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)

Well, I noted my concerns with a simple interaction ban in my reply to Carcharoth [48] on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: "Jehochman and I discussed just such a potential solution before the original ArbCom case was filed [in November 2009]. I have a strong feeling that if a simple interaction-type restriction were put in place, these editors would still follow my edits in order to remove content from or nominate articles and pages for deletion, or attempt to superficially involve themselves in related topic areas such as technology and computing where they did not edit previously (as they've already been doing) in order to block or restrict my edits while claiming they were already editing articles in those topic areas."

One example I noted in my statement [49] is {{IRC footer}}, which the edit history will probably explain far better than I could here. There were also events like these diffs document which I'm not sure a simple interaction ban as proposed would prevent: [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] There are also other examples such as Category:Internet Relay Chat games (CFD) and others which I did not note in my statement. I had been in the process of populating them when the wikihounding began and Miami33139 attempted to depopulate them in order to have them deleted via CFD. Sigh.

I really do wish Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme would stop the personal attacks though (calling me "paranoid", "delusional", etc and claiming WP:OWN, WP:COI, etc). --Tothwolf (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

the reviewing arbitrator is apparently waiting for further comments. [57] DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

and at the same time they seem to think his conduct was inappropriate and personal attacks. Unless he's indicated that they're going to stop and we're buying it, then he should be blocked.--Crossmr (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

agreed, but arb com is actively considering sanctions, and if they want to do so, they have priority. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

They can carry on independently. If there is an open threat of disruption its an administrator's job to prevent that. A note can be made at the arbcom case, and they can visit his talk page or he can go through the appropriate steps to be unblocked if he wants to contribute further.--Crossmr (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

JBsupreme's current behaviour is also troubling. Comments such as "so non-notable its just laughable, but in a sad way" [58] as a prod reason are clearly inappropriate, even more so with this being a prod of a BLP article. Isn't this and a number of other similar actions [59] [60] a direct violation of his edit restrictions? --Tothwolf (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd suggest an admin take a long hard look at his editing restriction and those two edits.--Crossmr (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by Maunus for incivility, unblock declined by Kingpin13. I don't know if either were aware of this ANI discussion but one of the difs Maunus cited as reason for blocking was the "Learn how to spell then cite a source" dif that Tothwolf noted. The other in which he wished, in ALLCAPS, for "all vandals to die a slow painful fiery death" (perhaps not verbatim but something along those lines). I was going to request arbitration enforcement but as his block seems to have stuck I don't believe it's necessary. Seth Kellerman (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I consider the block that has been applied appropriate, and suggest we continue in the usual manner with increasing blocks if the behavior recurs (myself, I am too much involved with the parties for it to be appropriate for me to take admin action here, but I can still give my opinion.) More generally, it is becoming increasingly apparent that arb com are becoming unwilling or unable to solve disputes referred to them in a timely manner. I mention the Blablaaa arbitration request [61] where again we took appropriate action here which made the matter moot while they were still discussing whether or not they should do anything. This section is still open, as we (or they) have yet to decide how to deal with the other parties. DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this an unfair depiction of the way arbitration works. Arbitration is necessarily slow and deliberative, and it also gets held up when other arbitrators don't have time to comment (the current request for amendment has stalled because I am waiting for other arbitrators to comment). This is in contrast to a noticeboard where the response times are quicker because more people are watching the situation, but noticeboards are sometimes less deliberative (people may not review to the same depth as happens in an arbitration motion or case). Also, people can be selective about what ANI threads they participate in, whereas arbitrators have less choice about what they decide to take on. In my view, ArbCom tries to do too much sometimes, but we do eventually get round to dealing with most things. In the case of this thread here, JBsupreme had been placed under a civility restriction by ArbCom, and the current block (although applied independently of the arbitration case) has been logged there (which is correct in my view). As far Miami33139 goes (the subject of this subsection), no block has been applied. I remain hopeful that when the rest of ArbCom have had time to look at this, something will get sorted out that doesn't require blocking. As far as the Blablaaa request goes (and this request is better discussed at the request page itself), if you read what was said, you will see that I was of the opinion that action should have been taken after the RfC and before the ArbCom request. I would also point out that a case was about to be accepted when the block of Blablaaa was applied, and a case may still end up accepted if the block is lifted (see his talk page). So the block has done nothing except prolong matters. Sometimes a swift and decisive admin block will resolve matters, sometimes not. Carcharoth (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

obstruction of ref clean-up

• User talk:Gimmetoo#Asinine actions
  (I section I did not start;)

Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), who claims to be Gimmetrow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), has been disruptively reverting edits related to the reflinks tool, and citation templates. See Halle Berry, Sean Combs, and Jennifer Lopez, and likely moar. Contrary to some of their edits summaries, most of what I did was done manually, not directly with tools. The referencing edits I and others have been reverted on are all good and progressive. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User Jack Merridew is 1) edit warring, 2) with automated tools (reflinks), 3) to impose a change of style to an article, 4) to impose cite templates and 5) to impose some "list-defined" referencing scheme. User Jack Merridew is acting in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies. If User Jack Merridew wishes to "clean up" refs on a fairly well-developed article (a GA even), then User Jack Merridew should do that while respecting the existing style of the article. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is appropriate clean-up and you've gotten push-back from others about this. What's your point? You want poor referencing and untagged dead links? Bare URLs? I don't respect that, sorry. Hope you enjoyed teh fish ;) Jack Merridew 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you wanted to fill in some "bare URLs", you could have done that without changing the article to a different style. But you decided to change the entire article in multiple ways, which is inherently disruptive and also obstructive to other editors of the article. You not only added list-defined refs (which some editors find confusing), but actually renamed a number of named references. You also accused an editor of "vandalism" for undoing your undiscussed changes. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

They're improvements. This is all-good. Folks will look at our versions and agree. You cut good stuff, not just the cite templates, removed {{dead link}}s, restored bare URLs. If that's not vandalism, it sure is pointy. And others have been objecting to your stance re cite templates and reflinks. Consensus is against you on this, and you know it. Better referencing is a core goal of this project. Jack Merridew 20:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then restore the established style of the article and incorporate that part of your edits which were "improvements", and not arbitrary style changes, and do not obstruct other editors from making those improvements in the established style of the article. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is *all* improvement. Jack Merridew 20:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear two things from Gimmetoo:

1. Can you explain why you would revert these changes? It's not like they were incomplete and made the article inconsistent or anything: the reference cleanup was done consistently throughout, and brought the articles up to current practices.
2. Can you please log on as Gimmetrow and confirm that you and he are the same editor? The question of your identity has been asked a few times, and I would like to see confirmation. Behaviourally, it appears that you are the same person (see this for example), but I would like to see explicit confirmation.—Kww(talk) 21:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

At Halle Berry I count exactly 3 reverts from both of you. I'm guessing that the both of you can count and stopped right before the bright line and I'm glad you're talking about this but consider this a reminder and a warning. Otherwise I'm waiting for answers to Kww's questions. -- Atama頭 21:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I see, now, that this kicked-up more than three months ago: [62] vs [63]; w/Pablo, a few days later: [64]/[65] vs [66]. I didn't notice I'd been reverted, at the time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Gimmetoo blocked indef until he can prove that hu is actually an alt account of Gimmetrow. If it's the latter, I do apologize, but the edit warring and disruptive behavior combined with the lack of confirmation makes me suspicious. NW (Talk) 23:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  I'll leave the articles be, 'til tomorrow. If Gimmetrow claims this account, we'll continue this; if not, I think a CU is in order. FWIW, I don't know Gimmetrow at all and have no idea why they've not edited in months. Someone familiar with them might drop an email. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  I dug lightly into the dual identity before, and came to the conclusion that the accounts are the same editor. Note that the resistance by Gimmetoo was begun by Gimmetrow, for example. The articles of interest overlap, as well. Another user got tangled in an autoblock when Gimmetoo was blocked on July 30, though, and that means a CU wouldn't hurt if Gimmetrow doesn't reclaim the account.—Kww(talk) 00:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  I saw that the rvs began with 'trow. Also saw that 'too responded to NW's block within a minute. Yet, 'trow has not edited. This could easily be moar mimicry. We'll see... Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have come to this process as an interested observer, I am not fully informed on these actions as this is my first such interaction. Let me preface by saying it was I, who created the thread here. I was taken aback at the undoing of a WP:REFLINKS fix. User Gimmetoo has the distinction of receiving my first and only trout slap to date, as I felt compelled to at least comment. I have been watching Gimmetoos' talkpage and this is where I learned of these developments. I commend Jack Merridew for his resolve to accommodate such an unusual notion as to require and editor to perform a reference fix manually. And then to defend against an unjustifable edit war simply to improve an article. I concur with the administrative actions I have observed in conjunction with these discussions. I would like to articulate that I believe the block against gimmetoo is proper, it is, however, for reasons not explicitly related to this ANI. I hope to see clarification as to consensus that Gimmetoos' actions were inappropriate in reverting the contributions shown. Further more, expressed, as such where this incident can serve as a reference itself that WP:REFLINKS or other citation styles are acceptable, if not preferred, opposed to raw urls'. Thanks for considering these as well. My76Strat 02:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Gimme has a very valid complaint. The new method of including all the references in one section, rather than interspersing the actual references throughout the article, is controversial. Many, many editors (including a large proportion of those who deal with FAs), dislike this method. Long-standing consensus has been that if a referencing system is in place on an article, the system should not change. Jack Merridew acted incorrectly in converting articles to list-style references when they were already using a different method. Although individual references improvements are, of course, welcome, the referencing style should not be changed for an article without prior consensus on the talk page. Karanacs (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs is correct here. WP:CITE explictly says "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected.". That language is intended to discourage converting articles from one formatting method to another; it's the same principle as WP:ENGVAR. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is one thing to follow one style only, but it's something completely different if you start blanking references only because a different style was used. See this edit, for example. Note the references under "Early life." That's called disruptive editing. Nymf _hideliho! 14:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any <ref> tag removed there, just citation templates. I agree that the more detailed information is nice, but presumably Jack Merridew could have re-inserted the citation information without the templates. As soon as someone pointed out to Jack that templates were opposed, he should have stopped adding them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to blank as in plain <ref>the url with no other information here</ref> rather than detailed ones. Nymf _hideliho! 14:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but the reference was like that back on July 27 (cumulative diff), so the article is really just back to where it was before reflinks tool. Adding reference details is great, but editors who do so need to follow the style established by the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Instead of improving the page, it was reverted to an inferior version with even less information. "Do not remove information just because it is poorly presented." It is why I reacted when seeing the reverts in the first place. "Reword rather than revert." Nymf _hideliho! 15:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If the change to list-style references had been undone, I wouldn't have much of a problem with that. Undoing a change from manual reference citations to properly templated ones is extremely counterproductive. The "changing of citation style" is intended to prevent mixing Harvard citations with other citations, or similar mish-mashing. Here the citation style is consistent, it's just the method of getting there that changed.—Kww(talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, Kww. I hadn't even looked at it from that angle. That means there is nothing wrong with Jack's edits at all. Nymf _hideliho! 16:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, WP:CITE was clarified a few moths ago to be more clear that the "citation style" refers both to the displayed appearance and the underlying wikicode. But the principle "do not convert to or from templates once a style is set" has been established for a very long time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree there's a precedent not to convert from templates, but not to convert to templates? That seems extremely strange. What are the arguments against converting from a manual citation format that cannot be easily adapted to MOS changes to a templated one that enables rapid sitewide changes? What would be the motivation for resisting that?—Kww(talk) 17:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been following WP:CITE long enough to give a summary (it's not my personal opinion, but I think it's faithful to those who hold it). (1) Templates make the wiki source hard to read and edit, particularly if there are many footnotes. (2) Templates have their own idiosyncratic formatting which may not be the same as the formatting already used and doesn't agree with any fixed style guide. (3) It's easier and faster to type citations by hand without having to look up parameter names for the template. (4) If there are a lot of footnotes (say over 100), citation templates can significantly increase page loading time.

In any case, there are enough editors who dislike citation templates that we treat them somewhat like ENGVAR. It's a perennial issue that is unlikely to be resolved one way or another. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

First-off, I had not noticed that these pages had no cite templates at all in them. Look around; most pages do, and this is good. WP:CITE#List-defined references are good, and are fairly common, too. I will have to go read whatever talk presumably occurred on WT:CITE, but it got it *wrong*. We have 3,377,334 articles, as I write this.^{count grew by 42, while typing} We're supposed to cite sources and do so in ways that are verifiable. Links rot, any ref-style can have information omitted at the time of initial entry. Templates are *appropriate*, automated tools are *helpful*. References belong in the *references* section; click [edit] to edit and maintain them. When I edit pages, I look for recent missed-vandalism; I also look for stuff done poorly, or that can be improved. I am, as Dave Shea cleverly put it, a structurist. I fix stuff under the hood.

I will not add references or tidy them in an inappropriate style, using regressive mechanisms that date from years ago. It's wrong. We can, and do, do better. Locking an article into an old style is against the notions of anyone editing, of consensus can change, and being bold. It's ownership, it's disruptive. This issue has come up with multiple editors seeking to appropriately improve these pages and the reverts were unhelpful, disruptive and, I feel, edging into vandalism. The 'too account may be some troll, or it may be an alt of 'trow; tbd, at what's turning into quite the SPI mess.

I'm familiar with the concerns Carl has summarized above, and have rebuttals: (1) list-defined references make the prose clearer by removing the cites from inline; some day wp:template folding/usability:Citron Designs#Templates will help here, too (see code folding for the core idea). List defined references also serve to structure the references as a block where they can be considered as a discrete aspect of an article. (2) The cite templates strive to implement, in a consistent manner, the appropriate styling of each field. Used appropriately, they will get this right far more often than editors will and they encapsulate the styling where a changed consensus can tweak vast numbers of pages. They can even get right what an MOS page has wrong: Template talk:Cite web#"Work" vs "Publisher" parameters. (3) Sloth; use automated tools to help; let someone get it right, at least. (4) I've spent years in places with extremely poor internet connections, and page load time is not much of an issue with articles, really. It's pages like ANI or AC/Workshop pages from hell that get balky.

This view towards excluding citation templates and tools like Reflinks simply does not fit with widespread practice; it's absurd to edit a ref section and get a mere <references /> or {{reflist}}. Surely this has resulted in many WTF-moments for n00bz. If this view needs challenging, fine. Let's get to it, RfC it. Or we could be wise, and just get on with properly referencing the sea of content on this site. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 00:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You're free to bring up the issue at WT:CITE. But our present (and well-established) policy is that you should not change the referencing style of an article once it has been established. So your argument misses the point, because like ENGVAR the goal here is to avoid the argument by simply leaving the established style.

Like everyone else, you need to follow our community norms in this regard. If you prefer not to add reference information because you cannot change the style, that's up to you; it's a volunteer project. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not a good response. Bare urls are not a style choice, they are a part of the article which is incomplete, as all our articles are. Protonk (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope. WP:CITE is not a policy, it is a guideline, and a flawed one at that. WP:IAR *is* fuckin' policy, and I improved the article. I would prefer that guidance be correct and will support efforts to correct it. I will also seek to improve most any article I happen upon. We have an article on kick the can? Yup, although it's not quite what I was thinkin'. That's my approach to a lot of things; nudge things in the right direction. Incremental improvement; progressive enhancement. Get in my way in an unreasonable manner, and I'll kick you in the... shins... every time. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I've opened a checkuser request on Gimmetoo at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiecocopops.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC) —Kww(talk) 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The existing style of most Wikipedia articles is to use accepted correct spelling. When a contributor introduces useful information to an article, sometimes misspelled, we don't revert the content, we correct the spelling. If I introduce information to a reference, but otherwise metaphorically misspell it, applying the same courtesy should be intuitive. To suggest otherwise, in my opinion, as previously stated, is asinine. My76Strat 04:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with Gimmetoo's revert was that it reverted everything, not just the change in citations that was supposedly the thing being objected to. I realize what I'm about to say belongs at WP:Cite, but it seems counterproductive to me that an attempt to improve an article - whether correct or incorrect - can be reverted with nothing more than "this is how we always do it", "I don't like it" or just a plain "no". It also means that an editor can make changes to as many articles as they like as long as nobody notices or nobody objects, but one editor can stop them from from changing the citation style on one article, even while ignoring every edit to any article that doesn't interest them. Doesn't this empower one editor to decide they "own" the citation style for an article such as Halle Berry based only on the fact that a style (any style) is already in place? If the argument was to use a style that is most accessible, most easily used or is standard to the project, I'd be happy with whatever it was, but the citation style seems to be determined by the personal preference of whichever editor got there first, regardless of merit. I also don't understand how this can be beneficial to editors who may wish to edit across a range of articles which use different styles. It means that they have to either learn and understand how to use all of them, or they stumble along and do their best in the hope that eventually someone will fix whatever they've done. Then if they use something like reflinks to update citations, they run the risk of someone telling them not to rock the boat. It seems to me that of all the reasons for using a particular style, "because it's there" is the weakest. Rossrs (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Furthur; I've not looked, but I'm betting that Halle Berry's article is years old, not a recent one. She's a WP:HOTTIE and is quite notable ;) So, someone set a style years ago, before much changed. So what? We can do better; I pushed it along, and got kicked in the teeth for my efforts. I think I've been quite restrained the last day or so, because I could have fixed another dozen refs to nice, modern cite templates had this shite not kicked-up. I'm pausing for a user who is currently indef'd, in case anyone is not following that detail. Someone who is not responding appropriately to reasonable inquiries. Mebbe I should be looking at what has gone on in the last few hours; I've been watching Billy Budd (film), which I recommend, although s:Billy Budd, is teh source. Anysways, my last revert, calling 'too a vandal has stood for much of two days. Terima kasih; someone go furthur, so I can pitch-in tomorrow? We fix things one article at a time and my last effort was disrupted. Jack Merridew 05:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

2002 ;) The first reference was added to the article in 2006. By Gimmetrow. It's quite the non-standard ref, containing no less than seven external links. This ref has survived to this day, although it's down to five links, with one tagged as dead (and two more are, too). And what's it about? A WP:SYN regarding her date of birth. Is this the standard we're to be held to? Jack Merridew 08:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC) (and ya, I saw Risker; 'too is 'trow)

Wiki guideline is that you do not change styles in articles. Previous editors have explained the reasons. Rossrs seem to be concerned that this guideline lets one editor "own" the citation style of an article. Do you not see that Merridew's approach would allow a single editor to "own" the citation styles of hundreds of articles? So who should get to "choose"? An editor who doesn't contribute content and spends a few seconds completely changing an article with some script, or an editor who maintains the article, reverting vandalism and fixing up things for years, and who has to actually deal with the article text? I've been around long enough to know that the cause célèbre du jour in style changes is likely to be undone by a later cause célèbre. Remember linking dates on every article you edited? Yep, people went around doing that on thousands of articles. And a few years later, people went around undoing it. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I expressed more concern than merely that point. "So who should get to "choose"?" Whatever the correct answer may be, I read your answer as "Gimmetoo". You've expressed your view that your opinion is worth more to the Halle Berry article than anyone else's because you've been dealing with article content and maintaining it for years. That's a terrible reason, and it reads like ownership. A lot of people expend a lot of energy fighting vandalism and bad edits out of numerous articles - that's something we are all supposed to do - but it doesn't give them any greater claim over those articles. Changing the citation style is not "completely changing an article". It doesn't take as much as a comma out of the content you've contributed or maintained. You ask, "Do you not see that Merridew's approach would allow a single editor to "own" the citation styles of hundreds of articles?" No, I don't. Because if there was no opposition to it, that would imply consent or acceptance on the part of any editors who have seen the changes, and if the style remained in place it would be because collectively the community either accepted it or did not oppose it. That shared "ownership" is within the expectations of Wikipedia culture. Jack Merridew wouldn't own the style, nobody would and everybody would. A single editor never has that large a voice. Their voice is entirely dependent on the rest of the community. You're not bound to abide by the guidelines, it even has a disclaimer to that effect, but if you choose to uphold it "because the guideline says" instead of "because it's the best option", you do own that, not the community, because you've made the decision for everyone. There is a difference and although Wikipedia is not a democracy, Jack Merridew's edits allow for the whole community to comment upon them, and that does allow for a more democratic process than just shutting him down, which would result in essentially zero comment. You make a good point about the delinking of dates. It's possible that next "delinking of dates" could be "updating of citations". I've also been around long enough to see one cause célèbre du jour made obsolete by the next, and that is precisely how best practices evolve, not only in the real world, but here too. Rossrs (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Teh owner's back. The tool, Checklinks in the last instance, fussed with "Accessed" vs 'Retrieved' a bunch of times; that's about consistency. It also tagged some links that have rotted and mebbe we should be getting back to that. There are other worthless links in there, too: [67], [68]. I did not do most of my edits in 'a few seconds'. See the history, this span of edits that took nearly two hours; that was manually done work to the referencing, which is a part of the 'content'. You don't like that my focus is on structure, do you? That's a big piece of this, methinks.

