [42]. I would like an admin to deal with this, preferably before I do. Coming here is the policy and action I am constantly being advised to do, so I will try it and see how effective it is - it seldom achieves anything, but one lives in hope. If not I am more than capable of dealing with this person myself.  Giano  12:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Appears to have been a little interpersonal spatt. You are better off just ignoring him, if you like I will ask him nicely to remove the box on his Userpage, as putting that up there is only helping to continue the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the two Giano diffs per WP:UP#POLEMIC, as there is no evidence of Matt57 having a dispute (aside from on his user page) with Giano. Hipocrite (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It should go- that's not what user pages are for- though I'm not sure removing like that is any less inflammatory than their presence in the first place. He should be politely encouraged to disengage and move on rather than make mountains out of molehills. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I kind of a agree that rather than remove them (which may cause more grievance), it would perhaps be better to allow him the chance to remove them, Hipocrites removal of two comments from Giano has left two similar comments from User Bali ultimate, one out all out would have been better imo, or as I say , allow him to remove the box himself. Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There are still two on there, are they related to this Bali thing above? SGGH ^ping! 12:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree as well, and I took the liberty of knocking the rest of the "naughty list" off the userpage. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I missed that but....This edit from Matt57 to Bali Ultimate yesterday clearly is actionable as a personal attack. ---Hey Bali, please stop fucking justifying abuse, alright. Go fucking read WP:NPA. Or leave Wikipedia if you cant talk to people here without using 4 letter words, for fucks sake. (note, 4 letter words were used to deliver a point). Thank you and sincerely and hey, dont fucking remove my comment too. HINT: you can say things in a polite mature rational way or you can start being emotional and use 4 letter words. Whats less abusive? If using 4 letter words isnt abusive, give me the telephone numbers of your loved ones and I'll call them all and air out some feelings about you using some nice choice words. Stop abusing people. --Matt57 3:45 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1) ...Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That comment is disgusting. I'm seriously tempted to block for it, the only thing that's stopping me is that it was 24 hours ago... HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, given that this is clearly a pattern, I am going to block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a week. I welcome review of the action here and any admin may feel free to alter, amend or lift the block without further consultation with me if there is consensus to do so here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree and fully support the action, mentioning someones loved ones and suggesting contacting them is bang out of order. Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw this issue starting to arise this morning (I have Giano's talk on my watchlist for no other reason than I'm to lazy to take it off) and noting the diff provided by Off2rioRob fully support the block. Pedro :  Chat  13:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a danger Matt57's comment is being taken out of context. It was pointy, but the language used was used for precisely that - to make a WP:POINT. So... I support a block if the reason is WP:POINTiness, but I'm hesitant to condemn the comment as "disgusting", given the context.

I'm certain that Bali wouldn't provide the contact details of their loved ones; I'm equally confident that Matt wouldn't actually "pull a Woss".

Matt's frustrated by what he sees as double standards regarding swearing. That's no justification for WP:POINTy behaviour (and, as I said above, I have no problem with a block for that) but I do feel the language used and the things said were purely to make a point.

(Disclaimer: I had a very public spat with Matt yesterday regarding language. I disagree with some of what he believes, but I do feel he has the best interests of the project at heart, in particularly the need for editors to converse in a civil manner without recourse to swearing).

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC) 'nother disclaimer, though you all probably realise: I'm just a regular editor, commenting only because I've been involved with Matt57 recently)

I feel the same about things as TFOWR said above. I think that Matt57 was trying to make a point. For the record he is asking for an unblock here. Thanks,--CrohnieGal^Talk 14:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, i just quietly removed the comment on my talk page after having a small chuckle and was otherwise happy to forget it/ignore it. Have no idea why the fellow is so worked up about me. I'd never heard of him before yesterday.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I should certainly hope it was not a block for POINT violations, because Giano was skipping around making POINT edits only last week, with no block in sight, which would be a gross double standard, but harldy unexpected. As it is, the block was for 'repeated and egregious personal attacks'. I'm just dissapointed we didn't get to see how Giano intended to sort this out himself, if this block hadn't been made. MickMacNee (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Giano has nothing to do with this as far as I can see, his behaviour has no bearing on Matt's and there was no reason for matt to bring him into this. If you have an issue with Giano, this isn't the discussion to sort it out--Jac16888^Talk 15:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you think Matt57 randomly chose to involve Giano while he was being enveloped in the 'what is the difference between civility and personal attacks' / 'why does this policy apply to me but not to X' death spiral experienced by many new users? I very much doubt it. I rather think Giano is central to this discussion, whether by nefarious means on Matt's part, or simply by a hardwired institutional awareness dynamic. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Matt obviously chose Giano because of his past behaviour, not because of any interaction between the two. I'm not exactly a fan of giano but this is clearly a case of matt picking on an easy target--Jac16888^Talk 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The unrestrained edits on this page from such as MickMacNee are one of the chief reasons I come here so seldom. It is a great pity that so many lurk here only in the hope of having a snipe at me. No doubt a few of the others will be here sooner rather than later to form a convention of the peanut gallery.  Giano  15:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Giano, much as I am generally a fan of yours that persecution complex attitude (however much it may be deserved) is not helpful. You asked above "Coming here is the policy and action I am constantly being advised to do, so I will try it and see how effective it is ". Well, its got the guy a 1 week block and his request for unblock denied. One would think that concludes this? Pedro :  Chat  16:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that my belief that certain people stalk my edits in the hope of sanctioning for perceived incivility within seconds, is just a false perception on my part. Easy mistake. Anyway, as you say the matter is dealt with - odd though isn't it - how long it takes some things to be picked up and not others? Giano  17:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

True, regretfully, that maybe there seems like more holding off when your name is mentioned, (no slight on you Giano - more that perhaps there is a lack of courage or more accurately waiting to see what the crowd say) but I hope you don't mind me marking this resolved. Pedro :  Chat  18:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have unmarked as resolved; I don't think it has been, because I think as dod some others here that the block length is excessive. Matt has made his point, and,given his frustration at what appears to be unfair treatment of different editors, I think it is a good idea to soon unblock him. I am not doing it myself, because I took his side in his original complaint, and suggest that the other party be blocked, for using that sort of language in the first place. I doubt the business about contacting was meant seriously, considering the prior discussions about proper language--Of course it was a very poor idea to suggest such things even as a joke, because it is , as it should be, one of the absolutely forbidden types of behavior.Perhaps the fair thing is to reduce the block to 24 hours. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the lack of basic common courtesy in notifying me DGG that you'd undone that. Cheers. Really nice. Pedro :  Chat  18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion if you are going to 'unresolved' something you should use tlx to nullify the template, rather than removing the comment altogether. –xeno^talk 18:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for this--it was my carelsss error; I should have done as Xeno says. And my apology also for not notifying, but I did assume you were still around & following the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The blocking admin is open to an unblock, subject to consensus here. That said, I believe a block is fair (I'd be happy with a 24 hour block, or even leaving the duration as is). Shortening the duration of the block would also be an opportunity to note in the block log that there a WP:POINT lay behind the civility issues, and that the block was as much for pointiness as it was for civility. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Per TFOWR. Shorter block where POINT and NPA/HARASS are recorded or longer block where only NPA/HARASS is recorded? Seems like a double-edged sword either way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support block — I pointed this diff out yesterday, to no effect. I would extend the block to indef pending a clear statement the no real-world harm was actually intended and an acknowledgment that the comment was quite inappropriate. Given that, a reset to a week would be fine. Whomever Matt57 is, is trolling and banging-on, and refuses to drop the fucking stick. Civility et al are not weapons, people. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  I think that what Jack Merridew is referring to above was Matt57 attempting to use a rhetorical device, which went wrong and came across as a creepy real-world threat of harassment. It should be obvious that such a statement is disruptive to a collegial editing environment (indeed, to any not shit environment). I don't think it would be very productive to require Matt57 to acknowledge that. It should be sufficient to simply point it out, given that Matt57 is obviously aware of the "block potential" of such comments. The usual caveats apply: this assumes some good faith and some constructive contributions elsewhere. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  Mebbe, but as I comment to TFOWR just below, I see the original parenthetical as applying only to the word 'fuck' and not really adhering to the phone numbers/loved ones comment. I'm unclear, beyond AGF, just what his constructive contributions elsewhere might be, but he's certainly climbed higher on folks' radar screens in the last day+ ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  Matt57 has indicated that no real-world harm was intended; I'll dig out a diff. I suspect Jack's second requirement may be harder to obtain, though... TFOWR^propaganda 18:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  This is the diff I was thinking of: "I had specifically said in that post that I was making a point and therefore you could have seen I did not literally mean that comment." TFOWR^propaganda 18:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  I've seen that, and his comment in the original diff. My take is, and was, that he was referring to his use of the word "fuck" as a deliberate point violation. He stated "(note, 4 letter words were used to deliver a point)". The comments about phone numbers and loved ones really stand apart from that. Anyway, he does appear to clarified that he's, uh, fucking around and is not serious about his real-world threats. There remains his long-term disruptive nature to consider, as I commented just below. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  Moar. I've been looking at Matt's history. His prior block, for a month, included the comment that next time it's indef (not a mere week). The issue was whatever exactly was occurring at AN/I571#User:Matt57 crossing several lines in smear campaign against CAIR. I also note the irony that his first block was, in part, for incivility. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to unblock, with the proviso that his user page does not go back up as it was, and that he accept that everyone is pretty much done with this particular incident, and we don't want to hear about Bali or Giano anymore from him. (If he doesn't agree to that, then I still think technically the block should be undone, but in that case I won't bother spending time arguing for it). His comment to Bali was certainly sub-optimal, but I saw that comment yesterday and didn't think it was the creepy harassment that people are making it out to be, and now he's confirmed it wasn't intended that way. Perhaps if we de-escalate, he'll reciprocate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so arbitrary break (Matt57)

