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

Wikihounding and disruptive editing?

Crossposted to WP:VPM

I just tagged every single subpage and article in progress within my userspace as {{db-u1}} and if things continue on as they have been I suppose I'll be posting a {{retired}} notice soon as well. Despite repeated AN/I reports regarding the disruptive and tendentious editing behaviours of Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme over the last year and a half, it seems I still cannot edit without these editors wikihounding me while working together as a group.

My main editing focus had been to topics related to computing and online/electronic forms of communication. These were not areas in which these three individuals previously edited (the sole exception being Miami33139's prods/AfDs of multimedia-related software articles).

Even after taking the behaviour issues all the way to ArbCom, where the case was unfortunately delayed and overshadowed by the EEML case (which was in progress at the same time), very little was addressed. [1] [2]

I personally made a huge mistake in allowing myself to be baited by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma who were editing my comments on an article talk page [3] (where they then also edit warred with others [4]) and reposted parts of my comments out of context (and in a manner in which made them appear to have been posted that way by me) on a talk page that was part of the ArbCom case. [5]

Allowing myself to be baited resulted in ArbCom handing out a "civility restriction" for me, [6] (which maybe I really deserved for allowing myself to be baited in the first place) with the behaviours of the three individuals largely still not addressed. [7] The case evidence I presented [8] was not used by the drafting arbitrator and no mention of Theserialcomma's disruptive behaviours were brought up in the proposed decision he drafted. (I suspect this is because I was the only editor who presented evidence of Theserialcomma's behaviours.) The omission in the proposed decision was openly questioned by others but was still not addressed. [9] The way in which the case name was chosen most likely did not help matters all that much either. [10]

After the ArbCom case was closed, the wikihounding increased and I finally took a break from editing articles. I tried doing Commons work for awhile but I found I still needed to update pages on Wikipedia which used the images. In doing so I found that just making those small noncontroversial edits was enough to trigger the wikihounding so I cut back on my editing even further.

I made another huge mistake when I vented some of my frustrations via email at Sandstein with being wikihounded and harassed off-wiki by Theserialcomma. He responded by blocking me for 18 days. [11] After I was unblocked by another administrator who reviewed what was said and had transpired, I immediately apologised to Sandstein for the venting [12] [13] as I had already realised that venting my frustrations at him really wasn't the right thing to do and I felt bad about it. This incident generated an enormous amount of email discussion.

While blocked for 18 days, I spent the better part of it reviewing my own behaviours as well as my interactions with Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme. While doing so I also began to review their interactions with other editors. [14] I documented Theserialcomma's interactions with others in detail [15] and began to do the same for Miami33139 [16] and JBsupreme. [17] Due to time constraints, I stopped work on this and never picked back up on it after I was unblocked.

A civility restriction was later put in place for JBsupreme [18] due to his continued behaviours but it really doesn't seem to have had much of an effect. [19]

I just took an entire month off from editing due to both the continued wikihounding and my workload. [20] In that month, Miami33139 regained his internet access and picked right back up where he left off. [21] Some of his very first actions were to MFD and CSD pages I had sandboxed, [22] including one which JBsupreme moved from the sandbox to mainspace. [23] [24]

Some of Miami33139's next actions included MFDing subpages from within my userspace, [25] [26] (which both Theserialcomma and JBsupreme then became involved in as well. [27] [28] [29] [30]) Miami33139 then restarted his previous behaviour of going though my contributions and removing/prodding/AfDing things which I had edited many, many months earlier. Miami33139 has done similar things to editors other than myself (such as Beyond My Ken/Ed Fitzgerald and others), but like Theserialcomma and JBsupreme, Miami33139 seems to try to make just enough non-controversial edits or edits to related/similar pages to disguise his other actions.

A number of editors and administrators contacted me via email and let me know of Miami33139's return and subsequent MFDing of subpages within my userspace. Several further suggested I not become involved in those MFDs as the actions by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma appeared to be an attempt at baiting me shortly before my civility restriction expired (see above).

I really have tried to do some good here on Wikipedia and improve coverage of computing topics which have been in dire need of expansion. Due to the wikihounding however, I'm beginning to feel as though my efforts have largely been a waste of time.

As I finish writing this, I also note JBsupreme removed my CSD tag from one of the in-progress subpages within my userspace, moved it to his own userspace, and then blanked it. [31] [32] [33]

Sigh.

I think I'll take another short break from Wikipedia as my workload really hadn't decreased just yet anyway. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• just one preliminary point--moving the material and then blanking with the history intact preserves the content, and I think it's acceptable behavior. At least I hope it is, because I once did something similar myself to preserve content for future use. However, surely he should have notified you he was going to do it. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It doesn't really tally, though, does it? JBsupreme wants the page deleted because it "borders on abuse of userspace", but will go to all of this effort in order to retain it under xyr own user space, including reverting a deletion request by the person who is, purportedly, "abusing" xyr user space with it in the first place. This just doesn't add up. Uncle G (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Something else I noticed after posting the above is that Hm2k did something similar with another draft I had within my userspace. What was odd is after he moved it to his userspace, Miami33139 immediately initiated a MFD for that in-progress article. [34] I know Hm2k has good intentions as far as improving the draft article so if he wants to work on it, he has my support. The immediate MFD by Miami33139 is certainly strange though. (It is probably also worth noting that Theserialcomma wikihounded and baited Hm2k previously as well, eventually leading him to lash out and be blocked for a short while. Theserialcomma is also the one who initiated an AfD for mIRCStats in the first place, when the wikihounding by Theserialcomma first began.)

      Shortly after JBsupreme moved the above mentioned draft from my userspace, he also removed the majority of the content of Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients [35] just before initiating an AfD. [36] This is actually the second time JBsupreme has attempted an AfD for this page and the MO of blanking the article before nominating it for AfD is one of his regular tactics. Considering how JBsupreme argues against reliable sources and so on in AfDs [37] and considering that even an ArbCom restriction has failed to curb his behaviour, I honestly don't see any point in even trying to participate in that AfD because I feel he would just attack me (as he has done previously) anyway.

      Sigh. What a complex, tangled mess. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    • Given this edit [38] I moved the page back to my userspace and redirected it for the time being. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing for admin to do here, this has been to Arbcom

This is wrong forum. Arbcom is over here. Paranoid ramblings of Tothwolf that everyone is out to get him were not found credible by Arbcom. I went through and suggested deletion for two of his walled garden of previously deleted articles, which were stale from 6 to 15 months. 6 months is normal timeframe at MfD to improve deleted content or have it thrown out. This is normal followup on the deletion process of things I have been keeping track of. Other than his walled garden, I ain't following his editing or hounding him. He thinks anyone who edits his toys is hounding him. Enough paranoia.

Thank you to all who previously commented for letting those mentioned in the paranoid ranting know about it, as expected by the header on the noticeboard. Miami33139 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

While not meaning to be a prosecutor or some such, but isn't calling the fellow's comments "paranoid ranting" a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? I am sure it can be described with a bit less crass? Basket of Puppies 07:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Persistent unfounded accusations also a violation of NPA and civil. It is not ad hominem to say he is paranoid. It fit pattern. You see above he accuses three editors of persecuting him. What shown in previous dispute resolution was all disagreements result in Tothwolf writing long screeds about being persecuted. For two years when someone edit his articles in a way he don't like he runs to a noticeboard talking about people out to get him. Enough of that! Paranoid is simple adjective succinctly describing situation. Miami33139 (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So then there should be two blocks- one for him and one for you. And how is it not ad hominem to call him paranoid? It's minimally NPA. Just don't do it. Basket of Puppies 08:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

BOP, paranoid can describe a pattern of behaviour as well as a mental illness. It would be better if Miami says "displays paranoid behaviour" but I can't see it as a PA myself.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think intent also has a lot to do with whether or not something can be considered a personal attack. Shortly before Jehochman tried to help me with filing an ArbCom case, [39] Miami33139 made this comment [40] in which he also called me "paranoid and delusional". While the term "paranoid" can be used in a way in which it isn't a personal attack, I think the way in which Miami33139 uses the word both above and in previous discussions really does seem to be meant as a personal attack.

I believe this comment made by Miami33139 yesterday could also be considered a personal attack. It is also clearly an attempt at escalation, which is something he been warned for previously. [41]

To refocus this back on the behavioural issues (which as I noted above is why I brought this here), Miami33139's current behaviour seems to fit the very definitions of tendentious and disruptive editing to the "T". I found that the only way Miami33139 and the other two named above would leave me alone was to be completely "absent" from Wikipedia and not edit anything. This doesn't seem right.

Disruptive editors who engage in tendentious editing, wikihounding, bullying, etc have a history of being restricted and eventually blocked if restrictions fail to curb such behaviour. Unfortunately, it seems like many times such disruptive editors end up doing a lot of damage to the community (often including the morale of other editors) before the community notices and finally decides to take action. It seems like the random page blank/junk text/explicit image type vandals, etc (which in general really seem to do far less overall long-term damage to the encyclopedia) are dealt with much faster than those who take steps to attempts to evade detection and scrutiny of their actions. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF applies here. From what I can tell you have a prior history with Tothwolf, so your objective judgement is questionable. Simply express your concern and don't make asumptions about other users behavior. Hasteur (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Elen, calling someone paranoid is a violation of NPA any way you look at it. It's not appropriate at all for this project. I'll have a look at the NPA policy, but I doubt there is an exemption for calling someone paranoid. Basket of Puppies 22:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. In the circumstances, its also baiting. I would be somewhat reluctant to block on the basis of what's said at this intrinsically contentious page, but I think it's way over the line. Tothwolf is certainly entitled to come here and say that disruption has continued even after an arb com decision which should have put an end to it. The question is whether we can do anything about it without a second arb com. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is and combined with the tl;dr comment above, I'd say a block is in order. It's very obvious that he's come here to try and inflame the situation, troll and harass the other user.--Crossmr (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't use NPA as a bludgeon. The whole statement above was basically baiting (as DGG says) and shouldn't have been said, but we are getting really parsimonious in referring to words describing actions (paranoid ramblings) to mean words describing actors. when accusing someone of making personal attacks, a semantic discussion shouldn't be necessary. If you find yourself in a good faith semantic discussion after leveling an accusation that someone is making a personal attack, they likely haven't violated NPA. Remember, NPA is a big stick in policing discourse, don't use it unless it is abundantly clear that it is necessary. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you misread DGG's comments. DGG says that calling Tothwolf paranoid is baiting and that he is entitled to make his statement. Stop calling other people paranoid. As far as I can see, there is a concerted effort by at least JBsupreme and Miami33139 to hound Tothwolf off Wikipedia, so I wouldn't say Tothwolf is at all paranoid in suggesting this. Miami's comments to "Call the Waaaambulance"[42] are crossing the line into mocking. Fences&Windows 03:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Tothwolf is not being paranoid in suggesting there is an attempt to hound him off Wikipedia, it's a reasonable perception of what is going on. See the comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Arbitrator views and discussion. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It was not my intent to "bait" so I have removed my statement and will restate it. This accusation that I am hounding him is false. I work on deleting a lot of articles and it is not a personal crusade against him. Arbcom listened to him bring this argument months ago, maybe even a year. They found it baseless. I am tired of hearing this accusation. Making persistent unfounded accusations is against NPA, That Tothwolf violates NPA by making persistent unfounded accusations is part of Arbcom finding of fact. Miami33139 (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What was your intent with the "tl;dr" comment? Did you think that was a helpful comment to make towards someone you're engaged in a dispute with? Do you honestly think that could be reasonably seen as anything but?--Crossmr (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, Miami33139 removed that statement you are referring to along w/ his strikeout of the above remarks. So it might be right to assume it to be retracted. Protonk (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would consider his statement "It was not my intent to "bait"" to be a bald-faced lie. Taken in conjunction with the previous tl;dr post, his nomination of articles in Tothwolf's userspace and his canvassing of cohorts JBSupreme and Theserialcomma with blatantly taunting language (whaaambulance, whine one one) , there should be no other interpretation of his behavior. Redacting a comment days later in an effort to avoid being blocked is not a real redaction. Seth Kellerman (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Placing {{[[wikipedia:Substitution|subst]]:[[Template:ANI-notice|ANI-notice]]}} on their talk page not canvassing when they are mentioned here by the original poster who did not follow instruction do it himself. I use joking language with people who have been through this accusation before on their page, because it would be inappropriate here. I am obvious frustrated after ArbCom say Tothwolf should stop making these accusation, and here he is still making accusation. Miami33139 (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm yes perhaps canvassing isn't the proper legal word for it. Though there must be a wikipedia policy out there which discourages contacting your cohorts so they may participate in a pile-on against your rival. WP:TAGTEAM, perhaps? (I am of course aware that citing WP:TAGTEAM may itself be considered incivil; I feel that there is adequate evidence of malicious collusion between Miami and JBSupreme targeting Tothwolf to justify the citation)

But more obfuscation from you - you didn't use Template:ANI-notice, did you? No, you accused Tothwolf of "dialing whine one one" for the "waahmbulance".

Let us read WP:CIVIL#Identifying incivility, section 1d. belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts

Would you care to explain how your tl;dr post and your posts to JBSupreme and Theserialcomma's talk pages were not gross violations of civility? Seth Kellerman (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You miss the part that I did use ANI-NOTICE template and it was Tothwolf responsibility, not mine, to apply that notice. The pile-on here, is on me, even after Arbcom found six months ago I was not hounding him. What is your part here, Seth, to inflame against me? Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That was 6 months ago. That isn't a carte blanche to do whatever you want for the rest of your wikicareer with impunity. Just because you weren't hounding him 6 months ago doesn't mean you aren't now.--Crossmr (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Retracted or otherwise, it goes to his claim that he wasn't trying to bait. There is no other way to see it. Using joking language with a user that you're that embroiled with is just inappropriate. It can do little beyond inflame the situation.--Crossmr (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not use joking language with a user I am embroiled with. I used it with users who were similarly accused without being notified of the accusation. Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Tothwolf seems to have taken great issue with you and you replied to his comment with "tl;dr" I asked you specifically how that could be seen any other way. If it isn't joking language, and it wasn't baiting and it wasn't hounding, what was it?--Crossmr (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So what is the appropriate public/admin response to a comment like that after it has been retracted? Protonk (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is how and why it was retracted. The retraction seems just as bad as the comment as his reasoning is quite poor and comes across as disingenuous. The appropriate response is to determine whether the user actually acknowledges the problem and if there is a likelihood the behaviour will continue. So far he seems to be attempting to excuse it away and deflect blame and not genuinely own up to it which is an indication that the behaviour may continue at a future date to me.--Crossmr (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even notice the section header Miami33139 used in this edit until Seth Kellerman linked to it: "==W<span style="background:white; color:white; ;">h</span>ine suggestion==" [43] This renders as "Whine suggestion" with the 'h' in white text on a white background. It seems to fit the same pattern of the other edit. [44] --Tothwolf (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for transparency I want to mention here that someone posted this strange message on my talk page today: [45] --Tothwolf (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

About 2% of my editing since June overlaps with Tothwolf. I am tired of his accusations. I wish to ignore him. I'm sorry you think 5 characters an exasperated comment is capital crime on Wikipedia. Miami33139 (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

5 characters, your reference to him as paranoid, your inappropriate comment here[46], here [47] and then your disingenuous attempt to cover it all up. If you are saying you made all of those edits unintentionally then I think you should be blocked because it is quite apparent you are not in control of your actions.--Crossmr (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have requested Amendment from Arbcom Miami33139 (talk) 07

07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving on - to block Miami33139?

There seems to be a fair amount of consensus among administrators and regular editors that Miami's actions warranted a block. As such, I would prefer this discussion not die with no action being taken.