I don't know what the deal with your admin account is. I don't care about all that noise. FWIW, when I first posted @you, it was on User talk:Gimmetrow, not User talk:Gimmetoo. This was per your claim of being an alternate; and I noted that it was of an admin account, but didn't notice that 'trow had not edited in months. An hour later, I'd looked further and posted to the talk page with the recent other block and the trout on it.

FWIW, I supported unlinking most dates; seven million links to 2006 is dumb. Regards, Jack Merridew 17:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare's involvement

For reasons that should be obvious, I find NW's participation in this incident to be particularly wrong. The block was wrong. The talk page lock was wrong. The threats of global block was wrong. I am a little concerned that NW locked the talk page right after I claimed misconduct, which could be viewed as an attempted coverup. I suspect at some point that NW started to become aware that NW might have screwed up, but NW did not remove the block. NW, in the capacity as SPI clerk, approved an SPI involving an editor NW had inappropriately blocked; this could also be interpreted as a coverup, hoping to find some dirt so NW's critic would stay silenced.

NW is currently an arb clerk "trainee". The first quality listed of an arb clerk is that he be competent/clueful. I claim this incident demonstrates NW's incompetence. I think NW should be removed from the arb clerk position. Also from the SPI clerk position. Shouldn't screwups of this magnitude have some consequences?

And trouts all around for the other admins (Fastily, WJBscribe, Kww) who supported NW. If there were such a thing as wiki sensitivity training, I would think they need it. Seriously, "forcing" an editor to edit with a different account can have real life consequences. If the account hasn't been used in a few months, maybe there is a reason. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Risker has said you are exactly you who said you were. I would guess this seems clear. Fine.

I am still totally lost why you went through no effort to prove anything about your identity. As a long-term sysop and editor, you must have been aware that there have been issues with impersonation before. You are correct that at some point I felt uneasy about the block I made. That is why I reenabled talk page access, hoping you would provide a reasonable explanation for your actions. I approved the checkuser to doublecheck my block, not to find any dirt. But had a checkuser report not come back, I would have stuck with my block. While you might have been editing in some of the same areas, your writing style in some areas didn't seem to resonate with what I had seen you write before, although of course I am not am expert on these matters and have only seen you in passing when reading GA and FA-related pages. WikiChecker showed you editing from likely another time zone entirely. Not once were you (and still, might I add) willing to provide any sort of proof for who you were.

And as for real life consequences, I considered that and dismissed it. You had not invoked a right to vanish or left no message to indicate that you were retiring in early May. Your new account was clearly identified as the old one, hardly the usual work of someone looking to vanish.

I do apologize for the block, as it was mistaken, but it would be nice if you could provide any sort of explanation.

As for the ArbClerk and SPIclerk business: Someone has noticed your request on WT:AC/C, and has forwarded it to the mailing list. I shall not be participating unless directly asked to. You can do the same at WT:SPICLERK, while there is no mailing list discussion there, I would not participate onwiki unless the other clerks asked me to. NW (Talk) 12:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding a trout for Kirill [69]. Suffice to say that Kirill no longer has my confidence, and will probably not be supported at the next arbcom elections. This also confirms my decision not to email the arbcom. Can none of you see that there might be a legitimate reason why someone with access to a second account would not be at liberty to login to it or edit from it? Perhaps I should have done some edit from the 'trow account to connect the accounts before May. Perhaps I did and none of you have noticed it. But once I am not longer at liberty to use the 'trow account, then using it to satisfy some random admin is simply not an option. Do we need some sort of policy provision to handle this situation? I really wonder why so many admins can't get it. Are most of you teenagers without enough job or life experience to even imagine what might be at play? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm crossposting Kirill's statement so people don't have to click on the above.

It was certainly appropriate to treat Gimmetoo's claim of being Gimmetrow with a healthy level of suspicion; impersonation of administrators is not uncommon, and it is quite feasible that someone may have wanted to harm Gimmetrow's reputation by getting involved in a heated conflict while pretending to be him. Whether this suspicion needed to be handled with an immediate block, or whether the appropriate investigations could have been carried out while the Gimmetoo account continued to edit, is a question to which different answers might be argued; but, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the block was not a correct response, the Committee is not so fickle as to judge someone on the basis of a mistake made in a good faith attempt to protect the project. NuclearWarfare retains the Committee's confidence, and will continue in his current role. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(Clerks, as there appear to be multiple venues for this discussion, please feel free to cross-post my comment above to any other venue where NW's role is being discussed.) Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I didn't see an edit conflict, as I saw Kirill's post below after I hit save. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider that editing from multiple accounts is a privilege, not a right, and that someone cannot simply claim to have an administrator account without providing any evidence thereof? If we have no way to verify that you are who you say you are, then we are unfortunately forced to take measures to ensure that we protect existing accounts in good standing from being harmed by your actions. That is unfortunate, and not a reflection on you personally; but we could have a difficult time explaining to Gimmetrow why we failed to do so had it turned out that you were, in fact, an impersonator. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you do have a way to verify the claim that the accounts are linked, and it's a way that doesn't require someone to edit from the second account. There was, indeed, plenty of evidence that this was an alternate account. I would question whether, in this case, there is a simple claim to "have an administrator account" - yes, 'trow is an admin account, but it's not like either 'too or 'trow identify as an admin on the user page. Nor have I been claiming admin "authority". Nor have I tried to have the admin bit transferred from the account, which I would expect requires some verification, and probably wouldn't happen without making the request from the admin account. The identity or non-identity of the two accounts was, as far as I can tell, pretty much irrelevant to the issue that started this. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As you may have seen in the SPI discussion, I thought it was nearly impossible for this to not be you, simply using common sense. But in defense of those who were suspicious, common sense should have suggested that you place the declaration of this being an alternate account by using your main account. I had a temporary alternate account that was retired a long time ago, and I marked it with my main account so that there'd be no ambiguity. At least it is cleared up now. I apologize for the inconvenience it caused you, but please remember that all of this scrutiny started when you choosed to engage in an edit war at an article, something that has given you two blocks in the past. Maybe in the future, for your own sake, you might consider a voluntary 1RR? I chose to abide by 1RR myself long ago and I've never regretted it. -- Atama頭 17:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make one extremely obvious statement here: Gimmetoo's behaviour is problematic. No plausible explanation has been offered that would explain why posting as Gimmetoo and loudly proclaiming oneself to be Gimmetrow would be safe, and making a single, simple edit as Gimmetrow to either unblock Gimmetoo or claim the account would not be. In addition, per Gimmetoo's request on Commons, I e-mailed Gimmetrow some codewords for Gimmetoo to use and verify his identity. I haven't seen them from Gimmetoo. I think the most likely explanation is the Gimmetrow and Gimmetoo are the same editor and that he believes himself to be defending some point of principle, but I'm at a loss as to what that principle is. I asked politely above for him to link the accounts with no threat of blocking, and that was ignored. His response to his block was immediate (within 60 seconds), so it was apparent that he on-wiki and presumably aware of the request. Once blocked, he could have cleared the situation in seconds, but instead he chose to escalate it. Why?—Kww(talk) 17:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ik ben Gimmetrow. Ik heb geen flauw idee waarom jullie heb mij geblokkeerd. I'm not inclined to provide any reasons - the time for that is long gone. But you might want to review Wikipedia:SOCK#LEGIT, security, as one example. Assuming admin accounts on Wiki have any value, someone might not want to have an admin account compromised in a keylogging environment. Not saying this is what's going on, but it is one scenario where even a login wouldn't be possible. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed what Gimmetoo was asked to say in an e-mail to Gimmetrow.—Kww(talk) 17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, that would be a perfectly legitimate reason to operate a secondary account; nobody is suggesting that you may not have one. The concern is that, if you are faced with circumstances where confirming ownership of the account may be impossible at the time you are questioned, then the onus is on you to make the necessary arrangements for it to be confirmed in a manner and at a time convenient to you. That may, in a case like this, mean that you will lose access to the secondary account until you are able to take whatever steps you feel are necessary to safeguard access to the primary one; but, at the same time, other administrators cannot be expected to let a potential impersonation continue merely because the potential impersonator claims such circumstances, as that claim is just as easily made by a real impersonator as it is by the owner of the account. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK policy says: "Such accounts should be publicly connected to the main account or use an easily identified name." It did both. If any other "confirmation" were actually expected, it became pretty difficult to draw anyone's attention to any other "arrangements" that had been made once the alt account was talk page and email blocked. Indeed, at that point someone was dictating terms without reference to policy. I would be curious, if someone suddenly indef blocked you and removed all email access, what prior arrangements you have made to confirm ownership of your account? But it really doesn't matter, since nobody has really established a good reason why any confirmation was necessary. If anyone had any genuine doubt, and treated the accounts as separate, what difference would it make? Gimmetoo (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The most obvious way of confirming ownership would have simply been for the primary account to make an edit "claiming" the secondary one; this is really something that could (and should) have been done when the account was first created. In the scenario where you had not done so (and could not do so at the time of the block for security or other reasons), there are any number of alternative methods for confirming that the same individual is operating both accounts, such as using email or another form of off-wiki contact, having a trusted user vouch for you, and so forth.

As for your second question, the main reason why this situation was of concern was because if the "Gimmetoo" account were not, in fact, operated by the same individual operating the "Gimmetrow" account, then it would be (a) falsely claiming to be Gimmetrow and (b) likely doing so maliciously in order to harm Gimmetrow's reputation, and would thus need to be blocked in any case. (I think it is reasonable to assume that the average administrator would take exception to an impersonator falsely painting them as involved in a dispute in which they had no part; perhaps you are not troubled by such a scenario affecting you, but I believe that would make you the exception rather than the rule.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is rather ridiculous. NW was straight forward when he said why he blocked the account:

Gimmetoo blocked indef until he can prove that hu is actually an alt account of Gimmetrow. If it's the latter, I do apologize, but the edit warring and disruptive behavior combined with the lack of confirmation makes me suspicious.

— NW (Talk) 23:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the beginning of this incident, just under the level 2 heading. It was a reasonable request, in my humble opinion, to ask for verification, given the circumstances. The complaint was of an edit war. Why would an admin knowingly and willingly get involved? That is just plain suspicious if you ask me. What I see here is an unnecessary bit of drama. NW did NOTHING unreasonable in blocking an account that was in question, after noticing it claimed to be Gimmetrow. All the owner had to do, was post from trow "that's my account", unblock it, and move on. Instead, there's paragraphs and paragraphs of drama, because someone blew this whole situation out of proportion. It was, in my opinion, the right move. What if this account WERE an impersonation of an admin? Then everyone would be happy. But because the account was legitimate, everyone is freaking out.

You say "trouts all around for the admins who support NW," because he did what an admin would do. I've not seen anything particularly "wrong" in his handling of this situation. He blocked a suspicious (and from what I can tell, disruptive) account pending verification that he was who he said he was.

So drop the drama, get off this witch hunt, and go do something constructive for Wikipedia. Cut the drama. Thank you.

My opinion probably means jack shit to you guys, but, I figured an outsider's point of view might be nice for this situation. --ANowlin: talk 21:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This response illustrates another problem. Apparently NW did "nothing unreasonable" in blocking an account without any query or attempt at contact. I have yet to see any policy cited which authorizes admins indef blocking on unlikely doubts. I don't think many editors would really want to find themselves blocked because some teenager has a slight uncertainly. Yet my actions were considered "suspicious". Put those two together and the message I'm getting is: admins should shoot first and ask questions later. Is that what you're saying? Do you think I should have just immediately blocked Merridew for disruptive editing? Gimmetoo (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There are good reasons why a user may have a second account and refuse to confirm it from their primary account. For example, they may not trust the login would be secure (for whatever reason). That's built into WP:SOCK and is a commonsense reason - and maybe not one that Gimmetrow wants to make public (as is his right).

When there is an impersonation concern and the alleged alternate is an admin or experienced user, the request for confirmation of the claim is sensible and commendable. If none is forthcoming escalation is predictable. Many bad faith users "play the game" quite well so a claim to be someone else's alt account is not always enough, nor is subjectively similar style always evidence. Sometimes the user could be concerned about the two being identified as alts, but in this case it appears not.

Those who acted did so in good faith. At worst a "brief lapse" now fixed, not a major drama or the end of the world. This happened to me years back - I got blocked once before my RFA because of a lapse and it took time for the admin error to be agreed and the block undone, I don't remember posting on ANI about how bad it was or pointing out people I wouldn't trust any more. I remember respecting the admin was acting in good faith, that he'd had a lapse, requesting unblock, and appreciating that we have a community where one can ask for review of admin actions.

All concerned here are experienced users who will surely try to learn from it. Those on both sides remain good Wikipedians - let's head back to fun. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

To second FT2 and third Kirill and others - administrator impersonation accounts are a real and active ongoing problem (though not in our top 10). The way this played out was unfortunate in this case, but there's a difference between "unfortunate" and "neglegent".

Gtoo - I think the community owes you an apology, but NW didn't do anything wrong. There was insufficient evidence that you were legit and not an impersonator at the time he made the judgement. He operated under policy, administrator behavior standards, and what the community has come to expect from us in terms of balancing protecting users and admins from impersonation. That the standards we have here ended up biting you is unfortunate. But don't make it personal against him or the others. They didn't act wrongly. We can't ask that you not be upset about it, but personalizing it isn't helpful. NW doesn't deserve that.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Although I absolutely agree that NW doesn't deserve this, I'd vouch for his competence/clue/integrity, and have never had reason to doubt him, I don't think some people truly appreciate situations like this. Accordingly I'd note that people aren't going to handle things in the same (calm) way. Clearly the user is venting, but at this time, comparing how you'd personally approach a similar situation (even in the past) is unlikely to produce the desired results - it may just add fuel. What is needed is to go beyond the rules and sympathise, or actually...empathise with the frustration of a (good faith) user who feels they weren't treated correctly, and especially when it involved actual sanctions or threats of the same. Sure, perfection is not expected, but that doesn't mean a situation can never be improved, and although a blocker may feel something at some point, it can never compare to that which the blocked user feels, even after block has been lifted. Especially when users are in placed a position of trust that is higher than the other user in a particular situation (let alone most other users in general), the expectations are obviously going to be higher, and the handling of the aftermath is even more critical to reducing any damage that may have been inadvertantly caused. I believe NW has appreciated whatever it is I am trying to convey, earlier if not much earlier, and I see evidence of this on Gtoo's talk. I'd recommend something similar again at some point, but only after letting time do what it does. That's my 2 cents, and I hope that others learn from it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Restrictions

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Motion to amend User:Jack Merridew's 2008 unban motion

Unless I am mistaken, Jack Merridew's editing restrictions were last modified near the end of 2009. One of the restrictions apparently currently in place is: "...follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions." Do others think that Merridew has "followed dispute resolution processes" appropriately in this case? Merridew has stated that WP:CITE "got it wrong", but has never apparently discussed the issue at WP:CITE. Merridew is acting in opposition to WP:CITE, and has left the article in an inconsistent style. He claims to invoke WP:IAR to reject WP:CITE, and has said "Get in my way in an unreasonable manner, and I'll kick you in the... shins... every time." WP:IAR is a double-edged sword; you can cut yourself when you invoke it. Merridew doesn't seem to care about the the usability of articles for other editors after his makes his edits. Note that, before the 2009 modification, Merridew's editing restrictions included "avoiding all disruptive editing" and "may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator". Comments? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm if there are still any restrictions on Jack the committee should probably remove them now. If you want a comment from an admin, you both behaved badly but as an admin I would have expected much better of you then Jack. *trout* Happy now? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Need help with non-native-English-speaking editor

I'm engaged in dialog with User:Curvesall on article Racism in Israel, and I'm having a very difficult time. The editor doesn't seem to really understand how to properly edit, and they have introduced numerous style/grammar/formatting errors into the article in the past few days. Every time I try to fix them and explain, the editor reverts my changes. They do engage in talk on the Talk page, but it gets nowhere: I think we have agreement, then wham, they rever the change again.

Here is one example: A source in the article is an essay by person A, in a book by edited by person B. Person B is perhaps biased. User Curvesall keeps changing the text in the article to state that B wrote the essay (B did not: B was merely the editor). Here are three times I tried to indicate to Curvesall that B was not the author: [70], [71], [72] Yet, in spite of all that guidance, Curvesall insists on inserting text into the article that says B is the author (the line is "Nahla Abdo-Zubi, Ronit Lenṭin, critics of Zionists have described Israeli media as..." (Abdo and Lentin are editors, not authors). That is just one example of about 40 problems Curvseall has introduced into the article.

For what it's worth: this user is a single-article account ([73]) although I've seen no evidence of anything nefarious.

Any help would be appreciated. It is excruciatingly difficult trying to repair the damage Curvesall has done. If some editor could review the situation and give some input on the article Talk page, or Curvesall User page, maybe that will help. --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the "resolved" tag: if the inquiry does not belong here, please tell the editor where to bring it, don't just shut the door in his or her face with an unsigned "resolved" tag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What Ken said: if it doesn't belong here, where does it belong? Or is this a "content issue" where someone should either be happy to beat their head against a wall or just give up and let someone else, well-meaning or not, ruin an article? Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Try following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Some conversation is happening on the talk page. I warned Curvesall for 3RR, and he's been invited to join the ANI discussion. He seems like someone with prior Wikipedia experience. If Noleander thinks that Curvesall is not following our policies, he can make an update to this report, or file an edit-warring complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I asked also noleander to come to consensus before editing, I just followed the advice of improving style, and his above comments were met and changed already.Curvesall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC).