• Y'know, I think it's just adorable how he gets offered 'get out of jail free' card with his explanation, but when it's me, you all jump up and down screaming 'You're a liar', despite the fact that I have neither a history or even a propensity towards lying. Just saying. HalfShadow 19:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)He still doesn't get the reason for the block and I therefore want it on record that I strongly oppose unblocking him at this point and until the penny drops that he was in the wrong. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• I take the minor unilateral action of resolving the thread and getting it undone - but a 'crat turns up and archives the whole damn thing without debate. Great. At least I know where I stand. What a piss poor shambles. Pedro :  Chat  19:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the 'Crat was sent from above. In my considerable experience they usually are!  Giano  20:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't look like he's going to accept the terms of the unblock in any case so it'll all be back here in a week anyway. – B.hotep •talk• 19:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• I also strongly oppose unblocking at this point, requesting the telephone numbers of the loved ones of other editors and suggesting you will telephone them is wrong wrong wrong, editor does not seem to understand this. I care less if he didn't mean it or he was trying to make some point, he should not have said it ever. User is on a last warning and should consider himself lucky to only be blocked for a week, he has yet through his comments failed to understand anything at all. Actually I support raising the block to indefinite. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Playing the Devil's Advocate, I cannot think that he truly expected the numbers to be provided. However, it's the reference to a person's "loved ones" (ghastly expression) that was a bit creepy - there's an invisible barrier between the Wiki personae and the real life personae - even a hint at invading the RL personea as a result of the Wiki needs to be stamped on mercilessly.  Giano  21:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was a rather odd unblock condition; either agree to not talk about certain people for 6 months, or wait 7 days and then talk about them again? Choosing the latter was a foregone conclusion. Tarc (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

An entirely unenforceable condition bound to end in tears, no doubt. – B.hotep •talk• 21:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Choosing the 7 day block over the 6 month ban is only a foregone conclusion for someone who values being able to make personal comments more highly than being able to edit Wikipedia in general. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh. I made no complaint. I'm a big boy (and i found the running around with hair on fire antics amusing). My advice is unblock him, if he goes about stirring up further trouble, deal with it then. I'm far more concerned with people who stand in the way of decent article content (who are rarely blocked for their behavior) than with people who are a pain in the ass here or on talk pages (who are often blocked for that).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

An unblock would serve to provide him with sufficient rope to properly sort this in about a week. The amusement value falls quickly once we're into so much pointedness and time-sucking disruption. We do need move on to all manner of other issues. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

+{{Cookie}} for SheffieldSteel, who's nailed it. It's a WP:BATTLEGROUND issue. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Bali sees it correctly as essentially a bad joke; it is so far beyond the line that it cannot have been meant be a serious threat, more in the line that if I threaten to murder someone and then chop then into little pieces and feed them to the geese, it rather detracts from the seriousness of the threat. (I picked my example from Thurber, a well known humorist.) Not that I think it was at all a good sort of joke to make in the rather humorless context of a WP dispute. Jack, unlike Bali, seems out to inflame the issue further. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Your bad faith re myself is well known. I've a question for you; had *I* made the comment re phone numbers and loved ones to an editor whom you support, would you be talking a mere 24h block? Jack Merridew 23:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

While Jack and I are in disagreement on how to handle the angry young fellow, I am in agreement with him on how DGG would have opined had the shoe been on Jack's foot. It would have looked like this [43].Bali ultimate (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think even Jack is entitled to an occasional joke that misfires. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to let this one go. Matt57 has indicated that he won't be discussing Bali or Giano anymore. I say unblock. AniMate 00:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That is imo a very poor decision, who cares whether he meant it or not, he should not have said it, he has not taken it back and there is no value to the project in reducing his block at all. Acting as if it is ok that he didn't mean it is equal to saying it is ok, it is not ok, and don't come running to me when someone else asks you when you are in a heated dispute with them, how are your loved ones today? Give us their numbers and i'll telephone them and have a word with them, about you. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User:David1287 and Billboard charts

David1287 (talk · contribs) has a long history of updating and adding US Billboard charts for albums and their respective singles. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with altering these charts, the issue here is that David1287 prematurely updates said charts and without sources. When asked to provide a source, he posts the information into a forum and cites his own post. Billboard.com updates their charts every Thursday, and every Tuesday/Wednesday he updates charts across dozens of articles without providing a source. For charts such as Alternative Songs, it's not a major issue since Billboard.com will eventually update. It's still not great to have a source saying one thing and the article saying another. However, for charts no longer published by Billboard.com like Bubbling Under Hot 100 and Mainstream Rock, it's a larger issue because they're almost impossible to reliably source. His communicative abilities are also lacking. During an edit war between the two of us surrounding Diamond Eyes (song), he only left two short comments.[44][45] Despite receiving several warnings from various editors on article talk pages, [46][47] edit summaries [48][49] and both his account's and IP's talk pages [50][51] David1287 continues to contribute without verifying his contributions. Since my final warning last week, his editing behavior has not changed.[52][53][54][55][56][57]

According to WP:BLOCK "Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment." I would like to see that David1287 receive a temporary block for not being mindful of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS, and for not discussing and communicating with other editors. Based on his specific editing pattern, I think the block would be most effect if given on a Tuesday/Wednesday, or for a week in duration. Also, I'm sorry if this is too long of a request. I tried to keep this as short as possible without leaving out important details. Fezmar9 (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Similar edit areas to Sirius 128 (talk · contribs · logs) too... do the contribs align? From the user talk, it seems David1287 has received a large number of warnings. It appears he has been cut quite a bit of slack. SGGH ^ping! 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked until he agrees to restrict himself to charts and sources listed on WP:USCHARTS and WP:GOODCHARTS.—Kww(talk) 15:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've taken no action against Sirius128: if people think there's a link, I need to see a more convincing case, and WP:SPI is probably a better place for it.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Sirius128, but after looking into his edit history I'd say it's unlikely he's a sock of David1287. The majority of Sirius128's contributions are surrounding related articles for Bullet for My Valentine, Avenged Sevenfold and Three Days Grace. David1287's edit history includes a much wider variety of articles and almost exclusively edits chart positions. SGGH, do you have any direct evidence to support this? Fezmar9 (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so much for a sock, more a thought as to whether they both came from the same forum(s) mentioned in the report, largely from editing the same articles, sometimes one after the other, similar name etc. Not making any kind of sock or meat accusation it was just something to consider - but if someone has been able to look into it and is happy no connection that's fine by me. SGGH ^ping! 17:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks sock-y to me. Compare the files/FUR's for File:Your Betrayal - Bullet for My Valentine.jpg (uploaded by Sirius 128) to File:Your Betrayal.jpg (uploaded by David1287). Add that to the similarities in user names, the fact that neither acct uses edit summaries at all and that it looks from the timestamps that he logs out of one account and immediately starts editing with the other, and this completely fails the duck test. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Shall I run an SPI? SGGH ^ping! 21:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't hurt. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 22:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Link it here if and when you do. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/David1287. The possible sockmaster has previous for IP hopping when blocked. SGGH ^ping! 08:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User:ScottPAnderson

User making major uncited pov changes to Mau Mau Uprising, Hola massacre, Extermination camp. Attempts by other users to revert are themselves reverted by this user with claims of vandalism. Claims without foundation that changes are "based on wide research and consensus". Persists in changing articles despite attempts to discuss the issue. . . Galloping Moses (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you mean the "Mau Mau Freedom Movement" ;-)

At first glance I'm inclined to agree with you - several editors have reverted this editor, and the editor's response is simply to direct them to the talk pages. This should be discussed at the relevant talk pages; however, it does look to me like there is already a fairly clear consensus. And changing "Mau Mau Uprising" to "Mau Mau Freedom Movement" in an article called "Mau Mau Uprising" does seem... odd.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I've reported this at WP:AN3#User:ScottPAnderson_reported_by_User:Squiddy_.28Result:_.29, but there are other problems:

He has now started adding a single source for all his edits, but the numbers look suspicious to me: in this diff the number arrested has just had 2 digits added to the front of the number. In a later edit he has added a cite to a valid source, but it's kind of a coincidence that the new number is exactly 4,700,000 higher (ie the last 5 digits are from the previous version of the article.)

