Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:SqueakBox and paid editing (again)

Unresolved

 – Split 77kb+ thread to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:SqueakBox_and_paid_editing_(again) --slakr^\ talk /

attempt to tone user down

Resolved:OP indef blocked, talk page access removed, account name changed

I need someone to ask Frannamax to tone down his threat to block me. He wants to block me for signing with a comedy style line at the end of my signature. This line is causing no harm, he just doesn't like it that's all, i can tell. I'm going to totaly ignore Cuddlyable 3's objection due to his problom with excessive pranking. I can tell by the way he posts, having known a prankster for 8 years. Frannamax needs to let it go, it's my signature, not his. It's not like inna is saying "Hey frannamax, honey, can you get Comet Egypt to stop saying that? thanks." so he's just saying that because he himself doesn't like it. That's no reason to block me, and claiming it is against pollicy is bull sh**, whether you believe that or not. Please tone him down a little, thanks and regards, N.I.M. I miss you go behind the line. 02:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Read my post on your talk page again. That is not at all why I have warned you that I will block you. Franamax (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Franamax (talk · contribs) and Cuddlyable3 (talk · contribs) notified. GiantSnowman 02:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Good, This block threat has to be canceled though, I mean over a signature? come on! N.I.M. I miss you go behind the line. 02:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC) You need to drop your "freedom of speech" argument. The bill of rights does not apply to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Well florida doesn't apply to me as i am canada not florida. Anyway, your stupid asking me to not use that comedy line at the bottom of my signature is like saying, Hey baseball bugs, don't use "What's up dock " at the bottom of your signature, because it was often said by Mell Blanc. Same old Sh**, different case. If florida doesn't like it, florida can freeze. That's saying something as I was in Florida last year. N.I.M. I miss you go behind the line. 02:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Canada or Florida or Timbuktu don't matter. There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" at wikipedia. And if a concensus of admins was that I should alter my signature, I would do so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC) It isn't a concensis of admins on me, two users mearly don't like it and one has admitted that the comedy line is allright, so no reason to press the matter forword, I would like a block threat is canceled type of message on my talk page, because it is just a signature, like yours. You say what's up dock? and i say Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line, same thing, comedy line in our signatures. There, we found a common ground. I bet floridans would agree with me that it's just a signature. I make reference to it because in one of your pollicies it says that this is run by the state law of florida. But i'm sure floridans agree with me, as do people around the world do. My signature is fine, Right florida? right everyone? Please let a floridan say "It's cool" or something, I mean i have nothing against them. I mearly am saying that i coulden't care less about whether the state law has something against my signature, even if it did it woulden't apply in Manitoba Canada, because though we may have similar laws, they're not exact clones of eachother right? For the record, i do want some floridan support, to show that i'm not against them. N.I.M. I miss you go behind the line. 02:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC) My impression, NIM, is that you have been persistently failing to hear and accept the feedback you have been getting not just from Franamax but from a number of RD regulars on a number of points of conduct and content. I think Franamax's position is entirely reasonable at this point. I think Franamax and others have been exceptionally patient with your behavior over the past couple of months, and I think you should make every effort to understand what you are being told and why, and to modify your behavior here at wikipedia accordingly. WikiDao ☯ 03:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Get it straight my man, this has nothing to do with the law in Florida or anywhere else. This is a privately run website that makes it's own policies. If you come into my place of business, I can kick you out for any number of reasons. For example, let's say I sell children's toys and you are in my store loudly carrying on about how you got laid with some stripper the night before. I would ask you to be quiet, and if you didn't I would throw you out and tell you not to come back. It's nothing to do with the constitution as you are on private property. I'm not interfering with your rights to do whatever you want in a publicly-owned space or your own home, but we are each of us free to decide what we will and will not tolerate on our own property. Wikipedia is run by volunteers who uphold the policies established by our community. You break those rules, and you will be asked to stop. You keep it up and you will be blocked. If you want to change those rules that can be discussed, but there is no absolute right to free speech in a private place. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC) You keep citing laws and freedom of speech and such. Those are irrelevant. Wikipedia is a privately-owned website, and it can set its own rules. There is no freedom of speech on wikipedia; there is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. It doesn't matter if you're in Canada, Florida or Jolly Old England. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Hey, i said i want floridan support . Either way, that's still no reason for those objections on my signature. Users put messages at the bottom of their signatures all the time, and yes i understand it, that's how i see it, that they object to the name, and want to block me because of the comedy line, but that's just one user. The other was wondering about it, so i told them, then they go about saying they don't care and noone cares, which lead me to Cuddlyable's problom with excessive pranking. Why do yu sign that way, because of this, noone cares, i don't need to hear the background on it, then don't ask. kind of situation is going on with Cuddlyable. Don't sign that way it's against pollicy, no it isn't, reconsider, maybe it isn't but it is an existing person, tone it down, be less authoritative, fine, it's alright, good thanks. kind of thing is going on between Franamax and I. There, summarized with my messages and how i understand it. Now you know why i want that threat canceled, and how i know of cuddlyable's problom with excessive pranking. Whether it is true or not, that's still no reason to send an admin after me for signing that way. Baseball bugs signs "What's up dock", and i'm sure some don't like it, but i don't see one person asking why they are quoting something said by Mell Blanc, so i don't see the objection for a comedy style line "Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line", which is nothing major, it's just a comedy-like line, there's nothing wrong like Franamax said. So i don't see why you are not canceling that block threat. Please, I need a message from a Floridan who is on my side, Regards, N.I.M. I miss you go behind the line. 03:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Florida has nothing to do with it. And I've never had any complaints about my signature. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC) @N.I.M.: I'd like to know what your purpose in being here on Wikipedia is. You have editied since mid-November, have accumulated 428 edits, and only 64 of those -- 15% -- are to articles. Most of the rest are to the Wikipedia domain(45%) and user talk pages (31%). This is not a social network, talk pages are there to facilitate the editing, and the Wikipedia domain to assist in the running of the place, neither are intended as chat rooms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC) At least he will depart AN/I after this discussion and not stalk it offering his opinion wherever it isn't required, like some people do. It is shocking sometimes the types that think to offer an opinion here, especially the ones who have been blocked multiple times over their career. Weakopedia (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)My opinion is that you are behaving disruptively right now by excessively repeating the irrelevant and unsubstantiated claim about "Cuddlyable's problom with excessive pranking". This has nothing whatsoever to do with Cuddlyable3, please leave that user out of this discussion. WikiDao ☯ 03:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Kenney, it's none of your business what i'm here for, and WD. If someone asks me why i do something, then says that noone cares about the reason, that's standard prankster behavior, and having known a prankster for 8 years, i'm able to pick up on that. And again to Kenny, if i decide to tell you why i'm here, then i will, until then, don't ask, you'll get the same response. WD: Maybe Cuddlyable has little to do with it, but i did have reason for those comments. The disgussion is resolved, and why florida baseball bugs? because your pollicies are based off state law, and I feel if a floridan says "Enough, it is clear that Franamax is fine now, threat is canceled" then maybe it would get those who keep contradicting me to flash back to normal and not a "Let's gang up on N.I.M. hey everybody! Gang up on N.I.M.!" kind of a field. I feel this way because a good deal of posts have been against me here, on this thread, and I don't know if anyone here is getting my point. Are you? if so, could you summarize my point so I know you get it? i'll help you from there, and if you don't need to know it, then you have no reason, pollicy or not to say i'm doing wrong with a comedy line. Franamax says it's alright, and I just need proof that Ca3 is alright with it too, then it's going to be all right from there. Please find the point in my messages previous, and see if you understand it by sumarizing it. Like i said, i'll be happy to help if you need clairifications. that's what talk pages are for, communication. N.I.M. I miss you go behind the line. 03:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC) (ec) Actually, if the community decides that you're not here to improve the encyclopedia, then the community has the power to prevent you from editing, as does every admin here, so I suggest that you might want to cut the crap, listen to what you're being told and start to contribute productively to the project. As Bugs implied, no one has the God-given right to edit here, and from what I've seen in your contributions, your edit summaries and on your talk page, you've really not contributed much -- certainly not enough to justify the attitude you're projecting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC) @N.I.M. why do you want so much to post "Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line" ? You say it's a comedy style line, but do you think it goes on being funny every time you interrupt the work here with it? I hope you will read the comments [1] [2] I put on your page. I regret the need for my closing sentence which was: Just as singers have to be protected from over-obsessive fans, Wikipedia has to be protected from a person who blindly pursues their own agenda. That is not a prank. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Uh kenney, look, i tried to stop a dispute on List of WordGirl Characters, I did over 48 hours of research for the 2011 episodes of season 8 of cyberchase, I ask questions at the ref desk some times out of curiosity and others to improove articles as i did to List of Kim Possible Characters, so your statement that i haven't contributed productively is crap, utter crap. All comunication with you Ken is no longer welcome to me, don't talk to me again, because we're going to get nowhere, and noone has summarized my point yet anyway. And for clairification, the reason behind the prank comment is not about the 'behind the singers back' thing, more of the 'noone cares about the background of the line' thing, when you asked about it yourself, though indirectly, you still asked. This is resolved, any more questions can be asked on my talk page, but i don't want any more comunication with Beyond My Ken unless they can find something posative about me or my contributions. Sorry Kenney, but i don't want a war to start. Please note that my username is not "Kenny", but "Beyond My Ken". You may also use "BMK" to refer to me as well, if you prefer, but since "Ken" is not my RL name, and is not a name when used in the expression "Beyond my ken", "Kenny" is not appropriate. I stand by my assessment of your edits, and I predict a block in your future if you don't adjust your attitude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC) According to EO,[3] the term "ken" in this context means "within range of sight". It's not a very common expression anymore, but in The Sound of Music, the song "Sixteen Going on Seventeen" contains a line about "timid and shy and scared am I, of things beyond my ken", or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Really? Strange, because I played that part (Rolf Gruber) in a high school production (mumble mumble) years ago, but I don't recollect those words. Maybe that's where I picked it up, andit just stuck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I think it was "16" (Liesl?) who sang that line, but I'd have to check. I have to tell you, that is not exactly one of my favorite things from that musical. But it's there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC) In the movie, at least, both Rolf and Liesl sing that lyric, "...things beyond your/my ken." Don't know about the stage play. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC) General comment: A CU might be considered here, since the exbihibted behavior borders on trolling. In my experience, it's relatively rare for a new user to carry this much of a chip on their shoulder and to project such a strong attitude of privilege. JMHO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC) In general, editors who insist on retaining a signature that's considered disruptive inevitably will get indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I don't know how it is disruptive, is there any suggestion on what i can do to keep my signature, or to change it while still giving the same comedic message? should i say Inna instead of Elena Apostoleanu, if that's what you're saying, then by all means i'll put it to that, or should it just be "Go behind the line." N.I.M. I miss you go behind the line. 04:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC) You could start by explaining just what it's supposed to mean. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC) See my talkpage, i explain it there. Summary here for your convenience: I told my former T.A. Mrs. H that I had a iki account, and heard that i could change my signature, and Mrs. H said "Why not use go behind the line, but you have to give me a list of singers you like. this way we're getting the go behind the line in there with a singer's name." she says it is supposed to be like a quote said on Reno 911, so i said okay. Singers i had to choose from include Kerri Kenney and Inna, for full list see my talk page. What line? I used to accidentaly wait in front of the pink line at the buss stop at when i was in middle school. Mrs. H would walk up to me and do a vary good trudy wiegel version of saying "Go behind the lin, uh , mr. " then she'd laugh. There, for full explainiationsee my talk page, name probibly was bleeped,out but the T.A. i'm refering to is Mrs. H. N.I.M. I miss you go behind the line. 04:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Is this better? N.I.M. I miss you Go behind the line. 04:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I see. An obscure but seemingly harmless joke. If I understand right, "Go behind the line" is another way of saying, "Back of the line", or "Get in line"? And I take it Nissae and Elena are the names of folks you once knew? Unless you have permission to make their names public, you're best off dropping them... which I see you've already half-done. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ Nissae Isen is Google-able, and Elena Apostoleanu. Very doubtful N.I.M knows them personally. Mrs. H is presumably well-known to N.I.M., since apparently she was using his computer at 1 in the morning. That full name is what I revdeleted from WT:RD. Franamax (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC) The implications of what you're saying are a tad disturbing... like if I were to rename myself "Mae West's man | I miss you Mae!" only it's worse if it were a living person. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I personally would prefer to see a different choice of user name, given the way Google does its indexing. But according to WP:RFC/NAME, it's OK. Now if that name gets linked to disruptive behaviour and AN/I threads, the person whose name it is might not feel the same way... Franamax (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I know Nissae, hense the line "I miss you Nissae", which is exactly right. Last time i saw her was january 2010, hoping to see her again, so hense the I miss you Nissae. N.I.M. I miss you Go behind the line. 07:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I must say, i rather liked that discussion about the expression "Beyond my Ken", i'm going to see if i can find that in that musical. N.I.M. I miss you Go behind the line. 12:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Note that I've removed NIM's malformed attempt at placing a Resolved tag on this thread. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Enough. This NIM person's signal/noise ratio is so low as to render him or her blockworthily timewasting. It's time for NIM to go to some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Nissae Isen's Man's explanation of what the issue is here is incomprehensible. Franamax, what do you want this person to stop doing and why? Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I don't want anything from this thread per se, however I expect them to comply with what I posted at their talk page under "Removed material" viz do not post names of private living individuals. I'll say though that I'm very concerned with their behaviour over the last few days, starting with rhis thread. I've spent a fair bit of time trying to help this editor for the last few months and my patience is very near to an end. I'm not hopeful they will ever become a net benefit to the project and currently they are wasting far more of other editor's time than they are contributing to articles. I'm not the one who brought it here, but right now I'd largely agree with Hoary above. Franamax (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Just some background: NIM is a blind user who uses a Screen reader to help them work within Wikipedia. There are often misunderstandings in both directions (i.e. NIM misunderstanding something someone else has said, or others being unable to understand NIM). He's generally well-meaning, but there have been a number of conflicts of this nature over the past few weeks. --Jayron32 16:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Note also that NIM used to edit as User:204.112.104.172, and may have been the user responsible for that IP being blocked a couple of times for disruptive editing. I say "may have been" because this user also has a history of claiming that other people come over and use his/her computer without his/her permission to disruptively edit WP (which I mention in light of this user's present claims that "Mrs. Whomever" has logged into N.I.M.'s account recently for the purpose of "giving permission" for NIM to use her name here, which is the issue that prompted Franamax's warning, which is apparently what prompted NIM to start this thread in the hope of getting Franamax to retract). WikiDao ☯ 20:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC) convenience break We'll stop trying to 'judge judy' me by those posts, How was i supposed to know that that friend of mine was editing disruptively on wikipedia, when he falsely claimed he was mearly playing a game, a game with no sounds. By bringing that up, you're just making me feel wrong for trusting him. Mrs. H has nothing to do with him, his mom has delt with him and there like i stated countless times will be no probloms from him in the future. Mrs. H was visiting me the other night, that's how she was able to post. She has made judgements like i state that I have no idea about, and won't try to understand, but she means well. She's genrally nice, unlike george (not his real name), who duped me. You can't keep reminding us of those edits, and tell me again, where did george get that false claim about someone else sharing my ip? He got it from a novel we read, no two ways about the truth. I cannot remember what novel it was in grade 9, but there was a character in it that George liked that was named Annika, and i assume that he wanted to use that name because of a character he likes. Cutoff ties mentions that we both ask about voice actors and want to write movies, well, it's a common interest we share, as well as a grammar weekeness. That's how we became friends, (no not the whole storry, just givving the obvious), so there. Settled, please quit mentioning my IP edits of august and september, and some into october because it is humiliating remembering that I was duped like that. He turned off my screen reader so I woulden't know what was going on. I was busy doing something else at the time and gave no thought, then I checked my history. All those wikipedia pages showed up, and I realized that he created this fake claim about Annika. He is the prankster that i knew for 8 years, apparently 9 years. Hope he's not finding a way on to other sights. Anyway, back to the event summary: I saw he even got my IP blocked, just around the time when he was supposed to be showing me some tricks he learned on how to edit wikipedia. My visual consultant coulden't help me because school wasn't started yet, and pluss how can i have edited when George ended up getting it blocked. There's one user i would like to thank for blocking out george's nonsense for a while, fences and windows. Thank you. After the block, George went on Wikipedia when he was supposed to again be playing a game while i watched movies, and he kept on doing this without my knowledge. In late september, i beat him at his own trick and tricked him into showing me exactly how to edit and how to do the basic stuff like signing. Later, he was still editing, and stopped when he went away on a trip, which was around when i created the account. When he got back, he his mom and I gathered and I told Mrs. **** (diferent person, george's mom) about what was going on, and i told them that George could never touch my computer again until he learns to be better with that stuff, and that's serious. It was agreed, so, george is gone. Hope this helps, any questions i'll be able to answer, but no using anything what so ever as evidence against me because i can proove it wrong with one thing, fact. Sorry about the length but every time my block with IP is mentioned, i'm going to mention this, as a motive for people to quit judging me about it. Thanks for helping me frannamax, I do want to improove the encyclopedia too, and by asking questions at the ref desk, i gain that knowledge, some times for curiosity, others to improve articles. Please, no more IP, IP is history, along with George. Thanks for your time, questions about George can be asked on my talk page. No nonsense about "Yeah, sure, you're lying" kind of thing at me please, and thanks franamax for all the help. thanks all of you for all the help. N.I.M. I miss you Go behind the line. 22:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC) That was a really tl;dr way of saying, "Yeah, I let someone else use my computer and they vandalized Wikipedia, but that was a long time ago." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC) From WP:SIG Keep signatures short, both in display and in markup. N.I.M., your sig is too long, please truncate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn, as I see the sign has been truncated considerably by removing the name. It's still long, but not outside of usual norms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Jayron32 writes above: NIM is a blind user who uses a Screen reader to help them work within Wikipedia. But I see little if any sign of work; I just see blather. For those who want to tell the world about their catchphrases, their little jokes, their housemates and their other domestic circumstances, the gods have provided Blogger and WordPress. -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Precisely was I was referring to when I said "cut the crap and contribute". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC) And all of said "blather" may have a real-world impact on the living person named in NIM's username (about which I agree with the concern expressed by Franamax above[4] and at RFC/NAME. (I ask at Franamax's talkpage how I might most appropriately go about re-opening that issue for further discussion, if that is still possible after the "Allow" closure of the discussion at RFC; comments on that by others would also be welcome there). WikiDao ☯ 00:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Yes, so I suggest blocking the user and replacing the content of the user page and user talk page with the usual terse templates. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC) This is a silly ad hominem post directed at me by N.I.M. It seems that N.I.M. is willing to cease quoting the name of the living singer Elena Apostoleanu in signatures. What remains is for N.I.M. to indicate in few words an understanding that it was unacceptable. I have no objection to the words "Go behind the line." in N.I.M.'s latest signature. Their distraction would be less if they were put in superscript font like Baseball Bugs does with What's up, doc?. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Sorry, i can't do the fontie wontie thing, I don't know how, and I can't always rely on others to do that for me. You can't block me just because you think i'm not contributing, look at some of the articles i have contributed to rather than what i haven't contributed to. Besides, you can't block me just because of your point of view, then someone will unblock you and critticize you for irrational blocking or something like that. It's not like what it used to be when users could be blocked mearly for little reasons, like being annoying. I wish i could change the faunt but i can't, sorry. If hoary tries to block me then they may be critticized and i'm sure they woulden't want that. I don't have time for their nishnash about my supposed issues. I feel they are overreacting and need to tone it down and quit trying to gang people up on me. I don't need people ganging up on me. This is how i feel Hoary is treating me, "I'm hoary and I want everyone to gang up on N.I.M. and oust him! Come on everybody, get him out of the sight because he is a useless piece of s***!" Even if it isn't true, that's how their comments are making me feel, so hoary, you need to also cut some crap out as well. I mean that in the most civil way possible. N.I.M. I miss you Go behind the line. 10:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Ok, so maybe the Elena Apostoleanu was wrong, it was a good intention though, you know that right? and i still go by what i am saying to hoary about the critticizing they will get if they block me for being annoying. I don't like seing people being critticized, but when it needs to happen it will happen. By telling Hoary that they are not to block me over their views, i'm trying to save them from criticism because i believe in world peace. We all believe in world peace, right? N.I.M. I miss you Go behind the line. 10:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC) New signature = N.I.M. miss you. Go behind the line. I'm still getting the message to her, just in a more vague way. N.I.M. miss you. Go behind the line. 11:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Per this, I request an immediate indefblock of the above editor. It's the end of the night for me so I won't act when I can't respond. I'll enact the block if necessary between glass of water and cup of coffee tomorrow. Enough is enough. Franamax (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Hey, don't block me, i said i realize that the Elena Apostoleanu thing was wrong, and what i was pointing out was that Hoary's idea of blocking me would trigger critticism, and I feel there is enough war going on in the world. I don't believe in leaving people in the dark, which is why i have said many times, If you have any questions, ask me and i'll be happy to help, but a block? that's a bit of an over reaction here, especially as i said i realize the E.A. was a mistake. I just want to save someone from critticism, is there something wrong within that? if there is let me know. If there is a rule against trying to save them from critticizings then let me know, i can't follow a rule i have no idea about, regards, N.I.M. miss you. Go behind the line. 12:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Ok, so sig is changed. I think the only remaining thing is to emphasise to NIM to cut the crap and get down to contributing to the wiki, with the proviso that if we see any more drama and no content work it is not going to go well for them. Also to strongly suggest a name change given their non-credible claims about really being "Isen's Man". --Errant (chat!) 13:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC) She has no problom with that, so i don't se why you do, however, I am currently trying to find a source for something i found out about new episodes of the show Biz Kid$, when i find out where to find it i'll put that in. I really am Nissae Isen's man, she has no prob with it, i'll be back after school to see if i can find out more about season 4 of biz kid$ N.I.M. miss you. Go behind the line. 13:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Well you just changed my mind. You cannot claim associations like that, now supporting some form of block if you do not stop. --Errant (chat!) 13:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Support block. (BTW please note that this user is quite adept at eating up a lot of time and attention.) Again, please consider this diff mentioned by Franamax above. User is an obsessed fan claiming an intimate connection with a minor voice actress. Because that voice actress's name is part of NIM's username, and because this user has been signing with "I miss you {actress's name}!", NIM's userpage is steadily climbing the hit-list in google searches for that actress. Given NIM's activity at WP -- which rarely involves anything like contructivly helping to build an encyclopedia -- we are contributing to having a negative impact on this actress's real-world reputation by continuing to permit NIM's activity here, which, again, is not constructive, is regularly complained about at the RD, and ought to be dealt with conclusively as soon as possible. WikiDao ☯ 15:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Support block - the user ID amounts to stalking, and he should not only be blocked, but his user ID should be deleted and salted... and watch out for recurrences. And another thing: I don't believe, for one minute, that this guy is blind or whatever. The behavior reminds me a bit of the user ItsLassieTime, though that could be a coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Support block. Protecting a real life person from from an obsessive and/or deluded fanboy should be the priority here, and these nonsensical claims are getting too close to cyber-stalking - and those Google searches are getting way too creepy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Just to clarify - it's his user name, claiming he has a personal association with Ms Isen, that is the problem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Comment - the signature is only half the issue here; the other half is this user's name of "Nissae Isen's Man" - again, Nissae Isen is a BLP, a minor Canadian voice artist and actress, as confirmed by a brief IMDB page about her. An article about her was deleted by AfD on 16 March 2008. GiantSnowman 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC) I would think if he simply had "[whoever] fan" as his user name, that might be acceptable, as I've seen it elsewhere. The implication that he "knows" her somehow reminds me a little too much of well-publicized news stories I'd rather not name specifically. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC) For your discretion BB, I mark that you are a good chap, man. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Even a blind squirrel, such as I, finds an acorn now and then. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Neutral. N.I.M. has removed the singer's name and that is slow progress. I can help N.I.M. with the font of his slogan. N.I.M. you have to type "tags" before and after the slogan. The tags look like I show here but without the spaces: < s u p >Go to the end of the line. < / s u p > Then people will see Go to the end of the line. and not be so distracted. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Quick question (sorry, I can't easily find the answer in amongst the tl;dr from a certain editor above and elsewhere). Has NIM been explicitly asked to agree to a username change, and either refused or not answered? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Franamax raised the concern about the user's name with the user when the user chose it, but then took it to RFC/NAME before explicitly asking the user to change it (the result, ill-considered in my view and discussion-closed before I saw it, was "Allow"). WikiDao ☯ 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks. I'm a little late to the party here, but I've left a simple request at NIM's talk page here. Maybe it's too strongly worded, but I agree with comments of several people above that we should take the possible impact on the actress seriously. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Support Block We are here to build an encyclopedia. This user seems to be more of a hindererance then a help. Their signature seems to be WP:POINTy though i can't figure out the point they are trying to make.--Guerillero | My Talk 00:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Blocked I've indefblocked the account (at least) until they can prove their association with the named individual. I think that eventuality rather unlikely, rather I think we're dealing here with a plain old competence issue, possibly one that can be solved by the route of waiting until one is a year or two older. As far as cleaning up the BLP issues, I'm thinking the best approach is to change and/or remove the use of the two living names (NI and EA) from talk pages and {{noindex}} the user and user talk pages. That way renaming the account won't be necessary. I'm interested in other thoughts on the issue though, and the availability of a bot to make the changes. Franamax (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Would you be prepared to consider an unblock of the account if they fulfill all of, (1) agree to immediately request a rename of their account, and (2) agree not to discuss NI or EA further, and (3) agree to attempt to edit more constructively? I share others' views on the inappropriateness of the username and the claims related to it, and I don't enjoy reading the blathering either, but I do feel we've jumped quite quickly to what is effectively a permanent block based on what we expect they can't prove. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC) I think that (3) is the most important here. Keeping in mind Arthur C. Clarke's comment on magic and technology, there comes a time where sufficiently incompetent behavior becomes indistinguishable from deliberate trolling, and this user is perilously close to that line. There's not much point in having them change their name only to have them continue to suck up time and resources with more "blather". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Have you fully reviewed the account history? I don't think I'm acting too quickly at all, there are several months of recurrent problems, it's just come to a head in the last few days with BLP issues that have to be acted on firmly. In any case, I'm not going to unblock the account at all, I'll leave that for a reviewing admin. They do have an alternative on the first condition and that is to state that they were telling a story, which can then be viewed against the pattern of story-telling coming from the IP address/account. There are additional troubling issues, here are two: they state vision-impairment and problems with their JAWS screen-reader, yet JAWS apparently has no such issues with Wikipedia content; and their former T.A. (whose full name I revdeleted) who is such a good friend that she was at their computer at 1 AM, making the same type of spelling mistake as N.I.M., used to tell him to step behind the pink line on the ground - seems a rather unfair thing to do to a blind person, dunnit? On that last, it is certainly possible their vision-impairment was acquired later, but it becomes very difficult to keep track of all the stories. Look again at what actual article edits they've made, and all the other activity. If you can construe a possibility of "net-positive" editing from that, perhaps you can make a more detailed case for them. Me, I just don't see it. Franamax (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Nor me. I don't think we need to spend yet more of our time wondering why it is that NIM contributes so little that's worthwhile and has already wasted so much of others' time. Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but there are certain implicit assumptions about the "anyone" that NIM violates. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC) The block seems a sensible move. I'd already noindexeddiff1, diff2 the user and talk pages. pablo 21:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Good block. Since being blocked, NIM has said: I also want to keep my name. I just feel proud of who I love, is there anything against that? I don't think I need comment here on this; I suggest replacing the content of NIM's user talk page with a template. -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC) And now they're working on revealing their own name. I'm starting to think of a full shutdown as they don't seem aware of the full implications of revealing personal information. Franamax (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC) It may not appear it, but I'm trying very hard to AGF here. Even so, the whole thing just does not hang together for me, the gestalt feels all wrong. I'm concerned that we're being played, and I'd like to reiterate my suggestion that a CU would be a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC) CU doesn't work that way though. Name your suspected puppetmaster and show your evidence. Otherwise they'll just send us trotting along to go fishing somewhere else. Franamax (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Well I still like my dumbass approach of asking them to change their username, and, if they say no, treating it as acceptance that they don't want to come back. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC) OK. The person that I've been trying to defend (I'm so silly), either thinks that Judge Judy is a court and they can threaten editors with it, or thinks that some editors might think so. Either way, we seem to have WP:NLT violations here. Someone may wish to lengthen their block, or something. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I think everyone ought to have at least some representation by an experienced editor here (ie., at ANI), so thank you for serving that purpose in this case, Demiurge! :) However, please see my current assessment of this case on the user's talk page, here. There is a very reasonable likelihood, in my opinion, that this user is not a physically disabled child but is in fact a troll. WikiDao ☯ 05:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Trolls and physically disabled children and confused people and invaders from outer space who make legal threats should all be treated exactly the same. This is because the reaction is not for the purpose of WP:THERAPY or legal defence of Wikipedia or intergalactic war or some inspired moral purpose; it's because legal threats, if even vaguely plausible, can have a significant negative effect on the ability of other users to express their views. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC) It's not a remotely credible legal threat, it's just the last TV show they watched. Another attempt at bargaining will likely be next. Eventually they will come to terms with being blocked Franamax (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I've recently posted my NLT concerns to NIM's talk page. My understanding of NLT is that it's closely tied with the notion of chilling effects -- it's not whether the threat is credible or sustainable but simply that it is made. Granted, this is a borderline case, but threatening the project with a bizarre set of demands (however ridiculous the premise) is unacceptable behavior. I feel that a retraction should accompany the rest of the unblock conditions -- again, however, unlikely meeting those conditions may be. On a related note, I've been considering whether the removal of NIM's talk page permissions is appropriate (which is the NLT consequence I had in mind, but conflating the two may be a bad plan). Given that much of the concern is the widespread use of others' real names, is NOINDEX a sufficient precaution? I'm not up on the technical details of how it's implemented by MediaWiki, but there seem to be WP:BEANS issues. Franamax has email enabled, as do I and several others here, so moving the appeals process off-wiki may be preferable. — Lomn 15:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I would like to get the name-change through if at all possible. They were oh-so-close. Franamax (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC) And I suppose I should reword to "not credible as a legal threat". Judge Judy is not the legal system or anywhere close to it. If they contacted the show they would be told that both parties must consent to participate. A legal threat has to involve the actual legal system. There are lots of other threats intended to have a chilling effect that don't fall under NLT, such as threats to contact major donors, Cade Metz of The Register, etc. We don't block for those, at least not under NLT. Franamax (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Although it might be interesting to see what Judge Judy would say about this situation. Several colorful Yiddish metaphors come to mind. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC) The user NIM wants to change his ID, but continuesd to profess the fantasy that the actress in question is a friend of his. This cannot be good. For more info, check out the most recent ramblings on his talk page. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I cannot see this editor being productive any time soon. Now it seems he is getting his 13-year old 'girlfriend' to send an e-mail to confirm that blah blah blah.diff YHBT. pablo 14:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 13, allegedly? Yikes. There's more trouble right there. I noticed that under his IP 204.112.104.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (pointed out by WikiDao earlier) it was the same kind of rambling nonsense before he got his ill-advised ID. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Yeh, someone needs to shut down the talk page access and blank it off given the new bunch of text on there. If true it is a pretty bad outing, if untrue it is just trolling and not worth worrying about. --Errant (chat!) 15:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC) That text about the age 13 and age 18 thing is wandering close to coming under the second sentence of WP:CHILDPROTECT. I'm not prepared to say out-and-out that they're a troll yet, but I really do start to wonder. But I think it'd be nice to get the account name changed anyway. Since they've explicitly requested it, is it possible to just go ahead and do that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC) [comment voluntarily removed per request] WikiDao ☯ 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC) If you have serious concerns about violations of WP:CHILDPROTECT, contact ArbCom rather than making vague accusations here. Please consider removing your comments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC) [comment voluntarily removed per request] WikiDao ☯ 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC) You should really read the policy again, more closely. From the policy: Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel. You should raise your concerns only by email; questions or accusations directed against a particular editor in project space may result in a block for the editor who posted them. Can someone please revdelete all above comments pertaining to WP:CHILDPROTECT? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC) No objections. I did indeed not read that closely enough. I'll step back now and let proper procedure take its course. WikiDao ☯ 19:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I think this is a good time to end the legal threats portion of this thread. If there is an ongoing issue, or question whether a particular diff violates WP:NLT, please email the legal queue and it can be resolved there (send it to info-en@wikimedia.org). Thanks ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC) The user has requested account renaming to User:Comet Egypt, I am trying to shepherd it through. If any passing 'crats happen to read this, giddyap! :) Franamax (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC) The change of name would resolve one suite of problems, but it does nothing about the behavioral concerns that have arisen during this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks for that well-meant but patently obvious remark. If you read beyond just this single page, you'll see that I set two conditions for unblocking. The second will be much harder to satisfy. However we do need to reduce the amount of unsolicited dating advice [5] which is also no doubt well-meant but not our place to give out. Renaming will let us get on with cleaning up the gsearch problem. Franamax (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Sorry, that wasn't meant as criticism of your efforts, which have been above and beyond. But, yes, I have read well beyond this AN/I entry, and, to me, it remains a distinct possibility that we're being trolled. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I've considered that possibility, but for one thing they have always used the same static IP. I'm not able to match it up against any other troll-models of which I'm aware (which is why I think CU would be unproductive) and if that's a returning troll, well I appreciate good craftsmanship and I would just like to meet them to shake their hand and congratulate them on their work and hope to gain some insights into how they go about things. There are definite and major problems with the account, but I'm reading it as genuine. Not necessarily the explanations given, but a unique individual. Franamax (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Yes, that is still a possibility. BTW, the name change is done; good luck with the next phase. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) You are not the only one with that suspicion, Beyond My Ken. Many of the editors who have interacted with this person at the RD have long suspected that this is a troll, plain-and-simple. After quite a long time of stretching my own assumption of good faith, that is now my firm opinion, too. Franamax, your patience with NIM is indeed admirable. And you will recall that I supported your defense of him when he first began claiming to be blind. User:Kainaw, and even you yourself recently, have found good reason to doubt that claim. I think now that we have been being trolled all along. And that is particularly offensive because of the amount of tolerance for disruption and time-consuming assistance NIM has been given by well-meaning folks such as you and I on the basis, at least in part, of that claim of physical disability. It is very disturbing that NIM is still claiming an intimate relationship with the child actress named in his present username. It is very likely that that relationship is either imaginary or inappropriate or both, and we have done that child actress a disservice by permitting this editor to edit for as long as we have with the use of her name in that way. We should get that cleaned up as soon as possible; let me know if/how I can help with that. Finally, your first condition for unblocking was that N.I. convince WP:OTRS that the relationship is real and the outing of it in the way it has been here is acceptable to her. Now that NIM has claimed to be an adult (disturbing in itself, given his areas of interest and activity here) and that NI is a minor, I think that it should rightfully be required now that her parents contact WP:OTRS and convince them that they are aware of the relationship, are okay with it, and okay with that relationship being made public in the way that it has been. I do not think NIM should be unblocked or permitted to edit again under any username until that condition is met. WikiDao ☯ 03:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Nope, we are not a nanny. They no longer use the other name, that is all we care about. I will let you know on your talk page how you can help with cleaning up the past record. Outside of some very narrowly-defined areas, we simply don't care what our editors do in their spare time. You should forget all about any claims you may have read, we have absolutely no way of knowing if any or even one of them is true. You can pursue whatever you want as a private individual, but barring some cleanup, Wikipedia doesn't care. If problems come up in future, they will be dealt with oh-so-swiftly. Franamax (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Well, I mean I do not really think that relationship exists at all. And given the problematic and unconstructive history of this editor, the likely impact (professionally and personally) on the child actress of the gsearch issue, and the fact that the editor is still insisting that this at-most-thirteen-year-old girl is standing right there with him at the computer and is refusing to contact OTRS to clear this matter up: I do not think this user should be unblocked, unless at least your first condition is met, regardless of name-change. I do not think that will happen, which is as it should be imho. WikiDao ☯ 03:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Referring back to the 2nd post in this sub-thread, no we can't set an unblocking condition that is impossible to satisfy. If you posted repeatedly the moon was made of cheese and I blocked you for it, I can't insist you go to the moon and bring back some cheese to get unblocked. And although I certainly can, nor should I force you to admit you were lying about the cheese, humans have this thing about being forced to humiliate themselves. We don't care about motivations or underlying character here, all we can do is to judge actions and outcomes on-wiki. The editor's actions have resulted in an outcome of an undesirable BLP situation. Renaming and appropriate modification of existing sigs will remedy that problem. The initial actions will be countered and the outcome will be neutral. For me, this is an acceptable resolution to my first unblock condition. None of this goes down the memory-hole, it is still in the various histories and you'd be surprised at how long the institutional wiki-memory is. And as I said, the second condition will be much more difficuly to satisfy, the user is still indef-blocked and both myself (at minimum, probably others too) and another wholly uninvolved admin will have to sign-off for an unblock. Franamax (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC) The editor's continual posting of that imaginary tale, since the rename, illustrates the reason to keep it blocked. I still wonder if we've got a reincarnation of ItsLassieTime, but that one's probably way too old to check. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC) When an editor is blocked, aren't they pretty much supposed to confine their editing to properly-worded unblock requests and low-key, non-controversial comments? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC) About the trolling thing, this was an issued raised on WT:RD a while back. For me this is one of the iffy cases where it was not clear if they're trolling or just genuinely showing behaviour which doesn't fit well in the community. My eventual personal conclusion at the time was that they are genuinely fascinated with voice actors and many of the things they keep asking about although this doesn't mean none of it was trolling at the very least many of their claims seem hard to believe. Note that they had a small amount of activity in other wikis primarily wikia under the IP where they showed similar interests as here. (Am I the only one wondering why whenever we get someone 'highly fascinated' with a certain celebrity on RD there seems to be a Canadian question?) Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC) While this isn't something I know anything about, from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive the old socks are stale. I think it's unlikely there's a connection since from some self revealed IPs it appears ILT uses Michigan, US based IPs. Also some alleged socks were blocked after CE appeared. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I don't think NIM is a troll, his behavior seems pretty much consistent with a child who doesn't realize that they're not interacting in a mature and adult way. There's no reason to assume he's being intentionally childish, there are plenty of real ten year olds in the world. APL (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Maybe. I've certainly thought that, too. But some posts seem more childish than others. And in this recent comment NIMCE says: "Quit saying i'm a child, i'm [an] 18 year old, and in Canada, 18 year olds are not children." I see no harm in our assuming that particular claim is true. And at this point: the behavior is pervasively "trollish", whether the person himself is intentionally being a troll or not. WikiDao ☯ 16:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC) At the risk of sounding like an obsessed stalker myself, is this anything to do with Wiki Brah, who seems to have re-emerged further up the page? The resemblance is uncanny; lengthy, rambling replies that seem to be written "in character", a complete inability to edit the encyclopaedia effectively, and a strange ability to soak up huge amounts of other people's (and claims to have a girlfriend who leads him astray). I admit this basic description fits a wide range of people, but the user has re-appeared with other sockpuppets, and this kept ringing little bells in my head as I read through it. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC) The editor in question is indef blocked, his access to his talk page has been removed, and his account name has been changed. BLP concerns have been dealt with by cleaning the name from sigs. It doesn't seem like there's anything left to do here, so I'm going to Bold and collapse this thread. If anyone disagrees with that action, please feel free to uncollapse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Franamax and the artist now known as Comet Egypt The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Resolved  – I should have read through the tl;dr threads that commonly populate the top half of AN/I. Apologies to Franamax; complaint withdrawn as warrantless. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 08:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC) (Note: I have no dog in this fight; I am reporting it based off of what I've seen on WP:CHU and reading about it from there.) About a month ago, Franamax (talk · contribs) had a concern with Comet Egypt (talk · contribs)'s name, which at the time was User:Nissae Isen's Man, and reported it to RFCUN (here). After a month of debate, the ultimate consensus was to allow the username. Fastforward four days to today. When looking at CHU I come across a rename request filed by Franamax, who claims it is the only way for a user to get out of a block - levied by Franamax for disruptive editing. After X! (talk · contribs) performed the rename, Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) voiced his concerns, and I quote: [...]This username was specifically discussed and allowed on WP:RFCUN, and here we are four days later [...] and the same editor complaining there has blocked the editor and forced them to change their username after it was determined the username was perfectly fine? Note, I make no comments on the merits of Franamax's block, provided that the reason for the block was indeed disruptive editing. My issue is that the events after the block appear to be a blatant attempt to dodge the consensus reached by other users at RFCUN by blocking him for a reason unrelated to his username and forcing him to change his name as a prerequisite for an unblock. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 07:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC) The use of "disruptive editing" was indeed my rationale for the block. Subsequent to that block, serious BLP concerns arose which rendered the use of that username unviable. I would indeed not countenance an unblock without that username (and the sig and Google search results thereto) being changed. I would urge you to read the #attempt to tone user down thread above and consider changing the title of this thread. Franamax (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Ack, Franamax, apologies, and I apologie for the show of bad faith. I'll point that thread out to Nihonjoe and archive this thread after I have done so. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 08:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Regardless of the reasoning behind the original decision to allow the user to keep the name, BLP takes precedence, and the name had to go. But even if the user had already called itself by its current name, it would probably still be on ice due to its approach to editing. In short, Franamax did the right thing. I would even say that Franamax has been more generous to the user in question than he needed to be. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC) (Editing through archive tag to correct the record) The proximate reason for my block was the editor's assertion that they had a close relationship with the subject of their username. I took this as a prima facie violation of the user naming policy unless they could prove the relationship they claimed, thus potentially blockable. Combined with the general pattern of behaviour I'd observed over several months, and the behaviour in the last 2-3 days, the best course I could determine was to block under the general banner of "disruptive editing", at least until they could prove the novel claim which had not previously been considered, and satisfy the condition of showing suitability to edit here to an uninvolved party. Subsequent to that line of reasoning, additional assertions raised the BLP stakes and convinced me that only a rename would ever be acceptable. That is my best account of the record on which I will stand to be judged. Franamax (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Will Beback

