Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:36, 30 August 2010

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Shortcuts

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152
1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475
476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
318	319	320	321	322	323	324	325	326	327
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Visa article flood of AFD nominations

BoP has indicated he is no longer pursuing AfDs of these articles. It is suggested that an RfC on this subject is still warranted, however there's nothing else for admins to do here at this time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is the "bilateral relations" mess in a different guise. I've updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations, and I suggest that people from the Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force help stem the flood and work towards some sort of standstill agreement as last time, before history repeats itself. Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get us started I'd recommend he be blocked for disruptive and pointy edits. South korea for example has numerous reliable sources on their visa policy. E2 visas (english teaching visas are constantly in flux and often discussed in the media here. It shows an utter lack of checking before hand and proves without a doubt that these are disruptive pointy bad faith nominations.--Crossmr (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I will assume good faith that it was an honest oversight that I was not notified of this thread. Second, I promise that every nomination has been done honestly and with no ill-intent. I am not being pointy nor am I being disruptive (not intentionally, at least). I honestly and truly feel that these articles are not encyclopedic and not appropriate. What I do find to be disruptive is any attempt to circumvent a good-faith AfD nomination. Basket of Puppies 14:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Were it a good faith nomination I would have expected you to do a cursory search on the topic before nominating it and you obviously didn't or you would have found the wealth of news articles I found in only 30 seconds. You can't make pointy edits then try and run behind AGF when there are such blatant cases.--Crossmr (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please read. Basket of Puppies 14:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looks like standard "not directory" stuff, including the South Korea entry. Good noms, though some may not like it. None of it has academic discussion or other consideration of the visa policies of any of the states (you know, looks at history, economic and political considerations, visa "diplomacy" etc...). I'm willing to believe that in some of these cases there is the possibility that such an article could be written by someone qualified ("Visa policy in the EU" is an obvious candidate) but that aint what these are. As Crossmr points out in the case of South Korea (this would hold true for many of the other country's) visa policies are "constantly in flux," which means that these articles will require constant maintenance (not now or ever going to happen) to avoid misleading readers. The upshot? Anyone seeking accurate info on the "visa policy of country x" needs to go to the various countries websites, embassies, and consulates. All these "articles" are is an often incorrect and out of date mirroring of information that can be easily obtained by interested travelers from the countries in question.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not at all. In it's current state it's nothing but as I pointed out this is quite a notable topic and there is extensive media coverage. It can be expanded well beyond not a directory. Had he bothered to follow WP:BEFORE and done a good faith search for sources he would have found that.--Crossmr (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is a reason we have a process for batch AFDs (Template:AfD footer (multiple)). This is quite ridiculous. Could all of these discussions be closed, and perhaps one or two of these be nominated for deletion? If they are deleted, that might be reason to do a batch AFD on many of these. However, starting off with 50 AFDs with essentially the same rationale wastes an enormous amount of time. NW (Talk) 14:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I discussed this very topic with an admin on IRC and was informed I should nominate them individually. I did exactly that. I am happy if they go into a patch process and my deletion rationale would be the same- nonencyclopedic information, random collection of information, not a travel guide, etc. Basket of Puppies 14:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Next time read WP:BEFORE specifically number 9. You would have quickly found sources like this one [1] a great article in the LA Times about South Korean visa policy lending the topic plenty of notability and allowing an interested editor to expand the article well beyond a "directory"--Crossmr (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Crossmr, like I have repeatedly stated on multiple project and deletion pages, I am nominating these class of articles for deletion as they are non-encyclopedic. I recognize they may have references (nearly all primary, tho), but those references do not make them notable nor encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 14:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I just provided a ton of non-primary sources for South Korea that prove it is both notable and encyclopedic. Those are dozens of sources in national newspapers in multiple countries. talking about social pressures behind visa changes, laws, etc. that is plenty encyclopedic.--Crossmr (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "He"? Which "he"? There are a lot of people involved here, and the same is happening as happened last time. We have a mass of nominations, overwhelming people's abilities to give an individual article due consideration, resulting in boilerplate responses, back and forth, across (by my count at the time of writing this) 26 of the above AFD discussions. And the end result will be 26 (or, very probably, more) boilerplate discussions, which don't address the individual articles at hand in any rationale (even the nomination rationales are boilerplate), that some poor administrator has to close with respect to a specific article. As I said, history is starting to repeat itself. This is exactly what happened to bilateral relations before (and indeed to schools before that). We know where this leads, and we know that it doesn't lead to productive meaningful discussion of specific articles, but to block voting with boilerplate discussions. Because it has done, many times. Uncle G (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Agreed. By the way this stems from a discussion started on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Visa_requirements_for_Palestinian_citizens. There was a growing consensus that these articles fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY and, more importantly, are impossible to reliably source and maintain. In fact considering that they are entirely primary sourced they probably fall under OR as well. I reviewed the past discussion and did not see a policy reason for keeping them - so it was on my mind to do the same as this. My proposal was going to be to wait for the Palestine AFD to close to see the result - then nominate a couple more for AFD before expanding it. Basket got there ahead of me :) I'd tentatively support the proposal to speedy close a portion of the current AFD's and focus on one or two examples to get this hashed out. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be fine with me. Of course I have no idea why this deletion discussion had to happen here at ANI. It seems like a colossal waste of time for admins who are dealing with copyvio, vandalism and the occasional threat. Basket of Puppies 14:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reading through the noms there are two types of article here. I'd actually tentatively support the "Visa policy of" articles (and support delete for the other type) This is a complex issue that needs discussion --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, discussion is needed, which is why I opened the deletion discussion. I am sure that ANI is not the place for this discussion. Basket of Puppies 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because at least one of your nominations is clearly in bad faith. You didn't follow WP:BEFORE and are now trying to hide behind WP:AGF rather than admit you made a bad nomination. The news search was trivial and quickly turned up a ton of sources on the topic to allow an editor to write about the history of the visa policy, how it came about, what is driving it, social factors, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never was a single one of my nomination is bad faith. Please read. Basket of Puppies 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one clearly was you mass nominated in quick succession and have shown no indication that you performed the steps in WP:BEFORE before actually nominating it. "South Korea visa policy" alone turns up thousands of articles and there is no way you gave those a look before nominating. We don't assume good faith blindly. You made a mass nomination in a controversial topic and there is at least one that you didn't research properly before doing so. I wonder how many more?--Crossmr (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Looks like Japan as well. Plenty of material there that could be used to make the article encyclopedic. Again talking about factors in decisions, pressures from different groups, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basket of Puppies' latest round of deletions involved 163 edits in 14 minutes.[3] (the previous round involved 86 edits in 7 minutes). How long does the "due diligence" of WP:BEFORE typically take, per article? bobrayner (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Longer than that. It's not long, I found almost 3 dozen articles in about 30 seconds. A good faith search with a couple different keywords to be sure should take 20 seconds if it comes up with nothing. Thousands of results? I would say at least 2-3 minutes to give some articles a once over to see if you're headed in the right direction. It should have taken around 1-2 hours to good faith nominate 50 or so of those.--Crossmr (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(arbitrary break, sorry if my previous post was unclear...)
Which policy requires academic discussion?
Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, information of international interest. If the articles would benefit from fleshing out, then flesh them out.
After the previous round of deletion attempts, people posted comments on the user's talkpage and elsewhere; but instead of seeking consensus, they just hammered away at "delete" again.
The original rationale for the first round of deletion notices was was that they were factually inaccurate, which is pretty absurd since most of these articles are directly based on authoritative sources (though if anybody would prefer a secondary source rather than a government website, that could be arranged).
Any given country's visa policy is very unlikely to change on a daily basis. They're as "in flux" as the typical sports team (or less so). Wikipedia still manages to have lots of reasonably-accurate articles on sports teams. And why is it OR, or difficult to source, when taking easily-readable data from a known primary source? It doesn't need any special interpretation. If government website X says that citizens of Y aren't allowed in, it's certainly not difficult to get that information onto wikipedia, nor would it be WP:OR to do so.
I don't care where this gets discussed, as long as it's somewhere centralised, instead of on a hundred different pages. bobrayner (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it, and agree that this adds lots of work and unnecessary shenanigans to the process. I'd strongly urge Basket of Puppies to withdraw the bulk of these and very specifically refactor the noms on two or three as test cases. If/when those are deleted, after detailed discussion on the merits, then a mass nom citing the precedent may be in order (or several noms of a dozen each, for example). You may have a point - and some of these likely warrant deletion - but the signal is being lost in the noise, here. Detailed and specific discussion is in order, and spreading that across 50-some odd pages ain't it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Ok, before this gets sidetracked I propose the following:

A helpful admin speedy closes the above AFD's
We open an AFD for each of the two types of article; "Visa requirements for X" and "Visa policy of X" (I propose: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa requirements for X & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa policy of X
Put AFD notices on the relevant pages.

That way we can have a cohesive discussion in a single place for each type of article. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose They're up there now. Defeating these is extremely trivial. Just have it out and be done with it. A quick news search for most countries will tell you if there are reliable sources there, if there are WP:DEADLINE covers us and mark them down as a keep. Also put the searches on the article talk pages. I've already done 2.--Crossmr (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Links to searches aren't helpful or meaningful. Their results vary according to who is performing them and where in the world they are. And their results vary over time, even at timescales measured in hours and days. If you want to make a good case for a specific article, then cite the specific published works that the searches turn up, rather than handwaving in the direction of a search and saying, in effect, "this turns up stuff". SAgain, don't repeat history. We've had people who said in discussion after discussion "If you Google it, stuff turns up." without giving any indication of what the specific stuff that turns up was, and why it was relevant to the article at hand, before, when things like this have happened previously. This approach is no less of a boilerplate argument than the others. Specific source citations for specific subjects, are needed to help the poor closing administrator find something relevant to each article at hand amongst the back-and-forth boilerplate.
  Search engines are (some of many) tools for finding sources. They aren't citations. Uncle G (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I explained above what the specific stuff was. Probably about 3-4 times now. They're stories on the history and other aspects of what drove policies. perfectly encyclopedic. The search engines are simply there for convenience at AfD to say "Here is a list of news stories, these can be used to do this". They're only to show policy, we don't need to actually write the article during AfD. Probably this weekend when I have time I'll actually flesh out the South Korean article just like that.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. You made no such explanation, and you've failed thus far to cite an actual source in either this AFD discussion or this AFD discussion. A search engine result does not provide "a list of news stories". It's not even necessarily showing the same things to you as it does to other editors. You really need to grasp this point. What you are doing is not "showing policy", and it's not demonstrating that sources exist. Citing the sources demonstrates that they exist. Hyperlinking to a search engine does not.
      Handwaving vaguely in the direction of search engines is a no-effort means of AFD discussion participation. It doesn't demonstrate that sources exist. It doesn't cite sources. It doesn't even point to the same thing for the people reading as the editor trying to take the quick route around actually doing the work that an AFD rationale needs.
      Proper AFD partitipation is not a zero-effort thing. Citing sources is what is required for a watertight case. That means using the search engine (and other resources) to find the source; reading the sources that are turned up to see what they say and whether they are relevant; and citing them explicitly so that other editors can read them too. That is how one puts deletion policy into practice correctly. Nothing less will do. Uncle G (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - yes, I did. plenty of independent material on the subject including things like why certain changes were made, who pressured the government to look into visa changes, social concerns with visa changes, I exactly detailed the kind of information available in the news search and how it could be added to the article. While news searches sometimes return different content, they do not return such drastically different content that a link to a news search is useless. I put far more effort into my argument than he did his. I actually made a good faith search to even see if it was worth talking about. The fact was there were hundreds of links and I wasn't going to independetly link every single one, but if you'd like [4], [5], [6], [7], etc, etc. Those are just the first ones off the list. I've checked 4 AfDs and all 4 of them had tons of quality links available of which I only noted a very small sampling. Above I noted one of the quality South Korea sources, and if you'd like more [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, note that "OMG it's reliably sourced so keep keep keep!" does not actually address the rationale for deletion, which is "Wikipedia is not a travel guide". Tarc (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would argue that "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" does not require the deletion of anything related to travel (Wikipedia has lots of articles on tourist destinations, modes of transport &c and a good thing too). These articles aren't giving directions to cool bars in Barcelona, or advice on whether or not the taxis are safe; they cover concrete points of government policy which affect a large number of people. However, let's not get bogged down in detailed discussion if this is not the best place for it... bobrayner (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I pointed out above the sources I found are not travel guide sources. They're news sources discussing the history of various visa policies. Why they've been made, external pressures that may have caused them, social ramifications, etc. It should be possible for many countries to provide a history of how various visa policies have developed over the year and why they've developed. That's encyclopedia and has nothing to do with a travel guide.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - whatever happens, Visa policy of the People's Republic of China has to be kept as a start article. I have no idea what the nominator was thinking when he nominated that one. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good proposal. Additionally, it might be worth issuing a haddock in the direction of the nominator for failing to consider whether bulk-nominating an entire category of articles without any prior discussion was likely to cause exactly this sort of drama. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's no excuse for mass-nominating this many articles as individual AfDs. Alternatively, they could just be closed as disruptive. I further propose that the administrator that BoP allegedly contacted be publicly identified for ridicule and trout-slapping. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the merging of all the articles into one large AfD. Please know that I nominated these articles only after discussing it with an administrator and several other editors on IRC on how best to proceed. I would be happy to disclose the logs in a secure manner that would not violate the public logging prohibition. The informed me that I would have to make a separate AfD for each article. I was going based upon the best information I had at the time. I did this in good faith without any intention or desire to be disruptive. Basket of Puppies 18:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why IRC and not on-wiki? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you follow WP:BEFORE, specifically step #9?--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Discussing this coherently and in context of previous discussions on Talk:passport/Archive 3and Talk:passport/Archive 4 has been my aim from the beginning. The speed of nomination that many articles with a single reason was impossible for any user to follow and leads to many very similar discussions... L.tak (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: clearly no one is denying that several of these articles are notable; the issue for which they were nominated is the same for all of them, and grouping them together to discuss that single issue ensures a consistent decision and saves the community's resources. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly what I am saying. The references are almost universally primary sources and the topics are not the least bit encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not what you were saying earlier, though; your reasons seem to have changed over time and "primary sources" seems to be a new one (not that it would justify deletion, mind). [13] seems to have intended as a way of saying that all those articles are factually inaccurate (and a large number of them got templated with a similar message). After people who had actually read the articles explained that they were accurate, Basket of Puppies seems to have concentrated on a different reason for deletion and ignored repeated queries about accuracy. As an aside, I doubt that much blame should attach to whichever admin suggested mass AfD; there was plenty of time to reflect on the negative feedback from the first batch of templates, before starting on the mass AfD. bobrayner (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've already shown you two above, (and just did canada as well) that demonstrates there are plenty of non-primary sources for these articles. While the sources in the articles are primary, there exists many non-primary sources which you could have easily found. The history of and public discourse over visa policies is certainly as encyclopedic as anything else.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and recommend that folks get off BoP's back. S/he clearly thought s/he was doing the right thing. The encyclopedia hasn't been destroyed. This will all be ok. MtD (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support whoever told BoP to nom these by themselves gave her/him bad gouge. If you have a bunch of articles which don't belong in the encyclopedia and they share strong commonalities (esp. if those commonalities are what suggest they may not be appropriate for WP), then nom them together. If you think that a small subset will provoke disagreement enough to spoil the lot, then remove those and either nominate them separately or don't nominate them at all. E.g. Visa policy of China is probably both notable and necessary for an encyclopedia but Visa Policy of Luxembourg can maybe be lumped in with Visa Policy of Belgium. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a short specification: that's why neither visa policy of Luxembourg nor of Belgium exist and we have the comprehensive wiki Visa policy in the European Union covering 33 countries in one go. L.tak (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly did before the common market and the EU, though. Protonk (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed all the visa policy pages in favour of a single discussion, my personal preference would be an RFC that takes in visa policy and visa requirement pages for a single solution. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foreseeable

I believe the mess started here in January. Somebody insisted on removing said info from all passport-articles, and the only way to keep the information ws to spin it out into stupid stubs (y'know... one of those "compromises"). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, here we go again. I remember that! --Ozguroot (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I'd be happy to see this information incorporated into a broader article.

However, doing it on a "Passport of country A" basis (ie. with a subsection "What paperwork is needed to enter countries B, C, D, and E") involves a many-to-many relationship between sources and articles; each of these pages is likely to need separate sources to show whether an A-passport holder can enter B, C, D, E &c and this could become impractical/unmaintainable (how many permutations between 200 countries?). :On the other hand, if arranged on a "Visa policy of country B" basis, it's more practical as most data points in the article can be gained from a single source - a website owned by the government of country B (or a secondary source derived from that). bobrayner (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass AfD tagging of visa policy articles

User:Basket of Puppies has nominated Visa policy in the European Union as well as 40 different "Visa policy of XXX" articles, from Visa policy of Albania to Visa policy of Venezuela, for deletion (see Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation)). In each case, he has used virtually identical argumentation: "Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic." Regardless of whether or not the articles should be kept, splitting up the nomination for deletion into 41 different pages makes absolutely no sense. All of the visa policy articles are similar, and the arguments for and against keeping them are largely independent of the country involved.

I request that the administrators merge these AfD nominations into a singe page so that a reasonable debate may be held on this topic, and to ensure that a given editor's arguments about keeping or deleting the visa policy of a particular country will also be heard by people discussing the deletion of the visa policies of all other countries. — Tetromino (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We know. Look up ↑ . Uncle G (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass closing incorrectly as keep

Spartaz closed every one of the AfDs as keep, tho this is incorrect. I am certain he did so in good faith, but he accidently marked the AfDs as keep and the associated article talk pages as the same. This should be undone. Basket of Puppies 05:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How should he have closed them? MtD (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not entirely sure I would myself have done as Spartaz did at this point, but I certainly am not prepared to say that he did wrong. For the sake of providing a pause to think about it, probably we should endorse how he handled it. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
  - Given the volume of "keep" votes on the many AfDs, I doubt that Spartaz's action was either accidental or incorrect. Basket of Puppies, since the first and second attempts at deletion failed, would you like a third attempt at deletion in a different venue? bobrayner (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't taunt like that. It doesn't lead to mature, adult, discussion and reflects badly upon you. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry. bobrayner (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz didn't do anything wrong, in my humble opinion. The (as a model, 'general' view) result is here: [14] Keep: 5, Delete: 1 - Should we continue to insist on deletion(s), Basket of Puppies? --Ozguroot (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those keeps are all procedural, rather than based on the subject. The only problem with closing these all as "keep" is that this will inevitably lead to someone saying "keep per Spartaz" when the group nom is opened. Nevertheless, the solution to that is to ignore bad arguments, not to waste more time re-closing the AfDs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its nice to have this raised without letting me know. I already told basket of puppies that they were welcome to add procedural to the keep if it made them happy and that my comment made it clear that this was procedural. Bearing in mind I had to run scripts to close and that going for something other then keep, delete, no-consensus, merge or redirect would mean at least 3 times as much button pressing I can't really see that I can be blamed. This kind of this is partly why such mass nominations can be so disruptive, as they take long to fix. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basket of Puppies, since you supported having a single discussion rather than umpteen, instead of complaining at Spartaz' attempts to head off the inevitable train wreck, why not follow up on your very own "Support" above and work towards having a centralized discussion on what you perceive to be the problem here, whether it truly is a problem, and if so how to fix it? Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, a model to follow (or even to use) was linked-to right at the very start of this section. I didn't do that just to keep my fingers warm. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The AfDs should be closed as procedural keep or procedural close or administratively closed to clearly indicate they were not subject to a full 7 day long AfD but rather closed due to a procedural issue. I should not be the one to change anything unless there is clear consensus here, as I am involved and it would not be appropriate or proper for me to change it. Basket of Puppies 13:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly, but unless it becomes a major issue at any subsequent discussion — which it won't, as anyone with xyr head screwed on will see that this isn't an endorsement of any position but simply a means for preventing the same train wreck happening at AFD as has happened so many times in the past (and one can easily point to me, DGG, and thumperward here if that truly becomes an issue) — this is a minor point. The major issue is your original one. You have a problem with these articles, and you'd like to discuss it. So let's work on that rather than what exact word should go in a speedy closure that's going to be superceded by the consensus discussion that you want to have in any event. Please focus upon trying to articulate your problem, in detail and with more than 1 sentence of bare explanation, with the articles. DGG, who has experience with this, or someone else, will no doubt help with the technical jiggery-pokery of setting up and formatting a centralized discussion, if you have problems. But this whole debate as to What Spartaz Should Have Done is a distraction. Uncle G (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Batch AfD setting up in progress

I am setting up a large batch AfD for the articles listed in this category. It's being done manually so might take me a few hours. Basket of Puppies 14:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are you plannng to do? "Visa policy of X"? Or "Visa requirements for X"? I assume the former (as that is what you predominantly AFD'ds). I wouldn't recommend doing both together (that's why I'm raising the point :)) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't indicated that you followed WP:BEFORE and from a quick perusal of the first 4 I selected, it's quite apparent you haven't.--Crossmr (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the fact that you've just renominated the two articles on china is ridiculous and can't be seen as anything but a bad faith nomination for which you didn't perform the required good faith search before hand, [15] had you done so you'd probably still be reading articles well into next week for that one nomination alone. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], etc. etc. Chinese visa policy is a often discussed, very notable topic, covered in many countries. There is nothing random about it, while you might not like the article as it sits, clean-up is not a reason for AfD. There is plenty there from which a history of their policy, controversies, influences, public opinion, etc could be constructed. I renew my original suggestion. We are not blind.--Crossmr (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going down the list in the category in alphabetical order. China starts with the letter c. Notice I did Canada before, the Republic of China and Croatia after. These continued accusations of bad faith are wearing. Basket of Puppies 17:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crossmr, BoP has indicated in the past 24 hours that he has problems with all articles with this rationale: Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. This way of re-tagging for deletion with a single discussion page enables him to expand on this and the community to discuss these concerns at one page. Let's have the discussion there... L.tak (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one concerns me: Permanent Resident of Norfolk Island visa It may be AFD material but I am not sure it matches the other articles enough to go in an AFD with them w/o raising issues... --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what he's been saying. I've been part of the discussion. unfortunately his reasoning doesn't make any sense given the extensive media coverage in many countries given to the various subjects. at this point his nominations are disruptive and pointy. Visa policies of china are clearly notable and encyclopedic. There is plenty to build an encyclopedic article off of. While he might not like the article as it is, AfD isn't for clean-up the subject clearly meets notability guidelines. He has a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT right now.--Crossmr (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then start participating in the discussion instead of taking pot shots and wandering away to leave people asking questions and not answer them. you've had tons of questions put to you above by different people which you've refused to answer. Including a very direct question of whether or not you followed WP:BEFORE. Stop nominating articles which clearly pass all our policies and guidelines. AfD is not for clean-up. An article titled "Visa policies of X" most certainly meets our notability guidelines in most cases and you are making no effort to distinguish between the ones that do and the ones that might not. You've admitted as much now by stating that you're just going through alphabetically. Since it meets GNG, you're arguing for clean-up and AfD isn't the place to do that.--Crossmr (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honeslty Crossmr, the only person acting in bad faith here is you. He has every right to make his case for deletion, and you have every right to make your case to keep, and everyone else has every right to weigh in as they see fit. Letting the community have its say will produce much more useful results than your attempts to harangue Basket of Puppies. Reso lute 22:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating an article for deletion isn't a right. Could I go nominate Barrack Obama for deletion without anyone saying anything and questioning by motives? Why? Because the subject clearly meets our threshold of inclusion. It would, and rightly so, be closed immediately as a bad faith nomination. I've seen plenty of AfDs closed as such.--Crossmr (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how many hours/days are we going to let articles sit there in a state of half-completed AfD? He started this 7-8 hours ago, and if he can't write his deletion rationale in that kind of time, the notices should be removed. He managed to nominate everything in 14 minutes last time.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take a break, man. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crossmr, just stop. By constantly attacking BoP and his motives, all you're doing is making it apparent that you're the one who has issues with following policy. And frankly accusing BoP of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT is pretty ironic given that you were already told about three times that the reason for nominating has nothing to do with notability, and you still continued to accuse the editor of bad faith actions because the articles are notable. Notability isn't the only reason to take an article, or indeed a large group of articles, to AfD. Feel free to make your case for keeping the articles on the AfD page, but do not continue to attack others and assume bad faith. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
actually, if you read above, one of his reasons was that there only existed (or were used) primary sources. He's said that at least once or twice. I've provided tons of non-primary sources for 5 different countries. His claim now is that it's an indiscriminate collection of information (which doesn't seem anymore indiscriminate than the thousands of lists we have out there, the scope is decidedly smaller than others), and that it isn't encyclopedic. The last argument is straight off WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC which isn't a compelling argument for deletion. So it comes down to indiscriminate collection of information. Which it might very well be, but that is a content issue, not a deletion one. there clearly exists sources which make the topic notable, so even if the articles were stubbed, the topics themselves meet the threshold for inclusion and continually trying to force them to AfD doesn't make any sense.--Crossmr (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I will take a break from this discussion and make my comment on the centralized discussion when it's created.--Crossmr (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:Seb_az86556 started removing the notices because of absence of the discussion page. Although I think this is correct in principle, it is not getting us any further here and we will be discussing procedures for yet another day... I suggest the following:

revert/rollback the removals of the AfD messages
give BoP a notice on his talk that he should provide a rationale asap (within 12 hours from now? we have no idea which time zone he is in) to move this discussion forward.