The extremely POV tone throughout - see diff here

A minor point, but carelessness with spelling and punctuation. The combined effect of his edits is a severe reduction in quality and reliability of the articles he's been involved with.

I have tried [58] offering advice, and using the talk pages. Hasn't worked.

Accusations of vandalism, avoidance of talk pages, ignoring advice. A stubborn and disruptive editor. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a brand-new editor (DrJenkinsPhd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has just popped up on Talk:Mau_Mau_Uprising to assure us that there is a 'general global consensus ... that Mau Mau "insurgents" were, in fact, Freedom Fighters', and that 'the article as it currently stands looks fair'.

Because of their credentials, I am terribly terribly impressed, and now wish the article to remain in its current god-awful state. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "freedom fighter", like "terrorist", one of those words phrases we should avoid? (I'm not entirely sure, this question isn't just rhetorical...)

Assuming good faith, it's entirely possible that these two editors simply may not be aware of WP:NPOV etc. I'll drop by and mention it.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, both 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' are mentioned as 'especially provocative' in WP:LABEL. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've invited DrJenkinsPhd, and left a note about WP:POV and "freedom fighter" for ScottPAnderson. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, I agree about the term "Freedom Fighter". I will change it to something neutral. I hope Scott will be ok with it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJenkinsPhd (talk • contribs) 17:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, DJP (may I call you that? I can - obviously! - call you whatever you'd prefer). I invited you here simply because you'd been mentioned; I think that Scott should still participate here, however, if you're in any position to give him a gentle nudge ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 20:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Dr. Jenkins please. Cheers.DrJenkinsPhd (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Dr. Jenkins, I have to question this edit. It appears to contradict your comment above about the use of the term "freedom fighter". It adds a non-neutral slant to the article, which is precisely what this thread seeks to address. To my mind it is very similar to edits made by ScottPAnderson (for example, this edit). Can I suggest you read - or re-read - the policy on neutral points of view? It may not apply, but on the basis that it is always good to familiarise oneself with policy, I would also like to suggest that you read this and this. TFOWR^propaganda 22:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR. I think Squiddy is "working the system". Please have a look at the article's history. Squiddy reverted the article and when I reverted back to the starting point - it probably flagged an alert somewhere. I haven't made edits similar to Scott. In fact I have corrected a lot of POV edits that he made - while keeping it neutral. Trust that clarifies. You are wrong if you think I am Scott pretending to be someone else. DrJenkinsPhd (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My apologies; for the record, these are the changes made by Dr, Jenkins prior to the revert. Squiddy, I'd suggest that there are better, less crude ways to remove the WP:POV elements. You may wish to (I believe you should) restore the edits from the prior diff. At this point I don't believe this is anything other that a content dispute - the subject of the original thread seems to be inactive - so I'd suggest you discuss further changes on the talk page. TFOWR^propaganda 23:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things; I came across the issue when I noticed an edit war while patrolling recent pages. Scotts actions would ordinarily have earnt a RRR ban, as he persisted on reverting multiple editors after being warned. As he is a newbie, I cut him some slack with that. Also in my experience, Squiddy is a reasonable co-operative editor, and the reversion of Dr Jenkins may have been a slip of the mouse. The final thing is content; the enormous changes (by factors of 10000) in numbers added by Scott appear to be based on a single reference (Elkins). This reference is strongly notable, though I have found some critisim of numerical methodology which may result in overstated estimates (I'll attach when I find it again). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted to a version I regard as a bad joke. Another success for POV-pushing, IAR and (I suspect) puppetry. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the Mau Mau article to the original, as I investigated the new reference, and found a number of large contradictions with published material by reference author (figures appear to have been overstated) between the source and the figures added by Scott. I have placed my source material on the talk page of the article. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued disruption by User:Hm2k

Hm2k continues to disrupt the encyclopedia. He is disrupting it to prove a point. He is removing redolinks despite warnings not to and is now removing regular links as well. [[59]] I'm pretty sure removing content is not a good thingHell In A Bucket (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked 24h. I considered this yesterday but the user had been inactive for a few hours when I checked. It was possible that they had understood the issues then under discussion, of which they were aware. Recent edits show that this is not the case. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems the whole shebang is case of misdirection and wikilawyering. Something along the lines of "we don't have a content dispute because you haven't filed wikform 42 in triplicate", while he keeps changing articles exactly the way he wants despite protestation from multiple editors. Pcap ping 04:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm2k was indef blocked back in January, but unblocked with a promise to behave. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding article markup tags to people's comments on the discussion page

User:Darkstar1st continues to place mark-up tags on peoples comments despite requests to stop. I remove this edit[60] with the notation: "Do not place templates on other editors comments"[61] Darkstar1st then tags another editor's comments.[62] Another editor removes this and tells him to stop.[63] Darkstar1st then tags the comment asking him to stop.[64] TFD (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st is correct that this list of templates contains no rules at all about when their use is appropriate. But adding them to other editors' posts causes confusion about what they said, since people expect a continuous post to be from the user whose signature appears at the end of it. Such confusion is clearly a Bad Thing (and is forbidden at WP:TALKNO if you want a policy citation). Darkstar1st, please stop introducing comments - whether templated or not - into the middle of others' posts; leave replies at the bottom as is customary. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That is an extremely disruptive and inappropriate use of templates that are clearly meant to call attention to article issues, not user's own words on a talk page. Tarc (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand the confusion. My tags were an attempt to draw attention to those claiming authority/expertise, yet cite no WP policy other than their own ideas. I will make my observations in the form of a comment, apologies. Tarc plz cite source, TFD, all of your last 5 "edit wars" with me, have all been decided in my favor. Why do you follow me to articles you have no interest in until I make an edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What is this about following you and "winning" 5 edit wars? What are you talking about? I went and removed tags from Talk:Libertarianism and Talk:Laozi, after reading about it here. Tarc (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"TFD" is the WP "the four deuces", apologies for the confusion, it appears to be my strong suit. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're admitting a battleground mentality? Frankly, this kind of stuff is disruptive, pure and simple. If you have a point to make, add a comment in response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st has replied on his talk page, "I have temporarily agreed to not use tags in discuss, although consensus confirms you are mistaken saying it is against WP:policy".[65] I said nothing about WP:Policy, which is clear from my initial posting here. And, Olaf Davis referred to WP:TALKNO, which clearly states, "Generally, do not alter others' comments...." TFD (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

@Ricky, "edit war" was TFD term, ergo the quotation marks. Thank you for your opinion, noted. @TFD, where did I accuse you of citing WP:Policy, in fact i did the opposite? Also, you appear to be dodging my earlier question, as you have in the past with other interrogatives; why do you follow me to articles you have no interest in until I make an edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How do your accusations against other editors explain placing templates on their comments? Do you intend to continue doing this? TFD (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have agreed to stop, see above. i am not making an accusation, rather stating the fact you undo my edits on pages you have never edited before, and have been over-ruled each time, i simply ask why? Darkstar1st (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to understand why I reversed your edits then please take it up in an appropriate place. TFD (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