I still need some guidance here. I am at my wits end. I've invested tons of time trying to repair this article, but it continues to get damaged. For each fix I implement, two mistakes are introduced. For example, user curvesall just made another irrational edit (putting a topic about Ethiopia within a section on India) [74]. I can't spend 40 hours per week for the rest of my life following this editor around and undoing mistakes (some of which, I concede, may simply be due to an honest misunderstanding of English). I suggest that Curvesall be temporarily banned from editing that article for a couple of days, to give me time to restore it to decent shape (grammar, spelling, formatting, logic) ... generally to make it encyclopedic. I'm willing to commit to not removing any content that Curveall has added to the article: merely re-formatting and cleaning-up. Then the ban can be lifted and we can start afresh. I understand the WP:Don't bite the newcomers policy, and I've tried to be collegial and helpful at every turn, but I'm not seeing much progress in Curvesall's behavior. --Noleander (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm begging some admin: Please, please ban this editor for a few days. Besides violating just about every WP policy and style guide, the way the editor makes changes to the article is: he has a personal copy of the article, and every time he wants to edit the article, he copies his entire personal copy into the WP article. If any other editor makes a change to the article between, it is lost. See Talk:Racism_in_Israel#Do_you_replace_the_entire_article_each_time.3F. If a ban is not palatable, at least a stern lecture? --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the editor is not engaging on the talkpage regarding his editing style, undoing all previous edits to make a small change is not acceptable, I don't know if he is oblivious to it or whether it is intentional - but he refuses to answer direct questions regarding it. The same style of editing has now been employed by 2 IPs. Unomi (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see these edits: [75], [76], [77], [78]. It should be noted that the edits by Noleander were discrete and could be undone and argued against individually. Unomi (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis-push culminating in possible legal threats

This is a long and protracted dispute. But I support brevity whenever possible and I will try to avoid anyone quoting WP:TLDR to me. The dispute involves Nazar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who, starting last June, insisted on adding their personal analysis of a video into the Prahlad Jani article which was identified as synthesis and original research by myself and two other editors. In the span of about two months and after two RFCs and two reports at WP:ORN, the second report at ORN, at Wikipedia:ORN#Prahlad_Jani_redux, finally rendered opinions that the attempted edit was WP:OR. But although, initially, Nazar seemed to accept the opinion rendered at ORN, after a few days s/he came back at the Prahlad Jani article and added the Defamation of various entities through biased rendering section, where among other things s/he also accuses me and user McGeddon that By refusing to provide the neutral dating of the evidence material, the mentioned above editors are protecting the con. Since I want to keep this report brief I will not add more details but I would like to ask if anyone thinks that the "Defamation of various entities through biased rendering" section added by Nazar on the talk page of the Prahlad Jani article constitutes a legal threat and if anything needs to be done about it. I am also asking for an opinion about whether the editor should be advised about disruptive editing given their persistent refusal to accept the fact that the edits s/he attempted to insert into the article are synthesis. See also the Nazar revisited section on user Prodego's talkpage, the Prahlad Jani section on my talkpage,the RFCs section on my talkpage. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 11:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

He's already said "No legal threats...implied." which surely rules it out as a legal threat, no ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Using the legal term "defamation" and not retracting it goes against the words you just linked to. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a legal threat. Civility issues mayube, but nothing too serious.Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But I think that pushing synthesis for such a long time despite advice to the contrary by so many editors is at least disruptive. Let's not forget about the repeat and blatant ad-hominem arguments and personal attacks for which he was warned multiple times by myself and twice by user McGeddon. However it is good to have an opinion one way or the other. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point that Dr.K. has been trying to 'punish' me and constantly threatened me at any possible occasion with various Wiki Policies, Rules and other things, trying to imply that I severely violate all and any of them by my edits and my comments in disputes. He also often demanded that I ‘stop editing…’, ‘stop commenting…’, etc… This has been rather oppressive from my point of views and felt/feels like an attempt to intimidate an opponent in dispute by misusing the superior mastery of Wiki Policies which Dr.K. seems to boast. I was reluctant to report this anywhere as I do not claim my edits to be 100% perfect and do not possess a comparable command of Rules and Policies as that of Dr.K. But since the issue has been brought up here, and I feel rather 'pushed into the dead corner' by Dr.K's actions, I feel compelled to mention this now. I'm not requesting any 'punishment', 'official warning' or something of the kind for Dr.K. Just want to highlight my feelings and my experience in connection with the situation brought up here. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You replied: constantly threatened me at any possible occasion with various Wiki Policies Can you provide a specific example? Can you also supply a diff where I "seem to boast" my knowledge of policy? And a few more diffs showing when I told you to "stop editing" and "stop commenting"? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd also say that Dr.K.'s reactions and involvement of Rules and Policies in reply to my comments in a dispute seem artificially exaggerated and imply a well-calculated regular over-reaction and provocation, probably aimed at pushing the situation to the point where he will have enough reasons to officially accuse me of some violations. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A look at your edits over the past two months as well as the diffs I provided above tell a different story. The single-minded synthesis-push of your personal video analysis speaks for itself. You even added a reply at ORN today still defending your personal synthetic analysis. You also say well-calculated regular over-reaction and provocation, probably aimed at pushing the situation to the point where he will have enough reasons to officially accuse me of some violations. Yet you take no responsibility for pushing this dead horse for approximately two months. People can tell you things once or maybe twice but if they tell you things many, many times as even user McGeddon told you, how can you accuse them of over-reaction, exaggeration and provocation? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's Dr.K. and not me who has been pushing a WP:Synthesis for months? And why should I spend hours looking for diffs and citations just to prove something personal to Dr.K.? I try to focus on article related issues and don't want to get into this pointless personal argument. I said above how I feel, that's all. If someone is interested, let them look into my edits in the context of the on-going dispute and make their own mind. I may add that I've been a bit too emotional at some points and I did say I'm sorry for that in appropriate places. That, however, does not change my view of Dr.K.'s attitude. I'd also like to add that it is my right to defend my own position in an argument, and if 2 or 4 or even more users are of a different view, that does not necessarily mean that I must change my own well-founded logic. I did my best to take into account all the Policies and did not try to edit-war against the Rules. Any further requests from Dr.K. to abandon my own logic seem like an obvious oppression and violation of my freedom of thought. Look at the updated discussion here. I believe my arguments to be very well founded. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You said: Well, maybe it's Dr.K. and not me who has been pushing a WP:Synthesis for months?. Maybe so. But unfortunately for your theory you must add Users: Jonuniq, McGeddon, Escape orbit, Quoth 31 and Nuujinn, all of whom told you essentially the same things I told you. As far as not finding the diffs to support your claims against me, I leave it up to the other editors to judge. As far as your "new" arguments at the ORN, they are simply more of the same stuff justifying the synthesis you have been attempting to add to the article. Nothing new here. But since no admin seems willing to act in this case I have nothing more to add here. It is regrettable that such a huge effort was spent over months by so many editors for such an unambiguous case of WP:SYNTH and no admin has taken any action either for the synthesis, or the personal attacks and general incivility of this editor. It seems that only when Giano or Malleus are involved, civility rules become really sacrosanct. Nuff said. Goodbye. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The case had further development, which made me call for help and advice of an experienced Wikipedian. I've addressed user Prodego on his talk page, since he was involved into the issue and offered help before. But if anyone could advise me more, I'd appreciate it very much, because Prodego hasn't been active for almost 2 days and the situation requires some reaction preferably without longer delays. The details are on Prodego’s talk page. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm bringing the issue up here per advice of  Chzz  ►  on my talk page. -- Nazar (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have replied on Prodego's page since the discussion moved there. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Teeninvestor violating voluntary restriction

Two days ago I blocked Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) for continued hounding of Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs). See ANI discussion. I offered TI unblocking if he agreed to a voluntary restriction - an interaction ban, pretty clearly spelled out and agreed to here on Aug 11 and recorded at User:Teeninvestor/Restriction. Since then the editor has violated the ban by editing Great Divergence, Economic history of China (pre-1911) and Chinese economic reform within 1 month of GPM. I've blocked TI for violating the restriction, but would like a broader review of the situation. Note that there is already a RFCU open for TI about different issues. Toddst1 (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly reasonable to restrict someone in this way. He now has to look through history to see which articles he's allowed to edit? There must be some way of reformulating the restriction in a way that makes more sense. If Teeninvestor is editing reasonably, he should be able to edit any page. If he's not editing reasonably, he should be blocked. I see no purpose to such a restriction. Friday (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Not commenting on the merit of this particular incident, such a restriction is difficult to respect for the restricted user and very easy to game, if the other party wants to keep them from editing a particular article or a group of articles. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have misparsed the restriction as a 1-month ban on editing articles recently edited by GPM. But in any case this was a comment on GPM (who had started the GAR). Kanguole 18:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• The whole condition detail seems a bit severe to me and he only had a 48 hour original block and got these conditions imposed for an early unblocking, and the conditions appear to be easy to violate and of course he has and now he has a three week block, it seems a bit much to me, the condition should be removed as it is nothing but trouble. Allow him to finish off his original 48 hour block and remove the condition. This will also allow him to defend himself at the RFCU. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the others that this restriction seems to be the type that can easily be used to game the user into getting a longer ban. I deem "interaction" to be talking with the other user in non-mainspace directly (or being involved in a discussion that features the other user in a major way) or directly reverting or being involved within only a few edits on an article in mainspace with the other user. Saying that GPM edited the article a month ago and TI editing it now is interacting with him/her is ridiculous and impossibly restrictive. And, as Off2riorob stated, the restriction is impossibly harsh for just an early unblocking of a 48 hour block. In short, I do not consider this incident "interaction" and feel that TI should be unblocked immediately. Silverseren^C 18:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Teeninvestor knew full well before the block which articles were contentious between him and others users including me because we were interacting on these for several weeks now and they are actually closely related in terms of contents, many relying on the same set of scholarly references. The disputed articles were no more and no less than seven:

1. List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita
2. List of regions by past GDP (PPP)
3. Military history of China (pre-1911)
4. Economic history of China (pre-1911)
5. Chinese economic reform
6. Great Divergence and
7. Roman metallurgy

On all articles (or their talk pages) has been a lot of action in the recent past and a lot of users were involved. Particularly, Teeninvestor's edit behaviour on these articles was dealt with at length on his RFC/U. In this light, I find it hard to believe that Teeninvestor who writes about economic history and historical statistics had over night lost his ability to count up to 7. It were only those seven articles out of 2.5 mio and Teeninvestor happened to edit three of them within 24 h of the agreement. Moreover, he indirectly violated the agreement, as I see it, by trying to get another user on board for Economic history of China (pre-1911). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Those who claim that there is a time gap of one month between my last edit and Teeninvestor's should please provide evidence for that, because is actually no such large time gap. Most importantly, my editing stopped only because Teenivestor relentlessly reverted me and others, not because I, as others, agreed to his version in any way. The editing only moved to other pages where the contentious questions were much the same. In other words: The whole dispute ran across the seven articles in circles and to pick out a single example where there may be a time lag of one than one week is missing the full picture of the dispute. Regards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent incidents and notifications

I begin to hate this reporting, but Teeninvestor just does not seem to find the stop button: Since the lifting of his second block, he has been trying to mobilize other users to confront my edits, speaking lowly (and falsely) of my contributions and also those of User:Kanguole and User:Gnip in the process and denouncing other users as a "little clique" who wants to oust him from WP):

Notifications:

• Asking indirectly Soap to interact with me ("little clique")
• Requesting Patar knight directly to interact with me on 1RR basis
• Speaking lowly of the edits of us three here and here

The notifications of other users are very much in line with an older attempt after his first lifted block to draw the attention of Nev1 to my edits (For clarification: I'd be happy to discuss my edits, but the users have to come on their own accord) The disregard for the interaction ban vis-avis admins has also had its precedence in this attempt which occurred after the first lifted block.

Editing of restricted articles:

• undoing of my actions at Chinese economic reforms
• undoing of my actions at Chinese economic reforms

Both sets of actions are against the voluntary restriction agreement agreed upon with Toddst1, reconfirmed by Patar knight and recorded here, which explicitly stipulates that Teeninvestor should refrain from talking about me and from editing any of the seven articles above, among them explicitly Chinese economic reform. I have notified Patar knight of this. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Postscript: This post (first sentence) reveals to me that Teeninvestor has not understood in the least what the voluntary restriction agreement and all this is about; he doesn't even seem to be really aware that such a restriction exists. I am at loss of words and have nothing more to say. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal

I was going to make this earlier but discovered Teeninvestor had been blocked and had agreed to a voluntary interaction ban.

I am now going ahead and proposing the following interaction ban:

Editors User:Teeninvestor and User:Gun Powder Ma are banned from interacting with each other. This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly. If either party feels that the other party has violated this ban or other Wikipedia policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hrs they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same manner, but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki. Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption.

This would be logged at the edit restrictions page if enacted by community etc. It would not have a fixed duration, ie it would last until repealed by the community.Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you're good at this. Silverseren^C 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Withdrawing I've been convinced that this is not necessary nor a good idea. Sorry if I've created any unnecessary drama (there is such a thing as necessary drama I think). Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose: Teeninvestor has also been banned from interacting with another user, Tenmei. And, frankly, I don't see why several users should be banned from articles Teeninvestors edits when it is obviously him who creates the stir. I don't like the idea of creating an exclusive lane for problematic users at the cost of other users. I don't like it even less since he is the subject of an RFC/U, not me. Have you taken a look on how many users find Teeninvestor's edit pattern problematic? More than half a dozen, in fact. On how many more users do you want an interaction ban to be imposed so that this one user can go his way? I don't see the least reason why I should be singled out to pay for Teeninvestor's aggressive edit pattern.

I have edited for four years on military, economic and technological history and I don't see a reason why I should suddenly give up a good part of it because of one problematic user. I am frankly disappointed by your one-sided approach. Teeninvestors breaks the agreement and you shift 50% of the blame (or rather its consequences) on me. Real neutrality does not lie in simplistically distributing the blame equally on all shoulders as you well know, but to judge everyone according to one's actions. So forget it. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"should be banned from articles Teeninvestors edits " Perhaps you may want to re-read the exact language: a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. You cant revert each others edits, or directly respond to each other on talk pages, but there is nothing saying that you cannot edit the same articles. --Active Banana | Talk 19:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not reverting? This is unworkable. Not that I am fond of reverting (a waste of time), but it is impossible to work on an article effectively if there are sacrosant statements which cannot be changed. Effectively, this would mean that there would be two separate articles created on one page. I can agree to the whole ANI stuff, but I want my right to edit and revert to remain intact. If I overstep the 3rr or whatever, block me, but don't take it away from me. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: This conflict has got to stop. If this passes, we should unblock TI. Toddst1 (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Support. One-way interaction bans never work and the current editing restriction appears to be overly harsh. Interaction bans are not a way of allotting blame, but only to stop conflicts and disruption; therefore, you shouldn't construe one imposed on you as a way of saying you're wrong or disruptive or whatnot. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 19:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. Doug's proposal seems a reasonable and balanced measure, intended to keep the peace; it limits the interactions of users who've been engaged in a long-running series of disputes. It offers no judgment or prejudice against any party. An interim measure, pending further and future decisions. This might have worked, but: Haploidavey (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Teeninvestor's self-justifications further down the page worry me; sorry, don't know how to do diffs, but see under "Topic ban for Teeninvestor proposal"). After all that's been said, he still justifies his misunderstanding of what's required and relevant to topic. Gun Powder Ma has no such difficulties. I'm now in favour of limiting Teeninvestor's editing rights. I'm opposed to any editing restictions on Gun Powder Ma. Haploidavey (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Notified users of RFC/U, since they are most knowledgable about the whole thing. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - seems fair to both sides. I also support the unblocking of User Teeninvestor. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Most of the disruption seems to come from Teeninvestor, particularly his high degree of incivility and wikihounding of GPM. This is the reason he was banned from interacting with GPM in the first place. It seems unfair to impose restrictions on the victim as well. The stipulation that This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. is also problematic and seems unworkable, and can potentially lead to all kinds of problems and misunderstandings. Athenean (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a neat, balanced solution, but this is not a balanced situation. The trigger for this was Teeninvestor's behaviour at Roman metallurgy, where he has been edit warring to remove a well-referenced figure for Roman iron production, not because he has a different figure, but because he finds it out of line with what he knows about China (I am not making this up). It's also unworkable, both for them and other editors on these articles (not that the one-sided version was much better). Kanguole 20:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Gun Power Ma, I was going to propose just this before I even knew there was any agreement. I also agree that it is Teeninvestor who is the main problem. However, I'm not convinced that a one way ban is a good idea and I know that both above and elsewhere I've seen them opposed. We'll see what others think, I'm flexible if we can find a solution that brings this conflict to an end and stops other editors from wasting time on it. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Really, Dougweller, this is not only unfair to me, it strikes me as completely unworkable and could probably lead very quickly to a confusing situation which would rather increase the risk of blocks for both of us. With such a ill-conceived and ill-defined framework, neither Teen nor me would be able to assess the consequences of our actions properly and risk involuntarily massive (and unjustified) blocks. In other words, the situation would rather escalate and not even necessarily because of bad intentions on either side but because the whole arrangements has massive shortcomings, loop-holes and grey areas. Yesterday, I promised to stick to the interaction ban for four weeks and that's what I still intend to do.

There are these seven articles above which are contentious and which are edited by both of us. Other than that, Teen and me have had in the past not seen much overlap. If Teen keeps out of them for the next month and does not follow me I don't see any particular problem. So my proposal is let's wait for the four weeks and the outcome of the RFC/U. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment If there is some way to insure that, I'm happy with it. I certainly do not want to hinder your editing. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Procedural remark: I noticed that nowhere do we describe what a topic or interaction ban actually is, hence the need to draw up detailed rules for every case. I've attempted to describe our usual practice on the relevant policy page, Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of ban.  Sandstein  21:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - the blocking administrator has added wikibreak templates. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite gone yet but on my way out. For the record, any administrator is free to modify the existing block on TI, unblock or modify the voluntary restriction in place. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, thanks for that. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose restriction on GPM Teeninvestor seems to be the aggressor here. And its not the first time either. They need to learn to edit collegiately or go somewhere else. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose this would not improve content, and would likely harm it. As I've said elsewhere, if there are problems with GPMs content contributions, they're subtle and hard to detect (i.e. i haven't found any). Teeninvestors, on the other hand, are nationalistic, rely on weak sourcing, and are skewing content.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Comment Having seen quite a number of the edits of both of these editors, I can't disagree with your comments about their editing. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose restricting Gun Powder Ma. (Comment placed out of order because it pertains to preceding.) I have confidence in Dougweller's view, but if GPM's contributions to article content aren't at issue, he should not be placed under restrictions that inhibit his efforts to create high-quality articles. That's what we're here for, and from what I've seen, his work is good. WP is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, not a Safe Place for people lacking competence to edit. This business of cowing productive editors because they aren't nice to CPUSHers has to stop; send them to WP:CHARM SCHOOL instead. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• OPPOSE -- Dougweller's proposal needlessly undercuts the significant investments of time and thought which mark Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor.

A. This gambit is bad for Wikipedia going-forward; and in the context of the RfC/U, it becomes a little like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (转胜为败).

B. This thread arises from a number of factors which aren't captured by this proposal. It is both untimely and short-sighted.