Since one of Miami's collaborators, Theserialcomma, was blocked 5 days for baiting, I propose that Miami also be blocked for 5 days. Seth Kellerman (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To add to the above, Beyond My Ken made a statement on July 16th regarding Miami33139's wikihounding behaviours which I think will be of interest to the rest of the community. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think an interaction ban including a ban on nominating articles or user pages for deletion that were created or significantly edited by Tothwolf would be a good idea, but events may be moving on regardless of the decision here, as Miami33139 may have chucked a WP:BOOMERANG: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request to amend prior case: Tothwolf. Fences&Windows 23:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Dekkappai -- Repeated, and increasing, campaign of incivility and personal attacks

Over the last week or so, Dekkappai has been increasingly and repeatedly uncivil in discussions regarding the deletion of content in an area of particular interest to him (Japanese erotica/pornography). These comments go well beyond what has been tolerated in even the most heated discussions, and typically involve accusations of bias and dishonesty towards nearly every editor who takes an opposing position. Dekkappai has been warned regarding his incivility, and even blocked after telling editors opposing him in a similar content dispute to "rot in hell." [48][49] Examples from the current campaign include:

• "Your vote rationale is completely dishonest" (directed at Epbr123, repeated in multiple AFDs) [50][51][52]
• "You lie" (directed at Bali ultimate) [53]
• "pissing on my article contributions" (directed at Bali ultimate); "contributing NOTHING, and telling others what to do" (directed at me) [54]
• "I have been remarkably restrained considering that this Nomination was made in the most belligerent and biased manner" (directed at Bali ultimate) [55]
• "the belligerent oafishness of the editor who put these particular images up for deletion" (directed at me) [56]
• "BULLSHIT! You couldn't have made your bias plainer in your nomination if you tried" as well as edit summary of "bullshit" (directed at Bali ultimate) [57]
• "If this criterion is going to be ignored, why not take it out? That would remove the need to outright lie about it" (directed at Kww) [58]
• "Somehow I had the impression you were one of the "honest" deletionists... " (directed at DAJF) [59]
• "Not notifying me was just one of lesser of the dishonest tactics taken by the nominator" (directed at Bali ultimate) [60]
• "Among the many completely incorrect statements in the nomination, "the pink grand prix is an appendix of the porn-marketing machine in japan" stands out as particularly grossly dishonest" (directed at Bali ultimate) [61]
• edit summary of "cultural bias & ignorance at work" (directed generally at editors in disagreement with him) [62]
• edit summary of "culturally biased and ignorant nomination)" (directed generally at editors in disagreement with him) [63]
• "It's the ham-handed oafery of Deletionists in doing even this simple task which caused all this" (directed at me and/or Kww) [64]
• "Well that's interesting, except that no argument about fair use under Japanese law was ever made! Everybody stand back, Kww's got some Admin'ing to do" (directed at Kww) [65]
• edit summary of "thanks for joining the edit-war under false claims" (directed at Kww) [66]
• "Do you have anything of value to say? If you think any of those notable, award-winning erotic films are unworthy of articles, take them to AfD. In either case not one comment, not one personal attack, not one display of ignorance, bias and prudery that you have made here is of any relevance whatsoever" (directed at Bali ultimate) [67]

There's a lot more invective directed at me in particular and at several other editors in Dekkappai's recent contributions, and he's been throwing incivility in my direction steadily since the first time I was involved in a content dispute with him (in a garden-variety matter involving unsourced BLP content). It's a pattern of behavior that's been sustained for a long time, and it's hard to escape the conclusion that it's a purposeful effort to make the editing environment unpleasant for those who he disagrees with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And, my God, you would know about that, Wolfie. --89.211.204.29 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well. I'm frequently a dick too so i won't have much to say here. He's a good bit beyond the pale, is what i'd say. I don't know why he's so upset, since he suggested i take them to AFD.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have given a civility warning. Did you ask them to tone down their comments before coming here, and did you consider other avenues of dispute resolution? Bali ultimate's nominations were less than diplomatic: "The article is largely a vehicle to have pretty girls titties displayed" is an assumption of bad faith. Treading more softly with deletion nominations and treating the article editors with respect might avoid antagonising editors. Fences&Windows 22:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was finding those AfDs troubling as well. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm in communication with him on these items. Don't forget, these AFDs are directed at articles which he's spent no small amount of time building so I don't blame him for being a bit pissy... though he does seem to have gone a bit beyond what I'd consider to be proper conduct. However, I do agree with Fences that the AFDs could have been better worded, and perhaps being spaced out a bit more temporally in order to avoid any appearance of WP:POINT. Tabercil (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

+1. Second that. The recent crusade against those articles, and the characterization of those of us who believe the articles and images are worth saving as "wankers" and "perverts" and so on is enough to make anyone angry. His challenge to bali about taking the articles to AFD was not support of deletion, rather to get the monkeys off his back.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that the situation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fascinating Woman: The Temptation of Creampie has got out of hand, with both User:Bali ultimate and User:Dekkappai squabbling over irrelevancies. It's particularly frustrating since there's quite an interesting and worthwhile issue about notability and sourcing in there somewhere. I hesitate to suggest remedial action since I want to hear the arguments on all sides, but am inclined to think that all the useful points that are likely to be made have been made by now. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been playing nice for days, at least. I do of course disagree with him on the underlying issue.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

For the last few years I have been working on articles in the Pink film genre. This is a very notable genre of Japanese film which has only recently drawn significant attention in the West. It is NOT the equivalent of Western porn videos, as has been implied. These are often well-made softcore erotic films in many genres-- comedy, horror, science fiction, thriller, etc. Japanese critics have named some of them as among the best 200 Japanese films made in the last century. At least two full-scale books have been written on the genre in English. Besides the linguistic difficulties involved in this work, there are major difficulties in locating Japanese sourcing due to its notorious absence from the Web, and its tendency to quickly disappear and then be blocked from archives. In spite of these huge hurdles, I have been starting film stubs on films which are notable in their genre due to having been awarded at the Pink Grand Prix, which reliable sources, both English and Japanese, call the "Academy Awards" of pink. During an ANI report on the edit-warring on the part of instigator of this thread, for no reason relating to that discussion, Bali ultimate searched and ridiculed my work. Before the mass-AfDing of my work had started, and before I had had any interaction whatsoever with Bali ultimate, I was called a "fanboy scrabbling around filing wikipedia with as much non-notable soft-porn as possible", a member of "[t]he wanking community", and articles I had started on these films were called "wanking material" and my "emissions". At the AfDs, again, before I had had one word of input, the articles were called "horrible spam pages touting obscure Japanese porn spammed onto Wikipedia", I was accused of "spamming articles on cheesy Japanese porn movies." the articles were labeled "vehicle(s) to have pretty girls titties displayed", and it was suggested I should be banned from Wikipedia simply for having worked in this genre. Now, the main argument at these debates has been that WP:NOTFILM-- which they all pass-- is irrelevant due to WP:GNG. This endangers not just my work in the Pink film, but literally hundreds of articles that I and others have started on award-winning Korean and Japanese films. Like these Pink films they are award-winners, but cannot easily be shown to pass WP:GNG. Frankly, if these AfDs close as Delete, I see no point in continuing to contribute content here, as my editing interests naturally drift towards the obscure, the indie, cult, old, silent, etc. So pardon me for being a little "pissy" as Tabercil says. I am facing the end of my contributing career here, while the other editors, claiming now to be "playing nice" have nothing to lose. And, yes, I am trying to restrain my invective here, believe me. Dekkappai (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Bali Ultimate has not been "playing nice" - he has been baiting Dekkakappai, who has been over-reacting. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether Bali has been "playing nice" or not, this run of abuse began before the comments complained about, and has been directed at several other users, none of whom have shown any comparable incivility. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I'm in communication with Dekk on this already. I think he gets the issue and will (crossing fingers) ease back on the invective (as he indicated above). Tabercil (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the personal attacks and incivility posted today against Epbr123 at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Biased_application_of_.27notability.27_criteria_at_AfDs and similar comments in the underlying AFDs, I don't think so. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am tired of the strawman ad hominem arguments for people that disagree with him. [68] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Bali Ultimate is a master baiter and HW often helps by notching up the editing to target editors rather than focus on content issues. Unsurprisingly these forms of uncivilness beget the same. 71.139.8.229 (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Something very wrong is going on at these AfDs. All five were closed as "No consensus". These closures have been erased and all five articles are back up for AfD. None of this is reflected in the histories. Dekkappai (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Who closed them, and when? Erasing closures like that shouldn't be possible. Fences&Windows 22:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

One was closed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cousin White Paper: Aching Mature Lewdness. I think you're mistaken about the others. Fences&Windows 22:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Approximately 19:44, August 7, 2010 -- King of Hearts closed them all "No consensus". I believe it was all. I'm dead certain it was more than one. Dekkappai (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Klaus Ebner: Wikicrossing, spam, conflict of interest and puppet users

After a problem in Galician wikipedia related with Klaus Ebner, I have found a complexe network of editors (probably fake or puppet editors) aiming to overpromote the name of the Austrian translator Klaus Ebner. These are some of the proofs:

• The article Klaus Ebner was created by the user Klaus Ebner.
• The article was also mainly edited by Torsten Wittmann, irina Walter, Sarrah Wham and Helmut Bihy. Also, there are on the list two more users: Litteralittera and Svartvicks.
  • Torsten Wittmann was created 22Dec 2007, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, the same day.
  • irina Walter was created 20Dec 2007, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, the same day.
  • Sarrah Wham was created 14Apr 2008, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, two days after.
  • Helmut Bihy was created 25Apr 2008, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, the same day.
• Torsten Wittmann's main article is overwhemingly Klaus Ebner. He also removed the tag of Conflict of Interest and supported the removal quoting himself as a reference of the Ebner's relevance. He focused his other editions in the articles Austrian literature, Grazer Autorenversammlung (a writter's association joined by Ebner), Literatur und Kritik (a literary magazine where Ebner has published articles), Arovell Verlag (the Ebner's book publisher) and the novel Hominid (novel), by Ebner.
• irina Walter's main article is overwhemingly Klaus Ebner. She also supported the removal of the CoI tag quoting himself as a reference of the Ebner's relevance, the same day as she joined (en)Wikipedia. She focused her other editions in the articles Austrian literature, Grazer Autorenversammlung (a writter's association joined by Ebner), Literatur und Kritik (a literary magazine where Ebner has published articles), and Arovell Verlag (the Ebner's book publisher). She showed a good acquitance with Ebner when edited the Ebner parent's date of birth and death. Also she asked for support for improving the English version of this article.
• Sarrah Wham's main article is overwhemingly Klaus Ebner. She focused her other editions in the article Arovell Verlag (the Ebner's book publisher]].
• Helmut Bihy's only article is Klaus Ebner. He also nominated the article klaus Ebner as a good article.
• Klaus Ebner's main article is Klaus Ebner. He admitted the creation of this article about himself. He also edited the article List of Austrian writers for including his name, and Austrian literature.

An exploration: French Wikipedia

I will examine the French wikipedia

• The French article fr:Klaus Ebner was created by an anonymous IP on 20Dec 2007, the same day for the registration of the user Klaus Ebner (fr) and irina Walter (en). The first contribution of Klaus Ebner (fr) was the article fr:Klaus Ebner.
• This article was edited mainly by Linda Auerbach and Frodon le Grand.
  • Frodon le Grand has been created on 4May 2008, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, the same day. He dedicated his other editions to the articles fr:Arovell Verlag (the Ebner's book publisher]] and the novel fr:Hominidé, the homonimy page of the novel by Ebner.
  • Linda Auerbach has been created on 23Dec 2007, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, the same day. She dedicated her other editions to the articles, fr:Grazer Autorinnen Autorenversammlung (a writter's association joined by Ebner), fr:Literatur und Kritik (a literary magazine where Ebner has published articles), the prize fr:Feldkircher Lyrikpreis, won by Ebner in 2005, fr:Arovell Verlag (the Ebner's book publisher) and the novel Hominid (novel), by Ebner. Even more remarckably, she has edited the article fr:SetzeVents Editorial, about the Catalan publisher of Ebner and the userpage of Svartvicks, in order to state what's the Catalan skills of this user (!)
  • Svartvicks has been created on 4May 2008, and his first contribution was produced in the article Klaus Ebner, the same day. He dedicated his other editions to the articles fr:Arovell Verlag (the Ebner's book publisher]] and the novel fr:Hominidé, the homonimy page of the novel by Ebner.

Other Wikipedias

There is an article about Klaus Ebner in 78 different languages.

• The German article de:Klaus Ebner was created by an anonymous IP 62.47.142.232 on 17Dec 2007, one day before the registration of Klaus Ebner (de) on 18Dec 2007, the same day for the article's creation in the English wikipedia. The first contribution of Klaus Ebner (de) was the article de:Klaus Ebner.
• In Aragonese: created and edited mainly by an:User:Anne-Claudine on 22Feb 2009. Her only relevant contribution.
• In Asturian: created and edited mainly by as:User:Anne-Claudine on 22Feb 2009. Her only contribution.
• In Corsican: created by an IP and edited mainly by co:User:Marco Zitti on 9Mar 2008. Zitti's only contribution.
• In Welsh: created and edited mainly by cy:User:Litteralittera on 21Oct 2009. Litteralittera's only contribution.
• In Greek: created and edited mainly by el:User:Veronika (sic, on Roman alphabet) on 27Feb 2008. Veronika's only contribution.
• In Galician: created and edited mainly by gl:User:Ana Montez on 23Feb 2008. Ana Montez's only contribution.
• In Frisian: created and edited mainly by fy:User:Anne-Claudine on 28Feb 2009. Her only contribution.
• In Hungarian: created and edited by hu:User:Judit S on 12Mar 2008. Her only contribution. Also edited by hu:User:Szentgroti (his only contribution), hu:User:Vajdaoli (his only contribution) and hu:User:Svartvicks (his only contribution).
• In Creole Asiyen: created and edited mainly by ht:User:Anne-Claudine on 25Feb 2009. Her only contribution. Also edited by ht:User:Svartvicks (his only contribution) and hu:User:Irina Walter AT (her only contribution).
• In Latin: created and edited mainly by la:User:Ennius on 30Jun 2008. His only relevant contribution. Also edited by la:User:Litteralittera who also edited the List of Austrian writers in order to add Ebner.
• In Occitan: created and edited mainly by oc:User:Claude on 7Mar 2008. His only relevant contribution. Also edited by oc:User:Irina Walter AT (her only contribution), oc:User:Svartvicks (his only contribution) and oc:User:Anne-Claudine (her only contribution).
• In Portuguese: created and edited mainly by pt:User:Ana Montez on 26Feb 2008. His only relevant contribution. Also edited by pt:User:Irina Walter AT (she also asked another User to translate into Portuguese the article about Hominide, the Ebner's novel) and pt:User:Svartvicks (his only contribution).
• In Tagalog: created by tl:User:Irina Walter on 14Nov 2008. Her only contribution. Also edited by tl:User:Irina Walter AT and tl:User:Francesca la Bola (her only contribution).

Puppet Users

I'll list here some users having editions in more than 3 Wikipedia projects and all of them Ebner related.

• Francesca la Bola: en, ca, nap, pl, scn, tl.
• Anne-Claudine: af, an, ast, en, fr, fy, ht, oc (it's remarkable that the author of the Ebner's Latin article thought that Klaus was the equivalent of Claudius, instead of Nicolaus)
• Ana Montez: ca, es, fr, gl, pt.
• Litteralittera: ca, commons, cy, da, de, en, es, fr, gl, hi, hu, it, ja, la, meta, ms, mt, mr, ro, ru. sl, sq, yo
• Littera: ca, de, en, ia.
• Torsten Wittmann: da, de, fi, is, jv, no, sk and Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe): en

--Xabier Cid (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, OK. On first read through, there is something worth digging into here, but it's not clear what's actually going on. You need to inform all those editors about this discussion: do that now I've done so. The good article reviews included several of those editors: Talk:Klaus Ebner/GA1, Talk:Klaus Ebner/GA2. Fences&Windows 21:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • In addition to the en.wiki users you listed above, I have alerted the following single-purpose accounts (WP:SPA) which share names with those on other language Wikipedias: Litteralittera (talk · contribs), Littera (talk · contribs), Svartvicks (talk · contribs), Anne-Claudine (talk · contribs), Irina Walter AT (talk · contribs), Livia Plurabelle (talk · contribs), Francesca la Bola (talk · contribs), and D. Bogdan V. (talk · contribs). Fences&Windows 21:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • This is one of the biggest potential sock rings I've ever seen. And the fact that it's cross-wiki too may mean it's an ArbCom issue. (Speaking from no experience, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) In any case, it's definitely enough to merit a CheckUser, so I'd go for that. Sheesh. elektrikSHOOS 21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, checkuser is needed, though many of the accounts may be stale. Fences&Windows 21:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Support move to ARBCOM Elektrik Shoos, I disagree both TM and Scientology were much larger but this is a good idea to move to arbcom. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Hence the phrase 'one of the biggest.' Keeps me from liability. :) elektrikSHOOS 09:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Hold your horses, why does this need to go to Arbcom? It's only just been raised, there's no suggestion that the community can't handle this. Enough with the Arbcomania. Fences&Windows 22:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
        • If it's cross-wiki surely it's beyond the scope of the enArbCom? MtD (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
          • If and when we conclude that there is an issue here, we can contact the other language Wikipedias, or perhaps a Steward. But let's not put the cart before the horse: we've still got to assess the evidence and hear from the involved accounts (who have all been alerted of this thread). Fences&Windows 23:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I see that users with the names Irina Walter, Torsten Wittmann, Claudia Nittl, and Bogdan Dumic all posted positive reviews of one Ebner's books at Amazon.de around November-December 2007, around the same time that the Klaus Ebner article was created here and on the German and French Wikipedias. Looks like a coordinated promotion effort. ThemFromSpace 00:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• In Galician Wikipedia has been admitted by gl:User:Fátima Rodríguez that Klaus Ebner and Litteralittera are the same human, and at the same time her translator, trying to promote her books (his translations). Also she was asked by Klaus Ebner to join Wikipedia and engage the discussion about the deletion of the article about her.--Xabier Cid (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Hello to all. I've just been informed on my discussion page about this discussion. To be frank, I am overwhelmed by this bulk of information and the many coincidences (and evidencies), although I am surprised that an engagement for a specific topic (this author in this particular case) is automatically damned and regarded as overpromotion or puppet activity. The date of the beginning of my editing activities on Wikipedia is not a coincidence because it was shortly after the publication of Ebner's first book. (My review on Amazon is mentioned above) Yes, of course, I like the books of this author. If not I wouldn't have collected information and written about him. My involvement does even look more as there had been discussions around the GA status where I heavily involved myself because I was angry about the argumentation. If it is not wanted (any more) to work on Ebner then I will concentrate on other authors. But they will always be from Austria or Germany. And if I misunderstood all the criticism above and it is not wanted that one person edits in several languages, then please put that clear. Greetings.--Torsten Wittmann (Karlsruhe) (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The suspicion is sockpuppetry on a grand scale, i.e. one person using more than one account to give the false appearance of consensus, including to gain good article approval. The timing of the registration of the accounts strongly suggests coordination of these many single-purpose accounts. So - have you edited from any other accounts on Wikipedia? Fences&Windows 20:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

More evidences in cyrillic wikipedias

This is a message left by East of Borschov on my talk page:

• ru:Эбнер, Клаус created by ru:Участник:ЮрийВВ Dec-30-2007. This account edited only Klaus Ebner page and disappeared Jul-9-2008 (contributions). The account uses a Slavic name but is not a native Russian (or any other Eastern Slavic) speaker - improbable grammar mistakes (this has been noted on his page).
• uk:Клаус Ебнер created by an IP 80.123.42.139 from Vienna, Austria. Edited at length by another Austrian IP (62.47.128.133) and uk:Anna Kovac. All in summer of 2008. Anna Kovac, too, disappeared.
• be:Клаўс_Эбнер - IPs from UK and Austria
• bg:Клаус Ебнер - created by User:Bogdan.D in April 2008. User disappeared after five edits to Ebner's article and nothing else.

All articles were created by their authors as mere lists of works, no free-flowing text.

