Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Ownership of HSL and HSV

I have concerns with regard to jacobolus owning HSL and HSV. He consistently reverts any changes not made by himself, and refuses to seek outside opinions when there is a dispute. I'd appreciate it if he took a forward step from time to time in seeking third opinions given the number of disputes, instead of it always being me. SharkD  Talk  06:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

... and I have notified User:Jacobolus of this discussion, as required by the reg's (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

SharkD, given that you have completely refused to engage on the article’s talk page with reference to our recent grammatical and stylistic disagreements, despite my repeated pleas, and have reverted my multiple different attempts at compromise versions to your preferred version without anything more than a one-off "I like this better" edit summary, over and over and over again, I find this "incident report" highly disingenuous on your part. Either make your case on the talk page, and look for consensus, or don’t, but expecting to use an administrative process to force your preferences, instead of trying to work with other editors who desperately want to work with you, runs contra to Wikipedia’s concept and principles.

Incidentally, if anyone, administrators or others, wants to come help on HSL and HSV, please feel welcome to hop on over. –jacobolus (t) 15:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with jacobolus. He has shown great patience, trying to improve the article while SharkD just reverts and doesn't discuss much at all. If there's any incident here worth mentioning, it's SharkD's reverting. Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've requested third opinions numerous times[1][2][3], and he's shown little effort of wanting to share with me the duties of dispute resolution and doing the same. Instead, it's always him reverting and me doing the leg work and ending up being on the defensive. SharkD  Talk  03:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the Talk page archives for examples of how long and drawn out discussions with jacobolus can be. SharkD  Talk  04:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as a completely uninvolved editor, I have looked at that. They are long only because you seem to be stubbornly edit-warring while Jacobolus is painstakingly trying to explain himself and to seek compromise. If anything, it is you having OWN issues. --Cyclopia^talk 22:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little fed up as nearly every time I add something to the article it gets immediately reverted:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=349147404
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=349147637
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=349148032
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=349152683
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=349410945
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=349702911
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351436973
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351826700
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351826974
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351829562
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351830930
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351831486
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351831734
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351832326
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351832845
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351833303
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351833501
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=354829665
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=359282290

I think he's misrepresenting the status of the article to emphasize his own edits/involvement. For instance he says, "Preferably it could be discussed first, since the prior version was fairly stable and there are several people actively interested in this article, but in general it’s also good to Be Bold, etc., so that’s okay."[4] But there's been a number of complaints regarding the article being impenetrable[5][6][7][8][9], and there's hardly been any other editors besides jacobolus.[10] This is equivalent to saying "my version has been stable therefore it needs to remain the same". In response to complaints about the newer version being harder to understand than the older version, he replies with "Okay. I wrote that version too, in October 2007."[11] SharkD  Talk  01:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC) There are a number of concerns I have after looking at WP:OWN:

• "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim the right, whether openly or implicitly, to review any changes before they can be added to the article."

His reverts to my modifications between June 25 and July 02 demonstrate this as he was trying to preserve the current state of the text which is (nearly) all his wording, as were the revisions on March 11 and March 24 where he did the same.

"Okay. As I see it, most of the “budges” are irrelevant stylistic changes where either form is widely accepted by the MOS (for instance, attempts to change spaced en dashes to em dashes, or to get rid of serial commas, or to add parentheses around the inline color samples, or to use a different font for math variables in running text, moving an image from the place where it’s most relevant to a place where it’s slightly less relevant, insistence about adding letter labels to the part of figures, or minor grammar rearrangements that result in sentences as or more awkward than the original)." 26 March 2010, 18:43

• "Are you qualified to edit this article?"
• "We don't need this. Thanks anyways."

"In my opinion, it doesn't add any information to the article. The bit on the left is basically a rip off of the Painter color picker, shown later on in the article, and both parts, labeled as they are, perpetuate the common misconception that these models are geometrically conic. Wikipedia should strive to break such misconceptions." 11 March 2010, 02:39

"SharkD, you have some great 3D image making tools and abilities, but you've not applied them ideally, seems to me. For example, Image:HSL sphere color solid.png still has a misspelling and an incorrect indication of saturation as radius in the sphere; if you want to embed HSL in a sphere, you need to work out a mapping that works, and illustrate it correctly. As for the cylinders, I suggest we get rid of them, and instead illustrate the solid shapes that represent the range of HSL and HSV values that come from applying the definitions to the domain of RGB values. Agree? Other opinions?" 13 January 2008, 19:36

• "I/he/she/we created this article."

"Okay. I wrote that version too, in October 2007." 2 April 2010, 18:54

"At some point I'll probably stick a request up at WP:PR, because this article could definitely use some more eyeballs. Doing such a peer review will take a fair bit of effort from anyone who undertakes it though: for best results, they'll have to actually try to work through the math and diagrams and figure out how HSL/HSV work. Ideally, we could get a few reviewers with reasonable math & spatial reasoning skill, but little previous knowledge of color or computer graphics, and a few more with extensive color science background. I'm not sure such reviewers will be especially easy to find, but I can dream."

• "Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/his approval."

I think when he reverts my edits, justifying it by saying "please get consensus first", it's a bit troublesome considering that nearly every word of the article in its current state is his and he changes nearly all additions by other users instantly.

• "I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides wikipedia, you know."
• "I'm going to add a better one when I have the time."

"Would making diagrams slightly less clear for their specific purposes, in the interests of having a single unifying example color throughout the article, actually aid comprehension? There’s really no way to know, without A/B testing two versions of the article on a few dozen or hundred readers, and then quizzing them for comprehension at the end. What would it take to change all the diagrams to fit some common color choice? Several hours of effort. Who would do it? Presumably me, since no one else volunteered. In short, this is a change which I am unlikely to carry through, unless there is some really really compelling argument for it. I haven’t heard that argument. Someone else is welcome to try to do the work: my guess is that it would quickly become clear why the current examples were chosen. jacobolus (t) 05:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC) 31 March 2010, 05:30

"(block-revert SharkD’s image caption edits; I’ll restore some of the ones unrelated to the history/use section in the next edit)" 25 June 2010, 17:55

"My skepticism of such changes is not an attempt to be “difficult”, and if you noticed I’ve been quite happy to “budge” in several cases – indeed, the majority of cases, and even willing to put in a few hours implementing those “budges” in images – where I think the change is either an improvement, a wash, or so trivially worse that putting it back or arguing about it doesn’t make much difference." 26 March 2010, 18:43

He's also refused to adhere to previous resolution steps, and keeps trying to turn the issue back to a previous discussion.[12]

And I have concerns regarding Dicklyon and jacobolus tagteaming on me, as one or the other of them always seems to turn up in any discussion to back the other up (having trouble finding diffs...) SharkD  Talk  02:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Judging from your provided diffs, it seems Jacobolus is not reverting but merely correcting your edits, for example this is perfectly meaningful. The comments you copied seem to be genuine attempts at resolution and compromise; if someone feels to "own" an article, I don't think he/she will ask for "Other opinions?" or for a review. Instead, [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] are proof that you are edit warring on the grounds of "I just don't think it is good", without providing any more explanation, reverting obsessively and then quite comically asking for resolving on the talk page when you have DESPERATELY been asked by Jacolubus to discuss before reverting at least three times. Do you have a good explanation for such behaviour? --Cyclopia^talk 14:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just fed up with him reverting everything without any discussion. SharkD  Talk  01:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting everything without any discussion is exactly what you did in the diffs provided above. And being fed up isn't anyway a good excuse. --Cyclopia^talk 01:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply asking that jacolubus for once seek outside intervention in the form of third opinions as to dispute over content before reflexively and automatically hitting the "undo" button and instead implementing what he wants his changes to be, not least of which "his" opinion of what "compromise" is, and providing meaningless edit summaries like "the other changes ... were IMO unhelpful"[19], "changes ... were IMO unhelpful"[20], "Other changes ... were IMO unhelpful"[21], "the other changes ... were unhelpful"[22]. This is very disruptive. I was the one whose changes were reverted[23], not him (he even said "SharkD, I’m going to revert your image and caption changes. A few points:" regarding the careful corrections I made to grammar and English before anyone had a chance to provide any input of their own[24]). And, I'm the one who went to outside help for third opinions each time (four times, I forgot to list one earlier) there was some disagreement on what the content should be without reflexively reverting first, never him. I don't think it's particularly helpful if you are unable to use the page history and other editor tools properly in order to gauge what is actually occurring the article. It makes you look like you're just chiming in for no other reason than to make yourself heard. Really, if you are altogether unable to exercise better judgment, than why do you bother coming to the noticeboard? SharkD  Talk  02:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your selective quoting of edit summaries is not going to help you: see [25] which begins with "adopt some of the rewording of the first image caption". Which means that there has been at least an attempt to compromise. Now, I am able to use the page history, in fact I used it to unearth the very recent edit war of you above, for which you don't have a better explanation than you being "fed up". I am not saying that there couldn't be issues with Jacobolus too, but your behaviour doesn't look better either. Also, in the talk page you don't seem to be the one looking for clarification of his own edits -the relevant thread was opened by Jacobolus. But maybe if you provide some better context on your attempts to seek third opinions, and Jacobolus response to it, we could be in a better position to understand your claims. --Cyclopia^talk 02:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is boiling down my comments to "I just don't think it is good" any bit less selective? That is essentially what you did amounts to, isn't it? I provided a lot more[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] English words in my edit summaries than jacobolus's meager leavings. I discussed first before reverting jacobolus's reverts.[53][54] I certainly made my standing on the edits clear on the Talk page,[55][56][57] and see absolutely no merit in remarks like "completely refused to engage on the article’s talk page" (jacobolus), "just reverts and doesn't discuss much at all" (Dicklyon) and "reverting everything without any discussion" (you). I would hardly call one or two words here and there "compromise" considering I made over a couple hundred bytes of edits and he reverted the bulk of them, and I can't see how you can defend the quality of jacobolus's edits considering the malformedness of his English grammar and the addition of weasel words[58]. Lastly, I don't think jacobolus super-happy-fun-time fawning over administrators and Dicklyon particularly constructive toward discussion over a dispute compared to the substance of my remarks. SharkD  Talk  03:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

SharkD, I think you’re either misinterpreting or misrepresenting (through lack of context) several of my comments listed above. I don’t have time to go through each one, since they’re spread over several talk archive pages and you didn’t link them as far as I can see (though if you have a specific point you want me to respond to, I can, and we can work through, one point at a time, until you’re satisfied), but as two quick specific examples,

(1) “SharkD, you have some great 3D image making tools and abilities, but you've not applied them ideally, seems to me” was written by Dick Lyon, not me.

(2) My “Okay. I wrote that version too, in October 2007” comment was a response to your (SharkD’s) comment “IMO, the earlier version of the article was easier to understand and should have been kept, and added to, instead of deleted and replaced”, and the full quote was as follows:

“Okay. I wrote that version too, in October 2007 (some of the content of those edits came from the HSV article, but the intro section was pretty much new text). But neither one is probably as clear as it should be. Keep pushing us on it, E, until we have something you think is accessible to the average interested high school student (or whatever)”.

The point was not to imply ownership of the article or unwillingness to compromise, but instead to point out that your preferred version was something that I wrote in a hurry to merge two articles together in 2007, but not really intended to be a complete or comprehensive intro, and before I spent a solid 2–3 weeks tracking down the sources to write an encyclopedic article.

Re: impenetrability, if you look at those discussions you can see at every stage me encouraging other ideas for structure, up to completely sacking the current first 2 or 3 sections of the article, for example: “I’m not at all attached to the current intro wording, or to the exact organization of material in the intro [...] please, suggest away. I’ve also thought the intro is currently too long; ideas for parts to cut or postpone also welcome,” or “Yes, I definitely agree with you. It’s a problem that there’s this long dense intro before the summary in language that a non-technical newcomer will understand. The questions are: [...]”. Anyway, I can’t help it that the people in that discussion stopped suggesting changes, and never really came up with a concrete proposal of better intro text. I’d be completely happy to join such a discussion over the next few days/weeks, if you want to try to start it back up.

For other editors looking in, from my perspective SharkD has made useful contributions to the article, and has some good ideas; this is a miscommunication problem on both sides, but I don’t know best to solve my half of it. The problem from my perspective is that he periodically makes a bunch of changes without adequately explaining the rationale, and then I try to start a discussion about those changes. Each time, as soon as the discussion gets down to carefully discussing the possible approaches and reasons for or against each, he abandons it and leaves for a while, and when he comes back, changes something completely different and we start discussing that. I can see how this looks from his perspective like me taking excessive ownership, because after not sticking around to argue his point on any specific thing, that aspect doesn’t end up looking the way he wants it to (though I have tried to find consensus versions and incorporate his changes and ideas where I don’t think they’re counterproductive). But this really isn’t through any intent on my part to avoid compromise. It’s just that compromise takes actually doing the work to hash through the differences, instead of a sort of hit-and-run style of editing.

Finally, let’s everyone remember that Wikipedia has no deadline. We can take the time to discuss each little bit, and eventually get to something great. We can put several alternative introductions on a user page somewhere and ask for feedback. &. &. –jacobolus (t) 05:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, in response to “tag teaming” with Dick Lyon, I think it’s just that not too many people are following the article closely enough to revert/discuss, and so when there are reversions or discussions it tends to involve one of us. In the interest of full disclosure though: I thought Dick Lyon’s lectures at google about photographic technology were swell, exchanged some emails with him about that, and ate lunch with him one day last summer. He’s a scientist and engineer with a bevy of important patents under his belt (he invented the optical mouse for instance, and knows a ton about optics, human vision, sound, and various other cool things), and I’m a just-out-of-college kid glad to learn from such people. :-) There’s no organized conspiracy between us to enforce some kind of shared vision of this article though, if anyone was worried about that. –jacobolus (t) 05:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you stopped making wholesale reverts, and instead discussed your objections before edit warring. Everyone involved, why not ask the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for help, or seek a third opinion? Fences&Windows 23:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention the ludicrosity lying behind jacobolus's insistence on crediting himself within the article for the images he made. Hoping for someone to see your name and print your work in a journal? Hey, maybe I can get my Talk page discussions published in Science! And maybe that explains his reluctance to seeing any of my images in the article. SharkD  Talk  03:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I came to the article as an uninvolved editor, but it was completely impenetrable even in a stable format, which it wasn't -- adding in what seemed to me to be daily edit warring over all kinds of provisions was too much for me to deal with as someone with no technical knowledge of the subject. I make no judgment about the individual behavior of the editors at that article as I haven't evaluated it, but the only way I would consider getting back involved actively (as an aside, I am a member of WP:GOCE) is if it were in mediation or if there were some other way to slow everybody down. Maybe a 1RR restriction. — e. ripley\^talk 12:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I wrote a comment here that was reasonable enough, but realized that bringing more discussion here is likely to only be inflammatory. SharkD, I don’t know what to tell you. I really am doing my best to be collaborative, civil, and careful. I’m sorry that you interpret my goal of realizing standards of textual accuracy and image relevance/quality as part of some kind of personal vendetta. I assure you I have nothing against you, and would be overjoyed if you’d engage in committed discussion. I agree with you that in many places my grammar could be improved, that especially the first few sections of the article could use clarification, and that there may be ways of improving article layout (w/r/t images &c.). Several of your changes I thought made things worse though, and tried to explain why. If you'd like to take captions one by one, or layout/flow questions one by one, or image improvements one image at a time, and actually completely work through to consensus on one thing before switching to the next, I’d be overjoyed, and I think we’d have a productive end point. Instead, the discussion gets scattered and everyone gets discouraged. –jacobolus (t) 14:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:LevenBoy

Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. For the purpose of adding users to the list and enforcing restrictions under this provision, an administrator should be uninvolved. 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 (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log.

LevenBoy (talk · contribs) This user constantly stalks my edits and reverts them, without discussion, and often with ad hominen edit summaries. Has been warned several times in the past. Yesterday, was edit warring over numerous articles with another editor. This morning has reverted 27 of my edits, with an edit summary of Revert systematic removal of British Isles. I can provide diffs, but the contributions list is easier to access. Disclosure, I've previously provided evidence to an SPI report against this editor, which is still inconclusive/open. --HighKing (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversial edits will get controversial responses. Off2riorob (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I can provide a diff too, this is a good edit. The British Isles is correct in the context it is used in. Such buildings can be found across the United Kingdom, and the island of Ireland, and may well exist on the Isle of Man and in the Channel Islands. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and it's not supported by the reference. --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Far from stalking HighKing he is, arguably, stalking me. I raised an SPI against him, and in response he raised one against me (where I was cleared but he still won't give up on it). Most of his edits involve the removal of British Isles as an incidental part of other editing, amd the edit summaries make no mention of this. It is clear POV pushing, with an agenda of removing the words "British Isles" from Wikipedia. This has been going on for two years now and recently HighKing claimed this fact as a success on his part. I have reverted all his recent edits which are agenda-driven POV. LevenBoy (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, no I didn't raise an SPI against you. And you have not been "cleared". But perhaps that is the reason you've (re)started your mass reversions. And if I'm the one doing the stalking, how come you hadn't edited any of those articles before reverting me, hmmm? --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Levenboy has also stalked my edits and has been removed reference material in order to insert BI, an example of this is at the article List of mythological places. Maybe he's just another sock of the BI POV pushers that seem to everywhere these days.Bjmullan (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you also involved in the project wide removal of the expression , British Isles? I notice you were also edit warring to remove the phrase yesterday. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Systematic removal sounds spot on to me, there is a campaign page somewhere where this is all organised and rubber stamped, but the level of participation and intellectual rgiour that that page provides is seriously deficient. I know of three specific incidents where articles were 'fixed' to adhere to HighKing's rather obscure POV of the term's acceptable usage on WP (namely that BI is wholly disputed by anyone and everyone, and cannot and should not be used in any manner except as a geographic term and then specifically only when also mentioned in a source), but the edits produced content that was just utter garbage, because the only reason he had arrived at those articles was for the conducting of this campaign, and not out of any interest in producing accurate content. MickMacNee (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to join in discussions at the "campaign" page. Better than the disruptive edit warring by LevenBoy. --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And give it some legitimacy so you can make the ludicrous claim it is the expression of site wide consensus? Hell no. If you get your Founding Principles into something resembling reality, and on specific example cases actually start to listen to people who disagree with you, I might reconsider, but as it is framed now, and how it operates now, particularly and inseperably related to how you choose to contribute to it, and some of the nonsense garbage edits it does produce, that page is just a rubber stamping exercise for an illegitimate campaign of POV editing on a massive scale. MickMacNee (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What you describe is highly disruptive behavior that seriously degrades the quality of our articles. Can you provide diffs of this? If HighKing has indeed done this, he should be warned and/or blocked. LK (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll continue to raise ANI requests against disruptive behaviour until this disruptive behaviour is dealt with properly. We have a discussion page at WP:BISE where everybody is welcome to discuss usage and help develop guidelines. If one rogue editor decides to mass revert over content issues, without discussion, then it puts a mirror up to those who ignore it. We've already uncovered a mass of socks used by the previous disruptive editor, who had been reported here many times and nothing was ever done. How long before this disruption is dealt with I wonder? --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Watch out for the boomerang. Why am I being reverted constantly is always a good question to ask yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Enough of this - proposal

That (1) User:HighKing User:Bjmullan and User:LevenBoy be topic-banned from adding or removing any reference to "British Isles" on a Wikipedia-wide basis. That (2) any other editor who systematically adds or removes the term from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, be added to this list. This wasting of multiple editors time across many years really has to finally stop. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest a modification to that. Systematic removal or addition without engaging the community is disruptive, but if you are going to make a rule such as that above other editors might have to be added in. We have got a process where proposals to change the term in articles are discussed and where progress has been made when we don't have a spate of sock puppets. In practice the term has been deployed incorrectly and illegitimately and there is no consistency. Basically I think we need something a lot simpler which requires no changes to be made without them first being proposed and agreed on the special projects page. We also need a couple of admins prepared to review that say weekly and get rid of log jams. If we institute the process above all will happen is new socks will emerge on both sides (and there have been plenty) and we will have even more disruption. --Snowded ^TALK 15:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree (not sure - are we allowed to !vote on here any more). This has led to some truly lame edit wars of the "you can't say that weather in the British Isles during the Iron Age featured severe droughts, because the term wasn't invented until 1791, and the source only mentions England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the Isle of Man, not British Isles" kind. We should be using the widely understood generic term unless there is sourcing and justification to use a more precise terminology for geopolitical or other reasons - in which case, a mechanism to review the sources would seem to be required, due to the problems described by Snowded. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Level of involvement. I believe I once edited an article in which this came up - it concerned an 18th century traveller and whether he could be said to have travelled "through the British Isles" or something similar (you'll see it made a great impression), in the course of which I became aware that there was some kind of issue with the term 'British Isles'. In the case of the traveller, as he had travelled only on the mainland island and had never put to sea, the argument against the term seemed reasonable in context, and I never engaged in any further debate*. Since there is an argument that nationalist POVs are involved, I can confirm that I'm entitled to both British and Irish citizenship.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)*ETA - but like everyone, I've seen all the reports at ANI, the arguments at Black Kite's talkpage etc.