But you did not reverse any of my edits? Each time you have been over-ruled. My question is not about the edits, but rather, what drew you to the pages you had never edited, within hours of me editing the new article? This has happened on several different unrelated articles, such as a page I created 5 years ago: "Immigration to Mexico", then undoing an edit of mine, without success, on the Libertarian page. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I find adding tags like that to the middle of peoples messages to be pretty rude, and to see "I have temporarily agreed to not use tags in discuss, although consensus confirms you are mistaken saying it is against WP:policy" makes me very much doubt that the user has had any change of heart as he snipes about it even when saying he won't do it. Temporarily? Why not permenantly? It's confusing, disruptive, and will put numerous people's backs up. SGGH ^ping! 10:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My original statement, on the talk page: Talk:Laozi Disagree, "I do feel it is appropriate, but have agreed to stop until a more elegant method of asking for a citation in discussion can be created." Your opinion that consensus has been formed is suspect, "Darkstar1st is correct that this list of templates contains no rules at all about when their use is appropriate.", but immaterial as well, as I agreed to stop before your comments, as well as TFD comments before you. You are correct my heart is true, but incorrect in your opinion I have sniped, which concerns me, as the larger issue, of editors following me to undo my edits has not been addressed. The best example is TFD undoing a deletion I made 3 times, then threatening me with a ban if I broke the 3 revert rule. The passage I deleted was by a 16 year old student, in a self-published blog: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism#DarkStar.27s_edits http://www.zcommunications.org/prospects-for-libertarian-socialism-by-david-baake. The reasons listed each time were "vandalism", even after I published the evidence in talk. My citations were in good faith, intended only to verify the WP:policy editors were citing as fact, when actually personal opinion proved to be the case each time. I do see it is confusing, but not disruptive, and if people are offended by truth, my days on WP, may be shorter than anyone could know. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"until a more elegant method of asking for a citation in discussion can be created." - There is a more elegant method: "User X your statement above does not appear to have basis in any of Wikipedia's Policies or Guidelines / runs counter to Policy Y. Can you explain on what basis you are making that claim?" Active Banana (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, be still crude/less effective according to me. I will continue to hold out for a better option, as the templates reduce WP size, an attribute we all support. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Collaboration requires communication, not just throwing templates at each other. Memory is cheap. Active Banana (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, this discussion thread is about placing template messages on other editors comments If you wish to mention the actions of other editors, then they should only be mentioned here to the extent that they justify your placing of said templates. If you want to set up another discussion thread about other issues, you are welcome to do so, but continuing to raise them here is disruptive. TFD (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

TFD, please cite the material I have posted that is not directly addressing my use of templates Darkstar1st (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You are well aware of what I am talking about. Incidentally, your statement that I "[undid] a deletion I made 3 times, then threatening me with a ban if I broke the 3 revert rule. The passage I deleted was by a 16 year old student" is false. I did not reverse your edit even once, and did not provide a 3rr warning to you for this edit. TFD (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies TFD, you are correct, it was another editor who was over-ruled in this case. However, I am not aware of what you are talking about, please cite your evidence. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How does your complaint about someone reversing your edits or issuing a 3rr warning have anything to do with your placing template messages on other editors' comments? TFD (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Request block and/or pp

Resolved

 – Rangeblock applied as well

At Erich Honecker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an editor using multiple IPs has recently taken it upon themselves to turn the German reunification into an annexation. The editor has so far used the following IPs:

• 91.41.0.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.13.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.26.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.12.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Is it possible to block them given the various IPs? Otherwise, the article needs to be semi-protected. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: As from the contribs of the first IP address on the list, it is obvious that their previous target was Erich Mielke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where they were using yet other 91.41.xxx IPs, and which as a result is now semi-protected. So they turned to the Honecker article instead. The IPs used at the Mielke article were

• 91.41.4.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.3.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.2.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.0.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.0.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

PPS: From the contribs of those IPs, it is obvious that the Mielke article was also a substitute target for Stalinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which they had targeted before and which is now semi-protected. The IPs used there were

• 91.41.4.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.3.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.2.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.0.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.0.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Skäpperöd (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this editor and as such, protected Erich Honecker for a week. We could block their range which is 91.41.0.0/19. It affects 8192 IPs and it looks like there hasn't been any other recent contributions from others so it doesn't seem like such a bad option. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Just for the record: From the contribs of those IPs again, it is obvious that they were also the IP recently causing semi-protection of East Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The IPs used there were

• 89.108.110.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.8.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.9.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.26.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.6.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.25.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.6.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.4.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 91.41.3.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Thank you for protecting the article. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• No one's mentioned Stalinism yet, so mentioning it here for completeness. The editor also seems to like Stalinism (as a target; no comment on their beliefs). TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • There's practically nothing useful from 91.41.0.0/19 in the last year either, so I've rangeblocked it for six months. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • For background: It's Father's Day in Germany today, and in East Germany this is traditionally celebrated with large amounts of alcohol. See Father's Day#Germany to get an idea of the vandals. Hans Adler 23:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I think "However, several fathers also spend the day with their families and refrain from getting drunk" may need to be re-written here, as it suggests the other 25-million-odd fathers in Germany are currently alcoholically disabled. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Resolved

Hi: AIV is a bit backed up. If some kind admin or two could pop over, that'd be helpful. Thanks, Ray^Talk 18:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Backlog's more or less cleared up. Thanks to all who helped. Ray^Talk 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat made in response to speedy deletion nomination at Uberto Gucci

Resolved

 – Page deleted, threat not serious enough to warrant action. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

By newbie user Mlgc57k1 at this diff. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: Moved to talk page. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any admin is going to be swayed by the threat, so I'm not inclined to see blocking this editor as a matter of urgency. If it were an AfD case, rather than CSD, I'd see it differently since it might influence others, but in this case it is up to an admin to decide whether to delete. This is more an embarassment than a legal problem, in my opinion (I Googled Uberto Gucci and the threat was the second hit... after his Facebook page). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm forgoing the normal immediate indef in favor of some AGF here - I left a warning on his talk page indicating that they needed to retract it, and explaining that such threats are not OK.

If belligerence escalates then the normal response should apply, etc. Hopefully they will cooperate and retract. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the article as in my view it did not credibly assert the notability of the subject. I agree that blocking the editor is not a high priority so long as the threat is not repeated. --John (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree: I don't disagree with any of the foregoing. I just believe that all threats — legal or otherwise — need to be reported for the record. What sysops do with those reports is entirely up to them. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring and personal attacks by IP

Resolved

 – Blocked for a week

Can an admin please look through the history of Ashaari Mohammad? In my view, there is arguably a 3RR breach as well as a personal attack in an edit summary, by IP User talk:70.58.218.171. Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the IP's edit summaries:

• its circa date you dumb fuck.
• Undid revision 361393762 by Freshacconci (talk) wanna eat my pussy?
• Undid revision 361393262 by Crboyer (talk)well get off your lazy ass and find the god damn article

...there are some civility issues (however, these were the only three). You may want to follow the process here.

Regarding the article itself I'd suggest their talk page in the first instance (apologies if you have already, I only had a quick glance - incidentally, the IP has been warned several times for un-sourced content, disruption and attacks). If that fails, then maybe request semi-protection for the article. Don't use that as an opportunity to force through your preferred version; use it to attempt to engage with the IP. If that fails, persue other dispute resolution options.

Good luck! TFOWR^propaganda 22:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Who is not an admin, but this incident can most likely be solved without ANI.

This is disruptive editing and edit-warring (3RR breach), not a content dispute between two editors. We don't feed these trolls by trying to "resolve disputes" with them; we just block them.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We do indeed. Done. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible attack page in user space?

Resolved

 – Nothing left to do here. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I came across an unusual image on Commons (File:Moderndandy.JPG) and tracked it back to it being in use on User:Atom smasher69/Tim hornybrook. Now reading the Tim hornybrook page through, it smells to me like an attack page, and if it weren't in user space, I'd PROD it on that basis at the least (maybe even speedy delete it). But as I said, it's in user space so I'm not 100% sure what the best course of action is here. Any advice?? Tabercil (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, attack pages are deleted regardless of name space--Jac16888^Talk 00:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. And since the image is not in use, I've killed that on Commons as well. Tabercil (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme and problematic edit summaries (again)

• JBsupreme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Accompanying 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (death threat to previous editor), 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: continued problematic edit summaries. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive531#User:JBsupreme_and_problematic_edit_summaries for background.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• I guess I missed something. Regarding the 2 edits in the article show, the edits were fine. It was a deleted article, so why the need for a redlink to it? Or really even the need for the entry at all? But profanity in and of itself isn't a reason for admin action. As for the third article....That discussion should have been removed before it got that far. It wasn't really about the article, it was just a soapbox. What exactly needs admin action? (Didn;t look at the edits past #3. The edit conflict thing as you add these one at a time was starting to annoy me)Niteshift36 (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at the one on Wright....he said what I often am thinking when I revert blatant stupidity like that. Frankly, I don't care if vandals get their feelings hurt. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Could definitely be said more politely in those specific examples, but exasperation at the issues he's fixing is understandable. Looking at his overall set of recent summaries, most are milder. Why would you re-add a redlink to for an article that was AfD-deleted? DMacks (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the re-add, he neglected to mention the redlink. I am particularly concerned about 9 (death threat to previous editor).   — Jeff G. ツ 06:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW Jeff, 2 of us have expressed an interest in why you thought that a redlink to a deleted article needed to be re-added. Enquiring minds want to know. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You consider this is a death-threat? Oh dear... ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 06:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So not a death threat. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 06:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Yes, I do. "some people need to stop breathing", when coupled with "Undid revision 355093054 by The Danimal1993 (talk)" means to me that The Danimal1993 and similar vandals need to die. And this is not this user's first death threat, either - see this one as well.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Well then you and I have vastly different definitions of what a threat is. Even wishing someone would die isn't a threat to kill someone. "I wish you were dead" and "I'm going to kill you" are way different statements. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I had closed this, but if you want to insist on months old unactionable stuff on ANI, you've picked the wrong venue, except for drama and hilarity generation purposes. Open an user RfC or ArbCom case instead. Pcap ping 07:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Someone needs to give JBsupreme a barnstar for the best edit summaries in awhile. I had quite a good laugh at all of them. Going to mark this as resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Did someone repeal WP:CIVIL while I wasn't looking?   — Jeff G. ツ 07:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This guy clearly needs a civilty reprimand.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope, but sometimes when you are fed up (we all have) with the damned trolls and stupid kids on lunch break screwing around with the Wiki, you lose your temper. Does it actually mean he wants someone to stop breathing, I highly doubt it. Move on Dude, no good is going to come from this. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

