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

Treating German Wikipedia as a reliable source

timestamping this as it's an ongoing concern. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 20:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Martinvl insists upon citing the German Wikipedia as if it were a reliable source at the Foot (unit) article. See line 156 in this edit. I don't think anyone who has read WP:V and WP:IRS can seriously think this is acceptable, even so, the policy was acknowledged at Talk:Foot (unit)#Circular references and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#References to non-English Wikipedias. I view this as deliberate defiance of the Verifiability policy and enforcement of the policy is in order. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No way is the German wikipedia a WP:RS. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fairly clear that user edited sites in general are rarely (if ever) RS. That being said, couldn't one just use the source used in the German WP here as well?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I note that the article is also citing the Dutch, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish Wikipedias as sources. All are violations of WP:RS. Yes, as Yaksar says, the correct approach is to verify that the article being cited on German (etc) Wikipedia is WP:RS, and states what it is being cited for, and then cite it directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

One can do that, of course, but citations enable users to verify content. As this is an English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources seem preferable. Unless no English RS is available to cover the topic, which seems unlikely in this case. Haploidavey (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Simple, straight answer: the German wikipedia is not a reliable source. If he continues to insist that it is, action should be taken. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• No source that anyone can edit is a reliable source.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I've gone through the article in question and stripped out all the Wikipedian referencing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Martin's argument, which I've seen by other users elsewhere (and which I once made myself), is that the referenced article is cited. He doesn't understand that that's not good enough - he needs to place a direct cite, directly into the article in question. It may seem redundant, but in the long run it's better that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we just need to put a banner in WP:RS to the effect of if it has "wiki" anywhere in the name, assume it is not a reliable source, even if it's Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you said that half in jest, but it's actually a good idea. LadyofShalott 02:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Saying something in half-jest doesn't mean I'm not wholly earnest. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Added wording. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In the last few days I have been working through the various entries getting reliable sources. May I draw to attention that when various people went around stripping out various references, orphaned refs were left behind. If they are going to do the job, then please do it properly. Martinvl (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I accept that criticism. I should also have removed the unreferenced material on each occasion that I removed the unacceptable "references". I will be sure to do so next time. There's nothing to stop people replacing stuff in the article once references have been found. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

When an apparently reliable source is cited in a nonEnglish Wikipedia or even in a different article in the English Wikipedia, is verifiability satisfied just by copying the information and listing the cited work as the reference, if the present editor has not seen the source himself, to verify that it supports the statement? Is there any way of citing it as having been copied but not accessed by the present editor? Many print references have little or no content viewable online, and many newspaper and journals are behind paywall and not readily accessible to the present editor who needs it as a reference for some statement. Can Wikipedia editors legitimately translate foreign Wikipedia articles and just copy the references, without having checked the content of the references? Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you read it says "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. Where you want to cite John Smith, but you've only read Paul Jones who cites Smith, write it like this (this formatting is just an example): Smith, John. Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 1, cited in Paul Jones (ed.). Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 2." Is it legit to do this and say "German Wikipedia, article XXX" where the example says "Name of encyclopedia I have seen?" Edison (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A short and sweet answer: no. A Wikipedia (any Wikipedia, including this one) isn't a reliable source. What you are proposing is a route to circular referencing. If you haven't seen something, you shouldn't cite it, full stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Discussion moved to /WP:V RFC. Timestamp changed to future until the discussion is over. Alexandria (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this move was made just after I made a comment that I intended to be on ANI. I hope, at least, that those who are paying attention will continue to watch the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

New user repeatedly analyzes primary sources

User Gyanvigyan1 insists repeatedly on examination of primary sources despite being told by two separate and much more experienced editors that this is WP:OR. He is displaying a serious case of WP:IDHT. This is in the context of one of the many Indian caste disputes.