This is a meat grinder of editors. They just disappear one after another. Only User:Winertai of zh-wikipedia appears to be active (and "real"). Where's my conspiracy microscope? Cheeers, East of Borschov 16:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

--Xabier Cid (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser request

If anyone doesn't mind, I'm going to open a case at WP:SPI and request checkuser with a link to this discussion. elektrikSHOOS 02:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Answer from Klaus Ebner

Good morning. As the accused and in many (but not all) cases guilty I want to make my statement which I kindly ask you to read. During Fall 2007, Wikipedia was something totally new to me. I created my personal account with my own name and started to create articles about myself in German, English, French and Catalan - because there was none and I thought that would be ok. I had no ideas about the rules - and I was beaten for that very quickly by some people (maybe admins) of this English Wikipedia; they even had some difficulty explaining all this to me because in the beginning I didn't even understand what they were talking about. But of course I understood very quickly that it was not allowed to write an article about oneself. So I stepped back but I asked friends and colleagues if they could step in and continue, what they did, and shortly after some other people, whom I do not know, began to support the articles, too.

I did not see anything wrong to involve people who know me. But I have to admit that I did two things that were not correct: First my alter ego Littera/Litteralittera - I did not want to leave Wikipedia completely because I wanted to contribute, mostly concerning other writers, publishers, magazines and other literature related topics, but unfortunately I also contributed to "my own" article. The second thing is the account of Irina Walter - it is my sister who stands behind this account and we often worked together, sometimes even from the same computer.

I always wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, especially to the German one, because Austrian literature has a hard stand there and there is much wrong information and bias, because it seems that some Germans are still dreaming of a "Greater Germany". E.g. to define Franz Kafka as "German writer" and Elias Canetti as "Bulgarian writer" is not only wrong but very offending. Sometimes I had the impression that some old "Nazi conceptions" were still defended in this area, and I wanted to help to get rid of this. Or another example: it is known from public speeches of the writer Franzobel, that much of the Wikipedia information about him is wrong - and I cannot understand why nobody feels responsible to fix that. I was very surprised and pleased about Torsten's contributions because I've never seen a German before who is so engaged in favor of Austrian literature.

You gave me the feeling that I am not allowed to create any article in Wikipedia simply due to the facts that I am, as a writer, part of Austrian literature and that there is one article about me. I did not want to accept that. In addition, I saw on the German Wikipedia that some of the rules, especially the criteria of relevance, were often not observed, even by administrators. I saw articles of writers with five and more books (not self-published!) be removed and on the other hand there was one case where a writer with only one book was kept, only because her father was a well-known author in Austria. So there was my impression that some long-term contributors and administrators are interpreting the rules as they like. Maybe this led me also to the conviction that it would not be so severe to contribute under a false account.

What certainly went wrong was my own engagement with the different Wiki languages. You know that I speak several foreign languages and that of course I liked them, and I was (and still am) fascinated by the multilingual possibilities, and with hindsight I believe that this became a kind of drug for me. Yes, the account Ennius, Smetana, Veronika, Livia Plurabelle, Aranka, Manuela, Kevin M, Doron, the Russian JurijVV and Christoph are mine (my socks, as you say). When I found out the possibility to create an Inter-Wiki account on the French Wikipedia (which however does not work on Commons), I stopped creating new accounts. I think it was at the same time that we discovered the possibility to place a translation request, which eventually my sister used heavily. (Before we had even used automatic translators and then tried to improve the translation with the example of existing articles on writers).

There are several people I am acquainted with, either friends of mine or colleagues. I personally know Marco Zitti, Svartvicks, Bogdan, Anne-Claudine, Francesca la Bola, Linda Auerbach, Frodon, Drusio, and also Helmut Bihy - in these cases I still think that it should not be forbidden to involve acquaintances or friends (and I also believe that this is a usual practice at almost all articles about living persons).

In spite of my breaking the rules I want to urgently ask you to distinguish between my punishment and encyclopedical facts. The articles that I or my sister were involved in or have even been created (or by acquaintances who did so) have always been written following the rules of Wikipedia. We have tried to make them as neutral as possible and we always indicated all sources and only mentioned information accessible through these sources. Many of the authors in whose articles I or my sister were involved, don't even know that we wrote them (and I estimate that I know at most about 50% of them personally). I can even say that some of my friends whom I involved, learned through me how to write good Wikipedia articles.

Concerning the case of Fátima Rodríguez, I still cannot understand why this article must disappear. If I cannot contact a subject person, how should I get e.g. to a photo (which improves the article)? Of course I contacted her, I wanted to have a photo for my article (and who else but her should have a photo which can be released to Wikipedia?), I asked her to point me to some Internet links which I didn't find at once (e.g. the articles in a Galician newspaper) and finally I let her check the language of the Galician article, because I had to compose this one with an automatic translator and some corrections I could do on my own due to my knowledge of several other Romance languages. But I sticked to the rules - the article is neutral and all sources are indicated and there is no information which only she could know. BTW, I am NOT her translator - there must have been a misunderstanding. I only asked her if I could translate one or two of her poems to German for an Austrian literature magazine (for which I would not get any money, so this is not a "professional connection" in its usual sense) - so if this happens, it would only be the future (and this is not clear so far because her publisher didn't release the right to do so).

Of course I must accept all verdict over me and I feel that a kind of boycott of my name will arise, but please leave all the other articles intact that I or my sister (and especially my acquaintances when the wrote on other articles) were involved in. Deleting them would not improve Wikipedia but destroy a lot of (neutral!) information due to a kind of personal vendetta.

I did not want to do any advertising (Wikipedia is no advertising, not at all), I wanted to give information, even when it came to myself (I don't want to end up like Franzobel who has to explain publicly to journalists that his article in Wikipedia is garbage). And I never wanted to hurt someone. Now I have to apologize to all people who invested time to write on the articles on me, and I am sorry for the inconveniences that I have caused with my "over-involvement".
I guess this will be my (and my sister's, Irina Walter's) last statement on Wikipedia.--Klaus Ebner (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Yes, the account Ennius, Smetana, Veronika, Livia Plurabelle, Aranka, Manuela, Kevin M, Doron, the Russian JurijVV and Christoph are mine (my socks, as you say)." Are you sure this will be your last statement (from you or "your sister") on WP? Disgusting: seriously... Doc9871 (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sure. Because I don't want to have this shameful gauntlet run a second time. --Klaus Ebner (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't Sock. If your edits didn't make it in the first time, creating sock accounts probably won't help get them in any more successfully. Work with the other editors here... Doc9871 (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Klaus, alternate accounts are prohibited on Wikipedia save for a few legitimate purposes, and even then only if they're clearly linked to the master account in question. The fact that you have edited articles under multiple accounts on your articles, on various wikis, to edit articles solely about yourself, is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia's sockpuppet and conflict of interest policies, two core ideas any Wikipedian editing for three years should have known. By doing this you have egregiously misrepresented yourself to the community. In addition, recruiting others to edit articles on your behalf - referred to as 'meatpuppetry' - is just as bad as editing it yourself. I have to be honest, with this admission you will likely be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. elektrikSHOOS 10:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. --188.22.167.199 (talk) 10:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC) (Lost my login) --Klaus Ebner (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama talk page

I'm on my way out the door, so sorry if I can't formulate this as a more detailed request to the exact forum. But could someone please take a look at the Barack Obama talk page? Since the appearance of the now-indeffed JahnTeller07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) we're under a bit of a sock attack from one or more sources who seem to take inspiration from the sock farms that were operating there before, maybe semi-protect for a day or so? Grundle2600, who I personally don't mind, has been active too. I won't bother notifying the puppets of this. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, Talk:Countdown with Keith Olbermann too. That's one of the socks. Someone opened up an SPI but I think this qualifies as WP:DUCK. Anyway, I really must be going. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we ban him so no one has to worry about reverting his edits? --Rockstonetalk to me! 05:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal

Resolved

 – User has been banned. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Per the request of Rockstone35 above, I am proposing a Community BAN for UGAdawgs2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As specified by Rockstone and by others in previous ban discussions, this allows users to revert all of his sock edits without violating 3RR. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support naturally --Rockstonetalk to me! 06:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with these sentiments. However, a ban may be difficult. This is a prolific sock/meat puppet editor. Here [69] is just one page listing suspected socks and this is just one variation on this editors usernames. Others have their own separate investigations. I am afraid that we will just have to keep vigilance and warn and block as we go. Thanks for the suggestion though. MarnetteD | Talk 06:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, he is already blocked indefinitely. As has been said, enacting the ban allows editors freedom to revert all of his edits to infinity without violating 3RR. You cannot do that if the puppeteer is just blocked. It is more about providing ourselves more leeway in reverting rather than trying to "punish". Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Thanks for pointing that out Kindzmarauli. In that case I completely support your proposal. MarnetteD | Talk 06:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support; the way I see it, they're de facto banned. Let's make it de jure to make it easier to revert their edits, without fear of violating 3-rr. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Worst kind of abuser needs a ban as mentioned to allow reverters to not worry about 3RR. Jusdafax 15:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Legitimate reverters should not be blocked by 3RR because of this user's sockpuppets. De jure ban them. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support – he's pretty much de facto banned anyways. He just tried to come back as Grignard4120 (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Good call. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, but support block There is a real danger that the northern part of Georgia and Atlanta could be banned assuming that UGAdawgs is from Georgia. Strong support continued block of UGA but not use nuclear weapons to flatten an ant hill. One possibility is that some political science professor who edits constructively but chooses to edit Barack Obama or Keith Obermann might be unfairly picked on by editors with an opposing view or even picked on by POV pushers. The ban will then make it easier to wrongly ban that professor. If there is a block of UGA but no ban, then people will have to show disruption and fanatical edits of the editor in question to block, which is the way it should be. RIPGC (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What you're saying doesn't make any sense... how can other people in that state be banned? I don't think you understand what "ban" means. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, de jure is nearly always better than de facto. elektrikSHOOS 11:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I changed the block summary to indicate that the user has been banned, as I think consensus is fairly clear. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Added him to LIst of banned users, also added block template to userpage. --Rockstonetalk to me! 14:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Gd8man revisted

A few days ago I initiated this discussion about Gd8man (talk · contribs) who I believe is acting in a tendentious manner and displaying the worst excesses of WP:OWN on Dock jumping. During that discussion an administrator, Dougweller (talk · contribs) went to great lengths to point out the error of Gd8man's ways and has stayed involved to an extent since then. Gdman's main modus operandi is to say "please discuss any changes on the talk page" and then mass-revert every single change made after his/her last edit. He/she has done this several times - most recently with this mass-revert today which was undone by another editor, which in turn was reverted again by Gdgman with this edit and in turn was undone by me. Yesterday Active Banana (talk · contribs) tagged the article for notability and said in his edit summary "no coverage from any reliable third party sources". To address this I added a number of news sources to the article and attempted to provide some balance by covering another dog dock jumping organisation - the organisation which established the sport - but Gd8man seems to want to censor any information relating to Purina and reverted every single one of my well-sourced additions. I'm coming to the conclusion that Gd8man has some conflict of interest - perhaps a link with Dock Dogs. Anyway, I'm looking for admins to intervene and possibly point a way forward. Perhaps a ban or an RFC on Gd8man's behaviour? His/her current behaviour simply cannot be allowed to continue unchecked. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm now involved in the article (as someone who knows a bit about dog sports) and I agree. I have attempted to advice Gd8man but he doesn't seem to listen. Why he is removing mention of Purina's iDC and of United Kingdom organisations is beyond me - he seems to see it as about fairness. He also is trying to deny that 'dock diving' is the same thing, although the organisations he has added to the article clearly see it as just an alternative name. Yes, there are different ways of measuring, but this is not unusual on dog sports. Dog agility, a huge sport, has many different organisations which also have different rules. Gd8man's a keen editor and I am grateful to him for creating and continuing to work on this article, but he has to realise that when he's being reverted by several editors he needs to recognise that he doesn't have consensus, to say the least. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this. I will continue to add to the article, but will step back from any reversions of Gd8man's contributions in case I trip 3RR - and I apologise if I have already done this inadvertently. --Simple Bob (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Gd8man is at it again. Just deleted my well-sourced contribution making it a 4RR! I'm not going to revert (hopefully someone else will) but someone please give him/her a ban to cool off. --Simple Bob (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think he has only hit 3RR with that revert, which was a reversion of cited text with no explanation. I've put it back in. I agree, this is getting ridiculous. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And the idea that the article cannot mention Dog Diving, or Dock Dinging or whatever because someone has trademarked it and we need their permission to use the word, sounds like real desperation to me. Perhaps someone could find out WHY he is so desperate to keep the article to his version. Is he getting paid for it or something? Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I would place money on Gr8man working for DockDogs. The WP:OWN behaviour does lead me to believe there is a clear conflict of interest. --Simple Bob (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am positive that he doesn't. He participates in DockDog events. But he doesn't work for them. As I don't want to WP:OUT him, I'll say no more. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Breach of General Sanction by User:Triton Rocker

The above named editor inserted "British Isles" into an an article here in defiance of his/her being sanctioned here. He has already had two blocks (including this one) for breaking this ban. Would someone please take action as the two main admins monitoring this issue are on holiday. Thanks Fmph (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rockers addition of British Isles should be undone, there was no clear consensus for the term to be added to the article and even if there was it should not be added by someone with sanctions imposed on them. Triton Rocker should only ever raise things on the BISE discussion page, he should not Add British Isles anywhere on wikipedia. If he does not self revert it should be be undone and another block imposed for a few days. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but the issue was discussed on the British Isles terminology page and, the last time I looked---- due to a vast preponderance of references (13 to 1) --- I was of the opinion it was accepted.

Yes, I spent a few hours on the topic adding 23 + references and developing the topic.

Please decide who and what is benefiting the Wikipedia more.

An editor willing to spend hours developing a topic on the basis of a good background knowledge and reference.

Or a tiny handful of editors grinding a axe over and attempting to politicize the use of the term British Isles.

If there is a problem, then you have to clearly establish a system, e.g.

• how long does a topic stay open
• who exactly gets to decides to close it and how
• what happens if certain individuals refuse to discuss it, etc.

At present it is not clear at all and open to abuse.--Triton Rocker (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton i oppose certain editors crusade to remove British Isles from wikipedia, but all involved editors must follow the rules. You are under general sanctions, you should revert your addition of British Isles immediately before it is done for you and you get a block. There was no clear consensus to add BI in that case yet, and even if there was.. you are not allowed to add British Isles to articles on wikipedia, it should have been left to someone else or an admin. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, the status of this one at WP:BISE is that it is Resolved on not using BI for the time being. When our resident admin gets back, we can have another go-round on referencing for it, which is the issue. Triton was doing good edits at the article but Triton should not have changed the BI decision without first getting it changed at the BISE page as in all previous discussions. Note that Triton also had an absolute final warning about this previously from UncleG on 3 August, the date 3 days ago when Triton was last up for discussion here at my instigation. Firm action here is imperative because we must have a calm, structured discussion on this very controversial issue in the ways that have been agreed and not have anyone, especially not someone with Triton Rocker's knowledge of the back-story on this issue straying off from it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is not true. There is no such resolution. Nor is there a system on the Wikipedia of "assigned admins" and having to wait on their return.

UncleG merely copy and pasted User:HighKing's statement and so --- again --- that has too be seen within User:HighKing's gameplay.--Triton Rocker (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please pay attention. It was the other way around - I copy and pasted UncleG's statement, which I believed was an accurate summary of the real disruptive gameplay by you and LB. --HighKing (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It was marked resolved by the supervising adminTriton. You are more than entitled to reopen the question, but not to take unilateral action because you think you are in the right. --Snowded ^TALK 10:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Last ANI discussion and final final warning here. I tried to advise Triton to take a different approach last night. The post above indicates that s/he has no idea (or is refusing to) what a general sanction is and is incapable of waiting 24 hours for agreement. S/he also seems to think that providing a mass of potentially good edits around the sanction breech vindicates the behavior. The one good thing I suppose is that all editors (from both sides and the neutrals) are united on wanting something done about this disruption. --Snowded ^TALK 10:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

One has to define "disruption". There is a group of editor centred around the British Isles issue. There was a balance of power. I have no idea which side was "winning".

I came to work and changed that balance of power --- the group is having to re-adjust to that. What you are really expressing is just a desire to return to old power balance, whatever it was, by removing the new editor. It is basic child/familial psychology.

Unfortunately, Snowded, you cannot play "daddy" nor the high moral ground.

You too have been engaging in deliberately provocative, unnecessary and punitive edit reversion --- specifically of my work --- that were actually damaging to the Wikipedia.

My work is mainly very good. I am not interested in your nationalistic squabble.

Look at the references --- Look at the grunt work --- decide which is worth more.

Why should someone doing no work, spending their energy obstructing others be given more credibility? --Triton Rocker (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Many of your edits do look pretty good, but you need to understand and follow a very simple rule. You are topic banned from adding British Isles to ANY article on wikipedia. It is that simple. Please revert your addition of the British Isles and stick to the talk page at BISE for dealing with these matters. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand how Triton can be unclear about this matter:

"TB01 (Topic ban one): User is banned from adding or removing the term "British Isles" on a Wikipedia wide basis. The user may still participate in related discussions so long as they engage in appropriate conduct, and do not add or remove the term."

So even if everyone was in agreement with the proposed inclusion of British Isles in that case, he should still not be adding it. Triton should stick to raising matters on the BISE talk page, not making edits relating to the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked Triton Rocker for one week. TR, it's clear that you're not grasping your ban: you may not add the phrase to any article for any reason. Whether there was consensus in this case is irrelevant, and so is the behaviour of the other editors involved. Until you accept the ban, your blocks will keep increasing. If you can do so, I will consider unblocking.