Just a note - I'd be really, really appreciative if administrators in a content dispute didn't show up on my talk page making vague threats without evidence, despite requests. And a side note - I'm willingly hands-off all the Sarah Palin articles (I've tried to help with them since before this insanity) but it would be super-duper awesome if, at the very least, ONE SINGLE ADMIN would step up to deal with issues at these articles. It would be hard to find a bigger nest of BLP violations and POV-pushing. Kelly ^hi! 03:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been a bit baffled by Will and his recent actions surrounding the Palin articles, but his "warning" Kelly and then responding that a request for a "careful" explanation of his reasoning would be accompanied by "formal" action is beyond inappropriate for an involved administrator, let alone relating to an article subject to probation. The Palin articles are regularly subject to anonymous and single-purpose drive-by pov-pushing, and the editors (from both "sides" — or no particular side — of the political spectrum) that do their best to try to ensure the end result is neutral and reliably sourced deserve a tad bit better than careless accusations and threats from an administrator that ought to know better. (I've left Will a note regarding this discussion.) jæs (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

warning you that you are making a lot of reverts i did not realize there was a limit? approaching the 3RR limit, should we lower it to 2 reverts? Will would you consider a voluntary break from this topic? after reviewing your contributions, i am concerned there is a chance you are pushing a pov. the best/easiest solution to this issue, is maybe if you refrain from engaging this topic. i think the amount of time of your absence should be decided by you. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to join the other contributors in this thread in a break from the Palin articles. However I don't see what POV pushing you might be alluding to. Could you please provide diffs that show a pattern of POV pushing behavior on Palin-related articles?   Will Beback  talk  06:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

For a number of reasons, Sarah Palin articles draw a lot of attention, and a lot of that attention is detrimental. She is constantly in the spotlight, and makes news seemingly almost every day. So, unfortunately, the obvious solution - full lockdown of the article - is not possible. The only alternative in a case like that is for a small number of BLP defenders, such as Kelly, to stand up to the constant flow of editors who want to post every freakin' negative thing they can get their hands on, in defiance of any article probation and of the BLP rules. Keep in mind that BLP matters are of paramount importance to the wikipedia owners, much more so than concerns about edit-warring and the like. The fact that Palin is a media lightning-rod does not exempt her article here from the BLP rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think admins like Will Beback are an asset to wp - the detractors above hypocritical, worthless POV pushers. Sayerslle (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Or, howabout that reasonable people can still disagree and come into conflict, and there's no need to demonize either side in any dispute, especially not with baseless, rude personal attacks as you just did... --Jayron32 06:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe Sayerslle was referring to the "toxic authoritarian Right," which is apparently how he defines any editor who does not agree with him on the content that he wants or believes must be inserted into the Palin article(s). This would be a good dime a dozen example of why users like Kelly are pretty damned invaluable, and pretty difficult to come by at the various Palin articles — and a good demonstration of why Will being careless in his accusations in the midst of a content dispute (and stifling any questions about his behaviour with threat of "formal" action) is a very bad thing. jæs (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I've never before been accused of being a TAR baby. It almost makes me regret having voted for Obama. :) You're right, Kelly is vital to trying to keep political articles neutral, and has kept this up valiantly while many of us long ago gave up on trying to fight the mongrel hordes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Mongrel hordes? Buster Seven Talk 06:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the first and most important steps in dispute resolution is to raise the concern with the editor. See WP:DR#Discuss with the other party. I have made no threats, vague or otherwise. My post was to raise a concern that Kelly is perhaps exhibiting signs of ownership of Palin-related articles. I don't believe I'm the first editor to do so. I do not suggest that any sanctions or remedies be imposed on Kelly. Rather, I was trying to give a heads-up to avoid anything like that happening. If Kelly would like to have other editors or admins help by taking up the slack in watching the Palin articles, then picking fights with or reverting those who show up won't encourage more participation. Further, I believe that Kelly's editing has tended to promote a pro-Palin POV, and to minimize other POVs. While I think everyone endorses vigorous enforcement of BLP, BLP does not require or sanction the routine deletion of negative material which is properly source, relevant, and necessary for NPOV. To avoid ownership concerns, it would help if Kelly could be more accepting of edits that don't breach BLP, but which don't fit Kelly's POV about the topic either.   Will Beback  talk  06:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"I have made no threats, vague or otherwise." I don't know how else to define the response you gave when Kelly asked you to provide evidence of your accusations: "If you like, I can make a more careful evaluation, but if I do that then it would no longer be an informal warning."^[6] Not only is that a pretty clear threat, but it sounds like a veiled threat of administrative action. Given your heavy involvement in several content disputes at various Palin-related articles, tossing around threats of "formal" action is highly questionable, let alone when someone is asking you — in good faith — to explain an accusation that several other editors here also believe to have been uncalled for, no? jæs (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly, I see no justification for bringing this complaint, based on my own review of the edits that Will was responding to. For example, your removal of the url in the ref for the After Health Vote, Threats on Democrats NY Times story at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/health/policy/25health.html seems to me enough of a red flag all by itself to support Will's polite expression of concern on your talk page, even without consideration of your other edits. Regardless of anyone's view on this, though, a moment's reflection will make it obvious to any experienced editor that there's no action that's going to be taken against anyone on the basis of this thread, so I'd respectfully suggest we close it and all move on to more productive activities. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

how long does a through review of the article history take one? perhaps less time than it took to write this. i just did and could not find anything of note. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the diff, I would doubt that was an intentional "removal." God knows I'm still terrible at remembering the proper format for cites, and frequently copy, cut, and paste from other live edit areas. Since Kelly was adding several other references in that same edit, that seems like a plausible, good faith editing error to me. Kelly did not remove the reference, and I'd hardly call the edit, otherwise a productive one, a "red flag." The threat of administrative action by an involved administrator, however, is a very big red flag. jæs (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As a related aside, I really don't know what's going on with Will, but I'm beginning to seriously question his editing and tactics at the Palin-related articles. jæs (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerns have been raised by other editors over Will Beback's treatment of BLP articles. So, this instance isn't the first time. In my opinion, he might need to stay away from BLP articles for awhile. Cla68 (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been no serious accusation of any BLP violations on my part, here or in any other context. Please don't make unsupported accusations. Doing so repeatedly is a form of harassment.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, I don't see Cla68 alleging BLP violations on your part. I don't remember ever hearing anyone else make such a claim either. He instead seems to be saying that your approach to managing issues related to BLP articles is less than optimal (despite your good intentions) in other sorts of ways. I've felt the same way at times and might leave a note on your talk page sometime if you want to discuss it. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If he is sincerely suggesting that talkingpointsmemo.com is an acceptable reliable source, no less for an article subject to wp:blp, then I have to agree. jæs (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I made any such suggestion. Instead, I was asking for more information. Please assume good faith.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't assume anything other than good faith. You said: "In general, sources from big companies [like TPM] are assumed to be reliable, because they're likelier to have an editorial process and because they have a business that can be sued for libel if there are errors." jæs (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, here's what I wrote:

• I'm not sure what aspect of TPM you're asserting makes it unreliable. In general, sources from big companies are assumed to be reliable, because they're likelier to have an editorial process and because they have a business that can be sued for libel if there are errors. OTOH, gossip rags like the National Enquirer have a bad reputation and are not accepted despite having a large editorial staff. Could you clarify the nature of your objection?[7]

I wrote that after looking at the WP:RSN and failing to find any recent discussion of TPM, a source I'm not familiar with. If asking for more information about a vague objection is a violation then I'd like to see the rule on that. The person who posted the original question, of whether TPM was reliable or not, never responded.   Will Beback  talk  09:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Talking Points Memo is a news/commentary blog with professional editors and reporters, that has received significant recogition for its journalistic work.[8] As such, its views should be represented as a POV source under WP:NPOV, maybe about the same way as salon.com which sometimes gets brought up. Jaes is coming across as slightly tendentious in this discussion about it. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• The blog self-describes itself as: "Commentary on political events from a politically left perspective..." which does not make it a reliable source for our purposes, like any of the many other right-leaning or left-leaning blogs that add their opinions into the mix. I don't know how to put that any other way. jæs (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Jaes, do you understand of Wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view? Quote: "This page in a nutshell: Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Are you saying the right-leaning and left-leaning points of view are insignificant? That is silly. WP:RS says "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." It doesn't have exclusions for being right- or left-leaning. We have tons of stuff sourced to the Wall Street Journal, whose news reporting is generally considered pretty reliable, even though it is very right-leaning editorially. What remains is the assessment of due weight according to the significance of the point of view being expressed. Secondary sources for significance like the NYT article about TPM, the Columbia Journalism Review about other outlets, etc. are also helpful. We don't exclude sources just because they're right- or left-leaning. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss TPM. Suffice it to say that its reliability is open to question and that I engaged in the discussion without ever suggesting that it was or was not reliable. In my following comment I discovered that it was being used as a source for a frequently quoted line from Giffords which is repeated in many sources.[9] So the whole thing was a dispute over nothing. The original questioner could have simply searched on Google and fixed it in 2 minutes instead of starting an unhelpful thread. Maybe some folks just prefer the more dramatic route.   Will Beback  talk  11:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

some folks just prefer the more dramatic route will, i am concerned you aren't getting the point. instead of resolving this issue with a volentary withdraw for a short time, or acknowledging what you are doing to agitate other editors, you respond with accusations, and other unhelpful words. the main gaol here is to resolve the problem, are you willing to make a step forward to end this? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That comment is in reference to asking about TPM as a reliable source instead of just finding another source.

I'm not "getting the point" because no one here has shown any problem with my editing. That said, as I offere4d before, I'd be happy to join the rest of the contributors to this thread in taking a break from Palin-related articles.   Will Beback  talk  02:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

this is not a negotiation will, we are discussing your behavior and the negative effects it has had on others in wp. i am happy you are willing to take a short break, but do not make your withdraw conditional on the actions of others. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly's editing

Claim that Kelly "may be approaching the 3RR limit"

Kelly is complaining that I warned her about ownership and 3RR. Here are four reverts to one article in just over 24 hours. None of the reverted material appears to breach BLP clearly or be obvious vandalism, nor does she make any BLP or vandalism claim in her edit summaries.

1. 01:08, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Approach to campaigning */ expand, rework some existing language for NPOV")
2. 12:51, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Use of martial language */ rm Twitter link per WP:PRIMARY")
3. 21:42, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Health care */ rm misleading quote")
4. 01:40, 13 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Response to the 2010 health care bill */ fixing tenses and grammar, removing (the sources say who, and we really don't need to expand this)")

I'm not saying Kelly violated WP:3RR. I warned her that she seemed to be making a lot of reverts and also said that I was not interested in pursuing it. "I haven't counted, but you may be approaching the 3RR limit." Rather than saying something like, "Thanks, I'll be more careful", she responded by accusing me of accusing her of violating 3RR and demanded proof. Since I wasn't "pressing charges" and was only making an informal request, I didn't see the need to do so. She went on to write, "Accusations of 3RR and "repeatedly removing sourced material" - evidence, now, please, or retract."[10] So here's evidence of her possibly approaching the 3RR limit. There are more diffs available for deletions of sourced, relevant, and neutral material from this and other Palin-related articles if she wants to make a bigger case out of this now. Kelly is to be commended for deleting BLP violations from Palin-related articles, but a different standard applies for non-BLP violations. This is not a formal complaint, and I would not have brought it here. I raised it on Kelly's page as informal advice. I hope it won't come up again.   Will Beback  talk  10:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. #1 looks like adding material? Is #2 a revert? Certainly it is a good solid removal. #3 is also a good removal. #4 looks an excellent POV removal. One thing to remember is the spirit of reversion - I don't see constant reverting of the same material. I see an active editor on a highly active article making good content choices. It might be worth checking Wikipedia:OWN#Ownership_and_stewardship before making comments on ownership. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) At least two of those edits are clearly not reverts, with at least one of the other two being quite appropriate per wp:blp. jæs (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If one editor adds a {who} tag,[11] and then another editor removes it, that's a revert.[12] There's no BLP reason for that.   Will Beback  talk  10:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That seems a strawman, no BLP was claimed. But reasonable rationale was given for the removal, and under WP:BRD nothing is wrong with that process. The next step is to discuss the problem on the talk page. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no exception to 3RR for deleting clean-up tags. But notice the main change that Kelly made:

• Representative Gabrielle Giffords who was one of the victims of the 2011 Tucson shootings had expressed concerns about the crosshairs on a [map]...
• Representative Gabrielle Giffords commented on a [map]...