Gyanvigyan1 asserts that the secondary sources misrepresent the primary sources. Links: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Gyanvigyan1 insists on analyzing primary sources. Links: [7] [8] [9] [10]

Gyanvigyan1 is told repeatedly by both Sitush and Qwyrxian that this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and that if he wants to pursue the matter, to take it to WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN or WP:DRN, as appropriate. Links: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Gyanvigyan1 has not taken this matter to any of those boards but continues to argue the point on the article talk page. He is a fairly new use and has edited almost exclusively on Kayastha and Talk:Kayastha. Can he either get a mentor, or perhaps a short vacation in which he will not be distracted from reading policies? JanetteDoe (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have said that I am not going to respond further to the thread in question, and I intend to stick to that in the hope that Gyanvigyan1 will either escalate the matter as an appropriate part of the dispute resolution process or else comes to realise that their arguments in fact are for the most part WP:OR etc. They have been asking around about policy - eg: at User_talk:MangoWong#Can_you_advise_me_on_where_I.27m_going_wrong - but there certainly does seem to be a big chunk of IDHT going on. I could of course escalate the matter myself, but it would be quite difficult for me to even summarise Gyanvigyan1's points because they have become pretty convoluted & self-referencing/self-supporting - best that they do it themselves in this situation. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I see one comment about a High Court decision. I don't know the specifics, but such decisions are often interpreted in a way that fits best one's opinion. The rule about primary sources is not absolute, I believe; when there is disagreement about a courts verdict, maybe the ruling itself should be quoted verbatim. Not saying that's practical in all or most cases, but a claim that secondary sources misrepresent a judicial decision shouldn't be discarded a priori on the basis of WP:NOR; again I stress that this is my personal opinion. This does not mean that his objections necessarily have any merit of course.DS Belgium (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone thought to, in a better suited venue (such as his talk page), go into detail about the specific policies and guidelines and how they interact? It may seem a little less confrontational, minimize or eliminate the IDHT issues, be a bit more educational and point a very new editor in the correct direction. Or perhaps suggest mentorship so he's got someone to turn to with questions about what's going wrong? May not work, but it's a thought. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's hoping no one minds my taking an interest: I won't claim to have read even 1/2 the talk page and have read none of the article or the sources. What I have seen is what I think might be a good example of the problem. See: User:Gyanvigyan1 say "I don't want to come down to any specifics, right now. What I do want is an agreement in principle that..." and User:Qwyrxian say "You will never get an agreement on such principle from me. Anyone who agreed to that would be, frankly, irrelevant, because they would be violating Wikipedia's most important policies. Why can't you understand that?". The former seems to enjoy the discussion too much to want to resolve it and the later reacts quite sharply (is there a something that would equate to WP:DTFOTF (Don't throw fuel on the fire)? Perhaps something in WP:DIVA about not encouraging them). I'll mind my own business if told to do so. fg^t_c 20:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that was an atypical message from Qwyrxian, born out of frustration. I wouldn't read too much into one comment without reading the entire discussion which, as you intimate, is lengthy. I stand far more likely to be accused of inappropriate comments than Qwyrxian, and in some instances the accusations would be correct. As much as the "regulars" try to deal reasonably with newcomers to this sort of article, the scale of the abuse received, the certain knowledge of off-wiki campaigning, the constant socking etc does tend to wear them down from time to time. Gyanvigyan1 has receivedd many explanations of policy, many explanations of where they are not compliant with those policies, and many offers to reinvestigate the points being made by them. And still, the mantra goes on. That is why WP:DRN or similar is to my mind the most appropriate forum if they wish to pursue the matter further. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Almost all of his edits are on the talk page. There's no rule against discussing primary sources, or their interpretation, and in fact it sounds like a good idea, as long as controversial interpretations aren't put into the article. Is there a behavior problem that needs attention? Dicklyon (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem, per se. They can raise the issue on the talk page and discuss for as long as they wish, provided that any edits to the article itself are compliant. Whether they will continue to get a response on the TP to their raised points is moot, and that has now become a part of the problem. I suppose that if the talk page situation persists then it might move into the sphere of WP:TE, and especially so if it effectively becomes a repetitious monologue. But I think that the point being raised by the originator of this thread was that things are not moving on and the reason for this is that Gyanvigyan1 is unwilling to progress the matter via the dispute resolution process and that others (including myself) are of the opinion that the DR process, in one form or another, is the only way to move forward. I certainly cannot adequately summarise the points that Gyanvigyan1 is raising: they have become so complex etc that starting over in a forum that has most likely a more broad range of input seems to be the most sensible thing to do. Stalemate, I suppose, but I am concerned that a fairly new contributor is becoming frustrated, and it seems only right that the issue is examined on a wider basis. I do thank JanetteDoe for raising this issue here because it does need extra eyes from somewhere. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what admin action is requested here. For my part, my position in that discussion is already stated: Gyanvigan1 is engaging in OR. Yes, OR is allowed on talk pages, but Gyanvigan1 wants to take the results of that OR and thereby rule out certain sources as not reliable, because they do not agree with one other source which he considers definitive, despite that article being a primary source, and only an incomplete summary of a relatively involved event (a court case). Xe says that because another source says something about the trial that is not contained in the final judgment (despite the judgment clearly stating that there was a lot of evidence that is not explicitly covered/reported in the judgment), that other source is necessarily suspect and likely non-RS. Now, if Gyanvigan1 merely wants to push that idea on the talk page, I have no problem ignoring it. If xe edits the article in accordance with that agenda, I'll revert it. If xe disagrees, it's xyr problem to take it to the relevant noticeboard or RfC, since currently a consensus does not support xyr position. In other words, as with so so many of the editors on these caste pages, they can make whatever statements of bias and unfairness they want on the talk pages (though if they're particularly egregious, we remove them per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM), but editing against policy is where the line is drawn. JanetteDoe, do you think any particular admin action is needed here? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I am mind-reading, but it seems to be that admin attention might be necessary with regard to either seeking a mentorship solution or a short-term block to give some space for reading of policy. Gyanvigyan1 seems to me to be an intelligent person and one whom, despite their relatively new status as a registered contributor, has spent some time familiarising themself with procedural issues etc. A block would probably not be the solution, but some sort of guidance might be appropriate or, as I said above, just some uninvolved/additional eyes on the specific points in question. Whatever the outcome, there is an issue here that has the potential to run and run, or to cause frustration to a new contributor because those whom are already involved basically give up responding to what is perceived as repetition. This is quite a narrow field of contributions & comments: it should hopefully not be too difficult to resolve. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd favor either mentorship, or a short term block, or both. Sitush has summarized my concerns very well. I'd add that Gyanvigyan1 has tried at least once to claim a variation of silence equaling consent [16] which is also not going to end well, and probably lead to a cycle of reverts and more frustration on each side at perceived obtuseness. Is there something we can do to get him on the right track, given that we are trying to attract and retain new editors, especially for less covered subject areas? JanetteDoe (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Dicklyon has it wrong. There is something wrong with discussing novel interpretations of original sources on article talk pages, and that is WP:NOTFORUM. causa sui (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
• Talk pages are meant to improve the article. OR SYNTH and analysis of primary sources on a talk page does not (and cannot) improve the article; it amounts to disruption. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Concur with both of the above, although in fairness to Dicklyon, that isn't exactly what he said. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty_Hall_problem#Use_of_article_talk_pages is relevant here - "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject, nor for proposing unpublished solutions, forwarding original ideas, redefining terms, or so forth." Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Responding to JanetteDoe's points above, I personally don't think a block is quite warranted yet. In my opinion, talk page behavior has to be quite egregious before it gets to the blocking level, even though I support blocking people who are disruptive in articles quickly. However, I do think it would be great if Gyanvigan1 were to agree to mentorship from someone currently outside of the topic area (and, of course, that we could find a willing person). He clearly has a lot of knowledge about the sources and the subject. He has the potential to be extraordinarily useful in this topic area (especially since he's gotten quite a bit better in the last month on the civility issue). I don't suppose there are any volunteers? I also don't know if Gyanvigan1 is interested; he hasn't edited WP since before this thread was opened (possibly related to Diwali, which just ended yesterday or the day before). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised at this thread, and I see this as a kind of politics to suppress a voice of reason. I am being accused of discussing OR on the talk page, when what I am doing is pointing out the OR being pushed by certain editors on the article page. Is OR allowed by "older editors." I would welcome a mentor, however, I don't think an understanding of rules is the problem here, rather, the abuse of those rules to push a POV by the other side.