Can someone who can do multi-revert do both (also the talkpage notice because BoP and I have started off not very well yesterday...)? Looking forward to really discussing this and hearing rationales! L.tak (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These can easily be reverted once there is a discussion-page. These templates have been sitting there for more than 6 (some of them 10) hours with a deadlink. I don't think that works. I am not opposed to the batch-nomination, but whenever there's an AfD-template that has no link, it should be removed after a reasonable time. 6 hours should really be enough to create the relevant page. (by the way, I gave the same rationale, albeit shortened, in the edit summary) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think its clear that there is general opinion sentiment against deleting the articles either singly or in random groups without a prior consideration of how to handle it. I continue to endorse Spartaz's earlier action, and urge him as someone reasonable to do what he did before, close the present AfDs as speedy keep. Basket of Puppy 's action in doing this is clearly disruptive and pointy, as he went ahead with this in spite of everything that was said above, and I suggest blocking him for a while to permit rational discussion of the problem, which I think can be best done by an RfC at the project page. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I have had my eye off this ball dealing with the JIDF/David Appletree situation but I agree that AFD really isn't the place for this discussion. I endorse the need for a RFC to thrash out the whole approach. Pages on visa regulations for specific countries are likely notable in most cases - the fact that someone actually writes a book about them that is reissued every month is significant but I do have concerns about the indiscriminaty nature of plain lists of visa rules. Personally, I have severe issues about visa requirements for citizens of country X pages as they are inevitably indiscrimate with a strong dash of SYTH and OR thrown in - all the trade documentation relates to the country travelling to, not the country going from, and I speak as something of a subject expert as my RL job is, amoung other things, teaching visa regulations to airlines so its something I have worked closely with for 23 years. That said, I don't feel that the arguments are clear cut enough that we can just say enough and AFD the lot and purge house. Rather we need a proper discussion about how to systemically organise our articles on these pages and that requires a centralised discussion somewhere. Maybe something I can look at when I get some time if no-one else takes this forward. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, the one up above about visa requirements for citizens of the country probably isn't appropriate. It's just a reverse collection of what would be included on "visa policy of country x" which is unnecessary. That said, I've demonstrated on the south korea article that several visas are extensively discussed and as such the visa policy articles are certainly viable in some, or likely all, cases.--Crossmr (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's probably the key issue for discussion. Personally I see no point creating articles without anything to add except visa lists as they go stale quickly and become unreliable if not maintained but some form of sourcing and discussion of the subject generally will be very useful and make a decent article. This depends on sources of course. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up example

As I mentioned above, there is plenty of room here to make encyclopedic articles. I've performed a very basic clean-up of Visa policy of South Korea. It is by no means complete, and at this point is just a stub example of the kind of thing I had in mind. There are dozens of more sources just on E2 visas so that section can probably be expanded to 2 or 3 good paragraphs to include information on how law makers, holder, other countries, etc have reacted to the visa and the changes and decisions that have been made to the visa over the years. I'm digging around now to try and find a citation for when it was first introduced.--Crossmr (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That definitely looks way better without the unnecessary list of countries. And, you're right, it looks like it has a much better claim to notability now than it did before. It's a lot easier to see and check. Silverseren^C 19:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my point that this was a content issue and not an AfD issue. there will still be plenty of primary sources as all visas can be discussed (individually or in groups) but those visas can then be propped up with additional information from the media. Some countries may require foreign language editors to help us out though. there might not always be extensive information in English on some visas.--Crossmr (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more to the E-2 visa and added an image of an actual visa, as well as information on 2 more visas. a total of 25 citations are now in the article with only a couple pointing to primary sources. if that doesn't show notability and viability of an article on visa policy I don't know what does.--Crossmr (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Crossmr, this is a good and valid type of article now, where it was just a list before (but still an encyclopedic list for wikipedia). The complicated thing is to find the sources for the policy on when to grant certain visa-durations and length of visa-free entry (passport security features, political reasons, reciprocity, does that go via bilateral agreements, is the list a derivate of something else etc), which are issues which I think should fit there as well. Whether the list which was in the wiki before is kept as argument/illustration of the policy in the main article or whether it becomes a "list of" article is a matter of style (and I have the idea the latter is preferable...) L.tak (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The article will get quite long as I write up each individual visa so putting the visa free list on there would be excessive. it easily could be spun off as a list of, it's just an encyclopedic as any other list, can be fully sourced (two references I used already show all the lengths). As for the lengths, yes, they're usually reciprocal unless one party is trying to do something to spur tourism or the like. The only reason canada gets 6 months in Korea as far as I know is because koreans get 6 months in Canada (as do a lot of other countries)--Crossmr (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giving up

I am giving up trying to go forth with my good faith nomination of these articles. I have been accused of bad faith, threatened with blocking, repeatedly harassed and exposed to a litany of accusations on my intentions. I began to batch AfD process but had to stop due to Shabbat. When I returned I had been mass-reverted. All I can say is I firmly believe these visa articles are not the least bit encyclopedic, but my good faith attempt to make this known has been met with every trick in the book. Good faith has been tossed out the window and accusations and threats have been allowed to go unstopped. I am sorry I tried to help this encyclopedia and improve the project. Basket of Puppies 05:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Hardly anyone objected to it in general, but rather to how you went about it. And I'm sure they didn't tell you about Shabbat on Friday morning; it's been around for millenia. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

come on BoP! don't be a victim here. Many people supported discussing the item, but more than pointy one-liners we have not seen. In the middle of the last discussion on how to do this, you suddenly started re-nominating again, which was excepted for the sake of the start of the discussion. Then you suddenly leave (where you said before: it might take me several hours, no mention of shabbat). Already before the first proposed deletion 2 days ago I showed the possibility the discuss your issues. Taken together this is a case of Wikipedia:Ididn'thearthat to me. You leave me nothing than to end with a citing the text you used before going on IRC (also without telling) here: It appears you don't understand. I don't know how else to explain it. (...) Which is why I am giving up as it appears you just don't understand. Moving along... Rgds L.tak (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No way. (And yes, that's all I can say, I'm afraid. The two above have already addressed my concerns.) :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two editors deleting a talk page comment

I've found a pair of editors bullying another editor by removing his/her talk page comments. These editors are part of the discussion thread containing the comment and have been warned that as such, they should leave it to an impartial 3rd party to review the comment. I'm an impartial 3rd party (not part of the thread, etc), and it's my opinion that this particular comment contains several useful points that should be addressed. And as far as offensiveness or incivility goes, it falls far short of any standard that would require its removal. I'd block the editor responsible for repeatedly deleting the comment - especially given that he/she was warned, but I see no harm in bringing it up here first. Rklawton (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a dick. DocOfSoc and I were in a content dispute on a BLP and whether the subject should be called "Jewish". His language was a little heated, but we resolved it. Then, NeoNeuroGeek (a new user) launches a tirade against DocOfSoc about whether he is a real Jew. He, not unreasonably, removed it. Rklawton then blunders in, reverts the removal with some wikilawyering about "involved" but does nothing to cool NeoNeuroGeek. Since it wasn't me NeoNeuroGeek was attacking, but my erstwhile opponent, I felt disinterested enough to remove the post and have a gentle word with the newbie about our expected decorum here [23]. Next thing Rklawton's spitting block threats here, with, despite me posting to his talk page, no attempt to resolve anything. This just looks like trolling to me. Calm down, sir, and get your overly-dramatic tanks off my manicured lawn.--Scott Mac 19:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone wishing to follow the thread can do so in sequence, it's short. Not only is Scott Mac mischaracterizing my comments/summaries (I explained the problem and what I'd do to resolve it if the problem persisted) he's being rude, too.

[24], [25], [26]. Rklawton (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored NeoNeuroGeeks comments with some elements redacted. My concern was that it was not a vitriolic attack on Doc but that the editor clearly felt hurt by the comments they read and made comments in the heat of the moment - we all do it. Please don't unilaterally remove comments like that in the future; it is better to politely ask the editor to retract the attacks (pointing them at the relevant policy) and, if they do not, ask an admin to come in and explain it more explictly (and redact the commets). The other way risks alienating someone further :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. What do you mean "unilaterally"? Every time one clicks submit it is unilateral. I stand by my action, I removed the comment, and left a very polite note on the newbie's talk page, explaining our civil ethos here, and assuming that his post was made in ignorance of that. Rklawton's actions were totally unhelpful: restoring personal attacks, with no attempt to talk with the newbie, indeed no attempt to explain anything to anyone outside of threatening edit summaries. How was that going to help? Drama-stoking at it worst. Liable to allow the heated rhetoric to escalate, while slapping those trying to dowse the flames. If he didn't like my way of doing it, he should have substituted his own, or at least done something constructive. --Scott Mac 19:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant nothing by "unilateral" except in the sense it was just the two of you :) and, yes, your note was constructive. Rklawton should, perhaps, have removed the PA's (or reported them to be removed) or encouraged you to report it. But he was correct in restoring the comment. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two isn't unilateral, by definition. Had Rklawton refactored and replaced, or had he taken some other course of action, that might have been correct. What he did was extremely disruptive. The correct thing to do, if you involve yourself, is to try to defuse a situation - you may wrongly judge what will do that, but any good-faith attempt is a start. Rklawton's action were in no sense of the word correct, as there was no strategy to help the situation lying behind them.--Scott Mac 20:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obligated to solve your problems. I saw the need to prevent two editors from abusing a third by removing talk page comments that were marginally offensive at best. In general, we don't remove comments from talk pages and we don't bite the noobs. I restored it with a reminder and restored again with a warning. As an experienced editor, you should know better, and the comments above from 3rd parties bear this out. Rklawton (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my actions - and in my criticism of yours. But since the thing is moot now, I'll let it go. Unwatching.--Scott Mac 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Scott, if I wasn't clear - don't read anything into my use of the word unilateral :) it was cultural/personal use & I realise that in this forum it came across differently. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make an observation that, as an uninvolved user, I believe that the warred over comment is valid and does indeed raise some very good points. Yes, the language is a bit heated, but it is certainly not in the realm of anything that would require removal of said comment. It appears to me that the removing users have rather vitriolic opinions of Schlessinger and perhaps should disengage and not edit the article because of such opinions. Silverseren^C 19:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I know nothing about her and have no opinion. I got involved when I picked up she was unhappy with the article, I reported it to BLPNB, and began removing unreferenced negative stuff.--Scott Mac 19:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was referring far more to DocOfSoc than you. Though you should have also not removed that comment. Silverseren^C 19:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please note that Scott Mac is jewish, so this is a WP:COI issue.--Caravan train (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Not Jewish - never have been - keep your knife off my penis, thanks. (Not that I'd think any less of myself were I Jewish.)--Scott Mac 19:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are comments like these appropriate for the project and this board? --DavidAppletree (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Scott MacDonald. That's an awfully Jewish name, isn't it? The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This Caravan train account does not pass the WP:DUCK test, if you look at its edits. Enigma^msg 20:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. It doesn't quack? Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means I'm saying the account is a sockpuppet and should probably be blocked. Enigma^msg 21:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bizarre comment out of left field from an account that's never edited here before, nor has this account edited any of the same articles Scott has during the two days of its existence (or the AfDs). I should AGF and say 'this is a new editor who doesn't understand our guidelines', but that would be hypocritical of me. Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am finished with the Laura article. Period. Please see further comments on my talk page, where such comments belong in the first place, NOT on an article talk page, the newbie obviously does not know this[redacted]. Namaste. DocofSoc

Personal attack redacted. Cut that out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuccessfully tried to inject some humour. So yessir! Exalted Sarek ;-) Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. A person is not allowed to remove personal attacks made against them? That's a first, as far as I'm concerned. And then a totally uninvolved person is not allowed to remove personal attacks made against somebody else? Since when? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no personal attack. There was one or two words that two editors who were directly involved in the discussion thread construed as a personal attack - and deleted the entire otherwise useful comment as a result. And that has a rather a chilling effect on article discussions and isn't appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it feels like a personal attack and quacks like a personal attack...New user's comments were in no way valid or useful. Misconstrued and full of fallacious assumptions. As an admin, there should have been instruction to newbie, as I had requested, who had violated the 3RR by reverting what ended up being the final outcome, that I had done correctly in the first place. (clunky sentence, LOL) A 2 day newbie should not be editing locked articles. Mysterious to me. A deja vu nightmare, like SRQ was back.. I was totally surprised at the lack of support. Sigh...Fast forwardDocOfSoc (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I didn't support was deleting comments from a talk page. It's a talk page - there's rarely any need to edit out other people's comments on a talk page - especially comments that are on topic. Instructing, advising, warning the newbie are all fine. Removing a whole comment because one part of it may be questionable is not appropriate, especially when that removal is done by people personally involved in that threat. But I said that already in the restore summaries. Rklawton (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being called racist is not a personal attack? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want an administrator to do something here? Jehochman ^Talk 04:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a bit pedantic, but the comment was called racist, not the commentator. Hence the attack is on the comment, not the person.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is a difference that is not essential. Calling somebody's comment racist is effectively calling them a racist. What admin action is requested here? Jehochman ^Talk 21:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything is needed - it was a one off incident and the users involved ended up with various warnings. I redacted the racism remarks. It can probably be marked resolved --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zombie433

Previous ANI discussions related to Zombie433: User:Zombie433 keeps on original research, Users User:Heritagesoccerpro and User:Zombie433

Again, is him. The guy never reply. Through out the days i OFTEN found his hoax content, from adding a content with cite, but the cite is irreverent to the content. to now i find his article Diego Aparecido Ferreira Oliveira contain half of the hoax career in Brazil. Seems he never want to correct, or he work for a company to write fake CV for the footballers. He made lots of edits, i did not count the percentage of hoax in his total edits, but did wikipedia want a people that not willing to correct his behavior to not adding hoax? Matthew_hk t c 20:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are concerned about some of the contributions that Zombie433 (talk · contribs) is making. Can you be more specific? It seems that English might not be your native language. Perhaps WP:Diffs would help illustrate the situation. Toddst1 (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting: Zombie433 is complained about at WT:FOOTBALL (see archives), with the most recent archived discussion being this. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I work not for any company over football, i only layman and football fan. I collect only football magazine like Extra Liga, A Bola, Liga Polska, Luxemburger Fussballmeisterschaft, Voetbal International etc. few stats based on the stats in this magazines. (Zombie433talk | contribs) 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many concerns about Zombie433, in my opinion, them being: 1 - his appalling grasp of English, even tough he gives himself a "level 4"; 2 - the fact that he NEVER replies to people, NEVER, unless they write to him in German and not even then always, removing messages, friendly or not, minutes before they arrive at his talkpage; 3 - his continuing overlinking in football articles, even tough it is not necessary (this is indeed a by-product of his struggles with the language); 4 - even though it has been stated that foreign sources are OK with the site, he has NEVER supplied one single source in English, even going as far as removing the English source and insert a foreign one (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On%C3%A9simo_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=354291436&oldid=354210835); 5 - the overcategorization in which in indulges, creating cats for 4th, sometimes 5th division clubs, and several expatriate ones, really not needed; 6 - i am not familiar with this one, but it seems he has begun inserting spam links to articles, which was the primary reason for which he was blocked.

Attentively (speaking of which, i WILL pay close attention to this!)- --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie often use fake stats. to claim the footballers were notable. Just like Diego Aparecido Ferreira Oliveira, Azian Innocent Tano (most recent?) ~~Ergün Berisha (deleted and recreate after he truly turn notable)~~. As i was not a reviewer of Zombie, i think there is some hoax still not yet discovered.

For Danilo Pereira da Silva, i can't find any source that he played for Chivas USA. (there is another Danilo da Silva in NLS for another team, not Danilo P. da Silva). AND Brazilian FA record did not said he moved to US.

And i asked again and again that please provide citation for the content he submit. He improved in new edits, but he either provide a irreverent one, or his cite did not sufficiently support his content.

Matthew_hk t c 20:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those really difficult situations where it appears that an editor can't really communicate with us and address/understand concerns. Zombie seems to have been raised as an issue a number of times now and I think we really need someone to open a dialogue with him. Perhaps approach someone in one of the German Wikiprojects who is able to talk to this person and translate our issues. Not perfect - but perhaps an opening step? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for volunteers to speak to this person here. I think it is in the best interests of WP to try and get this editor talking in some way --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was done here man (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zombie433&diff=374905578&oldid=374904428), what do you think happened? He removed the message, without answering the other user... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ergün Berisha is another case, i mixed up. Matthew_hk t c 21:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem people are having with Zombie is that he makes a lot of contributions (many of them are verifiable) but doesn't communicate well with other editors. I don't know what types of sources he is using for some of his edits (there were several edits he made to football players from the Ivory Coast that no one was able to verify, so we had to remove them), and it's troubling when information is added to BLPs that is not verifiable. If Zombie didn't make so many edits, it would be much easier to deal with verifying the unsupported additions and reverting the edits that are unverifiable or inaccurate. However, with the volume of edits he's made, it's an enormous task to go back through more than a years' worth of them. I'm sure he can help us verify many of those old edits, but I don't know how to explain it to him (or even get a reaction on his Talk page). Jogurney (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Vasco for the link. I think some action needs to be taken here. Perhaps a 24 hour block? Just to get the point across & try to get this person to communicate? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly looked at contribs and usertalk history of de:Benutzer:Zombie433 on de and didn't see obvious problems of this magnitude, but a better German speaker than me might want to take a closer look. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but be aware that de:Benutzer:Zombie433 has about 2000 contributions while User:Zombie433 has about 83000. The comments on his talk page are mostly warnings not to put unconfirmed information in articles, warnings about copyvios, advice about the need for sources, advice about grammar errors etc. It's also obvious that he mostly ignores the advice on this talk page; this was among others a reason why he got blocked [27]. I'm a native German speaker, so if you need a translation I think I can manage. --Jaellee (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yow, I missed noticing that he was blocked 6 times on de. Is his German as bad as his English, even though he says he is a native German speaker? 67.119.3.248 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure that he is a native German speaker, I checked some of de:Benutzer:Zombie433 edits. Sometimes they contain typos and the style could be improved, but I think it's not that bad overall (clearly better than his English). Other editors asked him repeatedly to use the present tense in articles like (these were the grammar advices), and his lack of reaction made people angry, especially if they were the ones who cleaned up after him. --Jaellee (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think of the BLPs

Basically, the reason this is ANI-worthy is because we've got an editor who is relentlessly plugging away with the addition of material which is either dubious or outright false to hundreds or thousands of BLPs. This is not a good thing, and can't continue indefinitely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really relevant but your subtitle reminds me of this :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too late to get rid of his dubious edits completely. Even when all his contributions are deleted, there are edits by other users in the text of BLP's based on previous contributions by Zombie433 and many other language wiki's have copied the English page. You can even find his contributions on official club-sites now [28] Cattivi (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's shut off the faucet of dubious information, then, especially with what Chris said about BLP. This editor has popped up too many times to not take action. Considering the lack of dialogue, as the editor removes negative notifications from his own talk page, we should consider a preventative block to protect Wikipedia from further misinformation. Is there any criteria we need to follow to pursue this course of action? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indef

Resolved

– Final warning issued. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Jaelee pointing out Zombie433's block log on de (6 blocks in 2000 edits) I think it's time for indefinite block per WP:COMPETENCE. We're not dealing solely with a language issue. Block notification should indicate that it's not a ban and that the block can be lifted if he discusses the situation and can work out an agreement to improve his editing with regard to sourcing, accuracy, communications, etc. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of have to agree here, but I'm also commenting so more can review this before it gets archived without action.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would think he would be very carefull at the moment: this is what he added Saturday evening[29] Youthclubs Falu Bk 2003-05 (club founded in 2006!) signed from Falkirk on 16 march 2010 (he played for Falu in 2009) Shirtnumber 21 or 18? [30] You only have to follow the links he added. There is no expertise needed to see this guy is hopeless Cattivi (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalus, it is clear that numerous people take issue with Zombie433's contributions. This is a pretty serious trend that has been overlooked for way too long, considering the number of times the editor has been discussed and the number of contributions that have been made. We need to end the proliferation of bad information on Wikipedia. Let's take action now when we should have taken it months or years ago. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to go with everyone here on this one. Even when I've convinced Zombie to add citations to articles, as seen here, there's countless cites that do not say what they claim. I even saw him using this as a source. I've tried to discuss with him several times on his talk page with no help at all. I'm leaning towards an indefinite block sadly as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued a final warning. If Zombie433 adds any further material to any BLPs which is either false or dubious and unreferenced, ping me and I'll indef block the account. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that it's had to come to this, but unfortunately I too agree with the consensus to remove Zombie from our midst if he transgresses again. This is a collaborative project, and his lack of willingness to communicate with anyone combined with his wilful disregard of policy, and his terrible English skills has got to the point where enough is enough. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triton Rocker violation of British Isles topic ban