Does anyone think that deleting all mention of 2011 Tucson shootings and Giffords' concerns from a section discussing of the now-famous map is a neutral edit which corrects a clear BLP violation? Further, she doesn't even allude to this significant deletion in her edit summary, which is misleading.   Will Beback  talk  10:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a little misleading, Will, if you cut off half of the actual sentence, which provides much more context than you were indicating: "Representative Gabrielle Giffords commented on a national midterm election map on Sarah Palin's campaign webpage denoting targeted congressional seats including Giffords'." The shootings are already mentioned or linked three other times in the article, and wp:undue is a wp:blp issue. jæs (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a significant difference in implication between "expressed concerns about" and "commented on". After than edit,[13] the 2011 Tucson shootings article was not linked to at all from that section or anywhere else in the article. The section in question was discussing the map and Palin's rhetoric. Kelly has put effort into deleting the map and the all examples of rhetoric from the project. That's not neutral editing.   Will Beback  talk  11:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I;d have removed it to, pure POV pushing synth nonsense. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. There was considerable criticism of Palin for the map and rhetoric prior to January 2011. Removing the assertion that Gabrielle Giffords expressed public concerned about being placed in a crosshairs is not "synth nonsense" - it's history. Other people also warned that Palin's language might lead to violence. It really happened. Notice that we're not even talking about adding this to the Palin biography - this is buried in an obscure sub-article. It's hard to say that a paragraph on the matter is undue weight, considering it's been all over the news for days. If anything, the matter is probably receiving far too little space in proportion to its notability in her political life.   Will Beback  talk  11:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In that context it was pushing the idea that Gifford made those comments (pre-shooting!) and then was later shot. That is inappropriate and not overly neutral. Looking at the article, that has it the correct, chronological way, i.e. Gifford made this criticism, then was shot, then the media picked up on it and made a tenuous link. Certainly such material is not due in the Palin top level article, only recent ism indicated that. It's hard to say that a paragraph on the matter is undue weight; If I had said that, you would be right to criticise. But I definitely did not... I was commenting on that specific removal of text. *shrug* --Errant ^(chat!) 11:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Errant, I'm not sure where you get your news but the link between Giffords' 2010 comments and the shooting was not invented by Wikipedia editors.[14] It may be original research by the media, but the article in question is about media coverage of Palin so media speculation is relevant.   Will Beback  talk  11:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm I am talking about the single diff you provided which removed part of a sentence that was a POV push. I really do not know how much more clear I can explain that :P But I will try; the sentence which was removed by Kelly presented the facts of the matter in a way which pushed a point of view and was entirely inappropriate --Errant ^(chat!) 12:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with this statement. The sentence does not, to me, present a point of view at all. It is correct that this edit removed the only link to the TS page. Further, the existing Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#Campaign_imagery section's second paragraph, the "after the shooting" bit, reads to me as highly biased. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence does not, to me, present a point of view at all.; tyhe thing that would have concerned be about it is that Giffords comments were made way before her being shot. So throwing that statement into the middle of the valid sentence is, I feel, definitely pushing a point :) Now, the fact that Kelly did not then re-introduce the content at the right place is potentially a problem, but unpicking the history is a mess and I can't pin down a reason why that was not done. It is correct that this edit removed the only link to the TS page; agreed, and it should have gone back as better content - as it now has done. Further, the existing Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#Campaign_imagery section's second paragraph, the "after the shooting" bit, reads to me as highly biased.; I'd probably agree there. But once again, I am not commenting on that at all here ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Since we cordially disagree, can we agree then that the removal of that sentence is not an unambiguous "BLP edit"? As there is tenable difference of opinion between reasonable editors? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. There was no BLP issue --Errant ^(chat!) 13:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased editing concerns

My concern about ownership is that it looks like Kelly has a POV regarding the subject. These are her significant recent edits to Public image of Sarah Palin:

• expand, rework some existing language for NPOV
• add SarahPAC response
• rm Twitter link per WP:PRIMARY
• rm misleading quote
• Persona: trim derogatory trivia
• fixing tenses and grammar, removing {who} (the sources say who, and we really don't need to expand this)
• death threats
• per concern on my talk page

Every one of those edits, except the last, either added what could be considered positive material or deleted what could be considered negative material, all of which was sourced. None of them correct clear BLP violations. Several of them include inaccurate or incomplete edit summaries, or even inaccurate material. It's not my intention to make a full blown RfC out of this. But since Kelly has complained that I didn't provide evidence and diffs, there they are.   Will Beback  talk  11:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It all looks fine, a normal part of the editing of a highly active article. This is what happens on active and contentious articles. Accusing of a POV on such tentative grounds is not really a good faith accusation; Will, we've edited together in the past and got on, but I think you are wrong here. Palin is always going to be a seriously difficult subject to edit and I think Kelly is helping rather than hindering. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As an addendum, looking at 2011 Tucson shooting, Kelly's work to resist the temptation to insert a lot of content about a media conspiracy theory is commendable. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly's POV is WP:BLP and this is exceedingly clear when one looks at your "examples" of reverts. In fact, it is against WP:BLP to allow some of those claims to be in any BLP, even if the person were the most evil person on earth. Other examples are simply establishing further proper context for claims made in a BLP - which is also fully proper. I recall editing an article on a despicable person with you where you felt it was "proper" to include a press release from the government saying a person could get a gigantic sentence (- and where the actual sentence was 30 months. [15], [16], [17], [18] all indicating a particular attitude towards the biographies of such despicable people. My only goal is proper and vigourous enforcement of WP:BLP and it appears to be essentially true of Kelly as well. By the way, all articles relating to a living person are fully subject to WP:BLP - "a different standard applies for non-BLP violations" is a simple misstatement about such. Collect (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly's POV is WP:BLP... Oh? Kelly showed how deeply she cares about keeping tabloid accusations out of articles about living politicians by writing John Edwards extramarital affair from scratch.   Will Beback  talk  13:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Here she insists on using AccessHollywood and TMZ as sources to add material to the biography of the mistress of another Democratic politician.[19][20][21][22] Here she is urging its expansion.[23] It looks rather like her approach to BLPs depends on the political affiliation of the subject. If they're Republican then any controversial material must be excluded. If they're Democrats then pile on the sleeze.   Will Beback  talk  13:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, I was involved with those articles years ago when I was still fairly new. I hadn't looked at them in a long time, but they seem to have stood virtually unchanged since then. If you think there's a problem with their neutrality or sourcing, go tag them up. Kelly ^hi! 15:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You created an articles about two mistresses of Democratic politicians, using gossip-type sources. Every detail of the scandals given in detail. John Edwards extramarital affair is over 3700 words long. And you don't see anything in the current iterations of those articles, to which you were the first or second most prolific contributor,[24][25] that you'd change today? Is that right? Yet even 160 words on the association of Palin's rhetoric to the Tuscon shooting is apparently too much weight in your view. That seems skewed to me.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it seems like there is a political divide within Wikipedia, of which Sarah Palin is one of the boundary markers.

Which claims are you talking about? Could you be specific.

As for my edits to Bill White (neo-Nazi), I don't think I've even come close to breaching WP:BLP, despite editing that very difficult article for years, including with the participation of the subject. If you'd like to discuss my editing, let's do it at #Will Beback, above.   Will Beback  talk  11:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at Will's diffs and Kelly's other edits in more detail tomorrow if this thread is still active, but his criticism of Kelly's editing looks convincing to me on a quick examination. 12:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.122.209.190 (talk)

I'm building up this section as I look this over, but so far:

• On this provided diffs: While I have not as yet seen the entirety of Kelly's edits to the page, the set provided by Will appear on the surface to represented biased editing. I'm concerned enough to go and look further, and am quite surprised at the responses.
• Looking over the discussion at Talk:Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#Criticism.3F, while I have not seen all of Kelly's comments, those in this section read as biased to me. There she's asking for sources that not only say that the criticism existed, but that this criticism was correct.
• I am unable to see the four diffs provided higher up as reverts.
  Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a truism that you shouldn't be able to detect an editors POV through their edits. I think in some of the diffs here, Kelly's POV is fairly clear. And in some cases using BLP as a shield. Just my opinion...RxS (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting point, but not necessarily true. An unbiased editor editing a heavily biased article might well make edits solely in support of one side of the debate, simply to redress the balance. Taken in isolation, their edits might seem POV, whereas infact they were not. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but just worth remembering that biased edits do not have to imply a biased editor.--Korruski^Talk 14:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is the case here. I normally don't edit those articles at all, and I certainly don't, on my own initiative, add praise or puffery to Palin articles. I'm pretty sure that normally the only times I add anything to those articles is to present the other point of view for NPOV. Strangely, it seems many/most of the editors who insist that material appearing in RS's MUST appear in the biography, never seem to include or argue on behalf of RS material that is neutral or positive toward the article subject. Kelly ^hi! 14:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I normally don't edit those articles at all, and I certainly don't, on my own initiative, add praise or puffery to Palin articles.

I believe that's a misstatement. The Palin articles, and other conservative causes and politicians, are at the top of Kelly's contribution list, aside from the articles about Democratic scandals. Here's a list of the top 16 articles edited:

• 283 - Sarah Palin
• 175 - Ashley Alexandra Dupré
• 106 - Political positions of Sarah Palin
• 72 - Eliot Spitzer
• 65 - John Edwards extramarital affair
• 41 - Michelle Malkin
• 32 - 2011 Tucson shooting
• 31 - Public image of Sarah Palin
• 29 - Bristol Palin
• 29 - Sean Hannity
• 28 - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
• 24 - Death panel
• 24 - Glenn Beck
• 23 - John Edwards
• 20 - Todd Palin
• 18 - Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal

Here are the top 16 talk pages:

• 1001 - talk:Sarah Palin
• 152 - talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin
• 82 - talk:2011 Tucson shooting
• 48 - talk:John Edwards
• 46 - talk:Ashley Alexandra Dupré
• 38 - talk:Bristol Palin
• 31 - talk:Death panel
• 23 - talk:Sean Hannity
• 21 - talk:Joe the Plumber
• 19 - talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation
• 18 - talk:Lawrence Solomon
• 17 - talk:Bobby Jindal
• 16 - talk:Bush tax cuts
• 15 - talk:Rielle Hunter
• 15 - talk:Public image of Sarah Palin
• 15 - talk:Fitna (film)

Her contributions show Kelly tends to get involved in highly polarized political articles. Her editing of Public image of Sarah Palin shows a tendency to add positive material and delete negative material, which is not neutral editing. Wikipedia has plenty of similar POV pushers, from all sides of the political spectrum. The issue is that Kelly may have been seen as a neutral protector of politicians' bios, and that does not appear to be the case in actual fact. Kelly is a partisan. If she'd stop being so quick to remove other POVs from Palin-related articles that wouldn't be a problem, but I think she has confused negative POV about Palin with BLP violations. Not all negative material on Palin violates BLP.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This sort of "guilt by association" is not proof, frankly, for your allegations. You tried with diffs above, which a number of editors here found indicated no significant evidence of "partisan" editing. So now you're producing an edit analysis that seems to indicate Kelly has a predisposition to edit — I'd argue relatively productively for this project — conservative articles?

I'll let you in on a little secret: I'm a member of the Democratic Party (of the United States) and the Liberal Party of Canada. Does the fact that I've edited the Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina articles — and often had to deal with many indefatigable, now blocked or topic banned pov-pushers from every angle at those articles indicate some sort of issue? No, because your argument here is a baseless red herring, and I'm sure you know it.

Anyone could pull your editing history, as well, and find that you've edited, thousands of times, a number of vulnerable wp:blp articles, like Prem Rawat and Lyndon LaRouche (and associated Divine Light Mission, Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, LaRouche criminal trials, and LaRouche movement). Does that mean your editing in those areas are inherently biased? Certainly without significant evidence that isn't a valid allegation. Yet you use that tactic, here, against Kelly when your earlier attempt to actually "dig up" evidence failed (above).

I continue to be absolutely appalled by your actions here, including your veiled threat of administrative action above which you have refused to respond to, and instead have taken to creating as many subsections about Kelly as you possibly can. jæs (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not expect to convince you. You have worked with Kelly in some of the above-listed articles and appear to support her editing. That's fine, people of all POVs are welcome. The issue is that Kelly is a POV editor, not a neutral protector of BLPs.

Regarding my own editing, I'd be happy to address any concerns in the relevant section: #Will Beback.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the lists of her top edits is a rebuttal to her claim here that she normally doesn't edit Palin-related articles "at all". That's clearly incorrect - they are her main focus of editing.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

@jæs - I find most of your edit to be unhelpful. Will's post is in direct response to a statement that (he claims) is not supported by facts. To criticise someone for providing evidence is poor form. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ownership issues

I think a key factor in determining whether an editor is exhibiting Ownership issues is how they engage discussion. Some comments from a recent (and related) BLPN thread may be relevant here. Note these comments come after repeated attempts to openly discuss the BLP questions:

• ...I can't participate in a discussion with Kelly if she won't answer my questions. Banana 04:43, 9 January 2011 [26]
• Kelly is not attempting to reach consensus. AndyTheGrump 04:45, 9 January 2011 [27]
• Indeed. The relentless intransigence, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and misdirection from Kelly have made principled discussion impossible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris 05:03, 9 January 2011 [28]
• There is no point saying "wait until ongoing discussion is resolved"; one side is petulantly shutting its ears. ... Ericoides 08:16, 9 January 2011 [29]
• User:Kelly has been battling this criticism towards Sarah Palin 24 hours a day. As it's evident, User:Kelly as it is visible in this Talkpage has been defending Sarah Palin and her article in this encyclopedia from any criticism. ... Camilo Sanchez 08:51, 10 January 2011 [30]
• You [Kelly] removed important and well-cited information that reflected badly on Palin. ... JamesMLane 05:27, 12 January 2011 [31]

Furthermore, I think that editors like Jaes and BBugs are overstating Kelly's value as protector of Palin articles, thus giving Kelly too much credit. This may unfortunately serve to encourage Kelly's resistance to article balance as well as discourage other more neutral editors from participating. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that is going to result from Will's repeated tirades against Kelly is that she will wind up withdrawing from the Palin article altogether, showing yet again that the POV squad need only continue, and continue, and continue, until those who are actually here to maintain this site as an NPOV encyclopedia, and not Conservapedia, will win. Corvus cornix_talk 22:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

But Kelly is part of a POV squad. We don't need more POV pushers, we need more neutral editors.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You are not impartial in the matter. Corvus cornix_talk 23:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall ever claiming that I'm impartial. But that doesn't render my complaint invalid. Further, I'll note again that Kelly brought this here. I simply posted a note on her talk page asking her to avoid WP:OWN-type behavior and to stop reverting so much. That is still all I expect as an outcome.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's unfortunate to see Will going after Kelly in this manner. I don't think Kelly is part of any POV squad any more than Will is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "going after" Kelly. She started this thread. Judging by your edit contributions and work with Kelly on political articles, I don't think you are "impartial in this matter", as Corvus cornix would say.   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall ever claiming that I'm impartial.  :-). But I'm certainly not part of any POV squad, nor is Kelly as far as I can tell.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia...Liberalapedia..... How about trying Neutralapedia for a change.Buster Seven Talk 01:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of her motives, Kelly's edits are (IMO) correct from a BLP point of view. We don't just repeat any idle speculation the media reports, even if they are a reliable source. We are trying to write an encyclopedia, and we take information from reliable sources to do that. Prodego ^talk 01:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps all those involved with those articles-in-question, should withdraw from them. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI is not RFC/U

This thread started off looking like it might go somewhere, but has instead turned into Will Beback laying out evidence why he thinks that Kelly is an editor who does not follow WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, etc. That sort of thing does not belong on ANI, unless you are looking for a community sanction. Please take the matter to WP:RFC/U. NW (Talk) 02:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't start this thread and I'd be happy to see it archived.   Will Beback  talk  03:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Automated creation of incorrect categories

User:Rich Farmbrough is again creating pages based on some script (I hope, it is the only decent explanation for the mindlessness of many of the creations), which generates a lot of incorrect stuff. This is the same thing that happened with previous script based creations he did (see the ANI archives for other examples of this).

In its current incarnation, this lead to the creation of categories like Category:Ice T albums (we already had Category:Ice-T albums), Category:Siouxsie and the Banshees albums) (there was Category:Siouxsie & the Banshees albums already), Category:Booker T. & the M.G.s albums for Category:Booker T. & the M.G.'s albums, and so on. Some have been redirected yet, some still need to be cleaned out. Thirteen categories he created between January 11 and today have been deleted. But this isn't a new problem, he created a number of similar categories in December as well, e.g. Category:Records albums. Over 200 were created and deleted at that time, but he doesn't seem to have learned from that experience.

The Category:Various albums was created, deleted, and recreated, apparently because some infoboxes list the artist for albums as "Various". We now have three articles with this stupid category, with the category explanation "This category contains albums by Various."

This is the umpteenth example of this editor creating a mess for others to clean up, because his scripts aren't tested enough and his edits aren't checked manually (or not good enough).

Can we please have an edit restriction on any automated, semi-automated, or appearing-to-be-automated page creation (articles, categories, templates, ...) for this user? Fram (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I am finding this all a little bit insane. I have had to delete a fair number of duplicates—overall, there is a gross amount of duplication going on through this process. Nearly every category I check has some sort of problem—either a duplication, or an incorrectly spelled name, or something. The user is also creating categories for labels that do not have articles on WP, while consensus at CFD has generally been that if a label has no WP article, it should not have a category for its albums. More care and/or thought needs to go into the creation of these categories, so please, yes, no more of this category creation via script. It's creating more problems than it is solving. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation technically only applies to articles; I'd suggested extending it to categories the last time this happened, but didn't make the effort to really push it as a proposal. In any case, given that existing policy and Rich's existing editing restrictions, it seems entirely sensible and a small step to amend those restrictions and declare that for Rich, the policy covers mass creation in any namespace. In addition, somebody might make the effort to propose amending the policy, which seems a sensible move to me. Rd232 ^talk 11:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • All good ideas, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • December The creations in December were all of categories that had members and yet were non-existent (red-linked categories). They were done in such a way that if the category became empty it was categorised as such and could be dealt with. In most cases that meant deletion.
  • January Some of the categories created needed emptying, which has been done by an assiduous user. I deleted those that were emptied, however many had been created before, and I therefore re-created them as category redirects. There is an automated process that moves articles between cat redirects and their targets, since people have used these categories before it seems wise to have the redirection.
  • Note: There is a lot of inconstancy over naming of record label articles, also there are notable labels (e.g. Compost Records) for which there are strangely no album articles, and (e.g. Authentik Artists) for which there are album articles but a persistent deletion of the label article. Also Category:Siouxsie and the Banshees albums is the correct location, (speedy rename being requested). Rich Farmbrough, 12:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC).
    