Incidentally, Fmph's original given diff doesn't show the addition of the phrase: it's here. I'm happy as ever for my action to be reviewed. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. I think the one i was trying to post was this one. Are they the same edit if different ways? Fmph (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mine is actually a sequence of 53 edits, which yours falls somewhere in the middle of. I was just too lazy to work out which the individual one was to be honest! Olaf Davis (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

???Since when are they not the British Isles??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Doh! Got it. Olaf's diff is over a longer time period. Fmph (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Bugs: it turns out lots of Irish people dislike the term because of the association of the term 'British' with the UK, and all the attendant history. I say 'turns out' because I was totally unaware of this until I saw some silly edit war over it on Wikipedia, but Irish friends have subsequently told me that it is a genuine concern for many people. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we go by sourcing and common usage, or do we go by "political correctness"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think the whole thing is WP:LAME (and I have immediate associations with both sides) but because of the ferocious editwarring and vituperative debates of the past, no-one outside of the associated group will get involved, so all debate goes round in an endless circle. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It does expose articles that have various weaknesses, but beyond that is a fairly empty debate as neither side is particularly interested in changing their minds; a deep part of the problem is that it's considered offensive by some in Ireland (and some nationalist opinion from parts of Britain) but not, on the whole, by anyone else in the world. This situation then seems oppressive to those who hate the term, as the majority either don't see the problem (which looks stupid and uncaring) or don't object. In Wikipedian editing, the term is obviously a global reality (it also appears in translated form in loads of other languages and all of their wikis) so for NPOV reasons we can't just have it excised, no matter how offensive it is to some. Thus the war continues, but it has got better and more constructive now we have a system. I think enough editors with a reasoned view who care about it take an interest (just) to stop it becoming a farce. The only alternative to the structured discussion is a blanket WP-wide ban on adding/removing, which would be equally unhealthy. Editors who wish to become involved need not be too put off now though, as so long as the sanctions policy is maintained by admins (as it is being and very skillfully I have to say) then things should remain much more reasoned. Personally I would love to have more input from "uninvolved" editors, but like a lot of issues, I suppose you have to care a bit to want to be involved. It's always illuminating when people who are not British or Irish take time to look in on "our" articles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with James here, issues are being resolved and also its throwing up some articles that needed improvement anyway. Progress only takes a few editors taking part and a willingness to deal with behaviour issues promptly. Its not a problem that will go away so being prepared to deal with it, mind sapping as it can be at times, is necessary--Snowded ^TALK 12:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem goes away as you soon as you topic ban the sole editor who is the root cause of all disputes from doing anything at all wrt British Isles. It is perverse that such site wide changes are being effected due to a single editor's unbelievable persistence. HighKing is conducting a language change campaign across Wikipedia based on the minority standpoint detailed above by James. This is a very real and obvious violation of NPOV, and a very real and very obvious abuse of Wikipedia for social engineering. The crime here is that not enough people care enough to investigate this to see this is what is actually happening. People have attempted to propose 'solutions' based on the views of the tiny few editors involved, but they have no idea about the application of NPOV to disputed terms, so their solutions have no hope of passing if put to a wider community that know what they are doing and are not blinded by having a horse in the race and have invested so much time (often years) in the game. Proposals include such genius ideas as 'replace the term on Irish articles'. A hopeless interpretation of NPOV I'm sure observers will agree. Some of the changes HighKing has pushed for has produced utter garbage content, totally erroneous and innaccurate, he doesn't really care tbh and in such events is more bothered about civility than anything else, and the rest, while they may appear right or logical according to whatever system is in play at the time at that campaign page (it changes depending on whether the goal is addition or removal, sometimes its references, sometimes it's common sense) to produce these supposedly 'consensus' backed changes, (which resembles nothing like a decent level of input most times, due to the woefull level of participation), are simply only being made to push the POV ever further. And all are instigated by, or are in response to, HighKing's edits, some dating back years. And now the game seems to have degenerated into the usual format of last man standing wins. It's absurd. MickMacNee (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear! An excellent appraisal of the situation, and unless, or until, some admin or other really understands what's going on here, and topic bans HighKing, there will be no end to it. LevenBoy (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny though, when admins take a close look at it - and I mean a really close look at it - that it's the editors who want to keep British Isles at all costs are the ones who are engaging in disruptive behaviour, and enough intolerence to make BNP proud. Not to mention the long-running sock farms, the blocks, the attacks on editors, the tag-teaming on edit wars. And I always wonder why, if this topic is so LAME, does it generate so much disruption? I note it's always the editors who don't want to discuss this topic at all, and try to keep British Isles in every context at all costs, are the ones who are uncivil, disruptive, dismissive, and trying to shut down discussions either through showing disdain at the BISE page, or calling for a topic ban. Thankfully we now have ground rules and a way of dealing with those editors. And it's working. --HighKing (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The new system is working, but TR must learn to understand his topic band. I asked him this morning to revert his edit (here) and he ignored my advice as he ignores the advice of others. It is funny that to remove BI is bad but to try and keep it (at all costs - socking, ignoring consensus & bans) or add it is good. We still have the odd SPA running about doing nothing more that trying to stir the pot especially now that editors from both side are working better together than every before. Bjmullan (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

TR knows what sanctions are & is merely ignoring them. Why he's ignoring them, is no longer relevant (IMHO), that he's ignoring is relevant. His current block, is well deserved. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll bite (maybe)

Can someone explain (in simple terms and without naming names) to this admin who lives across the pond what the underlying dispute actually is? Not looking for a detailed history, a great wall of text, or a slew of diffs - just a summary. If there has been an RfC, a link to that would be helpful.  Frank  |  talk  16:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The British Isles naming dispute article is a good place to start. If after that you've specific questions, post 'em on my Talk page and I'll do my best. --HighKing (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest Frank - I am sure HK will give useful views from his perspective - I would also be happy to answer any queries you may have from the "English perspective". Another useful existing article is Terminology of the British Isles which pretty accurately explains the many complex shades of meaning associated with different names in use over here in These Islands. The disputes themselves are not always all that interesting as they tend to be quite obsessional in tone, but there was quite a useful attempt to draw out the core sentences in the dispute at the BI MoS Straw Poll - the lower half of that page contains the disputed sentences in easy to glance-at panels. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was happy to give a view from every perspective. How assumptive of you. :-) --HighKing (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As I remarked above, MickMacNee sums it up admirably. Essentially there are a small number of people in Ireland who object to the usage of "British Isles". Although it's a geographic term with absolutely no political meaning these people object to the word "British" and so for them, the British Isles, which includes Ireland, is a term to be avoided. Unfortunately some of these people have found their way onto Wikipedia and have been running a campaign, now lasting for almost three years, to expunge the term from the encyclopedia. There has been an RfC and various other debates but they've been archived long since and might now be difficult to find. LevenBoy (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly one interpretation LevenBoy, but unfortunately for your position (as regards Wikipedia editing) the Irish government have made public statements opposing it and it has also been fairly widely discussed as a non-PC term in other sources, including geographic ones like atlases. The debate really does continue to go round and round if you insist there is zero merit in at least discussing these issues. I am also opposed to blanket removals, but those who used to do that have, via process, come to a case-by-case process. The problem is that it isn't a simple case of POV/NPOV and it's entirely simplistic of some editors to complain that it is. US editors and others also need to be aware that these terms are particularly politically-loaded for people from Northern Ireland and some of the fiercest "battlers" we have on the subject hail from that quarter - given the ferocity of debate over it in the past, it's really quite an absurd position to claim there is no real dispute. There is a real-world dispute. There is also an in-Wikipedia dispute which is perhaps more obsessional. I doubt the Irish government are out there trying to get the term out of all world journals and publications for example. The truth lies in the middle somewhere. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And as I have also said above Frank we have the SPA's trying to stir the pot. You can check their edit history and try and find a worthy edit on any subject. You have fun with all the reading :-) Bjmullan (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

We know the Irish government's views of British Isles. What's the British government's views? If the latter also discourages usage of BI, that would likely seal the deal. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You too should read British Isles naming dispute and the section "Perspectives in Britain". It's a start. The Terminology of the British Isles is good too. AFAIK, the British government has no official position. --HighKing (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It would only seal what the governments say about it - loads of other sources use BI, so it wouldn't create a "final victory for the cause" GoodDay. Wikipedia is not a platform for the official views of either government. In the recent past I spent a little time seeing if official UK govt websites say anything about it and as far as I could tell, they don't. As I said above, the debate here in Wikipedia is a Wiki-issue - it doesn't line up well with real-world debates on the subject. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Jumpin' junipers, why couldn't the old folks have called them the Isles. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The dispute is pathetic in truth. Do we complain about the Irish sea and have nightmares about it? Plenty of British people will take great offence if you tell them they are also Europeans and in Europe, it does not stop this from being fact. The dispute on wikipedia has started up because certain editors began a crusade to remove British Isles from articles, even where the use was justified and backed up by sources and this has been going on for years. Some of us involved are simply trying to prevent the removal of the term by some editors where its use is justified, certain editors have even tried to rename the article British Isles to try and erase it from history. It always reminds me of people in the 1930s burning books. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And the most recent problems have been people inserting British Isles to make a counter political point. As James says we need more people looking at each case on its merits, fewer editors who just take a blanket position and try to stifle any discussion, less heat, more references. The problem will not go away and pops up in various places. Derry or Londonderry, what to call the state that is Ireland (as opposed to the country) and many other places. It takes patience and some historical knowledge to navigate though it. Also we could really do without provocative statements about other editors motives which are incomplete at best. Focus on content, get agreement before editing, abide by the rules and keep civil. --Snowded ^TALK 19:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well i accept BIs removal where its use is inaccurate. I can not support the removal of British Isles simply because one of the involved editors thinks there is a better term. I do accept recent disruption has been more by those adding the term, but this has become an issue because of the crusade to remove the term from wikipedia and we do see the regular removal of British Isles by IPs. WP:BISE does seem to have made things more stable, but when editors break the rules like Triton does they do have to be dealt with. And whilst BISE works well, it does need some restrictions to prevent us getting the huge backlog and having to deal with endless numbers of cases. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm

Alright, I've gotten the answer I asked for (and then some). It seems to me from just skimming British Isles naming dispute and Terminology of the British Isles that a Right Answer&#0153; will not be forthcoming. I have expressly avoided trawling through individual contributions because I don't want to even try to pretend I'm going to settle any dispute. The dispute exists and isn't going away; my interest is in minimizing (ideally, eliminating) disruption to the project. Quite honestly, I'm not sure I can come up with a suggestion for that, but I'll think on it. I'm afraid, however, that when two sides of a dispute each find some term (or removal thereof) to be offensive (and often personally offensive), the end result is usually going to be a problem of the "more heat than light" type. On a project where we can't even seem to agree what musical genre(s) we should label Led Zeppelin as, this particular question may well never present a suitable solution. (The ALL CAPS SECTION TITLES over there sure make it seem like it's life-and-death, world-ending stuff. It isn't, of course, and neither is this.) The trick is in convincing editors to arrive at the least objectionable wording that all sides can agree on...as in "agree not to revert it". Sometimes that's the best we can get.  Frank  |  talk  20:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As nothing can be more important than the musical policies of Messrs Plant, Page, et al, then I feel relief that the BI dispute is so minor in comparison. I once had to convince an American that the Zepp were British - he remained unconvinced - at least Wikipedia has that one right. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't think I was equating the two disputes (although in truth they are not entirely dissimilar). In fact, I was pointing out that if we can't come to a consensus on what genre(s) apply to Zep, and if fevers run so high over the issue that the article is routinely reverted and protected over the issue, why should we expect it to be easy to settle a much larger question?  Frank  |  talk  23:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well on a positive note, the present policy of editors taking matters to WP:BISE and the ruling that editors can not continuously add/remove British Isles has helped bring some order to the dispute. Although it requires people to play by the rules. Sadly in this case Triton continues not to. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL @ Frank. Please tell me you didn't just try and use Wikipedia as a reference to see whether there was a widely accepted dispute here or not? You are forgetting that those articles can be editted by the same people who want to conduct campaigns on Wikipedia over language usage. But surely just a quick persual of those articles will have set alarm bells ringing in your head in terms of whether even they reflect the NPOV. They contain all the magic words, "some", "may", "gradually", and are littered with unnattributed garbage. The standard of referencing, or simply understanding what references are for, in this dispute, is simply idiotic at times. And that is from the supposedly established people who consider this dispute as 'their' field which they are 'patrolling'. I once saw someone use the title of a Michelin restaurant guide as a cite to state 'usage was changing' FFS. That's the sort of slack-jawed rubbish that infests this issue. If you want to stop disruption, take a long long look at HighKing's raison d'etre for editting Wikipedia, and examine what he says w.r.t to policy, actual policy and it's actual purpose. Topic ban him, and the disruption dissappears, I guarantee. I would not fall for any flannel about there being activists on both sides, nobody is conducting a campaign of anywhere near the level and persistance of HighKing's to support the usage of the term and crush the little Irish into dust, these Empire supporting SPAs they would have you believe make up the one side are purely reactionary, they exist because HighKing has wound them up so much with his nonsense that they just act silly, because you will find that HighKing is one of those kinds of editors who simply has no ability to see a dispute or a policy in any way other than from his perspective, meaning attempts at DR end in you wanting to smash your brains in with a hammer. He's been at this three years and is still battling, that is not the mark of someone who has the ability to find the middle road. You will see even now after all these years how much of an outlier he is when people try to make consensus backed proposals to end the dispute. His claims to the contrary of all that are really laughable once you start following his actual methodology and reasoning. Now and then he'll even be upfront with the fact that he is here to correct the world's 'mistakes', but I think he has cottoned on that it's easier to bluff it out with Wikipedia Buzzword Bingo, as well as an epic level of victim-acting wrt civil etc. He is the dispute, so the people suggesting others need to 'comment on content not contributors' are missing the point by a country mile. He slips occasionally though, and you will for example see him sometimes pull such brilliant methodology as second guesssing and otherwise assert a published author's knowledge of their own subjects even, check this out. Talk about start a fight in an empty room!. Ergo, take him out of the equation, and the issue dissappears. This is not a real dispute. If you want an example of a real dispute, look at Macedonia - hundreds of editors on either side. Yet what we have here is hundreds of editors independently writing articles with BI in, and HighKing trying to 'correct' their work on his own, and some misguided people trying to mediate a dispute that does not really exist, because NPOV is not, and never will be, about appeasing one national group's feelings in the way he is trying to do. MickMacNee (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

lol sadly i think the dispute has been going on so long now that just removing one editor from the situation would not be enough, even if it was his crusade to start with, others certainly like the goal and would carry it on. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree BW - I seriously doubt that we are seeing one editor working alone. In fact, I do wonder sometimes if a real-world grouping of some kind doesn't lie behind the delete process, but of course we Wikipedians are not allowed to speculate as to bad faith of that kind. :-) On a more serious note though, I don't see any reason now that we have established a systematic process supported by a ban for people who ignore it, and blocks already being handed out for breaching that ban, why we shouldn't do a simple trawl and check back that past deletes were done in an objective way from sourced evidence. This would meet your "three year old" battle issue MickMacNee, at least partly and it would seem to be good policy, as clearly POV was motivating at least some of what was going on before we had a more reasoned process operating, which is only recent.Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You fools! Can you not see it? It's plain enough. When HighKing takes a break the problem goes away, and it returns when he does. That says it all. He is the one and only cause of all this disruption. Yes, we have a few other editors who tag along, but they have no real interest in systematically replacing British Isles. And nobody really has an interest in systematically adding it. LevenBoy (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well id rather involved editors were taking these things to the BISE page (although limits on the number of cases editors can raise is still needed) than if we drove it all underground which is what would happen if specific editors were banned from this forever.BritishWatcher (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Go over previous removals of British Isles over the past few years? Sheeesh please do not give anyone ideas, there is already a backlog on the BISE page. I fear going to sleep now and waking up tomorrow finding someone is seeking BI be removed/readded from an article because of something that happened 2 years ago :(. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

@Mick - I'm not sure why you're amused. (LOL @ Frank. Please tell me you didn't just try and use Wikipedia as a reference to see whether there was a widely accepted dispute here or not?) You know, the funny (not LOL-funny, strange-funny) thing is that the first two links I was given showed me that there is a dispute here. If you think there isn't, AFD is that way. If you agree there is a dispute, I'm not sure why you're LOLing at me.

Maybe I gave the impression I was going to "solve" something. I have no special powers to solve anything; yes, I'm an admin but anyone who believes that topic-banning a single individual on Wikipedia is going to solve such an entrenched, long-running dispute interacts with this encyclopedia differently than I do. If there are specific, bright-line violations of policy or particular topic bans or editing restrictions that are taking place, they can be addressed individually. But I am not here in this thread to wade in and investigate any individual user and start wielding the block button like a blunt instrument. Sorry if I gave that impression; I responded to the call for an "uninvolved admin" but I haven't (yet) found anything that compels me to take drastic action. I've been a parent (and an admin) for long enough to know that squashing a single user isn't going to fix the perceived problem. And, as can be seen right here in these threads I've started, it's far from clear that the "problem" is even agreed. It's pretty interesting to me that the name HighKing comes up (with such vigor) in a thread ostensibly started regarding Triton Rocker.

If you really feel that a single user is responsible for this batch of disruption, the answer is to demonstrate it and form WP:CONSENSUS around that idea at WP:RFC. Topic banning usually creates MOAR DRAMAH. That doesn't mean it's to be avoided at all costs, but...if things were as simple as they're being presented here (topic ban HK and the issue goes away), it would be easy to form a consensus for decisive action.  Frank  |  talk  23:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It needs addressing constructively and not focusing so much on the actions of individual editors (apart from flagrant breaches of sanctions, such as Triton's) - the conflicting viewpoints are held widely enough that there are always going to be more editors with them, not to mention smart resurfacings of previously blocked ones - the best systems for keeping them out have flaws! It also isn't at all clear to me that it is only one editor - going back through the past contribs of various editors we see patterns of removal of "British Isles" in past years. Wikipedia seems to me to be pretty poor at handling fundamentalist-type conflicts but then so is the real world. I wouldn't quite put this one on, for example, the level of the climate change dispute in terms of the numbers of combatants, but it's at the upper end of the second tier of dispute intensities. There are a lot of involved editors, nearly all of whom come from one "camp" or the other. The real need in terms of the uninvolved is for editors from outside these islands to take a look, not just at the conduct of editors, but at the actual debates on content at WP:BISE. When we zoom in close on specifics, we see clear-cut disputes between allegations of POV and allegations that the phrase does not reflect the reality of the article. Those require rulings. One or two more admins looking in would be very useful on those as well, as it would not just be up to TFOWR, wise though I am sure he is, to make final judgements. Not so much to ask. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Has Triton Rocker won?