As well as editing warring[31] at Terminology of the British Isles Triton Rocker has again violated his British Isles (Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log) topic ban here. Bjmullan (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This matter was being dealt with in other locations. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correct location - the Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log is a log for recording sanctions not discussing them. This is the appropriate venue.--Cailil ^talk 15:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the text on that page be archived because thats what that page has been used for since its creation and it should clearly state that is not the place for such matters. Seems pointless bringing everything here when there is a separate page for the thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the number of violations of the topic ban, the recent block for disruption, violation of 3RR this is a serious problem. I'd suggest an indefinite block with conditional unblock when and only when Triton_Rocker recognizes what they've done wrong, accepts site policy and agrees to edit within it. At that point the topic ban should be reset to the date of unblock as per normal practice for repeatedly disruptive editors serving topic bans--Cailil ^talk 15:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An indef block is totally unfair compared to the treatment of certain other editors who have been involved in this dispute for many years. People here voted for sanctions to be applied to an editor, those sanctions were not imposed, he then went on to remove British Isles from another article with no punishment at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an irrelevant discussion BW. And I'm now warning you not to bring up extraneous issues in this discussion it is disruptive and will be dealt with as such. We are assessing this matter on its merits not in relation to others. If you want to bring up other editors behaviour do so where appropriate (and you are genuinely invited to do so).
Triton Rocker is subject to a ban and violated 3 times previously - this is a 4th violation. They clearly aren't getting the message. It's time they did--Cailil ^talk 15:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just the failure to abide by the sanction or the 3RR its the persistent refusal to ever engage in discussing any edit and the abuse of any editor who opposes him/her. We had accusations of meat puppetry this morning (links on Triton's talk page) which just builds on a persistent pattern of AGF and NPA violations in the majority of edits. I agree that something needs to go in place which forces Triton to acknowledge that something needs to change. --Snowded ^TALK 15:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bloke has become a bore. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are all responsible for our own edits here, and trying to muddy the water by saying that other editors in the past have done similar doesn't hold any weight. A process was started to cease these type of edit wars and this editor has refused to accept that this is the case. So unfortunately I would support a topic ban, instead of an indef block. If they breach the topic ban and going by this editors previous ignoring of sanctions they will then indef block is what needs to happen. Mo ainm~Talk 16:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mo's views, it's time for a topic-ban, folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A topic ban is totally inappropriate here. Triton's so-called transgression is absolutely minor; adding a relevant template to an article is just run-of-the-mill article improvement. Maybe it was a technical breach but it's clear to me that those with an anti-BI agenda are trying to capitalise on this technicality by attempting to force the removal of a knowledgeable editor whom they disagree with; it is quite scandalous behaviour on their part. BTW, any claimed incivility on the part of Triton is not relevant here. LevenBoy (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've no probs with TR arguing on the talkpages & even being uncivil. But, edit warring is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who was the other party to the edit war, just out of interest (and this debate is not actually about edit warring). LevenBoy (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If one is outnumbered, one shouldn't get into an edit spat. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Cailil, you seem to be suggesting that Triton Rocker is more than one person, if you've an accusation to make let's have it out in the open. Thanks. LevenBoy (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where Cailil suggests that; can you please substantiate how you came to the conclusion that Cailil made any such suggestion or accusation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven't. Strike that comment LevenBoy and stay on topic--Cailil ^talk 17:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Triton Rocket IS topic banned[32] and has been blocked 3 times in the last month for violating that topic-ban.
As a general warning to all the involved editors at the WP:BISE page - if you haven't got anything pertinent, on topic and policy based to say about this matter then stay away from it - disruption of enforcement threads will be prevented.
LevenBoy you wont get another warning to assume good faith. This is a very simple matter using it to make a point is not a good idea--Cailil ^talk 17:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if he is topic banned then the next step is indef block. Mo ainm~Talk 18:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cailhil, your veiled threats are out of place and verge on hilarity, but I'm getting increasingly annoyed by your carping and threatening others with sanctions that would be an abuse of your powers as an admin were you to impose them. This is not the first time you've waded in here issuing you ultimatums. Your warning to BW above is pathetic! Regarding my remark - quote "They [Triton Rocker and maybe et.al] clearly aren't getting the message. It's time they did". That sounds remarkably like you think there's more than one person operating that account. Now maybe your're not sure if the account holder is a man or woman, but that's a bloody strange way of putting it, that's all I can say. LevenBoy (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LevenBoy you've been warned to stop disrupting this thread - these were not veiled threats but administrative warnings.
Perhaps you were confused by a gender neutral pronoun - then all you had do was say you were confused by 'they' but instead you responded with incivility and spurious inferences of admin misconduct. It is entirely within my duties and powers to block for disruption or impose topic bans as I amn't involved in any area of this dispute. Now, I've asked SarekOfVulcan to review my conduct here and unless they contradict me I will prevent this thread from further disruption by block if necessary--Cailil ^talk 19:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, LevenBoy, this was a case of Singular they. I don't like it either and think it's ungrammatical, but it's meant to mean just one person. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triton Rocker's response

NB: I was never entirely topic banned as the title suggests.

I apologise in advance to all the drama whores --- especially those attempting to use all this to the benefit of, and distraction from, their political campaign on the Wikipedia --- but I have very little time to respond to this today. Perhaps if you can just give me two or three days to put together a proper response, I would appreciate it.

Is everyone REALLY blind to what is going on here?

And let's us just be clear,

I did not break my sanction, which was not "to add or remove the term British Isles"

What I did was add five perfectly august academic references stating that the British Isles

"is a geographical term, arguably in use since the second century BC, and used widely in academia without reflecting the United Kingdom's hegemonic interests.

" In books published before 1920, this term relates to the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Man, as Ireland was ruled directly from Westminster. From 1920 onwards, the term includes both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (Eire)."

That terrible sin is what this is all about.

Look, there is are a handful of Irish - or non-English - editors including the accuser Bjmullan (talk · contribs)‎, ‎Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk · contribs), Ghmyrtle (talk · contribs) and ‎the principle character HighKing (talk · contribs) who are engaged in some kind of long term and widespread nationalistic campaign to replace the inclusive, accurate geographic term "British Isles" with the exclusive, political and inaccurate term "Britain and Ireland" and, where it cannot be done easily, to bog down any productive development. (For non-Brits admins, who may think "England" is the "UK", "Britain and Ireland" do not include all British Isles what are part of the same geographical group and people from the Isle of Man and Channel Islands are not happy about it).

Obviously, they are stalking my edits. I edit. One or more of them comes along and reverts provocatively, then Snowded (talk · contribs) --- whose user page is emblazoned with Welsh nationalism --- comes along to play mock admin. This happens time and time again.

Now, ask the question, "is British Isles a geographical term widely used in academia without reflecting the United Kingdom's hegemonic interests"?

Of course, yes. The references say so. So what is REALLY is the problem here? I can tell you.

First, please allow me to make this entirely clear. I do not have one drop of English blood in me (or on me). I do not support the UK's hegemonic interests in Ireland now or of the past. But, anyone with any academic background, could stand by and allow them to do what they are trying to do.

You would be fools, and making a mockery of the word "encyclopedia" if you cannot see this.

Now, tell me if you want to know what this is really all about. --Triton Rocker (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triton Rocker. This is a breach of your topic ban. The above post which engages in inappropriate conduct, ie failure to AGF (as does this post today) is also a breach of that ban as explained clearly and cogently here. I am, and this thread is NOT evaluating the correctness or otherwise of the content but rather the fact that you have continually ignored an editing restriction as imposed by Black Kite.
I have warned all the others to stay on topic and not disrupt or attempt to derail this thread - and I'm warning you too. Don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. Your personal, impressions of others are irrelevant all that is relevant are your actions. Claiming that this edit is not in breach of your ban is an attempt to game the system.
Also for the record, the above post uses excessive mark-up - please don't make posts that use so much mark-up in them any further please--Cailil ^talk 01:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the section title has been retitled for less drama. Again don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point Triton Rocker--Cailil ^talk 01:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right. As an uninvolved admin, I'd like to make sure I have the facts clear. Triton Rocker is under a ban from adding or removing the term "British Isles" from articles? And stands accused of having violated this ban by adding a link to British Isles from the article Terminology of the British Isles? I've got to say that enforcing in this case of a simple link that's not even part of the text and that, from what I can see, no one's even contested yet seems kind of Draconian to me. Though perhaps in an intractable dispute like this one, Draconian is the right way to go. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Triton should not be adding British Isles to any article and that would include the place he inserted it this time, although it is a minor alteration which has not been undone (like his changes were in the past when he added it) which suggests the change was justified. I think moving to some indef block or an extensive block under the sanctions is unfair in this case. He should be punished for the edit war which is totally unacceptable and that should cover it. Since Triton came off his last block, it was only yesterday that 1 edit war and the insertion of the BI link happened, he seems to be learning. He just now needs to accept never to get into an edit war again and completely avoid any insertion of British Isles, even if its a "Main article" link. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining that so well BW. But just to say we don't punish people exactly with sanctions we just prevent further violations of policy / restrictions. Indeed if Triton Rocker could make such a promise to avoid edit wars and to abide by his ban completely that would help things--Cailil ^talk 13:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Triton should agree to do both and i hope he does, people can only be given so many chances before there its too late. I can understand why he gets frustrated about the whole thing, but he needs to remember the best thing to do is stick to the talk page to argue a case for change or insertion, rather than doing anything himself that will probably get him into trouble. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- That's basically my view, too, and, I suspect, why Triton Rocker isn't blocked right now. The edit was against both the spirit and letter of the topic ban, but I'm extremely reluctant to block someone for adding a Main Article link to "British Isles" in an article about... the "British Isles". A block would be draconian: particularly because Triton Rocker has burned through the short blocks (1 day, 1 week...) and is now into long block territory. I wouldn't be happy blocking on this occasion for a month or indefinitely under these circumstances, violation of topic ban or not. I'd regard this as a one-off, however: this isn't a precedent, it doesn't give Triton Rocker carte blanche to game the system. TFOWR 09:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm thinking, though, that BritishWatcher may be right that a block for edit warring might well be merited. For that, we might want to dine at the edit warring noticeboard tonight, where dinner has already been served. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree - An indef would be way over the top, and a month is too much - but another week for the edit warring ("if" found culpable)? It would fall in line with previous blocks, and isn't unwarranted... Doc9871 (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - While I understand your views, as an outsider myself, this dispute has gone on too long the behaviour of all sides involved is in general falling into WP:BATTLE. Triton Rocker happens to be the first user under topic ban he also happens to be a repeat violator. AFAIK there is an unresolved 3RR[33] report against Triton Rocker, there is also the matter of his talk post to Snowded page (which as I've said violates his ban as well).
      I recognize your (and Black Kite's) very generous approach TFOWR and your expertise in dealing with group of the editors involved but frankly it is a mistake not to deal with the totality of Triton Rocker's problem when it is apparent that blocks of definite length aren't working. My suggestion above is that he be blocked until he recognizes the restriction, site policy and editing standards - not that he just get a perma-block indef. That said if you feel that 10-14 days is better then I'll support you in that--Cailil ^talk 13:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So everyone else is to blame and a conspiracy against wikipedia by them bloody Irish and their supporters, nice way to accept responsibility for Your own actions. You are quick enough to go on about snitches but every opertunity you get, you role out a list of editors who are making you edit the way you do, catch yourself on. Also the validity or otherwise of the edits are irrelevant. Mo ainm~Talk 09:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The 'wounded soldier' approach isn't working. A siege mentality is counter-productive. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Guys I've already warned everyone to stay on topic please stay away from ad hominem remarks--Cailil ^talk 13:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough & correct. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'd quite like Triton Rocker to withdraw the unfounded accusation that I am "engaged in some kind of long term and widespread nationalistic campaign... etc." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Ghmyrtle certainly is not involved in this and Triton should not make specific accusations against other editors, especially when they are innocent in this dispute. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a simple option - ask Triton to formally agree to (i) respect the sanction, (ii) cease all attacks and allegations and accusations against other editors & (iii) accept a !RR restriction on BI related articles. Todate Triton has at no stage acknowledged any fault or the legitimacy of Wikipedia rules. If he can't bring himself to make those undertakings then I think its time for an topic ban on anything to do with the British Isles (he has done good work elsewhere so an indef is not appropriate) until such an undertaking is forthcoming, far too much time is being wasted on this.--Snowded ^TALK 20:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a previous complainant about Triton Rocker to this panel, I would agree with Snowded's suggestion above. Clearly Triton can't take the emotion involved in this debate and could do with taking a substantial break from it generally - I would suggest from anything Britain-, United Kingdom-, Ireland- or British/Irish- related. This would give all of us a much needed respite from the problems and abuse caused by this editor in an area of editing where space for calm discussion is essential. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not for violating the ban on adding the term "British Isles", but for the (in my mind) more serious act of edit warring, I have blocked TritonRocker for one week. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, Heimstern. Agree with the block. I would hope that Triton Rocker takes this on board: their topic ban is not the only policy/rule/sanction they need to respect. TFOWR 10:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The block is far in excess of what is needed. In terms of so-called edit warring it was quite trival, and don't forget it takes two - or in this case three - to edit war. Why should one party get a hefty block and the other party not even a polite warning? And by the way, I've never read such a load of sanctimonious garbage as that appearing above from the majority of contributors (mostly admins). It makes me want to puke! LevenBoy (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - TFOWR, mm sai. LevenBoy, because Triton did far more reverting than other contributors. Feel free to warn any editors you think need warnings, though I suggest you be careful not to unnecessarily inflame any situations. As for puking, please, feel free. It's not like it'd be the first time that's happened on this board. Today. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Einsteindonut/WPYellowStar/David Appletree is back despite a community ban,

Please do a Block, User:DavidAppletree is Quacking very loudly! All the time using the same mantras of denial and rhetoric. He claims he is working through stuff with Arbcom but he does not need a user account for that. Pending any statement from arbcom its is time we enforce the community ban Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This gives some context and an admission: [[34]]. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i missed the admission! that is very handy! Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never admitted to being Einsteindonut/WPYellowStar. I said that *some* of the accused sockpuppets *might* be me, as I have logged on from time to time from various IP's to make an edit here and there. There's currently a witch hunt on, falsely accusing me of being behind at least 56 suspected socks over the past couple years. I'm tired of being falsely accused, and constantly attacked on WP, so I have created this account to defend myself, and my organization, to answer general questions about my work, and to edit a few articles here and there as I do feel I can abide by the rules and contribute to this project in a meaningful way. It's a shame and unfortunate that anyone remotely pro-JIDF is automatically accused of being me and a sockpuppet. It's time that this stops. I can actually help put an end to at least some of the problems that might be coming from JIDF supporters, but I would hope that the witch hunt, false accusations, and personal attacks against me would end. As I have stated, one of my goals with the JIDF was to find and unify likeminded people. The JIDF has over 37,000 fans on Facebook and nearly 54,000 followers on Twitter. Don't you think some of them might come to Wikipedia from time to time to defend the JIDF from constant attacks? Yet anyone who does this is accused of being a sock of one of the most pro-JIDF accounts, who is then accused of being me. If you look at my website and my posts elsewhere, you'd see that I really don't have time to do all that I'm being accused of doing here. It's quite a witch hunt you have going on. --DavidAppletree (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this user is claiming to be a living person of some note they need to identify and be verified through OTRS or get a new username. Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that they have been in touch with OTRS already. I have been in email contact with David and believe he is who he says he is. I emailed cary to check if OTRS had anything to contribute this afternoon as well Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC). Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This situation prompted me to go get my OTRS access back after my vacation and I can confirm that DavidAppletrees has contected OTRS concerning this account and I am satisfied that he is one in the same. No action under the username policy is necessary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I referred the matter to the arbitration committee this afternoon. Please let this be until they respond. David has agreed to avoid controversial edits while waiting for them and dragging this out before then is simply going to induce a dramafest. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user has already been Soapboxing across Jimbo's user page, His SPI page, his own page among others and thats just his allegedly only account. Block him for now we can always unblock him later. He is here to promote his cause not to build and encyclopedia. The IP edits in the last thread were enough to prove he working under proxies. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, we also have a self identified person who is regularly mentioned on JIDF and wants to seek balance. This is a difficult issue because BLP requires us to be reasonable about that. While they are not currently causing major trauma, why not let them be while the committee consider this? I admit that the timing, shortly after a community ban on Einsteindonut is unhelpful but i suspect that if we don't bait David we may have a chance to put this long running problem to bed once and for all. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am simply responding to various allegations and attacks. If I'm doing any soapboxing or anything against the rules, please notify me on my talk page, and I will revert, if necessary. Again, my goal here with this account is to fully adhere to the rules. However, I admit I am not a Wikipedia expert and do not know all of them. I could use a hand in learning the system, so I don't something against the rules, unknowingly. --DavidAppletree (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, I will sideline myself for now, the BLP issue is an aspect of this issue I did not consider and you are absolutly right that this is no causing major trauma at the moment. I do think regaurdless of what we do not much will make him happy. Which judging his by Dialog with Ironhold, we have a true believer and dialog with him will be be as hopless as dialog with CoS was. Considering his Website goes to Great lengths to Out wikipedians I am not holding my breath Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my website does not go to great lengths to out wikipedians. If any Wikipedians have any issue whatsoever about articles that were written about 2 years ago, they are free to contact me directly to discuss: david@thejidf.org. Being that privacy and security is of the utmost importance to me, personally, I fully try to respect the privacy and security of others. Despite getting to the root of the person behind the anonymous IP who attacked the JIDF article several times with swastikas and jihadist symbols, I never released his name, or the company he worked for. When the article about the JIDF first arrived, I admit I was hyper sensitive about it, and bothered, as I didn't know how Wikipedia worked, exactly and I felt a lot of unfair things were happening, such as repeated nominations for the article to be deleted. Despite over 2 years of decent media coverage, that's still happening, to this day! Those are just a couple examples of the abuse my organization and I have suffered on WP since the first article arrived. --DavidAppletree (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call this an Outing list [35] Which is why I have a little bit of a time AGF here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an outing list. Who is being outed there, exactly? That's a list of people we felt had an extreme anti-Israel bias at the time and we documented some of their edits and some of their other online activities which helped back our points. I think only one editor listed there ever bothered to contact us directly about any problems they had on our site, and if I remember correctly, we accommodated most of his requests out of respect to his privacy/security concerns. I believe most of the editors listed there voluntarily made their names available on WP itself. Either way, the list was not created to "out" people (unless they were trying to hide their anti-Israel bias), which, from their edits, they were not. --DavidAppletree (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents, I'm uninvolved but haven't looked into it that deeply so that's about what it's worth, but here goes anyway. If the identity of the user is established by OTRS he should be allowed to edit the talk page of the article in question provided he is using no other accounts and is not disruptive. I checked his contributions and it doesn't appear that he has directly edited the article in question. If he is disruptive he should be served the standard notices until he stops or is blocked. If he used socks in the past b/c he wanted to protect his identity it should be forgiven unless he has socked since the creation of this account. If that's proven, by all means let's shut him down. Again, I'm not familiar with all the aspects of the case, but I agree we should make some allowances due to the BLP issue. Yworo (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This seems very fair minded. I have not engaged in any sock activity since the creation of this account, and do not intend to do so. I also plan on keeping main page editing, especially about my organization, to a bare minimum. However, at some point I may like to get involved in other articles, as I do have wide-ranging interests. I feel this will help the perception many WP editors have of me, and the JIDF, as this witch hunt and wide-ranging allegations and personal attacks against me and my work have troubled me. --DavidAppletree (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David, was your account created..today?!? So you haven't socked...today?!? I guess its like AA, one day at a time :). Also, why would you want to have an article on Wikipedia? I am so glad I am not notable to have a page here with everything that goes on. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. No comment. Who said I wanted to have an article on WP? It just happened and it's been a bit of a nightmare. I just think if there's going to be one, that it might as well be accurate. --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a real issue here? Nobody seems to be arguing that a specific item in the JIDF article is factually wrong, uncited, or violates WP:BLP. There's been considerable drama associated with this article over the last two years, but not over content. This looks like another attempt at attention-getting. The JIDF is no longer getting press; they've dropped out of Google News.[36] There's not much more to be said about them at this point. WP:DRAMA applies. --John Nagle (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. While I didn't raise this issue, or any of the issues others I've witnessed on this noticeboard, there's actually been plenty of edits throughout the history of the article and other areas of WP that I believe have been in violation of various rules. For example, there have been many claims as to my whereabouts, as well as my living conditions, as well as my political views. There have also been personal attacks against me and my organization and a wide variety of false allegations. I'm not seeking any drama, but I do believe I have a right to counter the problems I have been witnessing on this platform over the years. Despite your claims that I'm seeking attention, I've actually tried to keep myself not notable and have tried to keep personal details about myself to a bare minimum. I've even turned down huge media opportunities in order to protect my privacy and security. With regard to you the link you provided, and contrary to your claims, the media coverage of the JIDF has been fairly steady. --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the light side. DavidAppletree, to judge by the day and the way it's been spent, can't be him. Far too much melakha, sitting out there bashing away on a computer keyboard. Must have roped in a Shabbos goy. :)Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i don't see the humour here. this personal attack should be deleted. nishidani has had a fair share of action in the israel-arab conflict on wikipedia to know better than provoking other editors. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed to be an observant Jew. I rest on Shabbos in my own way. I hope to be more observant again, one day. --DavidAppletree (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So serious! Well, it's late here, so I must decline Ночь-мужик.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I generally have a sense of humor, but considering the amount of hostility directed against me and my work that has been published here, as well as the volumes of misinformation about me personally, compounded by the hate directed at me by a wide variety of WP editors, I'm not here to joke around, especially about something as serious as my personal observance of the Jewish Sabbath. I fail to see how that is even relevant to this discussion. Hope you had a good night. --DavidAppletree (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." JIDF? A teeny little "blip" on WP. Huge media opportunities have been turned down: really? WP:ARTSPAM must have been brought up before. I'd say there's a pretty serious admitted COI issue here... Doc9871 (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there is. But at lease we know about it and can monitor David's posting to control this. I have confirmation that arbcom have received my email. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Excuse me, Doc, but I hardly need to advertise on Wikpedia. This site does not bring much traffic to my site whatsoever and it's not like the majority of the editors here would be interested in my work. I'm pretty happy with the size of my audience and I'm not looking for just anyone to be a part of it. I target pro-Israel Jews and others who are concerned about Islamic terrorism, who generally lean to the right, politically. Also, since the beginning of my work, I have purposely tried to weed people out. For example, during the election, I weeded out Obama fans. Since so many Jews supported Obama, would doing that help or hurt a "Jewish defense" effort? Would that lend credence to the idea that I'm just trying to reach as many people as possible? On another note, I think Glenn Beck makes the entire right wing look like lunatics, so I purposely weed out Glenn Beck fans, away from my effort. Those are just a couple points to prove that I actually target people in a very specific way and don't need Wikipedia whatsoever for "advertising" or "publicity" purposes, especially considering there is what I feel to be antisemitic, anti-Israel and extreme leftist bias here at Wikipedia. In short, this is hardly the proper demographic for me to advertise. I didn't create the article about my organization here, but I feel that since it is here (along with a lot of misinformation about me, and my organization), the least all this can be, is accurate. I can help set the record straight. And yes, again, due to privacy and security concerns, I have turned down several on-Camera interview opportunities, one with FOX news and another with a large network in Canada (I forget the name of it), and others. If I was all about the advertising and publicity, I would have done those no matter what. While I realize my work, security, and privacy is of little interest or importance to most WP editors, it is important to me and to fans/supporters of my work (who aren't on WP for the most part, as it seems most of them have been chased away due to false allegations, incivility, and other forms of harassment). Either way, and to get back to the main point, if there's going to be any information about me, and my work on this platform, I feel that I should have the opportunity to be here to help set the record straight and to give myself and my organization a more human face with whom WP editors can deal with directly. Obviously, there is a COI when it comes to the editing of the article about my organization, but I still feel I could be an important asset for it, and other articles on the site, but that doesn't mean I'm so interested in main page editing. I feel I can make most of my points in the talk areas. --DavidAppletree (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I began and ended my comment with concerns about WP:COI - the spamming was a "side-note". If you edit articles about yourself and/or your organization, there are real potential problems concerning neutral point of view. I didn't make these rules, David... Doc9871 (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the COI, but at least now it is out in the open. I'm doing this to protect anonymous editors who might be pro-JIDF and who come in from time to time to edit something, or make a point, who always get accused of being me. Now, since I'm on WP with my name and fully disclosing my connection to my organization, I believe, or hope, the witch hunt for me in every corner of WP, ends. --DavidAppletree (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Please note, out of 56 "sockpuppet allegations" in the following case, only 4 have been confirmed." That's four too many, IMO. WP:Consensus will take care of "protecting" anonymous editors just fine, I think. No need for "extra" protection, is there? Best of luck to you :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not confirmed to be me, but confirmed to be a sock of ED. --DavidAppletree (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please wrap this up?