• Comment. I don't think it's much of a defence to say that the December creations were just "red-linked categories" and thus it was OK to create them. Some of the categories were obviously inappropriately named, and many were misspelled duplicates of pre-existing categories. Users need to use judgment and put some thought into creating categories—like making sure a category does not exist for the same thing already—as opposed to just creating something because it was red-linked. When you see two categories—Category:Ice-T albums and Category:Ice T albums on the same article as I did earlier today, you know someone's putting close to zero thought into the application of what they are doing. This type of problem was repeated many numerous times. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"The creations in December were all of categories that had members and yet were non-existent (red-linked categories)." So why did you create and delete e.g. Category:Universals Records albums twice in two days? Someone repopulated it between the first deletion and second creation? Or wasn't your script list updated yet? Or the misspelled Category:Warnern Music Group video albums, which you created, modified three times, then deleted one minute after your last modification, only to recreate it three hours later and redelete it one hour after that again? Anyway, if categories are redlinked, the answer is not to automatically create these ctageories, but to check whether they are actually needed or just e.g. misspellings. That would avoid the creation in the same minute of Category:Switchblad Symphony albums, Category:Swithcblade Symphony albums and Category:Switchblade Symphony albums... No one has a problem with you generating a list of potentially needed categories, such a list is useful. But the automated creation clearly leads to many problems which could be very easily avoided, like the creation of misspelled categories. Fram (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes as you can see, as part of that exercise, extensive tidying up took place. The remaining categories from that exercise are

1. Category:1971 live live albums 0
2. Category:1976 Christmas albums 3
3. Category:1978 studio albums 0
4. Category:1997 (band) albums 1
5. Category:22-20s albums 5
6. Category:Alternative albums 0
7. Category:Anti-folk albums 24
8. Category:At the close of every day albums 0
9. Category:Christian alternative rock albums 46
10. Category:Northstar hip hop albums 0
11. Category:Samba albums 29
12. Category:Slapstick albums 0

perhaps you would like to resolve these flawlessly. Rich Farmbrough, 15:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

No thank you, I have cleaned up after you often enough. Fram (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well these categories are nothing to do with me, I did not create or delete them, nor did I categorise anything in them. I was just suggesting something positive for you to do. Rich Farmbrough, 16:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, but I have enough positive things to do here, like creating articles and so on. I guess that most people who have had to tag, correct or delete your incorrectly created categories also have enough positive things they would rather do, but maintaining an encyclopedia doesn't just involve creations and additions, but also removing the mess created by others, and making sure that they'll create less mess the next time around. Your latest category creation of this type, Category:Chikayo Fukuda albums is already up for deletion (not by me, by yet another editor who seems to have problems with your creations), so you are still continuing this mess, despite the obvious objections of many people (and who in his right mind wouldn't object against the creation of a category like Category:Spigot Records, In-Effect Records albums? Fram (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• A particularly brutal example from today: Category:Mr. Bear Records, reissued on Spigot Records albums. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 14:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough has now recreated Category:Yngwie J. Malmsteen albums, which was deleted at CfD (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 23), created by Rich Farmbrough yesterday, and deleted by Good Olfactory this morning. He added it to the article Rising Force[32], which already had the correct Yngwie Malmsteen cat as well, and removed it again from that article some minutes later[33], at the same time changing the correct link to Jens Johansson to the redlink Jenshansson (presumably by trying to remove all instances of " J" from the article). That same removal of " J" resulted in changing the correct French interwikilink to an incorrect one as well. Note that all this happend with the edit summary "(Correct caps in section header.)", which was one thing that didn't happen at that article. Can someone please just stop this loose cannon now? Fram (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Rich even said to someone on his talk page offering to help clean up after him re the creation of bad categories Also might be worth watchlisting them in case I re-create them. What the hell? I've gone ahead, based on discussion, continuity with prior issues and a large dose of oh-for-god's-sake boldness, and amended Rich's editing restriction to prohibit unauthorised mass page creation in any namespace. I would expect the restriction to be temporary by virtue of soon being superseded by an amendment to Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation. I would be heartily grateful if (a) we didn't waste any more time on this particular case of this problem; (b) Rich accepts the amendment; (c) someone else does the heavy lifting on moving forward the policy change. If/when it happens, the new restriction should be removed as redundant.

Of course, if anyone feels that this was too bold, and requires more discussion before reaching this outcome, well, go nuts. You won't be doing Rich any favours, since that will entail closer examination of how his behaviour, however superlatively good faith, too often skates disruptive editing. Rd232 ^talk 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do something. I don't know what I was thinking when I volunteered to help. I think the intentions are good but it has become quite painstaking to go through each one. And instead of just checking/correcting them, I also attempted to populate them, too. Whether red-linked or not, I'd check "what links here" for the label to see what other albums might be there that hadn't been categorize. Not a bad thing to do, I guess, for completeness, but much more of a laborious undertaking than I realized. The latest thing I'm seeing done is the addition of album categories to film articles because it has a soundtrack section (see Rocky II as an example). Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The population is cool, but not essential, the categories will eventually be populated. Thanks for your help so far anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

I fully support Rd232's amendment. But yeah, as Starcheer... says now we have the issue of tons of movie article being placed in "albums" categories because the article has a section about a movie soundtrack. I would venture to say that this would be a miscategorization. Perhaps a redirect like Rocky III (soundtrack) could be categorized in this way, but not the article Rocky III. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to ask the late arrival question... How are these categories being added? Manually, by script, or by 'bot? (One would think that category creation/addition wouldn't be done by a 'bot as it requires a degree judgment on appropriatness...) - J Greb (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

To me, it looks like script, though I am not sure. I believe it has something to do with what appears in the album template on a page, since he always seems to copy exactly what it says there, whether or not it is spelled correctly. It's not by bot I don't think—it's done through the account User:Rich Farmbrough. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point Olfactory. Excellent in fact. Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

Rich is also repeatedly creating categories like Category:EMI albums which have explicitly been merged and deleted via CFD. He has not learned from this ANI report and seems to continue to do what he was doing before, though at a slower pace. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea is to resolve these issues properly, rather than relying on the somatic information, if someone is creating an album article and they put in a label description that seems sensible to them they will recreate the category, or at least have to hunt for the correct one. By having a category redirect these problems can be avoided, since a.) they will see the correct category if they look and b.) Russbot will correct it if they don't. Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

Yeah, but you didn't create a redirect! You created a new category. You've now done it twice for this particular category and countless other times without even realizing you were creating a duplicate. Maybe you should do some hunting before you create a category in the first place. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Or it can be built into the infobox, with a switch reading the proper parameter and adding the category. Anything not in the switch list - that is the existing categories and known likely alternate spellings and typos - gets put into a tracking cat - "Album articles with unclear lable information". It may not be the nicest solution, but it keeps scripts from (re)creating bad categories. - J Greb (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that the didn't only repeatedly create the EMI category, but that he also created the now empty Category:EMI Music albums as well, which is one more to delete. Fram (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is actually significant subtlety over EMI record labels, with nearly 100 listed on WP alone (Thorn EMI group was composed of several hundred companies), including the massive HMV, Harvest, and Columbia labels if I am not mistaken, and 1.3 million songs in their current holdings. It is by no means obvious that Wikipedia wishes to categorise some, many or all these together as your tone seems to imply. Rich Farmbrough, 15:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC).

What is the status here?

Honestly, how long are we going to let a person run a bot that is so fundamentally flawed? Someone needs to dig up Kurt Cobain and inform him that, sorry, MTV Unplugged in New York is now an Iron Maiden album. Tarc (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks by User:Roscelese

Roscelese has been an occasional editor here for some time, mostly writing about operas and making small improvements. In November she drastically increased her number of contributions and became involved in many politically contentious articles, mostly involving abortion. Roscelese has made repeated personal attacks in the last few months, is perennially uncivil and unceasingly sarcastic.

Roscelese has been made aware of the policy on personal attacks [34] and has been warned many times by concerned users and asked to cease her personal attacks and uncivil behavior. [35], [36], [37] and [38].

But she just keeps rolling - [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56] [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]

Among the more notable;

• On the talk page for abortion; "Also, very sneaky, you are, claiming that it's an "argument" rather than a fact only slightly more complicated than "the sky is blue."",
• On a AfD "I found this article because I was searching on a particular grammar error that you made in writing it, Mr. Special Snowflake Writer",
• On the talk page for abortion; "Don't worry your pretty little head about that",
• On the talk page for Crisis Pregnancy Centers; "As for your personal beliefs, though - like I said in talk, there's more than enough evidence. That means you're either ignorant or malicious; I personally think ignorant is the kinder option, but you seemed to take exception. It's not like you have any actual policy reasons for suppressing this information, so I kind of have to conclude that it's a bias thing.",
• Another talk page; "Aren't you cute. Since your opinion is so clearly authoritative, as substantiated by dozens of reliable sources, how about you try adding "Cat:Libraries that LAEC thinks are committing fraud" to the articles and see what happens? Maybe you'll get an A on your school project.",
• On the talk page for Crisis Pregnancy Centers; "Then you do need me to parse it for you. It's okay to admit it.",
• On the talk page for Crisis Pregnancy Centers; "Making things up out of thin air doesn't make you look smarter, it makes you look stupider. I recommend against it.",
• On a abortion-related discussion; "Why don't you read the sources and then get back to us? Don't worry, you shouldn't have too hard a time - they don't use very big words.",
• On an RfC with yours truely; "If you can't read, you shouldn't be editing articles here",

I don't know much about opera, her contributions there seem valuable but I have no reason to believe that this user is capable of civil interaction on politically charged articles in general, abortion-related articles in particular. - Haymaker (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at every single one of the diffs here, but I have reviewed about 20. Some of them clearly cross the line of incivility, although at times this is in response to others' somethime intemperate contributions (not an excuse, of course). However other diffs show no incivility or attack, just the robust debate I would expect on articles such as these. What admin action is being asked for here? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A short-term block to see if NPA sticks, if it doesn't a community sanction to stay away from the topics that have been problematic so we can keep the worthwhile contributions while avoiding the drama. - Haymaker (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK a block is meant to be protective, not punitive. Also, a block would not permit us to see "if NPA sticks" because for the duration of the block she would be unable to edit anything; we would have to wait for events after the end of the block to see if NPA had "stuck". Personally I agree that there have been unwise elements of incivility in the conduct of this editor, who at other times is obviously capable of well-sourced and intelligent argument. My own preference would be a well-worded statement from an admin advising her to tone down her worst excesses (I would be happy to draft that), following which further recurrences might be cause for a short block. But I'd like to hear what she (or other editors) think. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the above repeated flaunghting of NPA warants some sort of acting, though I would prefer it to be as productive as possible. I thought about leaving a notice on the talk pages of other users who had interacted with roscelese in this manner but I worried that that might border on canvassing. - Haymaker (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this belongs in WP:WQA but in any case, a clear warning by an administrator against civility violations should suffice at this point, unless the editor starts warring. Likeminas (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Normally that's all I would be after but several warnings have already been issued in the last couple of months and the behavior persisted. Can't hurt anything though. - Haymaker (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

God, I hate to sound like a broken record, but...Haymaker, you're leaving out some salient information. If you've come here with the intent to come clean about your own personal attacks, then I admire your candor, but you seem to have forgotten to link them. In particular, I'm sure everyone here at AN/I would find your comment that I should be fired from my job for using gender-neutral pronouns (and the rest of the "I really like strict gender boundaries" saga) absolutely fascinating from a psychological standpoint, if not quite within the scope of the board. (Although incidentally your comment that gender-neutral pronouns were dehumanizing was what prompted my "Making things up out of thin air doesn't make you look smarter, it makes you look stupider. I recommend against it," so perhaps it is relevant after all.)

Civility unfortunately has pretty much totally disintegrated at Talk:Crisis pregnancy center, as of the last couple of months, with Haymaker and his buddy (possibly sock? but I'm not going to start that discussion) Cloonmore removing things cited to dozens of sources with no argument other than that they don't like them, and then blatantly making stuff up about the sources in order to justify their actions. Cloonmore has been inactive for a while, but Haymaker has continued to remove references after a discussion took place with no consensus to remove them, to claim nonexistent consensus in his favor, to insert untrue information, and to continue blatantly making stuff up in talk. Admittedly my temper has been a bit short on occasion, but I'll be honest about the fact that I think mockery in non-article space is less of a sin than deliberate bad-faith attempts to make articles worse - and that mockery can sometimes be a useful way of getting someone to realize that their behavior is ridiculous and to change it and behave better.

(Also, for things that aren't related to what Haymaker seems to see as a personal feud with me - the Waldman AfD isn't really worth it because the guy implied that he could sue me for libel after I said that he wasn't notable, and I consider mockery a less harsh alternative than calling down AN/I...you know, I started explaining all the other diffs but most of them aren't relevant and it isn't worth it. If there are any other specific things you'd like me to explain, here I am.)

Oh, and by the way, Haymaker...Thanks for the laugh. It really was terribly amusing to see some of what you considered "personal attacks," and it's always nice to start the morning with some humor.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't put things in quotes unless they are actually quotes.

I didn't say you should be fired from your job. You referred to me in language that many (myself included) find derisive, I asked you not to use such language to told you it would be a detractor in a professional environment. You extrapolation of one into the other is untrue and unsettling.

Things at CPCs can be heated but most of the above diffs are not from that page.

You can't say that Cloonmore is possibly my sock but then claim that "you're not going to start that discussion".

Mockery, derision and personal attacks have no place in the editing process. If you are concerned with editor's behavior there are places to air those concerns. You have been told this repeatedly. - Haymaker (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This process would be so much more simple if you didn't keep lying, you know? It's unmistakably apparent from the comment in which I used them - any editors who may be interested can look at Talk:Crisis pregnancy center - that they're in reference to Binksternet, whose gender I don't know, hence the gender-neutral pronouns. Your attempt to control other people's grammar and to stop other editors from using language that allows them to avoid mis-gendering people, in matters that don't concern you at all, is so way out of line. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please try to keep it civil. You have referred to me with that term in the past, I found your renewed use of it on that talk page to be an appropriate time to register my complaint/concern. None of that justifies your uncivil behavior throughout that page and others. - Haymaker (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

At the time I used it to refer to you, I wasn't aware of your gender, and I thought using a neutral term was preferable to calling you a woman, since I know some men take exception to that. I don't think you ever mentioned it being a problem at the time. Since then, I've (somehow? perhaps someone called you "he" on a talkpage or something) been made aware that you're male, and consequently haven't used gender-neutral pronouns in reference to you. I hope you understand that, since I wasn't referring to you in any way at the aforementioned incident, your freaking out on me was bizarre and unjustified. Next time you have a problem with my behavior, please let me know, instead of telling me almost a month later how I should refer to people who are not you and that I'll surely be fired if I ever have the nerve to try to avoid mis-gendering anyone. It'll make things easier for both of us.

Given the formal setting, I'd still appreciate an apology for your misrepresentation of my comments. I'd be inclined, too, to ask for an apology for your somewhat strange selection of "personal attacks," the volume of which makes it seem as though I am much more combative than I really am - but I have just eaten some delicious macaroni and cheese with jalapeno, so I'll let it slide. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The above quotes are reproduced in full. They are personal attacks after you had been warned repeatedly about making personal attacks. I find it very unnerving that you still see these actions as defensible, that you think that mockery, derision and incivility are called for, even productive. - Haymaker (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked Roscelese for 3 hours for the comments made directly above, and the edit summary, in response to a section asking for admin intervention for intemperate comments and edit summaries. As I noted in the block advice, I have not looked into the allegations made by Haymaker but acted upon the clearly inappropriate response to them. I have also indicated that I am happy for an admin to review any unblock request without further reference to me. In the meantime, perhaps other readers might with to review whether this was an unfortunate coincidental poor choice of words or whether there is a long term issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Support LHvU's short block - it was very unwise of Roscelese to prove Haymaker's point here in such emphatic terms.

@Roscelese: I support your efforts to keep language and terminology at these difficult topics neutral and balanced. I suspect despite our differences in gender, age, religion and continent of residence that you and I share a lot of off-Wiki political and social goals and attitudes. But we differ about means, even if we may agree on ends. When I first reviewed the diffs (see my first comment above) I was minded to see Haymaker's complaint as over the top, but your handling of it has saddened me. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and if you really think "that mockery can sometimes be a useful way of getting someone to realize that their behavior is ridiculous and to change it and behave better" then you need to ask how that is working out so far. You would fight your corner much more effectively by using politeness, patience and courtesy. Even if you don't persuade your opponents, you will make them seem shrill, impulsive and irrational by contrast if you can keep calm. I realise you will not take Haymaker's criticism much to heart, but I and at least one other uninvolved editor here think you have overstepped the mark. We have no history, I have nothing to gain by criticising you; do you have it in you to accept some friendly advice and agree that your on-wiki behaviour has not been exemplary, and needs to change? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I'm overly optimistic. :) Got any suggestions for what to do when both reasoned discussion and mockery have failed to correct destructive editing tendencies? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Bite your tongue, say nothing, keep a cool head and resist the temptation to descend to your opponents' level (if that is how you see it.) Other editors who review the conflict will be influenced by how each side has conducted itself as well as by the content of the arguments. If one side is behaving well and the other with destructive impulsivity, they will draw their own conclusions. Make civility your secret weapon! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 06:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Sfan00_IMG Again

i) It seems that whenever I make attempts to 'help' clear image backlogs, I manage to cause any number of complaints, most recently.

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sfan00_IMG
• User_talk:Sfan00_IMG#This_is_not_just_craziness_but_insanity

It would be much appreciated if the administrators here ( which would have to perform the relevant media deletion) could provide additional commentary either way on the issues raised above.

ii) At the moment I'm in the process of reviewing the most recent-batch of tags (for no-license), and I'm finding some that could be rescued. I'd therefore like to suggest that in time CSD is deprecated in favour of a PUF system, so that there is an appropriate disscussion process for ANY media deletion.

iii) Once the current review is completed, consideration is given to some kind of limitations concerning User:Sfan00_IMG on the grounds that the linked items appear to show that I'm either repeatedly misunderstanding things, or as stated lacking in competence or qualification to carry out something that should be simple to do like checking images. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please take part in the RFC. It's not a witchhunt, and if it looks like one that would be my fault, not yours, as it shouldn't be turned into that. Your efforts are valuable and should be valued, even if other editors, myself included, sometimes forget this. NFCC cleanup is a task that needs doing and few want to do, and your efforts here are useful to the project. There are issues about some collateral impact, but this doesn't change the basic value of maintaining NFCC, the only issue is how best to do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How does one create an RFC against another editor and then try to claim that it's not an attempt to have action taken against the other person? If you really mean that, then close the RFC. Corvus cornix_talk 23:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a Request For Comment, not WP:LYNCHMOB. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ya, keep telling yourself that dingley. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

But you're asking for a user's behavior to change, then claim it's about process, not about the user. Corvus cornix_talk 23:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner

I would request that an administrator quickly apply BLP and WP:PERP and apply a merge. Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner#Proposed_merge Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and redirected the page, as the above pages pretty clearly suggest that a page on this individual is premature. I'm going through the rest of the archiving now (it's crashing my browser.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