C. The understandable frustration of Dougweller and others is justified. This puts a spotlight on problems which Coren identified in 2008, including the need for

• More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment. All of us need to take a strong stance against that sort of "polite disruption" and those who use our rules of civility as weapons, recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested, and investigate beyond surface behavior issues -- see here
• Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty). All of us should be more active at curtailing content disputes. Academic integrity should become a priority; unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia -- see here
• Increased transparency -- see here

Summary restatement. This approach moves us towards throwing out the baby with the bath water. --Tenmei (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• oppose, sorta. I don't have a strong objection to the interaction ban being put in place, but I don't think it will solve the problem. While both parties' behavior is objectionable I think this is a case where we shouldn't say that both parties are equally at fault—Teeninvestor is more responsible for this situation than Gun Powder Ma, and sanctions should fall more heavily on the party who's more responsible. I'd rather see a topic ban for Teeninvestor, or perhaps a site ban. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support at this point, an outright interaction ban would be best, since both sides are at least partially responsible for this drama through their stubbornness. This would formalize what Teeninvestor has already agreed to do in his unblock request through e-mail to myself. However, recognizing that the consensus is that GPM has (perhaps arguably) had a lesser role, I would not be opposed to a weaker sanction on GPM. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Please allow me to summarize briefly the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. Opened by User:Nev1, this has been running for almost a month now. In this period:

• 2 users apart from me have certified to the basis of the dispute
• 4 users have endorsed Nev1's summary of TI's problematic behaviour
• 6 users apart from Toddst1 have provided outside views on TI's problematic behaviour which were endorsed by altogether
• 12 users User:Nev1, User:Kanguole, User:GregJackP, User:Athenean, User:2over0, User:Badger Drink, User:Tenmei, User:Haploidavey, User:N5iln, User:Bali ultimate, User:BigK HeX, User:Akhilleus, while only one user, User:FeydHuxtable, took a position more in favour of TI.

Now sit back and think a minute. How much clearer can get the picture? How much clearer can get consensus? I won't object to your observation that I have behaved stubborn at times, too, and this has been pointed out to me by other users (and I will work on that), but your notion that "I am also at least partially responsible" is at complete odds with how the drama around Teeninvestor actually evolved and what the community believes. I bet you won't find a single user from above who believes that Teeninvestor's edit pattern would not have been problematic if I had not opposed some of his edits. I fully accept that my actions are placed under close admin scrutinity and that I am liable to strong admin reaction if they are deemed improper which is only fair. But I will object to any simplistic portrayal which reduces the said user's problematic overall edit pattern to a sort of Western stand-off between him and me. This was never the case. In fact, Teeninvestor has edit-warred against multiple users on multiple pages over an extended time span, and that's exactly what the current RFC/U shows. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support I proposed a similar proposal to User:Toddst1 before. I won't comment except to say that if anyone's interested in my side of the story, I presented an overview here 1 before I was blocked (and that BigK HeX didn't participate in my RFC).Teeninvestor (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctioning Gun Powder Ma: The proposal is based on the premise that the parties are equally at fault, yet the discussion so far and the RfCU do not back up this assumption. To the contrary, it seems that Gun Powder Ma has spent a lot of their spare time to prevent damage to the project. A simplifying "it takes two to tango"-approach is likely to cause harm in the long run - we need editors who dispute problematic edits, and not let those wo introduce them have their way as everyone shys away in fear of sanctions just for that. If someone is disputing problematic edits and/or challenges problematic behavior, it is not the dispute (symptom) that needs to be remedied, but the problematic edits/behavior (cause). Skäpperöd (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Perhap in order for an admin to better gauge consensus, it would be better for everyone who's expressed their opinion to also state if they're involved in the underlying content dispute. As far as I'm concerned, I'm entirely uninvolved. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've unblocked Teeninvestor per an e-mail he sent me through the Wikipedia e-mail system nearly half an hour ago. For transparency, text was as follows:

“ Dear Patar Knight:

I would like to draw to your attention a recent issue which I have found myself in. Recently I have been blocked due to disruptive behaviour in an editing dispute with other editors. The relevant link is here: [79]. I would like to apologize for my behaviour and I promise this will not happen again. I would also like to state that I support completely Dougweller's proposed interaction ban on ANI, and proposed a similar proposal to Toddst1 [80]. I promise to respect this proposal, stop interacting with GPM, and to address the issues involved in my RFC such as use of sources, NPOV, etc. I hope that in light of my changed altitude, you will consider unblocking me. I am truly sorry and I hope this incident will be the last.

Teeninvestor

”

Since if he follows those provisions, incidents like these will not arise, I've unblocked him with caveats that he follow what he's agreed to do in this e-mail to avoid further drama. If those provisions are held, there is no reason why he cannot be unblocked to constructively work on non-controversial articles. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban for Teeninvestor proposal

I want to put up a proposal for discussion which predates the failed interaction ban. This I still find a impossible and unpractical scheme. I propose a topic ban for Teeninvestor on military and economic history. I firmly believe only a solution where there is a clear red line would be helpful in easing the dispute and not having the opposite effect of unintentionally aggravating it. From my experience as an editor, a sufficiently clear red line can only be one which stipulates that certain articles and section are taboo to interaction. The above proposal that users can edit one and the same article but only on the condition of not interacting with one another in any way I find thoroughly unworkable and a sure receipt for disaster. This would almost certainly lead to the destruction of our accounts in a cloud of confusion and allegations and counter-allegations, if we start editing the same articles.

Moreover, a majority of users, particularly those with past experience of TI's behaviour, agrees with me that a ban which would place the same restrictions on me as on Teeninvestor would be unbalanced and unjust to me given his aggressive edit pattern. Obviously, the topic scope can and should be better/more narrowly defined, but our disagreement has been practically confined to questions relating to military and economic history (particularly with what I regard Teeninvestor's continual efforts to subsume European and Western history under China by making strained and unnecessary synthetical comparisons as someone else fittingly observed), so I am positive we could work something out if the majority of users believes a ban of some sort is necessary. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

But you are his main opponent, your suggesting restrictions for him is clearly better avoided, also, teeninvestors restriction that was imposed by Todd has no value and should be removed and forgotten about. What you guys need to work on is getting on, you have what looks to me as a content dispute and you both seem to be intelligent just with opposite views, try to meet in the middle and add both sides to the articles. For the duration of the RFC simply avoid any further fall outs. Off2riorob (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. I am not his "main opponent" or what you make of it for the reasons given above. Perhaps you would like to read the RFC/U on Teeninvestor first to get more background info. I won't comment any further on TI, but I don't see a reason why this proposal should be less seriously discussed than the one above. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I think it likely that the RfC will settle these matters anyway, and sooner rather than later. Interim, I don't characterise this as the failure of two sides to settle their differences in a content dispute. Just some thoughts here; on the one hand, cited content based on scholarly sources. On the other, generalised appeals. Coming in from left field, "civility" issues (yes, scare quotes; it's possible to edit and discuss tendentiously and destructively, all with the most winning good manners). Maybe a couple of own-goals, one or two fouls worth a penalty. But should all this be lumped together and redistributed evenly between both "sides"? I'm beginning to wonder about the usefulness and justice of a judiciously even-handed ban in these circumstances, even if temporary. Haploidavey (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This link proves that I never cite my sources. Same here and here. I wonder if any of the editors above who claim I have weak sourcing has accumulated more numerous and reliable sources than this?Teeninvestor (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I may well have, and I'm certainly someone who has said before that you've used sources improperly - you must recall discussions about WP:SYNTH. I don't want to rehash old arguments, just point out that I am speaking out of experience. It may well be that you no longer do that, I haven't looked at discussions involving you for a while. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, Teen. Your link compels me to clarify my position. My comments here apply to editing at Roman metallurgy. My contribution as an outsider at the RfC is limited to the same. Haploidavey (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record I also cited several of the sources there such as Wagner 2001 and Needham 1986 for the dispute on Roman meatllurgy, but apparently no one wanted to look.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not about the content, which you should take to the relevant page, where it has been stated repeatedly that sinologists are not experts on ancient Rome. Arnoutf (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In my view Teeninvestor should stay away from any historial China-Europe comparison, either on Chinese history, or on Europe History pages, as in both cases he seems to promote a "China was the best" non neutral POV. How this would be captured in a topic ban is beyond me, as it involves all European and far east articles but those only on comparative history. Arnoutf (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have one thing to say: The speed at which the quality and balance of the articles involved have declined is truly astounding. I intend to respect my editing restriction and refrain from editing these articles or topics related to this in ancient Chinese history, but these diffs speak for themselves 12 3.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid they do not speak for themselves, unless you intend to show that Gun Powder Ma is encouraging restraint in the making of sweeping "best of" and "first to" claims. My involvement is limited to Talk:Roman metallurgy (where I tried to put myself in Teeninvestor's shoes and see his grounds for questioning information) and previous exposure here and there to GPM's work in areas pertaining to ancient Rome. My concern as I review these proceedings is that Teeninvestor mistakes criticism of his methodology for personal attack, and equates "balance" or "neutrality" with the need to make truth claims more appropriate to the Guinness Book of World Records than to an encyclopedia. Report information, and leave it at that; what good are claims of national superiority, and always debatable "originality"? This raises questions of POV pushing, fairly or not. Also, at Talk:Roman metallurgy, Teen argued insistently while asserting factual information that was point-blank wrong and easily corrected, if he had bothered to conduct neutral research; he deleted material that was properly sourced, without offering sources that directly contradicted GPM's valid sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I was contesting a source that stated that the Roman Empire had a higher iron production per capita than Europe in 1700, Han or Song China. That statement is the ancient equivalent of claiming that Brazil has a higher computer per capita production than the United States, considering that Romans did not have cast iron, steelmaking technology, or any other advanced iron smelting technology. All the sources I have on Chinese and European iron production per capita contradict this. Above editors claim to want "reliability" but I wonder what will the expert think when he goes to wikipedia and it claims that movable type was insignificant or that Rome had more advanced iron technology than 1700 Europe.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin Buckshot06 re-prodded article and displayed incivility when challenged