• Strong support. Article protection is not very effective for this brand of disruption (though, of course, there are some cases where these British Isles discussions are civil and productive), as there are a vast number of articles that mention that general geographic area. I also support Snowded's concerns that this ban should be extended to other relevant editors (Mister Flash (talk · contribs) is the first who comes to mind, though he has been blocked, I see now) and that careful monitoring for sockpuppetry should be the norm. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Disclosure of my involvement in this series of issues: I closed a report at the edit warring noticeboard some months ago, and have since issued a few blocks and page protections and otherwise acted as an occasional uninvolved administrator. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• support - Black kites enough is enough solution. Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I have been asked to declare any involvement. My involvment in the issue is related to my attempting to stop the disruption and edit warring, as it has occured through this issue at multiple articles as mystified users reinserted the expression and were directed to some obscure discussion page with which a consensus claim was asserted if anyone objected. I have no personal involvement one way or the other about the actual British Isles inclusion or exclusion. I have recently suggested to stop the endless warring and disruption that we allow User:HighKing to remove all instances of the British Isles in the hope that the disruption and warring would stop. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - A perennial problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Level of involvement: While it's certainly possible that I've edited to include "British Isles" at some point in my Wiki-career, as far as I know I've never been involved with any dispute or controversy in this area except as a casual observer. I'd say that I am totally uninvolved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just topic ban HighKing. He is the instigator of all this drama, without him there would be no mass reverting. The special projects page is not, and never will be, evidence of community consensus, not if it carries on the way it has been, and it only existed in the first place as far as I can see, to stop HighKing making mass reverts. Anybody wanting to dispute the term in specific instances can do the normal thing and use that specific article's actual talk page, which will probably avoid the many screw ups I've seen over this issue by actually involving people who can see the issue beyond the narrow point of this campaign, and can give expert topic based advice in situations where it has been sorely lacking, and people have been just winging it in a pseudo discussion each time, just to appease HK. People are free to carry on developing a BI usage guideline to help this, but it's current draft content hasn't got a hope in hell as far as I can see, based as it is on some fantasy viewpoints. Frankly, with HK topic banned and no longer allowed to dispute its usage across any and every article, it's hard to see if a guideline would even be needed. MickMacNee (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I wouldn't say no to Snowded's suggestion that we institute a site wide ban on undiscussed changes, either. TFOWR 15:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Level of involvement: none, as far as I know. My view is that (a) editors adding British Isles and edit warring to keep BI should be sanctioned, and that (b) editors removing BI and edit warring to keep out BI should be sanctioned. TFOWR 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Highking and others if it is needed. Highking is the one on an endless quest to remove British Isles from articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC) (I Have been involved in the dispute, questioning Highking and some others for their removal of British isles, have not been involved in edit warring or inserting British Isles on articles) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Black Kite's proposal; and agree on his "enough is enough" remark. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Asked to clarify my level of involvement in this matter, I gladly oblige: I'm entirely uninvolved. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Black Kite's proposal (as an uninvolved admin: I have never done a BI edit although FWIW asome years ago I have to make a version selection for the Schools Wikipedia between edit warring versions and chose the one without "BI" in it. ) --BozMo talk 16:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The 'Support' by one of the sources of this long-term disruption is very telling. How will this topic-ban address the wider problem of sock puppetry, as highlighted by Snowded? Seems like a hammer to crack some nuts, while ignoring the fact that the term is being introduced and deleted by other 'nuts', some familiar with this long term dispute and others probably not. A MOS of some kind is required per WP:DERRY, or else the appropriateness or otherwise of the term will continue to be a source of edit warring. Topic banning a few editors will not address that fundamental problem. RashersTierney (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Level of involvement. I have had a few interactions with other eds. on this issue in the past. I have deliberately sought to avoid getting any more involved because of the high level of socking and general assumptions of bad faith wrt POV pushing. My contribs. at this page today were prompted by a recent edit of a hitherto uninvolved contributor who applied the term at Angloromani and purported to back it up by references that 'failed verification'. I have been on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Romani people for a considerable and take a particular interest in ensuring correct referencing on Romani related topics. The 'offending' edits [59] were not by the leading protagonists, but 2 subsequently became involved. That is why I believe a MOS to be the only long term solution, while this proposed topic ban only skirts the main issue. RashersTierney (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as stated, it will just take a position which is coming under some control, with some general guidelines for use emerging and instead create a license for socks and for multiple edits across many articles. It is also the case that there is a strong POV position which wants BI maintained even when its not appropriate and its interesting to see several editors in that camp rushing to support this proposal because as stated it would allow them to achieve their position by default. Wikipedia needs to run on facts and evidence. That means if BI is being used incorrectly it should be changed, if correctly it should be kept or put in place. I do think that HighKing should stop running to ANI all the time and I'd support a ban on him doing that (for his own sake), other editors can be asked to take things up if they are serious. Equally he did a lot of work to identify one sock farm. Gut feel responses like this proposal can appear attractive but just create further problems downstream. It will not stop the problem, just make it worse. Black Kite - when you engaged on the discussion some months ago we got a lot of questions resolved. You might want to look back over some of those discussions and see which editors co-operated and who assumed extreme positions. --Snowded ^TALK 16:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Most of the other editors who assumed extreme positions are now blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry or other reasons. But from the examples given above, the problem is clearly not "coming under control", because here it is at ANI yet again. So what else do you suggest? We've tried a lot of other ideas, as far as I can see the only two methods of stopping this never-ending time sink is either a topic ban or blocks. Which is better? Black Kite (t) (c) 16:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
    • What I have already suggested - a total ban on changing BI without prior agreement on the project page, and admin mediation of that page. When you were involved in doing that we had a period of stability, when you left and no one took your place it said that the community did not really care. What I do feel frustrated about is that a very small number of us have been patiently working on this stuff article by article trying to get a balanced and fact based position and we have been asking for help from the community. Now we may get "help" but in its current form its "help" that could well make the problem worst. Its noticeable that those editors with involvement in those pages who are not pro-BI activists are all either opposed or expressing reluctant support. I think that comes from bitter experience. The Midnightblue socks were preventing any progress on individual articles and on guidelines; we have only just cleared them out . One of the reasons it will get worst is that a lot of editors supporting this proposal simply want to have the problem go away. As James points out the BI words are highly symbolic for historical reasons to a group of editors, those problems don't go away with draconian action they simply pop out in new forms in new places.--Snowded ^TALK 22:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The current project page is a complete mess. Highking finds dozens and dozens examples of British Isles. Demands their removal, then forces us to have endless conversations on sources and its uses and in many cases there is no agreement. If the project page was restricted to ONLY inaccurate content, rather than places where it "could" say something else as happens now, may be it would be worth continuing. I have shown an example above, about the Footballer of the year. It was clearly not inaccurate to use the term British Isles there. Highking wants BI gone if any other term can be used instead, i am pretty sure you have said if there is a valid alternative it should be used. (sorry if im wrong, seem to recall it from a debate on the BI article or somewhere). Only use of BI that without any doubt are wrong should be put forward for alteration to a panel or on the project page. This "oh that would be a nicer term to use there", "oh lets use that instead of this" has to stop. Because it will get us nowhere. A ban on all removals / additions for certain editors, a panel / project page for submission of genuine incorrect uses would do more than carrying on as we are. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about a conversation on the Republic of Ireland use rather than on BI use sorry. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Its a complete mess due to the socks BW. If you check the evidence you will see that HighKing, while he argues his case will accept a compromise. If I look at resolved cases (where I have a roughly 50-50 record of agreeing with removal) they are not drawn out arguments they have been resolved. My view is that BI is a valid geographical term but not a valid political one and most things get sorted out if you take that approach. I'm afraid the blanket statements you make above, while I am sure they are heartfelt, don't match up to the facts if someone goes to the bother of going through the discussions in detail. --Snowded ^TALK 05:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not just the socks, but its the number of cases that are introduced in a short period of time there by highking. There should be some form of monthly cap on the number of cases that can be considered at a time if such a project is continued so it does not take up too much of peoples time on this single issue.

You say it is a valid geographical term but not a political one. Yet you supported the case i mentioned above about the Footballer of the year award where highking wanted BI changed to Home nations. There was nothing political about that case. British Isles was used as a geographical location just like Europe would have been if it was possible to say the person was the first from outside of Europe to win it. These are the sorts of unnecessary changes by highking i oppose. He should not be going to every single article that links to BI and thinking "i wonder what term could be used there instead". If he wants to search through every BI linked article then he should only request removal of clearly inaccurate uses. For example "The British Isles declared war on Germany". That is clearly incorrect usage. "The man was the first to win something from outside of the British Isles" is not incorrect. There may be alternative terms that some think are better, but there is a big difference between removing an inaccurate use of British Isles and replacing the term with something else because of Highkings clear anti-BI campaign. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The normal phrase in use for sports at that time was Home Nations, check the references.--Snowded ^TALK 13:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Snowded, feel free to put a proposed guideline forward for approval that defines what is and is not 'correct' usage of the term on Wikipedia, using facts and evidence, if they exist and are credible. Put it forward, allow it's assertions to be examined by the whole community, and then we will see whether the default position is or is not a problem, and what the nature of any current stability in the dispute is, whether it is avoidance of HK and his deeply flawed campaign page process accompanied by some deft sock-killing, or something far more sustainable from a DR perspective. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
    • If you check back on the project page Mick you will see I have been trying to to that. I gave up while some of the sock problems were sorted as they simply refused to accept anything. I also argued that the project page was necessary to create a case based approach to those guidelines as attempts to create them in abstract have generally failed. --Snowded ^TALK 22:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Comment: The purpose of the 'guidelines' is to limit usage, not to ensure correct usage. They are a device to enable POV pushing to continue and if brought to fruition would result in mass deletion of the term; and that would cause renewed conflict.

Comment I do not see how an agreement like the compromise on Derry is possible in this case. In that case one side got what they wanted for the city, the other got what they wanted for the county. When to include British Isles and when not to is far more complex and harder to define. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is difficult but not intractable. The SE page is a good starting point for teasing out where usage may be applicable or not if eds. are prepared to engage there. RashersTierney (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sadly support I've been involved in "British Isles"-related issues for several years. I am more willing to assume good faith on the part of HighKing than on the part of LevenBoy in this instance. A large(r) portion of HighKing's edits have stuck me as being motivated by a desire to improve the encyclopedia whereas LevenBoy's (and others listed in this thread) edits struck me as being motivated by a desire to defend use of "British Isles" where ever HighKing removed it. However, regardless of the rights or wrongs of their edits, the activity that both HighKing and LevenBoy engaged in was unwise. Regardless of whether HighKing or LevenBoy believe that what they were doing was in the benefit on the encyclopedia, it caused disruption across a large number of article. I'll add that I firmly believe that a MOS entry needs to exist for use of the term British Isles to head off conflict like this. --RA (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support as we've got to save HighKing & LevenBoy from themselves. Both (for better or worse) have an obsession with the term British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It's the edit warring that stinks, along with the lack of trust created by confessed & unconfessed socks. I've tried (in the past) to discourage the edit warring, but exhausted my efforts. My involvement has decreased in the last few weeks. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Reluctantly. I do feel reluctant, partly because it won't work well (see below) but also reluctantly have realised after reading all the material here and elsewhere that this is a sensible step after trying other things. I came to this a little while ago as a relatively new user and was somewhat confused to start with. I saw a battle under way in the obscure (to most I suspect) waters of the Canterbury–York dispute, where an 11th Century Archbishop used the term "British Isles" in a letter to his King - HighKing apparently found this unnacceptable (perhaps Archbishop Lanfranc would have disagreed!) sparking a silly and lengthy debate. Eventually I was forced to go back to texts and add in the relevant reference. End of dispute. I realised at this time that HK was involved in a sort of "campaign" (for want of a better word - he doesn't like the term to be fair) to delete "British Isles" everywhere he sees it. The vast dialogue on the subject then opened up to me. After a period of over-reaction on my part, I have tried to get down to detail with HK and see if he will accept a structured approach. He claims he will. A good percentage of the deletes he does make sense. Others visibly don't. The ones that don't, he (and some others) fiercely defend. He seems to me to be part of a group that wish to delete the term Wikipedia-wide. This doesn't seem to be openly acknowledged. There seems to be gaming and manouverism on both "sides". The 'campaign' seems to trade on the confusion and inability of local article editors to become easily involved in a wide and apparently complex dispute, even though their local expertise would score. It seems to me that:

(1) The term is highly charged for a significant number of Irish and other people in Ireland and the UK. I suspect US'ers and others probably would find it hard to get into how charged it is. For many other people in these islands, it is much less charged - English editors in particular are often to my mind quite relaxed about such matters. These things matter more to those who feel offended by the term than they do to everyone else. However, a small faction of "anti-delete" editors are equally determined - this issue is particularly strongly felt in Northern Ireland.

(2) It is a symbolic term and deleting it is a symbolic act. If routine deleting of British Isles is banned, I suspect the "campaign" will simply move on to British, Britain or something similar.

(3) HighKing is not working alone and I don't mean in the sense of sockpuppeting, although he does freely admit he's done a bit of that in the past too. I imagine others will step in if he is forced to desist. I don't think it's likely that stopping one small batch of editors will stop the campaigning.

(4) Those who wish to delete the term appear tireless - I am very sceptical that any ban will really work or last. The "delete the BI from Wikipedia" campaign are far, far more determined and vigorous than the "keep it" campaign. In fact, I doubt there really is much of the latter apart from a few sockpuppets and extremists. It also looks to me like a number highly skilled, long-running and (to me) powerful-seeming editors support the campaign, either openly or via gaming/manouverism. I don't hate them for this - it's a powerfully held POV and (particularly in Ireland) loathed by some people. Discussing it "objectively" and in a "spirit of NPOV" is therefore very difficult and possibly rather unrealistic.

(5) Many of subjects of the local articles where the change is made are of no interest whatever to the campaigners and they have (as in Canterbury-York) precious little local expertise. This works in favour of the bulk-article-delete approach.

So I am reluctant, because for the above reasons, I doubt this will really "work" in the long run, but it may help calm things down and create a slightly more constructive approach. I have joined in to try to make it more constructive but it is a frustrating process when the blizzard of deletes continues in parallel. This seems to be one of those intractable disputes involving bitterly opposed factions that Wikipedian approaches do not seem so far to work very well at resolving. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support I had not heard of this British Isles controversy until yesterday, but it seems obvious that it is highly disruptive to go through the encyclopedia articles to do a mass removal of a commonly used term. Doing a mass insertion is also highly disruptive. Anyone doing so should be sanctioned and restricted. LK (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comments by the subject of the sanction proposal are in the section below, and the section below that contains enforcement details that apply to this proposal. Can each user please state their level of involvement (if any) next to their comment like others have done above? This will help clarify the community consensus from one that is local among involved users (and save me or anyone else having to chase up new commentators for this info). It might seem obvious, but it is often not so obvious to an outsider who will close the discussion. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Response by subject of the sanction proposal - Bjmullan (since removed), HighKing & Levenboy

This is great. An ANI is brought against one user and it looks like someone wants to punish me. Have a broken any rules? Am I a SPA? Am I a sock? NO NO NO If you want to do anything against ME then please use the correct procedures to do so and do not lump me in with this disruptive BI POV pusher. Bjmullan (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're not pushing a POV, surely this won't affect you? For what it's worth, I'd be happy to be added to the list... but then I wouldn't be affected by the proposal... TFOWR 15:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I too would submit to a ban on adding / removing British Isles from articles. I have better things to do than go around adding BI to articles, but what i can not stand is the attempts by some editors to remove British Isles from articles across wikipedia in attempt to pretend the term does not exist and where its use is not inaccurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your recent contributions say otherwise. I have only included editors who have repeatedly edit-warred over BI. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Balck Kite's proposal. Despite being the subject of this thread I am more than happy to abide by a topic ban on British Isles deletions and additions. MickMacNee is spot on when he says that HK is the instigator of all this drama; he absolutely is, 100%. In many cases inacuracies are introduced as a result of the desire to remove the term. HighKing been pushing this POV for two years. His agenda is to severely limit use of British Isles throughout Wikipedia and he's even tried to develop usage standards which would do just that. This issue causes aggravation and mayhem across the encyclopedia and editors with a genuine knowledge of articles that are affected by it are totally bemused. The whole issue brings this project into disrepute, and the whole issue is caused by HighKing - recently joined by User:Bjmullan. I move, a topic ban for all concerned. LevenBoy (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose This will do nothing but make the problem worst. What is needed is strong guideline in a MOS just as RashersTierney has indicated above when dealing with the Derry/Londonderry issue. Bjmullan (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, and it's also worth pointing out that, so far as I know, there are no editors trying to insert British Isles. All so-called insertions are merely attempts to recover the position before HighKing, and now others, targetted an article. Don't get me wrong, I accept that in some small number of cases use of British Isles is wrong, but they are few in number and one would hope they would be cleared up by editors with a genuine interest in the article subject. In the vast majority of cases the use of British Isles is subjective. Just to provide an example of the British Isles-related POV that's going on here; in the United Kingdom children are taught in primary school that the River Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles - you try and find that fact in Wikipedia article space. It is a fact, but not one that Wikipedia reports. HighKing's efforts are a similar POV. LevenBoy (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Obviously. Funny, but way back, I asked Black Kite to intervene previously and was ignored (and he "retired" - no stomach). Since then, Black Kite has demonstrated that he is not capable of being fair and honest in these issues - last time I filed an ANI and was blocked by BlackKite for edit warring - I had performed a total of 5 reverts over 3 days on 3 different articles - compare that to LevenBoy's behaviour. Back then, I was told I should bring it to ANI instead of edit warring. So I just did. Now, when I file an ANI Black Kite can't blocl me so instead he threatens with a topic ban - ridiculous! Bigger picture though - I brought LevenBoy's mass reversion to attention, and everyone is comfortable to ignore it and divert it to a discussion of a topic ban.

Black Kite's proposals are based on what exactly? Disruption? By who??? Breach of policies? By who??? If I've breached policies or edit warred, I would have been blocked in an instant - see above for history of being blocked even when I haven't breached policy. So why is this? Why is it that LevenBoy's behaviour is being tacitly approved?

Finally, I'd also like to point out that the previous ANI reports I've filed were to do with, what has turned out, to be an extensive sock farm. Ask yourselves why this sock was able to act in such an obviously disruptive manner, and get away with it. Perhaps if, as a group of admins, you'd looked at this topic a little more objectively, and honestly, and blocked the disruptive editor (as in this case), the disruption would have been avoided. To date (and an SPI has been filed against LevenBoy to join this illustrious group) the sock farm shows some disturbing far sightedness and cooperation where a lot of sleeper socks were used:

• User:MidnightBlueMan - Account created 30/09/2008
• User:AlcatrazBirdman - Account created 10/07/2008
• User:Blue Bugle - Account created 25/07/2008
• User:Mister Flash - Account created 25/07/2008
• User:Dangerous Temujin - Account created 04/11/2008
• User:Dragley - Account created 10/05/2008
• User:FootballPhil - Account created 25/06/2008
• SpongerJack - Account created 09/07/2010
• CarbonNumbers - Account created 11/07/2010

Sure, some editors don't agree with examination of the term British Isles - it's easy to mock and belittle. I note the example above about "weather in the Iron Age" - but has anyone bothered to look at the examples at WT:BISE? We look for references, and we're (barring the socks) civil. Some examples might seem silly - many others are complex, some are straight-forward. But to request a topic ban is downright wrong and a disgraceful example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and a total disregard for the efforts of all the contributors at WT:BISE. --HighKing (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is you do not just bring matters where there is a clear error (Which i accept there is in some cases). You bring up cases where British Isles is not inaccurate in the context in question, you then get into an endless fight about what individual sources say or dont say until the other side backs down. I think a process to report clear incorrect uses of British Isles would be a good idea, but we can not go on with having to deal with pages and pages of BI usage you hunt for and seek to remove. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And how, exactly, are we to differentiate between "clear incorrect uses" and other uses? Which, BTW, is exactly what the WT:BISE page is trying to do. --HighKing (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Because you bring things you would like to see changed but that are not inaccurate. So one of ur examples, you said...

FWA Footballer of the Year

"Another sporting article. It states that a footballer was First winner of the award from outside the British Isles. I suggest that in keeping with other sporting articles, it would be better to use Home Nations.

Use of British Isles was not inaccurate in that case. If someone was the first winner of the award outside of Europe, there would be no problem with europe being used. British Isles must not be treated differently, it is a geographical location. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Great, so why not link to the WT:BISE discussion here, where a very clear consensus emerged that Home Nations should be used for football. So you're bringing this up here as an example of what exactly? I didn't edit war, the article was noted at a central place, the edit was discussed, a consensus was agreed, and a change was made. Fine - in your opinion, you don't agree, and you believe there's nothing wrong with British Isles for this edit. That's what WT:BISE is for. The idea that you are currently trying to go over all my edits and cherry pick an example where you believe you'll show what a horribly against-consensus POV editor I am has just backfired. Poor form on your part. Shall I comb through your edit history, hmmm??? --HighKing (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is an example of British Isles being removed from an article where its use was not incorrect, i never said you edit warred or removed it without discussion. It was an example of where British Isles remaining in the article would not have been a problem. These are the sorts of cases you should not be allowed to bring to a project in your campaign to rid wikipedia of the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• "some editors don't agree with examination of the term British Isles". Sure. I am confident that, even discounting socks, if you took a straw poll of all the special example page contributors with more than ten edits to the page, I'm pretty sure it would conclude the majority view is that the page is just a thinly disguised exercise in legitimising a POV push. That is frankly, not IDONTLIKEIT, but good sense of what is and isn't reality. MickMacNee (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, whatever; I had a brief break because I couldn't be bothered to waste my time negotiating between you and others, and another group of editors, neither of whom could see that they were being disruptive - because the definition of disruption is wasting large amounts of other editor's time on trivial edit-wars. Call that "no stomach" if you want - I prefer to call it "running out of patience completely with people who aren't here to improve the encyclopedia but only to push their own random POVs". Your raison d'etre is to remove all references to BI that you think you can get away with; sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong, but you can't distinguish between the two. And you're still doing it, as are both the other editors I mentioned. Of your list of "other" editors, most are blocked because they were socks, so I'm not entirely sure what your point is. But I'm fairly sure (and it looks like most people agree) that I'm not the only person who's fed up with you removing references to BI on the flimsiest of excuses and then running off to ANI when someone disagrees with you. And that applies equally to editors on the "other side". This rather pointless WP:BATTLE over a fairly trivial matter of terminology is an utter waste of time for all the editors involved, and more pertinently wastes many other editor's time as well. It needs to stop now. We've tried everything else - what else do you suggest? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's see. I volunteer to participate at WT:BISE. I discuss changes, I provide references, I remain civil. All in the face of an extensive sock farm which has only recently been uncovered (thanks, me), and masses amounts of abuse. By the sounds of it, you appear to agree with the sock farm. You're happy to ignore the discussions and the work to develop MOS guidelines. If you believe that this battle, over a trivial matter of terminology, is a waste of time, fine. But then how is it that everytime I report disruption you stick the boot in and do absolutely nothing to help to limit the disruption? At the end of your disgracefully unfounded character assassination above, you ask what else do I suggest. Glad you asked. How about an admin who can recognize an editor who is respecting policies and collaborative processes, using the available structures and policies when asking for support to limit disruption, and then take action against the editor who is breaching policies, mass reverting, not providing references, not discussing reversions, and refusing to collaborate. Compare that to the admin who takes a position based on their own personal views of the topic (therefore ignoring behaviour), and regardless of policies and references, ends up attempting to block and topic ban an editor in good standing who has bent over backwards to volunteer to register changes, only edits articles by providing references (as requested), works hard on developing MOS guidelines, and discusses and explains any edits that are questioned. --HighKing (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, and - [60] [61] - I don't remember you complaining about these blocks...? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That just proves my point. The first block is when you punished me for "daring" to file an ANI report, blocked for edit warring for 5 reverts over 3 articles over 3 days - a block which to this day you've not apologized for or even hinted that you were totally and utterly in the wrong. In fact, it highlights your severe lack of objectivity in this matter, and your total bias. The 2nd block has nothing to do with me, somebody else reported as a sock and was blocked. --HighKing (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Again Black Kite you have accused me of doing wrong and pushing a random POV. If you have some evident of wrong doing by me can you please take it through the correct channels otherwise I suggest that you go away and read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Bjmullan (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• As I said - your contribution history speaks for itself. If HK and Leven are topic-banned, what guarantee could we have that you would not continue your editing pattern? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that my contribution history does speak for itself. What are you trying to imply with your comment? Did you not read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Please do not try and tar me with the same brush as Levenboy. If you have specific allegation about me take them to the proper place or find yourself the subject of a complaint. Bjmullan (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask it again - even taking into account WP:AGF, given the large amounts of reverts of BI-related material in your past contribs, what guarantee do we have that you would not continue to push this POV? I admit that you are not the main problematic editor here, but it would be pointless to engage a topic-ban only for someone else to carry it on. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite I am not the problem and never have been. The problem has always come from the pro BI POV pushers/socks which have not been addressed here effectively. I edit in many areas within WP (including the articles involving the contentious Derry/Londonderry term and I abide by the rules and consensus and would never remove a reference to anything (including BI) if it is backed up by RS. Bjmullan (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I think the "pro-BI" sockfarm has been effectively dealt with, as you'll see if you look at how many of HK's list are indefinitely blocked. If you can guarantee that you will not unilaterally remove BI from articles without a very solid rationale for it then I think we can remove you from the list of editors above. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree and I'm sure that you will keep tabs on me ;-) Bjmullan (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, done. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