Per the SPI ([37]) he's recently used four different socks to evade scrutiny. Can an admin simply apply the recent community ban on the remaining two socks (User:DavidAppletree & User:WPYellowStars) so we can finish with this trivial drama? Any outstanding issues can, and I assume are, being dealt with via email thru arbcom etc. there is no need to continue discussing this here. Misarxist (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note actions like this and edits like this. --DavidAppletree (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is beyoned me why this SPI haven't been blocked long ago. By his own admission he is only here to protect his meatpuppets and/or sockpuppets. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's one thing I said, completely taken out of context. If you considered the entire context of this situation (as I hope ArbCom is doing, and from what I hear, is doing), you'd have a different POV (if you are fair minded). --DavidAppletree (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DavidAppletree your argument is.... because You and Misarxist have differences of political opinion.... We should ignore his statement? Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not my argument. If that was my argument, I would have stated it as such. I provided those two links for context into the allegation made by someone who a) Just targeted a general JIDF source material page (which was only created to help editors and the project) for deletion and b) who removed sourced material from the project which was citing Jewish historical presence in Israel. In short, this is just another one of the many editors who is going to have a problem with me, being that I'm the founder of a pro-Israel organization, and that is the context of his comments, encouraging me to be banned from WP completely, despite the fact that most others are encouraging people to be patient and to allow ArbCom to make a decision. --DavidAppletree (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your issues A) he found a page he found odd and nomed it for Deletion? i considered doing it myself until i saw that an Admin created it, B) someone doing routine BLP clean-up is a reason for them to be ignored? Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly did I say anyone should be ignored? --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I haven't examined this greatly but what I see now is a identified living person willing to use only one account and willing to discuss and stay within policy, as such I don't think such an offer should be rejected without consideration. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While the socks have been used in the past few days, there was no overlap. If User:DavidAppletree is willing to commit to that one account, not make any more, and, perhaps, let ArbCom know about older accounts, then I personally do not think a ban is in order. User:DavidAppletree will have to commit to editing within the bounds of wikipedia policy and guideline, of course, but if he does, and he can raise issues about his related articles within the rules, and not engage in disruptive sock/meatpuppetry, that should be a net positive. -- Avi (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned, I'm willing to commit to using just this account and editing within the bounds of WP policy and guidelines. I'm wondering how long the ugly sockpuppet template has to stay up on my userpage? One of the problems, I think, is that different people were using different accounts and IP's. I'm not sure what ArbCom needs from me, but I'm available, should they need anything. --DavidAppletree (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now a veiled attempt at off wiki Meat Puppet organizing

at the JIDF Twitter page and Flaunting his actions here on a user page Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. I don't see how mentioning the work I'm doing on Wikipedia in front of approximately 54,000 people on Twitter is a "veiled" anything. If it's against the rules to Tweet that message, please show me where, and I will delete the Tweet, if absolutely necessary and apologize for breaking the rules somehow. With regard to what I wrote to HalfShadow, it was a followup on a previous conversation (see: here and here.) I realize you don't like me, or my work, but a little good faith wouldn't kill you. --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith is not a suicide pact, the more actions like this you display the less and less I am willing to AGF. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like what, exactly? Explain to me what you think I did wrong. Cite some rules, or something. And in the future, maybe try talking to me about it, before racing to this board to "tell" on me. This is precisely what I mean by me "defending" myself here on WP. I realize anything I do is going to annoy you, but if I thought I was doing anything against the rules through that Tweet or by following up on a conversation I was having w/ someone, I wouldn't have done it. --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here is why i have a hart time assuming good faith with you and why i doubt merely takling to you about thing is not gonna help from personal observation

Several IPs (all proxies) start messing with JIDF
The pages is Semi protected
Several users show editing the page in similair matter
SPI is began
Peter Cohen defends the page from the onslaught of socks
OTRS gets a compliant Flips out on peter lecturing him on his conduct (which was well deserved on some levels)
ANI thread is started with suggestion of Community ban, Which at which time a user comparing us to nazis pops up and starts ranting on ANI
Community ban is passed
Within 24 hours of the ban you pop up causing a citing policy left and right
You make a borderline admission of socking
it is discovered that you have a whole page on your website devoted to attacking multiple wikipedians to discredit them
You make mention you might be writing about this soon on your site
Check user comes back inconclusive because all the Sock were using proxies
You Tweet that you are defending your self on wikipedia, which looks like attempting to recruit off wikipedia peoples to join your fight here
You then plead ignorance on massive scale hiding behind policy when you its convenient and pleading ignorance when its inconvenient

So i am Not too willling to AGF when or engage in dialogue when i see this scale of abuse Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the policy is WP:MEAT Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an interesting take on things and consistent with the attacks I face from people on WP who take issue with my work and views. I disagree w/ it. As per the rules you cited:

The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care. Wikipedia has processes in place to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry:

*Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors.
* In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion.

* For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity.

Which votes do you think I'm trying to impact w/ a Tweet that says: I've been a little busy defending myself and the JIDF on Wikipedia (with a link to my contributions), exactly? Have you seen anyone chime in anywhere which lend any validity to your allegations whatsoever? I haven't. It's cool that you're following me on Twitter, and all, but please stop creating drama and wasting everyone's time with baseless accusations. If someone who doesn't have a beef w/ me and my work would like to opine, and thinks I actually did something wrong, please do so. Thanks. --DavidAppletree (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly violates the spirit of conduct here --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howso? The people on Twitter wonder where I am. I explain to them that I'm defending myself on Wikipedia all day long. Seems pretty cut and dry to me from baseless accusations of "meatpuppetry" and such, and a bunch of people who have issues with my views creating needless drama for me and clogging up this board. --DavidAppletree (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I waiting other opinions, Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David, it's a jibe/taunt at us (the community) and violates the spirit of the community. *shrug* I don't know how else I can put it. Just saying that such actions are considered verging on dickish and you will find people a whole lot more receptive to your arguments if you stop. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and I appreciate your honesty, but my views about Wikipedia have been well-documented. So what actions are you talking about, exactly? Expressing my views about Wikipedia outside of Wikipedia? Where else can I do it, as I cannot do it here? I've seen terrible things happen here, and so I have an opinion, and I express it. I guess I don't understand how that Tweet violates anything. Perhaps more people can opine if they take issue w/ it as well. I'm an open person and communicate a lot. If I'm dealing w/ a lot here at Wikipedia and people wonder where I am on Twitter, I feel I should be able to tell them whatsup w/out it violating any sort of spirit of this community. Much of the time, I feel that the spirit of this community is dedicated to giving me a hard time about every little thing, but again, perhaps others can tell me if they feel this was so "wrong" - so far, it seems just 2 people. --DavidAppletree (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David, all I am pointing out is that you and your group write provocatively and nastily about WP editors on your site. And your seems tweet just a little more of that. My point is simply that you shouldn't be surprised at a cold reception here. :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? As soon as the article about the JIDF appeared, there were a million calls for it to be deleted. Anyway, I understand your point. I'm also not surprised by the cold reception, but I'm concerned about anything I do which actually is against WP policy, not just some WP editors preferences. I'm a provocative type of person in general, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to cause any problems or drama here, nor does it mean I'm trying to break any actual rules. Hopefully people will, over time, be more accepting of my basic personality. I can't help that I have a strong POV and I need to express it. The fact that I have multiple outlets and am not really trying to insert my POV into any articles at this point, should be a relief (I'd think!) I guess if they have nothing on WP to get me on, they're going to try to find stuff outside of it. If there is WP policy about off wiki observations about WP, or specific Wiki-Twitter policy, please let me know. --DavidAppletree (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool; there are some pretty legitimate concerns being raised here - particularly linking you to previous socking and disruption. If you want to negate them I'd suggest contacting arbcom and securely disclosing all your previous accounts and activities; that way it removes all doubt. The only real issue I see is that you don't appear to hold a very high opinion of the editing on here (in a way that tars a lot of editors with the same brush) and such an attitude quickly becomes disruptive if not dialled back. I'm a pretty opinionated person - but deliberately leave all of that "at the door" when editing. It makes things a lot saner. That may be something to consider. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using any socks. There is no doubt. There is no such thing as "securely" disclosing anything which could put my privacy or security at risk. It's not anything I'm willing to do, especially considering my observations of how anti-Israel ArbCom member of the past dealt with antisemitic and jihadist vandalism of the JIDF article (which is all documented on my website). With regard to my attitude, I'd have a much better attitude of editing, if actually given the chance to edit w/out having to answer baseless allegations about my Tweets and other forms of harassment. I mean, according to WP policy, "meat puppet" is a derogatory term, but no one has come in to suggest a different header here. It should be, "is this Tweet problematic?" Or something. I imagine it's not, or else more people would have an opinion? --DavidAppletree (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that sounds like misdirection - I'm not sure I can see how disclosing, in private, previous accounts/socks could be a privacy issue. :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed you to quickly explain. --DavidAppletree (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be meat-puppet day in general on this topic [38] cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's old news, FYI, and unrelated to this false allegation. --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested resolution

I'd suggest the following:

User "DavidAppletree" needs to confirm via the ORTS ticket system that he is the same "David Appletree" who speaks for the JIDF.
As an involved party, he should not edit the JIDF article, but can comment on the talk page. In general, discussions should address specific content issues in the article. Vague rants should be ignored, per WP:DRAMA.
Whether or not "Einsteindonut" and his sock farm, and "DavidAppletree" are one and the same remains an open question. I'd leave that to the sockpuppet investigation people.
If ArbCom is officially involved in this, someone from ArbCom needs to so state. Otherwise we assume no ArbCom involvement.
There's too much forum shopping going on. Discussions should be centralized somewhere.
Full protection can probably be dropped to semi-protection in a few weeks. It's worth keeping semi-protection, since there's a long history of anon edits from sockpuppets of somebody.
There's no rush on any of this. The JIDF article was mostly stable for months, and little new information from WP:reliable sources is appearing.

This is a tempest in a teapot. As a columnist for the Toronto Star wrote about the JIDF in 2007: "Facebook was much more fun when it was about body shots"[39] --John Nagle (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John, try emailing me through the WP system. It goes to david

thejidf.org. This is me. I run the JIDF. Check out my Tweets lately on the official JIDF Twitter account about my new Wikipedia experience. I'm not that interested in editing the JIDF article, but I feel I shouldn't be restricted, as it has been the victim of vandalism and attacks against me personally, and my organization. There are also discussions now happening on the talk page which suggest that people are interested in reducing it to a stub for some reason. I wouldn't appreciate that as there's a lot of reliable information there. The sockpuppet investigation revealed that I am a "likely" sock of Einsteindonut. Due to privacy and security concerns, I cannot confirm nor deny it. I have admitted that I have been involved in some sockpuppet activity, but since the creation of this DavidAppletree account, it has ceased and I imagine it will continue to cease. However, I'm hoping that anti-Israel or anti-JIDF editors don't make my life a living hell here, with baseless allegations and constant drama, trying to bait me. And lastly, the JIDF did not officially come into existence (by name) until May of 2008. So that article you cite from 2007 has nothing to do with the JIDF whatsoever and I'm not sure why you would cite it and claim that it does, but whatevs. It's a non-issue and irrelevant to this board. --DavidAppletree (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need for the first bullet point if John emails David through the normal wiki route and David responds from that email address. Or, actually, if John just emails him normally. As for the sockpuppetry, David has indicated it has ceased. I see no reason not to very cautiously take him at his word for now, until and unless there is new evidence of sockpuppetry. The rest of it seems appropriate. Can we implement this and move on? I'm getting a little tired of the I-P meatpuppet allegation de jour.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One point I think needs to be reiterated. WP:COI does not prevent involved parties from editing; just that they must exhibit extreme caution. The nutshell quote is "You may either submit proposed edits on the talkpage of the article, or, if deciding to directly edit, ensure you closely adhere to relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography; and that you declare your interest on the talkpage." Yes, 90% of the time, edits that involved parties feel should be made should be handled on the talk page. However, certain non-controversial edits such as correcting date of founding, website, reversion of obvious vandalism, and, perhaps, even adding non-controversial background information that has proper sourcing, is not forbidden.

In this case, I believe that based on David's previous edits, he needs to be extremely careful to act within the bounds of wikipedia, and for the foreseeable future (a few months at least) should refrain from making any edits to the article. However, this does place a responsibility on people interested in JIDF and the I-P issue in general, to respond to reasonable requests and have the patience to explain why a requested edit is inappropriate in the cases where it is. If David does make the effort to toe the line, he is entitled to the same respect and courtesy that any other editor is. If David returns to violating wikipedia policies and guidelines, he will be blocked and lose the ability to help make and keep the article neutral.

I do not know if ArbCom is involved (I'm a functionary, not an ArbCom member). However, one other suggestion I would make is that David be assigned a mentor or three; people with whom he can run by potential edits, and people to whom he can point out what he believes are problems that have not been handled on the talk page for more than a reasonable amount of time. Similar (but not equivalent) to PalestineRemebered and Isarig, I'd suggest a group of three, one "ostensibly" from either side of the conflict and one uninvolved. This would be for the same period of a few to six months (a year is too hard on the mentors, I know this from experience) after which, if there are no other violations, David should be treated like any other editor with a COI (not just a POV). Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I can now confirm that the editor account User:DavidAppletree is tied to the e-mail address david

thejidf.org for what it is worth. -- Avi (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help, Avi. I appreciate your suggestions and am open to them. --DavidAppletree (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re point 1, I mentioned earlier on in the thread that he had done this and I think otherwise the approach is reasonable and allows DA to comment on BLP issues as well as managing any possible disruption. Given a while we can revisit the situation and consider either tightening or relaxing the restrictions as necessary Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteer to act as one member of the mentorship team, but real life responsibilities, and especially the upcoming High holy days and holidays, make imperative (IMO) that at least one, preferably two, other people (not necessarily admins--but editors who can be both firm and fair--and hopefully have the respect of the project) be actively involved as well. Volunteers welcome! -- Avi (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to act as mentor and provide advice etc. as required. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be willing to help, keep an eye on him, point him in the right direction. I do have my doubts about this and imo a short rope is required as is his ongoing willingness to accept and follow advice offered to him in respect to policy and guidelines. On wiki Soapboxing and off wiki postings are already issues that need toning down. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So long as advice is rooted in actual policy (which people can link to, so I can actually learn), and not just random preferences editors have with regard to my communication and style, I'm all ears. However, if people claim something is against policy, when it isn't, that's not helpful whatsoever. For example, one editor claimed that I could not change the headers on my user talk page. He claimed to do so was in violation of WP policy. Despite my immediate apology and changing back the headers (See here, here, and here)), it turns out the claim that I was in violation of WP policy was not actually true. --DavidAppletree (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agreed, the best thing in that issue was your response to the request. Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding myself as another user willing to keep an eye on this and play referee, I should note that the feedback I have had off two individual arbs is that the community should be able to handle this, so I hope that we can agree to move forward on this basis. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Appletree is currently community-banned could those of you who disagree with that ban please propose an un-banning, with appropriate formalised restrictions, and let a discussion on that run its course. He would of course earn some cudos by observing his existing ban except to participate in the discussion. Otherwise the ban probably should be enforced as it stands, and he can appeal as appropriate. Misarxist (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am, for the record, formally registering my opposition to the ban being ignored. Misarxist (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn I forgot about that. Ok, doing it. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See below at #Request for clarification regarding community bans 1) there still is no direct connection between ED and DA. 2) Bans are preventative not punitive, and active mentorship beats bans almost any day, if it works. -- Avi (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed lifting of community ban for DavidAppletree

As above; the SPI finding concluded a link between User:DavidAppletree and User:Einsteindonut, the latter of which is under an imposed community ban. Without directly making a statement about whether DavidAppletree is Einsteindonut or not I propose lifting the community ban specifically for User:DavidAppletree. This is on the following understanding:

David will not sock
David will take care to stay within policy and discuss his changes as much as possible
David will submit to being mentored by a number of editors including myself, User:Off2riorob, User:Avraham and User:Spartaz

David has agreed to stay within the rules and be constructive and it appears there are editors who are willing to give him the chance to do this.