Closing admin flogging per Bold and WP:Deadhorse....nothing to see here, really
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Buckshot06 has not followed policy concerning not re-prodding an article where a PROD has been contested; has treated me with incivility by falsely accusing me on my talk page of “harassing” other admins; and also repeatedly ignoring my request to not post messages on my talk page: As an Admin, Buckshot06 must know that it is against WP:CONTESTED policy to replace a removed PROD tag to an article, yet he does just that here. After I removed the improperly restored prod tag (and properly notified Buckshot06 here), Buckshot06 ignores the message at the top of my talk page to not post messages and, in violation of [WP:CIVIL]], posts the false accusation that I am harassing other Admins here. This is, at its best, a violation of WP:AGF, and at its worse it is an example of taunting or baiting. I responded to that post on his talk page (as stated I would on my own talk page) and told Buckshot06 directly that I did not want him to post any more messages on my talk page here and also here. Ignoring my request to stay off my talk page, Buckshot06 taunts me with this posting on my talk page, even though he could have more easily posted the same message at our discussion taking place on his talk page. I have become discouraged with Wikipedia precisely because some Admins seem to act as though policy does not apply to them; and then, when challenged or corrected, use their position/experience to bully. Even though Buckshot06 is an Admin (or perhaps because he is an Admin) I believe that he must abide by the same policy and rules of civility that is demanded of other editors. Inniverse (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Without taking sides, and having no idea the history behind any of this, other than what you linked here, I will just post my observations to what I see. 1. The fact that Buckshot06 is an admin seems to have no bearing on the readdition of the PROD. 2. He seems to have admitted his mistake on the PROD, and tried to tell you so on your talk page. 3. Why would he say that you are harrasing admins? 4. Why do you not like messages on your talk page. Isn't that the whole point of them? 5. I don't see how the last comment by Buckshot was taunting. And thats all I have to say about that.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC) As for his claim that I harassing other admins, he appears to be upset that I have challenged the closing of two AfD's where the articles were deleted when it looks like no consensus to me. Following policy, the first step it to raise the issue with the closing admins, which I did here and here. To answer you next question - despite having an open discussion with me on his talk page, Buckshot06 ignored the top message and two direct requests to not post on my talk page. That is why I describe that last action as taunting. Inniverse (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC) You can do what you wish with your talk page, but I wouldn't expect a minor disregard for whatever rule you created to be construed as taunting or harassment. Protonk (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC) You are confused. I have not accused Buckshot06 of harassment - he came to my talk page to make that accusation of me. Inniverse (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Taunting then. Either way. The article is now at AfD, the prod tag is removed. I would describe Buckshot's response as less than optimal, but I don't see a grave error. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry, that is not less than optimal. That is completely wrong. This is a blatant [81] assumption of bad faith, and he was told to stay off his talk page and went to it. this is a clear violation of WP:HARASSMENT. We routinely enforce any situations where someone is told to stay off someone's talk page. This is extremely poor behaviour from an administrator and shows very bad judgment.--Crossmr (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Completely agree with Crossmr. Was what Buckshot had to say really that important that it required communicating with Inniverse on his talk page? Was there not a common article they were working on that he could have posted his apology? The repeated returning to Innverse's talk page was a blatant disregard and stab at Inniverse basically saying "I will have the last word and you cant stop me from talking to you". A classic power play and attempt to demoralize an "opponent" (from Camelbinky's Art of War on Wikipedia). The fact that the admin hasnt come here to defend themselves is also troublesome and disconcerting. Is there an admin out there with the balls to say "I'll monitor this admin and if he continues to seem like he doesnt have the civility to be admin action will be done". Admins, step and show the regular editors you have the balls to police your own, including blocking and desysoping. Perfect opportunity.Camelbinky (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Protonk's right--saying "don't use my talk page as a talk page" is entirely unhelpful, and ignoring that directive is not per se harassment. If you don't want to have a talk page, edit as an IP. Setting up "rules" that themselves are at odds with community norms, and then expecting them to be adhered to by admins with whom one has started a conversation is certainly not working collaboratively on the project. Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I would definitely have to say that Buckshot's actions here were completely wrong. It would have been fine if he had just made a mistake in regards to the PROD, as everyone does every once in a while, but his comments to Inniverse after s/he told him that his actions did not follow policy were completely out of line. Also, Inniverse is certainly not the first person I have seen who has asked others not to have discussions on their talk page. Buckshot was already informed of this by Inniverse and has no reason to comment again on the said user's talk page. That would, most definitely, qualify as taunting. Buckshot could have just as easily responded on his own talk page, which he should have done. I do think there needs to be some action taken here and I echo Camelbinky's statement that an Admin should not be left off when they do something wrong. I have seen too many Admins let off on their actions by other Admins. The Administrative community needs to police their own members and, if they do not, they cannot blame the multitude of other users that refer to Admins as a "cabal". I have certainly thought the same at many points in time and have seen little to discourage the viewpoint. SilverserenC 07:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC) @Jclemens initially that's fine, but he went there and specifically told him to stay off his talk page. That is blatant harassment and that very scenario has come up here time and time again and it is always upheld as harassment and inappropriate. This is disgusting behaviour for an admin and the fact that other admins would sit around here and try and excuse it is an even further disgust. Admins aren't above the polices and guidelines, they're only there to enforce them when people won't adhere to them.--Crossmr (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC) this edit is the only thing I've looked at, as it was described as "taunting" by the original complainant. It is objectively unreasonable, in my view, to call that edit taunting. It amounts to advice on collaboration with a reasonably friendly and conciliatory tone. If that is the worst administrative misbehavior the original complainant can come up with, then there's no actionable complaint here. If the circumstances had been different (less polite message, less clear encyclopedia-building reason for leaving a message, more objective reasonableness in the initial request to keep off of a talk page) the circumstances might be different, but the bottom line is that it is objectively reasonable in my view for an administrator, even one who's had a disagreement with a non-administrator, to post friendly advice on a talk page in this precise fashion. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Concur with Jclemens. --John (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC) No, actually, this response is the one that is much more problematic. I wasn't clear on the fact that PROD tags created an illusory "consensus" when you add them to an article. I'll have to make sure to remember that one for my future activities, it's always useful to have imaginary consensus behind you when you're doing something. (Oh, and hello new member of the "cabal", welcome to the discussion). SilverserenC 18:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I agree that's much more of a problematic edit, and suppose the OP has overplayed his hand and lost sympathy by complaining about the talk page edits, when the more problematic issue came before that. I'd be interested to hear Buckshot06's explanation. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC) He hasn't responded so far in this discussion. What makes you think he will at all? SilverserenC 21:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I don't think that this rises to the level of something we need ANI for. Buckshot6 acknowleged the re-prodding was in error under policy and did the right AFD thing, and at least implicitly acknowledged the talk page posting was too confrontational when he refactored it himself to a much less problematic form. Inniverse is overreacting to the use of his talk page in normal manners - the request to not use it for discussion is unusual, and while people should take that into account, we don't have to slavishly follow his request as long as talk page posters adhere to other policy normally. If Buckshot6 were more confrontational it might have risen to harassment but it doesn't seem to have gone nearly that far to me. Admins making huge mistakes are certainly grounds for ANI threads. Admins making normal mistakes or getting into low-level arguments with people really isn't. Please keep perspective - we don't demand perfection of admins, what we do demand is that they work responsibly to improve situations, and de-escalate confrontations (both those they see, and those they are involved in). Inniverse may have seen it differently, but Buckshot6's behavior here stepped back after an initial minor overstep. I believe that both users perhaps deserve a {{minnow}} but nothing worth a long ANI thread about. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Apologies everyone for me showing up late. I've been busy IRL. Right, points in order; yes, I freely admit that I made a mistake reprodding the article - I lost track. Second, the consensus that I referred to was in relation to two deletion debates, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/436th Transportation Battalion (United States) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th Transportation Battalion (United States). Third, I would repeat my suggestion that User:Inniverse says on his talkpage that he is watching or otherwise monitoring others' talkpages after he posts messages. I am not sure how people contact him in the first instance though. That's the substance of the dispute. On remedies, I said at my RfA that I was going to be an administrator open to recall. I do not believe, from reading the comments above, that this situation meets that standard, but anyone is free to start gathering votes to start off that process if they should wish. Regards to all from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I think this is far short of anything deserving recall, personally. On a related note, Inniverse just substantially overhauled his talk page header, probably responding to some of the comments above, and notes that he'll follow your talk page and discuss things there with you if you leave a message on his. He notes that if he deletes comments that he's read and acknowledged them. This was a substantial improvement and a positive step to keep his goal (not have long discussions there) and still interface with other wikipedians as required. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC) A user specifically and directly told you to stay off his talk page. Are you incapable of respecting that? Do you think it was a good idea to go back to their talk page and post again?--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Inniverse reacted in such a way because he was reacting to a bad faith insult from a user he didn't want posting on his talk page anymore. Users tell others to stay off their talk page all the time and we've enforced that plenty of time in the past with consequences for ignoring it. Why does that suddenly go away because an admin did it huh?--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Because its all a conspiracy. Jesus.Protonk (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Ssh. I don't use that name in public. If it isn't a conspiracy then why aren't we upholding the same principles against this user that we uphold against every other user that comes through here? if you can't give a reasonable answer for that then your little joke was probably a lot more insightful than you intended.--Crossmr (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC) So what do you want then? A public flogging? If he hasn't already done so, just ask Buckshot to apologize for ignoring the request not to use Inniverse's talk page and move on. Resolute 14:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC) It would be appropriate for Buckshot06 to step down from his role as Admin. Policies have been established to help ensure that Wikipedia is an enjoyable community where its volunteer editors are encourage to be involved and to be bold. The incivility demonstrated by Buckshot06 shows that he is not ready to be an admin. We must remember that the Wikipedia project is manned by volunteers. If the volunteers loose faith in the Admins whose role it is to support policy (and thus support a positive experience for the volunteer editors) the Wikipedia project will de-evolve into a closed community of like-minded persons. That is not what Wikipedia is intended to be. Admins must demonstrate that they are committed to the ideals of Wikipedia. Buckshot06 has demonstrated to me that he is not there yet. Inniverse (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Buckshot is open to recall as he has stated repeatedly. If you think this issue is one worthy of recalling him, you can start a discussion to do so. My suggestion is that you not, because such a discussion wouldn't result in him being recalled and would be (as this thread is) a waste of time for all concerned. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC) I have also received Threats from User:Buckshot06 I believe that I have received a thinly veiled uncivil threat from Buckshot06 concerning material that i removed from the article in question. I originally added the material, and Buckshot06 removed it because of an error in Detail that i made, claiming that i was "twisting POV". When i readded it, i decided to remove it, as shown in the link above. The Fact, is, that after i saw the mistake, i did not go back to put the material back and now its not on the article anymore. not to mention the fact that not to mention the fact that Buckshot removed more than just that sentence. he removed "Racial slurs were allegedly used by the Chinese Muslim troops against Uighurs". the source does indeed show epithets that were used by Tungans (Chinese muslims) against Turkic muslims (Uighurs) [82] since the material is already gone from the article, this seems more of a very uncivil threat in trying to force me to apologize. He is also not assuming good faith, trying to tie the COPYVIO investigation against me into this POV accusation. the Fact is, since Copyvio means directly copying from the source, not adding my own material, and POV means i changed the material and twisted it to my own means, is that the allegations have nothing to do with each other. In his first comment on my talk page, he was very uncivil and did not assume good faith. I would like him to stay off my talk page unless he has a message concerning something that is currently on an article which concerns me.Дунгане (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Saying that someone is twisting POV or twisting sources does seem like a breach of WP:CIVIL, especially when there is no evidence presented that Дунгане is doing such a thing. SilverserenC 05:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Right. The context here was initially Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Дунгане, of which WP:MILHIST was alerted to by User:Moonriddengirl. On the associated AN/I thread, there were repeated concerns of racial POV being raised against Дунгане/Dungane. I'm a military formations specialist, so I took a look at the 36th Division article for the National Revolutionary Army, the Chinese army of 1911-192x. The issue was the User:Дунгане/Dungane was suspected of repeated copying of material inappropriately from sources. Thus I initially started my investigation thinking that unreasonably imported material might well need to be removed. When I started checking references, I found a section that seemed to twist the source. I'll replicate what I found in a moment, and I'd appreciate more eyes on it than mine. As of a couple of hours ago, I was going to leave the whole matter a couple of days and then seek a second opinion from a milhist coordinator. Bottom line: there are significant concerns with both copyright infringement and potentially POV in User:Дунгане's work, and I am acting in the interests of the encyclopaedia to investigate, as is the expectation I think among all admins. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC) This was the message I left on Dungane's talkpage: Page 308 of Flemming says '..From the crowd of spectators watching the netball match an old Turki detached himself, darted forward, and grovelled weeping at the general's feet.' He's been wronged by one of his sons, he said. He was imploring the general to do something about it. He grovelled to gain the general's attention and to show respect, not because he had been forced. This was the material which you appear to have changed into 'Tungan general forced Turkis to grovell before him.' What is your explanation? Buckshot06 Dungane responded by saying he'd made a mistake in detail, and complaining that I'd removed more than the offending section, which he has since removed indeed. I removed that data because of copyright concerns - It seems to run too closely to the source. I do not have the inclination to go through every page of Dungane's transcription of the 36th Division information to see how many times he has twisted sources, so I advised him that I would reduce the article to a stub. As I saiid, as of a couple of hours ago, I was going to seek a second opinion, and thereafter act as the other coordinator (I was intending to approach User:EyeSerene, but the coordinators in general are a pretty solid group) suggested. Third opinions very welcome.. how should this matter, which forms one small part of the overall CCI issue, be dealt with? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Ah, I thought that username looked familiar. I apologize. I have been overly and needlessly suspicious of you. SilverserenC 06:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC) (e-c)I see a pattern of incivility, and not a very good one, coming from someone who is an admin this is completely unacceptable. It is not acceptable to be rude or uncivil simply because another user has his/her own problems, two wrongs dont make a right (two wrights make an airplane however). An admin must be an example to all of us and be extra careful how he/she words things and their attitude. I call upon Buckshot, since he has said he is willing to be recalled, to simply willingly on his own give up his adminship. Once he no longer is an admin he can then go through the process again and see if the community agrees to let him have the "powers" again. His willingness to voluntarily give up the powers would, to me at least, show his contrition and maturity. It is one thing for him to say he's willing to go to a vote on losing his adminship (which those things usually never pass, so he's confident he'll keep his title) and another to give it up and then throw the dice on getting the adminship back. If he doesnt give up his adminship voluntarily I for one will be the first to yell "off with his head" and call for a recall.Camelbinky (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Camelbinky, thanks for your input. However I believe that my value to the encyclopaedia would be better measured by a discussion in the project I edit in, Milhist. I do not believe it's appropriate to step down on the call of one relatively uninvolved editor. Would you kindly please start a discussion on the Milhist talk page and see what the general feeling there is? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Ah, I forgot the exception to the civility policy- if you (and others) consider you an asset to your wikiproject you can be an ass to anyone you want that you and your friends think is "less important". The fact that I am uninvolved means my opinion has MORE weight than those who are your "friends". You have been rude. Admit it and atone. Yes, I admit that since I am an extremely important asset to the NYCD and NY wikiprojects that I have gotten away with a lot more than others who have done similar things as I have. Is that something that I am proud of? Hell yea, but that doesnt mean I'm going to let you get away with doing it. And where do you get off thinking you are soooo important to Wikipedia that anyone would rather you be an ass to people than lose you? Wow, I dont think your head can fit in my computer screen. And yes, I am a more important contributor to Wikipedia than you are if we are going to play that game I too can have a huge ego. Let's have a pissing contest while we are at it. If you can be rude to any editor you want as long as you are "more important to the encyclopedia" than the editor you are insulting then we should codify that in policy someplace and I can get away with calling you whatever I want I guess.Camelbinky (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC) I've responded with a suggestion in response to your original suggestion, how else would you prefer I atone? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC) The discussion is happening here, suggesting a change of venue for something which, with any other user, would get discussed here, isn't an appropriate discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC) I've told you, Buckshot, how you can atone- give up your adminship. If you are confident you have simply made a small mistake and have not been overly rude then you will receive it back if you choose to go through the process again. I have seen from you no apology regarding your tone in talking to people. An admin must be respectful, thoughtful, considerate, and extremely careful in their choice of words. I have not seen any of that from you in any discussion you have had with anyone. Nor have I shown any humility. I have seen the exact opposite of all that. I can proudly say I dont have any of those traits when it comes to Wikipedia, but of course I dont have any wish whatsoever to be an admin. For you it seems to be a power/status issue and you would probably do much better without the "fancy title". If you want to atone, begin with admission of guilt, apology to those you did wrong by being rude to, ask for forgiveness from the Community at large, and then show by example you have seen the error of your ways and that others should see your example and know they should not do the things you did before. I have not seen anything from you that leads me to believe that you understand that being rude and forcing yourself onto people's talk pages and talking down to them is wrong and unacceptable. Show me you wont do it again.Camelbinky (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC) I do not believe this is necessary. While I do think that Buckshot should have been reprimanded for his actions with the OP of the first section, that did not include de-sysopping and his actions with Дунгане certainly do not count, as this user is under a thorough investigation of adding copyrighted material, which has been done in most of their edits. I can completely understand Buckshot getting fed up with such a person and I do not think he said anything that was bad enough to warrant much of a warning and certainly nothing to de-sysop for. This is unwarranted, so please stop this "atonement" business. SilverserenC 15:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC) It would be appropriate for Buckshot06 to step down from his role as Admin. Policies have been established to help ensure that Wikipedia is an enjoyable community where its volunteer editors are encourage to be involved and to be bold. The incivility demonstrated by Buckshot06 shows that he is not ready to be an admin. We must remember that the Wikipedia project is manned by volunteers. If the volunteers loose faith in the Admins whose role it is to support policy (and thus support a positive experience for the volunteer editors) the Wikipedia project will de-evolve into a closed community of like-minded persons. That is not what Wikipedia is intended to be. Admins must demonstrate that they are committed to the ideals of Wikipedia. Buckshot06 has demonstrated to me that he is not there yet. Inniverse (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC) I think that would be an overkill: I don't think Buckshot06's actions warrant a desysopping at this stage; however, if that's the way you want to go, perhaps, in my opinion, it would be better to start an RFC... Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 16:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Agree, I haven't seen any abuse of admin tools. looks more like a dispute between two editors rather than an admin abusing powers. Buckshot06 is allowed to disagree as much as he wants. A revocation of tools would be a bit much in this case.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC) I think this is pretty much exhausted, user seems to realize he was a bit rude and that replacing the prod was a mistake and I'm sure he will be a bit more careful in future. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob's supportive belief towards Buckshot06 future attitude is commendable, and a good example of assuming good faith; but it I find it disturbing that Buckshot06 has yet to acknowledge to me that he understands how his actions were uncivil. Inniverse (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC) I think that its has already been dertemined that his comments were not uncivil, so an acknowledgment seems unwarranted. Although if it helps, I'm sorry that this happened to you.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Jojhutton, what thread are you reading? It has definitely been acknowledged that Buckshot was rude and uncivil, I'm a bit worried how you came to this discussion with that opinion.Camelbinky (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC) I will use the word atonement and any other such word I feel. As for Buckshot he does need to show the Community that he knows what he did was wrong regarding his tone and conduct. An admin is held to a higher standard. Just as a janitor cant go around screaming at children in a school hallway swearing and calling them names an admin cant go around being rude. This is an admin who thinks because he has that title that it is his job to police and control the actions of others. Other way around, admins ONLY carry out the decisions and consensus of the Community and do what WE want. This is an admin that needs to learn the way things are. Make an example now so the worst of the admins that are still out there will take notice. No admin should EVER lose control and/or be uncivil, if you cant be held to the highest standards possible then you shouldnt be an admin. I am sick of this "oh, yea, he went a bit overboard and was uncivil, but he's learned his lesson" crap, no he has not, he has yet to publicly apologize and admit that it is not ok to go to another's talk page when asked not to. Buckshot- apologize and admit that a talk page is not a place you can go willy-nilly anytime you want. That's all I've been waiting for this entire time. If you had apologized and admitted it was wrong I would have supported you.Camelbinky (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC) I strongly oppose this idea. All editors should only be sanctioned for what they've done and never for what someone else is doing or has done (to make an example of them would amount to that). Nobody should be used a scapegoat and quite frankly I think that such a proposal is offensive. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 17:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Can't comment on Buckshot06's actions but from what I have seen from Дунгане so far, he is the wrong person to point the finger at someone else. Although barely a month registered on WP, he has left us with absurd notions on military history such as Chinese muslims armed with swords inflicted massive casualties on the Russian forces armed with machine guns, tanks, and planes trolled heavily at Talk:Military history of China (pre-1911)/Archive 1#pray tell gun powder ma and maliciously tried to stir controversy about homosexuality at Roman Empire, now luckily removed (1) Given his additional habitual disregard for copyright, the loose use of which throws a bad light on Wikipedia anyway (we are the world's largest online repository on fair use rationale pics - how self-serving), I have to say that I am sympathetic to Buckshot06 who, as expert on military and copyright questions, has had to put up with a lot of stuff. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Vexorg on Criticism of YouTube

Criticism of YouTube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article I keep on watchlist because, well, people don't like it, and often include unsourced material about their pet peeve. One such user, Vexorg (talk · contribs), has been doing this on-and-off sometimes (he did this back in February). He's hit the article again, here. Now, in his edit summary, he says that he's restoring sourced material, and he's technically right... if you count them as sources. Most of the "sources" are to Youtomb or political/religious channels on YouTube about ZOMG CENSORSHIP (and for the record, I actually subscribe to Thunderf00t; I just don't see him as an RS for Wikipedia). But the worst part is the anti-IDF paragraph... using sources such as Portland Indymedia and American Freepress, full of anti-Israeli invective which, to crib from Alan Grayson, would blame the Israelis for ruining the suicide bomb industry if they ever found a peaceful solution to the conflict. And these are proper sources? At the very least, I recommend the "reviewer" right be stripped from him; as he cannot differentiate between reliable sources and horse manure, he cannot be trusted with a tool that could potentially introduce libel into BLPs. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reported this user for edit warring... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Sceptre_reported_by_User:Vexorg_.28Result:_.29 on this artickle. Please not his offensive comments in his reversions. I also read his politically motived diatribe in his summary above and cannot take it seriously as it simply reflects his personal subjective opinion on the sources in the article Vexorg (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerical note, the page in question has been protected for one week to (hopefully) induce discussion and stop the edit war. --Chris (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Still, the "reviewer" right should be removed. Vexorg simply can't be trusted with it. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The above exposes your childish agenda because it goes BEYOND the contention on this article and attacks my editor status as a whole.Chris was right in protecting the page to to stop your edit warring. Looking at the edit history of that page you have a clear 'ownership obsession' of that article. All I did was restore properly sourced material. YOU jumped in with an immediate edit war obsession straight away because another editor trod on your perceived territory. . Vexorg (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not protect the page to stop Sceptre from edit warring. I protected it to stop the edit war. As you so correctly pointed out, it takes two to edit war. Do not misconstrue my action as support for your position. --Chris (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, how many times do I have to say this? YouTube is not a proper source. YouTomb is not a proper source. Indymedia is not a proper source. American Free Press is not a proper source. And there is nothing "childish" about upholding the policies of Wikipedia, which, sadly, I seem to be the only person doing so for that article. Well, and Chris too. Thanks for protecting the right version. :) Sceptre ^(talk) 05:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, how many times do I have to say this? YouTube is usually not a proper source. :) Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe YouTube et al fall squarely under WP:SPS. So yes, they would usually not be proper. --Chris (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are only four out of dozens examples from user:vexorg edit history: removing a note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anti-semitic; arguing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-Semitic; Inserting BLP on Tony Blairabsurd editing. With such record the user should be banned on a few topics at least, and not given reviewer rights.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Eech. He's worse than I thought. No wonder I was the subject of personal attacks. I mean, I'm already considered far-right at my university for not thinking Israel should be wiped off the map :P Sceptre ^(talk) 05:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Vexorg does seem to be a very problematic editor. Someone else pointed him out earlier, and looking at his contribs I can see why. Not just in relation to Israel, but really just about everything. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Vexorg has a longstanding and disruptive pattern of POV-pushing and incivility. Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Given this discussion and his block history, I'm going to remove his reviewer rights later today unless there's some strong objections. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral for now. "The permission is removed at the request of the user, the community, or the arbitration committee." Removal would seem to have to wait until more discussion by the community has taken place. Under the current phrasing... Doc9871 (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• I am also unsure about removing his reviewer rights, this effectively disenfranchises a user, he does have issues, but are his additions vandalism, if they are only poorly cited or POV then they can be dealt with through reverts and reports as usual. Has he misused his reviewer rights? As more is known about the reviewer right now the community could use a discussion as to if and when the rights can or should be removed. Also as the pending changes trial is about to expire and is in need of consensus support to continue, the reviewer right could be redundant. Off2riorob (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: the reviewer right can be removed at the request of the community. I see Dougweller's comment above as initiating such a request. I'd suggest that !votes should be made with that in mind, and not whether Dougweller is correct in removing the right (Dougweller hasn't removed the right: they've opened a community discussion about removing the right). TFOWR 10:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note That's correct, I'm not going to remove his right without some form of endorsement of that action. But I can't see how it 'disenfranchises' him. And I simply do not understand why someone with a substantial block history for edit warring (Feb 2010, 4 blocks in 2009, 1 in 2008, 1 in 2007) should have been granted the right in the first place. This latest block just underlines the issue. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of experienced quality contributors that have substantial block history for edit warring. Has he misused the reviewer right? Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That may be so,, and I don't know if he's misused the right, but do we want them to have reviewer rights? It's a serious question. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

After the two months trial now more is known about the workings of the tool and it is closing today or tomorrow and community consensus support is required to continue, here Wikipedia:Pending changes/Closure. I would say if it is kept then a discussion on the points your asking is needed to clear these issues up. Personally I am of the opinion that the tool is primarily designed to be quite easily issued and is primarily designed to keep actual vandalism out of articles and if a user has not violated that then he has a right to keep the tool. Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is obviously moot, so I'm not going to take any action. I'll probably comment in any discussion if it's kept, as I think this should only be given to trusted editors, and that many blocks for edit warring shows he isn't to be trusted. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes agreed its moot at the moment. Other users have recently also commented in support of your position but I agree that is a needed topic of discussion only really possible after the community decides if we shall keep the tool. I also note that although not opined for a lengthy period there was not one comment in support of removing the right from the user.Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer right should only be revoked for misuse of the reviewer right.Gerardw (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; in my opinion, if, through their actions, an editor shows that they don't understand our policies regarding BLPs or reliable sources, then, even if they do not technically misuse the reviewer right, it can be revoked. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 20:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• As initiator, Salvio is entirely on the money. Given how much power reviewer gives a user—in effect, they could become liable for defamation litigation if they are found to have accepted a defamatory edit—and how the right introduces defamation to a volatile article for about 95% of the readership if said edit is accepted, an editor would need to exhibit that they can identify reliable sources and understand NPOV, at the very least. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• I think that Vexorg's longstanding pattern of engaging in disruptive and uncivil editing is causing a problem. They are repeatedly POV-pushing on talk pages and in article space, have been warned many, many times on their talk page about incivility and edit warring (for example, 1, 2, 3), and are persistently incivil (for example, 1, 2). And, for some older civility problems, I left a post on the user's talk page months ago regarding a discussion in which the editor was participating in which he persistently accused everyone disagreeing with him of having a sinister political agenda:1. Now, I'm glad that Wikipedia doesn't block people for simply holding fringe views. But when an editor combines POV-pushing for fringe views with persistent personal attacks on other editors, at some point you have to wonder what they are contributing here, and how to get this editor to stop being disruptive to the community.... Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Advice wanted on User:Wyvren

Before I make a specific proposal this time, I'd like advice. Wyvren (talk · contribs) has been blocked three times for edit-warring and personal attacks/harassment. He also edits as 97.82.45.48 (talk · contribs) although not during the times his account has been blocked. This IP has now been blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks, specifically [83] where he tells an editor to "Piss off you slant eyed-gook". I'll also point out Wyfren's edit here [84]. which I think is useful context. I'd like suggestions on how to deal with this, as I don't think the named account should be free to edit if the IP he's used has been blocked. Thanks. I'll notify Wyvren. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed WP:ANI#Requesting oversight on gross slander which is directly relevant to this. Dougweller (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin and don't know what your proposal might be, but I have just spent some time reviewing this user's contributions and block logs. I would strongly support a site ban for the user and the related IP. Minor4th 07:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Also note the user's edit summaries, particularly within the last month. My personal view is that if self-identified pedophiles are subject to ban on site (and I agree they should be), so also should be self-identified racists. Minor4th 07:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:DIFFS, please? This guy shouldn't be banned, but blocked when he's disruptive (and he is being disruptive "a little bit"). Just a cursory look shows a civility problem, and an overly "strong" interest in Akins and other select Scottish-related articles. The IP and Wyvren... quack. A topic ban on this article (at least)? It couldn't hurt. Sock case? Probably not necessary, but should be addressed... Doc9871 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this edit shows that the IP = Wyvren; he logged in and signed for comments he left as the IP. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's the part where I eat my words. I have a feeling that commons:User:Ravenlaird is Wyvren. If you look at the history for Sporran, a bunch of images he uploaded to Commons were removed; fast forward six days to when Wyvren's IP readds links to new versions of the same images, only these were upped by Ravenlaird. Guess I'll start a thread up here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's evidence of illegal activity then that warrants an immediate ban and contacting the authorities. If there's any of that you should immediately contact someone with oversight, not post it here. If that's not what's occurred then you need to provide diffs and go through the normal channels. No matter how repugnant personal opinions about certain issues, ethnically rooted issues being near the top of the list, we go through normal channels. It's not the same as illegal material. Shadowjams (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that hate speech should be treated as any other repugnant personal opinion. I think there should be zero tolerance for it -- irrespective of whether it's illegal or actionable. "Piss off you slant-eyed gook" is only representative, but it's bad enough and shouldn't be tolerated. I don't think Wiki has normal channels suitable for dealing with that kind of invective. I recall seeing Jimbo make a similar statement that seemed imbued with the aura of policy, but I don't have it handy and don't care to search for it. Doug asked for advice and I'm weighing in with my opinion. If the community will tolerate hate speech, I think that's unfortunate. It's not the Akins article or the Scottish dress articles that are the problem. Minor4th 10:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean in your comment because it's somewhat ambiguous, but I will never support blocking an editor solely on the basis that their statement disagrees with my personal politics. More importantly, however repugnant an individuals' personal beliefs are to me personally, that is not a reason to block them. If they're disruptive, certainly if they're illegal, then block them, but I'm quite worried about the language you're using to support this kind of block. A free market of ideas requires ideas we don't like to be articulated from time to time. If you disagree explain why, but you can't simply appeal to authority to shut it down. Shadowjams (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no "Hate speech" crime in the U.S. absent a separate provable crime. Shadowjams (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. The "reference" to Jimbo's statement: I'm not seeing the diff; and you should always search for it. As far as "hate speech": the community doesn't tolerate it as a rule. The derogatory comment he made was bad, but it's not enough to ban him. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