BlackKite, I for one don't believe the sock farm has been completely dealt with yet. --HighKing (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - a few more bodies watching the BI Specific Examples page to provide a better consensus would be a more appropriate response. That would be about engagement and discussion, not disengagement and banning. Fmph (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Black Kite's proposal seems reasonable enough to prevent more disruption between the users. Enough is enough. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Totally Oppose - the relentless attack on Irish editors by British Nationalists and their allies continues. This place is getting more like Stalin's Russia with every passing month. Time to call a halt. Are Arbcom aware of the ongoing purge of Irish editors? If so - what are they doing about it? Sarah777 (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  ...but this will apply to editors adding and edit warring to retain "British Isles" as well. TFOWR 09:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  OK - I'll accept a compromise; this will apply only to editors adding and edit warring to retain "British Isles" as well. After all, numerically speaking, that is where the problem lies. High King is like King Canute trying to hold back the tide of British Nationalism with his little fork. Sarah777 (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment I am against a topic ban for anyone and I believe that the good work that is happening at the MOS may in fact be the solution to this problem. I believe that if we have a set of agreed guidelines then HK would gladly stick to them (as will I). Bjmullan (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Related comment: would it help if we removed all names from the current proposal? i.e. the proposal becomes Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, be added to a list of topic-banned editors. I see one current stumbling block as being the perception that this proposal unduly affects "one side" (I don't necessarily agree with that perception, as I feel it should - and does - apply equally to "both sides", but I can see how the current proposal could be seen in that way). TFOWR 12:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This sounds right. Despite all the talk, it isn't really about a specific individual or individuals. It's about general policies regarding discussing and consensus-building on the issue rather than going at articles en-masse with attack attitudes. It is also true that there has been more of a move towards consensus building from the individuals concerned in this ANI since sock-puppeting has been reduced and the current MOS discussion, at least for now, bode well. It would also be useful if admins (or whoever it is who does these things - sorry if I get terms wrong, still fairly new here) could help on occassion if tempers flare and insults fly, as does sometimes happen in such a fraught issue. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. --HighKing (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct (because there is one editor from each "side" on the list, and I've even warned another "BI-includer" today), but if that's what it takes to get this passed, will someone please close it as that, because if we don't do anything we'll just be back here again very very soon. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The present proposal should stand which has got the support of most who have replied. If others continue to engage in the battle then they should simply be swiftly added to the list as the proposal clearly states. No reason for making an alteration to the proposal after there has been support for it. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement of above proposal

If the above proposal is supported, how exactly will it be enforced and managed. It mentions the individuals will not be allowed to Add / Remove the term. Will they be able to go somewhere if they spot BI being added / removed to report an alteration by an IP or other editor and request it be undone? And what is considered a recent enough change by someone else they could kick up a fuss about it and demand be changed? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would interpret this as a "keep out" proposal. Ignore the topic, in toto. If there is obvious vandalism, someone else will pick it up eventually. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the sort of thing that would be tracked under a 'general probation/sanction' notice board and that violations would get the typical 24 hr escalating block regime. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Such as the Wikipedia:General sanctions community imposed sanction sort of thing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sort of, yes. It is pretty much an Obama probation, except the terms are much narrower. I'd suggest that the following terms be added to Black Kite's proposal "For the purpose of adding users to the list and enforcing restrictions under this provision, an administrator should be uninvolved. 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 (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log". Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that pretty much covers all bases, I think. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As someone totally uninvolved, I'll happily volunteer to monitor the British Isles Probation Board to prevent any additions or removals of "British Isles" from any article under the probation without fullsome consensus. I suggest that merely gathering a large number of uninvolved users who are willing to maintain status-quo via reversion and kicking up frequent violators on both sides to adminstrators for blocking would make it so that the probation was hardly used. Let's set a "british isles" starting-state of 00:00 UTC July 4, 2010, and just ban it goring forward like changing articles from british to real english is banned. Hipocrite (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As I spouted off before, such articles should've been dealt with on a case-by-case basis. But nobody would heed my wisdom. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In light of the above topic bans and the on-going dispute, I have opened a straw poll on proposed guidelines for use of British Isles in the encyclopedia. I would envision it as an accompaniment to the topic-band sanction above. The poll is here. Comments, not merely votes, are invited. --RA (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned above that the "campaign" for deletion would simply move on if sitewide deletion of one phrase is restricted to a similar phrase - this appears to have started and the target is "Great Britain". I think we can expect a refocusing there. Really, this is so time-wasting and what a distraction from serious editing. However, in the interests of an NPOV encyclopedia, I daresay we will be spending the next year or two discussing Great Britain (uses thereof). Or something very, very similar. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In case I am being lumped in with all this, I have taken no position against the inclusion of Great Britain. It was being added by a disruptive new editor, and the FAQ says there is a consensus against inclusion. My edits were merely to revert to the status quo according to the FAQ, I have no position either way regarding whether it should be included or not, only to revert IPs ignoring the attempt to find a consensus in that discussion. O Fenian (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify a point; will the topic ban include all article talk pages and other WP: pages? I'm quite happy to accept the topic ban in connection with British Isles in articles but I'd be less happy if I was excluded from general discussions on the matter, although if that's the case, then so be it. LevenBoy (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If the word "topic" is removed from the restriction, you'd simply be banned from the act of adding or removing the term anywhere on Wikipedia (including discussions), but you could still participate in relevant discussions and edit relevant articles, so long as you do not engage in that act. If the word "topic" remains, it would be broadly construed that you would not be able to participate in (or edit) anything (be it a discussion, poll, article) that relates to adding or removing of the term. Does that make sense? (You'll need to ask the proposer about which was meant so that you can be sure). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Unlike many topic bans, almost all the disruption has been on article pages, so I don't think a talkpage restriction would be necessary here. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked accordingly. Noting that when this is logged, it would still be listed as an editing restriction and have the effect of a topic ban that does not extend beyond the 'act' itself (which generally only occurs on articles). Due to this effect, when editing articles, any attempts to skirt around the restriction would be greeted with an appropriate enforcement response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you not getting a little ahead of yourself there? What do you mean "when" this is logged? There's no community consensus on a topic ban. Wikipedia is not a democracy and this is not a !vote. So far, the only thing I've actually been loosely accused of is wasting time on a trivial matter (which is odd, considering if it's so trivial, why so many people have commented, and why there's been a flurry of activity at the MOS page these last few days). I've broken no policies, restrained from simple tit-for-tat edit warring with LevenBoy, and had even agreed with JamesD to not change any articles to give him a chance to review. --HighKing (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a clear community consensus in support of the measures proposed by Black Kite, and should you not comply with the restriction upon being officially notified on your talk and this officially being logged, you will be blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus. What we have is so many Irish editors blocked/banned that only one side of the WP:NPOV argument remains - those opposed to WP:NPOV in relation to "Ireland related" articles. Sarah777 (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose topic ban for HighKing, whom I've reviewed a few of his edits. The other person, I haven't (too busy). Suggest that we stop hounding HighKing, have HighKing voluntarily take a few days to enjoy the summer (and for others not to hound him while he is away). People can prove their good faith by not hounding him while he is away. After 2-3 days, let's all try to work together. Topic bans are just a thorn on one's side day in and day out. Why not everyone try to start fresh? Such effort won't hurt and may actually help. Everyone should take the first step and stop hounding Mr. King in order for this to work. If Mr. King is required to start first, that would be like a punitive block or cool down block, both not permitted in Wikipedia. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The proposal covers that: adding or removing any reference to "British Isles" on a Wikipedia-wide basis. That (2) any other editor who systematically adds or removes the term from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, be added to this list. The "unblocked side" is just as affected by this proposal as t'other side. TFOWR 09:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

How soon will this rule come into force? The proposals clearly have support of the majority here. I am still rather unclear about how it will be enforced on highking though. Will he still be able to present an endless list of articles he wants British isles removed from on the specific examples page? Some restrictions on that are needed if he is allowed to do that to limit the number of cases a month hes allowed to put forward for alterations. Coz at present we get dozens of examples, which we then have to spend a very long time debating and that stirs up tensions. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd imagine as soon as an uninvolved party closes this thread, but Ncmvocalist should be able to clarify. I don't see the problem with HighKing - or, indeed, anyone - proposing articles for consideration (for either removal or addition of "British Isles"). I'd become concerned if it appeared that an editor was dumping a huge amount of articles in an attempt to disrupt the process, but dozens of examples would seem to me OK at this point - the issue does affect a large number of articles. Contrary to popular opinion, there's no WP:DEADLINE; my primary concern is to stop the disruption, not prevent discussion - even if that discussion stirs up tensions. It's an emotive topic. TFOWR 10:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC) TFOWR is correct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If the concern is the volume of articles proposed, I'd be happy to agree to a remedy to limit the discussions and proposals to a particular type of usage, and to only present representative examples to assist discussions. That way, the discussions wouldn't become fragmented over a range of issues. --HighKing (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with BritishWatcher. I'm starting to see no end to this. If users are allowed to bring an endless list of proposals for deletion then we are no further forward - and that is exactly what's going to happen unless meaningful restrictions are applied. LevenBoy (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• At the end of the day, the community is telling involved editors to collaborate properly. If involved editors respond to this by opening many different proposals on multiple pages at any single time, those involved editors (whether they appear as single individuals or as a group/concert) could be subjected to further sanctions because they have not been listening.
• The aim of this IS to force editors to engage in proper conduct and fully embrace the concept of effective collaboration; it needs to starts happening. It does NOT exist to stifle discussion or to censor positions or any other nonsense that some people will come up with. I imagine involved editors don't want to be subject to (more) layers of restrictions, be it blocks or bans, or for their articles to be layered with multiple probation terms. Similarly, the community doesn't want to be in a position where it has to impose layers upon layers of restrictions. But if editors are not editing collaboratively, chances are that the community (or even ArbCom) will be forced to do that which it prefers not to. Therefore, it is imperative that editors collaborate and/or learn to do so.
• Involved editors need to note that they have the luxury of reasonable flexibility at present and that this luxury is a privillege. If collaboration is lacking, then a separate system will probably be set up - eg; editors will be required to put proposals (or requests for discussion about adding/removing the term) into a queue; the top 3-5 proposals will be discussed, and until those have been closed either due to resolution or expiry date, all other proposals/discussions will be shut down and put into the queue until it is time for their turn. Note that if the community imposes such a system because conduct is not acceptable, flexibility and convenience will not be the main concern.
• Collaboration is key; work it out. If it means borrowing a few ideas, nutting out the details of a separate system, and coming to an agreement on the method of moving forward, so be it - just don't let the cycle (that occurred just prior to this ANI) to repeat itself again because the community is saying that it is disruptive and not acceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we are heading towards stalemate here, so see you all again this time next year, the year after that and so on. Judging by the way this discussion is going the problem is not going to be dealt with and I can see it is just going to continue ad-infinitum; edit wars, arguments, time wasting and general aggravation. Until the main protagonists (and I include myself) are barred completely from British Isles-related matters this problem will not be resolved. I thought I might try to maintain access to Talk pages rather than a full topic ban, but on reflection that won't work, it just puts the problem on another level. I would walk away from this debacle completely, and start editing articles on another uncontoversial subject if HighKing and a few others of lesser persuasion (Bjmullan, Fmph, Sarah777) would do the same, but there's no chance of that, so on we go. LevenBoy (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a choice of lesser evils. Either this passes (with the caveat of no starting editors that I've mentioned above), or we just start handing out blocks. I know which would be the better result. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a stalemate, to be honest. I'm seeing the editors who are going to be affected by this disagreeing with the proposal, and nearly everyone else agreeing. Frankly, I think the reason this proposal has so much support is precisely because of the "other editors are edit warring so I have to as well" concept expressed so eloquently by LevenBoy: I would walk away from this debacle completely, and start editing articles on another uncontoversial subject if ... others ... would do the same. Per BlackKite, I'd prefer this to work, because the alternative will be much less pleasant. TFOWR 18:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC) "and everyone else agreeing" → "and nearly everyone else agreeing" TFOWR 19:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really a fair summary TFOWR. I wouldn't be affected by this and I oppose any restrictions on High King's efforts to uphold WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, apologies. I've amended my comment. TFOWR 19:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And this from LevenBoy: "Until the main protagonists (and I include myself) are barred completely from British Isles-related matters". But, per the British Nationalists who dominate this corner of Wiki the 'British Isles' include sovereign Ireland, my country! The "final solution" to the problem of Irish editors, eh? Sarah777 (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment I would be prepared to change my 'Oppose' to 'Support' if both remaining nominees were allowed a clean slate start as given to BJM, provided they were prepared to make a similar commitment. I'm more than a little skeptical of mothers demanding half a baby, as it appears in this case. RashersTierney (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Strongely support - sorry for my late involvement but i strongely support the sanctions against HighKing etc. and those who are trying to remove the term British Isles from Wikipedia. British Isles is a term that goes beyond politics and is recognised world-wide as a geographical term. The only trouble with it are people who you can safely assume follow a particular political viewpoint. Widespread inclusion were its not needed should also be checked on as well.

My involvement in this exact issue is just comments on the talk page stating its wide-spread and generally accepted usage above terms that haven't caught, and disputing some of Snowdeds claims - but not in any style that would be considered troublesome. I have done no editing of articles in relation to the terms as far as i can tell in my four years here. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Support topic/issue ban of HighKing for attempting politicise at a nationalist level a non-political issue. The whole smacks of "personal issues" and is causing an unreasonable reaction. Take him out the game and see if matters quieten down to a nomarl level of discussion. The others are being forced into appearing unreasonable by having to oppose the unreasonable.

The issues needs to be referred to a neutral expert not a partisan force. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please close this, please?

There's clearly enough community support for a motion here, so could someone please close this? Otherwise it'll die a slow death and we'll be here again very shortly. Either

• That (1) User:HighKing and User:LevenBoy be banned from adding or removing any reference to "British Isles" on a Wikipedia-wide basis. That (2) any other editor who systematically adds or removes the term from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, be added to this list. For the purpose of adding users to the list and enforcing restrictions under this provision, an administrator should be uninvolved. 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 (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (a) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (b) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log".

or

• That any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, be added to a list of editors banned from doing so. For the purpose of adding users to the list and enforcing restrictions under this provision, an administrator should be uninvolved. 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 (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (a) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (b) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log".
• Both have support, it is up to the closing admin to decide which would be most useful. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed support for this was clear yet still no action. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Support for this among Irish editors is non-existent (nearly). So Wiki is truly a place of Majority Nationalist POV rather than NPOV per you folk? No wonder it is coming under such fire for bias outside the Anglosphere. Sarah777 (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

By which I mean; outside the Anglosphere it (Wiki) is coming under increasing fire for bias. Towards Anglo-American interests. English is so studded with ambiguity, innit? Sarah777 (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any closure of this I have used the only alternative and started blocking users, the first one being User:Triton Rocker for persistent insertion of "British Isles" without any real justification on Northern Ireland (after being previously warned). Black Kite (t) (c) 16:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There is support for it. I think you can close it.

The editors involved in this dispute are working on common guidelines around it. User:HighKing has been contributing constructively to those efforts. To the point where he/she even supports these sanctions being a part of it. I suggest that, as a expression of good faith, if the editors involved are successful in agreeing guidelines on this subject that User:HighKing be removed from the list of users listed under this sanction. --RA (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course HighKing is working on the (British Isles limiting) guidelines. Whenever the pressure is on he starts to work on guidelines, but when everyone else moves on he quietly reverts to his relentless campaign of removals, and I expect he'll do so again. Are you suggesting that HighKing's name is removed, leaving just mine? I hope not, because I still maintain that HighKing is the only problem here. If he is banned from British Isles related topics there would no longer be a problem. LevenBoy (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Amendment talk page, need some encouragement

Could an administrator please drop in on the Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution talk page and help us focus on improving the article as opposed to attacking the character of the editors? I am hopeful with some outside encouragement that the editing environment might become more constructive. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been on that talk page in a few weeks, but the issue seems to be the same. The crux of the question that led to the incivility by at least one IP is whether or not the Blackstone commentaries are reliable sources (more broadly it's people not understanding reliable source policy). The short answer (I think uncontroversial) is that it depends on what the source is citing. If you're referring to Blackstone-contemporary discussions of law, then Blackstone may work. If you're drawing long-ranging conclusions from Blackstone about today's law, that's synthesis. Same thing with what court opinions say. It's fine to say that Case X said this, or ruled this basic fact, but it's synthesis to engage in interpretation or do much more beyond simple fact citing.

Salty's been very good about ensuring this distinction is respected, although there have been a lot of debates with IPs that don't seem to get it. Maybe SB can indicate which IPs are at issue, because there have been a few... are they all different people, or are a few the same with now-changed IPs? Shadowjams (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(It's likely just one person, see SPI investigation here[62].) I have been paying attention to this for almost two years. There have been, guessing now, about 20 different IP address that all GeoLocate to the western suburbs of Boston, MA. (ref [63][64][65][66]) There has been a common writing style and common idiosyncratic attention to types of details typically in primary documents 200 years old or older. Honestly, the personal attacks aren't my bother. The problem is that attempts to negotiate through reasoned discussion fail. If an editor says "this book says this and that book says that, we should include both POV's", the AnonIP responds with anger and insists on his personal POV, with edit war (and now the page is in its third 14day lock) followed by personal battle. Is there some way to convince a person like this to follow WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR? After almost two years trying, I haven't figured out how to convince him that the article should match the sources and not be agenda driven. Recent attempts at WP:DR outlined here[67] failed, with the AnonIP refusing "decline...shit tossing contest"[68] and "rather have a red hot poker shoved up my ass"[69]. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a hotbutton issue and you're going to get people who insist on doing it their way. The proper response to these individuals is to attempt to educate them on policy. Should they succumb to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, the only other course of action is blocks to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. N419BH 13:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty for one insists on doing it his way. He deleted the reason for having the Second, printed in plain sight on the Second itself, and replaced that reason with "slave control". My guess is that he did it to "blacken by association" i.e. guns are bad because guns make slavery possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=303401519&oldid=303367528 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=303545397&oldid=303544999.71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of the AnonIP being WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This issue of militia slave patrols is a significant POV seen in reliable sourcing, and when AnonIP asked about it last week I outlined the six references that describe this POV here[70] which the AnonIP ignored and responded with repetitious personal attack. I responded again with a listing of the reliable sourcing[71], but again ignored and replied with repetitious personal attack. I answered once again[72] followed by a figurative "na-na-na w/fingers in his ears"[73][74]. Coupled with a pattern of repetitious copy and paste talk page ad hominem[75][76][77][78][79]. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To replace text showing the Second was written in support of organizing militias with "slave control", is blatant POV push. Slave control appears rarely, if at all, in Revolutionary War era documents while Militia is right on the Amendment itself. The militia language was either the most supported language or the least opposed language. To replace that main reason for its enactment with an obscure and unsupported viewpoint is blatant POV push. Salty needs to be educated in wiki policies, specifically the one that states that miniscule minority viewpoints have no place in a wiki article. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, you made up a cock and bull story about why you included slave control in the article, but you have yet to explain why you took out language in support of militias, appearing on the amendment itself. Lets try again, why did you remove language from the article, indicating that militias were a reason for enacting the second, when militias appears on the amendment itself, and is obviously a reason?71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, to the question of trying to educate AnonIP as to our policy. The AnonIP used the word "Bull" here[80]. Followed by an editor explaining WP:NPA here[81]. AnonIP responded defiantly with the words "same OLD BULL"[82] in response. This is but the most recent example of a failure to learn how to behave within policy. The result has been repeated article full page protects when this AnonIP is active, evidence of behavior plainly damaging to the encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Same OLD bull refers to Saltys unending attempts to get references to Blackstones Commentaries on the Laws of England, removed from the article. Shadowjams post below is only one of a multitude of post telling Salty that he is dead wrong on this issue.71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The page protects were because Salty kept getting involved in edit wars. Wars which I stayed out of, and had no part in. I did warn Salty that he was in violation of 3rr twice in order to get his to change his conduct. He did not and in his July 3rd request for a page freeze blamed myself and Hauskalainen for the edit war. Neither I nor Hauskalainen were in violation of 3rr at that time while Salty was in violation. Salty shifted blame for his conduct onto us on his page freeze request. It would not look good if he had said. "Oh please kind sir, save me from myself, freeze this page so I don't edit war no more!" Links to my two warnings are below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_28#SB.2FHauskalainen_-_rules_on_edit_war_and_3_revert_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_29#Salty_Boatr_-_You_are_already_in_violation_of_3RR71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC) history Shadowjams - Have you changed your mind since this post

Blackstone was perhaps at one point a source of law, but yeah, this is ridiculous. No, he's hardly a primary source here, and he's certainly a valid, and reliable, secondary source. I imagine 10 minutes on lexis will find you dozens of articles about pre-English Bill of Rights common law self-defense and right to bear arms articles. I don't have anything to back this up, but I wonder if the "bear arms" and "keep arms" language was as specific in the 17th century as it was at the time of the constitution, or even later, at the time of the 14th amendment. But 96... it's worth doing a little bit of that research instead of just making those arguments. This isn't the place to have the debate, let's use this to bring forth some sources and make the article better. Shadowjams (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to have what is the talk page discussion. This is about how we've been going in circles about a larger policy issue with no progress. I'll respond to the last point though.