Support as proposer :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Premature We have still no evidence that DA is ED. Please see below instead. -- Avi (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused then because your SPI report is quite clear in making a technical relationship... surely we can just clear this up now without faffing around, because otherwise it will drag on, and, frankly, it is getting tedious :P I'd also argue that any such relationship is actually somewhat moot to the issue. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not being involved in these issues, I may have missed that. As I said, since bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive, I believe active mentorship trumps banning when it comes to preventing harm to the project. -- Avi (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose keep the existing community ban which clearly applied to all JIDF sock/meatpuppets. Appletree has admitted he's the person responsible for the trollsite and Avi has confirmed this. On potential problems with mentorship, see my post on Avi's talk-page for a start on the trust issues with this individual. (Though please remember to discuss that angle here.) Also note one of the proposed mentor's (Avi) has effectively opted out at least in the short term. Misarxist (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read that comment on Avi's page. In part I disagree; I can't say I like David's views at all, however, so long as he doesn't bring them here any more then it is not really an issue. I don't think we can ban someone for their views unless it is disruptive! If David becomes disruptive I will, as one of the mentors, take responsibility for that. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My main point on that score is that we can't really trust such a hate-mongerer, so the basis of this proposal is completely undermined. That wikipedia could be seen to condone/turn a blind eye to it is only secondary, but us harbouring the owner or whatever he his the site is still a big problem. Then there's also the fact that the it's/his stated purpose is to disrupt other websites ... there's just too many problems with this course of action. Misarxist (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I also strongly object to this. As we know - quite apart from the socking issues, and subject to those the fact that a community ban would appear to be in place, which should not be overturned quite so quickly - this is an editor who runs the JIDF website, which, as noted, has for over two years contained a disparaging list of WP editors here, and carried posts claiming that WP is riddled with "anti-semites", relying on what would appear to be a very loose definition of that term. Other posts have featured videos and stills of masked Israeli commandos pointing guns. The quotes section on that site lists around 6 individual quotes from Meir Kahane, a noted racist and fascist whose movement is banned in Israel; while elsewhere, as pointed out by another user, the JIDF appears to have used Kach-style logos. I recall that one editor on his hitlist quit WP, partly as a result of what he felt to be intimidation. Another changed their username, and often had to ask for references to their old username to be removed from the records here when others mentioned it, again mainly because their name and further links to details about their identity on other websites had been included on that list. A third editor has suggested he has suffered off-WP attacks from the group. And now we assume good faith and let this guy edit here, despite all the above and despite all the evidence suggesting he has abused multiple accounts previously? He's still tweeting - even as this debate continues - that WP is full of anti-semites. Sure, some websites are. I'm really not sure Wikipedia is, and this is just plain abuse and slander from someone whose organisation has driven off and intimidated other users here in the past. What is he actually going to contribute here? N-HH talk/edits 16:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many people make many false claims, allegations, and exaggerations about me, and about my organization. It does not mean they are all true. Meanwhile, their attitudes toward me have helped shape my attitude toward them. As I have been on the receiving end of their harassment, directly, and have witnessed the types of material they post and comments they make, I do, in fact, believe that there are many antisemites, anti-Zionists, and extreme leftists on this site. However, I'm looking forward to dealing with more of those on WP who do not fit this description, and I'm not sure my personal or political views should have any bearing on this decision. I'm continuing to work hard to not be baited by the many editors on WP who feel a certain hostility toward me b/c of my work, and views. --DavidAppletree (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to provide any actual evidence that disproves, for example, that a) your website carries six Kahane quotes; b) that I am making stuff up about editors quitting WP and having to change their usernames due to posts on your website. Rather than just vaguely suggesting it's all some kind of smear campaign by extremists. You're playing nice now to get people onside, but you're not fooling anyone with knowledge of your history and the content of your website. N-HH talk/edits 16:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My views on Kahane or anything controversial for that matter, are absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. As I've mentioned before, it's been a while, but I believe only one WP editor has ever contacted me directly about any problems they were having with regard to content on my site, and if I remember correctly, I promptly responded to their privacy/security concerns. If any editors have any concerns about any content on my site, they are free to contact me directly. --DavidAppletree (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kahane is more than simply "controversial", although in principle it wouldn't exclude you contributing here of course. We have people with all sorts of strange and even offensive political ideas editing here. However, I'm not sure saying that people concerned by you posting personal details about them can always email you - thus giving you more information about them - works for me. You say one did, and maybe so. But why should they have to? And the fact that others haven't doesn't mean it's fine to leave those details there. The editor I think you are referring to as contacting you is not the one who left WP. That person just left, citing intimidation, presumably not wanting to speak to the person who had posted details about them and/or their account on a website with militaristic stylings, funnily enough. N-HH talk/edits 17:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but whether or not something on my site "works for you" is irrelevant. If people have a problem with anything on any website, the thing to do is to contact the operators of that website. If they don't wish to do that, they can take the legal route. It seems everything you're bringing up is a tangent to the real point at hand. --DavidAppletree (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as explained below. RolandR (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not sure as to the relevance as regards this straw poll as the sock issues are not confirmed and as I see it what we had then was a disgruntled editor that wanted to correct what they saw as misrepresentations to an article they had knowledge about and that as I am aware didn't go well and resulted in a block which resulted in some socking and the wiki steamroller ended in a community ban of a user that is possibly linked to this account, and periphery additional socks. Whereas what we have now is an identified living person attempting to edit and contribute within policy and guidelines and accepting of assigned mentors willing to assist, of the two situations this is by far the better for the editor and for wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB "David Appletree" is a pseudonym. Still making random accusations of antisemitism against other users [40] so undermining any "basicly nice guy who copped a bit of flack" view of him. Also an attempt to guage consensus to overturn a community ban on ED and associated JIDF meatpuppets, not a random poll. Misarxist (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not sure I've publicly confirmed, nor denied that. The name I use is publicly associated with the organization I run, and the "random accusation" you mention was no such thing. I have the facts to back it up and it was in response to the idea that I'd have to share personal, private details to ArbCom. I expressed my concerns about doing that, considering one of its members has promoted antisemitic material. I have documented it on my website and have written to Jimmy Wales about it directly. --DavidAppletree (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misarxist; I'm deliberately not trying to gain a consensus on overturning a community ban on ED - instead I'd like to see a mentored exclusion for DavidAppletree. I think there is a reasonable difference --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose-Considering this users penchant for twittering and what not when he doesn't get his way, and his many web minions (KatWomanUSA and Jewdefence being the latest)coming here to do battle on his behalf ( whether at his specific request or not), do we really need the headache? He iro 18:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI addressed this issue many times, please see here, here, here, here, here and even on Twitter, here. --DavidAppletree (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the old "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" axiom. You like to keep off site "hitlists" and practice demogogery, and then feign total innocence when your offsite readers come here to do damage to this project. I say we don't need that. He iro 19:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I admit there are problems, that I could actually help to alleviate. If the project does not want my help in trying to put some of these fires out, I suppose that will be up to consensus. --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And implying that those vandals and POV warriors will go away if we just let you edit the way you want implies you have some sort of control over it and amounts to some sort of "protection racket". Extortion isn't the way to get back into good editor status. He iro 19:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. It's not extortion. It is what it is. I don't have to be here at all, but being here might have the ability to lesson problems for myself, my organization, and Wikipedia. It seems like a clear "win win" to me. If you think I'm always happy with self-appointed "defenders" of my work, you're wrong. --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There should be no lifting of the ban until the off-wiki attacks against editors are removed, and until David (or someone else) explains how his work would benefit Wikipedia. Activism is never helpful. If David's willing to be a Wikipedian and edit in other areas, and neutrally, that's a different matter, but he would need to commit to editing within the policies. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to WP policy, "Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation." As I have stated, about the content on my site, "those posts are from about two years ago and involved detailed, time consuming, research, that I'm unprepared just to censor because some people on WP who have problems with my views wish to censor me. However, if any editors who are actually mentioned anywhere on the JIDF site have legitimate concerns about anything posted on my site, they are always free to contact me about their direct concerns, and I'm willing to make changes, if necessary, and within reason, but I cannot just wipe out our hard work at the request of random WP editors, the majority of whom aren't even mentioned on the site, and have never bothered to write to me about it directly." --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We may not be able to regulate offsite behavior, but we also don't have to have someone around whose offsite behavior drives vandals and POV warriors to the site to do damage. He iro 19:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any vandals and POV warriors here being driven anywhere. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His twitter page brought these 2 here KatWomanUSA and Jewdefence. He may not have specifically asked them too, but his actions brought them here none the less. He iro 19:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Curious - Am I driving POV warriors and vandals with this off-site behavior?

Comment I don't have a strong opinion either way, even though I'm on the JIDF's published "enemies list". The big issue is sockpuppets. The history of the JIDF article is full of sockpuppets, IP editors, and single-purpose editors. It's clear that the number of distinct real people behind all those accounts was small. The article is locked mostly because everyone got tired of dealing with all that. The sockpuppetry has to stay stopped. David Appletree editing only as DavidAppletree (talk · contribs) I can live with. --John Nagle (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Frankly, I appreciate the fact that DavidAppletree has the decency to own up to having a point-of-view. It seems to me that a number of editors push the same kind of POVs that DavidAppletree is trying to push, without being as open and honest about it. That said, WP doesn't need any more extremists to WP:BATTLEGROUND. Additionaly, the sockpuppetting and off-wiki behavior is clearly not in-line with the spirit of WP. NickCT (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification regarding community bans

There is a community ban on Einsteindonut and his sock/meat puppets. How does this affect the mentorship of DavidAppltree? Either one of the following two possibilities is true:

DavidAppletree is not Einsteindonut, and thus the ban is irrelevant
DavidAppletree is Einsteindonut, and thus the ban is relevant.

The CU logs on Einsteindonut back in 2008 are too old to make any connection to anyone now, so that cannot be of assistance. Personally, I think that even if #2 is true, the ban should be lifted solely for the DavidAppletree account to see if the user can rehabilitate himself back into wikipedia. If he can, then the initial reason for the ban is defunct, and we gain a productive, non-vandalistic user. If he cannot, it will be a simple manner for Off2 and myself to admit to failure and re-impose the ban on the Appletree account. Please remember, all of these sanctions are not meant to be punitive but protective, and an active mentorship, in my opinion, far better protects the project than a ban on a disgruntled editor with access to many followers. -- Avi (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this rush to rehabilitate an apparent sock of a user who was community banned just three days ago. The SPI has not yet concluded, and if it determines that DavidAppletree is not a sock of Einsteindonut, than we can discuss his admitted socks and his promise to use just one account from now on. However, if it is determined that he is indeed a sock of Einsteindonut, then the discussion which led to the banning must be re-opened; it is not up to two or three admins to overturn such a ban. So I object toi the above suggestion. I request that no further action is taken unbtil the long-overdue resolution of this SPI,m which I filed eight days ago. It should be remembered that one of DavidAppletree's admitted socks, Mreditguy, has been editing since October 2009, and was first reported as a suspected sock of Einsteindonut back in Martch. This abuse has been going on for long enough already, and the process should not be short-circuited. RolandR (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I ran the CU on the SPI, Roland, and only found a connection to the four listed; that's what got me involved in the first place (the CU run). -- Avi (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, as I note above, one of these four has been editing since October 2009, and was reported as a suspected sockpuppet of Einsteindonut on 11 March 2010, together with dozens of IPs[41]. At the time, there appeared to be ahgreement that a;ll of these were indeed Einsteindonut's sockpuppets. Hoewever, since the JIDF article had been protected, no action was taken.
  - You now confirm that Mreditguy is indeed linked to DavidAppletree. There thus seems very strong circumstantial evidence, at least, that DavidAppletree is indeed Einsteindonut. RolandR (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Prevantative, not punitive, Roland. -- Avi (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I have admitted to using socks in the past, due to privacy and security concerns, I have not admitted to which ones. There are many "suspected socks" and "likely" socks of ED that have very little, if anything, to do with me. Of course, they are all "linked" to me in theory, as they have all taken an interest in the article about my organization. That does not mean that I was behind them. Had I not been concerned about my privacy and security from the beginning, I would have never been involved in any sock activity whatsoever. I don't feel my IP address is anyone's business, especially after I observed a member of ArbCom promote an antisemitic website and his anti-Israel views, but that is another issue. However, I bring it up because it has to do with my general trust of this project and my willingness to make certain admissions. If people wish to go ahead assume everything that has ever been done "pro-JIDF" is because of me, go ahead. It's not entirely true, but do whatever you gotta do. However, I'm stating that since the creation of this account, I'm finished with such activity, provided that the community continues to help me to be a constructive member, and continues to respect my privacy and security. --DavidAppletree (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even now, Appletree is not willing to come clean and adnit which other accouints have been his socks, which is surely a prerequisite for being permitted to edit again. In particular since he is already voting in contentious discussions. Until we can establish with absolute certainty which accounts he is using or has used, we cannot permit him to participate in this way.

And, given his past behaviour, his harassment of me and other editors, and his general disparagement of Wikipedia and its editors, he has a chutzpah to refer to his trust in Wikipedia. He needs to show why we should trust him. RolandR (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roland, I believe he does not have to admit that in public; he does have to admit that to ArbCom or his mentors. If the mentorship continues, as someone who has CU privs, I do expect a list of old sockpuppets which I will forward to ArbCom. -- Avi (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then all of this is in vain. As I mentioned, I have witnessed a member of ArbCom promote an antisemitic website and express extremely hostile views toward Israel. I'm not willing to do anything that could potentially link to my real IP address and put my security at risk by people with such views, and to be honest, I'm not sure how much I can trust an ArbCom that would let someone of that nature get to that level. --DavidAppletree (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David, all ArbCom members have CU privs. They can run the same checks I do. -- Avi (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, but having access to dozens of IP addresses is one thing. Me admitting which one(s) are definitely mine, is another. I'm fine if, for the sake of getting this over with, people wish to assume that every single suspected sock puppet is me. However, I cannot pin point for them which one's were for sure. --DavidAppletree (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I am skeptical about this claim consider your labeling wikipeida as who absolutely hate me, crack me up. The place is FULL of antisemites, anti-zionists, and extreme leftist editors. Considering all the people i have seen you intereact with here none have fallen into any of these IMHO. Name the Member and the alleged antisemite site so we can evalauate things claims. Particulary if you can provide a "Diff" Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think sidetracking down such dark alleys will benefit this in any way. We have all sorts of editors here, left and right wing, wiki editors are also able to rise above nationalistic barriers and be more all encompassing and global. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Off2riorob, this isn't the place for that. There's plenty of information on my website with regard to Weaponbb7's inquiries. --DavidAppletree (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, we are not talking about David or the JIDF's politics per se. We are talking about the continuing abuse of other editors - by labelling both individuals and WP editors as a whole as "antisemites" - and intimidation and outing of other editors on the JIDF website, such that at least one stopped editing here. As well as the sockpuppeting. The politics don't help, just as editors who espouse white power politics wouldn't be that great for the site, however polite they might be from time to time. N-HH talk/edits 17:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you just brought up my politics a moment ago, here, and here, actually. As I responded to you, above, I believe only one editor ever wrote me directly expressing any sort of a concern, and I responded to that concern and even accommodated some of his requests for changes to my content, despite having no real obligation whatsoever to do so. The fact that you'd compare me to those with "white power" views, is offensive, and shows that despite your lengthy qualms with your perception of my views, you actually don't know much about them. --DavidAppletree (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I did bring your politics up - as a relevant point, but not the key one. Entirely consistent with what I was saying just above, through the use of the phrases "per se" and "the politics don't help". And the white power observation was intended to be an extreme example of political and racist extremism. I was not saying your views are equivalent. Although Kahanism certainly is. Whether you would so define yourself is, indeed, something I do not know, nor have I claimed that you do. I just noted that he is the most quoted individual on the front page of your website. Now for the rest of my bank holiday Monday. N-HH talk/edits 17:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a quick look at the website and only saw easily available details, David has said that he will consider all requests from users as regards any issues they have with anything on that site. Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is recrutiing meat puppet on twitter which violates policy. Especially because One threatened me the other outed me. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're still bringing this up, despite the fact that I've already addressed it, here? Again, please note my response to these attacks here, here, here, here, here and even on Twitter, here. Again, despite ALL of this, you do not seem willing to assume good faith, whatsoever, as per this. It does not seem anything that I, or any remotely pro-JIDF Wikipedia editor does, will be trusted by Weaponbb7, who seems to have had some serious issues with me, and my organization for a while now, constantly making false accusations and derogatory statements, and creating needless drama at ANI (and I'm not attacking anyone here, I can easily provide all the diffs for all that, if needed, too). While I'm trying to show WP what type of editor I can be and the wide variety of ways I can encourage JIDF supporters to be more constructive here, it seems some wish to try to constantly bait me, and assume the worst faith. --DavidAppletree (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And saying "I know where you live" is intimidation, even if you don't know. There were more details there in at least one case originally, and, as David says, he did take them down. But why should people have to ask? N-HH talk/edits 17:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly did I say to anyone "I know where you live?" What are you talking about? --DavidAppletree (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what one your meatpuppets said the other one linked my Facebook and posted it here to ANI! Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained (over and over again) they aren't my meatpuppets. I addressed the issue many times. Last time I checked, according to WP policy, "meatpuppet" is a derogatory term and should be used with caution. Despite my widespread good faith efforts with regard to this attack here, here, here, here, here and even on Twitter, here, you continue to attack me and assume the worst faith. --DavidAppletree (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPADE they came here to fight your fight becuase you advertised it on twitter! They are then by definition meatpuppets I am calling a spade: a Spade. YOu shouldnt rant about the Anti-zioinist and antisemetic wikipedians than act all surprised when they come here and start fighting under the JIDF banner. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They weren't meatpuppets and I didn't ask them to come here to fight my fight. That's part of the reason for this discussion, is that I don't need random self-appointed defenders of my work coming onto WP to "defend" me or the JIDF and I don't need to be accused of being them, or having anything to do with them. --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have diffs to these comments but there has been no meat puppetry here at all in this thread. As I see it this is constructive progression. Gudelines support integration to good faith users in preference to exile as Avi pointed out.Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob we deleted meatpuppets comment's off ANI but they are in the history,(Accept the thread that out me was oversighted) Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, have you seen this page? Or this one? RolandR (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I had scanned one of them. Personally going forward although not a condition of editing privileges but on a good faith and on a personal level I would like to see David remove those comments about wiki editors and that would be beneficial to the whole situation imo.Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as those pages stay up, it looks, it's hard to see how he's going to encourage his supporters to be constructive here. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? his Meat puppets came attacked and outed me after he Starting tweeting about his issues on wiki? Thats straight up meat puppetry! HE should be blocked for that alone!Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of any meat puppetry at all. All users are able to tweet what they are doing as they like, that is also nothing to do with editing here.Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently, Weaponbb7 continues to not read anything I'm writing here. I have explained, many times, that they aren't my meatpuppets. Again, I have addressed the issue many times. Last time I checked, according to WP policy, "meatpuppet" is a derogatory term and should be used with caution. Despite my widespread good faith efforts with regard to attacks against him here, here, here, here, here and even on Twitter, here, he continues to attack me and assume the worst faith. Furthermore, according to WP policy, "Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation." As I have stated, about the content on my site, "those posts are from about two years ago and involved detailed, time consuming, research, that I'm unprepared just to censor because some people on WP who have problems with my views wish to censor me. However, if any editors who are actually mentioned anywhere on the JIDF site have legitimate concerns about anything posted on my site, they are always free to contact me about their direct concerns, and I'm willing to make changes, if necessary, and within reason, but I cannot just wipe out our hard work at the request of random WP editors, the majority of whom aren't even mentioned on the site, and have never bothered to write to me about it directly." --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why a lifting of a ban is even being discussed, or why you're being allowed to post here, David. This is very confusing. You've posted an attack list on a website you control that you're refusing to remove. It contains some completely unacceptable material, including a comment from someone that a certain Wikipedian lives near a Jewish school, as if he might burst forth from his home at any minute to start attacking the children. A lot of the stuff is really off the mark; even the stuff that's arguably accurate is lifted out of context. Asking people to contact you before it's removed isn't reasonable: someone has to email you to ask that you remove the implication that he's a danger to a Jewish school? Reasonable off-wiki criticism is not something you'd be banned for, but it has to be constructive and fair, and this is neither. Combined with the onwiki activism, I can't see a reason even to consider lifting a ban. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if specific people mentioned have specific problems with things on my site, they can contact me to discuss. Beyond that, Wikipedia and its editors do not dictate to me what I can and cannot have on my site. Your opinion of the content of my site has nothing to do with this case. The posts are from years ago and to be honest, I have no clue what you're even talking about. There's nothing in WP policy that I know that says that off-wiki criticism has to be "reasonable" and "fair" and if there is, by whose standards? There's many anti-Israel advocates on WP who are obviously going to claim I'm not reasonable or fair and I've seen stuff on sites like Electronic Intifida that has made allegations against CAMERA which didn't seem reasonable and fair to me. Has anyone from WP tried to dictate to EI what content they should be allowed to have on their site? I don't think so! --DavidAppletree (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would no more consider contacting David Appletree to remove defamatory comments about me than I would consider contacting Gilad Atzmon to remove similarly defamatory comment. Both of them are unhappy at my Wikipedia edits, and both have exploited their own sites to attack me for this. Their behaviour says more about them than about me, and it would be humiliating to humbly beg them to remove the comments. The very fact that Appletree even suggests that I should justify a request for such a deletion is an illustration of why he is unfitted to edit here. RolandR (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the fact that I suggest that people contact me directly if they have a problem with content on my website from years ago is a clear illustration of why I'm not fit to edit here. Absolutely. (sarcasm). --DavidAppletree (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SlimVirgin here. If these pages aren't meant to encourage people to edit Wikipedia, what are they for? While they're there, we shouldn't consider lifting the ban. No one should have to write to anyone to get their names removed, the pages should be withdrawn. Rob, I just don't understand why you don't think these pages are meant to influence people to and in their editing here. Dougweller (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think he should be granted the privilege of editing here unless he removes any potentially damaging or otherwise unsavory content about Wikipedia editors and agrees not to post that sort of thing anymore. — e. ripley\^talk 20:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, essentially, many of you seem to be saying, if I do not remove all posts (some posts? portions of posts??) about Wikipedia on the JIDF site, that I should not have any right to edit the project. This is a clear attempt of WP editors trying to control/censor off wiki content. I want to make one thing clear - people might be able to edit WP all day long, but no editors here are going to control anything on my website. The fact that people are suggesting this is bizarre to me. I said I would discuss reasonable requests with individuals who are named who have reasonable concerns. Everything I'm seeing here is requests for serious censorship of entire Wikipedia-related posts on my site. And if I don't do it? I don't deserve to be here. Very interesting. This is just...wow. If I don't end up able to edit here, this, in and of itself, could make for a very interesting post (not a threat, just sayin'....) --DavidAppletree (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ec - If I look at this thread I don't see any meatpuppets or people coming to support David. Davids stated subject is the unbalanced reporting of issues on websites such as this one. He supports the balancing out of such information so that is a clear fact, unavoidable, that is what his whole website is about, he supports and encourages readers of his website to do that everywhere. To allow him to edit in line we policy we shouldn't demand he closes his website or removes his criticism of wikipedia, like wikipedia has biased editors, its hardly a lie is it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InaMaka

I'm running into some trouble with User: InaMaka. He frequently makes edit summaries and comments which are rather uncivil, and has repeatedly bitten the newcomers:

Let's put this in perspective. StoneMason has decided that his goal in life is to follow me around and overturn my edits. He has an axe to grind and he is on a mission to "straighten me out." For example the StoneMason leaves out of his complaint below that I did compare Alveda King to Fred Phelps in the very limited way that both of them are Democrats and both of their articles on Wikipedia are constantly being edited to give the impression that they are Republicans. That's all. His claimed that I called Alveda King equal to Phelps is her hatred of homosexuality. I didn't. He just didn't like me pointing out a fact that both of them are Democrats. His mischaracterization of what I wrote is hogwash. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[42] Calling other editors' contributions "hogwash", even if you disagree with them, isn't good form.
[43] (here he appears to compare Alveda King to Fred Phelps; I warned him about it here, and InaMaka replied angrily here)
Here he accuses an IP user of adding "racist hate speech" to King's article: [44]. The thing is, while the edit the IP made was definitely vandalism at worst and POV at best, it had nothing to do with race: [45]. I removed that warning, added a more appropriate one, and then warned InaMaka not to bite the newcomers: [46], to which he once again replied angrily, [47].
A violation of AGF, making a testy response to an innocent question: [48]. Here I explain why InaMaka's response was uncalled-for: [49]
Accuses another IP of making a "racist" comment: [50]. In fact, while the IP's comment was definitely sexist, and vandalism, it wasn't racist. [51]
Yet another case of accusing an IP of making a "racist" comment which, while obviously POV and inappropriate, had nothing to do with race: [52]. InaMaka's edits also implied that this IP vandalized King's article more than once, when the IP in fact made only one edit to King's article. [53].

Full disclosure: I've clashed with InaMaka before (I ran into him over at Mike Pompeo under two weeks ago and found him edit warring; he was blocked for 72 hours as a result. He doesn't appear to have learned his lesson, and still appears to view Wikipedia as a BATTLE. So I thought I'd ask for help. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Stonemason89 and his case against this user. I'm seeing some disappointing civility issues bordering on WP:TE and WP:NPA, and the biting and prior edit-warring is duly noted, but altogether probably not enough to block. Suggest perhaps a stern warning and a followup WP:WQA report. I do hope in the future InaMaka will be willing to edit alongside his fellow editors in a more collegial manner. -- œ ^™ 06:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Who should be the one to deliver the "stern warning", then? Probably not me...are there any admins that would be willing to help? Stonemason89 (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that his behavior is problematic, but it would be about as effective coming from me as it would from you. We had a rather contentious encounter at Carrie Prejean. I guess I'm chiming in because this isn't the first article he's behaved this way at. AniMate 06:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spam bombardment?