JBsupreme was warned by the ArbCom as recently as January about the exact behaviors he's repeated recently. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

• 5.1) JBSupreme has occasionally been uncivil: typing edit summaries in all capital letters [66], using profanity or attacks in edit summaries [67], making edits to form inappropriate "contribution sentences" [68], and refusing to respond to good-faith criticism [69] [70].
• JBsupreme is warned to refrain from incivility and personal attacks.

He seems to have ignored those warnings along with all of the other warnings and requests. Even trout slapping hasn't worked. Can anyone suggest an alternative to blocking him that will get him to comply with the site's policies?   Will Beback  talk  08:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The banner on top of his talk page says "Why follow the rules when you can ignore them" and further suggest that when he persistently ignores warnings it is wilfull disruption. Unless he has something to say to his defense I would support a block.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's an arbcom issue, refer it back to them. I agree that he needs to tone down the edit summaries, but I don't think these ANI posts are effective for these issues. Shadowjams (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. WP:AE or WP:RFAR would be the best places to pursue this.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Related issue

By the way, you've warned him for "vandalism" for edits such as [71] [72], which are not wp:vandalism. That's inappropriate. WP:BATTLE much or sour grapes? Pcap ping 07:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pohta ce-am pohtit has a good point. You can't warn someone for vandalism when there isn't any vandalism. I have gotten up to my ass in trouble for that before. When issuing ANY warning, you must make sure that what you are warning for has actually occured. The "vandalism" you warned about, he was reverting a deadlink. Not vandalism and a misuse of the vandalism templates by you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As such, I have removed the vandalism template to JBsupreme's page with apologizes to him for it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

...although there is still WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE, both of which have been the subject of previous warnings regarding his choice of edit summaries. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Folks, we may have another problem. Jeff G. not only misused the vandalism templates, mismarked vandalism, but also took this lack of vandalism to AIV, before being directed here. First, why wasn't this misuse and lack of vandalism caught at AIV, but second (and the bigger question) what should be done about Jeff G. who has taken this lack of vandalism all over Wikipedia tonight winding up here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have told Jeff G at his talk oage that his use of warning templates and of the word "vandalism" is incorrect.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's not backlash on this either. This isn't the same as blanking a page and adding "your mom", but Jeff's point's already amply made, and I don't see any harm in the language he used. Worst of all you can blame him for templating the regulars (did he even do that?). Let's not be pedantic about this. Shadowjams (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the {{resolved}} template. JBsupreme's misuse of edit summaries has been a serious problem and has been going on for ages. Many people find these types of edit summaries offensive and when previously warned by editors and administrators he simply removes the warnings from his talk page.
11 September 2008 - Reversions by user JBSupreme
21 April 2009 - User:JBsupreme and problematic edit summaries
25 April 2009 - User:JBSupreme's continued inappropriateness
11 May 2009 - JBsupreme edit summaries again
There seems to be a common pattern here. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It was previously marked as resolved by Pohta ce-am pohtit, but delete by Jeff G., hence my readding of the resolved template. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I missed that. I've refactored this section slightly. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Swearing is not per se uncivil and some comical exacerbation is a good thing. Can someone provide some context as to how often there are summaries like this, and is this it? It seems odd that summaries, the one thing that are forever archived and almost impossible to get rid of, are where he chooses to fly that flag. Like I said, some context? Shadowjams (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing this out -- this is completely ridiculous. If the above is a "death threat" then apparently I had no idea that the word "threat" meant "to wish" in addition to, you know, "to threaten". I love how one person can express his frustrations via an innocuous edit summary while another person can crucify him by expressing their frustrations via an overblown ANI post that people then need to respond to, resolve, etc. One of these things is a bit more disruptive than the other. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree that there's nothing "threatening" about that edit summary. Shadowjams (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not a threat, but it certainly also isn't civil or in line with WP:BITE. Also profanity isn't problematic when it merely expresses the speakers own stress- but when it is directed at other as in many of these cases it is clearly not civil and borders on personal attacks. Humour in edit summaries may be a good thing but not when it is made at others expense.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Even a casual glance at JBSupreme's edit history shows that he's chronically incivil. Either WP:CIVIL is a policy, which means he should be blocked for at least 24 hours - or it isn't, which means that template at the top of the page is a lie. Seth Kellerman (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I smell a sock here: new user with a dozen edits, practically all his article-space edits are at Tucker Max, and somehow found this thread rather quickly. Pcap ping 09:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I should probably disclose my Taylor Swift edit history. Shadowjams (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Anything else you wanna 'fess up? wp:Spas or PBML/John254-type socks would be fun; please make it epic like Altenmann ... Pcap ping 10:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't hate on my love.... Shadowjams (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I just take the opportunity to say again that I could care less if a blatant vandal gets his feelings hurt. When a guy does the extensive vandalism that he did to the Jeremiah Wright article that was shown above, there is not AGF or BITE problem. That's just being a dick and I don't care if someone uses profanity in their edit summary with them. So why is that even an "example" of anything? That edit summary is more likely to get a barnstar from me for just saying what I'm thinking than to send me to complain about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. If you see a dick, then you call him a dick, there si nothing wrong with that. And vandals are dicks by definition, so I see very little merit to Jeff G's complaining here. Mountains and molehills and all that. Tarc (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I just say that this case looks very much like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Prestonmcconkie? And while I don't think that JB has done anything really problematic, it's sort of startling to see the similarities between Preston and JB's featured edit summaries, and then to see how Preston got an RFC while JB is being defended pretty heavily here. I even think JB's edit summaries were a little harsher than Preston's. To clarify, I don't think action should be taken against JB, but I'm seeing a significant difference between how Preston was dealt with versus how JB is being dealt with. ALI ^{nom nom} 16:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Re "got an RfC": What's stopping you from starting one? You don't need administrators' permission for that. Among the editors above, there appear to be some that would gladly ratify it. Pcap ping 16:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard of Preston and don't even plan to look at the old RfC. I'm commenting on the case at hand. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The two issues are not directly comparable. Preston used abusive summaries even when people were acting in good faith, basically belittling them for using imperfect spelling and grammar. Such is not the case with JB where he is dealing with individuals purposefully defacing article space. They both use <ahem> "colourful" edit summaries, but the target audience differs substantially. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of the edit summaries here were to people editing in good faith, who just made somewhat foolish errors. That doesn't necessarily mean them might not have been able to become adequate contributors in the future--but they're not very likely to if they are dealt with in such a manner. I consider edit summaries like this blockable conduct in anyone, and especially an arb. The matter does not involve the use of admin functions, but arb com has made it clear that admins are expected to be at least as sensible in such matters as other editors. Using this language in edit summaries is worse than in content--edit summaries can only be removed by deleting the entire edit, not just by reverting. JV and I have had some previous disputes, so I can;t say I'm wholly unbiased, but if it were anybody I had never interacted with and brought to my attention I would block. Given the number of them, I;d suggest a week, with a warning that it will be increased if it ever happens again. More generally, perhaps we need an edit filter that would focus on edit summaries, from which admins would not be exempt. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone should demote WP:CIVIL because incivility is obviously allowed per two long discussions that I read on here. Joe Chill (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