I haven't changed my mind. That excerpt was from a different discussion where I was referring to English law around the 1600s. The rest of the context makes the point clearer. But even in that statement I hope it's clear that my point is nuanced.... old treatises on the law are reliable sources when they refer to the same thing. They're not reliable sources when three hundred year old sources are used to interpret contemporary law. If we want to talk about the rule of increase and its pre-revolutionary war history, Blackstone is a RS. If we want to talk about English rights in the same era, the same (my point in the excerpt).

It is not, however, a reliable source to use Blackstone's "natural rights" to discuss modern constitutional rights when a number of authors draw disctinctions between what Blackstone was talking about, and what we're talking about now. Those commentators might be wrong, but you can't cite Blackstone for the proposition and then engage in legal analysis. You have to engage in some real back and forth with sources both ways. At that point, Blackstone is no longer a RS; depending, he's more likely a PS. Shadowjams (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Blackstone's Commentaries were printed 250 years ago, are being used to discuss 230 years old US law and 300 year old English law. As to whether he can be used to get insights into modern law, you are DEAD WRONG in your opinion that he cannot be so used. The US Supreme Court uses his Commentaries ALL THE TIME for that very purpose, as do people who pose questions to that court. Just one example http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mcdonald_cert_petition1.pdf.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If we could please bring this discussion back to the topic at hand. This is not the place to discuss the article. This page is for discussion of the problem of disruption on that Second Amendment talk page, and for discussion of how that WP:DE problem might be fixed. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There would be a lot less disruption of the article once you stop engaging in edit wars to insert small minority opinions favorable to your discredited gun control POV. The Supreme Court has described your POV as worthy of the "mad hatter". Live with it! You blaming your edit wars on me is also not appreciated. You are the one that has endlessly engaged in edit wars, which I stayed out of. I don't appreciate you pointing fingers at me for engaging in an edit when that was YOUR sin, and not mine.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You're not listening - The Supreme Court quotes Blackstone (or similar) treatises because they're doing legal analysis and drawing conclusions. That's not what Wikipedia is for and is WP:Synthesis. As I said above, I would object to blanket removal of these treatises, but you're making arguments about legal interpretation. This is not the forum for that. Shadowjams (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm listening and I think you don't know what you are talking about. Blackstone is THE AUTHORITY on "common law". Modern scholars wish they could walk in his shadow. Most are so far behind that they can't even SEE his shadow!71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Shadowjams - The reference to Blackstones "shadow" is purely coincidental and not designed to cast either praise or aspersions on your ID.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As to why there are so many references to Blackstone in the Article, the problem is Salty - Here he is practically begging for another cite to the "fifth auxiliary right" language. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=371545164&oldid=371544303 He is so nit picking that if you take a fart he wants its chemical composition so he can find out what you ate.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Restating my opening plea: Could an administrator here help us find a way to stop the attacks on the character of editors? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 12:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Stating that you have engaged in constant edit wars over the past the couple of months is fact. Stating that the freeze of about a month ago was based on your edit warring is fact. Stating that in your last freeze request you blamed me and one other editor for edit warring is also fact. It is also fact that YOU were the only one with a 3rr violation at that time. Your character is reflected in your actions. If you want to be treated like someone with a sterling character, then act like someone with a sterling character. Blaming others for your actions reflects on your character, badly!71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW: You shouldn't bitch about excessive use of Blackstone in the article when you yourself caused much of that inclusion. In order to satisfy YOUR latest "cite needed" I will have to add yet another reference to his "fifth auxiliary right" language when the page becomes unprotected. If you don't want this redundant citation added, then get rid of your latest "cite needed" request.71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrators: In case it isn't abundantly clear by now, this AnonIP has a very long history of using Wikipedia for his personal WP:BATTLE. I couldn't care less about his personal attacks, but I am concerned that this behavior is WP:Disruptive editing which causes damage to the encyclopedia. Both in 2009, and in 2010, when this editor shows up at the Second Amendment article to battle, the constructive editing environment degrades, and the resultant full page protects then become necessary. This damage to the encyclopedia needs to be resolved. My question of the administrators here, is do you have suggestions of how this problem might be resolved? Thanks.

My suggestion would be this: Impose a short term editing permission block, with the condition that the edit permission would be restored if the AnonIP agreed to focus his attention on WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and avoid commenting on other editors. And, that if the AnonIP resumes WP:BATTLE, then another short term editing permission block would be imposed, giving the AnonIP another chance to learn how to constructively edit. Repeat this cycle until the AnonIP learns how to avoid engaging in WP:Disruptive editing. This technique of short term blocking was used with limited success in 2009, I think it is time to give another attempt. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"I couldn't care less about his personal attacks" - So you spend all your time filing complaints against me out of the goodness of your heart. RIIIIGHT! If you don't want excessive use of Blackstone in the article, then stop asking for references to his work, as in the "cite needed" example provided above. If you don't want the article frozen then STOP ASKING for it to be frozen when you don't get your way. If you don't want to engage in edit wars THE DON'T ENGAGE IN EDIT WARS! Don't lay your sins at my feet, I will only kick them back at you!71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrators: As Salty has engaged in repeated edit wars in order to get his way on the Second Amendment Article, and then asked for article freezes when he doesn't get his way, he should be barred from editing the Second Amendment article for some period of time. If not barred a watch should be placed on his activities there to insure that he doesn't continue his edit wars. I again point out that I have stayed out of those edit wars71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC).

It is relevant to note that the dispute AnonIP speaks of is the inclusion of material sourced to Joyce Lee Malcolm, called "one scholar" and "one historian" in the article. During the short window the article was most recently released from page protection, AnonIP quickly deleted this text out of the article with these three edits[83][84][85] without discussion or attempt to build consensus, coupled with the surprise removal of a sourced sentence which disagrees with his personal POV[86] again with no prior discussion on the talk page to check consensus, and the insertion[87] of his personal view with no citation prominently at the top of the section (again with no discussion on talk, and with no attempt to verify consensus), inserted a biased POV assertion here[88] again without regard for the balance of POVs seen in sourcing. While this isn't edit war, that wasn't the intent of the page protection. The intent of the page protection was to encourage editors to work out their differences and build a consensus on the talk page, and the AnonIP edits seen here show that he does not yet understand the concept of building a consensus, and instead AnonIP treats Wikipedia as a place to do WP:BATTLE. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the best forum to get community input on a content dispute, and it's one of the worst places to continue one. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

54,55, and 56 were removed because they reflected the views of one person. Views that small don't have a place in a wiki article. Objections to the removal of that language were sought on July 2 on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_29#English_History_Section_of_this_article No objections were made to removing that language. 57 was removed because it is contrary to the US Supreme Court ruling in Heller. 58 was intended to put back into the article deleted language from 54 (and 56) which was deleted along with the opinions of one person. 58 restored pre-existing article language which I mistakenly deleted. 59 comes directly from the US Supreme Courts decision in Heller. Salty has managed to keep the word "individual" out of the article since Heller was decided by engaged in censorship. I thought it was time his censorship of the article was stopped and inserted "individual" into the article.71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not the right venue for content disputes. Please stop. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Once Salty stops pushing his lies about me, I will stop responding to them.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not here to attack the AnonIP, or to fight with the AnonIP. The real reason is that I am concerned that disruptive editing is causing damage to that article, (witness the talk page there and article lock for six weeks in a row now.) The solution is not "me" winning "against" AnonIP. What I am asking for is some help with finding a way to encourage the AnonIP to learn how to collaborate. Editing contentious articles inevitably involves needing to "get along" with people who hold strong opinions and disagree with each other. Collaboration in these situations requires everyone to focus on the sources, on finding compromises, and to not focus on fighting other editors. We have tried and failed, so far, to solve this problem ourselves. Can an administrator here help out by stepping in and giving us some guidance? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This still needs an uninvolved party to take a look

Can others please comment on the above. Please let's also not meander into a discussion on the underlying content issue. The above is a good taste of what's been going on on the talk page for a while now, and it's getting disruptive. Shadowjams (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is so tiresome

I've reported 3RR going on in Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I've requested page protection, and of course I've warned the IP that started the edit war first... no reaction. From no one. Only the edit-war (or should I say blatant vandalism?) going on, undisturbed. Hell, the references of the article and its talk page are full of material supporting the two categories these IPs want to remove, and they haven't been argued against since times immemorial. Now, would an administrator be so kind and step in, semi-protect the page? At long last? Thaaaaaaaaaaank you! Insert coins (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Two words: proper warnings. I protected it for a week. Due dilligence with the warnings will allow for proper blocks via the correct forum, etc and will hopefully precent this recurrance. Don't forget that you need to advise the editors that you have mentioned them here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done: Bwilkins (talk · contribs) has semi'd the page. TFOWR 11:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Another two words: proper references. This article seems to imply the subject is a holocaust denier "by association", despite a court apparently acquitting him of such, and without a mention of it in the article. Edit-warring to restore poorly sourced criminal insinuations is quite poor form. Protecting it from people insisting on references is no better. I wonder what are the chances that Insert coins (talk · contribs) and indef-blocked-for-BLP-violations RCS (talk · contribs) are the same user? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the talk page? This very matter has been discussed extensively twice. --Insert coins (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And I'd like to add that you are morally walking on very thin ice here making a pro-Dieudonné statement, as it were. Among the many sources, here is just one. To hug (embrasser) Robert Faurisson publicly - this is what *I* would call poor form. Now, don't take this as a personal attack. It is another statement. --Insert coins (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Saying that criminal allegations need to be sourced is not defending anyone. Similarly, a picture of two people hugging is not proof of anything. We're trying to avoid [WP:SYNTH] here. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. But, as you can read in the article itself. Dieudonné didn't only meet publicly with Faurisson once. They also made a video sketch together (source/link is provided in article) and celebrated Faurisson's 80th birthday in the theater of which Dieudonné is the owner (ditto). As for this other convicted Holocaust denier, Jean-Marie Le Pen, he is the godfather of one of Dieudonné's children. And that other Holocaust denier, not convicted as of yet, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Dieudonné had met him in Tehran ([89]) and now calls him his "guide" ([90])... And and and... I could go on for a long time like this but this would be tiresome as well. It is crystal clear for anyone willing to search that Dieudonné has made a habit of giving Holocaust deniers a platform, of associating with Holocaust deniers. As for his antisemitism, there can be absolutely no doubt about it - and I would like to remind you that the IP wanted to remove that category as well. Sources in English: [91], [92], [93], [94], [95]... Sorry for that rant, but my point is that the removal of both categories by those IPs can be proved beyond any doubt to be malevolent. --Insert coins (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Associating with Holocaust deniers does not make someone one. He may well be, but until he's convicted of the crime of Holocaust denial, we can't make any claims. It's a criminal offense. Saying he's a Holocaust denier without him being convicted is a huge violation of BLP, not to mention SYNTH and several others. It's like saying Joseph Fritzl's friend is a rapist because they spent a lot of time together and he helped him build his basement. We just can't do it.

As for antisemitism, that too is a tricky area. Calling someone an antisemite without proof is slander, and leads to lawsuits. Time has decided that they have what they consider to be strong enough evidence to make that assertion, but we're not in the business of doing so. We can report on "accusations of antisemitism", and link to the articles making those claims, but we can't make the claims ourselves. Similarly, we can report on the findings of the court, but cannot call him an "antisemite". Rather, we can only say what he was convicted of. I know it seems to be beating around the bush, but there are damned good reasons why we do this. Having him in the Holocaust Denial category seems, to me, to be a BLP violation in the absence of a conviction for such. Anti-Zionism seems fine, but I'll defer to those more knowledgeable than I about BLP issues and how the "anti-zionist" tag relates. The anit-semitism category is a tough one. I'm not sure mere accusations, or anything really short of a personal confession, can qualify a BLP subject for inclusion. Once again, I'll defer to those more knowledgeable than myself. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely, if the Agence France Presse titles one of its posts/reports "Dieudonné is back in a show in which he openly attacks Jews", the BLP criteria on anti-semitism must be met?! And since Jean-Marie Le Pen himself approvingly acknowledges that Dieudonné is an anti-semite ([96])... As for the category:Holocaust denial - not the category:Holocaust deniers! - I have strong grounds to believe that it is fit for somebody who promotes Holocaust deniers, who enables Holocaust deniers to meet a new public, who gives them a platform. Just as Dieudonné has done with Faurisson. --Insert coins (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Return of longtime disruptive user under another new sockpuppet user account (Filmcracker) registered for the purpose of Wikistalking

Filmcracker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Techwriter2B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sift&Winnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
64.252.0.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
75.2.209.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Filmcracker, who is a sockpuppet for Techwriter2B, Sift&Winnow, 64.252.0.159, 75.2.209.226, and many other anonymous IPs, has returned for the purpose of Wikistalking and other activities (See [97], [98], and [99]) for which he/she has been the subject of complaints from many editors over a period of more then three years. (While this user has been the subject of many complaints, I am only aware of one blocking—as User:Techwriter2B—as he/she generally edits under a great many anonymous IPs which he/she changes frequently to avoid being blocked or otherwise disciplined. On occasions like this one when he/she actually registers a sock account, he/she does so in order to disguise him/herself by hiding his/her location as being in SW Connecticut where all the anonymous IPs he/she uses resolve to.) A full AN/I discussion of the well documented history of repeated patterns of these attempts to hide his/her identity as well as engaging in disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, and overt Wikistalking by the this editor, as well as an accounting of many of the anonymous IPs he/she has used for this purpose, can be found here. Centpacrr (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly the same disruptive editor who was given an indefinite block (still in effect) under his/her Techwriter2B sock (link to AN/I thread from June:[100]). He’s continuing to wikihound Centpacrr (the editor that he’s most persistently stalked). He’s evading the block, using both a newly registered username (Filmcracker) and IP 64.252.0.159. The IP 64.252.0.159 maps to the exact same area of CT [101] as his other IPs (as documented in the prior AN/I thread)and he used this same IP previously while disruptively editing Stephen Ambrose. He also recently posted a false claim that the IP belongs to an organization [102], to try to keep administrators from blocking it (or to at most use a soft rather than hard block). This disruptive editor has a long history of such “clever” maneuvers (e.g. forging an admin signature to try to terminate a prior sockpuppet investigation, etc.). Expeditious blocking of Filmcracker and IP 64.252.0.159 appears to be needed. Eurytemora (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggest a full investigation leading to a community ban - As I stated at the last time this character was brought up at ANI, my encounters with him have been unpleasant in the extreme. After I banned him (twice!) from my talk page he started stalking my edits. This is the worst kind of moral cancer Wikipedia can have - a disruptive multiple sock who violates every rule in the book and makes a mockery of attempts to stop him. Will use any trick or lie to get what he wants. Must be stopped for good asap using every power at community command. Jusdafax 08:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: Have placed an ANI-notice on the two talk pages involved. Jusdafax 08:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

*NOTE: Not unexpectedly, "Filmcracker" has summarily deleted the AN/I notice from his/her talk page with the comment "No clue what this is all about", an action which is another hallmark practice of this user. Centpacrr (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Ban- We've banned for less... --Rockstonetalk to me! 13:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Some examples of prior administrative involvement relating to disruptive editing by this user are: [103], [104], [105] The user has received multiple prior warnings including Wikiquette Alert.[106]. Some (but certainly not all) of the IP accounts he/she has been identified as using to engage in disruptive tactics on Wikipedia are: [107], [108], [109], various IPs in range 64.252.*.* ([110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116]), various IPs in range 12.76.*.*([117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127]). Also in a period of just three weeks in May, this user (as anonymous IP 75.2.209.226) also started and perpetuated 16 separate threads in various Wikipedia boards and talk pages (See [128],[129], [130],[131], [132],[133], [134],[135], [136],[137],[138], [139],[140], [141], [142],[143]) in a pattern of Wikistalking of both me and a number of other editors who had deigned to disagree in any way with his/her personal views of how Wikipedia should be edited. His/her campaign to that end consisted mostly of posting dozens of universally condescending and demeaning comments apparently designed to intimidate, questioning the motives of other editors, disruptive editing (including making blanket reversions of other editors' contributions either without edit summaries or with demeaning ones), making blanket accusations of "vandalism" and "spamming", and demonstrating an unremitting lack of any assumption of good faith on the part of any other editor while he/she repeatedly demands in edit summaries and postings that all of those whom he/she was criticizing blindly owed him/her an unconditional assumption of good faith on his/her part. See here for the latest example of his/her "style" which I found posted on my talk page this morning. Centpacrr (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support ban. Generally I’m a bleeding heart, but given this editor’s history of behavior and attitude of contempt (toward other editors and toward process), I think the chances of successful "reform" are essentially nill.

Also, will confirm Centpacrr’s observation that this user has a history of blanking his talk pages (to remove comments/notices posted by others - this has been commented on by other editors in the past). Eurytemora (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thought I should add – I have no personal history of conflict with this user (have always treated him with kid gloves, not wanting to become one of his targets myself, and have always tried to be fair/evenhanded/supportive), but recognizing the severity of the problem, I brought the issue to AN/I in June (which resulted in the indefinite block). Eurytemora (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Support ban This user has sucked hundreds of hours out of other editors with his contempt for the rules. That time could have gone to improving the encyclopedia. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sockpuppet editor "Filmcracker" is continuing to make disruptive edits against consensus to The High and the Mighty (film) (see [144], [145]). While his/her edits may look "reasonable" on their face, the purpose for which those were made certainly are not, and this is another well documented pattern of his/her past behavior on Wikipedia over more than three years. He/she will make what appear to be a few good faith edits to convince another editor whose support he/she is soliciting that he/she is only interested in making positive contributions. This, however, is actually a smokescreen he/she has used many times before. By feigning good faith and then seeking the "advice and support" of otherwise uninvolved editors (See [146]) for his/her "reasonable" edits, he/she is really just attempting to "use" those editors to then advance his/her real agendas of misconduct, disruptive editing, Wikistalking, etc. This sockpuppet needs to be banned immediately. Centpacrr (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how long it'll take before someone DOES but I agree. No one should be blocked for violating 3RR trying to stop him... --Rockstonetalk to me! 17:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'm following his edits and reverting them- I'm currently treating him like any other sock puppet- he's not welcome. If you disagree, let me know on my talk page. Thanks! --Rockstonetalk to me! 17:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in support of a ban as well. The evidence speaks for itself here; the user in question has been given ample opportunities to clean up, but hasn't shown any desire to do so. – ClockworkSoul 19:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban; sadly, this appears to be the only solution left to deal with the constant conduct issues with this user, and it's time to deny recognition. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, per above. This is the only route now. —fetch·comms 22:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for an administrative decision & action

• Sockpuppet user Filmcracker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to make edits to other film articles. While these edits may also appear to be innocuous on their face, their purpose is not. These edits are instead being made by the sockpuppet to establish an "edit history" to make the user appear to be a good faith editor. This is another well known pattern that this user engages in when he/she becomes the subject of AN/I complaint or other disciplinary attention. Please do not be fooled by this practice. This sockpuppet is already the subject of an indefinite blocking as Techwriter2B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and has an extensive record of disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, wikistalking, and other misconduct over a period of at least three years mostly using dozens of anonymous IP accounts.

• No matter how his/her edit history is being developed to appear "reasonable" as "Filmcracker", his/her documented history of disruptive editing and wantonly violating WP policies and guidelines has long ago demonstrated that nothing this user ever does on Wikipedia under any account (registered or anonymous) should ever be assumed to having been done in good faith or to benefit the Wikipedia Project.
• This thread has now been open for five days with eight editors commenting all of whom support a community ban of this sockpuppet user. Please advise what (if any) further evidence or comments are needed to obtain the necessary administrative action. Centpacrr (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Centpacrr, time for a decision - the evidence has been presented, the jury has decided unanimously and an admin needs to make the ruling here. The subject refuses to comment despite notification, which should be the final nail. Jusdafax 19:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE: "Filmcracker's" only response to a pair of AN/I notices placed by both myself (on July 13) and Jusdafax (on July 14) on his/her Talk page was to promptly and summarily delete both (See [147] and [148]) notices with no edit summary on the first (but instead posting a message on my Talk page calling me a "crackpot"), and "No clue what this is all about" on the second. (Such talk page blanking is another hallmark practice of this user.) However he/she has posted nothing whatsoever here in response to this discussion or in defense of his/her actions. Centpacrr (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Sarah777

After a period of calm since the Ireland naming poll concluded, Sarah777 (talk · contribs) has decided to get back into Troubles issues, and resume labeling anyone and everyone who doesn't interpret the goals and methods of WP:NPOV the way she does, as a British nationalist. See this for example, just one of a series of shotgun one line comments to that page with little or no value except to inflame and attack. It's tiresome, and based on experience, she won't quit, and will probably even get worse, without some serious feedback. It needs nipping in the bud, or you will be seeing her name pop up here regularly for the next few months, if this latest venture back into the field is not just a one night thing. MickMacNee (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see the same sentiments in your posts here and here. Pot. Kettle? --HighKing (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

More like Shakespeare and the Telly Tubbies. I'll freely defend any part of those long and considered posts in detail and with evidence, if you've found any part of them to be as inflammatory and unconstructive as one of Sarah's little buckets of sunshine. MickMacNee (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a fraught area. I suggest both of you moderate your tone. Isn't there still an ArbCom probation on these articles? --John (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A 1RR restriction on certain tagged articles is all I'm aware of. MickMacNee (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's 1RR on all Troubles-related articles, tagged or not, broadly defined. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I didn't edit any "troubles-related" article. But for "inflammatory and unconstructive" comments please have a leisurely read of the record of MickMac! It was his extreme British Nationalism and agressive negative characterisation of Irish editors that drew me to engage in the "British" Isles debate yesterday. I could not sit back and watch WP:NPOV being trashed by the usual suspects. Nor will I in the future. Sarah777 (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

coming from the person that wanted the British Isles article completely renamed its funny to hear you talk of WP:NPOV BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I still want the "British Isles" article to be restricted to the British Isles. I'm unclear as to why that makes my comment above humorous. Sarah777 (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sarah777, "I want" doesn't get. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. "British Isles" is a phrase that includes the island of Ireland and nothing you can say here will change that. I know you don't like this, but you're going to have accept that this is a general usage in English. And yes, I am British, and no, I'm not a "British nationalist". Continue your activism against the term "British Isles" off Wikipedia, please. Fences&Windows 00:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I want the loaded term "British" Isles removed from the title of the article that includes sovereign Ireland in order to uphold the principles of WP:NPOV. The phrase is not used to include Ireland in the most common collective descriptions of the islands. Wiki should reflect this - not British Nationalist pov. I see, despite your protestations, that you support British Nationalist pov in this instance. Maybe you should take your nationalism elsewhere? Sarah777 (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lots of Greek editors don't want the term "Republic of Macedonia" is Greece-related articles, either, but it's there. Sometimes standard English terminology isn't what you'd like it to be, but we follow common usage, not what people like or dislike. And really, discussion of the content doesn't really belong on this noticeboard anyway, but on the appropriate talk pages. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I love the hypocrisy a nationalist accusing others of nationalism. FWIW, as a Canadian who could care less about either Ireland or England, the "British Isles" has always meant both the islands of Great Britain and Ireland to me. IMNSHO, arguing otherwise would be about as NPOV as a Canadian complaining that Canada isn't part of North America because they don't like the United States. Resolute 14:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada? And your "head of state" is.......? A British Queen I believe. I love the hypocrisy of a British subject claiming non-Britishness. Get back to me when Canada is free of it's colonial subjugation. Btw, I've nothing against nationalism except for the self-denying British and American sorts. It's pushing nationalist POV on Wiki I abhor. I have written an essay on the topic you'd do well to read. You'd find it educational. Sarah777 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada has a British Queen? Are you trying to give Miesianiacal a heart attack? GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See also [149] (French - Îles Britanniques) and [150] (German - Britische Inseln) - I presume the French and German language Wikipedias are not fanatically imbued with "British nationalist POV". A quick google search shows that the direct translated phrase is used thousands of times in those two Wikipedias alone. The position that the rest of the world uses a term widely, but that it should be deleted from En-Wikipedia because it offends a segment of Irish opinion is clearly absurdist. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Besides one intemperate post is there anything we actually need to be concerned with here? If not, I'd suggest that John's response is enough. TFOWR 10:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit war by Teeninvestor

Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) has been removing in the past few days repeatedly a POV tag (often without mentioning it in the edit summary) on two articles without gaining consensus and against the expressed wishes of several other editors. In doing so, he has staged uncalled for ad hominem attacks and also consistently removed large chunks of other contents in the process. Even though he has been warned against his reverts, he has been continuing his unilateral removals at least one more time:

Great Divergence

• POV-tag added by User:Kanguole: Revision as of 16:05, 9 July 2010

• 1st time removed by User:Teeninvestor: Revision as of 16:46, 9 July 2010 - passed over in silence in edit summary

• Restored by User:Nev1: Revision as of 16:50, 9 July 2010

• 2nd time removed by User:Teeninvestor: Revision as of 16:53, 9 July 2010 - passed over in silence in edit summary

• Restored by User:Nev1: Revision as of 16:54, 9 July 2010

• 3rd time removed by User:Teeninvestor: Revision as of 16:58, 12 July 2010 - passed over in silence in edit summary

• Restored by User:Kanguole: Revision as of 17:09, 12 July 2010

• 4th time removed by User:Teeninvestor: Revision as of 21:21, 12 July 2010 - passed over in silence in edit summary

• Restored by User:Kanguole: Revision as of 00:23, 13 July 2010

User:Kanguole then opened up a section of its own at Talk:Great Divergence#POV tag on China section at 00:18, 13 July 2010, where he pointed User:Teeninvestor to the need to keep the POV tag and him repeatedly removing the tag without consensus. Still, User:Teeninvestor continued to revert:

• 5th time removed by User:Teeninvestor: Revision as of 16:29, 13 July 2010

• Restored by User:Kanguole: Revision as of 20:33, 13 July 2010

Chinese armies (pre-1911)

• 1st time removed by User:Teeninvestor: Revision as of 20:57, 26 May 2010: stealthy removal by misleading, harmless edit summary

• Restored by User:Nev1: Revision as of 15:08, 13 July 2010

• 2nd time removed by User:Teeninvestor: Revision as of 16:18, 13 July 2010 + uncalled for ad hominem attack

• Restored by User:Gun Powder Ma: Revision as of 17:27, 13 July 2010

• 3rd time removed by User:Teeninvestor: Revision as of 15:00, 14 July 2010 + uncalled for ad hominem attack

• Restored by User:Nev1: Revision as of 15:05, 14 July 2010 Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• 4th time removed by User:Teeninvestor: Revision as of 18:21, 16 July 2010. Note the self-righteous attitude. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: A similarly disruptive edit pattern has been made out in a third article on the Qing Dynasty by User:Kanguole: see below. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I removed the tags because I had already responded to the user(s) on the talk pages of the respective articles (and in many cases they had admitted their own views were wrong), and often long periods of time had already passed without a response (in the case of Gun Powder Ma, nearly two months). In some cases, the tags were removed because the sections were being reorganized (such as the sections on government policies) and because I thought that the dispute had been resolved (User:Kanguole shifted his focus multiple times). I acknowledge that sometimes my judgement may have been defective, but this is not a case of "edit war" but rather a dispute that is in the process of being worked out (and many points have been resolved already). I have tried to work with other editors and answer their inquiries, something contrary to what Gun Powder Ma does, as shown below.

This is in contrast to Gun Powder Ma's repeated attacks and inability to work with others. He has not attempted to engage in constructive conversation at all (in fact, he repeatedly insults and attacks other editors. For example, see here: 1, 2, and 3when he insults me, calling me a "wargamer" and having "comprehension issues". I have attempted to work with him here: 3 and warned him here. 4 but I was rebuffed and insulted. This user also has a history of edit warring and attacking other editors, as shown here: 1, 2, and 3. Attempts to do any work with this user is stopped by his extreme bias (especially in the area of the achievement of non-western civilizations) stemming from his political views and inability to tolerate any other views besides his own. Judging from mine and others' previous experiences with this user, it is virtually impossible to work constructively with him on these topics.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I won't respond to your attempt at trying to shift the blame by staging another round of personal attacks. Suffice to say that we have not interacted for the last several months in any way in Wikipedia, so I found your sudden ad hominem outbursts in the edit summaries above - which I only accidentally discovered - disappointing. You have a history of removing tags without prior discussion and this very recent personal notice on your talk page shows that the impression you try to convey, namely that other users have admitted to being "wrong" and that the disputes are "solved" is clearly not the case. I've notified these users so that they can speak for themselves. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So, you've not interacted with me or tried to solve the problem for several months, and then come roaring back to blame me for removing the tag after you failed to respond? What a way to work with other wikipedia editors!Teeninvestor (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

To say that attempting to work with Teenivestor in a collaborative manner has been trying is something of an understatement. He chills discussion with false accusations of people making personal attacks and attempts to distract from the matter at hand. For example, about six month ago he accused Pmanderson (talk · contribs) of making personal attacks in this discussion where there are none. To demonstrate this is an ongoing problem and that I'm not dredging up old diffs for no reason, here Teeninvestor unfairly interprets another editor's critique of his use of sources as a personal attack without addressing the issue Kanguole (talk · contribs) raised. I think this is being done again here by Teeninvestor smearing Gun Powder Ma (in the case of his "political views" based on flimsy evidence) to deflect from the issue of his own edit warring.

As for the removal of tags, Gun Powder Ma has demonstrated that several times Teeninvestor has removed tags on an article without providing a reason why. That this passed without comment on the Chinese armies article for a couple of months is simply because he did not provide an honest edit summary. A quick glance at the discussions on the two articles mentioned by Gun Powder Ma will show that discussion about the various tags is by no means at a conclusion despite Teenivestor's protestations. In the case of the Great Divergence, Teeninvestor's behaviour leaves me with serious concerns with regard to his understanding of WP:NPOV and the concept of WP:UNDUE (cf. [151]). Nev1 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have stated no such thing, so don't put words in my mouth. Also, it's clear from the diff I provided that you accused Kanguole of personal attacks where there were none. I have in fact warned Gun Powder Ma before, but his actions do not affect the fact that you are simply not abiding by policy. You have yet to address this. Nev1 (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So it doesn't look like I'm talking to myself, I was responding to the comment removed in this edit. Nev1 (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As for Teeinvestor's chronic disregard for WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, he has just today delivered a prime example at Chinese armies of the roots of the problem. It have been exceptional sweeping claims such as these which have made other editors tag his articles in the past, whereupon he then showed his pattern of clandestinely removing them, instead of addressing the issue adequately and constructively on talk page. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the first two removals at Great Divergence were blanket reverts where Teeninvestor mistakenly thought I had deleted material (I had only moved it), and he hasn't removed the tag again since my notice on his talk page. I'm surprised to hear he thought the dispute was resolved, but hopefully he gets it now.

As Nev1 says, there is a real problem with NPOV, UNDUE and use of sources, but I suspect it's not ANI material. But if anyone else would like to take an interest in the content dispute, they'd be most welcome. Kanguole 20:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see he also removed a pov-section tag from Qing dynasty three times in half an hour[152][153][154] all without any clue in the edit summary, while a dispute was active on the talk page. It does seem to be a pattern. Kanguole 20:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, I have to say, the efforts of these two editors (Gun Powder Ma and Teeninvestor), have left me with the opinion that much of the coverage of ancient China on Wikipedia is way out to lunch. I don't have enough knowledge on the subject (outside of some understanding of chinese philosophy) to double-check, but based on my limited experience with each of them in areas I do know something about, I have low expectations. They are both pushy editors, they are both highly dedicated to instilling their (diametrically opposed) points of view, and contrary to some more idealized expectations their efforts do not cancel each other out because they never get to the point of compromise and cooperation. I wish there was some way to stop them from editing until they passed some kind of quiz on wp:NPOV, wp:OR, wp:Consensus, and wp:CIV - is there? --Ludwigs2 20:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancient China's coverage is so bad that all its main dynasties are Featured articles and many Featured topics as well. Look at the facts before you speak, Ludwigs2. Also, to compare Gun Powder Ma's style to mine is ridiculus; I provide sources to back up my assertions, GPM charges in and calls others wargamers and claims they have "comprehenesion problems", which has gotten him blocked repeatedly. Teeninvestor (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

All of them? Just saying. Nev1 (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well most. Note I said main dynasties.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So the Qing Dynasty which lasted for around two and half centuries isn't major? Take your own advice and check your facts before commenting. Nev1 (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Note I said in the previous post: well most, Nev1.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed, but if you'd checked your facts in the first place as you so happily told Ludwigs2 to do you wouldn't have had to correct yourself. Nev1 (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please allow me to summarize the debate: Teeninvestor has been, stealthily or openly, removing twelve times (!) POV tags on three different articles within the past two weeks, two times of which he was obviously deliberately gaming the system (just stopped before 3RR). He did so while discussion was underway on talk page, and against the expressed wishes of at least four other editors, ignoring repeated requests by these to stop his unilateral removals.

Then he puts up a defense at ANI first trying to convey the impression that the issues were "solved" and the others have admitted to being often "wrong". After the said users went to record in no unequal terms that in reality none of the issues were at conclusion, he repeatedly tried to distract from his disruptive edit pattern by throwing accusations against me - all this undoubtedly done in the hope that the deciding admins find the whole issue too muddled to take action against him. Honestly, a reasonable editor who shows his willingness to be cooperative in future looks differently, doesn't it? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The use of deceptive edit summaries by Teeninvestor is particularly disturbing. It shows dishonesty, bad faith, and an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Wikipedia is based on trust and good faith. Users that regularly make a mockery of these are particularly disruptive, as it necessitates constant monitoring and scrutiny of their contributions by the community. Since the problem here is long-term, I think there are sufficient grounds for an RfC. Athenean (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson persistent breaking of WP:CIVIL.

User:Pmanderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pmanderson is consistently rude with plenty of personal attacks. I made an WQA which got no responses, and made no changes in his behavior. I was recommended to file an ANI instead of a WQA, so here I am.

The first I saw of Pmanderson was him making a massive revert of many changes calling it "Vandalism", [155], implying that all those behind the consensus, which included me, was vandals. He continued to call me a vandal [156], [157], [158], [159], while generally refusing to engage in constructive debate. Lastly he calls me a liar, [160] and a POV-pusher, [161], because I want his sources to support his edits, and don't want WP:OR or WP:SYN. When he doesn't engage in direct attacks, he is rude and claims that I have "pet definitions" or particular political views and that I edit based on POV, and not on wikipedia policies. [162]. His abuses has continued despite warnings and the above mentioned WQA: [163], [164] and lastly today: [165].

I'm not the only target either: [166], [167]. I'm not interested in wasting time looking through all his edits, this is only the ones I've seen because it's concerning another article we both are interested in. It's quite possible he is rude to many more people, I wouldn't know.

I have tried to be patient, but my patience with his attacks and rudeness and general refusal to engage in serious debate (it's possible, but only after repeating my criticism several times, he will ignore it the first few times, and then he will still ignore all argumentation), and this situation is not just not acceptable any more.

I've tried to notify him of his breaches of policy on his talk page, but his response was to brush that off with "keep off my talk page". So I have not notified him of this ANI, as I can't do that. I assume somebody else can notify him instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have notified Pmanderson. --erachima talk 21:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --OpenFuture (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me see. OpenFuture (talk · contribs) and marknutley (talk · contribs) edit the same articles; share the same opinions; and have the same style: neither of them has mastered the possessive apostrophe, and both of them use singular verbs with plural subjects, like was vandals above.

I responded by calling one of them a sock puppet, and the other turns up here.

Baseless suspicion, doubtless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to Agree baseless wikistalk shows only two pages of Overlap in thier histories and a look under thier contributions are Diverse It'd be elaborate Socking to back each other p on only two articles Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If they're not, they're not. Nice to know that there is such a tool. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Next time, look for Evidence before you make accusations. These are fairly common tools used in a lot in preliminary SPI investigation. You owe an apology to certain individuals. I have seen people banned for far less. Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• comment I walked in due to a WP:3O request. found this lovely accusation. I have withdrawn my offer of a WP:3O. If editors can move pass this and go back to content not conduct i will be watching the page

• Comment I can testify that Pmanderson is a consistently uncivil editor. I find the fact that he is calling his accuser's credibility into question to be par for the course for him. First of all, calling people's credibility into question is bad for Wikipedia in the long term. We should be cultivating a culture that is mutually edifying. Second, it is irrelevant to the actual question at hand. Do you know what type of people do this sort of thing (manipulative rhetoric)? People who are doing something wrong. You can't ban him soon enough for me.Greg Bard (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Not sufficient to take to ANI. OpenFuture himself uses much stronger language than this:

Your revert is still against the consensus, as I previously explained. As such it is vandalism....

You are, to be blunt, lying to yourself to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

As usual, your "facts" are pure fantasy....

Well, I'm sorry to say, you are as usual utterly wrong.

Yet you apparently pretend....

Then of course, your willingness to misinterpret sources...

And much, more which can be read here. About which OpenFuture says, "I repeat: There is nothing for me to explain. It is obvious, even out of context, that most quotes above does not represent any abuse." One last quote, "I think you need to stop throwing stones in glass houses. You are after all the one that insults everyone who does not agree with you."

TFD (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I too can testify about Pmanderson's incivility. He seems to be unable to respect another editor or work collaboratively, as seen here 1 and here 2. His persistent incivility makes it extremely difficult to work with him on any project whatsoever, and has gotten him into numerous conflicts. I've not taken a look at the current dispute, but it wouldn't be surprising if Pmanderson's ways have upset another editor.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• But, in any case, can somebody do something about rhia massive removal of sourced assertions? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

How about having a civil and constructive debate about it, as per WP:POLICY? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I had as civil a discussion with one revert-warring editor called OpenFuture as his attacks would permit (quoted above at length; this is a partial list of his removals of sourced material: 16:43 18 June, 17:21, 17:43, 21 June 04:13, 09:14, 10:18, 23 June 16:23, 24 June 07:42, 27 June 05:42, 28 June 04:23); it didn't do any good. Now another blanker comes along. Enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

one revert-warring editor called OpenFuture - said the guy who has been blocked multiple times for revert warring. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Within the last hour this user has called me a sockpuppet, a vandal and a liar [168] in edit summary [169] in edit summary [170] In edit summary and on talkpage . mark nutley (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Also he called you "ignorant". Don't forget that. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I would happily substitute a more parliamentary word suitable to someone who says the Greeks didn't have democracys [sic]; can someone suggest one? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• comment - People need to keep in mind that this is a very contentious topic and the arguments can get quite heated at times. Basically, everyone needs to be told to CALM THE FREAKIN' HELL DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop insulting each other, stop making baseless accusations and also stop filing these reports on each other. Close the AfD, take a breath, wipe the slate clean and start over at trying to reach a consensus on the article.radek (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong article Radek :) List of wars between democracies mark nutley (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, this has nothing to do with the AfD in question. Pmanderson started insulting me at List of wars between democracies months ago. The reason it comes up now is simply because I tired of his insults, as a large part since they increased once he got involved in Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion; most of this list of rudeness by OpenFuture is from the Talk:List of wars between democracies, starting before I got there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Except of course, its not a list of rudeness at all, and it also hardly has anything to do with "who started", which in any case you did. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I don't care to look into the details here, but the complainant is unlikely to be coming into this with clean hands. Of course, this would not excuse any misdeeds on the part of the alleged offender listed, but I have had some interaction with OpenFuture. My impression is that OpenFuture is certainly able to be civil and contribute thoughtful commentary to work towards consensus, though there also have been some questionable comments [171] [172]. He has also been informed numerous times about objections presented to him that have been dismissed or disregarded. [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] and there's been a very good amount of claiming "victory" (or "case closed") quite prematurely [178] [179] [180] [181]

All in all, I just wanted to point out that the complainant here may not be blameless, (though I repeat that, for the large part, his responses are helpful for the project). If there is action though, I think it'd be fair to make sure that the circumstances are checked. BigK HeX (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not the circumstances. Wrong article, again. This has *nothing* to do with Mass killings under Communist regimes and stop trying to make it part of that conflict. If you feel I have done something wrong, use the standard procedures for that, which starts with telling me about it on my talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sme editors; same tactics; different article. No surprise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What the heck difference does it make if I am referring to my observations at the "Mass killings" article .. especially when that is one of the places where there has been interaction between you two?? This ANI is about civility, and you have levied a noticeable portion of incivility yourself over this past week. BigK HeX (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So start an ANI or a WQA about it, but stop coming with vague baseless accusations here. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. WP:DR.--Chaser (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a content dispute as well, but it is impossible to go forward with that with Pmanderson as he refuses to engage in civil, constructive debate. And if you look at WP:DR for uncivil editors, you get recommended to go to WQA. There I was recommended to go here. So I am following WP:DR. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your needling each other is incidental to the content dispute. Pursue those channels.--Chaser (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "needling" is, but if you are referring to his personal attacks, then I am not needling him. What channels should I pursue? According to WP:DR I should go to WQA. There nothing happened and I was told to go here. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Chaser, yes there is a content dispute this however does not excuse such a gross breach of wp:civil calling people liars, ignorant, and a vandal. I would like User:Pmanderson to be reminded that such incivility is not tolerated on wikipedia mark nutley (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully we are producing a dictionary, too. Pursue those steps in the dispute resolution process, other than WQA, that you have not yet tried.--Chaser (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, the only step I haven't tried is WP:RFCC. That's an informal non-binding process, meaning that the outcome is likely to be useless, but it's my understanding that I have to do it before going to actual mediation. I have to say that I'm very surprised that it must take so long to get an administrator to make any form of action towards somebody who persistently attacks others with absolutely no provocation. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You've already tried informal mediation? If not, pursue this with the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. A user RFC is not what I meant.--Chaser (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment User:Pmanderson is a capable editor and not prone to incivility. He is a blunt editor and will state the facts without sugar-coating, but that is different than incivility. If someone is expecting "please" and "thank you" and "by your leave" in Wikipedia editing, then their expectations are unreasonable. If Pmanderson suspects that either User:OpenFuture or User:marknutley is a sock of the other, then I would judge that to be the case. Pmanderson is experienced enough to know what socks look and act like. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck.... There isn't any incivility here on Pmanderson's part. --Taivo (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have checked above before posting, look at the wikistalk. Please redact your accusation of sockpuppetry. And if you think calling people liars, and ignorant is civil i`m glad i don`t live in your neighbourhood mark nutley (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

More attacks: [182] --OpenFuture (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Odd behaviour from OhanaUnited

OhanaUnited (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a couple of troubling edits over the last few days. The first one was a huge bunch of original research he inserted into an article page supported by forums and blog posts. This alone was way out of left-field for an administrator as far as I was concerned at the time. I reverted it[183] and left him a note on his talk page. I didn't get a response right away and kind of forgot about it. I went back to his talk page to see if he'd ever replied and found this [184] a silent removal by a guy who seemingly archives everything. No explanation for the extremely poor edit. While I was there I noticed an odd discussion with Elekhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I went to their talk page to get the whole story and found some rather disgusting comments from Ohana leveled at Elekhh. User_talk:Elekhh#Portal:Contents.2FPortals. Elekhh sums it up best in their final comment. But calling my edits on the Portals Contents page as "unilateral", "undiscussed", "reckless" and implying incompetence and bad faith, topped up with a "stern warning" of blocking.... what do you think of that? An admin ignoring all the evidence about his missinterpretations and refusing to engage in a WP:CIVIL dialogue?. Another user points out his "warning" was over the top and unwarranted as well. But calling a user incompetent because you disagree with them and not explaining those kinds of edits to articles isn't really appropriate administrator behaviour, and for some users that kind of personal attack would either get a strong warning or possibly even a block. Interestingly enough in this one post to a talk page a month ago he warns a user for all of these things [185], and should really know better on all fronts. The second is clearly more egregious than the first, but taken together they show some emerging hypocritical un-admin like behaviour that is bordering on disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Elekhh tried to use this silver star to represent featured process