David has been reverted, and I agree it was an arbitrary decision. There was no consensus to merge/redirect the article. Diego Grez (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP clearly states that in cases of ambiguity, we protect the individual while discussions are ongoing. And WP:PERP is clear and unambiguous "Note: Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured. " Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You should read consensus before doing that again! --Hinata talk 19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think people are glossing over the "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured." part there; editors havegiven serious consideration to the matter, and the general trend of the merge-or-not discussion on the page is towards the "not" side. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The "serious consideration" discussion is still in progress, but the community has not yet come to the conclusion that the stand alone article is appropriate. Again, in matters related to living people, we err on the side of protecting the individual. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Since the vote was not going their way, the OP tried this end-around. Not appropriate at all. He also tried to suppress the mug shot. Another thing to consider is that no one is questioning that this guy is the perp. The question at trial is not going to be "Who?", it's going to be "Why?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WOW. just wow. We do not and cannot presume someone is guilty. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say he was guilty? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry I misread your statement. You call him a perpetrator just like the people WP:PERP says we should not have articles about unless/until they are actually convicted. I am sorry for having misrepesented you. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Pulling the trigger is not the same thing as being "guilty" legally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And this appears to beWP:GAME The system because it is not going his way. --Hinata talk 19:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just noting here that I reverted David Fuch's redirect and full protection of the page. There was no consensus for a merge at AfD, and there's no consensus for one yet at the merge discussion on the talk page. BLP1E and PERP clearly don't apply to this situation. That doesn't mean a merge shouldn't happen, but it does mean it should be left to consensus, rather than invoking policy. So please allow time for consensus to become clear on the talk page, then ask an uninvolved admin to close that discussion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The AfD was between a Redirect or a Keep and was not a merge discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge and redirect was discussed, and the closing admin decided the consensus was keep. The merge discussion needs to be allowed to take its course, and the consensus judged by an uninvolved admin. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"BLP1E and PERP clearly don't apply". Really? If you mean that the application of those policies in this instance is under discussion and awaiting an uninvolved admin to judge consensus while giving little weight to any view that is not (at least in part) based on those policies, then fine. But if you truely mean that they do not apply, then further explanation will be required. _wjemather^bigissue 20:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• There are no compelling BLP or other policy arguments that I can see that would mandate a merger without editorial consensus. Whether the subject is (inappropriately) portrayed as guilty does not depend on whether he is described in a dedicated article or in a subsection. As such, editors and especially admins should abide by consensus and the processes dedicated to bringing it about.  Sandstein  20:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It depends on what's meant by "guilty". I have yet to see any news source that suggests he was not actually the guy who pulled the trigger. But that doesn't mean he'll be found "guilty" in a court of law. There could well be a plea of insanity or diminished capacity that could result in a "not guilty by reason of..." verdict. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • WP:PERP clearly states "convicted", which is your latter definition. I would be interested in hearing how the page does not apply to the bio. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • It also talks about significant news coverage. If some guy had walked into that grocery store and shot several non-public figures in the course of a robbery, that could be a different matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing for a merger. However, to use the AFD as an argument against it is wrong. The afd was originally discussing delete, keep and redirect. One admin closed it as a speedy "not delete" - and I reopened it, because it seemed better to allow the discussion between keep and merge/redirect to continue. However, it was then speedy closed again as "speedy not-delete per WP:SNOW". Fine, but that means that all the AFD says is "there's no consensus to delete, and the decision to redirect is not a matter for afd". So, you can argue there's currently no consensus to merge, but you cannot use the AFD in support of that - the afd simply addresses the question of actual deletion. As I say, I'm not arguing one way or the other, just saying.
  • I am wondering that too how can an admin close an AfD as something, then reopen it and another admin chooses the exact opposite choice? If this was done on every AfD that was speedly done then things would be a mess. An AfD review was opened but got only 4 or so opinions on it before it was quickly closed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Ouch, our policy and generally accepted editing behaviour here is clear (although other BLP editors would be worth consulting); unless convicted or subject to coverage outside of one event we tend to avoid creating articles like this. Recentism is a slight problem here, because stuff about him is all over the news (for obvious reasons), however with BLP we err on the side of caution - the article should be redirected and merged until such a time as a conviction is obtained and coverage outside of the 1E (i.e. a trial) occurs. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • So all the info gets moved to the shooting article, and then a week later someone proposes splitting it out because it's getting too large. Yeh, that's a good use of time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Honest answer? Tough! BLP doesn't get overturned for editor convenience :P There looks to be plenty of content already in that article, so a quick check for mergable and significant material and then a redirect will suffice. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • If the underlying history is left intact for the Loughner article, then copying the info to the shooting article and making the Loughner article a redirect could be reasonable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I do have to say I am somewhat tempted to delete WP:NOTNEWS right now. This does seem a textbook case - don't create a massive BLP of someone who became famous five minutes ago. I'm going to be shouted at for saying this, but there does seem to be a different law for stuff that impacts on the soul of the USofA. The article is really inappropriate--Scott Mac 21:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• WHAT DO YOU MEAN you're going to delete WP:NOTNEWS as inappropriate? WP:NOTNEWS has been around for some time, and should not be deleted without some discussion first. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• 99 times out of 100 I'm in full agreement with that, and my snippy & contentious history at DRV will bear that out. But when one is (for the sake of legalese/BLP) allegedly involved in an assassination of political figures then that's the 1 out 100 case for me. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm having a hard time reconciling the concern here about too much focus on someone caught with a smoking gun and charged with multiple murders while there's this much focus on alleged nastiness for which a Subject hasn't even been charged with anything at all. If consensus isn't enough to get those who are pushing redirect to back off, then maybe Ignore All Rules should be applied; but redirect is not acceptable in the face of substantialn and growing consensus opposed to merging. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Propose this be closed and all discussion kept on the articles talk page where it belongs. No reason to have the same debate here. Ridernyc (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be an admin that can close the merge discussion on the talk page and make a choice here, the whole thing has blown into a huge storm with editors taking sides on the matter - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User:David Fuchs

User did this: [74] without consensus and likely opposite consensus here:[75]. Disruptive and misuse of admin. tools if any were used. Unless there's a very good excuse, David should lose his administrative authorities,I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a little extreme. But he'd better not do it again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that edit was wildly inappropriate. I also don't think it was inappropriate to revert it. It was a difficult one to call, IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone who makes those mistakes (Or in some cases they do it on purpose) gets warnings and notices before action is taken, thats how wikipedia works. I do not think this should have gone beyond a talk page discussion here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

User:MFIreland and edits to Hat and Caubeen

This user keeps making changes and mass deletions of referenced data particularly on Caubeen but also on Hat he seems to want to delete any reference to it being Irish despite the mass of material to this effect. A significant number of his edits have edit summaries that bear no obvious relation to the changes being made Examples of the his changes to Caubeen;

[76] [[77]] [[78]] [[79]] [[80]]

Examples of his changes to hat

[[81]] [[82]] [[83]]

I’ve explained as fully as I can my changes in my edit summaries and tried discussing it with him on his talk page but tried discussing it with him but he just deletes my messages: [[84]] [[85]] [[[[86]]

The only time he responded I used his suggested text in the article but he deleted it himself see: User_talk:Lloydelliot10 Lloydelliot10 (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that the actual cause here is your repeated removal of references to the British, as in [87] and [88]. You'll want to get that plank out before you start helping others with their splinters. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already explainded to User:Lloydelliot10 on his talk page a number of days ago that the Glengarry beret worn by the Irish army is notting like the Caubeen bonnet the British army wear. Despite this he keeps making edits about the Glengarry on the article page and added an image of the Irish army reserve which has notting to do with the subject.--MFIreland • ^Talk 22:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed you did and I used your suggested words in the article. I can only repart what I said on yourn Talk page:

I'm somewhat confused by your edits to Caubeen and Hat - as I said when you posted a 3RR warning on my page I have no wish to start a war, but you appear intent on removing any reference to its use by the Irish. Any google search throws up a lot of Irish hits in addition to its use by UK Crown forces, I'd draw your attention in particular to the reference in The Wearing of the Green and its use by the Ancient Order of Hibernians which I put on the page. I don't think anyone is disputing its adoption by various emige Irish units outside the Republic and the British Army - why are you so intent on removing any other references? Lloydelliot10 (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You never replied to this, just kept on mass deleting on the page.

If I deleted any new references that you added I apologise but I did not see them. You seem intent on deleting any references to Irish use of the Caubeen (see above for two in particular). I have no intention of deleting refences to its use by the British - I don't know where the idea that I have came from but just because they may have 'poached' it doesn't mean they get exclusive use. Regards Lloydelliot10 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I will explain to you again just as I have above and on your talk page, that the Glengarry beret worn by the Irish army is notting like the Caubeen bonnet the British army wear. Despite this you keep making edits about the Glengarry on the article page and adding an image of the Irish army reserve Guard of Honour which has notting to do with the caubeen. My comments on your talk page was not a suggestion for the article but to explain to you what a Glengarry is. This is a link to the offical Irish Defence Forces website page on the Armys uniform.LINK --MFIreland • ^Talk 19:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversial move made without discussion

Could an admin move Chicago Fire SC back to Chicago Fire (soccer) and lock the page from moves so that a proper move discussion can be had? 3bulletproof16 just moved the page without discussion and then made null edits to the original page so that the change could not be undone. The move is clearly controversial considering the very first section of the talk page consists of multiple page move requests and should not have been done without a proper discussion. 3bulletproof16 clearly knew the move was controversial or else he wouldn't have made the null edits to prevent it from being undone. I've notified 3bulletproof16 of this discussion. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he moved Chicago Fire S.C. to Chicago Fire SC -- it hasn't been at Chicago Fire (soccer) since August, which was one of the move requests you mention at the top of the page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Argh. Sorry about that. Long day. I'll walk away with my head in shame. ;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The move does not seem that controversial, but I do dispise movers locking reverts by actions like this. For that reason alone I am tempted to move it back. — Edokter • Talk — 22:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the redirect, then restored it minus the move-blocking revision. Seemed like G6 applied. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I forgot the simplest things... — Edokter • Talk — 22:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Coming from WP:FOOTBALL, I'd confirm that the move is controversial, the use of punctuation in association football team article names is quite a sore topic. This should be reverted and go to WP:RM. GiantSnowman 22:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I misread the chain of events in my watchlist. He moved from Chicago Fire S.C. to Chicago Fire SC then made the null edits to Chicago Fire S.C. and Talk:Chicago Fire (soccer) to prevent moves to those articles, but as Giant said, the use of punctuation or not is controversial. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually as SarekOfVulcan noted, the page move from Chicago Fire (soccer) to Chicago Fire S.C. had occured in late August I believe apparently per this discussion I was never involved in that process. However later in November the page was moved to Chicago Fire SC per WP:NAME following the precedent set by other similarly named articles.[89] I just simply moved it back. I really couldn't care less if the page is moved to Chicago Fire (soccer) so I'll leave that up to you and this discussion. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As a quick follow up, looking through chicago-fire.com I can't find any instance where any initials are used. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Isabella and Lego Liker

Goes several months without editing, then all of the sudden creates a SPI investigation against me without my knowledge. see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jddjss and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JDDJS JDDJS (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL at the sock report he tried to create; it takes a lot more than that to fool me. Anyways, the following accounts are  Confirmed:

• Isabella and Lego Liker (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jddjss (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sfdgsuy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fdst7vugy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Xvhjkbvbb (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Usdftgysd (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sfdjiv (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Xffgs (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 03:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC) So can those fake SPI investigations against me be deleted? JDDJS (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Rules regarding Admin's use of tools

What exactly are the rules? Can an administrator discuss content and edit the article - and then revert the edit he explicitly did not support and lock the article to all editors, ip or not - immediately enshrining his, and his close editing friend's, preferred version? Ever?72.5.199.254 (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, they musn't use their tools for "win" a battle, never. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 00:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly they can, so presumably you're asking if they should. A link would be helpful. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, just a moment while I gather it.72.5.199.254 (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's the edit in which he supports inclusion: "I think Maeve Jones passes [[WP:RS]]". And here's the edit in which he reverts to include it:A revert of two edits. This is the principal edit under dispute which was hidden inside his revert without summary:"idea is not notable, it's unknown. The author is an unknown undergraduate." And here is the full lock which was placed immediately:Locked to all editors. I think that's it. I'll notify the admin mentioned. Note: When reading the Talk page, I am the only IP editor involved there no matter the address. 72.5.199.254 (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with what Nev1 has done here. Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What I saw was an edit war between the IP and another editor. The admin who locked the page was not involved in editing the article itself, so therefore they weren't considered "involved" and so I don't see any problem with the page protection.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OP: consider WP:BOOMERANG. You could get blocked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems very clear to me that undergraduate essays cannot be considered reliable sources, as opposed to the sources they use themselves. In this particular case it seems to me that Nev1 has done the right thing in protecting the page rather than blocking adversarial editors, regardless of his views on undergraduate essays. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, "undergraduate essays cannot be considered reliable sources" - the problem is that Nev1 does not agree with you, and he was willing to force it back in...then lock it to all ... and then he refused to discuss it as if he was just a neutral uninvolved arbiter.....72.5.199.254 (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Allegedly we have 1600 active admins, any areas of involvement is something that admins should avoid using their tools in completely, unless it is unavoidable and required to protect the project. Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The admin was involved in the content debate - he sided with his close friend and geographical neighbor whom he has edited on the same side as hundreds of times, and then he falsely presented himself as a neutral and uninvolved arbiter. I myself only just found his discussion of the content and support for inclusion. (1.)Nev1 was an involved editor. (2.)He is acting in support of a friend. (3.)His last act before locking to everyone, not just IP's, was to change the article to include the edit he is long on record of supporting. (3.)His lock was done under a false appearance of being a neutral and uninvolved arbiter ... These are clear acts, supported by ref's. And they are a violation - no matter how uncomfortable that may seem to some. 72.5.199.254 (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not even close, 763, about 700 too many IMO, but that's another story. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about this particular case, but I feel I'm noticing more admins using the tools while involved. Or maybe it's just more noticeable because overall it's happening less. Whichever it is, I've started a discussion about trying to clarify WP:INVOLVED. Discussion here for anyone wanting to join in, though it's already a bit bogged down. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• For reference, 72.5.199.254 (talk · contribs) is one of the parties in an edit war at Hanged, drawn and quartered (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), who is repeating the edits by 99.141.243.84 (talk · contribs). And this reversion to the status quo ante has obviously caused The Wrong Version to be protected. There's a combative immediate protected edit request, that doesn't even attempt to show a consensus but rather immediately attempts to make the discussion all about the protecting administrator, at Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered#Edit Request. There's a discussion of the issue at Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered#Maeve Jones, but "I see little point in debating the matter further with you. I will continue to revert your removal of this material" (not by the editor without an account, notice) is basically a declaration of intent to not discuss on the talk page but engage in edit warring, and there's little beyond that. Indeed, that statement is dated at the point that the edit war began.

  It's worth noting that neither 72.5.199.254 nor 99.141.243.84, nor any facsimiles thereof, have been edit warring before Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs) declared that intent to stop discussing and start revert warring; nor is there evidence that the talk page discussion going back to August 2010 has been accompanied by any previous edit warring in the article on this issue by anyone. So it's possibly unfair to land the boomerang where some people plainly think it should be landing. The history here appears to be: talk page discussion started months ago → "I see little point in debating the matter further with you." → revert war → protection to get discussion going on talk page.

  It's rather sad, but not entirely unexpected, to see that 72.5.199.254, by going on at length about a reversion to the prior stable version of the article, is shooting xyrself in the foot, by frittering away any potential support for xyr position on the content issue with this prolonged nitwittery about The Wrong Version. It's not as if pointing to this talk page edit wouldn't have immediately cleared up the matter of whether Nev1 has an existing stake and position in this particular content dispute, without all of the irrelevant silliness about who is "friends" with whom and who lives where in the world.

  It's also rather sad to see a sensible suggestion made back in September 2010 completely ignored.

  To be honest, if there'd been less of the combative and ridiculously personalized approach and more of the "You reverted and protected in a content dispute where you actually took a side on this very talk page a few months ago in August 2010, if you remember, Nev1.", perhaps Nev1 might have been persuaded of the error. Mind you, that still doesn't solve the problem of Parrot of Doom's declared intent not to discuss this on the talk page at all but to just revert war until blocked.

  Uncle G (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Yet another concern that could be corrected by "how about we just ban admin tool use in involved articles so they have to use the normal incident boards?". There's no reason they shouldn't very aggressively recuse from such areas. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 02:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • No, that doesn't correct this. Go and look at Special:Contributions/Nev1. See how many edits ago xyr August 2010 edit to Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered was, relatively speaking. Count how many times you have to follow the "older 500" hyperlink to get to it. Xe probably simply forgot that xe took a position on this months ago. No amount of policy and rules creep will stop people from just forgetting something from months ago. A simple reminder, and diff of the relevant edit, would have likely sufficed; and Nev1 would probably have acknowledged the involvement in the content dispute. But we'll never know, because 99.141.243.84 decided to go for the combative and acutely personalized approach instead, ironically claiming to have made 100,000 edits to Wikipedia along the way. One would have thought that someone who has truly made 10,000 edits per year would appreciate the problem of not remembering every edit one has made from last year.

      And you're not even addressing the main problem here, which is the content dispute itself, with the intransigent editors who began by discussing on the talk page for months, and then decided to stop talk page discussion and start revert warring — ironically completely the reverse of the pattern that the article protection is intended to achieve. Don't miss the meat of the problem by focussing on the fashionable side issue du jour. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Aah, but ANI is not for content disputes. Never meant to say that was anything close to a "fix", though, and I'm not speaking as to whether any admin ethical issues were conflicting here or not. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 04:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• to suggest that nev1, an admin for whom I have the highest regard, is motivated by a desire to protect friends and acquaintances and not to help prevent a silly edit war, is nothing but dummy-spitting. I have repeatedly asked for help on this article but as usual nobody is prepared to do the hard work, even I'd that's merely reading the source which has proven so contentious. It's pathetic that more time is spent whingung about rules than is actually creating half-decent content, but not surprising. Parrot of Doom 15:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

From 2 January there was a slow-moving edit war on the article, with a couple of reverts a day, but neither party breaching WP:3RR. Discussion was breaking down on the talk page and every post was preceded by a revert. I protected the article to keep it stable and so that both sides might concentrate on discussing the issue and searching for a third option. Before January 2011, my only contribution to the article had been reverting vandalism. I'd forgotten that nearly five months ago I said that maybe being published in Historical Discourses: The McGill Undergraduate Journal of History meant the essay satisfied WP:RS (and Joey Roe (talk · contribs) immediately pointed out that the journal was compiled by students, thereby rendering my point void). Nev1 (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that the the expression, "both sides" is a bit of a stretch. There exists a consensus, every editor but one is against inclusion of the undergraduate's classroom essay. It's not a content dispute - its an enforcement issue regarding Wikipedia rules regarding Consensus, Notability, Reliable Source rules, Fringe..(not to mention impartial and neutral use of tools) etc, etc. Clear Consensus exists from numerous editors, here and there, over months to oppose inclusion. And not a single tangible argument has been provided by the intransigent editor, and not a single editor has supported his addition of the student essay. Not a one.72.5.199.254 (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a view on the content issue as I haven't properly looked into it yet (though I will), and I don't think Nev1 has done anything too terrible; anyone can forget a previous involvement and take admin action, though he should probably recuse in future; but I do see a potential problem in Parrot of Doom's edit here; he seems to be throwing down the gauntlet. As an experienced editor there is probably little value in warning him about WP:EDITWAR, and I fear a block may be necessary if he does not rescind the threat, or perhaps more practically if he follows through on the threat to keep edit-warring "until one of us is blocked", as this is not an acceptable or collegial way to behave. --John (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"With all due respect", that's not quite what Parrot of Doom said. What he actually said was "I will continue to revert your removal of this material until the matter is escalated for discussion elsewhere and a proper consensus formed, or until one of us is blocked.". Naturally enough you focus on the block comment though. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

From your tone of disdain and the perspective you implicitly reference, I am under the impression you are referring to me. I don't believe I've never mentioned it.72.5.199.254 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would you think I'm referring to you, when the indentation of my reply makes it very clear that I am not? My "disdain" is for those administrators who resolve what is clearly a content dispute over the reliability of a source with blocks. A better place to discuss this is WP:CONTENT, where there will hopefully be no veiled threats, just a rational discussion of the pros and cons. Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, a block would be premature. I am sure some agreement can be reached. Edit-warring or threatening to edit war is seldom helpful; there is always a better way to resolve things without anybody needing to be blocked. I will take a look at resolving the content issue amicably. --John (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Two Qiaos

Joetri10 (talk · contribs) has been insistent in reinserting and reemphasizing fictional elements of Two Qiaos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) despite the attempts of others to try to refocus the article back to the factual (and I'll admit that perhaps now I'm embroiled, which is the reason why I'm bringing it here). I'd like someone to review the situation and consider appropriate actions. --Nlu (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well the Romance of the Three Kingdoms isn't just any old work of fiction. ☺ It's a shame that Joetri10 is the only one pointing to a source for what the article says, even if it is a 14th century work of historical fiction.