HoundsOfSpring, again

In late February, I brought this user to the attention of this board. As of today he is still performing these problematic edits, and has been since I last discussed him here. The {{whom?}} and other tags such as those in the following diffs are still unnecessary but he still edits in this way despite both my attempts and EyeSerene's: [73] [74] [75] [76]. He's not changing his ways. What do we do?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything objectionable about the 1st diff (adding a {{fact}} tag). I could have added it myself had I read that article. Did not check the other ones. Pcap ping 07:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked them. He does seem to be a little overzealous with the 'whom' tag, but they look like good-faith edits to me... except that he's been asked about this before. Hrm. I'll drop him a note. Shimeru (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've also let him know that he's being discussed here again. Apparently, he wasn't notified this time around. Pcap ping 07:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahem.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

He can't say he didn't see it (in triplicate) now... Pcap ping 10:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that HoundsOfSpring is too educated for the articles he's editing, and insists too much that other editors rise to his standards of sourcing and English (or too "anal", if you prefer). This discussion is a good example. Pcap ping 11:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason why he tags various articles with seems to be that he dislikes passive voice without an agent like "shit is done to editors". All his edits to Wikipedia (using this account, anyway) are only of the copyedit/grammar fixes variety, but are by no means limited to Anime articles. Pcap ping 12:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pcap pinged me at my talk page for "MoS" advice (but it's more a case of collaborative mechanics than MoS, AFAICS—I can appreciate the irritation, but words such as "anal" and "too educated" will do no good). Some of Hound's edits are improvements, others are not. "A second convention is planned to take place from August 27 to 29, 2010, in Los Angeles". Reasonable point, but the "whom" template is unnecessary. In other places Hound is applying a too-strict rule about avoiding the passive voice, for example "an episode (or two) were dedicated to a ..."—that is fine in the passive without specified agent, to my eyes. "in certain areas"—yep, it's vague. "In many series, a Ranger is also given additional Zords or weapons."—no agent is fine in a vid games context for this meaning, I think. "which has gained much media-coverage."—I agree, this definitely needs citation.

It's a mixed bag. My solution would be to implore Hounds and the other editors to print their proposed copy-edits and inline queries first on the talk page for a while, so that trust can be regained. It's the practical way of doing business. Tony (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Long term factual vandalism IP

Resolved

 – IP blocked Shimeru (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

User:67.174.134.116 has been changing sports articles, mostly athlete bio stats, for a while now, largely skating under the radar. Despite a block in April, after the block was up they were right back at it. Every edit after that point was a subtle factual error vandalism edit. All have (I think) since been undone, but here's the list: [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]. In addition, some edits changing "!" to "." which is right, but I recently dealt with another editor using regex, or something to change all "." to "!". Perhaps a coincidence. Shadowjams (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. It seems as if most or all of this IP's edits have been vandalism; if it continues after this block is up, it might be worth indef-blocking. Shimeru (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but even in my zeal I won't support indef of an IP. However, anything less than 2 years is probably ok, so long as there's basic review permitted if the IP dynamically allocates and the new editor has no idea. Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Malamanteau cleanup

Can we get a neutral admin to cleanup the two remaining malamanteau threads:

• Talk:Malamanteau
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 12‎‎#Malamanteau

Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Cleanup"? Meaning what, exactly? Fences&Windows 13:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he's asking for a delete/close, but as discussion is still active in both areas, I think that is a bit premature. Also, coverage in Slashdot and the [Long Island Press have at least given this a shot at retention in some form. Tarc (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Premature closing as delete would not serve the encyclopedia, since no speedy criteria are met, the discussions are still evolving, and more RS articles are taking note of the controversy. I can't see a great justification for a speedy close as keep, either, but allowing the discussion to continue seems to be favor the keep side. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Noting I did vote, but I think "no consensus" would be a more accurate summary of the actual result. Orderinchaos 17:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Only if you're counting heads. But I suppose that's for whoever is brave enough to close the thing to figure out. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

BKWSU again

Judging from my watchlist, Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University‎, an article on ArbCom probation, has recently gone "live" again. Could someone take a look? Orderinchaos 12:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris adherent owning all Brahma Kumari related topics

Yes, thank you, Orderinchaos.

A Brahma Kumaris cult adherent is owning all Brahma Kumari related topics. This has been going on, with extensive edit warring for years. It does not seem right. See: Special:Contributions/Bksimonb.

In light of similar decisions made about the Scientology topic, can someone tell me how long this has to go on for?

The Brahma Kumaris are a passionately evangelistic 'End of the World' cult engaged in fairly heavy PR and media control. Their adherents are motivated a forthcoming Nuclear Holocaust that will "purify" the world, destroying all other religions, so that they alone can inherit the world. Their persistent efforts are inspired by earning a high status in the Golden Age which their god spirit predicts will following "Destruction".

It would not seem to be the most rational basis for contributing to an encyclopedia.

Thank you. --Taking stock (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is another obvious sock of User:Lucyintheskywithdada. SPI report already filed. Bksimonb (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to add "thanks" for the very rapid response. Looks like he's blocked and the page protected already. Much appreciated. Bksimonb (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy lives

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Can we stop this now please? Tsbdy is no longer posting on Giano's talk page, and that's good. The important criterion when deciding whether to block an editor is whether future disruption would be prevented. On that basis, it seems that it's this thread that ought to be blocked.SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Could someone please advise Tbsdy lives (talk · contribs) to back away from Giano before it gets uglier. I tried to advise him, but he doesn't want to listen to me. His continued use of his user page and Giano's talk page to taunt and bait him isn't going to do anyone any good.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No taunting - Giano makes inflammatory comments, I find them amusing and wish to record them for posterity on my user page. If Giano wants to stop making such comments, that's fine. In the meantime I find them funny, so I'm noting them. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 17:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So far this evening, at the last count I have now reverted this "Admin" from my page 12 times. While I understand that admins are a protected species, would someone please ban him for his own safety and good. Thank you.  Giano  17:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Giano, you have made some frankly ridiculous comments on Jimbo's talk page so far. You have been quite persistent, to the point of harassment. When I went to your talk page to see if anyone had noted this to you, I noticed a hilarious comment by someone who asked you to look after their elderly aunt's honour. Then you started to talk about how I misquoted you, to which I responded. If you did not want me to respond to you, then you should not have said I misquoted you. I merely showed you how ridiculous I thought you were being - so I laughed at you because it was funny! Had you not wanted to get into a conversation, you should not have accused me of something I've not done. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 18:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:UP#NOT item #10 should apply. Don't make records of other users' perceived misdeeds (or whatever you're calling them). And when you're continually reverted from someone's talk page, it's probably best to stop posting there. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly posting unwanted comments on another user's talk page is close enough to harassment, in my book. I'm pretty sure tbsdy will stop now that it's been brought up here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Aye. Seriously?. Just leave each other alone. End of story. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I will! I thought that he wanted a conversation because he accused me of misquoting him. He noted my supposed actions on his talk page - if he didn't want me to respond then a. he could have said so, and b. he would not have made the comment! But as he's said he doesn't want any more responses to his baseless accusations, I'm willing to stop. There Giano... that wasn't hard was it? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 18:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd think that at least here you could stop the baiting.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• I note that if this was a non-admin, he'd be getting warnings to stop harassing someone from all sides. It's cowardly to hide behind your adminship to do something you know others would get warned/blocked for. Indeed, if it continues I may block my first admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Good I see you are all admin too, can you explain what is the threshold for having to be reverted before a block for an admin, as opposed to an ordinary user such as myself. Obviously it is above 12. 13 - 23 - 33 - 103? It would be useful for us poor mortals to know the precise figure.  Giano  18:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

For me, it's not so much a question of a number, as it is a matter of continuing when warned not to. If he does it one more time, I will block him. I'd treat a non-admin the same way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 18:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• For the record, I've lowered the protection on the page to semi-protection as it is not owned by Tbsdy and the history doesn't seem to warrant the full protection. Someone may wish to boldly edit the page now (according to user page policies or an emerging consensus), however this is not an invitation to edit war. If an edit war occurs, I have no issue if it goes back up to full protection (keeping in mind if that happened, it would not be appropriate for Tbsdy to continue editing it). –xeno^talk 18:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that I have removed that quote gallery from Tbsdy's user page. I would be prepared to block if he continues his taunting campaign, on whatever page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think 12 reverts is quite enough for anyone - is this expected standards for an admin? This user needs blocking and desysopping. Of course though it won't happen will it?  Giano  18:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that Jimbo has relinquished his super-tools, only ArbCom can desysop someone (or stewards, but only in emergencies), so you may wish to visit WP:RFAR –xeno^talk 18:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm considering it, Giano. But if I block one, I'm blocking both- you've both violated the 3RR by a long way.I stand corrected HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC) refactored at 20:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(ECx2) Giano, the comments are gone, and the user said above they would leave you alone. Let's put this issue to rest for now, and if it comes back, then lets discuss blocking. But for now, Tbsdy agreed to leave you alone. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? 3RR where? I must be missing something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Admin who does not know the basic 3R rules on talk pages! You have all sat and watched one of your own be reverted from my page 12 times in a very short space. I have no more to say to any of you. Now one of you threatens to block me. As usual my assumptions are proven correct.  Giano  18:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Giano has exemption from 3RR because it's his talk page. –xeno^talk 18:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Tbsdy lives blocked