What do you think TR motive was for his edit early this morning? Getting people like you and me wasting our time for the rest of the day cat call (I'm guilty as charged). Let's move on we are all better than this. Bjmullan (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments and "thank yous"

Firstly, this issue has been on ANI twice (at least, by my reckoning) in the past five days. I suspect that's partly because the two admins normally involved (Black Kite and myself) have been away. I'm now back, and I believe Black Kite will be back later today/tomorrow. Apologies to the community, and to ANI in particular, for washing our dirty laundry in public. More importantly, a big thank you to everyone who's waded into the threads here: particularly to those admins who enforced the topic ban.

Now, several comments about the issue and our handling of it:

@Baseball Bugs: "British Isles" is indeed a widely used term, and we should not allow partisan editors to dictate when we use it - provided we use it correctly. An analogy is "Persian Gulf" and "Arabian Gulf" - we tend to use "Persian Gulf" even though it annoys some Middle Eastern editors: we do not use "Gulf" (even wikilinked and piped to "Persian Gulf"). We make an exception, however, for, for example, "Gulf War" - this term being widely used and understood. "British Isles" is also problematic in that it refers to more than just Great Britain and Ireland - it covers the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (and other, smaller, islands). My belief is that we should use "British Isles" whenever it is appropriate: in other words, "we go by sourcing and common usage" (and, since it's fairly easy to source for both "sides", common usage should prevail).

@Elen of the Roads: my view is much like yours - this is WP:LAME. I tend to regard all nationalist disputes as lame, however ;-) Lame or not, it takes up a lot of time and generates a lot of heat and noise. I've mentioned the Persian/Arabian Gulf dispute, another editor mentioned the Macedonia/FYROM dispute (with which I have, for my sins, been involved in the distant past) - they're all lame for the non-involved, but they all matter immensely to the editors who are involved. You're absolutely correct when you suggest that non-involved editors wishing to get involved are few and far between. They do exist, however. I believe that if we make progress then non-involved editors will be more likely to get involved, and that this is highly desirable. Some of the best progress we've made has been when subject-experts from individual articles or areas have commented on their areas of expertise.

@MickMacNee: it's entirely possible that recent problems are a direct result of past problems, and that a topic ban or similar action, taken in the past, against one editor might have been effective. We're well past that point now. The editor you refer to has not been a problem of late. I believe that provided the current process continues to operate problems with long-term editors can be largely avoided, and the only major problems will be with new and inexperienced editors. I'd add that there are several veteran editors involved now are participating in a thoughtful and helpful manner, despite having partisan editing problems in their past. I'd particularly want to stress that the three editors (HighKing, LevenBoy and, to a lesser extent, Bjmullan) who prompted the ANI report that resulted in the topic ban sanctions have all participated in the process: I have no problem with any of these three.

@LevenBoy: you say that when HighKing takes a break the problem goes away. Perhaps. The recent problems have had nothing to do with HighKing, however, and everything to do with another editor. HighKing appears to have taken a break from changing articles, and is instead participating in the WT:BISE process - I believe that this is A Good Thing. I'd like TritonRocker to do the same. Hell, you can manage to engage with WT:BISE - why can't TritonRocker?

@Everyone - ANI and WT:BISE: we need more folk. We need editors who are completely uninvolved, we need subject-matter experts who can weigh in on, say, flora and fauna, the spread of Christianity, travelling communities, etc etc. I've told WT:BISE that outside opinions carry more weight than partisan opinions, and I'd like to see that backed up by - outside opinions. The more that non-involved editors get involved, the better the process will operate. The better the process operates, the easier it will be for non-involved editors to participate. The British Isles should not be a walled garden where only British and Irish editors are allowed to edit.

Thanks again, and thanks in advance to anyone who chooses to get involved. TFOWR 09:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As Al Pacino put it, I'm a scary judge of character. I can think of at least two editors who lazy admins swore blind at countless ANI reports were model citizens. Six months after I told you who was who and what was what on ANI, they eventually got what was coming to them, an indef block. And these were long term, seriously long term, editors. One is now community banned, one begged his way back after a year long ban and has had to change his identity to hide his past and keep on editting, while not having stopped his previous behaviour, but that's another story. Anybody dismissing HighKing's role in this non-dispute dispute, is either lazy, blind, policy clueless, or hasn't looked far enough back in his edit history. Anybody comparing him and his patent brand of insidious POV warping of the pedia to the net damage of some common or garden two bit SPA revert warrior is similarly clueless/incompetent, or worse. Mark my words, I don't waste my time on issues or editors that do not eventually get found out for what they are. MickMacNee (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're not suggesting I'm a "lazy admin", because I haven't said anyone is a "model citizen" - simply that High King hasn't behaved in the way you suggest since this area became sanctioned. I've worked with a number of editors involved in this for a long time: many of them (including, if I'm honest, myself) have less than stellar records. I'd hope we would all - yourself included - judge them on their actions now. High King included. TFOWR 23:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Mick, the ideal that any editor with this block history is a scary judge of character is interesting to say the least. We've had blocked editors and sock puppets on both sides of this debate, can we please stop these silly attacks, they just escalate conflict. --Snowded ^TALK 23:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl

Now that this editor has successfully forced User:Boleyn to retire from wikipedia and describe her edits as "atrocious" she has persisted in harrassing my great efforts to restore articles she wrongfully deleted of Boleyns. My stubs like John Campbell (1798–1830) face speedy deletions even though there is a good chance that they will expanded upon either by myself or Charles Matthews in the near future. See her recent edits. She has logged in today to purposefully stlak me and these articles with intent to prove points about things and blow minor errors into gross msitakes. Look at her edit summaries the last few weeks. She is practically attacking editors and making them feel worthless in her summaries. I find her bahviour and stalking of me unacceptable as she continues to spam me deletion warnings/errors I have apparantly made with little effort to work with me despite all of your words shared. Her behaviour is very poor from an admin and violates WP:POINT. I ask that somebody exmaines her edits and that these recent newly created stubs with references are not speedied from wikipedia but are allowed to develop. They are adequate stubs. Parliamentarians are automaically notable with sources aren't they? Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 14:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that members of parliaments are notable. If sourced, a stub on such a person should not be deleted. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

She won't even allow a few hours for anybody to add to it like John Campbell (1798–1830). She should not be stalking my edits. She has a right to fix any errors herself but to persistently hound me about them and threaten with speedy deletions when they assert notability and are referenced, is this acceptable? Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 14:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified BrownHairedGirl of this thread (which apparently had not been done although I note BHG's recent edit summary on her talk). FWIW I'm suprised that the above article was slapped with A10 and would have declined the speedy myself. No other commentary. Pedro :  Chat  14:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This qualifies as harassment. I am with good faith trying to help wikipedia in my own time by restoring these articles only to receive negative messages form her every few minutes. Can somebody ask her to back away and allow me to breathe? Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 14:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. B is following in Boleyn's steps of rapidly creating sub-stub articles which add nothing to wikipedia. Notability of the subjects is not in dispute, but the utility of the sub-stubs is.

I have been checking them, and so far have found that several meet the A10 criterion for speedy deletion, but more worryingly that one was referenced solely to a source of questionable reliability, which actually referred to someone else ... and most significantly, that three others were referenced without page numbers to rare reference books which I possess, but which are hard to obtain. I have queried whether Dr B has actually consulted these sources, but have received no response other than personal abuse ... and in one case (John Campbell (Northern Irish politician)), the fact asserted is simply not in the book in question.

Fake references are a very serious issue, and I am glad that Dr. B has brought this to wider attention. I have to go out now for two hours, but on my return and I will start supplying diffs. In the meantime, please see the revision history of User talk:Dr. Blofeld for the notes which i have left there, and which Dr. B has deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

PS Last comment before I go out: WP:HOUND explicitly says that "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles". If the use of references to sources which an editor has not consulted is supported by wikipedia policy, then I suggest that WP:V should be amended to make this clear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have already commented on the inappropriateness of the A10 deletions, and I hope BHG will be more careful next time. However, what is more serious than a slight misinterpretation of a wikirule, is the apparent misuse of sources, and the addition of false information to articles. Stubs are fine, as long as they are stubs. It's not a race to create as many articles as possible, and often, a red link is better than a blue link with a single line of information that's available elsewhere. Boleyn wasn't forced to retire. He should have taken the advice from BHG to slow down and take some care when creating articles, then BHG would not have had to keep reminding him. I consider misuse of references and false information to be as bad as plagiarism. It's a serious issue, and BHG ought to be commended for her efforts despite the abuse being thrown her way. Aiken ♫ 15:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well I'm pretty sure that "you truly are a psychopath" falls squarely into NPA territory, irrespective of the serious content charges laid down here. I don't think there's any point to rehasing the sub-stub debate here, if there's been no Rfc on that, it's time to kick one off. MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. B, what is the rush to create undersourced stubs in article space? Your works in progress can be created and sourced in user sandbox and moved to article space when you and Charles Matthews have actually had the time to properly source them? Active Banana (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Because they should not have been deleted in the first place. Well now that Boleyn has retired there is no rush I guess. I was rushing to save them for her sake but I was too late. BHG pushed her over the edge. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 15:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr .B, there was no need to rush to re-create the sub-stubs to "save" them. As you well know, I had already offered to restore them to your userspace, and had asked you to clarify whether you had chnaged your mind on your earlier rejection of that offer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly does. Blocked for 24 hours for the attack, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was extended, should investigation determine that other references are unverifiable... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain it would be appropiate to extend a block given for violating our NPA policy for problems with article referencing - the issues should be considered separately. Exxolon (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO rushing to create poorly sourced stub articles to prove a point is by far the worse violation here. Editing to make a point is silly. Take your time source the article properly and the issue is resolved. I'm not sure what the point of creating endless improperly sourced stubs is. Ridernyc (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

we should not let BHG deal with others into the felt need to say such things. Her repeated campaigns of deletion against specific editors seem to amount to harassment. She has now managed to get one of our most productive editors of all blocked, while she herself seems to be editing primarily destructively. A10 is specifically only for recently created articles which add nothing, are not splits, and cannot be redirects. Since the names of the MPs is always a proper redirect, the use of them this case is explicitly against policy. Additionally, many of these have been instances where the article, though stubby, has in fact given slightly more information than the list from which it was removed, including at least the dates of the person--key information for further development of the article and clearing up ambiguities among the various people of similar name--and so these a10s are against policy also.

Even more important, and a matter for very serious concern, is that she has been taking administrative action--deleting herself, single-handed, not just tagging, articles written by Boleyn, an editor with whom she has come in repeated personal contact. This is in my opinion--and I hope in the general opinion--a misuse of administrative powers. Perhaps we will need an rfc, but I would hope that an understanding of what she has been doing might be enough for others to help persuade her to stop, or at least to work within the rules.

It's easy to destroy--one admin can destroy hundreds of articles a day. Reconstructing is slow. I reconstructed one of the articles yesterday, for a MP who turns out to be not just notable but famous, and who, like many of her targets, is in the DNB. [70]. I'll do another one today. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

DGG, you happen to take a radical inclusionist view that any single scarp of unsourced info added in haste must be checked and expanded by others, who you believe are morally obligated to spend as much time as is needed even when the creating editor has done no research whatsoever and simply splat-pasted text from a dab page. You're quite entitled to that view, but there are a significant number of editors who disagree, and we have support in policy. The debate as to where the boundaries lie continues, but I am far from alone in disagreeing with your belief that it is constructive for editors to churn out huge quantities of inaccurate or misleading sub-stubs which create dead ends and add nothing to wikipedia.

Constructing a decent stub on one of these topics is indeed slow, as you discovered with the one you expanded yesterday. But reconstructing an unref sub-stub is the work of a few seconds. (If you disagree, I'll show you how it's done).

I also note that you show no concern whatsoever about Dr. B's repeated use of false references, which saddens me. I thought that you were concerned about the quality of wikipedia articles, but maybe I was mistaken. So far as I can see from your comment above, your sympathies lie entirely with an editor who has decided to indulge in rapid-fire creation of inaccurate sub-stubs, and who has responded with abuse when errors and fake refs have been identified. You are quite entitled to your view on that, but it seems to me to be a stance more suited to a social networking site than to a encyclopedia.

As to the suggestion that I "editing primarily destructively", I strongly suggest that you should check my very extensive contribs history before making such an allegation. I have indeed put a lot of work recently into tidying up the torrent of abysmal sub-stubs in this area, expanding those which have something to expand, identifying others for deletion, and correcting the hundreds of errors introduced into wikipedia by editors whose concern seems to be to count the number of pages created. If you choose to label this as harassment, that's your view, but WP:HOUND tells a different story and explicitly supports the checking of contribs to allow probs to be fixed.

However, your suggestion that I somehow goaded an editor into a spree of falsifying references is simply risible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A lot of DGG says rings true. But perhaps the solution is a lot simpler; Blofeld should simply agree to stop indiscriminately retrieving the deleted stubs (and instead agree to carefully verify references and expand each one a little as he goes through) and BHG can undertake to step away from the stubs for a short interval while things calm down. The mass retrieval of stubs does look a little like provocation, but, similarly, BHG seems to be rising to it (i.e. templating Bblofeld is pretty provocative, a quick talk page message may go down better). From what I have observed recently this seems a pretty sad dispute when we could be focusing on the content --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that we have two editors with over 200K edits behaving badly here (Dr. Blofeld's personal attack I do not defend in the slightest, though he has good points to make), it is clear that there is a problem here. I believe BHG is ignoring, systematically, the principle of good editing that we comment on the content and how to improve it, and not on the editor. See the PROD deletion notices on User talk:Boleyn, and numerous edit summaries. So I believe there has been a campaign by BHG that precisely fits the description in WP:HOUND (as I said last time this was brought up here); harassment in the meaning our policy gives it, backed up by misuse of admin tools to target an editor on a content matter, and inflammatory use of the edit summary spaces. Anyone is free to disagree, but this is the worst case of admin behaviour, at the level of human decency, I have seen in seven years here, and that is saying something. This noticeboard is an ineffective route to deal with such issues, clearly. When last here, BHG noted an intention to wind down editing and take a vacation. We can be grateful for the former, but I find it hard to imagine a more wound-up version of recent events. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in that I agree entirely with DGG here. Also I don't think he implied BHG goaded anyone into falsifying references, rather that BHG goaded someone into making a personal attack. Hobit (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Charles, My intention was to take a 4-week vacation starting ten days ago; but circumstances changed that to a 4-day break last weekend, to be followed by a 4-week break from late next week. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

PS Charles, your comment about PRODs on Boleyn's talk presumably refers to these two PROD notices, which I added last night. Would you prefer that I had not taken the time to spell out in detail the problems with those articles, and to explicitly reference the fact that Boleyn had herself acknowledged that one of them consisted solely of a synthesis of incoming links from existing wikipedia articles?

Once again, we see the same pattern. I found a problem with content, proposed remedial action and took care to fully explain the reasons ... yet once again you choose to criticise me for trying to clean up the mess. This is getting very silly and pointy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You are criticised for reading "concern" in the template as "rant", and personalising the second PROD, where as you recall I agreed with the nomination. Inflammatory is always wrong, but particularly in this context. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Charles you seemed determined to cast me as a one-woman version of Attila-the-Hun-turned-really-nasty, and I doubt that anything will change that. However, the crucial point about the second PROD was that the creator of the article had already acknowledged that there was no source for any of the facts asserted in the article; omitting that info would have deprived other editors of the knowledge that the nature of the problem was agreed. I dunno whether you would have prefered me to omit that fact, or to omit the crucial quote from Jimbo about how to deal with speculative content... but either way it's rather tedious that even when you agree with a nomination you still take time to snipe that it included too much information. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) DGG, a case of use of tools in when in an dispute can be succinctly made to an impartial party (namely the arbitration committee) for review - that is one role of the arbcom (i.e. review of admin tools) (2) I am looking at John Campbell (Northern Irish politician) -am I missing something? Misusing sources is serious, that needs to be spelled out too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Casliber, see the John Campbell article as re-created by Dr. B: a) the sole source cited is a book which I have open in front of me and does not mention either him or his constituency; b) he is categorised in several categs as a member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which is not supported by the text of the article or by any ref I have seen so far. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The ArbCom are entirely welcome to pick the bones out of the Boleyn saga. Its aftermath - the recreation of some of the perhaps 69 deletions BHG made in one day of articles created by Boleyn, using first an A10 template and then deleting as self when hangon was applied - is not the main event. I have recreated some, DGG has, Dr. Blofeld has (though I didn't supply him any wikitext because I wanted to sort through offline first, and I was right about that), and there has been some sniping at the articles today. But as ever with BHG, there is deflection from the conduct issue onto theoretical issues (note the attempted character assassination of DGG above). Actually ArbCom should look at this as an admin-on-admin conflict: just reading BHG on DGG should convince them of the wisdom of doing that. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Charles, it's interesting that you follow DGG down the path of showing no concern whatsoever about the creation of inaccurate articles using "references" to sources which the editor concerned had clearly not consulted (and another ref to source which was about someone else, removed here); instead you choose to try to criticise the conduct of an editor who has devoted a lot of effort to trying to clean up the mess, and you accuse me of "attempted character assassination".