  Here's an appropriate action: Start pointing to some other historical source material, that backs up what the purported "facts" are supposed to be. How is the poor reader to know that this entire article isn't derived from the stories in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms? It's the only source that anyone is even pointing to. It's a good idea to show what actually is factual in this article, with sources, before edit warring over what's fact and what's fiction. For all that anyone has shown in 7 years, the entire article could be something that doesn't even exist outside of the Romance. Indeed, back in 2005 the article said outright that these people didn't exist except in fiction, so it's possibly a bit rich to claim that one is sticking to "just the historical facts" when one hasn't shown that there even are any, and that Joetri10's emphasis on the Romance as the sole existence of this subject isn't indeed entirely proper in this case.

  Good content drives out bad. A good article that provably documents the actual history with sourced historical analysis will discourage counterfactual additions and cargo-cult encyclopaedia writing. But coming to the administrator's noticeboard to get support for one side of an edit war, and not finding out what the historical fact that the article should present even is, doesn't get one the good content that the process requires. Uncle G (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Historically, there's a name-hopping editor whose whole M.O. is adding large amounts of content from Dynasty Warriors and other such video games to articles on historical and semihistorical Chinese figures (Uncle G: I use "semihistorical" because quite often the Romance of the Three Kingdoms or The Water Margin have influenced conceptions of these figures; e.g., I basically agree with you), and to a lesser extent other East Asian historical topics. I don't know if this is the return of the same individual or not, but I tend to remove such content when I see it because there have been so many unconstructive additions of this type. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • If only that sort of thing were confined to Chinese historical figures and one person. It isn't. ☺ There's more than one person for whom knowledge of some subjects is confined to television, film, and video games. But that's how good content drives out the bad. A good article, explaining some actual facts from authorities on the subject, tends to stop people just building piles of random fictional occurrences in the hope that they'll magically turn into an encyclopaedia article about something factual after some mystical critical mass of fictional instances has accrued. And that's definitely what is needed in this case. The unanswered question is whether there's any historical fact to be had in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I’m not sure if I can post on this issue but seeing as the issue is me then I’m going to explain a few things to help you understand this. The unanswered question?, it is indeed unanswered. Similar to the figures Zhu Rong, Diao Chan, Lu Lingqi, Xing Cai and many others, they are all based on real people however because of the Novel Romance Of The Three Kingdoms and the game Dynasty Warriors By Koei, their existence is much more fictional then factual/historical. I say good luck to any who tries and find real historical facts about the Qiao's that doesn’t derive from the Novel. Now onto the fictional points?. Many people who will be looking up the Qiao's will find very little if the fictional points are not there. Another question is not what facts should be on the page, but what the page should be about In which i think it should be the both (meaning both Real life facts and there portrayal in the novel). If you look on any figure's page related to the Three Kingdoms, you will find information of the novel on all of those, the Qiao's are in no way any different. Showing facts about Dynasty Warriors, what movies they have been portrayed in and their inclusion to the novel can help the reader a lot as that is most possibly what they are looking for. If i am doing wrong by wanting the reader to learn more about them by showing facts that are most important, then i don’t understand what you truly want on Wikipedia. Because i promise you, without the fictional facts on that page, it will prove worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetri10 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

CyberDefender

Could somebody knowledgeable have a look at CyberDefender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? There are a lot of bad edits in its history, and an extensive edit war, where criticisms are being added and deleted. Corvus cornix_talk 03:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It was either uncited promotion or unreliably-cited attack page, depending on which revision you looked at, so I speedied it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo yet again...

Resolved

 – No admin action required at this time. 28bytes (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so the last time we discussed this guy (see here), we were kind of hinting that HW may be headed for a block. So guess what happens? Twice in the last half hour, he has called me "incompetent" in so many words and demanded that I "stop wasting [his] time[…] with your latest manufactured drama". Between those and this recent edit where he called me incompetent and inaccurate. His repeated attacks on me have gone way too far. Several of them can be found here, copypasted from the last ANI:

• Unwelcome and rude (admittedly, he's right on this one)
• Unwelcome and unwelcome — he told me "read the edit summaries" which in no way explained how he thought the sources in question were acceptable
• paranoid ranting
• Unwelcome ranting after I pointed out that he seems to stalk me at AFD and !vote "speedy close" on lots of things I nominate
• unwelcome ranting after I politely asked why he undid one of my redirects, and then followed it up with an equally polite explanation that I had made a mistake that time. I also politely asked why he never discusses anything with me, and he still bulldozed it.
• unwelcome, also stemming from my redirection of a very short article, which he undid without any sort of discussion
• unwelcome, admittedly this one was a bit uncivil on my part
• Unwelcome, gross exaggerated after I kinda snapped at him for seemingly wikistalking me and calling all my redirects "disruptive"
• "You are no longer welcome to post on my talk page" after someone politely asked him to archive his ginormous talk page; the same editor tried to instigate an unrelated discussion about IMDb but HW bulldozed their edits and called the user rude.
• "Unwanted" after another user acted in good faith and archived his talk page (which, for the record, is 465 KB)

KWW was implying that HW would be blocked if he continues to attack me ("if you keep going the way you are going, I think it is pretty likely that you are going to see multiple blocks in your future as well."). Repeatedly calling me incompetent and paranoid is obvious attacking. I have no idea why he continues to do this when I've finally become much more civil with him, but an attack is an attack. There is no way this is not a breach of WP:CIVIL (not to mention that in one of the two most recent diffs, he refactored my comments on his talk page). All we do about this guy is talk in circles and get absolutely nowhere with him. I thought he crossed the line last time, but this time he's showing for certain that he has no intentions of stopping his incivility towards me. Surely he must deserve a block for this one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How many times does Hullaballoo have to ask you to stop engaging on his talk page before you listen? He is already engaging with you on the AfD, why do you require he do so on his talk page as well? 28bytes (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

At least he's talking to me this time instead of slamming the undo button. The main issue isn't his talk page; it's his repeated incivility towards me even when I try to be nice. And that AFD had nothing to do with his last outburst. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• (ec x 2) TPH, you edit-warred to restore a speedy-deletion tag, not just with HW but also with an admin. That is not okay, and you've been warned about that kind of behaviour in the past. Might you take a step back? You're generally an excellent editor, but I'm concerned you are perhaps experiencing some burnout. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Which is why I stepped away from the article after HW undid me instead of carrying on the edit-war. Still, give me one reason why HW should not be blocked for all the insults he's fired at me, even when I've tried to hold a civilized discussion with him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I agree he should not have restored your original comments to his talk page after you refactored them, although I'll AGF that he had composed his reply and was about to post it before you refactored them. But would you be willing to just stay off his talk page entirely? Seems like that would solve the problem. He's willing to engage you in discussion on the AfDs themselves, that seems like that should be sufficient, no? 28bytes (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

He's insulted me at AFD too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Which comment specifically? 28bytes (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of The Velvet Underground: The Millennium Collection —"despite the nominator's palpably false assertions" and "as would be evident to any reasonable editor acting in good faith" (result was no consensus)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Howard_Perdew_(3rd_nomination) — "Once again, the nominator hasn't done a minimally competent job of Google searching[…]Once again, the reason the nom can't find sources seems to be that he isn't bothering to look" (article was deleted, FWIW)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ezra Edelman "speedy close, trout slap the nominator for acute and chronic noncompliance with WP:BEFORE" (For the record, HBO Sports was redlinked when I found the article.)
• In short, he's stalked me at several AFDs just to scream "speedy keep, nominator can't use Google and is clearly incompetent" or words to that effect. He flings accusations of bad faith left and right when I've never done a single thing in bad faith in the 5 years I've been here. The Howard Perdew one is particularly egregious since other editors later pointed out that HW's findings were not good sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in those AfD discussions that I'd call an attack, although I do see some obvious frustration that these nominations were made without due diligence. I'm sure it's irritating when HW shows up at an AfD you've initiated and points that out, but it seems like one good way to avoid that would be to actually do some diligence before posting the nominations. I can sympathize with why you want to get rid of some of these articles; sometimes the sourcing is quite terrible and the articles are tiny, ugly stubs... But if you don't put in the basic research to determine whether the subject itself is notable (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ezra Edelman, where the subject won some Emmys), then you're going to have to expect the nominations to get opposed on that basis from time to time. 28bytes (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) 28bytes, you're the one who needs to step back on this one. Were that simply the case, then HW would show up at all AfD discussions, some of which are patently weaker than those mentioned, and throw out the same insults, which I find offensive, and I'm not the one being insulted. Do you have a dog in this fight?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Do I have a dog in this fight? You tell me. Honestly, I think TPH and HW both do a great deal of good work here, and I don't want to see either of them blocked. If you can suggest a better way to avoid that than what I've suggested, go for it. 28bytes (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• • (edit conflicted again) Really, TPH, take a step back. I can't see this ending with the result you are hoping for. It is true that HW often does not phrase things in kind ways, but you have also acknowledged that you have not always behaved angelically towards him either. With this particular case, you edit-warred to restore a db-hoax tag, which, to be perfectly blunt, some people might see as behaving in bad faith, especially considering your past warnings. Now you come to ANI and misquote him. Despite what you said, he did not call you "incompetent". He made some comments about "competence" being "expected", which is a little overly provocative, yes, but your behaviour was what many might see as showing less than ideal competence ([90], [91], [92]), especially for such an experienced editor. You're also accusing him of "stalking" you at AfDs, which I think perhaps you should strike. Again, sorry to be so blunt with you. Clearly the two of you frustrate one another, and I know that what I'm now telling you is unlikely to reduce your frustration. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How about an interaction ban, especially preventing HW from commenting on AfDs that TPH has started? Corvus cornix_talk 05:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

YES YES YES. Please instate this now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Considering his comments in one of the above AFD's clearly saved a notable article from being deleted it should be easy to see why this is a horrible idea. Ridernyc (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. It wouldn't have helped in this particular case, as HW had not even commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Fisheva at the time that TPH brought this ANI report. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the behaviour I am willing to block HW on here is refusal to discuss his edits. Can someone show me a pointer to HW again refusing to discuss his edits? If so, I'll block. If not, I probably won't.—Kww(talk) 05:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

None of that since the last ANI but surely the gross incivility is enough to block this time? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How is a two year history of calling me incompetent not blockable? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an extreme oversimplification; and I've explained above why this particular incident ought not to result in a block of HW. If he's refusing to discuss his edits, then I agree with Kww. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You know what, Paul Erik is right. Disregard my push to have him blocked. I've done just as much stupid shit if not moreso. HW may be a little caustic, but not worthy of a block. Disregard disregard disregard. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

He is getting on your nerves, that's all. If you avoid him for a while, that would be best. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 07:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user Time Will Say Nothing

• Note: This was automatically archived but I'm restoring it as it includes a ban proposal. Could some sort of conclusion be reached and recorded, even if only to do nothing? Voceditenore (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Time Will Say Nothing (talk · contribs) (see [93] was indefinitely blocked for legal threats. He is now editing as 87.112.86.251 (talk · contribs), which he admits here [94]. He's been using other IPs as you can see by his statement at Talk:Robert Shaw (theatre director) where he says 'this IP was blocked' whereas in fact that IP has never been blocked. I could go to SPI but I'm wondering if there is anything else that can be done here. My own opinion is that the talk page edits should be deleted and perhaps even page protection is necessary if range blocks aren't practical. Dougweller (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the previous SPI for reference Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Time Will Say Nothing/Archive. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

87.112.86.251/32 is possible; the others are too many. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

SPI filed Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh. He has a huge WP:COMPETENCE problem, mostly just here to disrupt in an SPA area. Community ban him and lets get it over with (sad as I am to say that) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of bits out of that talk page that, if not directly legal threats, refer back to the original legal threats (assuming IP identity) in both enforcement and spirit. I leave that to interpretation on if it constitutes the immediate need for a block while the SPI is ongoing. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 09:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the article and talk page would go a long way towards nipping this in the bud, since he's only interested in Robert Shaw. Whacking registered accounts is much easier than short blocks for IPs. AniMate 09:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Really, enough is enough. Talk:Robert Shaw (theatre director) is now filled with time-wasting tendentious editing with completely spurious interpretations of "policy" and accusations against other editors by an indefinitely blocked user, who is openly violating the block, and who has no intention whatsoever of changing. See this Wikiquette Alert, these two previous AN/I discussions, and this AfD for background to this saga. Given the hopping IPs, I'm not sure what another SPI will accomplish. I too would suggest semi-protection of the article talk page. No other IPs have edited it apart from the ones Time Will Say Nothing uses and those of what he calls his "supporters". If they attempt to start editing the article, semi-protection may be required for that as well or putting it under pending changes. He has already attempted to edit it while blocked using his sockpuppet Hohohobo. Voceditenore (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection requested --Errant ^(chat!) 09:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Shaw (theatre director) now semi-protected for 1 week [95]. 87.112.86.251 now blocked for one week [96], following this comment (as usual completely wrong) on the IP's talk page. A breathing space, but I'm sure the whole thing will start up again once the page protection and IP block expires, or earlier if he simply changes IPs. Voceditenore (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo posted to the Robert Shaw talk page saying he's removing anything unsourced. It's not just the Robert Shaw page that has been involved, it's his grandfather's article Martin Shaw (composer) and Up to Now (Shaw autobiography) Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Those pages probably need semi-protection as well. Doc talk 16:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

TWSN ban proposal

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

I'm calling this one. It seems clear by consensus that the user is unwelcome at Wikipedia. Even users that opposed a ban still supported a long-term block. At this point, I can't see much of a difference, and based on the latest evidence, it seems he is editing anonymously to dodge the existing block on him. He is hereby banned. --Jayron32 16:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Let's just do this. Please pile on.

• Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support editor is just not able to contribute without seeing a conspiracy and throwing out wild accusations --Errant ^(chat!) 09:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Heiro 10:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Favonian (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support "At that point it may be that other users who support me will get involved again, although I have asked them not to." Meat puppetry, too, even? Add it to the list. Just too many profound (and most importantly, totally incurable IMHO) problems for one editor to have. Doc talk 13:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Per nom. Show sockpuppeteers the door. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support (albeit with vague reservations about the wording of "Let's just do this. Please pile on.") I was previously inclined towards accepting that this user had a good faith belief that several dozen Wikipedia editors were all in a conspiracy against him. I am now not so ready to accept that, following his making implications that Babel templates were suggestive of a conflict of interest. That really is too weird! There is no hope of this editor participating without being disruptive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, but support lengthy block on the order of 1 year. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• support, stuff like removing comments that complain about his edits, derisive comments to the other editors[97][98], claiming that avoiding the block via IP is editing "transparently"[99]. He has not learned to edit collaboratively here, he doesn't want to learn, and he keeps claiming badly-supported stuff about the supposed motivations of other editors. Yep, there seems to be a WP:COMPETENCE problem here. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support (changed my mind to a long block per valid arguments of other editors below, then back to support) primarily to allow editors to revert inappropriate edits by him (and his sock/meat puppets) without running the risk of violating 3RR, which a 1 year block would not accomplish. Normally, I'd prefer a 1 year block, but I'm sure that we have not seen the last of this editor, whose behaviour and attitude have been and continue to be very detrimental both to the project and to its volunteer editors. Would a topic ban (with the topic broadly construed) allow any inappropriate edits to be reverted without violating 3RR? If so, I would support that instead of a site ban. Voceditenore (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban; personally, I don't think their behaviour so far has been egregious enough to warrant a ban; I agree there are serious WP:CIR and WP:HEAR issues here, but I think those are best handled through a lengthy block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • We've had copyright infringement, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, personal attacks, accusations of cyber bullying (which is why I supported his original blocking for his own safety), leagal threats, block evasion/socking and edit warring. All of which is not so much malignent as having a lack of WP:COMPETENCE, I supported a ban because the user creates a lot of drama and until he is able to demonstrate adequate competence should not be unblocked --Errant ^(chat!) 16:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • On that I too agree: this user should not be unblocked, unless they show that they understand what they did wrong and undertake not to do it again; but I think that an indef is just as good, because, quite frankly, after all this fuss, I don't think any admin would lightheartedly unblock such a user, without being certain they've learnt their lesson. But, at the same time, I don't think they've repeatedly shown that they only maliciously intend to make Wikipedia worse, which is what, in my opinion, usually warrants a full site ban (but again, that's only my opinion). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban per Sarek and Salvio. Nothing here warrents a full siteban, but a lengthy block several months is obviously needed. -Atmoz (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; like the opposers above, I do not feel comfortable banning this user. As far as I'm concerned, the disruption has not lasted long enough nor been abusive enough to warrant a ban. I agree that a lengthy block would be better in this case. HeyMid (contribs) 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