• I would have blocked a non-admin for a 3RR vioaltion like that, so it seems only fair to block an admin. We shouldn;t be any different. thus, Tbsdy has been blocked for 12 hours. Any admin is welcome to alter or lift the block without further consultation with me if they deem it appropriate and i invite review here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Plus, I have now declared Tbsdy banned from interacting with Giano or commenting on him, seeing that after I removed that quote gallery from his page, he immediately replaced it with a link to an off-wiki version of the same collection. I regret it had to come to this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

While I brought this here for it to be taken care of, it needs to be handled correctly, not by an admin who's only comment in the thread demonstrated understands a lack of understanding of policies. If a block is needed it at least neads a qualified endorsement.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I support the block though I would have suggested a tad longer. Edit warring on a user talk page is extremely poor form. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think that Tsbdy needed to be blocked - certainly not for 3RR, having reviewed the recent edit history of Giano's talk page - but that was a very provocative sequence of posts, and the provocation continued in the above discussion. I think FP@S may have the best approach. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, FPAS' approach is probably the best, but a short block is not exceptionable either - an admin should know better, frankly. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• If the behavior stopped after a warning, I don't know that a block was needed. However, a desysop would have been appropriate. Still, moot point I guess. If he unretires, I may consider pursuing it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Might be good to make a record of the interaction ban at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. I know Tbsdy is "retired," but history has shown that to not necessarily be a permanent declaration. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not comfortable with FP@S' ban by fiat. Furthermore, if he's no longer interacting with Giano, there's no reason for a block. We don't block after 3RR violations 'cause "they shoulda gotten it". In any case, he appears to have stormed off in a huff. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I am mistaken, but breaking the 3RR rule almost always leads to a block. The usual exception is if there is a presumption that an editor is unaware of the rule (hence the warnings). An admin should definitely be aware of the rule. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR isn't even the crux of the issue. See Future Perfect at 18:06 [86], Tbsdy at 18:11 [87]. –xeno^talk 18:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the outcome was likely correct. It would have been nice if it was done for the correct reason, so focus wasn't diverted.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching this thread for the last couple hours (and the related stuff), and I've been somewhat involved in trying to sort this dispute in the past (months) and know some of the ancient history (years). The 3rr was actionable, but is not the crux of it (per Xeno). The solution FPaS offered is the best route forward should Tbsdy unretire. This was pretty clearly a round of poking the bear. I'd also like to note the irony of the final word of each username. Broadly viewed, this is rather how I landed on a subsequent account. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't gotten much into recent admin politics, but since when can someone place a ban on another user by fiat, even so far as someone suggesting it be recorded on WP:RESTRICT? Admins are not gods, and are expected to act within the rules, not by making new ones. There is of course a place for IAR, but seeing as how 3RR apparently (I have not delved too deeply into this) was sufficient, I don't know why a unilateral restriction had to be made. Even in my own dealings, I think the worst I've done is prevented both parties from communicating with each other, rather than a restriction on only one party. A one-sided restriction by its very nature opens the door to the possibility of abuse. Should Ta bu have taken a break and not continued the fight? Of course. We expect people to respect others' talk pages here. But this seems to have been handled with a very heavy hand.

That said, when doing my occasional read of AN/ANI, I see a vastly disproportionate number of threads dealing with Giano. Is he that abrasive, or is it that loud people dislike him? --Golbez (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Probably a combination of both, but since TSBDY decided he was an authority on Baroque architecture I have given him a very wide birth. Indeed, my re-write remains largely ignored and unwritten ignore the spoof lead, that's to balance the page until its re-written and I know what I need to say), rather than give him his announced intention of "pouring over it with a fine tooth comb"[88]. I know the second it is finished he will cause trouble. These days, I only make reference to him when one of his comments on me needs to be redressed or he come in pursuit. This I did today, quietly and without comment. He can say what he likes on his page (it's not on my list), but not on mine. After reverting him 12 times on my page (yes, 12) someone brings it here, and even then there is a marked reluctance to block him. I find that astounding and something I shall certainly bear in mind when I see others blocked by the admins here for 3RR.  Giano  19:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • A 3RR block was valid, I don't disagree on that. --Golbez (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, now I'm not sure. Ta Bu didn't revert once, and you only reverted 9 times (I know, not much different), and edited his comments at least once. So it falls less under 3RR and more under edit warring, WP:POINT, perhaps harassment (Though you obviously weren't a helpless victim, demonstrated by your responding in kind). --Golbez (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. He misrepresented a view I had express and I clarified it, without comment on him. I do not go to his page; I have no interest in it or him. I removed him from my page - how ever many times it was. Is this how an Admin is supposed to behave?  Giano  20:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A lot of community bans are imposed by a single admin, and then confirmed by the community. In this case, I'd have to say "Good block/ban."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In other words, a community ban can be a unilateral block where other admins are afraid to wheel-war over it. They may disagree with the block, but not enough to risk the backlash. In other words, a less-than-legitimate block can be a "community ban" even though the arguments against it, while sound, aren't quite enough to spur anyone to risk the backlash of unblocking. --Golbez (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that it invalidates the thrust of your argument, but the current definition of wheel war doesn't typically apply to the 2nd action, but to the 3rd. –xeno^talk 19:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh? Well that's good, that fits better with the BRD philosophy. --Golbez (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think at one point there was some discussion that suggested an admin could lay down a ban "in lieu" of an indefinite block. I'm not sure how that panned out though. –xeno^talk 19:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I was involved in a discussion about admins declaring bans, and the outcome was actually that they can't. Fut. Perf. is the only admin I really ever see doing this (and he's done it alot); nevertheless in this case it looks like he speaks for almost everyone. Is there really anyone here who doesn't think Tbsdy and Giano should be interaction-banned? If not then let's not make purely bureaucratic objections. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There was an interaction ban between Ta Bu and giano? Where? I see it said by FPAS that Ta Bu should not communicate with Giano; I see no parallel restriction upon Giano communicating with Ta Bu, and without that reciprocation an interaction ban is worthless. If Ta Bu was being warned or blocked about harassment then that's fine, harassment is a universal bad and doesn't apply to interaction with a single person. But he was warned specifically from interacting with Giano, whereas Giano was not, so far as I see, told the same. It's one thing to be told to stop harassing; it's another to be told to stop interacting. And all of this is somewhat moot; wasn't a 3RR block sufficient, and then we could have moved on with our lives? --Golbez (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look, there wasn't specifically any reverting going on by Ta Bu, just increasing levels of belligerence. It's not like Giano was hitting rollback; he was responding to what Ta Bu wrote. So perhaps even a 3RR block wasn't a valid avenue. --Golbez (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I think the interaction ban is probably fine, though it should go both ways of course. The block is fine too, though I'd caution a brand new admin against wading into the Giano quagmire until you have more seasoning. With the history of blocks, unblocks, retirements, and arbitration cases here, any block in regards to him needs to be right. AniMate 19:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a brand new admin, that's the thing. I just avoid most admin politics. Perhaps someone should write a Concise History of Giano to educate us. --Golbez (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done it too.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe you all have seen this, but why is it that anyone who comes in contact with Giano is blocked/banned from communicating with him, but he can go on complete rant/rave sprees and practically spit on WP:CIVIL and be brought to AN or ANI many times and nothing done, but anyone who stands up to him is punished for doing so. Why are we protecting Giano? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

One way to answer this question would be to actually review the contributions and actually see what occured here.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy has been gunning for Giano since shortly after Tbsdy returned from his last "retirement". Tbsdy has been advised several times to avoid Giano, largely because of Tbsdy's taunting and goading behaviour towards Giano. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of the block

At 13:17 my time, FPAS informed TBSDY that he was banned from interacting with or commenting on Giano. At 13:20, TBSDY responded with a comment on Giano, though it was on his own talk page and not on Giano's.