(one-sentence summary provided at the end in case someone wants to read my response quickly without going through a textblock) Well, let's see, has anyone seen a featured process use a silver star? (image provided on the right side) I'm pretty sure most, if not all of you, have never seen a silver star like that. What's more worrying is that according to a userbox on Elekhh's talk page, Elekhh found and nominated 2 pictures to featured status. If he actually take a look at the userbox he uses, then he would realize how all our featured process use gold star yet he still went ahead and add silver stars to these 10 pages (diffs provided) [186][187][188][189][190][191][192][193][194][195] Is this an honest mistake? If it's done on a few pages and not familiar with any featured process then yes. But on a grand scale like this? He probably knows what he's doing (or at least think he knows). Next thing, for many of the diffs shown, Elekhh added comments like this "<!-- for featured portals use ^{[[File:Cscr-featured2.png|11px]]} --> ". Yet when he told me which venue did such discussion takes place, he shown me to Portal_talk:Contents#Icons. Take a read at the discussion, did you see him mentioning *anything* about switching featured star from gold to silver? No. Others, later on Elekhh's talk page, also agreed that featured content should be in gold and not in silver.[196] If switching featured contents from gold to silver is not considered to be "unilateral" or "reckless", then what is? (For example, if someone tries to change FA star on featured articles from gold to silver, watch how fast the edit will get reverted). And never did Elekhh post notice on any featured portal process. I seriously believe that his notice was posted to the wrong crowd and missed the intended recipients that will otherwise benefit the discussion. In summary, Elekhh changed featured portals' star from gold to silver without any discussion, posted a notice for comments on changes to a page unrelated to any featured portal process that did not reach any intended audience to facilitate meaningful discussion, plus the discussion itself did not tell anyone that the star will change its colour. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You're just completely ignoring all previous explanations. What you present above is your missinterpretation of my edits, determined by your continued assumption of me being of bad faith. I reiterate: I did not propose to change the colour of featured portal stars. I did change the representation of featured portals on the portals contents pages from bold italic text to a star symbol, as discussed on the relevant talk page in January. What you perceive as "grand scale" is nothing more than the complete set of separate chapter-templates which together compose Portal:Contents/Portals. I used a small star symbol of 11px not 50px as you indicate. Both the image you added to this discussion and its caption are missrepresentations. I explained to you why I used that symbol, and also that I have nothing against the other symbol. Note that Featured content is represented with different symbol in Template:Link FA as well, assumably for the same reason that it appears at a very different size than the one on the top of portal pages. Please be carefull with your conclusions. At this stage, as you again accuse me of bad faith, and noting that you added a new accusation by questioning my honesty, I must agree with Crossmr's listing of this issue on this noticeboard. --Elekhh (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet you still don't address what you're doing running around trying to insert original research in an article supported by citations that don't remotely meet WP:RS and WP:V. Someone of your position should be well aware of those things and as I indicated you seemed aware of all of these things a month ago, and then continue to duck the issue. this isn't adminly behaviour. This is the behaviour of someone in the first few days or weeks on wikipedia. There are more editors that have commented that don't support your over the top warning and accusations of bad faith than do. WP:COMPETENCE is reserved for people who are so bad that they can't effectively communicate and work with the community. Frankly you're now giving me that impression with your utter lack of ability to address your inappropriate addition to that article and your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response to what you said on Elekhh's talk page. You might disagree with what they did, but the way you said it would be inappropriate for a new user let alone a "trusted" admin.--Crossmr (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

@Crossmr: I didn't add any info back after your revert and considered it as "case closed", so you still consider this as "duck[ing] the issue"? It appears that you're the party unwilling to let this matter rest. @Elekhh: I didn't accuse you of dishonest, I was only wondering why you requested for feedbacks on Portal_talk:Contents#Icons rather than on Portal talk:Featured portals or Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates when it indicating a featured portal is part of the featured portal process. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 11:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider an admin walking into an article and adding original research supported by forums, blogs and other conjecture to be "case closed". As I said, you should know better. The fact that you haven't, or can't, explain why you made that edit is what makes it a problem. You also went far beyond "wondering" at what Elekhh did by bring WP:COMPETENCE into the discussion as you did, along with your "stern" warning. We don't "wonder" with a banhammer, threats and insults. Which is why I brought it here. Both of those things are disruptive. Administrators making bad edits and threatening people doesn't help the community and only causes issues. Even if you considered it case closed, why didn't you archive it like everything else on your talk? you've got plenty of other talk on your page that is "case closed" Like a several months old GA sweeps update, a several months old notification for an event that has already passed, etc. No, you quietly removed that comment, and now 3 proddings in, still have failed to defend or explain what you were thinking adding that kind of content to an article.--Crossmr (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a look at WP:OWNTALK? It means I read your comments and understand your concern so I stopped further pursue in this matter. The timeline nor the logic fits if I do it the other way around. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read it. But you just told me you removed it because you felt the case was closed. Why haven't you removed other things, inconsistency doesn't help you defend your actions. It looks pure and simple like you were ducking the issue and the fact that you still won't explain why you made those edits makes it look even more like that. You demonstrated the month before that you understood WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Since you're continuing to duck the issue yet again let me blunt: What were you doing, a supposed trusted administrator with so much experience, adding that kind of content to an article? For someone of your position, it is frankly disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding OhanaUnited's messages to Elekhh: As easily verified, and as explained above and many times at Elekhh's talkpage, Elekhh did not change gold stars to silver stars, ever. Elekhh simply picked the wrong icon to use, when replacing the bold italic that the portals had been using up until then (see example prior to Elekhh's edit). Continuing to assert that he did replace gold stars with silver stars, and insulting the user with suggestions of recklessness and incompetence, is blatantly uncivil. I'm concerned about the lack of admittance and/or apology for a proven mistaken interpretation - you cannot just abandon a thread where you've made strong accusations and then had core-assumptions proven wrong. Everyone makes mistakes, it's how you handle the mistake that matters. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that is the problem. It's the same way he's acting about the original research he added to the article. Trying to pretend it didn't happen, nor admit fault, nor explain why he added it. this is not good behavour for an administrator. It is disruptive and not conducive to a community.--Crossmr (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have heard the input and comments and will try to take this to heart. I would like to step back from this incident and take some time to think it over and reevaluate my actions. Thanks for all your feedback and I hope I can continue to serve the community. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

An 11th hour apology isn't exactly sufficient here. Through several messages you've shown no indication that you realize you've done anything wrong and even with this you show no actual understanding of what you did wrong. You've gone out and made entirely inappropriate edits to an article and continued to avoid answering questions about why you made that edit. Even now, when I put the question directly to you, you've ignored it. You've gone out and threatened and insulted a user through several messages, even when told your interpretation of what happened was off by a mile. Now through an AN/I thread, you've showed an utter failure of ability to understand what you did is wrong, and your apology sounds like you're running for office and contains nothing that actually addresses what you did.--Crossmr (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr give it a rest. OhanaUnited has apologized and said that he is going to reevaluate his actions. What are you suggesting, that he be desysopped for this mistake? Do you think you might perhaps have a chip on your shoulder about this? LK (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No actually he hasn't apologized. that is the problem. An apology would mean that he's shown that he knows what he did was wrong and is sorry for doing it. Can you show me where he's indicated anywhere that he knows what he did was wrong? Neither"I have heard the input...and will try to take this to heart" or "I would like to step back from this incident and take some time to think about reevaluate my actions" says "I know what I did was wrong". It just isn't there. Both of those sentences are business speak for "not really saying anything at all or committing to anything". The fact that I've asked him 4 times to explain his edit and the fact that he flat-out refuses to shows a much larger problem. Someone with utter disregard for those around him. It's one thing to ignore an issue, it is another thing when the question is put directly to you to just pretend it was never asked. As for what I'm suggesting, I haven't made a suggestion at this point. What I did was brought a user who was acting disruptively in two separate incidents in a very close time frame here. Why do you think I have a chip on my shoulder, because I insist on matters actually being full discussed, or that I don't put up with people trying to sweep things under the rug? Are you perhaps assuming a little bad faith?--Crossmr (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr, I'm not sure that you have provided evidence that OhanaUnited's actions on this one edit "shows a much larger problem". Having read this, it seems a pretty small problem to me. I'm here because I know - I think we all know - that OhanaUnited makes a huge contribution to Wikipedia. Yet it's entirely possible that he owes you an apology Crossmr - so my question to you is, under what circumstances would you be prepared to let this drop?Travelplanner (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Prolific non-admin AfD closer

Resolved

 – Nothing wrong with non-administrator closes in general, nor these ones in particular. To contest them, see WP:DRV. Skomorokh 09:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs) has been relisting and closing hundreds of AfD's per day. As far as I can tell, most of the keep/delete closures he makes are uncontroversial, but he appears to very often close AfD's as "No consensus" if there are no comments or one comment and the AfD has been relisted once. I have routinely seen AfD's that were relisted three times before enough comments were amassed to determine consensus. One relist is not enough, and closing these AfD's as no consensus is disruptive, especially since he's not an admin. Can an admin take a look at his closures and recommend that he either stop closing AfD's, or at the very least, stop closing AfD's as "No consensus" when they have only been relisted once and have no comments or very few comments. I have reverted one of his closes on an AfD that I was involved in, other closures may also need to be reverted. Here are 6 out of the last 10 or so that he's closed:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip Hop Love
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trucks and Bus Company (I was watching this one and I reverted his close. It already got another comment)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factor X (Ailyn album)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trøndertun (this one he supervoted to redirect despite zero votes and one relist... wtf?!)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop Princesses 2009

AfD's should really not be closed by non-admins routinely in the way that this user is closing them. If he wants to close hundreds of AfD's, he should apply for adminship. Thanks. SnottyWong ^speak 02:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Snotty, all of these closures are fine to do. After two weeks with no edits, there isn't really anything concerning about the closures as nothing was going to clearly occur. The AFD that you nominated and reverted the closure on is concerning because you have a conflict of interest there. By reverting the closure, it looks like you are in a way fighting to see your point agreed upon, something which isn't smart to do here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not fighting to see my point agreed upon, I am fighting to continue a discussion that was prematurely closed. I nominated an article, it deserves to be discussed even if it is not an "interesting" AfD that gets hundreds of comments. Whether it turns out as keep or delete is fine with me, but I'll see to it that it gets a proper discussion. If Ron closes any other AfD's that I am watching in a similar way, I will be reverting all of the closures. SnottyWong ^talk 02:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't be a dick, Wikipedia:WikiBullying. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

These all look very fine NAC to me either, in being either WP:SNOW keeps or AfDs that have been left without an editor opinion after a relist and therefore, technically, not consensual. In fact, I am going to barnstar the guy for his tireless help in reducing the AfD backlog. --Cyclopia^talk 02:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Um. No. Protonk (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD with no comment should result in delete, as if it was an uncontested PROD. Miami33139 (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, I've proposed that twice. Rejected by the community both times. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So wait, you mean to say that if I was to nominate a bunch of unknown pages and no one commented on them they should get deleted, effectively allowing me to disrupt the site in a way? What if the page is actually noteworthy? That statement seems to indicate that the admin would have no choice but to delete the page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(after multiple edit conflicts) Ron Ritzman is extremely experienced at closing AfDs. I've probably seen him close hundreds, and never thought that any needed to be reverted, and I don't see a problem with any of the ones listed above either. He knows the guidelines very well. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any issues either. Ron knows what he's doing. —fetch·comms 02:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:RELIST suggests that AfD's should be closed as No Consensus if no comments have been received after 2 relists. It also provides no guidance for non-admin closures in these cases. Erring on the side of caution, these should probably not be non-admin closed. And he's also closing AfD's as No Consensus when they have more than 0 comments, and he's supervoting and closing AfD's as Redirect when they have 0 votes! As a non-admin closure! I can't see how this is acceptable. Which guideline allows this closure? SnottyWong ^squeal 02:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm noticing a theme here in the AFDs that you are pointing out. Except for one that was create by you, the others have all been created by the same editor. Also, why are you going with his most recent closures? There is nothing wrong with his actions here and I stand behind his closures because I know that he is a capable editor here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Which guideline allows this closure?" This one: WP:Common sense. sonia^♫♪ 02:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that I've been around AfD's for awhile, and I don't see admins making these types of closes. Even if there's one comment on the AfD, it doesn't deserve to be closed as no consensus. That just wastes two people's time (the nominator and the lone !voter). If I didn't revert his close on the AfD I was involved in, then I would have just relisted it immediately and would have been back to 0 votes. So all his non-admin closures are doing is erasing one vote. This is not productive. His closures have been reverted and challenged in the past. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I.Q. Hi and Wikipedia:AN#NAC closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FDr. Kenneth K. Kim for recent examples. I agree that most of his closes are fine, but I think he may be getting a little too comfortable. If he really wants to close a lot of AfD's, he should apply for adminship. SnottyWong ^verbalize 02:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So what you are basically saying is that administators get special treatment. He was being bold and ignoring all the rules so there is nothing wrong with his actions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Simply because you disagree with Snottywong is no reason to be rude or to be argumentative to the point of ridiculousness. Of course administrators get "special treatment" -- that's what it means to be an administrator. And simply being bold and ignoring the rules does not mean that your actions are automatically correct or free from scrutiny -- quite the opposite. Propaniac (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Snottywong, you are giving the impression of spinning things to suit your own purposes here. Ron's closes are fine with regard to WP:RELIST, and Ron didn't touch Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Kenneth K. Kim. In your initial post, you asked for an admin to review the closes. You've now had three admins, and multiple other editors, say they are fine. You've accused him of disruption, but there is no disruption on his part. Enough. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fine whatever. I'll also be ignoring all rules and being bold by reverting any future similar non-admin closures on AfD's I'm involved with. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 04:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not the road to harmony. Please just look at AfDs on a case by case basis and don't revert a NAC unless it is absolutely necessary. Protonk (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No you will not. You will be uncivil and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you have an issue with a closure, admin or not, take it to deletion review. --erachima talk 05:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not disrupting to make a point, just making sure AfD's properly see the light of day. WP:DGAF. SnottyWong ^yak 14:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You can do that but someone will probably block you. I mean it's a gamble but I wouldn't advise not giving a fuck because that's how a lot of users end up banned. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's IMO very poor form for an AfD participant to revert a close, NAC or not; for someone to engage in a pattern of reverts of closes found to be fine by multiple admins is IMO highly disruptive—it consumes scarce admin time for no benefit, and it alienates our good NACers—and could conceivably lead to a block in egregious cases. If you disagree with a close, find an uninvolved admin willing to revert it (for NACs, of course), or go to DRV.

Ron's closes are consistent with WP:RELIST, and there's nothing wrong with any of them. Honestly, he's been closing AfDs well before I started editing. He knows what he's doing.

And no, that redirect is not a supervote. He's saying, "there's no consensus in the AfD, but having closed it as no consensus, I'll be bold and redirect it". Nothing wrong with that; the fact that he happened to do it in one step instead of two (close as no consensus first, then redirect the article) does not change things. T. Canens (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I finally have a chance to reply to all this. Closing AFDs with little or no participation after 14 days is within the bounds of WP:RELIST but SnottyWong does have a point, I seem to be the only one doing this. Our policies and guidelines are for the most part "descriptive". They are suppose to reflect what is common practice and if closing AFDs as "no consensus" in lieu of a second relist is not "common practice", then WP:DELPRO needs to be changed to reflect what is. I started closing AFDs this way shortly after AFD went from 5 to 7 days because I realized that relisted AFDs would be open for almost half a month and I thought this was plenty of time for most AFDs. The only AFDs I would relist a second time were those for BLPs.

I still think that doing it this way is a good idea but there has to be a community wide consensus for it. Another question, is closing AFDs as "no consensus" instead of a second relist really reducing the backlog? It depends on how many of these articles are actually being "speedy renominated". I might check a few to see if this is the case. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is still one item that needs to be discussed here. If we have this non-Admin relisting & closing "hundreds" of nominations a day, there are no Admins currently doing any of this work, & from what I can tell the chief objection anyone has to this person doing this is that...he's not an Admin, then why don't we fix this? Let's make Ron Ritzman an Admin! After all, a quick look at his record shows the guy has been on Wikipedia since January 2005, very active since June 2008, & has no records of blocks or other problems. So if RR has been doing the work of an Admin, why not give the man the title, the blame & the shiny little toys that go with it? We can always use chumps hard-working people like him as Admins. -- llywrch (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been proposed to Ron quite a few times, but he hasn't pursued it yet. I'd nominate him in a heartbeat if he changes his mind. Shimeru 09:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Very,,,unusual editing style from User:Booktv28

This is the first time I've brought something to ANI, so if I am in error and there is a better place for this, please let me know and I apologize. User:Booktv28 has, for lack of a better word, an extremely strange editing style. First, as you will note from his talk page, a number of articles that he has created have been proposed for deletion and/or speedily deleted. S/he seems to be mostly creating and editing articles about books, which tend to lack reliable sources proving the book's notability. That, in and of itself, isn't what caught my eye, though. In looking at the history of one of these articles and trying to follow through diffs, I found that he tends to edit by adding or subtracts very tiny amounts of text to an article at a time--often as little as one or two characters. The easiest way to see this is to look through the history of Buckley: The Right Word. For a specific example, look at this series of diffs: [197][198][199][200][201][202]. That series of diffs takes place within a 2 minute period, and uses 6 edits to remove about 8 characters. Can there really be any good reason to edit in this way? I mean, I can surmise some bad faith reasons why a person might do this...but not a good faith one. In particular, I was worried because this particular article was nominated for deletion by User RHaworth at 17:59 on July 12, two edits after which Booktv28 removed the prod and then subsequently added over 200 edits in a 24 hour period. So I wonder if the purpose here is to hide the proposed deletions? But I feel like he does this in other situations even before there's a proposed deletion. So I guess I'm wondering if anyone else thinks this behavior is odd, and, if so, if it's something that requires Admin intervention. I did ask him about it on his talk page a few days ago, but got no response. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No idea why anyone would do this but it is clearly disruptive editing. TFD (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Most unusual way of creating a animation I must say... Soxwon (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he's just trying to beef up his edit count? Sarah777 (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he is checking his changes and hitting the wrong button? Has anyone mentioned to him he can preview his changes? Perhaps english is not his mother tongue? mark nutley (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a very unlikely explanation. Who needs to preview their edit after adding a single letter? This is a very disruptive way of editing, as it makes it really hard to review their edits and it makes a mess of the page histories. Someone should block them if they start up again.--Atlan (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he uses some broken editing tool?--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave this user a final notice at the end of June about his disruptive editing, particularly on Barnes and noble review, which he has created 5 different times, all of which have been speedily deleted. After having his/her talk page on my watchlist for a while, I agree that his editing is disruptive, especially with books and BLPs. Is it possible that this account could be a promotional one? --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It certainly seems possible; but it also seems possible to me that s/he is using Wikipedia as a place to "play," I think I read an ANI recently about a user banned because he thought of it as a place to "edit" rather than an encyclopedia (I'm not suggesting they're the same, I'm suggesting the purpose may be similar). I wish s/he'd give us some sort of indication, but as far as I see, s/he's only written on his/her talk page once. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If I am thinking of the same editor you are, Qwyrxian, that person was considered either undeniably too incompetent to contribute or a troll. And I suspect we have the same either/or situation here. A glance at Booktv28's edit count shows that out of all of the edits she/he has made, only 14 have been to user talk pages -- all to the user's own page to leave some extremely bizarre comments. (Well, actually one -- unless you want to count the one Booktv28 deleted after 18 hours.) Not the most ringing endorsement of the ability of this editor. -- llywrch (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Huey45 acting in “bad faith” and colluding with others to sabotage article “Art Student Scam”

User:Eva Grossjean

Eva Grossjean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

New User:Eva Grossjean is repeatedly being abusive towards Spanish people and towards anyone whose English isn't perfect (even though hers isn't either). She is also edit-warring with a pro-Catalan and anti-Spanish POV on Catalonia, including going as far as to revert even Jimbo as a vandal. She is not listening to warnings. See WQA alert at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Eva Grossjean, and check our her Talk page at User talk:Eva Grossjean. I don't think anything short of admin action is going to stop this abuse. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and she's also been abusive and condescending at Talk:Catalonia#Catalonia is not a nation (at least legally) but a historical nationality. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Warned for edit warring, as nobody seems to have pointed that problem out to her yet. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, good point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It would seem reverting Jimbo as a vandal is either an action that rather lacks WP:CLUE, or is an attention-seeking device. Jusdafax 15:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess that, as a new user, she doesn't know who Jimbo is. But she ought to know the difference between 'vandal' and 'person who disagrees with me' already. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, especially as Jimbo explained himself very clearly in his edit summary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys, are in a sect, in a cult or what???? "including going as far as to revert even Jimbo as a vandal. She is not listening" Of course!!!! FYI, your Jimbo is not Moses: he's just another human being...

On POV, I'm not anti-Spanish at all: I'm anti-anti-Catalan, which is waaaaay different.

As I argued before, anti-Catalan bigotry had taken over Catalonia's article to the point of deleting any reference to Catalonia's Parliament from Catalonia's article. And nobody did anything (just imagine no reference to Congress in the United States' entry--would that be allowed?).