I do believe that the ultimate goal of all of us is to see that only the published facts find space on Wikipedia. What is happening here is wrong information is being thrust in the article by some editors who are pushing an OR, but refuse to discuss it, when challenged (only on the talk page, mind you). I am keeping myself off the main article unless an agreement is made, but to put any kind of censor on me at this point, while giving a free hand to those who are pushing a POV in the article would kill the purpose of Wikipedia. I'm referring to Sitush and Qrwyxian.

Don't go by the long discussions. I'm no more interested in discussing the primary sources. Here's my current position in one sentence -- I am asking for a secondary source that specifically says that "the caste status of Kayasthas is debated (the controversial sentence in the article, which is not even indirectly supported by the reference provided)." And if that cannot be found then the sentence should be held to be an OR. Is that too much to ask for? The other party has formed a particular opinion about the caste situation in India and wants to push that in the article without having to provide a secondary source or to discuss it on the talk page, and is unnecessarily politicising the issue here. I really think its awful that one has to resort to blocking or some other such method, as a way of suppressing opposition that one cannot tackle through the straight channel. Please remember, that Kayasthas are not guinea pigs but living people, and any irresponsible reporting will have a negative impact on their lives, and if Wikipedia cannot do justice to the topic based on valid secondary sources, then it would be better to shelve the topic altogether -- rather than penalising those who try to talk reason.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Also, JanetteDoe, is wrong when she accuses me of continuing the discussion after being advised to refer to WP:DRN. Although, I'm not obliged to, I have not discussed the issue after that advise (actually, there is nobody to discuss it with, right now, as both Sitush and Qyrwixian refused to answer my objections), and I'm right now trying to learn more about these processes, but the discussion is no more in progress as anyone can see. I wonder, why such baseless accusations are being used against me by certain editors, bent upon seeing me censored. She's also wrong in accusing me of 'exclusively' editing on the Kayastha page. I have just edited once, after four months of discussion, after showing on the talk page, specifically, that the statement "caste status of Kayasthas is debated" is not supported by the reference provided, and after giving adequate time for people to respond. Sitush immediately reverted my edit, without even bothering to discuss the issue on the talk page, yet, I didn't not re-revert, because I'm aware of the intense politics on Wikipedia, and that some editors are more "equal" than the others.The non-western ones seem to be the less equal ones.(Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Ah, so all the stuff about law reports etc was completely irrelevant. One point from the lead of WP:V is that "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged". I accept that you are challenging, and I accept that if the statement is attributed then the citation should support it. A request for confirmation has been made. However, even if uncited it remains a valid statement: there is a whole paragraph subsequent to it which clearly demonstrates that there are numerous opinions. Treat the statement as an introduction to the paragraph, rather as the lead is an introduction to the article: it makes it clear that we have not lost our minds and just dumped a whole load of contradictory opinions in there. We could take it out but that is a content issue best discussed at the talk page (where we have done, interminably). It is your behaviour which has caused the issue to be raised here, not the statement itself. You have spent a very long time putting forward a very complex, very repetitive argument that relies on OR of court cases etc ... and you had shown no inclination to stop, indeed saying that you would take silence from others to mean agreement with your POV. This is such a shame as it appears that you do have a lot to offer if only you could let this issue drop. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Any idea what's going on here - research into bias on Wikipedia?

Resolved

 – He wouldn't say 'boo' to a goose, but the goose said 'boo' to him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