See also this diff, where Wyvren describes himself as "a White Rights advocate and an anti Semitic Supremacy activist". A person with those views, who makes offensive racist attacks against another editor, and who edits an article on a white supremacist site to describe opposition to antisemitism as "support (for) Jewish supremac", is someone this project can afford to do without. RolandR (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it, Shadowjams. Can I now get away with calling you a moronic asshole because I am part of the Shadowjams-is-a-fucking-idiot-party, and that's my "personal politics"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You can call me whatever you want, so long as it's your opinion and it doesn't make false factual claims about me. I certainly can't start a criminal investigation about it. If you really think I'm a moronic asshole, there's a procedure for that. If someone causes a bunch of trouble, and does it to try and piss people off, then let's block them, quickly. But because someone shows up and has an unpopular opinion, we don't get a short-cut to blocking them. 99% of the time these people give us an excuse as is. But if we make it a matter of principle, which I think I've done, do I really have to explain the next step? I feel like Noam Chomsky crossed with Rush Limbaugh here, neither of which I agree with, but I feel like I'm doing First Amendment 101 here. Shadowjams (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a private website, the first amendment is a red-herring. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just gonna say, the first amendment doesn't apply; secondly, how about it'd be my politics that you should be strung to a tree, raped with an iron-rod, and subsequently be gassed, and I say so repeatedly on talk pages? Then what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't insult me. The 1st amendment has implications beyond application to private non-profits based out of Florida, although that's relevant to. I'm not going to have a legal discussion with you here. I might actually agree with your reasoning for block above. I just want to temper your lust for a defacto ban on political discussions that are unpalatable. It should go without saying that I also find the original political views disgustingly incorrect. Shadowjams (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't implying you agreed with them. I was seriously trying to find out where you'd draw the line. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that we don't ban (or block) people for their "views" (what they think) - only for violations of standards and policy (what they do). People will believe what they want to believe: all of us included. If he (Wyvren was his name, right?) affects WP in a negative way from now on, it will most likely be noted and acted upon... Doc9871 (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly -- somebody can be a closet-Nazi, Racist, Myca-g-... err--hmm "woman-hater" -- and we'll never know it, and that's fine. Once that someone posts rants and slurs onto pages, it's time for action. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the problem (as I see it) that his IP address is blocked but he's been left free to edit. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Not if he's using a stable IP. :) But beyond that, if he does, it's block evasion. It usually results in a restart of the block countdown, at least. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Doh, I wasn't thinking! However, shouldn't it be part of his account's block record? Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, if he logs in from a different IP he could still technically edit. I don't really know if it should be part of his block record. We're not supposed to use block logs for record keeping generally (per Wikipedia:Block#Recording in the block log), but this is an odd situation. There's a kind of precedent for user's who "vanish", per Wikipedia:Block#Recording in the block log after username change, but blocking is far from my usual tool use arena and this seems like a pretty grey area. Maybe this is a case for {{subst:IPsock|username|confirmed}}? If so, perhaps placing that on the IP and putting a note on the user's talk page indicating the connection and the block of the IP (with an appropriate edit summary) would suffice? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

His latest post to his talk page: Fuck Wikipedia and fuck all the leftist, liberal, faggot-loving Jew Communists that run this fucked up piece of shit website! - is there still any question about whether or not he is going to be a worthwhile contributor to keep around? Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Revdeling that edit summary, Doug.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, just to explain to others, it was copy and paste of what Wyvren put on his talk page. I take your point though. Dougweller (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Not for me. "The Foundation will not practice or tolerate discrimination on the basis of place of origin, ethnicity, citizenship, gender, age, political or religious affiliation, sexual orientation, marital status, family relationship, or economic or medical status. The Foundation aims to treat all people with respect, and to foster a productive environment free of harassment, intimidation and discrimination." Guidance for volunteers, they suggest. I'm guided. That kind of behavior does not foster such an environment. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked for "conduct inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere, interfering with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia", copied almost verbatim from Wikipedia:Blocking policy under "disruption." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. His edit was almost a request for that. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Moonriddengirl's indefinite block. While we do not by policy or precedent ban racists or other extremists from the project as a category, if they edit in a way which disrupts the encyclopedia or community or which brings the project into disrepute they are not contributing and not welcome. The block is entirely appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Fully support an indef block. Clearly disruptive and uncivil. Not interested in contributing productively. Shadowjams (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Moonriddengirl's indefinite block of username Wyrven (Is his identified IP indef blocked as well?) Minor4th 22:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The IP is known but, since we almost never indef block IPs, an existing 48h block was upped to 6 months. It can, of course, be renewed if there is more disruption from the IP after the block expires. —DoRD (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Minor4th 23:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

User:IainUK

Ok, I'm at the end of my rope here. This morning has been a challenge with User:IainUK who fails to read policies pointed out to him, and although asked multiple times to keep his conversation regarding the deletion of an article on the AFD page - with a previous notification about WP:HARASS - the editor continues to delete and add things to my talkpage contrary to requests. He has been warned by multiple users.

The overall genesis of the situation is:

• On 12-AUG, User:RHaworth tagged Andrew_Stone_(Pineapple_Dance_Studios) for CSD under A7
• About 10 hours later, User:Phantomsteve declined the A7 as notability was at least stated
• On 14-AUG, the main editor (User:IainUK of the above article left a message at User talk:Accounting4Taste – a talkpage that I have on my watchlist. In that specific message, IainUK had a rather mistaken belief of what WP:CSD being decline actually means.
• As Accounting4Taste is “retired”, I looked further into the article.
• The article at that time was completely unreferenced, and notability was weak as per WP:MUSN, WP:GNG and others. As WP:PROD was inappropriate for a challenged CSD, I brought it to discussion at the WP:AFD.
• IainUK left a message on my talkpage that showed that he continued to misunderstand what a declined CSD meant, and still believed that this meant it was a permanent article.
• I replied on my talkpage about what CSD meant, and directed him to read WP:DELETE.
• I removed a {{hangon}} tag from the article that had been mistakenly placed by IainUK, and advised on the article talkpage as to how to discuss the deletion at WP:AFD.
• IainUK began to comment on the AFD – again, mistaken about what a declined CSD meant. Editor then added some other text, which I properly formatted on his behalf. I recommended that he read WP:AFD to better understand the process, and how to reply.
• IainUK begins to attribute the AFD nomination to malice on my part both on my talkpage, and in the AfD.
• I advised the user that the nomination was in good faith, based on policy, including WP:BLP. I ask if he has read the policies that he has been pointed to.
• The editor becomes more aggressive, attributing further bad faith, and violates WP:NPA.
• As such, I ask the editor to refrain from further posting on my talkpage, and keep the discussion about the article on WP:AFD
• The editor begins to edit-war on my talkpage.
• I specifically emphasize the on the editor’s talkpage my request to stay off my talkpage, and then write a gentle notification about WP:3RR on my talkpage, plus my ability to remove offensive posts
• Contrary to my multiple requests, the editor continues to add/remove portions of my talkpage - based on the clear requests to stop WP:HARASSing me, I have undone them as vandalism
• At this point, I engaged another admin, and disengaged from the situation, although I was forced to remove additional edits to my talkpage
• User began to delete portions of my talkpage, which I restored.

I have disengaged, but the user doesn't get it. I'm always up for discussion, but after the violation of NPA and edit-warring on my talkpage, another Admin has recommend that I bring additional eyes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: editor and other admin have been notified of this discussion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be t'other admin, however I'd add that IainUK was also advised by Taelus (talk) two minutes before their most recent revert on Bwilkin's talkpage.

IainUK seems to have WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as regards deletion, as Bwilkins notes above. They've also tried to suggest by removing IainUK's post from Bwlkins' talkpage, Bwilkins was "bordering on slander". I advised them about WP:NLT and was met with a barrage of wikilawyering. Eventually I, too, disengaged, with a suggestion that IainUK bring the matter here if they remained unsatisfied with Bwilkins' and my handling of the matter. Instead they have continued the earlier edit-warring on Bwilkins' talkpage. TFOWR 15:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Already attempting to persuade user to disengage, I begun to do so prior to this ANI listing (got edit conflicted). Hopefully they will disengage, as the only real problem now is that they won't drop the topic. I think the problem is though that IainUK is assuming bad faith of Bwilkins AfD nomination, as they began by accusing him of not doing research/wanting to improve the article. They seem to have convinced themselves now that Bwilkins is biased, when really it is just an AfD discussion which should focus on content, not contributors. --Taelus (Talk) 15:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever it takes to add a WP:CLUE at this point, I don't care. This has been a distinct waste of editing time. Thick skin or not, short of saying "look, would you just fuck off, the nomination was based on a lack of WP:RS and WP:GNG, so go away" (which might have been considered a tad uncivil, although WP:SPADE might apply), this has been an absolute waste, and past WP:HARASS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

These two images probably need an experienced eye. The permission box reads "This is a "free image with no copyright restrictions".".. hardly compelling evidence. Rehevkor ✉ 18:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The first is reproduced from the group's official website, from their gallery here. The site says "© Click Records Entertainment Ltd"; there is no indication that the image has been placed in the public domain. The image is used in a variety of other sites, generally by way of promoting the group's appearances, but this doesn't place it into the PD either. The second image is a crop of the first. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Since these would not pass WP:NFC#UUI if non-free, I'll F11 them unless someone can think of a reason not to; or a better speedy criteria. Rehevkor ✉ 20:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pineapple Dance Studios (TV series)

BWilkins nominated this related article for deletion which seems a little odd. Primetime TV shows on major channels are pretty much a shoe-in as far as notability is concerned. What gives Bwilkins? Exxolon (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is this at ANI? While I agree with the sentiment, Bwilkins' talk page is a much better place to start this conversation. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I noted my error about an hour ago and withdrew the nom. With the crap surrounding the above editor and a related article, I admit I got a bit kerfuffled, understandably I'm sure. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think User:Bwilkins has been very unreasonable and the account he gives here is mostly exaggerated or biased. He has said himself that he only nominated the article for deletion to teach me a lesson that articles which pass a speedy deletion request can still be deleted. I accept I misunderstood that, but he could have just put a note on my talk page. Instead he nominated the article for deletion and made immature personal attacks, questioning my ability to read. When I have tried to delete those comments, citing WP:NPA he has reverted the edits. However, in the same conversation Bwilkins said he had researched the subject and found nothing, to which I replied that from the UK a standard search on google.com for the subject's name resulted in the first three pages being directly related to the subject. He deleted that reply (citing WP:NPA, despite his actual personal attacks on me) and marked the conversation as locked (or similar) and not to be edited. I asked him politely to either delete all the conversation, or put it back to its original form, but he constantly ignored me and deleted my attempts to talk to him calling it vandalism. It is my view that he is working the rules to his own personal advantage and it gives an unfair and false representation of the conversation. I can't see why he won't just be reasonable and delete it and forget about it. Even by the way he continues to talk about me, it is clear he has an issue with me, and whilst I always assume good faith, Bwilkins has made it obvious that the benefit of the project and community is not his top focus in this case. He is clearly a well experienced editor, and I have no doubt he has done great good for the community - but on this occasion he has clearly acted inappropriately.

All I can say about User:TFOWR is that they basically supported Bwilkins position, and so obviously we were in disagreement.

User:Taelus rightly advised, from a neutral point of view, that I just forget about it. This is good advice and what I would like to do - and I would like Bwilkins to do the same and show the reasonable gesture of removing or restoring the conversation.

I am an inexperienced editor - but I do my best. Bwilkins clearly has an issue with me, and I don't understand why. I have made mistakes, but we all do when we are new and I believe Wikipedia should be open and welcoming to new editors who are keen to do well. I regret that, on this occasion at least, I feel Bwilkins has abused his position as a long and respected editor to work around the rules to suit his own ends, while forgetting what is best for Wikipedia.

User:Rehevkor - I am not sure what the images have to do with this discussion - they have been tagged and I have responded accordingly.

That is all I have to say about this. I hope User:Bwilkins will agree that keeping the conversation as it is now is unfair to me, and not beneficial to the project or community in any way, and show that he is decent enough to do the reasonable thing and delete it. Other than that, I personally have no issues and am happy to continue editing and creating articles for the benefit of Wikipedia. IainUK (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"He has said himself that he only nominated the article for deletion to teach me a lesson that articles which pass a speedy deletion request can still be deleted"?? WTF? I don't teach lessons in childish manners such as that, and I have never said such a thing.

Let me say it clearly and carefully: at the time I nominated it, it was a new WP:BLP. It had ZERO references. The notability was therefore sketchy at first, and without ANY references, it was more than questionable. This is the SOLE reason that the article was AfD'd. Full stop. I don't give 2 shits about the topic, and I'm too old to play games and have something "against" an editor.

The editor unfortunately decided to go off on me on what appears to be a pet article, no matter how politely I did attempt to assist. The description I provided above is accurate: it was checked by another participant in the situation as accurate.

Accusations of "bias" and "abuse" simply because he did not like the fact that his article was nominated for deletion is pretty sad. Asking the editor "can't you read (the policies you have been linked to)" is not an attack, it's asking them to actually read the damned policy. God, this is childish. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note as the user has multiple times made stuff up about what actually wrote, I have made one final request to them to stop it. I have also in the same post advised the editor again why the article went to AfD (anyone can see that it was an unref'd BLP at the time of nomination), and also clarified how the situation escalated when it should not have, and how to avoid it in the future. Truly, as my philosophy is that everyone has something to add to Wikipedia, I wish this editor the best. By now, he has had a hard lesson on how important it is to actually read the policies that someone gives them before they go off half-cocked. As they seem to have finally been given a WP:CLUE (although only partly, according to their above statement), I'm willing to consider this resolved, for now ...as of this point, they have finally stayed off of my talkpage for over a day - if they return, I will be asking for additional action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Admin assistance with ITN/C

Resolved

 – All three items now up, with a new image too! Thanks, Mkativerata! TFOWR 07:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There are three stories (2010 Summer Youth Olympics, Death of Guido de Marco and AgBank has completed the largest ever IPO) that look like they could be ready for posting and the timer is now red. Can someone take a look? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look now. TFOWR 15:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done ...kind of. I agree with the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics and the Death of Guido de Marco; AgBank needs some work on the blurb, but I've said I'll stick it up as soon as that's resolved. I've not updated the picture: a smarter admin than me (i.e. any of 'em...) should do that, as I'm fairly certain I'll break something. Probably in a way that results in BC/Delta trouting me... TFOWR 16:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone else around who is happy to finish off the job tonight and change the image over? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I've put Agbank up and changed over the image. If anyone wants to crop the image, go for it. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Need an admin's help here

LiteralKa applied SPA tags[85] to my name on this AFD, which does not apply to me, so I removed them and explained in my edit summary that those didn't apply to me. LiteralKa then put them back, and I removed them again advising that he really didn't understand those tags[86]. Since he has restored them (even going so far as to quote WP:VANDAL[87], which also doesn't apply), I am not going to edit war over this, rather I would ask for an admin intervention here to resolve this situation. Whose Your Guy (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Informing me that you had "MANY" edits outside of this topic, including on the IP, is a blatant lie. LiteralKa (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

To most English-speaking people, many is more than 5. Anyone can see that I have had other edits OTHER than in this AFD, in which you claim I don't. Whose Your Guy (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

To most English-speaking people, many is relative, depending on the context. I claim nothing of the sort. I say that you have little, if any edits that are not "of this sort". LiteralKa (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite his claims that he was "not going to edit war over this", Whose Your Guy has done exactly that. LiteralKa (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• You are both beyond 3RR and subject to arbitrary blocking. I suggest you both quit while you're ahead. This is overkill by any standards, btw. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

To most English-speaking people, "Assume good faith" means not calling the other guy a blatant liar. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I cease assuming good faith when the other person is deliberately falsifying facts. This is an encyclopedia. LiteralKa (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

And what facts would I be falsifying? Diffs, please. And as I understand 3RR, its more than 3 reversions in 24hours unless reverting vandalism. In the context of the SPA tag, it doesn't apply to me so I didn't feel that I was (or did) violate 3RR. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Catch Once and Leave --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period. A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word. LiteralKa (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that he has done it again. LiteralKa (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

So I'm wrong by removing a wrongly placed tag? News to me. How do YOU define a single-purpose account, then, without "quoting the book"? Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a lot of edits unrelated to RfAs. LiteralKa (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's enough. The SPA tag does not apply so stop edit warring to keep it in place. —DoRD (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That's why I came here - I knew I wouldn't get anywhere by discussing it with LiteralKa. So what can I do if he applies the tags again? BTW - my true contribs are --> [88]. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone's going to really answer that until you explain how you managed to fill in your userpage, talkpage, add VOA's monobook, and find AfD in your first seven edits. Have you edited using another account? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Have I edited with another account? Yes, I have. In the interests of privacy, I would ask that it go no further than that. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you didn't intend to link to WP:VANISH? TFOWR 20:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I did intend just that, actually. I just never went through the formality of the right. Whose Your Guy (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

But you didn't vanish -- you're here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, let's just say that I did. Whose Your Guy (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, we'd just be wrong. :) Maybe you're thinking of WP:CLEANSTART? If so, it's strongly recommended that you inform Arbcomm of your previous identity. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

But according to that, I am under no obligation to reveal my previous account. It mirrors what you said about Arbcom, except the caveat is that I DON'T plan on gaining adminship or another similar position, so I can leave things as they are since my previous account is in good standing. Whose Your Guy (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I blocked LiteralKa for 12 hrs for edit warring and what was functionally a set of personal attacks in this.