Resolved

– Admin intervention not required; actions appear to have been made in good faith and there was no spamming involved. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please check out an apparent linkspam blitz by User:Aardvarkzz? Note that all of their recently added cites are essentially identical, and all point to Variety Obituaries, which is a set of books. That article was created by the same user and includes an external link to Amazon to buy the books. What caught my attention was that they are placing those pseudo-obituary cites at the beginning of the lead - totally out of place. They should all be reverted ASAP. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references should probably be checked, but they don't appear to be spam; these are being used as references in all of the examples I checked on the user's contributions lists, to reference articles of dead people. The references could use a clean-up, but I see no reason to believe this is anything other than a good-faith contribution to the project. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I notice the exact same pattern with many other, 1st-sentence in lead, cites, but these all pointing to Harrison's Reports and Film Reviews. That article was also created by the same user, and also includes an external link to the "Variety" books. The summary notes for those additions is shown as "HAR." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an external link to the Variety books in that article, only a wikilink. And all of the references I looked at on the user's contrib list showed wikilinks as well, though that is not ideal so the references should be cleaned up to provide an external link to an online version of the text being referenced, if possible. All in all I don't see an issue here; the user is adding what seems to be reliable citations to articles lacking citations for individuals' date of death. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The user has a history of positive contributions to Wikipedia and there is no reason to believe that he is spamming. MER-C 13:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re User:Giftiger wunsch's comment that "user is adding what seems to be reliable citations to articles lacking citations for individuals' date of death," is wrong on both points. A wikilink to an article about a set of books is not a valid citation; a high percentage of the articles already had a "death" section or relevant substance with proper citations. It takes seconds to find examples: i.e. Béla Lugosi, which had a "death" section, and a NY Times cite and real link. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He added citations which referenced previously unreferenced statements, in every case that I looked at. That's a fact. These were not external links; that's also a fact. Finally, the important part of the reference is providing enough information to identify the source; that's policy. In the cases I saw, that was listing a series of books, the date of publication, and a page number. That's enough information for the source to be identified and for the citation to be removed. I suggest familiarising yourself better with policy before flatly accusing me of being "wrong on both points". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "unreferenced statements" as in Alfred Hitchcock's 1st sentence? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed these being and had some of the concerns that Wikiwatcher1 has expressed. Now that I have examined things a little more deeply here are a few items to be aware of.

The cites are being added to the lead section and I have yet to find a "CN" tag that they are replacing. Thus to determine whether the item is unreferenced one needs to read the entire article.
The dates and page numbers are referring to the specific issue of Variety where the obit appeared and not a page number from the Variety Obituaries that the link currently leads to. Now that makes sense the the collections contain facsimile editions of the original obit. But, it could be argued that the link should go to the page for Variety and not the page for obit collections.
If you read this edit summary [54] you will see that the main reason that User:Aardvarkzz is adding the citations is so that his page about the obit collections won't be an orphaned article.

While I don't think that Aardvarkzz is intentionally spamming I also don't think that these "refs" add anything to an article - unless there was no confirmation of a death date in it previously. MarnetteD | Talk 20:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, this User: Wikiwatcher1 flagrantly violated the rule stated in boldface at the top of this page
Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.
User: Wikiwatcher1 initiated this totally unnecessary commotion without having the courtesy or decency to first discuss the matter with me. Furthermore,

The straightforward facts are these: I have some, but not all, of the Variety Obituaries reprints. I found the other reprint volumes at a library and created a page for this encyclopedic series of articles about notable people. For selected extremely famous people (less than 1% of all entries in the reprints), I have entered citations to those obituaries, including the original page in Variety newspaper, where known. In some cases, the Variety obituaries are the ONLY citation on a biographical page. Each citation can be used to find the article either in Variety newspaper or in the Variety Obituaries reprints. The practical decision was to link them to the reprints, which libraries are far more likely to have than the original newspaper.

Eventually I will place facts from those obituaries on the pages of deceased entertainment celebrities. At that time, the citations may be moved to a more relevant place on the biographical pages. In the meantime, the only issue should be whether the citations are accurate (if not, they can be corrected) or complete (if not, add the necessary information to them).Aardvarkzz (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notice, as you know, was posted as a subsection under the preexisting "Variety cites" in your talk page. The first questioner stated part of the issue, and your response was a weak rationalization. So the issue was noted and your response was made - the matter was discussed. Linkspam should be watched for more dilegently to avoid gaming the system - not just Wikipedia's, but the Internet itself! Apparently, few others agree that the added WL pseudo-cite, as in Alfred Hitchcock (plus 1,000 more!) was totally improper. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear that regardless of whether or not the edits were actually constructive to the article, the user acted in good faith, and there was certainly no link spam (as defined by WP:LINKSPAM). There was no discussion of this matter prior to the issue being brought here, and there is no reason for admin intervention. Please continue this discussion on the user's talk page or take it to WP:RFC. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation spamming can be done in good faith. But allowing and excusing it, WP is creating a new precedent that any future editor can rely on. Imagine someone stating a doubtful fact, and citing it with a mere link to the book, Gone with the Wind, without even a page number. Then add the fact that the statement is placed in the top of an article's lead. That kind of sourcing is now given "tacit approval", i.e. Alfred Hitchcock. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried to fix up a tiny portion of these, but to no avail. Apparently, even Jean Harlow, who's article has 20(!) cites about her well-known early death, was not good enough. They still had to get that Wikilink at the very top of all the articles, and reverted my fixes anyway! Your "tacit approval" has been well received. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Time Vandalism 2

Resolved

– nominate for deletion if you must. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a while now i've been feeling usure about User:STEF1995S's articles regarding the RT 100. He created a few related new articles (such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12) which are literally based on nothing (there's no reliable source in there); also, he "updated" the main article with false chartings (again without having any sources). I and a fellow Romanian writer warned him several times (1 & 2 & 3), but he's not going to stop. There's no point in his work - he created several articles for tops that don't even exist. We've reverted his edits several times but he just keeps on returning and "updating". Someone's got to stop him, please! Lucian C. (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than your opinion, can you point to something concrete that shows that the facts s/he is entering are false? I'd like at least a diff and a contradictory source. I do see where KWW ask him/her to improve sourcing of that material. Toddst1 (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do appear to be referencing a website for years (pre-2009, back to 1999) which the website doesn't on first inspection actually have data for.

That is sort of suspicious. Not concrete, though. Actual evidence of false info would be better... Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

In Romania we have just an official chart - Romanian Top 100 - and there are no other tops such as dance/rock/r&b; anyone can google it and see there's no such thing. Why should i try bringing counterarguments if there's no argument to prove his work's real? 90% of his articles are sourceless and where there are indeed some references, they're upon the RT100 website (where you can see the real thing). STEF1995S extracts the dance/R&B/rock tracks from this top and makes his own charts. It's pointless even discussing about it. Lucian C. (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Toddst1, you're asking to proove that something DOESN'T exist? The only site that mentions one of his creations [let's say the pop chart] is Wikipedia - [55]. Even if there was a chart [there isn't, but I'm just saying] it wouldn't meet the criteria for notability [still, it doesn't exist]. Alecsdaniel (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want this problem to be resolved, not buried in the archieves! Lucian C. (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you suggest? You can put'em up for deletion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And let User:STEF1995S just get away with it? He hasn't even been warned 4 all those things. (he's gonna return with all those "updates") Lucian C. (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be concerned (for now) who gets away with what; you might have noticed that I explicitly invited him to join this discussion. Meanwhile -- what do you think is the best way to deal with these articles? Delete? Sort it out by editing? Or something else? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're the administrator, you tell me. The articles must be deleted; let's pretend that right now i'll start writing an article about the flying snake - would you try figuring out if there is indeed such thing or delete it? Lucian C. (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that blocks are preventative, not punitive. No one is interested in blocking a user because you don't think they should "get away with it". WP:AGF means that we assume good faith unless it's clear that the edits were not made in good faith; if you feel that this user should be blocked, convince us (or at least an admin) that it is necessary. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, to clear up any apparent confusion, neither myself nor User:Seb_az86556 are administrators. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This issue does not require admin attention at the moment. If you think the articles should be deleted, nominate them for deletion yourself. —DoRD (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I would indeed figure out if there was a flying snake; after all, there's a flying fish. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I worked hard at the Romanian Singles Chart related articles, and he just came one day to "help". He has created constantly charts that don't exist or make up peak positions for songs - he has replaced DeepCentral's "In Love" with Shakira's "Gypsy" as a #1 song several times, also wrote that "Telephone" by Lady Gaga was #1 ... He has added unsourced or fake info several times on other articles also: [56], [57] - "Loba" was never #1 [58], [59] - "Alejandro", "Morena" and others didn't reak #1 [60]. I have repeatedly asked him not to update the Romanian Chart properly, but he used sources like charly1300 or a chart that was only shown on TV. I think we got beyond good faith edits when he continues to do things that he knows aren't OK. Alecsdaniel (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading portrait of editors as "spokesman" and "committee members" on an article on the Independent

Paul Bignell and Matthew Bell (2010-08-29). "Wikipedia springs 'Mousetrap' ending". The Independent.
David Gerard (talk · contribs) 2007-06-09 13:18:35 edit
Cyclopia (talk · contribs) 2009-11-13 13:40:29 edit
88.106.151.183 (talk · contribs) 2010-04-19 11:58:09 edit

(First of all: I don't know what is the correct venue for this, so if someone can point at the right one, thanks -ANI is the best approximation I know). Well, an article just appeared on The Independent about our WP:SPOILER guideline, in reference to the Agatha Christie play The Mousetrap: [61]. The only thing that makes me uneasy is that a comment of mine is reported as one of a "Wikipedia spokesman" and another comment as one of an "approved Wikipedia committee member". It is painfully obvious to us that both editors are nothing of this sort, but I don't know how should we react to correct such misrepresentation of the WP process. I was tempted to write them, but I am not sure it will help at all. What action course would you suggest? --Cyclopia ^talk 11:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask your 500 dollar an hour lawyer to write to them explaining that you have no official involvement with the project and that you speak only for yourself when you comment and are responsible and liable only for your own edits and additions to articles.Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's put up a charity to get me a lawyer then! --Cyclopia^talk 12:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless there has been a request from a legal source to the foundation to release your details I imagine you as yet have nothing to worry about. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's pretty obvious. I am more concerned about the misrepresentation of the WP process than anything else. --Cyclopia^talk 13:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Users should take care not to misrepresent their position here at wikipedia and not assert any authority they haven't got, often users refer to the wikipedia as we do this and we do that, this can be misleading to uninvolved readers. Perhaps you could add a disclaimer to your user page. This user has no official position of authority at Wikipedia and is legally responsible and liable only for his own contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That's daft. Should we all add such disclaimers, for the benefits of journalists who don't take in Wikipedia:Press Kit, Wikipedia:Contact us, or foundation:Press/Contact/Regional/Language? Come now! It's not as if journalists don't know how large charity organizations run by volunteers work, and that a volunteer talking to another volunteer is not a press release from an official spokesperson. Wikipedia's model is not a first, and not unique. Journalists don't pop into their local Oxfam shops and report the conversations among the people staffing the checkout as "official committee member" statements. And Oxfam volunteers don't need to permanently wear "I don't speak for Oxfam, even when I use the word 'we'." badges for the edification of such journalists. This isn't about Cyclopia misrepresenting xyrself in the least, nor even about 88.106.151.183 mis-representing xyrself. This is just a digression. Cyclopia didn't even use the plural. Uncle G (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well User:Cyclopia did use the we word when he said this bold statement, "So it is spoiled. Why should we care? We are an encyclopedia. We report information. If you don't like spoilers, don't read encyclopedic articles about fiction works"...edit summary.. "why should we care?"... - As I see it there is nothing as such in regards to the article in need of any action, no wikipedia editor is named in the article. I see this as a highlighting opportunity for the bigger picture for individual users to remember to bear in mind their personal legal position as regards their contributions here at the wikipedia.Also for users to remember, if you want to be bold and authoritative and not give a damn then down the line your bold comments could come back to bite you. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Then you are completely missing the point in favour of some quite irrelevant agenda. Two people are specifically identified by their writing in the piece. The edits are listed at the top of this very section, complete with their timestamps for goodness' sake. This isn't about an "opportunity for individual users" of your invention. This is about journalists who have their facts about Cyclopia and 88.106.151.183 quite wrong, who have misrepresented their status and (in the case of 88.106.151.183) have rather selectively quoted what they wrote; and what Cyclopia (and 88.106.151.183) can do about that. Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The plural is accurate, since I spoke, in that edit, as a part of a community. We are, indeed, an encyclopedia: this encyclopedia is made from a community, and when reporting what is the working/opinion of the community, the plural is OK. But this doesn't make a "spokesman" of myself, unless everyone of us can be considered a spokesman. I don't care about me, I just find it the N-th amusing display of journalists' incompetency, but I don't think the Wikimedia foundation is happy to see random editors being considered spokespeople. I came here reporting the situation because the article encourages misunderstanding of our processes and our positions, and it would be nice if we can find a way to rectify. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You are an individual with no authority here at wikipedia at all, the idea that the plural is correct is a total fallacy in your imagination. You also seem to not give a damn about issues and not care about anything, which is not a position or reflection that I personally would not want to be associated with. so you don't speak for me and many other contributors when you assert your we. Personally I do care and I do give a damn about peoples good faith issues with content at wikipedia and I want to be part of a community that does give a damn. Off2riorob (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You are an individual with no authority here at wikipedia at all: Yes, correct.
        the idea that the plural is correct is a total fallacy in your imagination.: It isn't. It reports what our WP:SPOILER guideline reports, and it reports what our core policies report. I said that we are an encyclopedia, that we report information, and that the fact it is spoiled doesn't tell us immediately why should we care about. If you, Off2riorob, disagree with us being an encyclopedia, perhaps you misunderstand what WP is for, not me. And no, I care about a whole lot of things: I don't see why should I care about that specific problem. And I give a damn about good faith issues, trust me, otherwise I wouldn't even bother answering. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You shouldn't be suprised when people believe you don't give a damn when you say comments such as - "So it is spoiled. Why should we care? We are an encyclopedia. We report information. If you don't like spoilers, don't read encyclopedic articles about fiction works"...edit summary.. "why should we care?"..Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The irony here is that if journalists Paul Bignell and Matthew Bell had done their research and checked their facts, they would have found David Gerard, who not only is a (volunteer) press contact for the Wikimedia Foundation, but was actually one of the prime movers in the 2007 spoiler warning removal discussions too. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Writing to them will do no good. I'm sure the journalists know full well that you are not the Wikipedia spokesman. But referring to you as such makes things more palatable to their editor. Journalists do not let accuracy get in the way of telling a story. Deli nk (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you are acquainted with Fox News and Canada's Sun Media... Resolute 14:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You'd be a fool to think Fox News and Sun Media are worse than any other. Deli nk (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think "committee member" refers to the m:Communications committee. I know that David Gerard is or was on it. I don't know about the others and don't feel like checking. I don't know whether calling them spokespeople is perfectly accurate but it's not completely bogus. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point that Bignell and Bell did not talk about David Gerard, or even mention him. They said that 88.106.151.183 was the "approved Wikipedia committee member". Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we care? If someone is unhappy with how they or one of their pseudonyms were mentioned in a newspaper article they should complain to the newspaper.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps because Cyclopia is here asking for help and advice on that very thing? Read this section from the top, again. Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did. Allow me to provide unambiguous advice. Cyclopia or anyone else concerned with the content of an article in the Independent should contact the Independent. The easiest route is a letter to the editor. The one to have the most impact is direct contact with the reporter himself. I suggese if they care they write a letter to the reporter, explaining their error. Whatever they do, there's nothing to be done here.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, but I am not unhappy about myself, I am more worried about the general misunderstanding of how WP works. I think that what's to be done "here" is that someone (this time for real) officially speaking for WP took the time to tap the Independent's shoulder and tell them that random editors are not "spokespeople". I think it's a problem for WP in its entirety if the basics of our workings are distorted so heavily in the press. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly the point, if a user speaks in such a way they have not the support of the foundation for those comments and should be prepared to defend themselves and not assume the wikipedia is like some kind of safety umbrella that will back them up, in his comment user Cyclopia speaks for himself alone.Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is a misunderstanding. I don't want to be backed up. I need no safety umbrella. I have no problem with the article, apart from the daily dose of facepalms. What I am trying to do is telling WP "hey, WP, you have a problem: newspapers are misrepresenting editors like they were your spokespeople. Shouldn't you take action to correct them?". I have no problem: WP has a problem, in my opinion, with that article. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some individual users don't give a damn and support publishing everything and being confrontational that is their individual position and they should individually be prepared to defend that position if they are involved in real life legal disputes and claims such as this.Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I already understood that. Now read what I posted above, and if you wish, reply to that. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was always taught to turn it around and not to put the blame out try it, don't ask how that newspaper misrepresented you but, how have you misrepresented wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man bites dog, Off2riorob. I heavily doubt Cyclopia's misrepresented Wikipedia. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 20:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see heavy usage of "we" and "our" throughout this discussion, starting from the first comment with "our WP:SPOILER guideline". Clearly there is no rule against such wording, nor should there be, because Wikipedia still contains at least some elements of democracy, and editors should think of it as a joint effort. There also is no reason to change WP:SPOILER. I would suggest the newspapers should improve their fact checking, lest further resistance arise generally toward treating them as reliable sources. Wnt (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively you could run with this, instead of complaining about it. A major national newspaper has described you - unfortunately without actually naming you - as one of Wikipedia's spokesmen, so there's at least one reliable citation in your favour. Phone them up and explain to them that you are, in fact, Wikipedia's European press relations officer, and offer them an interview. Don't forget to use your real name! Include a flattering photograph. You could parlay this into a career on television, articles for the Independent itself, the sky is your oyster. Some people will grumble that you don't actually have an official sanction; just ignore them, no-one in the press understands or ultimately cares how Wikipedia works. Think of the money. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I use "we" all the time when describing Wikipedia, because "we" are supposed to be a community. When I say "we", it means, "myself, yourself, and everyone else here". For example, if I say "we have to be careful to use reliable sources", I don't claim to represent the Wikimedia Foundation or claim authority of any kind (administrators don't have extra authority). The use of "we" in such circumstances is common parlance and completely appropriate. You can't help what ignorant journalists who don't do their homework may print. -- Atama頭 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for an "uninvolved" admin

Resolved

– sock with a grudge Toddst1 (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that this or this did not need to be removed. It just seems inappropriate that an admin that is pushing hard on the COM issue, is removing comments by the subject or others that may not be in their interest. Thank you in advance for consideration. 211.138.124.252 (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem other than logging out to make posts on ANI. Seems like you're either abusing the IP or are already blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there's an interesting outburst of obvious socks since User:Freakshownerd's blocking - seemingly either him or sympathisers. User:Overturn_deletion_to_censure_Tarc! messes with an FSN DRV (and a CoM-like outburst on his talk page, now deleted), and User:K. Hausen Maem pops up with a boringly familiar misrepresentation of the FSN block saga. [62] Hm. Rd232 ^talk 15:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be collapsed per WP:DENY? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a part of a long-running pattern of abuse, so I'd hope that some light will remain shined on this. Note Overturn and censure Tarc (talk · contribs) (similar to the above, minus the exclamation point) from about a month ago. Tarc (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone look at this please?

[63] This FAQ is unlike anything I would expect Wikipedia to have. Maybe it is needed? Cat clean (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Nevermind it has some helpful information. Cat clean (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unusual, but then again so is the subject matter of the article. Have you raised this on the article's talk page? Otherwise, there is no reason to bring this here. — Coren ^(talk) 17:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there has been a lot of bad calls on adding this information on biographies so I posted at the Biography noteboard and some editors have been helping clean off the problems. I agree it is tough subject matter but that article uses some bad sourcing to add names. Cat clean (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV and potential vandalism on the Alvin C. York article

Resolved

– Normal editing has resumed. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a new ip editor who has been making a lot of edits to the Alvin C. York article. Although some of the information this IP has been adding "might" be useful for the article this users lack of WP knowledge has caused a lot of damage to the article. I would like to request that this article be restricted for editing by experienced editors to reduce the harmful edits that have been occurring. --Kumioko (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article to where it was on Aug 24 so the anon user can add his material more slowly and get help with the wiki markup for their sources. Hope this helps. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been on my watchlist for a long time, but I confess that I don't watch it closely because I don't have the time or interest to keep track of the various conflicts and POV issues that crop up there on a frequent basis. IMO, it would be a good candidate for the "pending changes" program. --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and I agree that putting it on the pending changes list is a good compromise. This will allow the anon IP editor to contribute in a way that will allow more seasoned WP editors to constructively guide the editor. I have reviewed the edits and it doesnt appear to me that the editor is being malicious, they just don't understand the rules of WP. --Kumioko (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed the request for "pending changes protection" so any changes or additions can be easily vetted. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. --Kumioko (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xeworlebi

User has reverted many edits on List of Hellcats episodes and List of V (2009 TV series) episodes while putting very vague edit summaries. We have discussed the V episode list here. Furthermore, after I try to improve the ariticle(s) on many acounts, the user simply just reverts my edits. I can see this being an opinionated issue, and therefore the main issue with these revisions was only the overview table in both articles.

Begoon suggested many things regarding the issue, one of which was to open a discussion, which I did do: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Series Overview. After I did this, I went on from the V episode list to edit the Hellcats episode list, not knowing that the same user would be a (main) contributor there. I also went ahead and removed the overview (seeing this as far more redundant than the V episode list one). Suddenly we are now in a edit war over this episode list. In order to try and come up with some solution, I suggested that we remove that overview, after he reverted it, until there is more information and then discuss what we can do (maybe time could solve the problem). He reverted that, and another user, who was banned for similar activity on multiple other articles comes in and contributes to the edit war. Finally, I start a conversation on his talkpage, hoping maybe we can try talking again. However, instead of a response there, I get a warning for edit-warring on my talk page.

Are there any opinions/help that I (we) can get? ChaosMaster_Chat 18:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user has now responded on his talk page and has reported me for edit warring. ChaosMaster_Chat 18:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this user (ChaosMaster16) has been reported for excessive edit-warring (6 reverts under 2 hours) here. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at List of V (2009 TV series) episodes you both look involved. I don't know who started this protracted edit warring, I'm not even sure what it's about. I see a short discussion on eachother's talk page about the edit waring, but no discussion of the substantive changes. The analysis on List of Hellcats episodes is harder because there's a user that's been making unexplained factual changes and has been blocked. But there are similar warring going on at that page as well.

This is better resolved at the edit warring noticeboard, and there's a discussion there now. You both need to discuss this and come to some sort of agreement. At the very least, can you two identify what it is you disagree on? (Cross posting this message to other discussion). Shadowjams (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

user:Xenophrenic and Tea Party movement

Resolved

– content disupute - try WP:DR Toddst1 (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophrenic is misusing sources on the Tea Party movement article. I originally posted the basic issue here but in the interim I have added some clarrification to the section to accurately reflect the sourcing that is being used.