See the recent edits to Boudica and the comments on the talk page of Wouldn't say 'Boo' to a goose. (talk · contribs) (and mine). Does any of this ring a bell? I'm not saying Admin action is needed here, but it seems vaguely familiar and this is the most likely place to ask. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed this is "the most likely place to ask", please remember that all contributions to wikipedia are logged, and so can be downloaded and stored. Wouldn't say 'Boo' to a goose. (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Does that include the intimidating speech you're using above? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite certain Dougweller is aware of that. Your point, Boo? LadyofShalott 21:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I warned him against posts that can be very easily read as attempts to stifle discussion. He responded thus. This isn't a serious researcher; it's a troll. (Note that I have no interest in Scottish/English history and have no foreknowledge of the troubles at Boudica.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 23:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The prompt rattling off of WP:POLICY, WP:POLICY and WP:POLICY, along with his edit summaries, has me smelling sock. In addition, as has been mentioned before, we're building an encyclopedia here, we're not rats in a cage for researchers to study. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The three links in the beginning of the post I quoted are the exact same ones I cited in the warning to him, links and all. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 05:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as a sock, but, per WP:AGF, I will give some leeway to the user who did that so, hopefully, that user will not do it again. –MuZemike 07:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There was an editor who was blocked (or perhaps banned?) for exactly the same type behavior. Actually, I think there were two instances in the last 14 months or so. That would probably be why Doug thinks it familiar. Sorry, I cannot place the names, but if anyone is really interested, I could probably dig through AN/I over the next couple days and find the instances. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not going crazy after all. :) Dougweller (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly you are both thinking of User:Marshallsumter, who was using a combination of Wikipedia and Wikversity to do some sort of nebuluous research (i.e., determining what was "true" based on what articles got kept on Wikipedia). The whole mess, including ban discussion, is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive720#User:Marshallsumter disrupting Wikipedia for "research" purposes.. This seems like a slightly different modus operandi, more like the way some long term users claim to do "research" by editing as IPs or new editors to "see how the other side is treated". Qwyrxian (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh good grief, that guy. He was banned and for good cause, he was causing even more of a headache than the usual disruptive person because he wasn't quite so blatant about it. If this is the same person we should definitely try to keep him off of this site. -- Atama頭 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A research project into "bias"? Really? That smells like WP:POINT and WP:NOTHERE. Any chance we could show this editor the door? —Tom Morris (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wow! That was not the editor I was thinking of (well, except of course as a possible sock of each other). The editor was one who was going on rants on Jimbo's talk page, as well as here, their own talk page (and possibly elsewhere). Seems a recurring theme... :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk page has been revoked thanks to this gem, which pretty much confirms he's just a troll. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 01:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this guy a possible sock, Researcher77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), because this [17] looks suspiciously similar to a few diffs posted above. Heiro 01:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with this other user. My only purpose here on wikipedia (i joined today) was to get the biased afrocentrism removed from the race of egyptians page. It is absolutely shocking that no one has removed the biased afrocentric/distortion etc on the egyptian article - so i would ask an admin/or mod look at my post showing these errors and secondly delete all the afrocentric lies on the page. Researcher77 (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked Researcher77 indefinitely per a recent AIV report. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Extensive copyright violations by User:Night w

I've got some serious concerns about the editing of Night w (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that I'd like to raise with the community.

This issue first came to my attention when I was directed towards a template that the user had created. Given that I was a major contributor to a nearly identical template, it was immediately obvious that the editor had copied the template's code without any attribution (diff).

I left a note on the users talk page explaining that copying content requires attribution, but the user described this as "silliness". I also tagged the source and destination template to indicate attribution, after which the user complained to an admin that this was unwarranted (while being sure to briefly log out of his main account Night w (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and into his WP:SOCK Night w2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to avoid WP:SCRUTINY).

About two weeks later the editor added some content to Palestine 194. I've just noticed some very striking similarities between the content added and provided sources:

Night w	Source
Some scholars have warned of consequences for the rights of Palestinian refugees.[18]	Some critics have warned of legal consequences for the Palestinians themselves.[19]
Israeli officials have suggested a variety of possible measures should a resolution go ahead, such as restricting travel privileges for Palestinian leaders, withholding the transfer of tax revenues to the PNA, and annexing settlement blocs in the West Bank in an attempt to circumvent ICC legal action.[20]	Israeli officials have suggested a range of possible measures, including limiting travel privileges for Palestinian leaders seeking to exit the West Bank, halting the transfer of crucial tax revenues to the Palestinians and even annexing West Bank settlement blocs to try to sidestep ICC legal action.[21]

Upon further investigation, this seems to be a very systematic behaviour of the editor. Most of the prose in Palestine 194 and International recognition of Palestine appears to be blatant copyright violations with a few minor word changes:

Night w	Source
given the Israeli government's intransigence, the option of settling the conflict through bilateral negotiations was no longer available. [22]	Given the Israeli government’s intransigence, the option of settling the conflict via bilateral negotiations − the path pursued by the Palestinian leadership for 20 years − is no longer available. [23]
warned that if the Palestinians made a unilateral approach to the United Nations, they would be in violation of the Oslo Accords, and Israel would no longer consider itself bound by them. [24]	warned that if the Palestinians made a unilateral approach to the United Nations, they would be in violation of the Oslo agreements, and Israel would no longer consider itself bound by them. [25]
Though some Hamas officials reportedly suggested they would support a peace deal based on the 1967 lines [26]	though some Hamas officials have suggested they would support a peace deal based on the 1967 lines. [27]