How long would "long enough" be? He's been displaying the same attitude since at least November 2009. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Still, I do not feel that a ban is the right step to take at this time. HeyMid (contribs) 20:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Enough is enough. --John (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support I was thinking of not commenting, but things have changed and I now have good reason to believe that this editor's behaviour is not going to change. Dougweller (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support This user has made it quite clear he's more interested in his agenda than building an encyclopedia in a collegiate manner. He has rejected help, tried to game the system and generally displayed complete indifference to other editors concerns. Socking is just icing on the cake. An indef is best until he chooses to change his approach and demonstrates a willingness to learn Wikipedia's processes & follow them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Question Can someone please explain what the position is re others reverting this editor if he only receives a long block rather than a ban? Will the 3RR still apply to other editors if he is only blocked? This editor will never let go of Robert Shaw (theatre director). Whether it's a block or ban, he will continue his attempts to evade it. He will return again and again to edit war and threaten other editors the minute he thinks the article does not project his desired image of the subject. He will also do this to any other article related to Robert Shaw. He has stated quite plainly, that he is not at interested in contributing anything to Wikipedia, apart from what he is "interested in posting". I understand that some editors have behaved even worse without being site banned. But really, what is the advantage to this project of not showing him the door? A the moment I can see only detriment. Voceditenore (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  That's exactly the point of a ban; if this user is not banned, 3RR will apply, and one will have to file an SPI and wait for the result before being allowed to fight this; anyone who does so w/o a conclusive SPI-result will likely be blocked for edit-warring. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Topic ban? That's what I thought and changed my !vote above back to support. But if read WP:BAN correctly, a topic ban would also allow reverting without violating the 3RR rule. If so, would the opposers here go for that in lieu of a full site ban? I'd support that. Besides, even bans aren't permanent, he can always appeal it later. Voceditenore (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Same difference; either way will work just fine, since he's explicitly stated he doesn't have any interest in other topics. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - This user has selective reading issues, and responds to calm words with thunderous rebuttals that generate more heat than light. And, unlike Salvio giuliano and anyone else basing their opposes on his rationale, I heavily doubt a lengthy block will calm him down; if anything blocks have thus far only exacerbated the situation, as he's threatened to report blocking admins to the UK police for violation of cyberbullying laws (nevermind that he's been told that Wikipedia is only bound to United States laws). If there were even a small hope for an epiphany here, I'd oppose, but honestly this man is on a mission from God, and heaven help anyone who even breathes in his direction. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 04:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - This user is clearly interested in doing propaganda instead of contributing to an encyclopedia. And with that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support site ban. User is clearly a net negative to the project, and IP socking for block evasion shows contempt for Wikipedia policy. In response to those favouring a long block instead, note that the Standard Offer applies. LK (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I've supported the ban, but as I'd originally suggested a topic ban on any articles related to the Shaw family I'll support that as an alternative if that's more attractive to those who don't want a site ban. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Thing is, he's already shown a willingness to agree to a condition, then violate it immediately. Even if we topic ban him, this is his only area of interest and I expect he'll go straight back to editing there once unblocked. Or, at the very least, disrupting talk pages of those articles as he has been wont to do. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The repeated legal threats (even in the numerous unblock requests for making legal threats) and socking, combined with a long history of disruptive editing, are clear signs of an unreachable user. They have been given enough chances to prove that they were here for constructive editing, and they proved instead to be a net negative. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddhiyama (talk • contribs) 15:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

[100][101] < just saying... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Unblock Request User:ActuallyRationalThinker community discussion

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

My first thoughts on this unblock request, due to the nature of the series of incidents, was to direct the editor to WP:ARBCOM. The editor continues to simply post "the first discussion said it all", which, clearly he would be unblocked if that was the case. It is a complex situation, and I would encourage all to read pretty much the entire page to understand the reasonings behind the block, and his responses since. It is up to you to determine if he's honest and sincere. Because of the nature of the block, I think it's appropriate to get a community decision as to their unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock - There is a sense of 'grovel or stay blocked' in that discussion that makes me a little uncomfortable. Yes, he doesn't seem to have accepted that his use of 'Jew' was pejorative, but he has accepted several times that it was disruptive. A block can surely only be expected to change someone's behaviour, not their opinion. As he puts it "...regardless of whether or not I actually am the most monstrous bigot in the world, it makes no difference to the Wikipedia Project if I can in fact conduct myself in a way that is satisfactory to the goals of the Wikipedia Project." If you ask me, he has a point. So long as his behaviour improves, and his has promised it will, his personal opinions are not something he should stay blocked for. Unblock and give him the chance to prove that he has understood the behavioural requirements.--Korruski^Talk 13:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - The problem is that we are all independent actors -- no one has the time, energy or inclination to follow another editor around checking every one of their edits to make sure that the editor's prejudices aren't showing through. So it does make a difference if the editor is the "most montrous bigot in the world" as any such closely-held POV will inevitably leak through into the editor's constributions, sooner or later. We cannot, therefore, be reasonably certain that their conduct will be "satisfactory to the goals of Wikipedia." Editing Wikipedia is not for everybody, and it seems as if it may not be for this editor. I am opposed to unblocking at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Good wikilawyering, more of a Non-apology apology than an apology. Sometimes people's true nature comes out in "the heat of the moment". Does someone who throws around the term "Jew" when angry really get it? JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. JS makes a good point. People's true nature come out when they get emotional. When things heat up this editor starts talking about "Jews" and "cabals". Sure he's calm now but what happens the next time some "Jew" reverts his "Truth (tm)"?--Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose – I see nothing there that shows he is willing to work with others in a collaborative environment. –MuZemike 14:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - Agree with Beyond My Ken. This project's standards for civilized, polite and constructive discussion are incompatible with anti-semitism/racism/bigotry etc. Also after having been told that the unblock request did not deal with all the issues 2 further un-block requests with nothing new is both tendentious and in fact an abuse of the unblock template--Cailil ^talk 15:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – Using edit summaries like the one he used during an edit to the Circumcision article seems to indicate this person is an anti-semite. We don't want or need anti-semites. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose until such a time as they specifically apologize for using "Jew" as a term of opprobium. Saying "I don't consider 'Jew" an insult" doesn't address the problem. Corvus cornix_talk 19:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - FWIW I've alternated between permanently locking his talk page for practicing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (and wasting our time) and actually unblocking this user for a second chance. I'm entirely ambivalent on whether we'd have to block him again in a month for not working with the community, or just dealing with another bombastic personality which frankly quite a few of us have. I wouldn't oppose an unblock if other admins came to that conclusion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• DEFINITELY NOT ANTI SEMITIC - I haven't looked at the full circumstances but I took a very quick look at the edit he was blocked for [102] and then his talk page. It seems completely clear to me that he wasn't being anti semitic at all - all he was suggesting is that there was a link between the users that were reverting him; in effect he was insinuating that they were likely to know one another. Now that may be a bit daft but it's not unreasonable to think that if they *did* know one another one way in which they could was by all being the same religion and thus meeting socially. If anything it's offensive that someone assumed that jew was an insult. It's a religious (and sometimes racial) term by default. It only becomes an insult if the speaker means it that way. Now as to whether he needs a block for the other stuff, I really don't know or care but if I were him I'd be very peed off about being called anti semitic Egg Centric (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User Eyriq86 disruptive edits

Eyriq86 keeps on ignoring the manual of styles, removing references and generally editing MMA records according to his liking. I warned him already three times and he simply has ignored the warnings. I believe that he is disruptive editing. While I have focused the warnings on a single article (Alistair Overeem), he has also been disrupting other articles where he has also removed references. He always marks his edits as minor and never leaves a summary of the changes, which makes me believe that he is deliberately trying to hide his edits. He has not tried to contact me or any of the other editor that have warned him in the past as seen here. These are some of his edits: Alistair Overeem 1, 2, 3; Kazushi Sakuraba; Junior dos Santos; Brandon Vera; Todd Duffee; Ricardo Arona; Georges St-Pierre; Maurício Rua. Jfgslo (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Friedrich Krüger

Opinion requested on Friedrich Krüger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): should an unsourced allegation that this SS officer's grandson lives in a certain city be removed from history? (I reverted the edit, but I am not sure whether to remove it from history; it is not per se defamatory as to either the deceased subject or to the grandson, but could have undesirable consequences whether true or false.) --Nlu (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is the clean-up you have done is adequate as only admins can now see the information. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Aleenf1

• Aleenf1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Keeps reverting edits made by me on the article "2011 Asian Winter Games". He decided to remove repeatedly infomration that is sourced without a reason to so. Also for this article he does not follow the genral guidelines when it comes to multi-sporting events on wikipedia, such as removing the calendar and the number of events by sport repeatedly. Finally, he removed a huge chunk of information from the "2017 Asian Winter Games" for no reason. Intoronto1125 (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If people who are making a bold move and considering as vandalism, then i have nothing to say about it. This is something like posting a threat and send people a rare "worst" message. --Aleenf1 17:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • This is vanadalism. If you keep editing not correctly then reverting the edits after they are correct is considered vandalism. Intoronto1125 (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Mardyks

Banned user Raymond Mardyks has been using the talk page of User:Shii to post personal abuse. (see: user talk:Shii#You called?) While this is fairly constrained compared to his previous behaviour {see the archive history for Talk:2012 phenomenon) he has recently begun to abuse uninvolved posters on Shii's talkpage (diff). As this user has no account and frequently changes terminals, bans are, it seems, only a temporary measure, but that seems the only option to keep uninvolved users out of his way. Serendi^podous 16:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs and [103]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

He also appears to be posting as "Star Heart" on Talk:2012 phenomenon. Serendi^podous 22:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

SOCKS!

Recognition denied
See User:Access Denied XI. WP:RBI WP:DFTT. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 18:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC) WP:DUCK. This makes me sad. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please help with a bit of DENY

A Spanish-based vandal who I blocked recently emailed me and promised to revert any edits I made. Tonight, they started that little vendetta, as you'll see from my contribs. I've done some rangeblocking and semi-prot, but obviously that won't work for everything. Would be appreciated if people could keep an eye on articles I've recently edited. Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This admin is abusing its conditions as admin, it solves all acting more abusive and less dialogue: blocking. Just see the last contributions. The war began when I was putting images from logos of TV channels that are classified as "not free" to report that this TV broadcast a match, these images were about 5 months that they were there and anybody allege nothing and nobody was complaining or anything. He is applying the rules very severely so that his role on wikipedia administrator is just obstructing the functioning of Wikipedia. If a rule is stupid and does not bother to understand why no one should be applied in case of discrepancy block of the first exchange. In any case should revise some rules, Wikipedia is not a project of a minor group of people or admins. The rule is consensuated and must be comply? I think everybody could propose, discusss on wikipedia the rules, do not impose restrictive criteria because of many administrators with Taliban behavior think in that way. Surely some persons will ignore because i'm tagged as a "Vandal" (just reverting Black Kite contribs, no vandalism for other reasons) but the Black Kite is put to unnecessary and destructive actions that end up obstructing the wikipedia, as most of their actions will undo the work of others and propose deletions. If everyone acted like he, success of Wikipedia fails. Greetings to all those who believe in constructive action to Wikipedia, common sense and respecting the work of others. I continue believing in Wikipedia. Thanks for read all User:Raul-Reus talk 21:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.68.81 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.94.161 (talk)

Dude, the Wikimedia Foundation has ordered that we use as little non-free content as possible, see resolution on copyright. The Foundation is the ONG that holds the rights for the wikipedia name, it pays for the servers, and it takes care that wikipedia keeps working well. Wikipedia projects have to use free content always, in order to comply with our mandate of writing a free encyclopedia. Non-free images are used only in very specific situations, when you absolutely need to use a non-free image to explain an encyclopedic thing. Using non-free images as nice-looking icons is absolutely against that rule. This rule is not consensuated, it is imposed on us because of legal reasons. You can't ignore this rule, you have to follow this rule. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, you are getting revenge by reverting everything the Blck Kite makes? I find that this is petty. Black Kite was only doing his work as an admin, please stop reverting him. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I upload images that are similar to those logos (done manually) to replace it and not have a list of those TV stations in words as it is now? I think putting icons that represent a TV channel to provide information is much more comfortable visually. I propose images that resemble those non-free logos --User:Raul-Reus talk 23:07, 14 January 2011 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.94.161 (talk)

See WP:MOSLOGO: "The insertion of logos as icons into articles is strongly discouraged. While illustration of a logo may be appropriate at the main article on the topic to which the logo pertains, use of logos as icons is not useful to our readers, and often presents legal problems." --- Barek (talk) - 22:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Those would be derivatives of copyrighted works and therefor cannot be used. — Edokter • Talk — 22:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I respect these incomprensible rules, so I don't insist anymore in putting more non-free images as an icons. Thanks to explain more comprensible to Barek, Enric Naval and Edokter. Simply, if Back Kite act as this 3 users and not abuse his condition as an admin any war would not have happened. I promise no more vandalism, not insist in these tv stations images as icons and a warning to Black Kite by their ways of acting. My last propose is that some admin unblocks my accout, I promise comply with rules and not vandalism in any way. Thanks --User:Raul-Reus talk 23:24, 14 January 2011 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.98.26 (talk)

Geoscheme

Two editors on the East Africa article who are open supporters of Somaliland (a secessionist region in Somalia whose autonomous government declared the territory independent a while back, but which is recognized by every country and international organization as a part of Somalia) have been trying to add the region (c.f. [104], [105]) to a section of the article reserved for the 19 actual countries that are part of the UN's Eastern Africa geoscheme. The section of the article in question begins as follows (something I've already explicitly pointed out to one of them):

East Africa or Eastern Africa is the easterly region of the African continent, variably defined by geography or geopolitics. In the UN scheme of geographic regions, 19 territories constitute Eastern Africa:

I've explained to the editors that the material is obviously original research since the UN geoscheme does not include the Somaliland region of Somalia among its 19 Eastern African countries. However, they have attempted to work around that by, rather incredibly, claiming that they are only listing the region among the 19 territories in the UN's geoscheme for Eastern Africa because the UN considers Somaliland to be a part of Somalia. I then logically pointed out to them that the UN geoscheme does not recognize let alone mention any area/enclave in the territory of modern-day Somalia, whether the Somaliland region (which they listed) or the neighboring autonomous Puntland region (which they tellingly did not list); the geoscheme only recognizes and includes Somalia itself, as it does with every other actual country in Eastern Africa. Because the editors have been attempting to force through this original research into the article, there was no other alternative but to come here. Middayexpress (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you notify the other editors of this discussion?

I've not previously been involved in this debate. However, you are grossly mischaracterizing the issue. This isn't a dispute over OR, since all of the facts are sourced and agreed upon. The UN considers Somaliland to be a part of Somalia, Somalia to be in East Africa, and hence the territory of Somaliland to be geographically within East Africa. No one has suggested listing Somaliland as an independent state recognized by the UN. The suggestion (as has been repeatedly pointed out to you) is to explicitly mention that the UN considers Somaliland to be a part of Somalia. Something along the lines of "Somalia (including Somaliland)". It should be clear to any reader that this doesn't imply that that the UN considers Somaliland to be an independent state within East Africa. Not mentioning Somaliland in some way is not neutral. Including it within brackets addresses NPOV issues. TDL (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Middayexpress didn't bother to notify any of the affected editors. I was notified by Danlaycock/TDL. This issue is a festering one and one where Middayexpress has proven to be completely unwilling to work constructively with other editors. A mediation was begin here, but when Middayexpress continued to express a complete unwillingness to compromise and then, finally, a complete unwillingness to even participate, a consensus for including Somaliland was reached without him/her. His claims that I am an "open supporter" of Somaliland are false. I am an open supporter of NPOV. NPOV states that we take neither side and express as neutrally as possible the fact that there exists a de facto independent state in the former area of British Somaliland. Middayexpress has, in various places, been unwilling to have this existence expressed in any way whatsoever, claiming regularly that it amounts to OR. His POV is intransigent and his willingness to work constructively with other editors on this issue is virtually zero. --Taivo (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Handsopened

Handsopened (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating an endless stream of "articles" which consist of table of which acts played which theatrical venues in the past few years. This seems to me to be blatant recentism; but far worse, a blatant violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, but I want some more input on this issue. My initial impulse is to ask for a mass AfD discussion followed by deletion of all of these things. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

NinaGreen -- Continued and persistent harassment

An editor, NinaGreen (talk · contribs), has been harassing other editors, including myself, on the Talk:Shakespeare authorship question page, and her disruptive behaviour has escalated to the point that has made it almost impossible to get any work done or attract any new editors to the page, which is currently in the process of being made ready to take to FA.

Lately she has been demanding that another editor divulge personal information about himself, and today in the process of doing so she included an inadvertent slip I had made on 6 Jan. that revealed personal information about that editor.

The slip had already been archived, and immediately I learned about it by her mention I deleted it from the comment I had made with the summary “delete inadvertent slip of the tongue”. I then deleted the information from her comment, with the editing summary of “delete repetition of inadvertent slip of the tongue”.

She then restored the information to her comment and repeated it, and then began a section calling for my admonishment by administrators for acting “in direct violation of Wikipedia policy”.

She has been asked to modify her behaviour toward other editors several times on her talk page, as is readily evident by simply reading the section titles in the ToC.

I filed a report at Wikiquette, with no results, and I made a request on her talk page, which quickly degenerated to more abusive behaviour.

I’m quite busy today, but I dashed this off hurriedly because of the WP:OUTING problem, and I would appreciate if an administrator looked into this and advise on what should be done next. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I just posted on the SAQ Talk page, indicating that the alleged 'inadvertent slip' on Tom Reedy's part has nothing to do with 'outing' Nishidani, because Tom Reedy knows Nishidani as 'Nick Nishidani', which Nishidani uses as an e-mail address OUTSIDE WIKIPEDIA, and which is also not his real name. There is no such person as 'Nick Nishidani' to be found anywhere on the internet who has academic qualifications or has been published in peer-reviewed journals, as Nishidani has frequently boasted he has on the SAQ and other Talk pages, and has used as a weapon to defame and bludgeon other editors. 'Nick Nishidani' is merely another alias which Nishidani uses outside Wikipedia. There is something very peculiar about a Wikipedia editor using an e-mail address which is merely another alias. Most people do not set up their e-mail address under an alias unless they have something to hide. Nishidani has been banned from numerous Wikipedia Talk pages for personal attacks (the instances are readily accessible), and in recent days and weeks both Nishidani and Tom Reedy have repeatedly and incessantly made personal attacks on me which are not only personal but which go far beyond that and are defamatory. These personal attacks and defamatory statements are attributable to bias. Both Nishidani and Reedy have admitted to bias in the editing of the SAQ article, Nishidani terming the authorship controversy 'this ideological mania' and Tom Reedy terming it 'a wacky theory'. This bias on both the part of Nishidani and Tom Reedy motivates them to incessantly subject editors of the SAQ article who are not of their persuasion to personal attacks, defamation, and endless wikilawyering and other forms of harassment designed to drive those editors away from editing the article. They have already succeeded in having one editor not of their persuasion banned for a year, and hope to repeat their success in having other editors banned.NinaGreen (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom Reedy Has Edited An Archive

I just searched the archives for Tom Reedy's statement to Nishidani in which he called him 'Nick', and I see that, in direct violation of Wikipedia policy, Tom has made a change to the archive. The archive search still yields the statement worded 'Nick, because that's her stock in trade', but Tom has edited the Archive itself. Editors who wish to see this for themselves can used the search function at the top of this page to search for 'Nick', and the relevant hit will come up to Archive 18, including the name 'Nick'. But when one clicks on the search result and goes to Archive 18 itself, Tom has deleted the name 'Nick' from the archive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question/Archive_18

What do Wikipedia administrators intend to do about this?NinaGreen (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

   Nothing. There's nothing wrong with that edit although an admin might want to oversight it if there is an outing issue. BE——Critical__Talk 22:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

       Becritical, this is obviously something which is not an 'outing' issue. Tom Reedy thinks Nishidani's real name is 'Nick Nishidani' because Nishidani uses an e-mail address in which his "real name" is shown as "Nick Nishidani", but a quick search on the internet shows that there is NO-ONE with the real name 'Nick Nishidani' who has academic qualifications or has been published in peer-reviewed journals, so Tom knows Nishidani under the name 'Nick Nishidani', which is merely yet another alias, and one which Nishidani uses OUTSIDE Wikipedia. There's something very peculiar going on here. Very few people have e-mail addresses which are merely aliases.NinaGreen (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)