Consider the following section which Xenophrenic prefers. It contains a patently untrue statement which is not backed up by the study which is being cited. (emphasis mine)

A number of polls have also been conducted to examine Tea Party supporters' views on race and racial politics. According to the CBS/New York Times poll, 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with just 11% of the general public and are more likely to believe President Obama was born outside the United States. [77] 74% of Tea Party supporters agree with the statement "[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it."[79][80]

The highlighted sentence does not make the distinction that the survey was of Washington State Tea Party Supporters. The sourcing for the section does not really make it clear either, and to be fair Prof. Matt Barreto and Prof. Christopher Parker do an absolutely terrible job of pointing this out either. However from the actual poll you can clearly see that this is a poll of Washington State voters. I don't think that this poll should be used for the reasons stated at the NPOV messageboard, however if it is to be in there in any capacity then it must be noted from who the poll was taken. The implication from the text as Xenophrenic has selected is that the poll is representative of Tea Party Supporters throughout the US. I am awaiting some response on the NPOV messageboard regarding the issue in general, but in the meantime can we at least not misuse polling statistics to make an inference which is not supported by the study itself.

As Chistopher Parker stated himself regarding the other similar poll (this was a seven state poll also in the Tea Party Article) at 538.com link

Question to Parker - 5. Pulling it all together, what can we safely and confidently conclude about those who identify with the tea party movement and those who do not? Are their attitudes fundamentally different from other whites, from the American population as a whole, and if so, how so?

One way in which to view these preliminary results is that we should remain cautious, and not jump to firm conclusions. I say this, first, because the sampling frame I use differs from, say, recent polls conducted by Pew, Qunnipiac, the Washington Post, and USA Today/Gallup. Indeed, my results are relevant only to the states in which the survey was conducted, four of which (NV, MO, GA, and NC) voted for the Republican presidential candidate in at least seven of the last ten election cycles. Perhaps this is why my results appear at variance with national polls.

Editors on this page continue to use these polls and word them in a way to imply that they are representative of the entire movement. They usually claim that the sources that mention the studies don't make the clear distinction that Parker does above, but that does not change the fact that it is not correct. I understand that WP is not here to fix great wrongs but when the author of the study himself makes the statement it is only prudent that we correctly report on what they found, not misrepresent the findings for political purposes. Arzel (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User notified. Arzel (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this not a content dispute? What admin action is being requested? Black Kite (t) (c) 21:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amp873

Resolved

– banhammered Toddst1 (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amp873 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user immediately returned from a block for disruptive editing (particularly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) to edit war. He was block because he's pushing a point of view without any talk, and edit warring ad nauseum. See the most recent thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive634#User:Amp873. Please note he's blanked his talk, so the warnings are in the history. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second view, it looks like the editor just plopped a lot of tags on the page, no block is warranted (I misread the diff, was busy elsewhere...). It's disruptive for sure, but probably not immediately warranting a block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to reopen this to note this user's most recent colorful contribution. We're really not dealing with a productive or useful editor here, IMO. I reverted the tag-blasting at Conscription too, for the record. Tarc (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might happen. I'm also going to move this section back down to the bottom. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Oh wow, didn't view that. Yeah I think the guy is just a troll. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Resolved

– Blocked by User:Toddst1.

Jerzeykydd (talk · contribs) personally insulted me in a number of different places, see this, in this edit summary and here.--TM 23:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, Todd. After seeing the recent WQA thread, here, I was about to do the same. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

e/c Yup. Enough of that. Toddst1 (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Totally unnecessary. Good block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three weeks for a first-time-for-NPA block? Really? Are we being a little harsh - or have things really changed around here in the last few years that I wasn't paying attention? There's almost never a reason to block someone for three weeks - either it's a day or two to cool them down, or it's pretty much indefinite for offenders who refuse to reform their behavior. What the hell is the point of blocking an editor for three weeks? -- Y not? 02:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The PA's were unusually persistent and obnoxious. IMO the 3-week block is ok if there's reasonable understanding that it will be lifted earlier if the editor agrees to down the aggression in the future. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see his block commuted. This is not the American justice system where incarceration has a punitive goal (among others). A three-week block does not prevent future wrongdoing any more effectively than a 48 hour block. -- Y not? 14:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility of Y (was Double Standard subsection)

Admin Y has admitted the referenced mistakes. Further discussion at this time seems counterproductive. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

note: I have changed this from a sub-heading of a resolved thread to a new section as per suggestion. I have not moved the discussion to the bottom for ease of those already involved in the issue.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. Administrator Y calls someone an asshole and even threats the user to report him and all he gets is a warning. What's even more interesting is Y's edit was even reverted (as vandalism) by Toddst1 too. Hmmm. Double standard? Todd wasn't aware, ignore this. Tommy! [message] 23:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which edit you are referring to but Y (talk · contribs) ~~is not an administrator, and~~ was properly warned for WP:CIVIL. If there have been further issues, I am not aware of them. Jerseykydd has had a recent WQA, recent EW block, recent edit wars and continued civility issues - significant disruption, hence a block. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm [64] —DoRD (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like starting problems, but when I see stuff like this it makes me a little annoyed. See Y's talk page for warning. Tommy! [message] 00:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I was not aware s/he was an admin. User rights does not show the change. I probably would have responded differently. In that case, perhaps further discussion about Y is in order. Toddst1 (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems like it's settled so I don't know if any further action is necessary. I was just pointing this out. Tommy! [message] 00:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Unless there's evidence of more than calling someone an asshole once, I don't see why this is worthy of more than a warning, admin or otherwise. The user above was not blocked for a single incident, and there was a good chance they would continue to be disruptive, hence the quite right block. It's a little more disappointing when an admin makes personal attacks perhaps, but there's no reason they should be blocked outright for something no other editor would be blocked for, especially given than blocks are preventative, not punitive, and the incident is unlikely to recur. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. I don't know the background with User:Y (though I agree that the language is unacceptable for anyone, no matter what was going on), but for me the clincher with User:Jerzeykydd was this recent evidence of similar behavior. A one off personal attack/violation of civility policy is bad; a habit of it is worse. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All valid. Thanks Tommy! [message] 00:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you're all discussing this edit by Y, correct? Silverseren^C 00:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Tommy! [message] 00:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems concerning... And am I wrong but is there quite a bit of mis-use of rollback going on as well? [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]. Thorncrag 00:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd lean no. I've reverted vandal edits like that, particularly POV pushers who've been warned. Some of those users are blocked too and the last diff, he used an edit summary which is okay. Tommy! [message] 00:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno...this one is concerning to me. Yes, the About linked to a page that hasn't been made yet and we often don't want to do such a thing, but it is certainly not something you would use the rollback tool for. That's not its use. Silverseren^C 00:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the diffs I posted were blatant vandalism (the only acceptable use of rollback) and there was no edit summary justifying its use. Rollback is not permitted for POV-pushing either--at least not without a suitable edit summary. Thorncrag 00:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'd expand that with more along the lines: rollback should only be used on edits with bad intent (IAR)-- that's me, and it's worked out well. Anyways, Silverseren has a point with that one.. Although that is a red link. Rollback, no, but not constructive, although it was done in Good faith, I'd say. Tommy! [message] 00:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out before in terms of rollback, if you are using it to revert an edit, then it is automatically implied that the edit you are reverting was done in bad faith. Otherwise, you shouldn't be using rollback and should instead use a normal undo with an explanatory edit summary. Y's use of rollback in most, if not all, of the diffs given above are not on edits that have obvious bad faith. As Thorncrag said, POV pushing is, regardless, still not something you should be allowed to revert with rollback, as POV is inherently opinion based and not overt bad faith. Silverseren^C 02:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll alert Y of this thread so he can comment.~~ Already done I guess. Tommy! [message] 02:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you guys - I wasn't really going to participate, but it seems that Tommy wants me to comment. Responding to Thorncrag's five diffs, the answers are as follows: #1 is technically improper, but substantively meaningless; #2 is correctly characterized as improper use of rollback, and ## 3, 4, and 5 are reverts of edits obviously made in bad faith. -- Y not? 02:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Technically improper" does not a rollback make. And I do not see how #4 is made in bad faith, unless there is some hidden history going on there. Making an About link to another (as of yet unmade) article is not a bad faith edit. (I do see #3 and #5 as things that would be proper for rollback). Silverseren^C 02:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, #4 guy put up an attack bio of a competing candidate in the Florida Republican primary. He got deleted, rolled-back, and yelled at. -- Y not? 02:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a rollback has to be explained after-the-fact, then an edit summary should have been used to justify its use. Plain and simple. WP:ROLLBACK. Thorncrag 03:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lecture me in this condescending a tone. -- Y not? 03:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...how is he lecturing you in a condescending tone across the internet? There's no tone, it's just words. Silverseren^C 03:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're really interested in my explanation. -- Y not? 03:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Y: Given one's propensity towards incivility, I would think that one would not want to escalate a simple AN/I thread into more than it need be. Thorncrag 03:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One wouldn't, would one? I came here to courteously answer the questions you posed, against my better judgment and in violation of my solemn oath never to participate in any ANI threads - why am I now being threatened with having this thread "escalated"? I'm at a loss. Good night. -- Y not? 03:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator, you cannot take a "solemn oath" not to participate in noticeboard discussions. You are answerable to the community for any actions you take in whatever valid venue they are brought up in. If you disagree with this, you should consider turning in the mop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am deeply concerned that an administrator would not be capable of taking suggestions posted about them on an AN/I thread into consideration without interpreting it as a "condescending tone"—even if they are from lowly editors. I am also deeply concerned that an administrator would essentially bait another editor with what is clearly uncivil behavior, by any reasonable standard. It is also deeply concerning that an administrator would demonstrate—what I understand to be—a clear misunderstanding of the usage of rollbacks, one who is charged with enforcing its correct usage from others. I am sure that I speak for everyone in saying that we appreciate your civil contributions to Wikipedia, but in the complete absence of any acknowledgement of wrongdoing, but only further rationalization and terse quips, you are making it difficult for us lowly people to just drop the issue. Thorncrag 04:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

raising concern for another related incident I am participating in an AfD for the article anti-laser which was proposed by Y. I am concerned over Y's treatment of the AfD and the user who created it. I have voiced my opinion in AfD that the article be speedy kept due to sources, but what raised a flag for me is Y's tone. In the AfD Y clearly says that he/she has spoken with the creating editor on their talk page User talk:Chrisrus/Anti-laser, but I find no evidence of this. What found when exploring this was that Y spoke one line of "Dude - I already created the userspace page for you! Develop there!" at the talk page of Anti-laser and what Y DID do was dump the complete article to the editor's talk page with no further explanation of the issues raised with the article. Beyond that, a user's TALK PAGE is NOT where user space articles are typically created in the first place. This has prompted me to examine Y's contribs where I found this discussion. Maybe Y needs a wiki break? Y seems ill-advised of some rather key policies and is exhibiting behavior I feel is unfit for an administrator. I have not discussed anything with or spoken directly to Y on any of these issues and have never interacted with Y outside of this evening (to my knowledge).--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should be marked as resolved - admins are allowed to be incivil and can "technically" misuse their tools. Nothing more to see here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm is not helping. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are allowed the same wiggle room of AGF as any editor, but incivility and misuse of tools should still be properly debated. With a picture forming of habitual misuse and incivility I would caution that such a debate not be closed before all points raised can be addressed as part of the whole.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that some of the diffs here are somewhat concerning, including this one provided by Seb az86556 above. If an administrator's attitude is that it's acceptable to "deploy incivility from time to time", then that's certainly worth further discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, sarcasm isn't helping the discussion, but it might help some of us who can foresee the conclusion to this discussion; that being said, yeah, it might not have been appropriate, but I don't think it's as bad as "asshole" with the subsequent justification and snoppiness. FWIW, I apologize. Haven't seen any apology from Y yet though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a new subsection should be created below. I think it's somewhat misleading now to be discussing this in a section entitled "double standard", when it's been established that there wasn't a double standard here, and this is really a separate issue. It may in fact be worth starting a new AN/I thread for this user since this discussion is really piggybacking off a resolved thread about another editor. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is likely no action that will be taken, but I would like to see some hint that Y understands admin powers are not a license for incivility, POV pushing, or liberal use of rollback and that continuing this behavior and possibly escalating it can hurt the project and substantiate proceedings for action against him for abuse. I would be very satisfied with seeing a little reflection or understanding that the issues presented here are real and not to be taken lightly. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do understand that admin powers are not a license for incivility, and I do understand that I use rollback more liberally than most of you would like (though honestly a revert is a revert and should be judged as proper or improper independently of the mechanism used). I had nothing to do with POV pushing. I'm guilty of an improper revert on Jeannette Rankin and I did call that user an asshole while under the influence of anger on account of his pattern of behavior. Is this the acknowledgment you seek? Would this be as big a deal if I weren't a sysop? And where's the lynchmob calling for a block on Jojhutton (talk · contribs) for his six reverts on Jeannette Rankin? -- Y not? 14:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Speaking of the "other editor": if Jerzeykydd is blocked for three weeks for this[70] (the two other diffs are not "demonstrative" of anything as they are), and Y himself brings this up as "harsh"[71] - it becomes about Y? We know what Y said. His comment is why this thread has been "expanded", and it certainly should be moved to an unresolved thread... Doc9871 (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By suggesting that there is a "double standard", the section creator was suggesting that Toddst1 was at fault, which I believe has been disproved now. Any continued conversation about Y's actions, as opposed to Toddst1's actions, should take place in a new thread. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If some diffs (rather than general accusations of misconduct) showing a "pattern of incivility" by Y aren't provided by the accusers, and a proposed outcome for this thread isn't put forth: I'll bet I can guess where this is going. This is still a "piggyback thread", IMO... Doc9871 (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y should take everything in this thread under advisement and post a note saying s/he has done so. If that happens I don't think further action is needed unless the problem recurs. We're all supposed to be civil at all times but an occasional slip or a patch of bad judgment is pretty far down on the list of situations calling for protracted drama. Y, please try to do better in the future. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted my previous statements. Y added to the user's talk space, but not talk page. I stand corrected, but still strongly disagree his/her stance on incivility and tool use.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really think this has been pushed too far. I belive in WP:IGNORE, which is a policy vs. WP:ROLLBACK, which is a guideline..Policy has more precedence than a guideline. For the love of god, Huggle's own interface allows users to revert and then choose a specified warning. The only revert I see a little, and only a little, troubling is Silvers's concerning diff he pointed out. But again, as a I said, it was a red link. I think we're making a bit much out of this, honestly. This is about Y's (outburst) of incivility. Tommy! [message] 12:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend having this thread closed and I hope Y feels admonished for that comment; it was way out of line. As far as rollback use, see comment above. Tommy! [message] 12:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vandal named Mr kabob requires blocking.

Resolved

Involved users

99.163.178.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Mr kabob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article(s)

Memories (David Guetta song)

Issue

99.163.178.125 changed the name of the song to Mammaries, added the sentance "the song is about mammary glands" and changed the infobox to say "Mammories". Then Mr kabob proceeded to move the page to Mammaries (David Guetta song). The jist of the story is that I believe there is enough evidence in their edits to suggest that both the user and IP are one in the same. Mr kabob's talk page indicates a history of these kind of stupid edits. he/she has received warnings for introducing factual errors and unsourced information. Cab both please be blocked? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 00:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported them for having a vandalism-only account. Let's see what the admins on call say, and that might close this very quickly. The IP, that's a slightly different matter--clearly their edits are not constructive, though. I've left a level-3 warning for improper humor on their talk page, not to far below your friendly welcome message to them. It is unlikely that any more action will follow soon, unless they continue with this juvenile nonsense, of course. Thanks Unique, and may I suggest closing this thread if Mr. Kabob's shop is shut down. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been one or two edits from Mr kabob's account from some time ago that can be considered good faith, but most of it is vandalism. I've therefore blocked it indefinitely as either a voa or compromised account. The IP may the same user, in which case it should now be autoblocked. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 05:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Muratovic, yet again

I originally posted the following to WP:AIV, but since it is a long-time abuser, I thought that it deserved a bit wider awareness so I'm posting here. The blocked User:Ali Muratovic resurrects again as 138.130.86.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Characteristics: edits mostly Bosnia and Islam-related articles; removes all redlinks according to MoS; makes other changes contrary to MoS; alters Bosnian names (e.g. Muhamed) to Arabic spellings (Muhammed). There are productive fixes in and between, but it is hard to tell the chaff from grains, so please do a mass rollback. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ali Muratovic and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ali Muratovic. I suggest adding to WP:LTA . Rangeblocks, anyone? No such user (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP notified - please note this is required. Exxolon (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is far more required is blocking of an obvious sock. Please. No such user (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Avala's abuse of rollback

Avala (talk · contribs) has a long history of using rollback on all edits he does not like. The last instance, which triggered me to write this report, is this revert on Boris Tadić, an article that Avala apparently owns. I have already patiently explained what the rollback is for to Avala at Talk:Boris Tadić#Blind_reversion quite a time ago, but to no avail, apparently. Combine that with total lack of edit summaries, and we get an editor who is quite hard to cooperate with, despite long time on the project. I propose that Avala's rollback rights are revoked for a while. No such user (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A first run through their use of rollback concerns me, however, I'm willing to wait a short time for them to comment. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wikipedia for too long to "abuse" anything. If you look at the edit you will see that it wasn't an abuse (even though the roll back obviously did hurt feelings of the person that got rolled back but that is not an ANI matter). What was blind was insisting on adding those numbers that are 1) no longer used on Wikipedia except in very clear situations like the number of US Presidents but almost everywhere else from British PMs to even Russian Presidents these numbers are not used, and if the user is unwilling to accept that, then maybe I am too harsh, but I don't see any other option but to roll it back and especially when I see 2) that this person added numbers on two places, so according to his edit he is now apparently defending that, the person in question, Boris Tadic, served as the third President - twice? In my opinion persistent unwillingness to accept the MoS or removing referenced data or making persistent edits that counter the long established consensus without going to talk or participating in a non productive manner like chasing 3RR, I think that all of these situations are grounds for roll back, but of course we can discuss the matter.--Avala (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the edit should have been reverted: the problem, however, is that the edit was reverted using rollback. Rollback should only be used for obvious vandalism, and the edit you reverted (using rollback) was clearly a good-faith edit, albeit an edit you and I both disagree with. Use "undo" in situations like this: it allows you to provide a detailed edit summary, and doesn't imply "reverting vandalism" as the use of rollback does. TFOWR 11:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In my opinion persistent unwillingness to accept the MoS or removing referenced data or making persistent edits that counter the long established consensus without going to talk or participating in a non productive manner like chasing 3RR, I think that all of these situations are grounds for roll back, but of course we can discuss the matter." No, they aren't. Rollback is for vandalism, any other kind of edits should be "undone" or another method other than rollback. If you continue to use rollback in that manner, you'll lose it. Rollback is "easy come, easy go" and any admin can take it away from you right now, but I personally prefer leniency when there's a misunderstanding. Please remember this in the future. -- Atama頭 15:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Small point of order. The only difference between using rollback and undoing is the edit summary—the lack of explanation. There is communication on the page, but User:Dekidxb has made quite a few of these kind of changes (that Avala did not rollback). If it's clearly against style then rollback is fine if there's communication through another mechanism ("Provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page, rollback may also be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually.[1]"). In the same way, massive "undoing" is equally problematic if there's no explanation. I agree though in this case, there needs to be more explanation. Shadowjams (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nivrem110694's sockpuppet, User:Iamervsz

It seems like this blocked user created another sockpuppet and continuously did the actions that have blocked his previous account in the first place.

Passed ducking:

Both users continuously uploads images that violates the copyright laws
Main page structure obviously similar
Images being uploaded often concerns TV shows from a television network know as GMA Network.

Update: Confirmed that it is User:Nivrem110694's sockpuppet. When Main Page is editted, tl:User:Nivrem110694 appears on the bottom of the page. Clearly the user doesn't seem to get the message. Please someone block the user before he continues to create more damage. It takes time to revert most of the user's edits. --TwelveOz (talk) 09:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the tag on Iamervsz, since Mervin 110694 = Nivrem110694 = Iamervsz. "Nivrem" is "Mervin" spelled backwards - but I'll wager I wasn't the only one to see this, right? It is very clever to switch names like this, I know... Doc9871 (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's been notified of this thread as well... Doc9871 (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha Cod :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded by sockpuppet of a blocked user

Can someone please delete these images uploaded by a sockpuppet of a user who was blocked before for conintuously violating the image copyright laws such as identifying sources and claiming images to be in low resolution when clearly they are in high deifinition. File:Jejemom.JPG, File:LoveniMisterLoveniMisis.JPG, File:SurvivorPhilippinesCelebrityShowdown.jpg, File:IluminaTitleScreen.JPG.--TwelveOz (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confused, what's the copyright problem here? We don't delete images as copyvios if they claim fair use, and overly-large nonfree images are supposed to be tagged with {{Non-free reduce}}, rather than deleted. Nyttend (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats

Legal threats have been made by an IP user 81.249.62.125 in Talk:Muslim Zionism: "thank you for respecting his choice and erasing the link concerning him, before any pursuit or judicial approach." Marokwitz (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it will make any difference as there seems to be more than one IP involved. However, I am wondering if we should remove mention of Morad El Hattab from Muslim Zionism on BLP grounds. The complaint is that he is hasn't been involved in this issue for several years, and is just a Muslim wanting peace, not a Zionist. We don't need it in the article. Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Mr El hattab is not Zionist but just a Muslim hoping that the peace can one day exist between Israelis and Palestinians". Call me pedantic, but I've removed the section under BLP policy as it lacks any sources referring to him as a Muslim Zionist. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name-jumper re-creating wp:band spam

I'd like to offer my congratulations in advance to any admin who has the skills and patience follow this. It's a tough one.

accounts: RuskiiSun, SunHawken, BlackImperial, LIL LEGGITTE, ~~maybe Inka 888~~, and one or more unknown account names

articles: Young Jonii, Lil Leggitte, perhaps other deleted or existing ones too

images: Lil_Leggitte.jpg

commons categories: Young Jonii

This one comprises one of the most convoluted edit histories I've ever seen, all over the course of a few days. Or maybe it's just so difficult for me to follow because it involves multiple accounts, and deleted user pages, deleted or blanked talk pages, and deleted mainspace pages that I can't really see in full. Well, then:

I'll begin by disclosing that the only involvement I've had so far with this user, apart from notifying him of this ANI post, was to ask admins to hold on re his request to be made a "Confirmed" user. I haven't interacted with him in any other way at all: no reverts, no common articles edited, no talk-page exchanges. But to move on to the substance of the matter...

This shows that a user initially operating under an account name unknown to me wanted really badly to create a page about a new, non-notable 18 year-old rapper going by the name "Young Jonii", recreating the page 5 or 6 times after it was speedily deleted. I suspect the subject himself created the article; Young Jonii is a pseudonym/stagename of Trent Williams. Things get complicated from here, because the user subsequently created a new account or accounts, and also used the official "simple renaming" process multiple (?) times on old ones, and had the pages for old ones deleted, and/or just blanked them himself. This has all happened within a few days, so it's hard to follow, not being privy to deleted pages.