Sadly, I have gotten used to this by now ... but if an editor who monitors the quality of additions to wikipedia is to be routinely abused in this way, then we have a systemic problem which may indeed require arbcom attention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Gross distortion of my role and position in this - par for the course for your commentary. DGG has been a librarian at Princeton. Off the high horse. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Charles, we could all flash credentials around (I have a few of my own), but that gets nobody anywhere. You have posted dozens of times on this topic, denouncing me in strident terms, so before you talk to other editors about high horses, get off your own. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not an admin, so I'm not sure if I really should be commenting, but doesn't it seem a bit hasty to be blocking user:Dr. Blofeld without getting some consensus here first. While I agree some of his remarks were uncivil, it's clear to me that a case could be made that he was provoked. Likewise, the misrepresentation of sources has not been proven by a neutral party. Further, blocking him prevents him from making any necessary comments here in his defence while this discussion is on-going. This case is too complicated to make any snap judgments/quick punishments. All the best to you all in sorting out this mess.4meter4 (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not an admin either. I believe the block was justified and I don't wish to downplay his personal attack, but I think his block should be shortened to time served now, taking into account that Dr. Blofield felt harassed and I believe he was just venting. And, furthermore, to give him the chance to chime in here, provided he accepts not to attack BrownHairedGirl again. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well 'psychopath' is not a nice thing to call anyone. I'm not against the block but I do think that, in this case, a warning and an opportunity to apologize may have been more appropriate than an immediate block, especially considering the nature of the discussion in progress. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The impression I am getting from his talkpage is that Blofeld hasn't really internalized that it isn't really ok to call someone a psychopath in your daily dealings here. Seems more to be concerned that we're interfering with his getting articles to GA. Syrthiss (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where that impression came from, since the dispute between these 2 editors largely relates to differing opinions over the proper handling/creation of stub articles.4meter4 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record Blofeld does understand that "the word" is not acceptable on here, in fact he is acutely aware of it now and now he has been unblocked has actually apologised for it! I see no reason to continue with this. just for the record I am not here to create "sub stubs", in fact I was hoping enough info would be available to expand like Arthur Ingram. My fault for trying to rush the recreations to try to appease Boleyn and stop her leaving in which I obviously failed. BHG is right that they should best be restored gradually with no rush or drama. All of us, myself, Charles Matthews, DDG etc's time would be better spent developing content than being engaged in conflict. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved?

(ec)Dr Blofeld has been unblocked, and posted a very warm apology-and-let's-move-on note on talk page. I have responded in the same bury-the-hatchet spirit, and so far as I am concerned the ANI issues here are resolved. I was going to post that I hope this may also be Dr B's view, but didn't want to presume ... but after an edit conflict I see we are on the same track.

The remains a need for some wider discussion on some of the broader issues, but it seems to me that's not ANI's purpose. This summer storm has passed, so let's all get back to editing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the resolved tag, because the issue of BHG's use of admin privileges has not been resolved. I appreciate Casliber's suggestion of arb com, but this page also a place is where we can deal with abuse of admin functions--we just can't deadmin someone ourself. I have no wish to deadmin anyone, especially over a single grouping of poor work; I have no wish to bring an RfC; I have no wish for formal action at Wikipedia of any sort--and have never initiated it-- unless it's been proven nothing else will serve; I agree with BHG that this is not the case. Frankly, I would regard it as a personal failure if it were necessary to complain to arb com. . I like to deal with things by discussion, among the parties, with the benefit of (hopefully} helpful comments by others.

with respect to some comments above, inclusionism is not the issue here--everyone agrees that the subjects of these stubs are unquestionably notable. (It is true, of course, that I make every effort to rescue anything rescuable, and I make no apologies for it--I also make every effort to delete everything not rescuable--I've personally removed 11 thousand articles--about 6.7 times as many as BHG; not that she's not deleting enough , but that I have the misfortune to work with problematic articles more than she does. I do regret that this has taken me somewhat away from my original intention of working with higher level content.) I have never approved of making overly minimal articles, and I have frequently tried to persuade people doing so to work more usefully; I do not think deleting the first attempts useful or a suitable means of education, though I have done so as a last resort when it amounts to spamming (And so has Charles, in this field and others.)

I of course do not like bad work; today I went and got as many as I could carry of the authoritative sources for MPs during the earlier part of the period in question, so I can check the material and properly expand the material without having to worry about what may or may not be online. (This includes the suggested erroneous miscitation--the book is not all that uncommon, but I do not join in condemning someone's work unless I can personally check it--that's my standard of academic integrity.) Everyone makes a few errors--I certainly have accidentally misreferenced and misquoted a few times in my life, as has every active editor or academic--I have no need to hide the fact that I'm human. I sometimes work too fast--every active ed. does, and I'd suggest BHG was working too fast in these deletions--I think I recognize the symptom of not bothering to check what ought to have been the ordinary sources such as DNB before deleting. I've made similar errors sometimes; people tell me on my talk p, and I apologize & go back and fix them.

What I hope I have never done is lose patience with any editor to the point of finding every possible reason to delete their work, in or out of policy. (I admit it's been tempting sometimes.) The proper reaction to someone making poor articles too fast is not to make poor quality deletions equally fast.

I've reopened this in the hope of getting an explict acknowledgement from BHG that she will stop concentrating her attentions on this particular editor, and, in particular, never engage in admin actions affecting him. That's as good as arb com, and much less productive of long-lasting hostilities.

I acknowledge her fields of knowledge and I hope we can work together in areas of common interest, such as UK political history--where, by-the-by, I have no claims to be more than an interested hobbyist who knows the sources). DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

DGG, there is a big and crucial difference between mistakes in referencing (of which I have made my share), and referencing a source one has not consulted. The facts referenced may turn out to be correct, but that post-facto justification does not excuse misleading our readers into thinking that the facts are asserted because the editor who asserted them had checked them in the sources. That's history now that Dr B and I have moved on, but since you brought up the point, I think it's worth making the distinction.

As to DNB etc, well .. my point throughout has been that there are plenty of sources which allow at least a minimally useful stub to constructed on any post-1832 MP, and many (tho not all) before that. Checking the DNB would tell me nothing I don't already know, and nothing relevant ... because the issue here was not whether a useful stub (or longer) article could be constructed on topic, but whether the page created was more or less useful to the reader than no page (per A10), and per WP:V's warning per Jimbo about unsourced speculative info. This was a not a case of, as you say, "deleting the first attempts"; it was the deletion of a small minority of about a thousand articles created by an editor who had first been advised last year (not by me) not to engage in the high-speed creation of such poor content.

As noted below, the issue now is what to do with hundreds of abysmal sub-stubs which remain. Please can we restore some focus on solving the problem, rather than on recrimination against those engaged in the cleanup? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As someone who's run afoul of WP:INVOLVED myself, let me be clear: Any administrative action BHG took to remove an unsourced stub created by an editor with which she has had a previous disagreement is a violation of WP:INVOLVED. There's simply no disputing that fact. The limited set of circumstances in which involved administrator action would even be acceptable (and even at that, not recommended) include only blatant vandalism, which the articles and edits in question are unquestionably NOT.

The proper course of action is for BHG to acknowledge her own actions violated the consensus against involved administrator actions and pledge to refrain from future such actions. It's most assuredly not fatal, I've done it myself. Jclemens (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

But how do we know you're not a zombie? *pokes you* You could be a zombie. Silverseren^C 06:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not gloss over the issue of false sourcing, which is within any admin's purview to act on, including BHG. She stepped over a line here, but not every action she took was over the line. This is also a "takes two to tango" situation. BHG needs to stop deleting these things, but more importantly, Blofeld needs to stop creating them in the first place. His editing history is littered with these things. If he cannot take the effort to provide a source and enough material to make a meaningful stub, he shouldn't create them at all. He's got a long history of this behaviour, and it needs to stop.—Kww(talk) 06:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This thread continues, so I want to try to summarise the overall picture for those not aware. User:Dr. Blofeld has to answer for a personal attack, and for some very hasty and regrettable work in recreating deleted stubs that was of low quality and misidentified (at least four times, I think) sources of people with related names. The Boleyn/BHG business is as long and complicated as it is depressing. I want to pick out three points.

• In this [71], BHG states "After trying AFDs of some of these pointless pages, which survived because a lot of other editors worked to expand them up to the point of useful stubs, I have not nominated any more of these sub-stub "articles" for deletion on the basis of their high rate of mis-statements". What the heck, one might ask, is wrong with the outcome there? Unless the point was to delete punitively. Clearly a sub-stub of that kind has been a contribution of a start of a viable topic.
• Above BHG speaks of duplicative content wasting the reader's time. At first sight this comment makes no sense about content being in two places. If an MP stub contains the same information as on one of the excellent (post-1660) MP lists we have, where BHG does work for which "sterling" is an understatement, then if the reader clicks and goes to the MP article, that may duplicate reading a sentence or so. But why assume the stub is only linked from such a list? It may be linked from a dab page, the area in which Boleyn has worked hard. But it may be linked from other places too: very often is. Too much "ownership" in the air here. BHG and Boleyn disagree on the merits of turning a redlink blue via a short stub, in hundreds of cases where an MP list and dab page would both link. That's a content dispute, and neither editor "owns" the outcome. That's why admin tools should not have been used by BHG, who has dragged feet about taking this into dispute resolution.
• Template:Under construction says "If this article has not been edited in several days, please remove this template". In the recent bout of deletion and redirection of Boleyn stubs, BHG disregarded "several days" and redirected articles Boleyn had tagged "under construction" after some hours. That's bullying: riding roughshod over instructions and etiquette to make a point, show contempt, and exacerbate already tragically bad personal relations.

All said, if BHG's personal approach could manage "more in sorrow than in anger" on article quality issues, WP:BOLD could justify a cull of Boleyn's stubs. That is clearly not the case, and BHG should have backed away a long time ago (one AN/I thread should be enough, this is the third). Charles Matthews (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Very well said. Silverseren^C 08:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more is to be said here. Charles Mathews seems determined to pick through my actions to find reasons demonise me, and as far as I can see the only thing that would satisfy him is for me to be hung, drawn and quartered. One example is the "underconstruction" tags which Boleyn added. Naturally, I usually respect those, but when an editor adds them to dozens of articles, including some new ones created and promptly abandoned, it is not plausible to assume that they are actually about expanding the content rather than using a procedural device to maintain useless sub-stubs. AFAICR, the articles with those tags were not deleted, but redirected; if the editor concerned wanted to construct an article at those pages, the material was still there. This seems like a re-run of his earlier attempt to demonise me for fully explaining my reasons for two PRODS which he says he supported, by trying to find a personal attack where here was none.

His final sentence sums the problem up neatly: he agrees that WP:BOLD justifies a cull of the sub-stubs, but instead of discussing whether and how to do that, he's still putting his energies into attacking an editor who (like him) has done masses of work in cleaning up the mess because he has decided (wrongly) that my approach is anger rather than sorrow. The whole thing is an almighty sad business: Boleyn enthusiastically but incompetently created hundreds of sub-stubs with a minimal content and a massive error rate, and while I was indeed annoyed at her initial dismissiveness of the efforts I and others made to persuade to take a difft approach, my overwhelming feeling for a long time has simply been sadness. Sadness that Boleyn's work was producing abysmal results, and that despite her evident enthusiasm she seemed unable to gain a command of very basic issues in article construction ... and sadness that we now had a huge pile of tiny articles, most of which added nothing to wikipedia, and many of which contained significant errors in their very short list of facts. We don't build WP for editors, we build it for readers, and it has been very sad to watch Boleyn putting so much time into something which does not serve our readers. I do not see any claim from Charles or others that the sub-stubs help readers, and the readers are supposed to be our priority.

Charles misunderstands the issues with linking: most MP articles are indeed linked from somewhere other than constituency articles: they are linked from other MPs for the constituency and from lists of MPs elected in elections, and for the more obscure MPs (i.e. the majority) from little or nothing else. However, the other MPs for that constit and the lists of MPs elected in elections also link to the constituencies, so the material is accessible from there ... and the constituencies were also linked from the dab pages, at least until Boleyn set about creating the sub-stubs for the purpose of allowing her to remove those links. If Charles wanted to discuss any of this, we could have had a useful discussion ... but instead he seems to prefer pointing fingers.

I'd be delighted to discuss with Charles or anyone else how to proceed, but I really don't see any constructive purpose being served by continuing to pick over the bones of how we got here.

Today I have helped with Dr. B to expand one sub-stub (Edgar Rees Jones) to a reasonable start-class article. I have also disentangled another article which I found categorised in the should-be-empty Category:British politicians, Sir Thomas Palmer, 4th Baronet ... which turned out to be two people conflated together by ... Boleyn. It has taken a few hours to unravel that to two pathetic stubs Sir Thomas Palmer, 4th Baronet, of Wingham and Sir Thomas Palmer, 4th Baronet, of Carlton, the only useful content of which is the actually metadata: the succession boxes which allow readers to navigate on in the hope of finding some real content. :(

I'm sure that as I go through the rest of Category:British politicians, some of the articles will be Boleyn's sub-stubs. And once gain I'll pick out a pile of ref books and rewrite those for which I do have sources. But this process is very slow: what exactly are we going to do for our readers about the hundreds of unchecked and uninformative dead-end sub-stubs which still exist, and which at present rates of progress will not be cleared up for months?

Dr. B and I have buried the hatchet and got back to focusing on content. I think that our readers would be much better served if Charles M would join us and devote his talents to trying to resolve this mess, rather than to recrimination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So that's one "very well said" and one complete self-exculpation. As I said, my summary was an attempt to allow outsiders to take a view. I'm done here, certainly. I have watchlisted all articles that were listed on User:Boleyn's page as of a few days ago, meaning that I'm likely to notice talk page messages and taggings. That will do for the content, at present. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So your selective and distorted "summary" is merely to help outsiders, but a response is to be dismissed as a "complete self-exculpation".

Doesn't look to me Charles is in any mood to try to discuss a solution to this enormous proliferation of sub-stubs which were created without the use of any external sources at all, and are replete with inaccuracies. That's a pity. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Concerns over User:JohnClarknew

I need to raise this incident with someone neutral :) I am concerned over User:JohnClarknew who claims (fairly legitimately as far as I can tell) to be John Clark (actor/director). What is concerning me is that he is getting very fraught over his biography but is not able to point exactly to what is wrong with the article - instead he has entered into a number of quite strong personal attacks against myself and User:Memphisto. This includes:

• Accusations of collusion with Memphisto (based on a brief talk page conversation) and calling our editing sinister [72]
• Phrases such as the particular agenda I have to discredit your and Memphisto's edits., I sort of think that you do, but you back him up on all his edits giving a collaborative impression, and impression is what counts.[73]
• Various other mild attacks (such as calling me naive[74] and calling our motives into question)

Relevant pages: My talk, his talk, User_talk:Memphisto, Talk:John Clark (actor/director) (actual discussion Talk:John_Clark_(actor/director)#Thinly_disguised_-_beware).

What concerns me is that this is a 77 year old guy so I am trying to be particularly polite and respectful - but he is making it very hard. This gentleman was married to Lynn Redgrave and in the past the press have been less that nice about him due to his divorce from Lynn (see here). As such he seems to consider the article based on press coverage as unbalanced (despite, I would say, our attempts to balance it and keep out POV tabloid crud). He has demanded an exception and stated I need the page to be balanced in its media references. BALANCED, does leave a truthful legacy, from my point of view. That is what I want, and I mean to get it on the talk page. I think he is implying he wishes to write an auto-biography and for neither myself or Memphisto to intrude.

I'm at a bit of a loss what to do; from John's postings it appears he may respect an uninvolved admins contribution/discussion. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Have a chat with the guys at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.65.169 (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Tmorton166 is one of those people, and this article was listed there some time ago. Uncle G (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • As above (thanks Uncle G); that was how I came to this article. My concern here is for the user and his actions/feelings --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 23:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo

user:Kintetsubuffalo has an attitude problem, and some of his gratuitous disrespect toward other users is calculated and premeditated long in advance, done by deliberate policy.

Kintetsubuffalo summarized this edit by saying "last clean edit". He was reverting a good-faith edit with a summary expressing pointless disrespect for what had been written. In this case, it amounts to biting the newbies. I've left a note on user:Boattop's talk page saying what I thought was wrong with Boattop's edits, and saying it is unfortunate that Kintetsubuffalo was gratuitously disrespectful to Boattop.

Kintetsubuffalo has a notice at the top of his talk page that among other things expresses a sort of ownership of the page beyond what he's entitled to claim, and announcing that he will continue to behave this way. I may speak of my grandfather, my boss, my friend, my country, and the word "my" does not imply ownership, and likewise of my user discussion page. There are important limitations to the extent to which one may claim ownership of one's talk page. In an extreme case that actually happened, a user put a notice at the top of his otherwise blank talk page saying something like "This is my talk page; you can't post here without my permission." (I think that was that particular user's only edit, ever.) If there's a concern or question about someone's editing practices, I will post on their talk page without requesting permission, and so does everybody else, and that's as it ought to be. It can't be treated as private property used by invitation only; that's contrary to its purposes.

Once Kintetsubuffalo put a standard hatnote on an article on a topic in which I have professional expertise, saying it's written like as essay or personal reflection. I deleted the hatnote and asked Kintetsubuffalo on his talk page why he so tagged the article. He responded that he did so because it looked like an essay or personal reflection. That of course told me only what I already had to know to ask the question in the first place, so I asked specifically what looked that way about the article, and said it didn't look that way to me. I was puzzled by the number of seemingly inexplicable "personal reflection or essay" tags I'd seen on articles in my field. (I later learned that they were put there only because of a silly misunderstanding of standard language.) Kintetsubuffalo then deleted my questions from his talk page with a calculatedly insulting edit summary calling them "Putz edits".