(Oh, by the way, sorry for violating California's three strikes' rule... Now I know that next time I'll be sent to the electric chair)

Eva Grossjean (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"As I argued before, anti-Catalan bigotry had taken over Catalonia's article to the point of deleting any reference to Catalonia's Parliament from Catalonia's article. And nobody did anything" - That is not what this ANI report is about. It is about your abuse, of other editors personally, and of the Spanish in general. If you see anti-Catalan bias, you are welcome to replace it with neutral POV text (see WP:NPOV), suitably referenced - but you must not be abusive to other editors in the process. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• While the points you raise, Eva Grossjean, may well be valid (I have not looked into it), your manner is highly unsuited to both the forum you have been brought to and the project as a whole. You seem to be on a disruptive, name-calling binge. Since blocks are meant to be preventative, and you are insulting as many people as you can manage, I propose that, without a rapid apology and promise to maintain basic civility, a block at this point would be a good idea for all concerned. And I speak as a longtime fan of Patrick O'Brian's fictional part-Catalan Stephen Maturin. Jusdafax 16:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse I agree with Jusdafax. Eva must understand that it is his/her tone towards other editors that is the problem. It is about decorum not content. He/she can either play nice or we will ask her to move along.--Adam in MO Talk 19:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse They've received way too many warnings already and a WQA. There's no reason to allow this behavior to continue further. There's been no progress that I can see, therefore I think we're at the point where a block is needed. Wikipedia can be friendly and fun, or it can be serious and focused, but it should never be hostile and mean. The community shouldn't have to put up with it. Swarm^Talk 06:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Perhaps a block will convince the user to play nice. LK (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional. She's still edit-warring and re-inserting a claim that Catalunia is a "nationality". That's blatantly incorrect even in simple grammatical terms - "Catalunia" can't be a nationality any more than can "England" or "Spain" ("Catalan" perhaps, but not "Catalunia".) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - A look at Eva's edit history confirms that this is a WP:SPA. The user is disruptive, proudly defiant even when commenting on this page in the face of unanimous community concerns, and shows no intention of changing an agenda-driven edit campaign. This is as clear-cut a case for a preventative block as I have ever seen, and I suggest per the above that an administrator do so after reviewing this material. Jusdafax 12:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked the account because it's only been used for disruption. Should they wish to edit again, they need not apologize. They need to state with sufficient details what articles they propose to edit and what improvements they'd like to make. Jehochman ^Talk 12:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and impeccable work on the conditions for an unblock. Agree that my call for an apology and promise lacks precision. Jusdafax 12:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But, no blocking (or even a warning) for Jimbo for his blatant vandalism?!? WTF? Admin bias... Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you are not joking, Jimbo was not the direct subject of this ANI section. You are free to open one, of course. Jusdafax 13:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that there is also an open SPI case involving this user, see here. Not sure of the validity of the claim, but the two accounts are making pretty much the same edits, from a Catalan nationalist perspective, and often use similar phrasings in edit summaries. Although there are also subtle differences in style as well. More broadly, the Catalonia page is a disaster currently. Constant edit warring between two or three different versions, all with their own issues from a neutral bystander's point of view, not least in terms of English language and style issues. The dispute between Spanish centralists and regional nationalists is a long standing issue of course, but the latest round was sparked off mainly by a recent Spanish Constitutional Court decision on Catalonia's bid to assert more autonomy within Spain. N-HH talk/edits 15:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have noted this action (the indef block by Jehocman) at the SPI page. If Eva Grossjean is a sock, that raises the stakes again, and we should start thinking community ban. I'd ask that we not close this as resolved just yet while we await further information, thanks. Jusdafax 17:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a joke (see edit summary). Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not a good subject to joke about. People who claim Jimmy Wales has vandalized a Wikimedia project almost always fall into one of the following groups: (1) totally clueless editors who don't know who he is; (2) editors who know who he is, but are here to cause trouble; & (3) established editors who are alarmed or angry over something Wales has done. In none of these cases is anyone involved in the mood for a joke about Wales being a vandal. (Note: this is simply an explanation, not a warning or a talking-to. The way Wikipedia works has gotten so complex that I doubt anyone has a full & accurate knowledge of every part of it, & misunderstandings like this are inevitable.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring question

When is it acceptable to refactor out tendentious commentary from article discussion that has no place in article discussion? I mean, when it's rude, when it gets all uncivil and accusatory, or does the person pretty much have to call you a fetch monkey to warrant removal? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is "when the tendentious commentary does not involve you, and you don't have a grudge against those it does". For more, see WP:TPO. Skomorokh 15:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Good description, Skomorokh, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The personal attack was towards me, and repeated. As it's pretty off-topic from the conversation, I'll simply archive it as per TPO. Thanks, Skomorokh. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be inadvisable. There are better routes for dealing with personal attacks than messing with other people's comments. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Sarek, I am dying to hear about this "better route" to dealing with repeated attacks, such as the comment you thought was fine enough to actually revert back in. You are probably going to want to read up a bit more on the page history, so you don't make another error, though. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting, SoV. This is an opportunity to educate me, as I requested, on how to better deal with tendentious posts like this. ;) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing plenty of tendentious discussion, without having to click on any links. It might be best for Jack to take a short break from editing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol. My buttons can get pushed like anyone else's, Sheff. I found SoV's behavior..well, less than optimal for an admin. Call me a loose cannon, but I don't really cotton to being treated uncivilly by folk. So I got upset. SoV's lame behavior exacerbated it. No excuses; I lost my cool. Doesn't mean I'm wrong, though. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty thin skinned myself, esp when I feel that I've been accused of not acting in bad faith. However, Sarek is right, it's never a good idea to remove criticisms directed at yourself – that's just opening a can of worms. Your choices are pretty limited. You can: i) Report the guy to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (which is kind of a joke, as nothing ever gets resolved there). ii) You can start a user conduct RfC, if the guy has been abusing other people as well. And iii) if the abuse threatens violence and/or is vulgar, you can file a report here and hope that an admin warns/blocks him. Otherwise, just grin and bear it. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, the best response to abuse is to ignore it. It's the 'price' of contributing here. Like they say, if you can't stand the heat .... LK (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope you meant, "when I feel that I've been accused of not acting in good faith." :) Gwen Gale (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! --LK (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Boobis69

Boobis69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Blatant vandalism-only account, but was only blocked for 1 month - shouldn't it have been indefinite? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• what are the odds that user will come back with that account name after a month. And if they do, bully for us, it will be easier to block than a new account with no history. Protonk (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not ask the blocking administrator? –xeno^talk 19:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I was really just asking for my own enlightenment - I expect they'll probably never be back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for people to find Wikipedia and go "woo I can write stuff", which is what this is, rather than intentional vandalism. We usually give them warnings to tell them this is serious business and they should stop, rather than immediately insta-banning them without warning. Users making their first test edits who haven't been made aware we have policies will be treated more leniently on average. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for the info. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Would have thought a UAA vio anyway. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Poor professor Alan Boobis, born a UAA violation.--Atlan (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

He should have thought of that. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Problematic user: ChaosMaster16 (Again)

Resolved

 – ChaosMaster16 will remove problematically sourced material, and everyone concerned will play nicely in future.

See also: Talk:List of Ghost Whisperer episodes § pifeedback.com as a source, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Pifeedback.com, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive625 § Problematic user: ChaosMaster16

ChaosMaster16 is refusing to acknowledge an obvious consensus at WP:RSN and edit-warring at List of Ghost Whisperer episodes, although not in a way that would justify reporting at WP:AIV or WP:3RRN. Some time ago, in the process of rebuilding List of Ghost Whisperer episodes, I removed several ratings figures because they were sourced from pifeedback.com, an internet forum. ChaosMaster16 reverted not only my edits, but all of the changes made by four different editors.[203] Eventually ChaosMaster16 allowed most of our changes to remain, but challenged the removal of the pifeedback.com information. Neither the RSN discussion in May or WP:SPS was ufficient proof for him that pifeedback.com is not reliable, so I initiated another RSN discussion.[204] The response of five editors still wasn't sufficient so he spammed several user talk pages, resulting in the recent ANI discussion linked at the top of this section. Now, a total of 19 editors have been involved with 13 editors declaring either that pifeedback.com shouldn't be used or that it is definitely unreliable. That still is not good enough for ChaosMaster16.

When it became clear that consensus was that pifeedback.com was not reliable, I removed the information from the article.[205] My edits were reverted, as were the edits of another editor who tried to remove the information.[206][207] In my case, I was accused of vandalism.[208] He then claimed that four editors said the pifeedback.com figures should be included with citation tags.[209] In reality, a single editor suggested the possibility,[210] and ChaosMaster16 took that as consensus. I challenged his claim and, when he hadn't responded in two days, I removed the pifeedback.com information. However, it's back again, having been restored for reasons that aren't entirely clear from edit summaries. He now claims that the "for and "against" sides are even at 6 people each, despite a tally that I did so as to hopefully resolve this debacle, shows a somewhat different story. (13 not reliable - 3 reliable)[211] This may seem like a content dispute but when one editor is ignoring the opinions of many others, or twisting their opinions unrealistically so that they support his arguments and just making stuff up, it's beyond mediation.

It's really not just this issue. His whole attitude to the project needs adjustment. Edit-warring, reverting significant edits by others, improperly warning users and deliberate addition of false information[212] is not showing respect to the project. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment on this particular incident, but I did feel his final question in the previous discussion indicated, shall we say, a tendency to wish to push the boundaries, rather than understand the point at issue. To wrap up an ANI discussion by trying to get clarification on just how far you can push in future seems a little problematic. Is there any future in counselling here, in case it's a case of good intentions, but not understanding? To elaborate, what I'm suggesting is that sometimes a user gets pulled into conflict without understanding there's another way - and maybe this has happened here. Just a thought. Although I guess he's been here a while now - maybe he should already have "got it" - just trying to see a painless way forward.  Begoon^talk 20:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"a tendency to wish to push the boundaries, rather than understand the point at issue." - This was something that I observed about him elsewhere. He applied for rollback permission and when told he needed more vandal fighting experience, with a suggestion of at least 50 vandal reverts, rather than getting some general experience he rushed out, did 50 reverts then came back and said OK, I'm done.[213] As for counselling, I think it would have to be forced. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok - take your points, and you obviously have far more of the history here than I do. I would always just rather see us be able to reform a user than lose a user, especially one with a long contribution history. I haven't fully reviewed that history yet - my comments were based on my default to "fix" rather than "abandon". I see from your initial comment that's your preference too. I'll comment fully later.  Begoon^talk 20:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Initially, I mainly see this one dispute over pifeedback.com as the main point of contention. That certainly seems to be the focus of recent problems. Is there more than that, or should we, in reality, concentrate on that as being the nexus of this complaint?  Begoon^talk 21:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

His unwillingness to acknowledge consensus the he himself help to create is certainly a major issue. If we can address that, hopefully the result will be positive for all. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that posts such as this are appropriate. This one seems like he's forgotten the other ANI discussion already. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok - you got me there - my good faith is stretched remarkably now. I hoped he'd absorbed the advice given - seems not really. I just find it sad when seemingly a single issue can end up this way. It's like we've all failed to stop an accident. Sorry for seeming so insistent initially - now I've read some more diffs I agree this isn't really tenable as it is.  Begoon^talk 23:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

How in the world is asking Mike Allen, who was already in the discussion and obviously has some interest in the issue, and adding a notice on top of an entertainment notice not appropraite? I admit the entertainment board is pushing the limits, but you are seriously going to pick out Mike Allen's and use that against me? And let me remind you Aussie, that this is an ongoign discussion, it doesn't exactly have a consensus yet, as we are still discussing the issue, which you seem to be in complete denial of discussing. Coming here before the discussion is over is proof enough. And, Begoon, I don't exactly see how my question in that discussion was "pushing boundries". I mentioned it in my previous response, and Aussie responded, a few times on two discussions, blatantly ignoring the question. I honestly just wanted to hear his opinion on that, and certainly wasn't intentionally trying to "push boundries". I do apoligize for sounding mean?, I don't mean to. ChaosMaster_Chat 00:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't sound mean. I just think it's time this was put to bed. It isn't going to be seen as constructive after an ANI thread here regarding spamming a request, where you agreed to be more circumspect,to then "piggyback" that request on another template. That's certainly pushing boundaries in my book. If this was a schoolyard, I'd ask you to all go behind the bikesheds and settle your differences. It's starting to look a bit silly  Begoon^talk 01:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

So what should we (or I rather) do? I am opened to anything, as this is getting rediculous. I think that the discussion is getting under both Aussie and I's skin, but I do think that it has progressed and improved. The point I was trying to to make was heard and I hope with that, it will turn the tables so we can do whats best for wikipedia, not just simply obide by five or six rules that prevent us from using common sense. ChaosMaster_Chat 01:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think what I linked above (after the edit conflict) might be a start if you genuinely can't just discuss it and reach a compromise independently on your talk pages. You both want to contribute positively, but there is a difference of opinion. Certainly couldn't hurt to try  Begoon^talk 01:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

suggestion, Has anyone ever heard of WP:SNOW? That's exactly what this issue is. So far this is quite strong consensus (key word being so far) that the source provided is not appropriate. Don't forget WP:Consensus isn't decided on the number of votes, its the quality and merit of the points made. Instead of fighting over it here's a suggestion. Chaosmaster16 should remove the information to his personal user page or a sandbox/whatever to preserve it and search for more appropriate sources. You should really accept the evidence before you about why the source is not acceptable. Once that it does maybe you and 'Aussie' can work together on the rest of the article/project amicably. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - that was the kind of agreement I hoped they would reach independently - I agree, though, some nudging may help :)  Begoon^talk 01:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't intend to start an arguement, but I did already try to provide other sources, as well as another user (I guess, from the edits he has made), but I haven't come up with anything better than that source. I don't see any reason to use my sandboxes for this if I alread basically went through the notion. Now what? ChaosMaster_Chat 01:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you're "open to anything", ChaosMaster, how about we start there - with Lil-unique's proposal. It works for me, and hopefully makes some sense to you too. At some point, the stick will need to be dropped.  Begoon^talk 01:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing is you cant leave poorly sourced or unsourcable information in an article in the hope that one day it might be sourceable from reliable sites. The whole point of using a sandbox is to preserve the information if you are intent on adding it to the article. Whilst your determination is admirable, I've scanned the discussions and have to agree that there isn't currently a good source for the info. You and 'Aussie' are obviously both passionate about this so why not focus on other aspects of the project/article. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it would seem a shame if this got further prolonged into more tit for tat and ended in some kind of sanction - that's avoidable at the moment, but I suspect this audience has limits to its tolerance.  Begoon^talk 01:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Begoon would agree with me if I said that if you drop ChaosMaster16 drops the issue then this report can end here without sanctions right? Both you and 'Aussie' should agree discuss things more. I'm sure you'll find that the project/article will make more progress this way. After all wikipedia is about the community not the interests of individual. I'm sure both of you would love to see the project make progress (y) --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Its fine with me. But what worries me when that happens is that since I have used that source on other pages that I edit, I fear the same situation happening. But for Ghost Whisperer's page, I will do that. ChaosMaster_Chat 01:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, lets eat the elephant one piece at a time. First you can tidy this up, then if you need to, you can worry about other places you've used the source - how does that sound?  Begoon^talk 01:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, should I do this now, or wait for his or another comment? ChaosMaster_Chat 01

57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're in agreement to it then the situation is resolved. Go ahead and removed from the original article which 'Aussie' bought you here for. Then I think its a case for you and Aussie to agree to be more civil to each other and please discuss things more! --Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes - and thanks for talking it through with us. Do that, shake hands,and get on with the stuff you enjoy!  Begoon^talk 02:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you two for helping me! :) ChaosMaster_Chat 02:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Though it should be noted for future reference, I'm a completely neutral editor with no interest in the subject at question. Nor am I an admin. I simply saw the discussion and having been through a similar situation myself offered some neutral advice. Glad there has been a calm resolution. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome - I hate to see conflicts escalate, when they can be avoided. Very glad this seems to have been resolved.  Begoon^talk 19:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Return of a blocked sockpuppet

Resolved

Can someone take care of this: [214] Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: User:Wisdom.Wisdom has made an open declaration on my talk page that s/he is a sock of User:Wisdom24 who was recently blocked as a sock of blocked User:Dr.Mukesh111. Active Banana (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Account blocked. Despite their protestations, the editing pattern is very similar. WP:DUCK -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Since a different editor left you a new comment, I fixed your diff. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I did CU W24 confimred YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed

There is a persistent IP who keeps adding "leg snapped like a twig" at Jason MacDonald. The page was blocked for a while, but the protection was recently lifted. Here is the history of the page. The IPs making this change are on the 67.109.80 range. Longterm rangeblock please. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears this is a very narrow range and I have blocked 67.109.80.176/28 for two weeks. We'll see if that quiets it down. TNXMan 22:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Above-normal disruption at AfD

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communiqué "Geochange", User:Ismail Valiyev has been fighting hard - very hard - to save his nonsense article. He's created several sockpuppets (User:EIC, User:Daniyel, User:375geo), canvassed 10 users at az.wiki (of whom one, User:Cekli829, voted), and probably canvassed User:Aydın Çaldıran as well. In January, he managed to fool us at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes, with all "keep" votes coming from him, from his sockpuppets or from users he canvassed. Let's hope the same mistake isn't repeated.

And while we're at it, some of his other absurd promotional creations, such as Elchin Khalilov and World Organization for Scientific Cooperation, should probably also be brought to AfD. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You could report to sockpuppet investigations about it and request a CheckUser, but it is plausible that this is likely canvassing; in either case, the closing admin should keep this in mind when closing this particular AFD. –MuZemike 00:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Added {{notavote}}. Closing admins routinely disregard meatpuppet votes. Nothing more need be done.--Chaser (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The AfD was just closed as "delete", but User:Ismail Valiyev almost immediately restored the article to mainspace. Nsk92 (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

G4 deleted. User can take it to DRV if he wants, and try to influence that with his meatpuppets. Nominating the other related articles seems a good option as well. Fram (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Other two articles now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes (2nd nomination). Fram (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:White people

Resolved

Could any admin please remove the las two summaries of the page Talk:White people (IP and Sinebot), both are racist. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's racist, but it's not so terrible as to warrant expunging from history. If we were to revdel every single racist comment on Wikipedia (and don't get me wrong, they are offensive), we wouldn't have much of a website left. TNXMan 23:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That edit isn't even remotely qualified for revdel, if that's what you're asking for. —DoRD (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn, though I always see admins removing things per RD2 or RD3 although they are not needed to remove them. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you there: RD2 and RD3 certainly are being overused lately for things that would never have been oversighted back before we got revdel. Thanks for your understanding. —DoRD (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As someone who strongly suspects he's overused RD2 and RD3, I'm inclined to agree; however, the scope of rev-del is broader than oversight. To my mind, the problem is "grossly" - one editor's "grossly offensive" is another editor's "mildly offensive". I think it depends on the target, as well - I'm more inclined to use rev-del on attacks against editors or BLPs, whereas general slurs - attacks against entire peoples or groups (as seen here) I'd be less inclined to. I'm in no way convinced mine is the correct approach... I am convinced, however, that the community needs to come up with better guidance for idiots like me. TFOWR 23:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I was really worried about rev-del when I first heard about it for exactly that overuse reason. It's meant for undoing worrysome attacks against individuals or violations of privacy, etc. I don't think offensiveness as a whole should be a relevant reason to use it. Shadowjams (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Swastika!?

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

---

Resolved

 – Not a subject for ANI: propose discussion at the venue mentioned below

Why does the Nazi stub template have a Nazi swastika pic? That symbol is banned in most civilized countries. It's offensive and I propose immediate removal. I mean this: .  Dr. Loosmark  22:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it's (and try to follow along with me here) the Nazi sign. Ergo, anything concerning Nazi Germany or Nazism in general should use it. Frankly the fact that you dislike it is irrelevant. HalfShadow 23:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Should be discussed at Template talk:Nazi-stub# Use of swastika as tag image; I see that there has been some editing back-and-forth over it before: [215]. –xeno^talk 22:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Although it's not very constructive, I can't help but to comment on this: Isn't the wording "civilized countries" inherently racist? Is Dr. Loosmark saying that India, China, Thailand, etc. (where the swastika is not only not banned, but a frequently used cultural symbol) are beyond the limits of civilization? --Soman (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Frequently used as a cultural symbol? Yeah right. Not the Nazi swastika  Dr. Loosmark  23:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems that a huge number of articles are "stamped" with the Nazi swastika. See: Leipzig Trial, Distomo massacre, Niskie etc ezc. Really disgraceful.  Dr. Loosmark  23:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The swastika isn't banned at Wikipedia, so if you think it should be changed, all you need to do is establish consensus for your desired change. No administrative action seems to be required here. The swastika isn't banned in the United States, either, which is where Wikipedia is based (and thus, the laws which govern Wikipedia.) I sort of think of the United States as a 'civilized country,' but I'm aware that some people disagree. At least we have high-speed internet and indoor plumbing... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It might not be banned in the USA but it is most certainly very bad taste to say the least. And the fact that it is so widely used here is just another example of the moral degradation of wikipedia.  Dr. Loosmark  23:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• And right there you just lost any good faith your argument deserved. Please drive through. HalfShadow 23:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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

User Jayjay979

Resolved

Please immediately ban User:Jayjay979 for this:[216][217]. XLerate (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Warned user, will keep an eye on them. Please post to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if it continues and for future similar requests. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Never mind, already blocked. Evil saltine (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked for a week: the article they created inciting people to kill an admin, simply for deleting a pretty pathetic article is a sad statement. It'll give them time to read how to behave. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. XLerate (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A one week block for a death threat to an admin? I called the real life cops in on a bomb threat earlier this week... we need to start making it clear that we have zero tolerance for this type of thing. Jusdafax 02:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur- this should be an indef block- if not a community ban. Courcelles (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I also think there should be zero tolerance, I meant indef block rather than ban. It is possible to get an IP address to report to law enforcement? XLerate (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a kid who flew off the handle about having his article deleted. He has apologized profoundly and seems sincere about it, but I've advised him to wait out the block and try to spend some time learning our policies. I'm not guaranteeing anything, but sometimes if you hold open the door to right behavior, people will walk through it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Jeffpw

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked by Courcelles. LK (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please look at User:JeffpwIsaac, a reference to departed User:Jeffpw and Isaac. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Perma blocked the troll and deleted that user page under G3. Courcelles (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for the speedy action. <sigh> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My god Disgusting! We do a Fishing Expedition Checkuser on this one? Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is once again JIM ME BOY (talk · contribs), who has used other socks such as I Heart Jeffpw (talk · contribs), I heart Jeffpw@simplewiki, I Love Jeffpw (talk · contribs), and Jeffpw's gay lover, Isaac (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 08:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please report him to his ISP? There is no excuse for that behavior. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:WQA

 – NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Lost Fugitive (talk · contribs) seems to be in direct violation of WP:NPA. Take a look at the last few edits he's made to my talk page since June:

• Telling me not to "destroy" a GA nomination
• Calling me "monkey boy", not once but twice

This hatred of me seems to stem from the fact that I passed Eddie Rabbitt, on which he worked extensively, as a GA and then listed it at GAR because I had (valid) second thoughts on the article's quality. I also chainsawed Love & Gravity, on which he added a great deal of OR (most of which he later reverted, but I since re-removed).

Also, he created an article on a non-notable Dan Seals album which was listed at AFD and later restored as a redirect. The extensive discussion over lack of notability apparently went over his head, as he as asked that the redirect be removed so he can rebuild the article, despite having its lack of notability plainly spelled out.

This user is a very problematic one and a constant thorn in my side due to his confrontational, insulting nature. I've repeatedly asked why he continues to insult me, and he just shrugs it off. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: User:Lost Fugitive has been informed of this ANI Moxy (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is more of an issue for WP:Wikiquette alerts. I'm placing a No Personal Attacks warning template on his page, FWIW now. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

C'mon this was a joke. Mr. Hammer needs some thicker skin.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Also please note Mr. Hammer's removal of sourced content as "crap".--Lost Fugitive (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

He then proceeded to nominate the article's sound clips for deletion without any notification.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for my comments. I understand how they can be seen as personal attacks. I did not mean to insult anyone. And I did not create the Dan Seals article, I just wanted to attempt to improve it.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Another sock of Ocean Mystic Researcher?

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked by MuZemike. LK (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Melanesian obsession (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new account involved in article deletions and targeting Richard Arthur Norton's articles. The MO is uncannily similar to that of Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Any ideas? Or should I just go to SPI instead? Thanks. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In either venue, you'd have to expand on "uncannily similar". I can see some grounds for suspicion, but only weak suspicion.—Kww(talk) 04:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, both accounts concentrate on AfDs as soon as they register, both have maritime related names and both start targeting RAN's articles soon after they register. Maybe a duck case but it is your word against mine at the moment. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just ban the asshat already, its clear what he's doing.--Milowent (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • He even prodded an article by RAN before without providing a reason. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, same user as User:Drawn Some and User:Torkmann, same pattern of right into AFDs and right into nominate my articles, and usually there is another account voting that is also him, look and see if there are any other delete votes for an obvious keep article and that will be another sleeper account. He usually has ones that are used for a short burst then quiet for a year. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Lots of fowl play I see. Great work Richard. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. –MuZemike 08:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much MuZemike. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Boldly closed this AFD a little early. Obvious keep. Left the rest open as they haven't been open for very long and/or have delete !votes aside from the nom. Perhaps an admin can look them over. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding by Drmies

Resolved

 – poppycock Toddst1 (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This was archived before I even had a chance to respond! Not only are Drmies actions were pretty blatantly wikihounding, he's clearly pushing a POV. Far from "anyone who knows anything about human trafficking", there's substantial evidence that most claims of human trafficking are wildly exaggerated, particularly those related to sexual trafficking. Here's a couple of examples from a quick google search: [218] [219]. I will be updating Human Trafficking to be more balanced when I have time to do more research. But a first step in improving wikipedia is to remove/reduce the undue weight given to the topic. We can't have editors who believe everything the hear on the 11pm news during sweeps week blocking constructive edits. And to follow another user around and revert other edits with the clear intent to annoy and push POV? Unacceptable. I suggest Drmies stick to topics he's more knowledgeable about and contribute constructively to wikipedia there.