At 13:16, TBSDY was already blocked, ostensibly for 3RR but I'm not sure that's a valid block at this point. Edit warring, perhaps, but then again, Giano was interacting with Ta Bu, not merely deleting his entries wholesale. So... I'm feeling more and more inclined to undo this block, with the proviso that Ta Bu and Giano cease interacting with each other for the time being. --Golbez (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just one moment - quite how was I interatcing with him?  Giano  20:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. AniMate 20:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Before considering an unblock, keep in mind that he continued to rant about Giano after the block; indeed, he would likely still be doing it if I hadn't reblocked with no talk page access. Also, as HJ Mitchell has said on his talk page, it's not too much of a stretch to consider replacing "hahahah" with "LOL" with "ROFL" to be edit warring. I wouldn't have done a 3RR block unless it continued after a warning, but it's not an obviously invalid block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, that makes sense; once he was blocked and apparently considering retirement, what was the point of holding back? I'm not going to hold much of his comments after the block against him. And I didn't deny that it was edit warring, but it doesn't appear to be 3RR. The spirit isn't there; if it were true harassment that Giano didn't want there, he would have removed it wholesale rather than responding to or editing the comments. And perhaps herein lies the problem with Giano? (I'm still waiting for that concise history) --Golbez (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I am speechless, and that does not happen often. I did not in any way engage with that person.  Giano  20:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Except for where you didn't just remove his comments, you decided to post diffs trying to turn it around on him. ([89]) If you're being harassed, the only right thing to do is revert and report. The fundamental issue here is, he was posting to your talk page, you removed (or appeared to fight back a few times) but that was it. If you thought there was a problem, you should have brought it up with people who can end it. Instead, you waited until, for some reason, some one else whiteknighted you, and then chimed in on how horrible it was that you had to remove his comments nine times. (12 is exaggerating, based on my math) If it was really that bad, you should have reported him to ANI or AIV yourself. Seeing as how you did not, and seeing as how you were posting past diffs of TBSDY yourself, a disinterested observer like myself may infer that you didn't really see it as harassment or total annoyance. --Golbez (talk)

Meatball:DefendEachOther has been cited in past arbcom cases here, and given the history I think it was better handled without Giano being the "complaintent. (No disrespect intended).--Cube lurker (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so disinterested I think. Following the Blenheim Palace episode I made it a rule never to approach or engage him, unless he commented me on me first. Mostly, even then, I choose to ignore him. Today he began misquoting me on JWales's page, so without comment on him, or disruption the thread on Wales' page, I posted on my page just the diffs to rebuff his claim. Which they succesfully did. I am not concerned with his page - his off site activities only his on-site activities on wikipedia. I always regard this page as a last resort, and having seem the false excuses and false prevarications made for him here, I feel quite justified in holding that view.  Giano  20:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

He did start removing them wholesale and not responding (not even so much as an edit summary). [90] [91][92][93][94][95][96] –xeno^talk 20:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I must admit to an error, I saw this edit and in my haste thought he was responding to Ta Bu. You're right, the last 8 or 9 edits by him pertaining to Ta Bu's comments were removals rather than interactions. --Golbez (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy always "retires" when he finds himself in trouble. He'll be back. DuncanHill (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is a joke. Unblocking an admin after he created off-site harassment and linked to it? [97] 12 hours is supposed to be too much for that? Hans Adler 20:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Apart from that it was a pretty clear edit war against Giano on Giano's talk page, including a 3RR violation. I am working on a list of just the relevant diffs. Hans Adler 20:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for reference over an hour before I brought this here I tried to warn him. [98] and the conversation continued briefly on my talk page. I'm not saying I did the best job, or that I was the best person to try, but he had the option to back away then.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) Gosh! All the time, energy and attention to detail seen on this and other connected threads is impressive! If only we could harness all of that and put it to some useful purpose. If only there was some kind of project nearby that could convert that activity into something positive and good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• 15:16 "LOL!!!" Giano responds.
• 16:19 "Double LOL!" Giano replaces it with different text.
• 16:22 "Triple LOL!!!!" Giano replaces it with different text.
• 16:24 "Quotes: Hope you don't mind, but I've started taking quotes. I find the world according to Giano quite interesting, and I'm sure others probably feel the same." Giano removes this new section without comment.
• 16:25 "You just can't make this stuff up - ROFL!" Giano removes it without comment (after an unrelated edit to the same page).
• 16:28 "I added your actual quote to my page. Like I say, I'm quite a fan!" Giano removes it without comment.
• 16:44 "ROFL!" Giano removes it without comment.
• 17:14 "Hahahahaha!!!!!" Giano removes it without comment.
• Giano removes the first (15:16) "LOL!" comment without comment, then responds to One Night in Hackney.
• 17:43 "Is this the same aunt who jumps out of her chair when you say the word "fuck"? I do hope that you didn't interrupt her knitting..." Giano removes this comment to his conversation with One Night in Hackney without comment.
• 17:45 "Oh, that is so quoted." Giano removes this renewed comment on his conversation with One Night in Hackney without comment.
• 17:49 "You will periodically blank this page, but my user page goes on, for the amusement of the wider community!" Giano removes this without comment.

It appears to me that the 16:22, 16:25, 16:28, 16:44, 17:14, 17:43, 17:45 and 17:49 edits were reverts. In each case Giano had made it abundantly clear that he did not want this type of comment on his page, and yet more of the kind was added. 8 reverts against the owner of a user talk page is pretty bad and 12 hours seems on the lower end for that. Hans Adler 21:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty bad. I don't think anyone with this in their history would survive an RFA. Hint hint. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected user pages of admins

Resolved

 – moot point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Xeno unprotected my user page. Is this now policy for all user pages for all admins now? It was perfectly acceptable until recently, if it's not can I please ask that User:Glen be semi-protected? I'm sure there are a lot more. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 18:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

They try to keep them limited to semi-protection, as I recall, much in the same way that user talk pages should be protected for as little time as feasable. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

For background, see above thread and [99]. I don't think comparing Tbsdy's Giano quote gallery to a simple redirect is apples-apples, but YMMV. See also Wikipedia:Protection policy –xeno^talk 18:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy is now blocked, I note, so this discussion may want to move to his talk page. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a better venue would be WT:Protection policy; however, I think policy is clear on this. Full protection should be used sparingly, and only when the situation warrants. –xeno^talk 18:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of, but pages should only be protected for good reason. Have you let Xeno know about this thread? Aiken ♫ 18:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No need, I saw it. –xeno^talk 18:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Incidently, as I read it, I see no reason why admin user pages should be fully protected, unless there's some obvious reason such as substantial vandalism from non-IPs. I would support downgrading any fully protected admin user pages to semi unless they have a reason for the protection, though it doesn't bother me hugely either way. Ale_Jrb^talk 18:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What reason would any user, besides the user himself or an admin, have for modifying another user's page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That is my question also, I'm the only one who should be editing my user page, for example. I have the subpage where the header for my user and usertalk pages resides fully protected. SGGH ^ping! 21:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, mine is kept fully protected as no one has any reason to edit my user page. If they see a need for a change there, they can approach me on my talk page, which would be only courteous anyway, and if they meet no satisfaction from me but feel they are in the right, they have this page.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Kneževo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

I don't know if this is the right place to report this, but there seems a lot of dispute about the content of the article Kneževo, Bosnia and Herzegovina (see edit-history). I just passed by and noticed a problem, I have no intention to be part of the fuzz. I've reverted a POV version of the article twice and after this I will stay out of this issue. I'm looking for people who can get into this matter since I'm not a regular here. Thanks for helping out. Best regards, Spraakverwarring (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism and automatic deliberate redirect on the article House of Bucchia

I created few days ago the article House of Bucchia, about an ancient family from the Republic of Ragusa. Today, adding some sources and fixing last edits, I saw it was deliberately moved and changed (with no discussion explaining any reason on talk page) by User:DIREKTOR.
This user has already tried to move-and-change another similar article, House of Cerva, but a requested move and admin intervention solved the question. It already reverted my edit more than three times, and moved it to the titlo he prefers. This is at least unfair, but also very in contrast with wikipedia guidelines. I formally requests formally request article restoration under the previous title.
I also ask a penalty for the user for his not careing about basilar wiki guidelines, he had never look for the consensus, ignorating my messages. --Theirrulez (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is a subject that's known by more than one spelling. The article should have the title of the spelling most likely to be searched for by English-speaking readers, with redirects from the other spellings. Have you tried talking with him about it? It looks like you're engaging in an edit-war instead of simply discussing the disagreement you're having. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No sir, the name of the family is unique. It can be changed in one nation literature, slavicized, but remained that one. Moreover sir, I can say for sure User:DIREKTOR should have been the one to ask a requested move for the article I wrote. The sources I added are clear.

You can also see he did the same on another article, House of Bobali, like he's actting sistematically. --Theirrulez (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Threatening user and user talk page

The Phantomnaut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a user and a user talk page that seems to threaten others. As the user's contributions don't warrant for AIV, I felt that this is the only place I could bring this up. CHRONOSome 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)