Kintetsubuffalo openly announces his intention to continue behaving like this in a notice boasting that he's a four-year veteran Wikipedian (he's far less experienced at Wikipedia editing than I am) saying that entitles him to some slack. Jimmy Wales' comment that he quotes makes sense in some contexts. It appears to have been intended to imply that unpremeditated infractions may be overlooked when outweighed by some other considerations, and also that experienced people may have acquired good judgment as to when standard practices should be deviated from. It should not apply to calculated policies. If one has a deliberate policy of departing from Wikipedia conventions, it should be because one disagrees with them after consideration, not because one feels one has earned a privilege of doing bad things. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're upset, but Kintetsubuffalo isn't trying to do anything wrong. According to the user talk page guidelines, "Wikipedia policy does not prohibit users from removing content from their own talk pages." So no matter what edit summary Kintetsubuffalo used, he has the right to remove it. And as for taking ownership of his talk page, I assure you, that was not his intention, either. While Wikipedia policy states that all user pages, user talk pages, and user subpages are part of the encyclopedia, a user is able to do with his/her user/user talk/user subpages whatever he/she wants. As you said, saying "my country" isn't claiming ownership, and the same is the case for Kintetsubuffalo stating that his talk page is his. As for the essay tags, I'm sure Kintetsubuffalo was acting in good faith. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 18:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I never questioned his good faith in regard to the essay tags.

You miss the point: He is rude. He insults good-faith editors. He does so by a deliberately premeditated policy. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

...or let me put it this way. I don't even bother to notice insulting language in the heat of an argument. But this is a case of saying: "It is my personal policy to look for ways to insult people who may express concerns about my editing practices tomorrow or next week." Michael Hardy (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reread your original post, but I still don't see how he's being rude. Like I said, he has the right to remove content from his user talk page, no matter what it is. The edit summary doesn't matter when it comes to him removing content from his own user talk page. And different people have a different perception of personal attacks. Maybe Kintetsubuffalo thought they were being attacked for some reason? I don't know. I've informed him of this thread, so we'll see if he comments. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 18:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

When Kintetsubuffalo deleted comments from his talk page, he writes edit summaries insulting those who commented. He announces in advance that as a matter of personal policy he intends to be rude. Cutting someone slack for being rude in a heated argument is often reasonable; cutting someone slack for deviating from standards is reasonable when they have such experience that they can judge when exceptions should be made; cutting someone slack for deviating from policies may be reasonable in some cases of conscientious objection. But he's finds it necessary to announce conspicuously that he will continue to be rude next week, next year, etc. and he claims to have earned that privilege. That's a different thing. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Did he specifically state that he intended to continue to be rude next week, next year? If possible, if you don't mind, I would like to see a link. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 18:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

He specifically said that he consistently follows certain policies, and was not explicit that those policies meant this sort of thing. But that becomes clear when you observe his behavior. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Last clean edit" is about as mild as a comment could possibly be, and deleting comments on your own talk page is perfectly acceptable. Finally, it sounds as if the text he was removing was a case of someone defending the addition of unsourced information. I really don't see anything here worthy of admin attention. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's not clear to me that there is anything that needs to be done about User talk:Kintetsubuffalo now, in that it's not clear that there is an ongoing underlying dispute with them now. The "putz edits" edit summary was months ago, and the {{essay}} tag on the mathematical article was apparently before that. If anyone has a dispute with Kintetsu about something substantive regarding editing of pages outside Kintetsu's user space, I would recommend that they express their concern in a straightforward and dispassionate manner on Kintetsu's user talk page. If the other editor receives a response from Kintetsu which they consider rude, they can raise that as an issue here or at some other appropriate noticeboard. But I don't think the community needs to be concerned with the possibility that an editor might at sometime in the future be rude to some as-yet-unidentifiable person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User has a statement on their talk page you don't like. User once said something you thought was rude to you. User might say something someone else will think is rude, or say that/those thing(s) to you, again. Is that about it, or is there something more specific?  Begoon^talk 19:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked for where the OP here notified the user in question that he was starting this ANI thread. Did I overlook it, or did he fail to do so? And as far as his "talk page rules", that kind of thing is not unprecedented and is, at worst, a little snippy. No big deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries do matter. They are a form of communication the same as any other, and an insult in an edit summary has the same effect as one on a talk page. Having said that, I've looked through Kintetsubuffalo's talk page edit summaries for the past month and see nothing objectionable, much less a personal attack along the lines of calling someone a "putz" (if he called you that, a diff would be helpful). The administrators' incident noticeboard is for problems requiring the immediate attention of an administrator, if you're having trouble communicating with a person because they are simply rude or dismissive, you'd be better off seeking assistance at Wikiquette Alerts.

Bugs, the OP did make a mistake in not alerting Kintetsubuffalo, but he was alerted, see here. -- Atama頭 21:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin needed to close an Rfc

Resolved

 – Closed. Protonk (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am hoping an uninvolved administrator would take a look in Wikipedia talk:Notability to close or make a ruling in the following discussion:

RfC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)?

In order to solicit as many responses as possible, I posted notifications about the Rfc in the Village Pump as well as the talk pages of Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), Wikipedia:Notability (events), and Wikipedia:Notability (people). In addition to posting to the talk pages of all editors who contributed to the initial discussions of the "criminal acts" and "events" notability guidelines, I also placed merge headers in the relevant places to attract discussion. Thanks! Location (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• I left some questions there, vis a vis closing. Looks largely uncontentious and I'm happy to do a little legwork on it if you'll accept me as an honest broker. Protonk (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks again! Location (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sock with no master

Resolved

 – SPA indef'd, SPI case opened. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Guidance question -- After a rather pointy discussion a brand new user with zero other contributions popped up to lash out. I don't wish to make a sockpuppet accusation against other editors, but there is no way this isn't a sock of someone with an axe to grind. What is the prescribed way to deal with an obvious sock but not an obvious master? Also, if anyone wants to deal with the WP:POINT issue, that'd be swell too. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really experienced at all with this, but I did check out the instructions at SPI, and you can file a report without a sockmaster. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話す下さい) 22:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef. You can use the Quick checks section at SPI to request a checkuser if you really want, but without a specific user in mind, results will probably be useless. NW (Talk) 22:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A little heavy on the trigger finger aren't we? The user made one comment and he is accused of being a sock and blocked indef? Since when did WP become the spanish inquisition? Arzel (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You are being a bit harsh on the spanish inquisition Arzel lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have been so quick to block, but for the life of me, I can't think of any reason why an editor would choose their very first edit to sling mud in the middle of a fight, in a personal way, against a particular editor. It has to be the sock of either someone in that dispute or someone else who doesn't like Blaxthos. Now that it's done I'm not inclined to unblock and I doubt any other admin would either. -- Atama頭 23:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is an sock of someone that doesn't like Blaxthos then it should be easy to identify who it is. The worst outcome of this event is if it is a new user and they started over, they are instantly labeled a sock for having done almost nothing. I thought indef bans were for serious breaches of conduct, not "well it has to be a sock, so I banned them". I would say if you can't prove it is a sock then you can't ban them indef for this minor incident. Arzel (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So, it's either a new user or an old user who started over and did so in their first post by joining into a argument and accusing one of those involved of making personal attacks? I don't think that flies at all. Silverseren^C 02:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't ever use the quick requests thing. It could take a month. The Blade is right here though in that an SPI would be the way to go. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for the quick responses and action. I didn't go straight to SPI because with only one account and one edit from it, I didn't think there would be anything else to investigate without a checkuser. I'm not willing to just go wildly accuse presumably innocent editors, so my worry was that it would be construed as a fishing attempt. Am I incorrect? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Checkuser#"Fishing": "Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing." I would say that there is reasonable suspicion (so much so that I blocked) and therefore a check could be done. NW (Talk) 03:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I need to bone up on my reading skills.  :) Thanks, NW and pals! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Follow up -- I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Orange Elephant, and expect they'll handle it from there. Thanks again! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User page as spoof of tv series

Resolved

 – Three socks blocked indef—Kww(talk) 02:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Anybody remember the handle of the user that has repeatedly edited their user page to create iCarly spoofs? I suspect that they're at it again with a different template at User:GoodJuoke3941. There's a couple of telltale clues that have me pretty sure this is the same user. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• You're thinking of Rowndin2448 (talk · contribs), creator of List of Twin Cuz episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Uncle G (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not the one I was thinking of, but I'm sure s/he has multiple accounts and lots of deleted user pages. Can somebody hit them with a sock block? Maybe a checkuser for other socks would be appropriate as well. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It was Mario96 back again. Blocked GoodJuoke3941 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Rowndin2448 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Asdfghjkl132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).—Kww(talk) 02:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the one I was thinking of. Thanks. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Undo move of Rose Kennedy

A new editor (account created in June, 49 edits to date) just moved Rose Kennedy to Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy without any discussion on the article talk page, on the grounds that "There might be more than one 'Rose Kennedy'". I've explained on their talk page that if there is, at some time, another "Rose Kennedy" who is deserving of an article, that situation can be dealt with at that time. Meanwhile, the name she was known by was "Rose Kennedy" and, in fact, the article was just moved to that title recently after an RM request and discussion on the talk page. Since a redirect is involved, I can't undo the move, would an admin please do so? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Done - you don't need to be an admin, you can move a page back over a redirect to itself. Exxolon (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Really!! I had no idea - thanks for the info, always glad to learn something new. (And thanks for the move.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive socking?

After looking into the edits of the "new" editor I mentioned, it seems clear that although the account is new, the editor is not, and is in fact User:75.68.82.23/User:67.253.66.25 who has a long history of disruptive editing involving changing dates, middle names, and causes of death, among other things. The IP's been blocked 2 or 3 times, and in fact is just coming off a 3 month block and went and started up the same knds of edits. The "new" editor, User:Thesomeone987 shares the IP's apparent fascination with "dynasty" families such as the Kennedys, the Roosevelts and the Chaplins. Their editing is particularly troublesome because they change small details which look like they might be legitimate corrections, but they never provide sourcing, and they never use edit summaries. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thesomeone987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 75.68.82.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 67.253.66.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (no editing for about a month)
• Previous AN/I entries: [75], [76], [77]

This specifically should be brought to WP:SPI. If you need help opening an investigational report, let me know. elektrikSHOOS 12:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Collin Raye slow-mo edit war

This article has been the subject of a slow-motion edit war by several IPs who have blatantly violated WP:OR in regards to the singer's date of birth. This has gone on since at least August 2008 if not earlier. The article has a footnote explaining the contradiction in sources on his birth, as well as a comment asking other editors not to change the DoB without a conclusive source such as a birth certificate, and a tmbox on the talk page asking the same thing. However, the edits are still going on, with the most recent being only a month ago. Although the IPs are in a very wide range (216.205.218.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 67.174.132.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 71.244.249.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 72.4.92.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are among a few of them), the modus operandi is the same: changing the DoB without properly using {{birth date and age}}, often times breaking the {{Infobox musical artist}} in the process. A few of these IPs have also edited Caroline Kennedy and posted notes on the talk page. At least some of the IPs appear to be socks of indef-blocked Keri Nowling (talk · contribs), who started changing the date of birth in the article back in December 2007. The IPs all match Keri's editing pattern of Capitalizing The First Letter Of Every Word, and geolocate to around where she said she was from. tl;dr: I'm tired of playing whack-a-mole with this article. Can't we put an end to this? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two weeks. The semi-protection may be extended as necessary. Getting to the bottom of this may be in order. harej 03:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting User Block

Resolved

 – Content dispute; no admin action required. The proper venue is Talk:Chelsea Clinton, where some conversations have been started (but apparently not completed). Blocking a user is not how we establish WP:CONSENSUS around here. I am making no comment on Rob's edits here, other than noting that what I see isn't block-worthy.  Frank  |  talk  03:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob is again engaging in disruptive behavior at Chelsea Clinton. I tighten prose, he inperially reverts it; I move an image, he imperially reverts it; etc. I'm trying to engage discussion on the talk page without success. In order to make progress on the article, I feel a user block is warranted. Thanks. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Again? When was he in violation of anything previously? Let me help you , he wasn't. Off2riorob (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

...why are you referring to yourself in the third person? Silverseren^C 03:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that something worthy of reporting? Off2riorob (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Just asking. :P Silverseren^C 03:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• I note that there is indeed two sections on the talk page started by you that received no responses. Can you give diffs for that information in regards to those sections being reverted? I notice in the history that there is a bit of a war going on over a particular picture and there hasn't been any conversation about that on the talk page when there should be, by both parties. Silverseren^C 03:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• There's another user creating some disruption at the Chelsea page. I recently sent that user a message: "I'm wondering why you insistently revert my work? The brief edit summaries are not enough to satisfy my curiousity and I seek a more in depth explanation. I left the article once out of frustration only to have you ask me to reconsider and return. I return and you insistently revert, rephrase, delete, and otherwise exercise control over every aspect of the article as (apparently) some sort of self-appointed "Editor-in-Chief". I don't understand and find such behavior disruptive. Please explain. I need to know why we are expected to abide by your judgement on every aspect the article. I wonder if there's a teasing, taunting "ownership" issue going on here? You did say you've worked on the article a long time and I'm wondering if you feel your territory is being invaded. I hate to think that and would like that nightmare laid to rest. Please give me some reassurance that you do not have ownership issues. Only you can help! Please do. Thanks!" What is going? I'm mystified. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for conversation regarding this article involving Off2riorob, then you've all overlooked Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Chelsea Clinton. Uncle G (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:64.252.39.204 is stating desire to kill self

Resolved

User is stating that he / she wishes to kill self here [78] here [79] and here [80] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:SUICIDE, give their local police department a call. The IP comes back to AT&T, GeoLocates to Milford, CT, and their local police number is here (scroll down midway). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User is now blocked however continues to make threats of suicide here [81]. I shall leave this to Wikipedia as it is an American address.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a note on their user page urging them to contact a help line for assistance. After a reasonable length of time that edit, as well as this entire discussion, should be oversighted to protect the user's privacy. All existing edits made by the user with threats should also be immediately removed from public view. elektrikSHOOS 06:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As requested, I have applied revdel to pretty much all of this user's edits. --Chris (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:SUICIDE someone should send an email to the Foundation tomorrow morning for longer-term response. Has anyone already called the local police department? If not I'll do it personally. elektrikSHOOS 07:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

At present, I don't know if anyone has called the police department in Milford, CT. The number is located here (scroll down midway). Please post after you have called so there are not multiple calls afterwards. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have called them, and they're currently investigating. They may call me back if needed. Should I refer them to the Foundation from this point forward? elektrikSHOOS 07:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also sent an email to them with more specific information and a link to this discussion, as well as the Wikimedia Foundation's contact page, if they need more. This discussion should remain up for a reasonable length of time so that they can respond if they so choose. This is really all we can do. Good work, folks. Our quick response may have saved a life today. elektrikSHOOS 07:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's hope it gets the person the help they need. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just to confirm that OTRS has received the courtesy message, so no further emails should be needed. Respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have marked as resolved since there is nothing more we can do, really. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, the police investigation is apparently underway. They contacted me this afternoon wanting access to the deleted edits. Hopefully this person will soon be receiving counseling. (Or a serious lecture, as the case may be.) --Chris (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Antique AfD discussion needs closing

Resolved

This has been open since June. Reyk _YO! 05:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Relisting seems more appropriate. The articles should probably be made redirects. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polaroid Impulse and Polaroid Land Camera 1000, was created by Tenebrae (talk · contribs), but it was never either listed at WP:AFD or even linked to from the articles themselves, Polaroid Land Camera 1000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Polaroid Impulse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). That's why it reveiced no comments since June 2010. Also, the reason for deletion (copyvio) appears to be moot, since the articles have been stubbed in the interim. I've simply deleted the incomplete AfD, so as to allow for a proper AfD to take place if still deemed necessary.  Sandstein  06:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Confusing banner on a user talk page

Resolved

 – RIPGC warned about WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:SMI Toddst1 (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

At the top of the talk page for RIPGC (talk · contribs) there is a copycat of the banner that shows up when you have a message on your own talk page. Except that this banner was inserted there by the user, and the link in it does not take me to my own talk page, but to the talk page of Toddst1 (talk · contribs), with another link that takes me to the article Dog. I happened to notice this quite by chance just a minute ago, after I went to his/her talk page to ask about an unrelated matter. It seems disruptive to me to place that up there, especially if it is taking me to someone else's talk page, but I don't know if it's really a violation of rules so I'm asking here. I am also about to go and notify the user in question of this posting. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a policy made about it, though I can't remember where it was placed off the top of my head. Basically, it says that such mimicry of the Wikimedia system is strongly discouraged, but it is not specifically barred from use. So, people are allowed to use them, but it is extremely frowned upon. Silverseren^C 06:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have also notified Toddst1 of this since it is his talk page being linked to. I am going to bed shortly so may not be back until the morning, in any event. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why what gives you the right to remove it? I'm restoring it. Ridernyc (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Being bold? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Being bold about what? It's discouraged but there is no policy against it. You should at least give the user a chance to respond here. Ridernyc (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if we ever actually came up with a policy about this, but to me it just falls squarely into the whole don't be a dick area. Putting up fake message windows does not help the encyclopedia and just causes general annoyance. By all means give him the chance to remove it himself, but it's not really something we should be tolerating. ~ mazca ^talk 11:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed what the current content of the spoofed notice seems to be a response to? Deor (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• WP:SMI is, I think, the appropriate point. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly. The fake message in this case serves no useful purpose and looks like a case of WP:HARASS. I have removed it. Nsk92 (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) My previous message to this user about this linked to the relevant policy section, which is Wikipedia:User pages#Simulated MediaWiki interfaces (WP:SMI), which itself links to the discussion that the section resulted from: Wikipedia talk:User pages/UI spoofing. As you can see, I was not so much concerned with the joke banner itself, but that instead of being used in the "normal" manner of such banners, which is to link those who fall for the "joke" to something silly, this user was linking to Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany. Following my message, it was changed by RIPGC to something less concerning, if still creepy and placed for shock value rather than something more innocuous. After Toddst1 expressed a similar concern at the thread I started, I see RIPGC changed one of the banner links to point to Toddst1's talk page. That has the appearance of an attack and cannot be allowed to stand. I think we should amend the policy to add a second sentence that where such spoofing exists, it may not link users to images or links placed for shock value.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. The fact that the banner linked to Toddst's talk page and to dog seems to me a blatant attack. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I share everyones concerns about this, as I welcomed RIPGC to Wikipedia and also suggested they change their original username. Linking to Toddst1s' talk page after he mentioned it to RIPGC is poor form, as is the link to Dog. :-( --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 12:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, one message on his talk page made me think for a bit, let's say the user was a pro-Nazi editor and he was blocked for his political belief, it would be like replacing my hammer and sickle from my username with a swastika and then everyone would be reacting more severely to it. What would your choice of action be? Not that this has anything to do with the user in question, but still semi-relevant since Hitler has been brought up into the discussion. ☭FryPod 16:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I would block that hypothetical you with a swastika in his signature in a heartbeat and without a second thought. I know some people might say that's a slippery slope; where do we draw the line. Thinking about how to justify that I can only say that there's a Potter Stewart rule in the mix, and the fact that I would, doesn't mean I would start down that slope to justify blocking someone else for being a Tory were I a Whig—I don't know where the line is or how to define it concretely, but the framed scenario is way over on the other side.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI Archives NavBox

An admin might want to add some more links to the Archives NavBox. It is at Archive #630 right now and there are no more links in the box (redlinks). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing this out, though it looks like neither template is admin-only protected. Still - if someone feels like checking to make sure I did both updates correctly, I would not mind. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:MUCHERS22: edit-warring and POV problem

So there's this editor, User:MUCHERS22. His main interests are the Middle East and terrible deeds done to Arabs by Israelis and Jews. (Evidentiary diffs: [82], [83], [84]. He is usually careful to source his additions and to phrase them neutrally (that last edit is an exception, in my opinion). He has previously been blocked four times for edit-warring, and is currently edit-warring on Operation Orchard and Zionist political violence, in both cases repeatedly reverting others' edits but not violating the three-revert rule. What would you do? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can be edit warring even without technically breaking 3-rr and that's exactly what this user seems to be doing; so, in my opinion, they could already be blocked. However, given that he has already been blocked three times (once in April, twice in June) for edit warring and this looks like a behavioural pattern, I think we could start discussing a 1-rr. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In general there are some behavioral conduct issues in the I/P area still. Note that the editor did try get to the bottom of the dispute with one of the involved editors here, but was rebuffed with the comment garbage. Note that his sourced edit was reverted as vandalism even though we have a whole section on the matter at Lehi_(group)#Contact_with_Nazi_authorities. I think a wider look at the article history is warranted. Unomi (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

First off, is this a political issue or a issue of me breaking rules? Because to me it seems you (Fisherqueen) are on my back because my political views arent the same as the ones you represent. So what is this about? Political or me breaking-rules-issue? Please tell me. Because I got threathen to be cut off from another mod(?) called Mbz1 without he giving a reason for it.