This is the sort of thing where finding an uninvolved administrator should always be step 2 (or at most 3) rather than step 10. By the time you keep pressing that far, you're in the wrong. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Request help with user(shortened)

That being said I need help with User:Martin IIIa(user is real he just doesn't have a user page). Our whole confrontation began from him mocking me repeatedly for posting obviously wrong information to which I responded by posting evidence that proved the info correct. He referred to them as lies, and when I responded he deleted my responses to him here, here after I reverted him, here again after I reverted him again, here again after I reverted him again, and here after User:Eagles247 reverted him and warned him not to delete other users' comments from the talk page. I posted an apology for my rude behavior at Talk:Gamecube on his talkpage(near the end of the arguments I referred to him as being smug, self righteous, and blatantly dishonest, which I realize didn't help the situation and was inappropiate) and used the situation to ask if he would either apologize for claiming I kept posting "misinformation" or correct one of the points I made. To which he responded that there was no need to correct my claims, that they were obviously wrong and that if I was not willing to look them up and see that they're wrong then there was no helping me. To which I responded that I had looked them up and posted information proving that they were correct and that he had just called them "lies" and asked if he could specifically point to one thing.(got no response but he went back to the talk age of Gamecube and deleted my responses there, then coming to my page and threatening to report me to admins if I restored them or continued my "string of destructive edits". He has threatened to report me to the admins on my talkpage(where he also said that I'm "obviously very young" in a string of condescension he has made to me) and as well as multiple times in his edit summaries on Talk:Gamecubes history page after saying I will likely be indefinitely blocked for my actions here and here.

You really only need to read the above segment and the final few sentences at the bottom, these condensed portions just give a detailed history of all our encounters.

That I am blindly unwilling to accept all my info on the Dreamcast is false

Background 1
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here I said this(with facts inserted in parentheses and italics): Also the Dreamcast was supported for quite a long time with new arcade ports being released for the Dreamcast in Japan up to 2007(surprisingly enough what I read was outdated and they even continued supporting the system to 2009 with these games released:Triggerheart Exelica released in 2007, Last Hope released in 2007, Radium released in 2007, Karous released in 2007,DUX released 2009,Rush Rush Rally Racing released in 2009), and let's be clear that Sega's last console, which is rated highly and remembered fondly(Rated higher then the Gamecube on polls that I've seen, also credited with introducing online gameplay to consoles and a string of creative titles and well as a particularly dedicated and loving fanbase all of which I could prove but I don't know where the sources are and if Martin really wants to contest this then I will be happy to find them then), is a significant one and that the difference in sales numbers between the Gamecube(22 million) and the Dreamcast(11 million) pale in comparison to the difference in numbers between the Gamecube(22 million) and PS2(140 million). This post Martin responded to here thus: By the way, lest anyone reading this thread fall prey to misinformation: Wikiposter 0123's above post is loaded with factual errors. You can find correct information on the Dreamcast and its games on most reliable gaming sites. As I think I've shown adequately above my post is not "loaded with factual errors". Martin thought the Dreamcast was only supported for a few years after its release and did not believe me when I said it was supported up to 2007(all the way up to 2009 it actually turns out), but when I posted the games released he brushed them off not referring to how he was wrong about the Dreamcast's long support life but instead focusing on one unrelated point I made then referring to the games I listed and other points I made as "other lies". I mention this only because our whole argument was started because he has stated routinely and continues to attack me for constantly posting false information without a single example ever given of something false that I have said in regards to the Dreamcast.

That I am edit warring/showing blatant disregard for the rules

Background 2
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On July 26 I added this edit. A single sentence comparing the Dreamcast's sales to the Gamecubes(both part of the same console generation), so that the article noted that the PS2 sold 140 million, the Xbox 24 million, the Gamecue 22 million, and that Nintendo's previous rival Sega's current console only sold 11 million. I also added a reference to the comparison they had to the Gamecube's sales to the N64. On July 27 an IP removed the Dreamcast info saying "Outselling a console that was supported for only two years by a has-been console developer trying to minimize their losses is not notable."(just to state for those of you unaware, the Dreamcast was supported until 2009 and was supposed to be Sega's next big console. Stating they were trying to "minimize their losses" would've been a correct description of the Sega Saturn but not the Dreamcast.) I didn't feel like arguing for this because it was a fairly minor point so I did not revert the edit or go to the talk page, but later that day Alphathon reverted the IP's revert stating "Outselling the dreamcast is notable regardless of how long it was supported (it was a competitor after all). I'll add a note about how long it was on sale though)". The IP user then reverted Alphathon's revert of him stating "Removed non-notable info again. See discussion page". So the discussion began Talk:Nintendo GameCube#Dreamcast here with the IP stating some comparisons to the Dreamcast and some other consoles and politics and stating "Taking care to mention the short time the Dreamcast was supported makes it even worse," to which my post which began this whole argument began.(also Alphathon responded before me talking about why the Dream cast is notable and why political comparisons aren't accurate) Seeing as how the IP didn't respond, that I had just pointed out that his views on the Dreamcast being supported for a really short time were actually incorrect and that Martin was also for it's inclusion I decided to revert the IP's revert of Martin's revert here on July 28th believing that the IP probably didn't have the right to revert Alphathons's revert of his revert anyways and that my edit would be fine. Then Martin and I started "edit warring". He undid my edit stating "Edit warring simply demonstrates a lack of logical basis for one's position". I felt I had made a logical argument, pointed out the flaws in the IP's evidence who had just left and the only other editor Alphathon agreed with me, and nobody had challenged any of my arguments until Martin came and just started calling everything I said obviously wrong and lies. So largely out of offense to his comment that I was edit warring and had no logical basis for my position I reverted his edit explaining my edit stating "Edit warring? I undid an IP's revert based on consensus of the talkpage at the time". Which he reverted stating "No consensus had been reached; in fact, discussion had scarcely begun." After offering a compromise that was little different than my original edit, and after Alphathon and I agreeing to the compromise and the IP long gone I decided to insert the compromised text stating "per talkpage suggestion". Which he reverted saying "Talk page suggestion has not yet been agreed to by all involved editors." referring to the IP who had not posted since his initial comment who he then requested join the conversation and post. The IP then joined, said he thought it was an "open-and-shut case" and couldn't believe the discussion had gone on so long. The IP then added in the compromised text. Lastly Martin has been continually deleteing my responses to him and I restoring them, and this is the only other example of "edit warring". See User talk:Martin IIIa#August 2010 to understand what was going on there.

That I have made many lies

Background 3
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He has so far only actually brought up one "lie" that I made despite claiming that I have made many lies and there is some truth to that example he brought up(note this is not an admission that everything I have said is a lie like it may be tried to be construed as). I waited 4 hours for a response from the IP(I know I should probably wait longer than 4 hours, but I figured anyway that he had left the discussion entirely[which he did until coming back way later after being requested to return]). Four days later when mentioning that I waited for the IP to respond I just assumed (since I saw that it was 4 days since my last post) that I had probably waited 2 days before responding. I thought though that he would probably argue that 2 days was not long enough to wait, so I decided to stretch it to 4 days figuring in my mind 2 days and 4 days are both equally long enough to wait for a response and that the difference of 2 days would only matter to Martin, and that looking at to find the exact date would've been a waste of time because they're both a decent amount of time to wait. I did not realize that I had actually only waited a few hours before reverting and if I knew that I waited so little then I would'nt of mentioned how long I waited(knowing that Martin was going fixate on the any actual misinformation). Anyways so yes I did stretch the time from what I believed was 2 days to 4 days when in actuality I only waited to later that same day, but to use that as evidence that everything else I have said it a "lie" is a bit much.

I have asked for him to please just leave me alone, and I would like to just walk away from all of this, but I am afraid he is probably going to report me soon or something because I just reinserted my comments into the talkpage(which he gave me "one last warning" for or else he was going to report me). I really just want to pre-empt going through a block discussion led by Martin and am hoping just to get this out of the way and make my case now so that I can go on to editing other things, and not spend further time here.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No comment on any of this other than....holy shit! TL;DR. You Sir or Madam have probably won the award (not an actual award) for longest post typed by one person. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I read the whole thing. It's not that long, i've seen longer. Silverseren^C 22:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

13,000+ characters according to the watchlist when it was posted. Yeah, that's pretty long. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to somewhat agree with Neutralhomer. If you really want anyone to take action on your report, it would help if you could condense it down to something like an executive summary. Many (most?) admins and other editors will simply ignore something this verbose. —DoRD (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well you really only need the beginning and the last paragraph to understand what's going on. Those sum up the whole thing, I just went step by step to prove everything in the 3 sub sections that I had said. That being said I don't really need any action taken that I can think of, I just want this user to go away.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit:Using a trick I saw at the Obama talkpage I have just condensed three sections, I have also removed another paragraph, and shortened another. Better?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User's talk page blocked for no good reason

Rev. Ian Cook (talk · contribs) was blocked for trolling, but then he was accused by Excirial (talk · contribs) of being a sock puppet of Pastor Terry-John (talk · contribs). Despite the timing and claims of being clergymen, both men behaved in opposite manner (Cook approves of Wikipedia, Terry-John thinks we're possessed by Satan), and sockpuppets of Terry-John have attacked Cook ([89], [90], [91], [92], [93]), and attacked me for trying to help Cook ([94]). Unless there are checkuser results saying otherwise, there is no reason to say that Rev. Ian Cook is a sock puppet of Pastor Terry-John (Terry-John appears to be too stupid to run a well behaved sock, all his socks have been bad-tempered trolls). Despite this, PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs) has redirected Cook's talk page to his user page and put up a "blocked as a sockpuppet" notice when he was NOT blocked for that reason and when there is NO EVIDENCE that Cook is a sockpuppet, and then protected Cook's page. I left a message for PMDrive1061 explaining this, but he has decided to retire, without responding to my message at all. So, I need someone to undo PMDrive's work (I can't undo the redirect, I can't undo the protection, and as a non-admin it's not quite within my authority to remove the "suspected sockpuppet" message), or show me how Excirial and PMDrive1061 (who have otherwise been model admins in my view) have not been trigger happy. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): Per this PMDrive1061 has retired because of offwiki stalking and nothing being done onwiki (when it pops up onwiki) to fight it. I think it best to just leave PMDrive1061 alone, he has reached his limit of Wikipedia and we owe it to him (after all the hard work he has done) to just left him disappear. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but will someone clean up after him? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably needs a checkuser to make sure the accounts aren't together or part of other sockpuppets, then an unblock. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

But the block wasn't for sockpuppetry, the trolling Cook was blocked for was for going around saying "bless you for the work you do here," how is that anything like Terry-John's trolling of saying we're possessed by Satan for just being editors here? The only reason Cook was accused of sockpuppetry was because he and Terry-John are or claim to be clergymen, and they joined roughly around the same time. That's it, and there's plenty of evidence against sockpuppetry. It's completely unnecessary, but if it will get someone to do something, fine, include it. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues that make a connection plausable: timing of account creation; and the fact that subsequent socks of Pastor Terry-John have singled out Rev. Ian Cook's talk page and through that found your talk page - it would be odd for them to find this specific blocked account and then to remain fixated on it unless there's a connection. That may be enough to justify the need for a checkuser ... but I agree that without that firm evidence, we should AGF and at least permit talk page access for now. I'll re-allow talk page editing for now - restoring further access can be discussed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Page unblocked. I meant to do so earlier, but as you can see by my recent history, I've been busy. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Goodbye. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Took me a moment to realize you had already unprotected it was why I wasn't seeing protection to remove.  :-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Rev. Ian Cook is, regardless of any connection with Pastor whoever, an abuser of multiple accounts; he is also User:Reverend J. Connolley, User:Pmoultrie, and User:TheRevC. He's probably also some or another serial socker, but it doesn't really matter who; this abuse stands on its own. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, RevC is Cook according to a check user (before he had our policy on sockpuppets explained to him because it was assumed he was Pastor Terry-John), but where are you getting the rest from? Reverend J. Connolley (banned for being a puppet of Pastor Terry-John) left a nasty message on Cook's talk page (just like PTJ), and I'm failing to see any connection between Pmoultrie with any of this. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, jpgordon has checkuser access. He didn't state specifically, but I am guessing his statement above is based on a check. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I guess I should say so when I make declarations like the previous. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fuck me, without checkuser access this was all I could see. Nevermind everyone, I'm sorry for the mess. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No big deal. It gave me the opportunity to peek and get rid of a bunch of PTJ's sleepers. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ian, they're trolls, either friends, or the same guy on two connections. This is what they do.

@PMD; bummer, best wishes. Jack Merridew 09:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Teh User:Rev. Ian Cook trolled me on meta; [95], feigning to be User:A Nobody. There're two more of the same by m:User:NotAnybody, just above; [96] [97]. Both accounts are unified. I get this a *lot*, which contributed to another mess somewhere ↑↑ on this page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

These two now blocked on meta; m:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat#a couple of cross-wiki-trolls. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Its always best to confirm with a checkuser, and make sure. Hate to see innocent users get blocked, although that doesn't seem to be the case here.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Rev. Ian Cook" account *was* confirmed by Josh, just above, and the accounts are unified, so that's the same account on meta; it was blocked here and went off to meta to troll there. Someone shut down teh talk pages if there's another peep; block User:NotAnybody, too, as a sleeper, who was rightly blocked for trolling on meta. I was pointed at m:Steward requests/Global to get any globally blocked, if needed. These are garden variety trolls; they get swatted with the edge of a garden spade on a daily basis. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Frank Fascarelli

User:Frank Fascarelli is the newest incarnation of banned editor User:Torkmann. His signature style is to create a new account because we have not banned his IP address and nominate articles for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, Richard Arthur Norton is a pompous, foolish person that enjoys accusing other people of crimes that only exist inside his own mind. I see that he has had several blocks for incivility recently. He is following me around, striking out my comments, and taunting me. He is making me not wish to contribute to wikipedia. Are all editors like this? Frank Fascarelli (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard A. Norton also has a knee-jerk reaction to blame a "sockpuppet" whenever one of his articles is being deleted. see this "sockpuppet" complaint. Frank Fascarelli (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Maybe a friendly CU can look for IPs and sleepers, but that doesn't seem to fit the MO. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Is the IP blocked, or just the account? That is 8 times an account has been blocked, but he keeps using the same IP. Why isn't the IP blocked? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• • He uses the same IP every time? I have no idea what is IP address is because I'm not a CU. The IP that account used will be autoblocked for 24 hours, but that's it. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • I don't know, folks. He's vowed to move to Cote d'Ivoire where his IP cannot be traced and become an admin so he can, well, you folks can read the rest of that diff ... :-) –MuZemike 03:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I've put a checkuser block on the IP; there was one earlier in the year, but it expired. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've closed these AFDs per WP:SK 3...

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank John Bersbach, Sr.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Hamilton (general)

There are a few others I left open because they have an outstanding delete !vote. Not sure about this one..

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African-American pornographic actors

"Convert to category" might be considered a delete !vote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What are the other AfDs besides the ones you listed? I would like to see if the articles can be rescued. Silverseren^C 03:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlipMe
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manz Corporation
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheek’d

I was still tempted to close these per WP:IAR --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already got the Manz Corporation covered. I'll see what I can do about the other two. It would help if you went and voted in the AfDs yourself, whether it be for Keep or Delete. Silverseren^C 04:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No need, Armbrust struck his delete !votes so I punched keep on both. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African-American pornographic actors has 2 delete !votes. One is an rather sarcastic. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Two autoarchived discussions need closing

Hi, two fairly high-key discussions were autoarchived on this board without closing. I'm posting here so some admin can, well, close them.

• [98]
• [99]

Thanks. elektrikSHOOS 04:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the first of these: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive631#Klaus Ebner: Wikicrossing, spam, conflict of interest and puppet users, I perceive consensus for a six-month topic ban of Klaus Ebner:

Klaus Ebner is placed on probation for a period of 6 months, and is restricted to one account. He is topic banned from any articles relating to himself, broadly defined. He may also be the subject of random checkusers, to ensure he complies with the restrictions of his probation. If it is found he is in violation of his probation, he may be blocked, for up to 1 year.

If anyone believes this is not the correct result of the archived discussion, please comment here. This wording would be added as an editing restriction in WP:RESTRICT. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Sos.jpg

User Paulgg uploaded a new version of File:Sos.jpg that is completely different than the original file. Originally, the file was an diagram of a safety shutoff valve, but now it is a photograph of the village of Sos, Lot-et-Garonne in France. I have already notified the user with respect to this incident and this post. Would it be possible for someone to delete the existing version, reinstate the old version, and upload the picture of the village to a new file, perhaps File:Sos, Lot-et-Garonne.jpg? – Zntrip 05:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted to the original image. I have saved a copy of the other one but I am not to sure on the copyright (not typically my area) and so I have asked the original up-loader to resubmit it at a new name and fill out the info though I will try to figure it out :) Mauler90 _talk 06:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Youth Olympics images for ITN

Because there is a recent lack of admin presence at WP:ITN/C, I just wanted to let it be known that there are now free images of the Youth Olympics opening ceremony (see here) if anyone think the ITN image should change at some point. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:United States Senate: World Greatest Deliberative Body

I am referring this to the Admin notice board as the debate has got way out of hand and one user is continuing to engage in wikilawyering and personal attacks against myself. A third opinion was asked for in this case, which has resulted in the user expanding their personal attacks. Please can this be sorted out as this kind of behaviour towards myself is unacceptable and removed the ability to debate the issues at hand. I have though also made a claim that this user is acting as the article owner which I believe to be a true statement but may be taken as unhelpful. This is due to the nature and continued personal attacks and attempted character assassination of myself. --Lucy-marie (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I am, presumably, the editor in question. If this is indeed the appropriate forum for LucyMarie to direct her concerns (my own opinions notwithstanding, a legitimate issue about personal attacks would presumably be better dealt with first on the user's talk page, and then at WQA, and then at an RfC on user conduct), and an administrator wishes to investigate this 'situation' (no death threats, racist attacks, or legal threats are involved), I advise them to read the talk page of the United States Senate article. The Rhymesmith (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, Lucy-marie, I don't see it as a personal attack for one editor to say that another is completely misinterpreting policy. If we couldn't say another editor misunderstands policy, we'd have no way to conduct consensus building discussions. Furthermore, while I admit to skimming parts of that quite long debate, I didn't see either side "wikilawyering"--you were both looking closely at policy to solve a content dispute. Can you point to a specific diff which you think is a personal attack, that meets the definitions in WP:NPA? I do think the debate spiraled out of hand, but I am hard-pressed to say that the blame for that lies with The Rhymesmith. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The comments I take issue with are comments after towards the end of the third opinion which are in bold and are only there to attempt to create an impression of me a bad faith editor. Rhymesmith has trawled through my history and dug up some poor editing I did when I first started. The comments had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand and were only there to try and discredit me as an editor. If Ryhmesmith is allowed to get away that level of personal commenting which only designed to diminish another editor as opposed to actually commenting on the content of the article then no serious discussions’ purely on the issues can be had.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The following are a selection of diffs which I consider to ammount to personal attacks diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5 this diff states Rhymesmith is deliberatly not assuming good faith 6

Please take a look at the above as I consider the above to ammount to personal attacks.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not mandated to assume good faith under circumstances where I have explicit grounds for not doing so. My grounds are articulated alongside the actual statement of not assuming good faith, and stem from Lucy Marie's behavior. Good grief. Now, from WP:NPA - a partial definition of a personal attack.

“ Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. ”

I am perfectly happy to defend each of my remarks, if requested, by showing how I am commenting on explicit instances of unhelpful behavior by LucyMarie in the course of the discussion, as opposed to merely my attempting to disparage her. My accusations of alogia, for example, are not intended to belittle her, but to simply establish that she has "repeatedly and unrepentantly refused to debate in a logical fashion", just as my remarks about her history of disruptive and POV editing are perfectly apposite to her approach to the US Senate article, and just as my remark about her either having no grasp of Wikipedia policy or deliberately "slinging bull" to support her viewpoint is something which can easily be established as true in the context of the debate. I don't see the need for a humiliating proof of this, but I will provide one, if necessary. The Rhymesmith (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

“ Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done ”

The above diffs I have provided are in my opinion attacks as they comment directly on me and not on the content being discussed. Also claiming you are going to provdide proof of something that will be for humilation only is again in my opinion a personal attack.