I can't tell for sure who initially created the "Young Jonii" page. But I noticed before pages for SunHawken (talk · contribs) were deleted and redirected ( see contributions currently visible here ) that the SunHawken user account was created and almost immediately became involved with the "Young Jonii" article. The account was created after that article had been speedily deleted its first two times. SunHawken's first edit was to thank one of the admins who'd deleted "Young Jonii" for deleting some page, presumably "Young Jonii". I can't quite make out the sequence that follows; presumably the page had been recreated a third (?) time by some unknown account, because shortly thereafter SunHawken

requested page protection for "Young Jonii",

responded to a speedy notice – the third (?) for the article – that someone had placed on SunHawken's talk page

evidently (see SunHawken's talk page) recreated both "Young Jonii" ...

and also recreated an article about another 18 year-old rapper from "Young Jonii's" hometown, viz. "Lil Leggitte"

From a spam-coi report: 06:11:33, Fri Aug 27, 2010 - user:LIL LEGGITTE - user talk (contribs) on page Lil Leggitte (diff - undo) -> (overlap) Username overlaps with pagename: 'lil leggitte'-'lil leggitte' = 100% (100/100) - - Note there's also a currently-existing user named LIL LEGGITTE (talk · contribs) who appears to be involved somehow as well. )

After the "Young Jonii" article had been speedily deleted a fifth time from mainspace – see multiple warnings on SunHawken's talk page – SunHawken recreated it under his talk page and also under his user page, and later – using a different account? – created a redirect from mainspace to his userspace version of the "Young Jonii" article. This was speedily deleted, too.

At one point, SunHawken was blocked for 24 hours by user:Kuru for reasons I'm not fully aware of, although I imagine they have to do with the constant recreation of the "Young Jonii" article and perhaps the "Lil Leggitte" one as well.

( At some point he might have requested deletion of "Young Jonii" himself; the history is too garbled for me to understand fully. )

User SunHawken also requested a whole bunch of privileges: AWB, Reviewer, Autopatrolled, a bot authorization, and in a subsequent incarnation, a request for "Confirmed" status.

He also created a Commons category for Young Jonii, placed a help request for "Young Jonii" at WP:BLPN, and generally careened around without much evident care for what he was doing. SunHawken appears to be using Twinkle.

Based on this diff user SunHawken also appears to have been involved in the creation of a now-deleted article about LIL LEGGITTE (talk · contribs), presumably a friend of his; also 18 years old, who also lives in Montgomery, Alabama, as is the case with Trent Williams, aka "Young Jonii".

At some point in the process this person created user ID, "RuskiiSun" and used it to work for a while on the "Young Jonii" article. After a day or two he used the "simple renaming" process to have that account renamed to BlackImperial (talk · contribs).

He added Trent Williams, the RL name of his non-notable "Young Jonii", to the List of people with surname Williams in a garbled edit that needs to be reverted. As user RuskiiSun, he had previously created an article named Trent Williams (entertainer), it would appear.

At the top of this page I listed Inka 888 (talk · contribs) as a possible sock or alternate account for this user. That's based on this diff] in which the user signs himself as Sunhawken ⁸⁸⁸ at 03:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC). Note that this signature points to SunHawken in its main part, but to Inka 888's talk page in its superscript. Also, Inka 888 counsels a blocked user to create a sock, possibly not understanding the implications. But like user SunHawken's history of prematurely requesting additional privileges, user Inka 888, a non-admin, closed an RfA, was concerned about page protections, and asked about becoming an admin. I'm unsure about the possibility that Inka 888 might be an alternate account or sock for the other user accounts listed in this post, at top. I certainly admit I could be incorrect, and will apologize to Inka 888 if my perception of the facts has misled me.[reply]

BlackImperial (aka RuskiiSun and SunHawken) has now created a move request on a userspace talk page that User:BlackImperial/Young_Jonii be moved to mainspace. The subject is still non-notable, and this seventh attempt to get the article into mainspace won't work, either. This guy's determined – I'll give him that – but he's really creating chaos, and consuming quite a lot of attention from other editors and admins, to no good purpose at all.

At this point I think SunHawken, BlackImperial, LIL LEGGITTE need to be blocked, ~~and perhaps User:Inka 888 too~~ if investigtion determines that they're the same. Maybe a topic ban on music or performer-related articles? I think it'd also be a good idea to salt the article "Young Jonii" since it's now on it's seventh attempt at re-creation in a week or so, the subject is unequivocally not notable, and the user who keeps re-creating it doesn't appear willing to give up. This whole mess does need further investigaton, though, since there are probably lots of reverts and perhaps other measures and accounts that also will need attentnon. I'd take it further, but my head is kind of spinning from all this, and I can't see deleted pages, either, to try to make sense of the history.

No SPI initiated, btw. I've never done one, and don't know whether it's necessary in this case. Sorry if I've made any mistakes in trying to document this mess – that's entirely possible, and sorry for the long post here, too. Thanks all, – OhioStandard (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page salted. Sunhawken is likely a duck sock of BlackImperial. RuskiiSun was a valid rename, so not really a sock at this point. Inka 888's sig "mishap" basically gave that part away. The only thing that confuses me is Inka's poor writing in comparison with BlackImperial's style--possibly faked, though. Page salted. SPI seems reasonable at this point. —fetch ·comms 12:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Inka 888 is

Unlikely to be the same editor as the others, but may well be someone who knows them personally. — Coren ^(talk) 13:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Thanks for salting, Fetch, and for taking the time to wade through the above. Coren: understood, thanks very much for wading through it as well, and for your helpful information. Will line-through and formally withdraw suggestion of Inka 888 as a possible sock of the others, but will keep on watchlist, just out of curiosity. Fetch, you might like to look at BlackImperial's reply to the ani notification I left on his talk page. No time to pursue this further just now, but will try to follow up with what might still need to be done later. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Still don't know who created the "Young Jonii" article in the first place, i.e. who created the first instance which was speedily deleted, at 13:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC). Perhaps I've missed something, but I'm not seeing how any of the so-far-named accounts could have done it, based on their contribution histories. Will be offline for a while, though. – OhioStandard (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunhawken first created the Young Jonii article. —fetch ·comms 14:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File a SPI. Blatant socking, conflict of interest: and an incredible lack of notability (one demo doesn't cut it). According to this[72] unacceptable reference (none of the references are acceptable) to the very poorly-written User:BlackImperial/Young Jonii article, the "team" mentioned is "Team Leggitte". This article is not fit for this encyclopedia for many reasons. Seriously. Doc9871 (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Accused

Yes, we the team could say I'm smart :). False statements: I'm not LIL LEGGITTE, and Inka 888. Lil Leggitte i gave up on that project, used under Sunhawken Account i had it deleted so i stopped it, the account... Why? I had "bad" negative warnings under this account i was new. Note: Under Sunhawken (talk · contribs) this account created the article 5 times the fourth it was ACCEPTED but then the next day deleted.

LIL LEGGITTE (talk · contribs) thats not me, that user had his own accords.

Ruskiisun (talk · contribs) I had the name changed which was advised while working on my project.. but the move was requested and it was done by Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) To remove my "bad" new user alerts.

BlackImperial is my new account I creased to use all other to accounts. In this account i used all Wikipedia guidelines by requests and not by doing anything big with out consents of other Wikipedians. I quickly learned to ropes.

Quote from OhioStandard "but you've learned many of the skills needed to contribute productively to the biggest and most comprehensive encylopedia the world has ever known. That's pretty cool in itself, and I bet when you look around you won't find a lot of your friends can say the same." I'm kind of muti-talented/unique people tell me. :) So, please allow it to remain in my Userspace till the time comes! A admin (forget his name) said that now my only issue with the article was that i had no "good" references. convoluted indeed... (BlackImperial (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You should disclose all names of accounts you have used on your current account's userpage. Young Jonii is not yet notable right now; I would expect to wait several months at the very least before he is notable. Please don't create new accounts without disclosing them on your userpage, or people will get confused like this instance. —fetch ·comms 14:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do i go about disclosing them??? >—fetch ·comms Sorry about this whole mess i was not aware about the size/scope of this.(aka. Being investigated by federal B.I) I really tried my best on this article in a weeks time ,but seeing I'm new i can of put myself apart from the the other "newbies". Side Note: Thanks for the response #2note : Young Jonii is Unequivocal :). (BlackImperial (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg

Posting here because I posted in the proper place and got little to no response. Could someone please close this delist nomination? The consensus was fairly clear (five in favour of delisting, two in favour of retention), but Papa Lima Whiskey (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to invent new rules (diff one) and edit war (diff two and diff three) to keep the nomination open, despite the fact it has been open for its allotted two weeks. Recently there was a very clear consensus in favour of having strict time limits and rejecting any vote made after the time-limit was over, and this has been followed to a tee, until now. No, I admit I didn't immediately notify the (retired) creator, but neither did anyone else, and that doesn't give people the right to change rules, especially when it conveniently means they can keep nominations for delisting open when they don't like the outcome they've reached. I really don't want to fight about this, but it's not fair that PLW's bringing it upon himself to do this. PLW has a strong history of making up his own rules and unilaterally enforcing them, this wouldn't be the first time he has caused upset. I'm not asking anyone to block him (though, if you want to help everyone...) I just want someone to close this bloody discussion. This does not need some kind of fancy "compromise", nor does it need "OMG IAR"- I can see about twenty things "helpful" people will try to do. Just close it and delist the picture, as that's what should have been done days ago. J Milburn (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pulled out the archives as no one noticed... Anybody there? J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it if no-one else will, what's the procedure though (can't seem to find a link). Black Kite (t) (c) 13:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved non-admin opinion: An FPC delist discussion ran for ten days without the image's creator being notified. Once the notification was done, it was reasonable to restart the clock on discussion. Now that FPC editors are aware of this issue, it can easily be avoided in future, and this should not be a recurring problem. ReverendWayne (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted in haste this morning and failed to complete my thought. In my view, the nomination should be allowed to run until September 5, as currently scheduled, giving the image creator an opportunity to participate in the discussion. (I have no expertise in photography, and no opinion on the merits of the image.) ReverendWayne (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminatory Speech

User:Destinero has a long history of abuses on English Wikipedia; please refer to his Talk Page. However, he has crossed an important line. He is now reverting edits not because of content but rather based on someone's religious upbringing.

Currently, there is a request for informal mediation about an FAQ he has posted on Talk:LGBT parenting (refer to FAQ section on the Talk page). Prior to reverting my edits to the FAQ, Destinero, first responded to the overall issue in the "edit warring section" of the Talk Page. Here he announced that my edits were without merit because I am called "a Catholic." diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBT_parenting&curid=7466558&diff=381854425&oldid=381686223

Immediately after, Destinero reverted my edits to the FAQ because (as the history states), it was deemed "a catholic POV." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBT_parenting/FAQ&curid=28555328&diff=381855423&oldid=381685670

These incidents fall under the "Banned activites" section of Wikipedia:Discrimination.

I had thought this was a debate about statistics not religion, since there is nothing catholic about what I have said. Nevertheless, Destinero has reverted to discrimination rather than argument. People have encouraged him in the past (see last entry on his Talk Page from admin Ckatz) but to no avail. How can this behavior be acceptable on Wikipedia? Please help.Tobit2 (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for you feeling discriminated. But it is OK to point out you have self-evident religious POV and continuously still do not understand the difference between statistics and developmental psychology. LGBT parenting obvisously deal with developmental psychology. The methodologies used in the major studies of same-sex parenting meet the standards for research in the field of developmental psychology and psychology generally. Proper research methods and standards in social sciences are determined through a rigorous peer review process that is conducted by established scholars in individual disciplines and sub-fields. When scholarly papers are submitted for publication, the research methods used, the analyses conducted, and the findings drawn are critically reviewed. The studies specific to same-sex parenting were published in leading journals in the field of child and adolescent development, such as Child Development, Developmental Psychology, and The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. The journals Child Development, published by the Society for Research in Child Development, Developmental Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association, and The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry are the flagship peer-review journals in the field of child development. Most of the studies appeared in these (or similar) rigorously peer-reviewed and highly selective journals, whose standards represent expert consensus on generally accepted social scientific standards for research on child and adolescent development. Prior to publication in these journals, these studies were required to go through a rigorous peer-review process, and as a result, they constitute the type of research that members of the respective professions consider reliable. The body of research on same-sex families is consistent with standards in the relevant fields and produces reliable conclusions.

Thus, you simply can not just come and change everything you do not like or you do not understand enough. We have Wikipedia policies here and this is a reason why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LGBT_parenting/FAQ was created (the same reasons for why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution/FAQ). Please stop destroying all efforts leading to improve the quality of article and do not push up your religion-based POV anymore. Wikipedia has to stick to the facts documented by most credible sources available (scientific and expert bodies). You can not change the content of LGBT parenting on objections of a Nock who has no experize in the relevant field and don't understand the difference between statistics and developmental psychology as is the same case with you. --Destinero (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your attemt to discredit me on behalf of several mostly religious and ultraconservative individuals on my talk page with POV countering fundamental Wikipedia policies and recommendtions of scientific consensus, up-to-date evidence based on the most credible sources available where owerhelming majority of thousends my contributions to Wikipedia stay intacted for years in spite of dozens of active editors and thousands viewers a day is absolutely embarrassing. Of course the truth would out every time so far and the truth will out this time, too. My The Tireless Contributor Barnstar and two LGBT Barnstars on the Talk page speak for themselves just like thousands of edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Destinero helping to develop several key articles when owerhelming majority of these contributions remains undisputed and gently accepted for years as can everybody who is not much lazy to check. Your games are useless and waste of time. --Destinero (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to comment about the content and not the editors. What you posted on the talk page appears to be unacceptable Destinero; I'd encourage you to avoid using similar rhetoric in the future. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps User Destinero needs to edit some additional topics, he is editing in a very narrow topic field in which he appears to have own issues and strong personal beliefs. Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy here which would prohibit editors to edit the topic they have deep knowledge about just because the majority of others maybe prefer to edits dozens of topics with limited knowledge. Nowhere is written that editor should edit certain number of topics to be useful for the project. It is just a nonsense. But I agree the discussion should be focused on the content and Wikipedia fundamental policies rather on the editors. --Destinero (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the FAQ for deletion as it appears to have serious POV issues. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out to Off2riorob that it IS indeed policy that we NEVER ban editors from editing a topic based on religion EVER.Camelbinky (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, wherever that is coming from I agree with you. Perhaps you misread something or misunderstood something. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to put Destinero's name, but was typing while I was reading your comment and hands went one way. I apologize for typing your name. Just realized it and came to fix it but you got here first and then two e-c's. Nope I didnt misread anything. I know what things you tend to write.Camelbinky (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about userpage User:Ivan Ješík

The above user page contains detailed information that could conceivably be used for identity theft or fraud against the user. Does Wikipedia have regulations about this if the user voluntarily posts the info? Quasihuman (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. It looks like they tried to create an article on themselves and, when it was deleted, have simply bumped a hell of a lot of personal details into the user page. Given that we cannot confirm if this person is who he is claiming to be I think it should be deleted ASAP --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cut n dried WP:NOTFACEBOOK, user has never touched a page other than his own. Toss it. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, uh, ask him nicely to consider removing that sort of info from his userpage before taking it to ANI? I agree with Tarc, though, 1300 userspace edits and 0 mainspace means a lack of understanding about Wikipedia's purpose. —fetch ·comms 15:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has been asked to remove it, see his talk page. Given the presence of bank account numbers and copies of personal documents such as birth cert etc., I think this should be deleted (along with the history). We simply cannot know whether he is who he claims to be. It is hard to conceive of someone being so careless as to post that kind of info. Quasihuman (talk)

I've left a note on Anthony Bradbury's talk page (who warned him on his talk page) asking for a clarification of WP:NOTMYSPACE, item 1. In my opinion, this gives us the license to remove that information. The user has made 1,306 edits, five of which are deleted (probably to Ivan Ješík), and the rest is all on his user page (well, 0.54% is to his talk page). The guy lists who he's borrowed money from, his car accidents--and the section User:Ivan_Ješík#Relax, is that about when he had sex? (That's what "relax" often means in the old world). Seriously, this is ridiculous and makes a mockery of the project. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blanked the page and created a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ivan Ješík, which is a more appropriate venue than ANI for discussing the deletion of a userpage. --RL0919 (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted there, I've deleted the article and restored it without the history. I'm wondering if a block is in order, though. Every single one of his edits has been to his userpage, barring a tiny number to his talk page. All his deleted edits are from him move-warring with admins over trying to put his userpage in the mainspace. The guy is obviously not here to help the encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see justification for blocking a user over cluelessness that extends only to his own userspace, and the move problems are a week old, a bit stale for a block in the absence of any continuing disruption. If he was actively disrupting elsewhere, or if he becomes disruptive in the future, for example by repeatedly recreating the userpage that will almost certainly be deleted, then sure. But for now I think deletion of the page should suffice. --RL0919 (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to assume good faith; but on consideration, removing the page content is reasonable. A block would not be. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could a checkuser please log any info connected with the account's editing? If the user is who he claims to be, then saving the IP address (etc) has almost zilch privacy impact compared to what was already in the userpage. If the page was a joe job then the checkuser info should be saved for law enforcement. Checking for socks also seems appropriate given the egregious abuse that might have been going on. Also, the old page contents (now deleted) should be oversighted. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable User

The user named Hhht123 seems to be editing the John Cena article in good faith, but has no idea how to properly edit an article, he continues to break infoboxes and images and is ignoring my advice and others on his talk page. He's technically not vandalizing, but he's not helping things either. He was previously the IP user 69.112.162.105 before registering under Hhht123, and has been trying to edit the John Cena article for the past hour, breaking things left and right. His most recent edit constitutes vandalism though. Fyyer 15:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should inform the user that you've started this thread. Not knowing how familiar the user is with Wikipedia it's hard to tell if the comments on his talk page (eg: stop breaking the article) are getting through. Perhaps a more detailed explanation of what the MoS is, how templates work, what the user is doing wrong and more importantly how they can contribute? If they continue on with vandalism edits, then I think a formal warning would be fitting. Hazardous Matt (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know the {{welcomeg}} template works pretty well. Instead of just pointing out what the user might not be doing 100% correctly, welcoming him/her is appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't notify Hhht123 about this discussion, I did so for you. —DoRD (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be done for now. Yes in hindsight {{welcomeg}} would have been better, but during the process I was under the impression he was ignoring his talk page completely due to his continued persistence and lack of reply to Discospinster and my message on his talk page. Fyyer 16:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you make that assumption? He had been a registered user for 15 minutes when you sent him this message and for less than an hour when you submitted an ANI report. Completely uncalled for. --Smashville^talk 16:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the only thing uncalled for was that my message to him wasn't specific enough. On the other hand Discospinster's message was pretty clear as you can see here which he made at 9:27. His good faiths edits compromised the format of the page, I tried messaging him, another user tried messaging him, he continued to do it once more and then vandalized a different page. Since he gave no reply to neither users message on his talk page, and instead continued to edit it, I offered to bring it to the notice of some administrators. As I said before he was messing up the format for over an hour (8:11 to 9:32), and instead of letting it continue, I offered to bring it to this boards attention. Coincidently, he stopped. Let me know if you have anymore questions. Fyyer 17:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This essay may be of some benefit. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Namoa

I came across the Talk:Namoa talk page. And, to me it looks like a some type of content fight with inclusion of personal attacks and uncivil behavior. Someone could take closer look at this. --Kslotte (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User requested clarification / WikiSRW

Hello, clarification is needed into determining if WikiSRW can be unblocked. However, the articles he wants to edit have to do with the company that he works for, Vector Marketing. He is not banned for COI, but banned because his account is a sockpuppet of another account he created See here: [73].

Nearly everthing is here on the talk page: user talk:WikiSRW -- Phearson (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked. It's obvious they didn't intend to deceptively use alternate accounts, and they have now been advised of the COI guidelines.. –xeno^talk 20:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 616: / Line 616: @@
 :::::I agree with SlimVirgin here. If these pages aren't meant to encourage people to edit Wikipedia, what are they for? While they're there, we shouldn't consider lifting the ban. No one should have to write to anyone to get their names removed, the pages should be withdrawn. Rob, I just don't understand why you don't think these pages are meant to influence people to and in their editing here. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 20:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 :::::::Personally, I don't think he should be granted the privilege of editing here unless he removes any potentially damaging or otherwise unsavory content about Wikipedia editors and agrees not to post that sort of thing anymore. &mdash; [[User:E. Ripley|e. ripley]]\<sup>[[User talk:E. Ripley|talk]]</sup> 20:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
-'''Comment''' So, essentially, many of you seem to be saying, if I do not remove all posts (or some posts?  which posts??) about Wikipedia on the JIDF site (again, which posts, exactly?), that I should not have any right to edit the project.  This is a clear attempt of WP editors trying to control/censor off wiki content.  I want to make one thing clear - people might be able to edit WP all day long, but no editors here are going to control anything on my website.  The fact that people are suggesting this is bizarre to me.  I said I would discuss reasonable requests with individuals who are named who have reasonable concerns.  Everything I'm seeing here is requests for serious censorship of entire Wikipedia-related posts on my site.  And if I don't do it?  I don't deserve to be here.  Very interesting.  --[[User:DavidAppletree|DavidAppletree]] ([[User talk:DavidAppletree|talk]]) 20:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
+'''Comment''' So, essentially, many of you seem to be saying, if I do not remove all posts (some posts?  portions of posts??) about Wikipedia on the JIDF site, that I should not have any right to edit the project.  This is a clear attempt of WP editors trying to control/censor off wiki content.  I want to make one thing clear - people might be able to edit WP all day long, but no editors here are going to control anything on my website.  The fact that people are suggesting this is bizarre to me.  I said I would discuss reasonable requests with individuals who are named who have reasonable concerns.  Everything I'm seeing here is requests for serious censorship of entire Wikipedia-related posts on my site.  And if I don't do it?  I don't deserve to be here.  Very interesting. This is just...wow.  If I don't end up able to edit here, this, in and of itself, could make for a very interesting post (not a threat, just sayin'....) --[[User:DavidAppletree|DavidAppletree]] ([[User talk:DavidAppletree|talk]]) 20:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 :ec - If I look at this thread I don't see any meatpuppets or people coming to support David. Davids stated subject is the unbalanced reporting of issues on websites such as this one.  He supports the balancing out of such information so that is a clear fact, unavoidable, that is what his whole website is about, he supports and encourages readers of his website to do that everywhere. To allow him to edit in line we policy we shouldn't demand he closes his website or removes his criticism of wikipedia, like wikipedia has biased editors, its hardly a lie is it. [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 20:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

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