As you state I am very keen with sources, when I add I add sources and when remove stuff I give clear reasons for it. With that being said, when I then see people who without reason or without any sources to back up his or her claim simply remove my newly added or newly removed stuff, that is a violation, and I guess what you admins or mods call vandalism.

Sure ban me but you better give me a fair "trial" before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The user should be topic banned for a few months at least. It is not just an edit warring the user is involved with. The user is installing inflammatory POV not supported by the source over and over again after it was removed by at least three different users. This edit is also of interest. Side note on unomi. I wonder how much lower you may go in your constant attacking me?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If you consider mention of your actions 'an attack' then perhaps you should be reconsidering your approach to editor interaction. I find that in many of these contentious article areas the real problem is not the POV of a new editor, it is the manner in which they are interacted with, in this case I see compelling evidence that the user is merely mirroring and getting increasingly frustrated causing them to overcompensate. Unomi (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

FisherQueen, I haven't looked at this case, but in general with users that exhibit such problems I recommend issuing an {{uw-sanctions}} warning to stop whatever they're doing, like edit-warring, and if they don't, you can impose the appropriate discretionary sanctions, such as revert restrictions or topic bans, under WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  13:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1: 30 days atleast? Looks like you got a vendetta against my views. I asked cleary on your discussionboard why you removed stuff but you havent given me a reason. I backed up my claims at the Zionist crime page twice and still you are on my back. If there is something wrong with these sources just let me know, because right now you put some gag on me and then ignore me. Thats not fair. So please tell me where I used these particular sources wrong and I will learn something from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

To answer your previous question, about whether this post is related to your politics or your editing style, the answer is, 'both.' I'm concerned that your edits, while generally sourced, taken as a whole give an unpleasant impression of a strongly anti-Israel point of view, and a person who is at Wikipedia only to promote that point of view. I'm also concerned that, despite four blocks, you are still repeatedly reverting other users' edits. My first impulse this morning, when I saw that you were still edit-warring, was to indefinitely block you from editing, but I was concerned that might be over-hasty, and also that, since I've blocked you twice myself already, a third block might look a bit like a personal vendetta. That's why I brought it here, to ask other admins to look at your edits and see if they saw the same problems I see, and also in hope that someone else would carry out whatever action is agreed upon, so that it's clear that this is a Wikipedia issue, and not simply me picking on you. You say I shouldn't simply block you, but give you a 'fair trial' - I agree, and this discussion is the 'fair trial.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It is exactly the right assessment of the user conduct by FisherQueen. The user is exercising a strong anti-Israeli POV. It is not just edit warring. It is a vandalism as I've explained here. The user should be topic banned to give the user some time to make themselves familiar with Wikipedia policies, but honestly I doubt they ever will. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Plus the user blamed me in vandalism. Of course user:unomi, who has been wikihounding me for quite some time, prefers to call that intimidation "trying get to the bottom of the dispute". Well, it is user:unomi on their best as usually.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Fisherqueen: If I have conducted myself wrong you got the privilege to block me etc. But some main concerns lie ahead, and I have adressed them earlier.

• Blocking me from editing because of my political views arent the same as the one you represent is not a violation of Wikipedia, to be honest Im quite amazed that you even adress that as a violation/problem and that is very very obnoxious for you to say to me. I mean, sure we could have different opinion on a certain topic (lets take the israel-palestine conflict) but that doesnt make you have the power to oust me from editing, atleast you should add this to the rules, because this case doesnt look too good in several aspects like -wikipedia should be a objective source, but if you block persons that dont tag along with your personal views about a topic that is very wrong. I take a pro-palestine stance and I respect those who have a completly different opinion and I think its of a huge concern when the admin or mods on Wikipedia couldnt tag along with such a obvious premise.

Basically me having a different political view should not be, in any occasions be reason for admin or mods to block me, aslong as I would have sources to back up my claims there should be no such actions. There would be one thing if I didnt source my stuff OR if I used dubious references, then your concern of my editings would be justified. But thats not the case.

• Mbz1 have still not answered my questions about why he removes my sources which is the main problem of this conflict aslong as I can see it. Doesnt you answer because I havent violated or do you refuse to reply because it will expose that my political view is a big no no according to your views on this issue? Please tell me, otherwhise how would I possibly learn if you ignore my questions?

So to adress the recent edits please tell me how I have made violations.

• The syrian nuclear bombing: The source doesnt explicity say Syria was unwilling to cooperate, I then removed this sentence and gave the reason for it. Or should fabricated sentences be left alone?

• The Zionist crimes: I added info and added a soruce. It got removed without connection to violation. I added the text again with another source. It got removed again without no reason and no fair connection to a violation against the rules. Thats not fair to me.

So once again, especially Mbz1, please tell me whats wrong with these sources and why this should be approached with a 30 day ban. I urge you to step forward and not ignoring my questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder, if you were able and understand my post above. Well, here's one more time. I responded to you at the article's you vandalized talk page, and please do stop wasting my time. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1: Why are you so hostile? Please read my msg at 17:32. I just asked a simple question. How is my second source vandalism (regarding the zionist crime article)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

User:MUCHERS22, you are right that I wouldn't block someone merely for having different political opinions than myself. However, Wikipedia frequently blocks people who try to add their political opinions to articles. This is especially the case with people who present the appearance of pushing opinions into Wikipedia that would tend to bring the encyclopedia into disrepute (for example, people who appear to be pushing pedophilia, racism, anti-semitism, or religious points of view). You've already had a 30-day block, so I don't agree that's the best solution. The idea of asking you to avoid writing in articles related to the subject of Israel seems like a reasonable solution to the problem, though, as does a restriction of no more than one revert of an edit. Would such a restriction be acceptable to you? Assuming that you do not want to edit-war, and that you are at Wikipedia to improve the encyclopedia, not to push an anti-Israel agenda, those restrictions would not interfere significantly with your ability to edit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for atleast approach some of my questions I respect that and also appreciate your effort. First off I am not pushing a special agenda and I have not made those articles more pro-palestine. Just because you take a certain stance doesnt make you a user that impose a certain view. Its flagrant but we have all certain views, that doesnt exclude you from adding stuff to Wikipedia, right? I mean some of you obviously take a harsh pro-israel view, how is that that some you cant accept a different opinion, like mine? It would be one thing if I ranting around on the articles, adding bullshit without sources, but thats not the point. If this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raymond_Robinson_%28Green_Man%29&action=historysubmit&diff=377592850&oldid=370649395 is vandalism I have not made any such additions to any articles . I have just added stuff, with sources. And I have removed information that doesnt have a source that say that a particular thing (see the Syrian nuclear bombing for example). How is that a violation or vandalism? Should I adress this obvious mistype/mis-comprehension on the discussion page instead, seems like a ineffective way to go for such a minor edit. Im not pushing a specific view of any kind and I doubt this would be a problem if I added so called pro-israel sources or information.

I dont want to have a long discussion on this subject, but I still havent got a fair explanation for this debacle, for example why my second source addition on the Zionist crime page would be considered vandalism and should lead to a ban according to the admin/mod? Mbz1. I still havent got a fair reason to why my removal of a deliberate incorrect sentence on the Syrian nuclear bombing article would be considered a violation.

So if you tell me how exactly I violated rules and explicitly relate to the rules, a block may be come clearer to me because right now this makes no sense to me. And in the end of the day its not me to decide if I should be allowed to write on Wikipedia, thats for you, the mod/admins to decide and if you dont want to approach my questions and play fair..I cant do much about it and have to accept such a sanction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

MUCHERS22, I would not name my feelings to you as being hostile. I am rather disgusted by yours so called contributions, your wish to dig up all the dirt about Israel you could find on the Net and bring that dirt up to Wikipedia articles vandalizing them in the process, and edit warring, and POV pushing, and cherry picking information. And it was my last post here.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

MUCHERS22, there is a clear pattern to your editing, which is to add content critical of Jews and Israel. Arguing that "ZOG" is not antisemitic[85] show clearly enough what your interest is in editing Wikipedia. Your edits are clumsy: for example, "The Irgun also planned to cooporate with Adolf Hitler to gain a quick access to the building of the state of israel" was crude, poorly referenced, and fail to reflect the differences that existed in Irgun. This was the plan of Avraham Stern, not Irgun.[86] If you cannot begin to balance your editing (WP:NPOV), to properly use sources to back the content you add (WP:V), and to stop edit-warring (particularly at Nuclear program of Iran), I believe you should be indefinitely blocked. Wikipedia does not exist for people to propagate their agendas. Any further edit warring or poorly sourced POV pushing will result in your editing rights being removed. Fences&Windows 22:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD open since June

This nomination for Andy Bachetti has been open since June, someone needs to make a verdict now. ☭FryPod 12:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The AFD nomination wasn't transcluded until July 24; and it has been relisted today, since it had received no !vote yet. I think there's no need to hurry. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Really, Frypod? Or should I say Pickbothmanlol (unmasks). –MuZemike 18:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats on Talk:Depublican

An IP user, 71.96.146.134 has made legal threats on Talk:Depublican. Quasihuman (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I view that comment as simply making a point. Oddly, the point made (though not intended) is that the phrase is wp:OR.--SPhilbrickT 14:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of valid material & infoboxes

IP editor keep removing valid material from several Nigeria related articles. His edits have been reverted on each article, however the IP editor has appeared twice with a new IP address and started removing valid material again.

• First round of edits: Special:Contributions/188.28.22.81 - here the IP editor removed the infoboxes from each article and replaced it with markup code (.e.g. here, and removed working valid references and replaced them with non-working dead links.
• Second round of edits with new IP: Special:Contributions/188.28.92.145
• Third round of edits again with a new IP: Special:Contributions/188.28.54.219

On the second and third round the IP editor introduced gibberish "code" into an existing footnote thus removing the footnote (e.g. here). Cautions have been issued out to the IP editor on 2 of the IPs, but since he keeps changing his IP address these warnings seem futile. Could an administrator please look into this? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The infobox edits were bizarre, but I can't see anything wrong with their other edits, e.g. [87]. You reverted that for removing material, but it does not: it turned a footnote that included a wikilink to a list of governors into an inline link - I actually prefer their version. Fences&Windows 20:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the inline link is that it is not consistent with other Wikipedia articles on cities & states. Usually, the data field "leader_title" in the infobox exclusively contains the form of governance (governor/mayor etc.) of the State and has no inline link underneath it with a list of former leaders. I'm not the one who placed the List of Governor's footnote in these articles, but it can be assumed that in order for the articles on Nigerian states to have the same appearance as other city/state articles the footnotes were added to appear in the References section as opposed to in the infobox. It's the footnote reference that was removed by the IP editor, thus changing the WP:MOS. Amsaim (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ranter on Talk:British Empire

Resolved

 – User blocked 1 week by Mazca (talk · contribs) Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a racist ranter ("I hate white people") on Talk:British Empire. First post [88], second post [89]. Could someone please put a temporary block on them? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Shocking and offensive comments. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, he's quite the angry person. He's now a blocked, angry person. ~ mazca ^talk 15:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably angrier now, due to the evil Wikipedia admins who won't let him post The Truth on Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I just declined the second unblock request and revoked talk page privs as racist rhetoric continued on talk. Toddst1 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed... the angrier, blocked person.... ha --Rockstonetalk to me! 19:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Music sales statistics

User:69.81.142.68 keeps changing music sales statistics without citing sources (see most any of his contributions) or responding on his talk page. Sometimes his figures contradict the previously existing citation. Is he a sneaky vandal, or does he have sources he isn't telling us about? It's easy to say he should cite them, but most others don't cite sources for such statistics either. Art LaPella (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Replacing sourced content with unsourced content is not the way he should be operating. If he's doing this and not responding to talkpage messages, a short block may be required to get his attention. Exxolon (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've given them a warning that I will block them if they persist in this. If they do, drop me a note and I will block them temporarily. They changed the album sales on the Black Eyed Peas, but the existing data were unsourced. Does anyone know how to find accurate figures? Fences&Windows 19:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Behaviour of User:George McFinnigan ie at article Spain

Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
George McFinnigan ie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [90]
• 2nd revert: [91]
• 3rd revert: [92]
• 4th revert: [93]
• 5th revert: [94]
• 6th revert: [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96], [97] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98]

Comments:
Recently this editor has removed material on Aragonese and paella, e.g [99], [100], [101], also removing the correct name A Coruña from a caption [102], replacing Ourense with Orense [103], there are earlier instances than these in the last few days. This editor also does not leave edit summaries. I have invited him to discuss at Talk:Spain and warned him about edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I have moved this here as a report at WP:3RR was declined. I consider this users behaviour to be contentious and disruptive and they refuse to discuss proposed edits at teh artcile talk page as requested. Examination of User talk:George McFinnigan ie show similar behaviour on other articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved back here as it was archived without (apparently) attention from an admin. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Tessmage requested

User:Tessmage is edit-warring to add unsourced content to Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines (and promises to send hundreds of users of his web page to do the same). I've warned and discussed on his talk page, but feel that I'm just involved enough that, while I could probably do the block myself in good conscience, it might be better if someone else reviewed the history and did it independently. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring after warning. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. While I understand what he is trying to do, and why it makes good sense to him, it's still disruptive. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

He has now shut down his web site's messsage board, with a message that it will not be re-opened until his site readers get information about his patch into the Wikipedia article. Sigh. And all they had to do was share a source. I even believe him that one exists. I just couldn't find it. Anyway, I've semi-protected the article for a little while, in response. And shook my head sadly at the pointlessness of it all. It hurt my feelings a tiny bit when he called me a fat, incompetent ass, a book-burning little bastard, and a sabotaging little pile of shit. I can't believe he forgot 'Nazi.' I deserve to be called 'Nazi,' don't I? Am I losing my edge? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked User:AndeanThunder

This user has recently been blocked for edit warring over an article. A while ago an addition to the article he was fighting over was added by an IP, i do not know if it was him evading his block but i posted on his talk page about it. He has since replied with a rant, but also stated he has posted on the Spanish Wikipedia where he has asked "for help" about the issue he was edit warring over. I do not speak spanish, so no idea what he was actually asking them to do, but could an admin take a look at his talk page, relevant links to things are there. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I speak Spanish so if you can give me a link I'll translate it. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I found the page. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the link to ANI on his talkpage, was just getting round to going back there to do it. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

OK in he posted: "En la Wikipedia en inglés hay un artículo con el nombre Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands, donde estuve tratando de insertar dos hechos históricos: (His Information)" -> this means, excuse my bad English: "In En.Wiki there is an article with the name Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands, where I tried to insert two historic facts: (his editions)" and "¿Alguien podría tratar de poner esta información?" that means "Could someone try to put this back?". With this he asked another user that speaks English for the re-addition of his information. Jcestepario (talk · contribs) replied somethings and he posted later "Agregué la primera frase, la de 1940, veamos si dura. Saludos" -> I added the first sentence, about 1940, let's see if this still" so there is no block evasion. Furthermore the IP 79.41.56.64 (talk · contribs) comes from Italy, while User:AndeanThunder comes from Argentina. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for the translation. Is he meant to be canvassing for assistance like that on other language wikipedias. He clearly got his wish. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

THe user he was speaking to on the Spanish language wikipedia has now arrived and reverted my revert of the IP addition to the article [104] . BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

IP 120.138.101.25

The IP 120.138.101.25 is messing up tables by deleting parts of it. The subjects of the pages he is editing has something to do with mobile phones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.136.40 (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you've fixed it anyway - thanks. Not much else we can do at this point, while I have no idea what the user was doing they apparently stopped of their own accord - these edits were made about 36 hours ago. ~ mazca ^talk 22:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)