For example: Template:Violence against women was blanked and stayed that way for nearly a week before I fixed it here. Are we really to believe that it's better to have the template be blank than exist without a link to human trafficking? Even though Sexual Slavery and Forced Prostitution are already there? That may just be sloppy editing, but given his other actions it's unlikely. TJ Black (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:STICK? Protonk (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

He does seem to have stopped for now, so yes, I agree it's kind of a dead issue. It's not clear why the discussion was archived before I had a chance to reply though. TJ Black (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not "poppycock" by any means, but apparently resolved through the other editor deciding to refrain from disruptive behavior. TJ Black (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Sweetpoet's personal attack comments

Reporting Sweetpoet (talk · contribs), who is currently nearing the end of his weeklong block for edit-warring with Novaseminary (talk · contribs) over the article Separated brethren (see ANI thread here). An anon IP came along and left these remarks on Sweetpoet's talkpage, expressing sympathy over the block and disgust with Novaseminary. Sweetpoet replied with this dissertation on the endless horribleness of Novaseminary, calling him not just "insufferabl[e]", "jerky", and "an uncool schmuck-turd", but also a "sick troll", a "neurotic petty maniac", and a "lowlife". (There was also some abuse thrown in for the "uptight Admin" who blocked him.) I deleted the whole string of unconstructive attack comments per WP:NPA, adding a recommendation to think over for a day whether this is really what he wanted to say before mindlessly reverting. Instead, the revert was prompt, with an edit summary totally failing WP:OWN and WP:NPA.

The whole string of comments -- from a user who's blocked for his inability to work on the project without warring and conflict -- is harassment and attack, shows no willingness to participate constructively, and ought to be deleted.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a number of Sweetpoet's posts and have had email from him - I have no confidence that he will change his behavior. I see the IP posted his/her attack on several editor's talk pages. I don't know if this is worth an SPI. Dougweller (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See his latest comments also. He doesn't seem to care. Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not; I just noticed them too, and some of those comments, I have to say, are pretty out there. I'd think an extension of the current block to allow some time to cool off and reflect would be pretty obviously warranted. Otherwise, it expires in only a day or so.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Outside opinion: I'm not sure a cool-down block would be effective. If anything, it may simply exasperate the situation. (In my opinion, a cool-down block is equivalent to poking a bear.) The comments are definitely violations of WP:NPA and should provide enough insight as to how this editor intends to contribute in the future. I was originally going to suggest the editor be left alone to see how he edits post-block (as they have stated to be too busy for Wikipedia), but I also feel failing to address such blatantly personal attacks would be inexcusable. Hazardous Matt (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoever the IP was, they must have thoroughly searched my talk page history to come up with this example of a "run-in", for instance: [220] regarding minor discussion of my deletion of unsourced game playing strategy for the party game Buck buck. My first interaction with Sweetpoet (SP) was after I proposed the Separated brethren article be merged. SP repeatedly removed the discussion banner ([221]) and was blocked for it. That alerted me to SP's refusal to follow policy and guidelines which caused me to keep a closer eye on the couple of pages at which we interacted. I have tried to be clear that I do not mean to attack SP personally, I'm just trying to make sure pages are well-sourced, etc. I have fastidiously held SP to WP rules. I think SP's sense of ownership over a new article SP created has led SP to feel that questions or criticism related to the article are personal attacks on SP. In turn, that justifies, in SP's mind, personally attacking me (and several other editors). So, more than any particular time period for a block, I would hope SP does return until SP demonstrates an understanding that criticism of an edit is not a personal attack, while insults directed at an editor unrelated to edits are PAs. SP should also express an understanding of consensus and demonstrate a willingness to live by it on WP. Novaseminary (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

He's emailed me, more or less along the lines of his comments on his talk page. He's made it clear in his email he doesn't care about Wikipedia any more and so is holding nothing back. Those of us who haven't criticised Novaseminary and Glenfarclas are somehow to blame. He doesn't understand that his rants distract from anything else. We can wait until his block expires and give him one last chance. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on 2009 Richmond High School gang rape

Unless I have misread the discussions badly, the consensus is clear on the article’s talk page and at RS/N: racial designations are hearsay in respect of the specific cited sources, and that race was not a factor in the crime. (This is the very short form of the discussions. There is no single diff that will help.) Richmondian, the more vocal of the only two dissenting points of view, keeps restoring racial designations to the lede. Richmondian also leaves edit summaries in misleading support of his idiosyncratic viewpoint. See here and here. (I will notify Richmondian of this discussion as soon as I finish this post. Disclaimer: I am “involved”.) I solicit suggestions as to the least disruptive way to stabilize the article at the consensus version. Bielle (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Posted [222] Bielle (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have also just left this user Richmondian a warning template here on his talkpage for unnecessarily striking through one of my comments on the Richmond High School gang rape talkpage in this edit with some note of, duplicate vote stricken, which was news to me as it wasn't an AFD and was the first time I had bolded support in that way. This user has massive ownership issues with the article and is insisting of inserting content that gives weight to a claim that is unreflected in quality citations, namely that the rape was racially motivated. Off2riorob (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This editor put a "support" comment twice. Once without bold, once with bold. Could confuse people. Seems reasonable to strike out one. This will sound petty, but the editor seems to have some sort of grudge, against the article for some time. Not clear why but he's tried to remove info, tried to delete it, tried to damage the article to make an AfD more likely to succeed. Richmondian (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've posted on the talkpage regarding reliable sources and requested a list of the sources being used to support the edit, I'll then evaluate and comment. Exxolon (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Commented. I'm for leaving the information out at this time. Exxolon (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the time and effort taken by Exxolon to evaluate the sources cited. He has added his voice to the many who have already reached the same conclusion, as linked above at talk page and at RS/N. Off2riorob has reverted Richmodian's most recent revert as a consequence. Perhaps Richmondian will now accept that the weight of policy and opinion is against the point of view he espouses. These actions seems just to continue the edit war, though, albeit with another voice involved. Is this the best way to handle the problem? Or are we just waiting now to see what Richmondian does next? Bielle (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

415plya, a WP:SPA whose only edits have been to this article and on this issue, has returned to revert Off 2riorob here which was promptly flipped back by Drmies here. The skirmishes in the war continue. Bielle (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No idea who that is. Seems like an editor that has a difference of opinion that should be considered (and probably an editor with other accounts...strange that they'd pop in to edit this article out of the blue) Richmondian (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Defamation and copyright complaint on Talk:Yolanda Soares

An anonymous IP address that previously vandalized the article is now claiming to be a publisher and on the article talk page and two other user talk pages claims to have made a report to the Swiss Authors Society. Please see Talk:Yolanda Soares#Copyrights and defamation relating to song writer Alex fan Moniz - this Wikipedia entry has been reported the the Swiss Authors Society. Fæ (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward, against whom this IP has complained, asked me if I'd block the IP per WP:NLT. While blocking seems to me to be warranted in this situation, I hesitate to do it, because I'm rather inexperienced with this situation. Some time ago, I blocked someone for making legal threats; soon afterward, I brought the issue here for advice and was kindly told that blocking wasn't necessary. Since I don't want to block unless it's necessary, I don't want to block without getting input first. That all being said, I think the IP should be blocked until/unless the threats are retracted. Nyttend (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP address can be temporarily blocked for WP:NLT. As well, the apparent latest sockpuppet account User:Simongad (which appears to be related to the long list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Montreux69/Archive). The basis for this disruption dates back to the Helen Anne Petrie hoax -- info and links are provided at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. I don't want to get into a discussion of public identities and locations here. If any administrator wants further clarification, they can e-mail me. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Advertising on a talk page?

Recently, I've noticed that this IP on his talk page seems to be advocating a certain charity which i'm not sure if it's a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING or WP:ADVERT or not. Can someone shed some light on this? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

From the talk page: Hi, The REPs – Recognising Fitness Professionals [1] (registration number 1098336)[2] site is a non profit charity, most jobs ask for it because of the industry recognition. The statement which was up for a long time on Wiki was that it was a legal requirement, but anyone in the UK can call themselves a personal trainer and it is not a legal requirement.

I don't really see that as an advertisement, especially in the current context. (If you have a specific diff you'd like to present, that might be helpful.) The IP was asked how to verify the legitimacy of personal trainers in the UK, and the IP linked to what is (allegedly) a non-profit group dedicated to providing such information. Notability and credibility are another matter, but it definitely doesn't appear as advertising. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well there are the 2 wesites he was trying to link to here and here which may shed some light on it but I suspect you may be correct in your summary. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by no means am I insisting my analysis is spot-on. I do see in the talk page history that there has been some discussion about the IP's conduct as well. It wouldn't hurt to let this thread sit for a bit and get some other eyes on it. The worst that will happen is it will go stale and get archived. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Christopherfisherington

Resolved

 – chicken/penis uploader indeffed by CIreland. Me, I'm just waiting for the White Rabbit--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Christopherfisherington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Vandalism under pretext of "challenging convention" I'm sure. Current problem is with inclusion of a "hawkstrider" picture with a definite phallus for a head (funny sure, but inappropriate) in the Orc page. A cursory viewing of his short history and especially his User talk page will show his attitude towards wiki. --Out of Phase User (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a chicken to me? (Albeit badly drawn.) a_man_alone (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging by his contribs, the user seems to be purely disruptive and an obvious troll. I am amazed that he hasn't been indeffed earlier. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm not making a comment on whether he should be or not, just noting (for clarity) that he hasn't been indeffed now either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean, he titled a picture after me of some weird chicken. I didn't catch it, someone else did and pulled it for copyright stuff. It's harassment, I guess, if it helps the case. --Out of Phase User (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This image, File:Outofphaseuser.jpg, may be CSD G10able. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Image deleted. Please don't delink the image, by the way; I've remarked about the ANI discussion in my deletion summary, and including a link to the page will enable someone to find the discussion easily. Nyttend (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the account. CIreland (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I realise this is all moot, there was a lack of assumed good faith there:

• User uploaded badly drawn image of an orc on a chicken
• Another user saw not a chicken, but a penis, and complained
• Original user uploaded another badly drawn image of a chicken to show that it was a chicken, not a penis. Original uploader called second image that of second user, so second user would know that the image was an example of a badly drawn chicken, not a badly drawn penis.

For the record, I see a chicken.

a_man_alone (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Chicken, penis, whatever. The user's other contribs (especially deleted contribs) were more than enough justification for an indef-block. CIreland (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Also regardless of it being a chicken or penis (couldn't care less), childrens drawings are usually not accepted as informative illustrations on Wikipedia (unless it is to illustrate what children's drawings look like). --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryan kirkpatrick back again?

Not sure if this is the right place, but while sitting on newpage patrol just now I came across an article written by User:Ryan Kirky. Username similarity aside, it looks very similar to User:Ryan kirkpatrick's air accident articles. Just thought it should be brought to your attention; I'm not sure what the best course of action is here. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are no users with knowledge of Ryan to concur with any WP:DUCK-tests (I find that unlikely, he is well known) then I suspect an SPI will be in order. I suspect users with said knowledge will materialise soon. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've templated his new articles as copyvio - they could be, as at least one other was, just turned into redirects to articles that mention the incidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef. NW (Talk) 19:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

personal attack by user:HalfShadow

Here: [223] "More than a dozen people have explained this to you; given as you don't 'get it' yet, I can only assume your intelligence is damaged. Do your parents know you're here?". Just because he does not agree with me he should it does not mean that WP:civil does not apply anymore. I request administrative action.  Dr. Loosmark  17:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've redacted the latter portion of remark. @HalfShadow, you recently were unblocked after being blocked indefinitely for personal attacks - I think you would do well to avoid making comments like this again. –xeno^talk 17:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Whereas if someone else had said the same thing you'd have just overlooked it because 'they're really useful'. You guys can spend all day seeing who has the longest one; I'll even give you a tape measure. Meanwhile, I have actual work to do. HalfShadow 17:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have re-instated the indefinite block of HalfShadow, and advised them accordingly. I did so on the assumption that the lifting of the previous sanction was on the basis that they would refrain from further attacks; and not so much for the resumption of insults but the cavalier attitude toward the complaint and possible response. Any admin who feels that my action is too harsh, or that HalfShadow is now properly cognizant of the need to maintain decorum in their dealings with other editors, may lift or vary the sanction without reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

actually.....if you look at the previous block and unblock discussion [224] there was no particular mention of personal attacks, and indeed the move from two weeks to indef seems to have been because he was unrepentantly gobby with those admonishing him, rather than for personal attacks. I would not have thought that the comments to Loosmark would have been worthy of administrator action (certainly not for an indef) were it not for the perception by LHvU that it related to the previous block/unblock. If it were me, I'd cut him loose after 24h, other views may vary. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Let's all be simply realistic and just unblock. It will happen anyway sooner or later. FWIW I didn't see that comment as particularly blockable in the first place. Pedro :  Chat  22:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Indef is out of proportion. Reduce to 24 hours and be done with it.--Chaser (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Indef completely wrong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Image inappropriately cute for PKK article

I am involved in possibly the most curious episode of reverting I have ever witnessed, let alone participated in. I find that the image I reverted with this edit (with summary) entirely inappropriate for the article - most of the time I spend adminning the article is in removing gratuitous ethnic, cultural, and nationalistic insults and attempts to vandalise the other protagonists viewpoints. I have explained on the ip editors talkpage that I consider placing the image on the article page as vandalism, as I believe it is placed there to irritate editors whose view of the PKK is somewhat caustic. I am beginning to believe, however, that it may be simple propoganda, but regardless I would like a few other opinions on this - I don't really want to be warning an editor for placing "nice pictures" in articles unless it is agreed that it is inappropriate. Please note, viewing the image may not be suitable for those of a fragile disposition. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes the "PKK guerilla nurses an orphaned bear cub" picture is innapropriate for this article. I shudder to think what a nightmare of propagandaists that article must be.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't find the image in itself objectionable, altough I would move it lower down in the article. The image of a guerrilla in non-combat situations is not erroneous, in fact most time spent by guerrillas is not in the battle-front (although nursing orphaned bear cubs isn't the most mundane chore at hand). However, the image is likely to get deleted anyway, due to lack of proper licensing. --Soman (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As Soman says, we try to keep reuse of news service photos to a minimum due to fair use being very hard to justify in those cases unless the image is in itself "iconic". So if you need an argument other than "it's too cute", there's that. --erachima talk 18:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

ahhhh..bless. Yes the image doesn't have a valid license, it's on commons and according to this it's one of Andrea Bruce's and was in the Washington Post. So, I guess we shouldn't have it unless someone can make a valid fair use case for the small furry chap. Also leaning an AK47 against something like that is quite a serious a health and safety violation and we shouldn't be encouraging those... Someone might get hurt. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely inappropriate as the first, principal image of what a PKK member is, unless they are principally armed bear-nursers. It's also taken from [225] with insufficient credit and no fair-use rationale, and fails NFCC#1 ("no free equivalent exists or could be created"), since there are free equivalents in the article already. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, do not delete picture. Picture is allowed for sharing and that gun in picture will not hurt anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santakari (talk • contribs) 18:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What is really funny is that the uploader lifted the image from a commentary about the original use of the image in which the commentary is stating the use of the image in regards to discussions about the PKK is completely inappropriate propoganda! Active Banana (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged it as a copyvio on commons. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not the first time S has uploaded that image there, claiming to be the author! LeadSongDog come howl! 19:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested Short Summary for User Huey45 acting in "bad faith"

As evidence that huey45 is acting in bad faith, user: huey45 makes this statement that he is aware is a blatant lie.

He says… “I called it "the fake Israeli thing" because all of the previous sources (yes, you're not the first person to mention this) suggested that the salesmen weren't even Israeli, let alone art students.”

In fact, all of these sources unequivocally state that they were Israelis, and mention art students. The fact is that Huey45 has been repeatedly lying with the purpose of mutilating the content of this article.

He even continued to lie in the above thread. What's worse, other users are claiming that Huey45 didn't lie, when it is clear to someone with only moderate familiarity with the previous and/or current sources that he is deliberately lying.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Preciseaccuracy's behavior might need to be examined further now. this and this could be considered canvasing and Preciseaccuracy has already been asked not to refer to other editors as liars.Cptnono (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of these users were involved in the articlesfordeletion page of which seeming user collusion occurred.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Repetitive sneaky vandalism of Robert Watson (scientist)

Resolved

 – Article protected Hipocrite (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A series of loosely organized "skeptics" are attempting to put false, defamatory content in Robert Watson (scientist). Dr. Watson said that Mars' thin atmosphere causes it not to have a greenhouse effect (while Venus' thick atmosphere causes it to have a huge greenhouse effect). This is in line with standard scientific thinking. An IP vandal attempted to insert the false inormation that this is not in line with standard scientific thinking into the article - this was reverted, but that reversion was questioned as a vandalism or not-vandalism revert.

However, users are now reinserting the false, defamatory information into the article, in violation of BLP. Please assist. Hipocrite (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The material may or may not be a WP:BLP violation, that is certainly a topic for debate, but to call it "vandalism" and “defamatory”? Methinks the lady doth protest too much. WVBluefield (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The material is a blatant synthesis to make defamatory accusations against a living person. Failure to understand something is no excuse for edit warring to re-add obviously poorly supported material, and a look at the article talk page would have shown you that the material was false. Not good behaviour. . dave souza, talk 20:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blatant is a judgment not neccesarraly supported by the talk page material. Given the past inconsistent treatment of "blatant" material in BLP's by editors far more experienced than myself, you can understand my skepticsim when I hear cires of "blatant" violations. Oh well, at least no one is calling it "vandlaism" anymore.WVBluefield (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, your edit wasn't vandalism, it was just disruptive. The IP edit was vandalism - it was intentionally disruptive. Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My intent was to insert relevant material into an article. WVBluefield (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Is`nt this forum shopping? As hipocrite has already brought an enforcement request against me? [226] mark nutley (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Mark, this is to get a bunch of admins looking at the article to block the next person who feels like defamaing a living person. Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Are IPs allowed to edit here?

I was participating in a discussion at the administrators noticeboard when suddenly I was called various names, and had my posts refactored. Than another user mocked me on the talk page of another. Is it ok for people to participate in discussions here as an IP, or does that automatically make me some kind of wiki-criminal? I fail to see how my initial posts were those of a "troll". Also, for some reason this post will not go through as it says "edit filtered". I don't know why. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I am still being called a troll and other names at the talk page for LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyway I am leaving as its obvious you have to register an account and make lots of edits here before anyone will hear the content of your statements without attacking you. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)FWIW, I've notified LAEG of this incident complaint. As well, I am the person who encouraged others to DFT when she popped up in conversation (oddly enough, her first three edits were in AN. How very...convenient). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that it's very unusual for a brand new user to even realize that WP:AN exists- in general, new users are interested in the encyclopedia, and only discover the other parts of Wikipedia later. By discovering WP:AN before any other part of the encyclopedia, you're giving the impression that you're not a new user. Anonymous editors are welcome here, but if your ip changes frequently, it might be better for you to use an account, just so others will know that it's you editing, and not have to wonder why your contribution history doesn't match the edits you're making. Have you had an account at Wikipedia before? Or have you used other ips? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That does not justify both Jack and LAEG's falure to AGF and attempts to silence criticism by attacking the editor rather than the argument. The irony of that thread is that the IP user has a better understanding of WP:AGF than they do. Resolute 21:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a valid point; the anon's contributions at WP:AN seem entirely reasonable to me, unless there's some context I'm missing here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Agree 100% with Resolute. There are a couple of people at that thread who don't understand AGF, and it ain't the IP editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolute, I have been trying to help the new user, particularly on my Talk page. There's no lack of AGF on my behalf. And as to Jack, the IP came out of the box swinging and Jack was playfully responding. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill, particularly for a possible sock. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me add the IP was not complaining about me, and I do not know how I got involved in this, other than suggesting AGF adherence. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nor I. Like LAEG said, she came out swinging, and others suggested the she wash's as she appeared. As the commentary wasn't particularly useful to the discussion, I felt it best if we simply continued on beyond the IP's remarks. Last time i checked, DFT is not the equivalent of a failure of AGF. An IP showing up on the Admin Noticeboard, dropping acronyms like what-what? Please. LAEG was right to suspect something sideways. If it quacks like a duck... - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you realize that you deleted one of their comments, or was it an accident? It's possible you just don't understand how to handle an edit conflict. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I kinda do know how to address edit-conflicts. I am unsure where I deleted someone's statements here Oops, found it. Nope, I don't think it was an ec, seeing that there was some minutes between posts. It might have been net connection hiccup. I've been advised about refactoring. Is anyone else noticing the wiki adding a bit wobbly today? :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

[227] --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Apki.ammi.chodu

Resolved

 – user blocked)

Apki.ammi.chodu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Yet another WP:DUCK sock of Shshsh stalker: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive622#User:Shshsh_ki_mako Active Banana (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Group all sixty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - here's another one. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And another one: Still strong.still (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

AIV backlogged

Can someone take a look at it please? Falcon8765 (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

IP disruption at Template: Dallas Stars

IP 76.183.227.42, continues to reinsert an A beside Jere Lehtinen's name in the mentioned template; even though that team didn't name him an alternate captain for the 2009-10 season. The IP continues to push his edit, going against the Dallas Stars official website (a reliable source). GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Inflammation Diet

I can't locate a diet or nutrition Wikiproject, and I would like to ask someone familiar with those types of articles to review Anti-Inflammation Diet before trying to prune it down to size. The article has some well-referenced sections and some encyclopedic content; but a large chunk of it seems to flip between being better suited for either marketing materials or in a magazine/journal.

Can someone please help point me towards an apporpriate forum where people more familiar with articles on diets and/or nutrition could be contacted to help review this one? Thanks. --12.193.27.158 (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)