--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Commenting on you as a direct function of your conduct is not a personal attack, as far as I'm concerned, just as calling an actual vandal a vandal is not a personal attack (as Qwryxian has analogously pointed out, above). Nevertheless, I am not going to clog up this page with another extended "argument". If someone wishes to read the whole discussion at the Senate talk page and then wishes to do something, I will be happy to defend each of my remarks as a function of your behavior. The Rhymesmith (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole purpose of having the no personal attacks policy has been blatantly missed. The nutshell clealy states.

“ Comment on the content, not on the contributor. ”

It appears as if you have inverted that by commenting on the contributor and not the content.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

IP disruption on Macedonian language

I just stumbled across Macedonian language, an article I have made a few edits to in the past, and saw that it was being nominated for deletion and that there was apparently a crowd of IP's working together, repeatedly adding superfluous AfD templates to the article, more than a dozen of them, as here. I am aware of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2 and wanted to be extremely careful but I could find no other way to stop the disruption than to semi-protect the article. Since it had been done in the past and I could find nothing in the Arbcom page that prohibits protection I don't think that is a mistake, but if so I apologize and ask for someone to correct me. These edits and the AfD may be the creation of an already-banned user, but I can tell nothing from just the IP's. —Soap— 09:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The multiple AfD templating is obvious and blatant vandalism, so your actions - even if you have edited the article previously - are fine, IMO. I shall check if anyone other than the ip's have commented at the AfD, and action it accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Good protection. The multiple AfD nominations have even continued on the AfD page itself. This appears to be the work of a Greek blog (linked in the AfD). I foresee the AfD will be closed early. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

While I hope - and assume - you're right, I foresee the close being followed by a requested move to "FYROMian language"... Ah, the joys of POV! TFOWR 10:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I just deleted an AfD notice from Template: Macedonian language. Someone might want to keep an eye on this... The Rhymesmith (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Both Macedonian language and Template:Macedonian language are now semi'd. Past experience suggests that our friends will find new and creative ways to cause disruption, so I'd suggest we keep this open for now. TFOWR 11:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attack User Boxes

Resolved

 – User blocked for personal attacks. Fences&Windows 23:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone tell me if I'm overreacting or if the userboxes on Mark Sheridan (talk · contribs)'s page are unacceptable. I removed them once as personal attacks and they've been reinstated and I'm not interested in some war with this user. Canterbury Tail talk 12:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagreements are fine, userboxes calling specific users bastards are not. I've removed the userboxes again and warned the user to stop doing so, or be blocked. WP:NPA is there for a reason and very much applies here. ~ mazca ^talk 12:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Mazca)They are so pathetic I nearly burst out laughing. That's the lamest disruption I've seen for a while. No, they are absolutely NOT acceptable and I see they have been removed again. They should stay removed. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's entirely what I thought (and knew) however since it obviously involves me I brought it elsewhere. Canterbury Tail talk 12:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It's important to note that this user has had a previous final warning for NPA against Canterbury Tail. Since then these boxes have appeared at least twice. Toddst1 (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up Toddst1. Based on that, I have handed out a block. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Alpha-ZX, Labour Party (UK)

This article has been the target of slow edit warring for some time now, and I semi'd it a while back as a result. One of the "genre warriors" is Alpha-ZX (talk · contribs), and I've just reverted them and warned them. Their response was to blank their talkpage and restore their preferred "genres". Obviously I'm involved, so I (a) ask for review of my actions and (b) for review of Alpha-ZX's actions. TFOWR 13:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, blanking the talk page definitely means they never got the warning and it's all good... I gave them another warning - they have already been reverted again - and told them to take it to the talk. I logged it in the edit summary so we shouldn't miss it again. We can do more if it becomes an edit war. There does seem to have been a lot of discussion illustrating a consensus against his edits. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This editor continues to add text that other editors have reverted, and does not discuss the matter on the talk pages. While not technically a violation of 3RR it is edit-warring and should be treated as such. TFD (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well he has had a final warning and can be blocked for further digressions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Victim numbers mentioned in Soviet War in Afghanistan

Can someone have a look at these edits on the numbers of victims? Vandalism?

1. 15 aug 2010 15:26 Professor john enistein (Overleg | bijdragen) (88.056 bytes)
2. 15 aug 2010 15:07 Professor john enistein (Overleg | bijdragen) (87.970 bytes)

--JanDeFietser (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Replacing cited figures with uncited ones? Seems pretty clear cut to me. I've reverted them. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

And welcomed the user and told him/her that you raised this thread - don't forget you have to do that. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks and sorry that I forgot that warning. The exact number of casualties is a topic that I would rather like to skip, if you don't mind--JanDeFietser (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Thehelpinghand's political propaganda

Just want to make sure, is the propaganda in favour of Tony Blair on User talk:Thehelpinghand allowed on Wikipedia?. I removed it previously, but the user warned me on Wikinews that it was allowed by an administrator. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 16:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Gah! Diego! I blocked you, dammit!!! :). I saw that on WN; if you look at the WP talk page, Deskana is questioning if he really did say that. See here for en.Wikinews. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My feeling on this is that it is not really worth pursuing. Thehelpinghand has bigger problems right now. It's silly and it makes a mess of the page format, but it's not hurting anyone. Best to let it drop since they are indef blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-free image on user page

Resolved

On August 11, 2010, I removed a non-free image from Chris9086 (talk · contribs)'s user page, since the image violated both WP:NFC and undoubtedly some WP:BLP policy (since the image in question is of Jorge Garcia's face). I also left a notice on Chris9086's talk page. On August 14, 71.17.173.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who'd originally placed the image there, re-added the non-free image and left a disrespectful and uncivil comment directed at me in the edit summary. I refuse to revert the change since I currently practice a one-revert rule on all namespaces in order to avoid starting a possible war. I'm at a loss as to what to do at this point. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps nom it for deletion?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's used on an article. However, I reverted the addition, welcome/warned the IP - and will block for copyvio should they re-add it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is an IP adding images to other people's talk page? Unless the IP is Chris, not logged in.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, thank you guys very much. Wehwalt, yes the image is actually the album cover for Weezer's Hurley. I was curious about the IP/User relationship as well, but I was less worried about sockpuppetry than the copyvio. (The IP's edits are so few.) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That IP was my friend doing that as a joke, just so you know. We didn't know about the non-free image rule, so sorry about that. Chris9086 (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My friend/brother/cat did it :D. In seriousness though, if you are able to swing by our policies on WP:COPYRIGHT and just familiarise yourself with them that should be fine. Also, have your friend learn some manners. Cheers Chris. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Revoke rollback permission for Docboat?

Resolved

 – Editor urged to brush up on WP:ROLLBACK; no need to revoke the privilege for the moment, however. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 22:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In March 2008 User:Docboat was granted rollback permission. However, Docboat seems to lack enough experience here to use it wisely. On August 14, 2010 Docboat used rollback on Anismus and William Frederick James Harvey, in both cases disrupting other editors in the midst of improving those articles. Both articles have now received intervention from additional editors in relevant projects. Docboat also used rollback in a similar manner on Lance et Compte, Family Guy (season 9), and Wesleyan University. I think use of rollback in this manner is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. Docboat personally undid the rollback on Anismus, and I appreciate that, but Docboat's rollbacks on the whole have wasted considerable time and effort by myself and others. I ask that Docboat's rollback permission be revoked. I understand that Docboat can request rollback permission again, and it may be granted again. That would be fine with me. 66.167.43.31 (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Has someone spoken with Docboat and reminded him of WP:ROLLBACK? And have you notified him that he's under discussion here? Kudos, by the way for your grasp of Wikilingo and policy, unusual for an IP.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Result of tedious hours spent searching and following links. Yes, I have approached Docboat on their talk page and notified them too. I am very dismayed by the high error rate I see in reverts made by page patrollers, and I think WP:DONTBITE pays too little attention to what to do instead of biting. 66.167.43.31 (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I see Docboat has not edited since an hour before you dropped him a note, which was late this morning. Perhaps it would have been best to discuss it with him or at least allowing time for him to respond (keeping in mind that a few editors around here actually have lives). Just in the interest of not having us rush into anything, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Also I see a very friendly and apologetic note from Docboat on your talk page]. Very appropriate. I will say that it is very easy to mistake an edit, at first glance, from an IP as vandalism. I will confess to having erred there myself. Not everyone wants to join, but having a username does get you a little more respect, which is not a reflection on you, unhappily most of our vandalism comes from IPs or else brand new editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that Docboat hasn't edited much in that past year, only deciding to begin using rollback again a few days ago after only 8 edits since last October. Perhaps Docboat does have a lack of experience, but I would have made some of the same rollbacks too, especially that defecating edit. A reminder of WP:Rollback is all that may be warranted in this case.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. A nice note. There is no reason to remove rollback from someone who is at least trying to use it properly, and who hasn't shown that he won't learn.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As a side story, I had Rollback removed once for making a single poor revert. I didn't even get a reminder, it was just yanked, albeit with the promise to restore it in a few days. Apparently it was to teach me to slow down. It was restored in a few hours after a consensus determined that the removal was unnecessary.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So much contention! Since Docboat was notified and will no doubt check this thread, he should know to refresh himself on policy, and I think we can mark this resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRODSUM is broken

Looks like some changes to {{prod}} have prohibited non-BLP prods from being parsed properly by DumbBOT. I dropped a note on User talk:DumbBOT, but it does not yet appear to have been fixed. And, of course, since prod is subst'ed, any new changes will still take a while to percolate through the backlog... Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock Needed

Resolved

I am having consistant problems with the 75.170 range on the WGGH page. For the past year, it has been the same repeated vandalism over and over and over. It is tiresome. I have, again, requested page protection (got it last time), but I think a rangeblock is needed. Could an admin take a look at the history and see if a rangeblock can be put in place? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A range block seems a bit much, as long as its only one page. Wouldn't a simple page protection be better? Or do you think that there are other pages?--Jojhutton (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think what NH might be thinking is that given the range of IPs seem to have no other edits other than to WGGH, why apply a semi protection to exclude all IPs when one can exclude one IP range with no good contributions. Though I would never dare to presume what he is really thinking... the reality would frighten me, I'm sure. In any case, it is semi protected for now and given that it is such a tiny article perhaps semi protection would not hurt it no matter what it's duration. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Does user SGGH have a conflict of interest with WGGH? Or just by accident a similar name. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This article seems to fail WP:CORP which is the notability (companies) page. Does radio stations get special treatment such as "all radio stations are notable"? I know high schools are given special allowance to have articles no matter how obscure or non-notable they may be. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that if the range was having vandalism edits on one page, why wait for them to go to another and start something. Kind of ABF on my part, I know, but I have seen no good edits from this range other than vandalism on WGGH. @SGGH, don't worry, what everyone is really thinking frightens me too. @Suomi, yes, all radio stations are notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Do they all geolocate to wherever WGGH serves? And how long are you thinking for a block? That's another consideration: semi protection can be indefinite but I doubt an indef rangeblock would be considered. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I just learned that radio stations are not automatically notable. WP:BCAST says "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." If WGGH does not have a large audience (probably not), established broadcast history (don't know), or unique programming (no), then it can be AFD and deleted and the vandalism will cease to exist. I do not know WGGH so I cannot say Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Most likely your right about the notability, but thats an interesting angle on fighting vandalism. Delete the page and vandalism will go away.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if it doesn't pass notability criteria then whatever its edit history it doesn't really matter. AfD it if you wish as failing notability. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I recommend not going for AfD. There is precedence set by past AfDs that radio stations are notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. No need to waste the time. We all know the outcome way in advance don't we? There always seems to be enough fanboys to create a no-consensus. Just see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater, to see what I mean.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

These unwritten precedents are ridiculous. They stem from a time when we had different criteria, and they are basically 'Well, that's the way we've always done it, go away now." And they are accumulative, first there are just a few, then people say 'That's what we did last time', and so it goes. I say either put it into the guideline or let decisions be made according to our written guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

We do have a guideline, acutally...WP:NME. The precedence from the AfDs, well, you can go search AfD, I am not diggin' for 'em.

Suomi Finland 2009 and I are hashing this out on WP:WPRS, another WPRS member is actively updating the page with sources, so I request this be marked resolved and pushed to WPRS. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So, I presume that Neutralhomer is withdrawing his request for a range block??? If not, then this isn't resolved. I have no opinion since I know nothing about WGGH. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Like SGGH I'm too frightened by the prospect of imagining what Neutralhomer thinks, but I'd regard a rangeblock as unnecessary now that the page is semi'd. There is still the open issue of radio-station notability, but this is probably not the best venue for that discussion. TFOWR 21:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I just figured since we have a discussion going at WPRS (the radio station WikiProject), it wouldn't be cool to fragment the discussions. Yes, I am withdrawing my request for rangeblock (since it isn't needed now...might be later but we will cross that bridge then). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Aggressive user talk and behaviour

Resolved

 – nothing for an Administrator to see, advice given. Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I brought this issue here previously regarding user Ronz (I don't know what happened to that posting). I've asked this user to leave me alone, but he persists in what feels to me like harassment. At issue is his repeated editing of my talk page and trying to initiate WP:BATTLE with me there. I really, really, really just want him to leave me alone, that is all I want. I'd prefer to not have to abandon wikipedia as I was just getting started with it (trying to contribute my understanding of wiki policies on talk pages as assistance) and hoping to move to actually editing articles in time. But when I asked another user who responded to me here previously, what to do, not only did Ronz jump into the discussion, the other user made me feel like I'm the problem. So if that's the case, I will leave, but if trying to be reasonable and civil is a problem here ... well I don't really know what to say. Please help me understand what's going on, it very confusing.ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Previous ANI discussion --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see anything worthy of a report, is this about Naveen Jain? Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, my concerns are regarding his activity on my talk page, especially after I've asked him to please just leave my talk page alone. Obviously wikipedia business is still an acceptable use of the page, but beyond that I have asked him to refrain as it feels personal. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered WP:ADOPTION as a new user that seems to be in need of a little guidance I recommend that to you, have you had another user name or account? Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't heard about WP:ADOPTION until now. That sounds like it would help (should I decide to continue involvement here). I have not had another user name or account. I've read many articles, of course, and even wrote an essay in high school about how community-controlled knowledge (like Wikipedia) is a peek into the future of human endeavour. Now I regret getting involved here. I literally stumbled onto a page that sparked my legal interest (future law school student). I've spent hours reading the wiki guidelines and hours and hours searching for material to help expand that page. I'm thinking it's probably best at this point for me to take the high road, concede that somehow I've acted inappropriately, and if I find the strength, return to the wiki guidelines and maybe try again some day. At the very least it has been a learning experience. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I will close this then as there is nothing worthy of any action. If you decide to stay then do consider the adoption as it is very useful, you are of course welcome to ask me for advice on my talkpage and I will gladly help you if I can. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User:90.200.240.178

The above IP address has a persistent history of adding poorly sourced controversial material to BLPs (eg1). He has instigated and continued edit wars at several articles, antagonising several users (eg2). This appears to fit a pattern of behaviour that led to other IP addresses being blocked (eg3). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Point of order: those IPs were not blocked but (the ones which are actually me) changed periodically. I'm told this is due to my ISP assigning "dynamic IP addresses". I would like the allegation that I am evading blocks to be struck out. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

British Isles (I'm so sorry, really I am...)

I realise you're all sick of this, and I really do apologise.

I've been trying to cut down on the vitriol at WT:BISE, and as of today, and following warnings yesterday, I've been removing comments about other editors' alleged points of view. And warning the editors making such comments.

Earlier today I removed one such comment, and warned the editor responsible. I have just removed another, more general, comment as off-topic, and warned the editor. Who has now reverted me.

I'm inclined to block the editor responsible, and apply a topic ban on editing the WT:BISE page (and, by implication, adding or removing "British Isles" from any article, etc etc, though I don't think that's an issue here). I'm obviously annoyed that I've just been reverted, and I don't feel competent to make a rational decision at the end of a long and, frankly, tedious day. Accordingly I'm looking for a community mandate to do what needs done. TFOWR 22:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, those barbs & such would be best kept on the sparring editors talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So you would remove me 100% from anything to do with British Isles atfer just two days back on the issue following 10 months off editing? Hell, HighKing's been at this for three or four years and he carries on! What gives? LemonMonday Talk 22:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Apply a topic ban on editing the WT:BISE page ?? Such a thing was considered during the debate on Highkings future and we were told it would be wrong to not let people discuss edits on talk pages. LemonMonday should be given another chance to follow the rules, if he refuses or can not then that is a different matter. But he should have another chance. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd support a topic ban, we don't need new editors throwing petrol on the flames. p.s. LemonMonday, that sig is unreadable. Fences&Windows 23:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on the sig, but topic banning someone whos been back for less than 48 hours seems a little quick. He should promise to follow the rules on WT:BISE and not undo admins removal of text to be given a second chance.

Where should I edit today?

Resolved

 – Not an admin issue, try Wikipedia:Community portal for ideas. Fences&Windows 23:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Which articles would you suggest I edit? My knowledge is very broad, ranging from abstract algebra and insights into advanced geometry and group theory, to 19th century literature, specialising in crime fiction, to an enthusiasm for contemporary culinary techniques and a love of fine dining. So where would you all suggest I start my wiki-editing career? 188.221.144.7 (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wherever you like. Welcome to Wikipedia! Administrators don't tell other editors where to edit, it is completely up to you. Why not register and get a user name? You'll be taken more seriously.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of Where do you want to go today?. Come to think of it, if we ever advertised we could use that as a slogan. "Where do you want to edit today?" --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Themastertree

I'm concerned here primarily with the volume of edits to ethnically controversial topics. Some of them clearly appear to be copyediting, but others are content changes that might be sensitive. I'm honestly not familiar enough with the region to judge the changes on their merits, but I'm troubled by the pattern and the lack of edit summaries in a controversial area. Triona (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC) [100]

Could someone familiar with the areas this user is editing in please take a close look at the contributions. Also, there has been no response to attempts to communicate via the user's talk page, including several warnings left by RC patrollers. Triona (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Bot creating 100s or 1000s of potentially bad species articles

An automated bot, Ganeshbot, is creating gastropod species articles. The bot's owner asked for approval to create about 650 Conus species articles. Conus is a popular and well-studied gastropod species. The bot owner took this approval to mean blanket approval to create articles about species from other gastropod familes suggested by project gastropod members.

I spotted some of the articles on a list of new articles after I created a Wikipedia article. I was surprised by some of the names for the articles, as I thought the names were no longer used. I checked 6 articles. One is about a species only mentioned in 3 on-line sources, WoRMS (where it is attributed to its original 18th century single source and to an out-of-print book by an amature shell collector), the out-of-print book by the amature shell collector, and Wikipedia. Another is an incorrect species that is very well known as its subspecies. Another article had a strange false fact about the species listed in it.

I think this bot should be stopped from creating articles for the time being. The bot owner continued working on articles after I alerted them of some problmes, and the owner says the gastropod project is approving the families to create articles, but has not provided me with a link to this approval, so I may point out problematic genera to Wikipedia editors. I posted this at the bot board as directed, but, for now, I think the bot should be stopped, and the articles with bad information and bad taxonomy should be removed from Wikipedia.

JaRoad (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)