There are plenty more examples of this in the article. This is only the tip of the iceberg. I've perused some other articles that the user has recently created and found identical issues. For instance, in Al-Nurayn Mosque:

Night w	Source
extremist group amongst the settlers who had previously announced a "price tag" policy whereby Palestinians and their property would be targeted in response to every measure by the Israeli authorities to dismantle settler buildings. [28]	extremist fringe elements amongst the settlers, dubbed the “hilltop youth”, announced a “price tag” policy, whereby Palestinians and Palestinian property would be targeted in response to every move by the Israeli authorities to dismantle settler buildings. [29]
Palestinian security authorities claim settlers have attacked at least six mosques in the West Bank in the last two years. [30]	Palestinian authorities claim settlers have attacked at least six mosques in the West Bank in the past two years. [31]

This issue is as fresh as yesterday:

Night w	Source
For membership to take effect, the PLO, as the state's governing authority, must sign and ratify the UNESCO charter.[32]	For its membership to take effect, Palestine must sign and ratify UNESCO’s Constitution [33]

and seems to go all the way back to the editor's first few edits in Americas:

Night w

Source

The mainland of America is the longest north-to-south landmass on Earth. At its longest, it stretches roughly 8,700 miles (14,000 kilometres), from the Boothia Peninsula in northern Canada to Cape Froward in Chilean Patagonia. The westernmost point of mainland America is the end of the Seward Peninsula in Alaska, while Ponta do Seixas in northeastern Brazil forms the mainland's easternmost extremity. [34]

The mainland of America is the longest north-to-south land mass on earth. The greatest distance of its mainland from north to south is about 8700 miles (14000 kilometers), from the Boothia Peninsula in Canada to Cape Froward in Chile. The westernmost point of mainland America is at the Seward Peninsula on the west coast of Alaska. Northeastern Brazil is the easternmost point. [35]

I've raised the issue with the user again, though he doesn't seem to feel it's a problem. I think it's clear that a WP:CCI needs to be commenced immediately to review the entire history of this editors contributions. Given that the user has made >12,000 edits, it's going to be a huge mess to clean up.

Since I'm involved in a content dispute with this editor, and the editor has made it quite clear that they don't think very highly of me ([36], [37]), WP:CCI recommends seeking community input before launching an investigation. I'll allow others to decide on how to proceed and what administrative actions are required to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia, but I've got plenty more diffs that can be provided on request if more evidence is required. Unfortunately, Palestine 194 is currently featured on WP:ITN so something probably needs to be done with that ASAP.

Sorry for the extremely long post! TDL (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've just left a post at WT:ITN asking that it be pulled from the template. Your examples here are abundantly obvious--this is at best plagiarism/overly close paraphrasing, and at worst major copyright violations. I want to comb over your examples once more, but then I will probably open a CCI. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have asked that Nightw temporarily stop adding information to articles while we start sorting this out, and also asked that they comment here. From xyr talk page, it looks like there's some bad blood between Nightw and Danlaycock, but that doesn't alter what appears to me to pretty clear problems with overly-close paraphrasing. I've checked out a few of the examples above, and I can at least confirm that TDL has reported the problem accurately, though I cannot (yet) speak to how extensive the problem is. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll concede that these particular examples are overly close paraphrasing that I submitted probably without really thinking. I recognise that this is not acceptable, so I'm perfectly happy to cooperate in any way required. I'll restrict myself to talk pages and superficial edits for now. However, I refute the claims by Danlaycock (TDL) on how extensive such errors are, and hopefully a CCI will show this. Nightw 06:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I popped in on one article at random: Al-Nurayn Mosque. This is the first passage I checked:

Extended content

Night w Source No one claimed responsibility for the attack, but newspapers reported that the perpetrators were believed to be militant Jewish settlers.[4] Residents claimed that settlers had also attacked the village in the past, refering to an extremist group amongst the settlers who had previously announced a "price tag" policy whereby Palestinians and their property would be targeted in response to every measure by the Israeli authorities to dismantle settler buildings [38] No one claimed responsibility but it is believed that militant Jewish settlers carried out the mosque attack. Residents claimed that settlers had also attacked the village in the past. A few years ago extremist fringe elements amongst the settlers, dubbed the “hilltop youth”, announced a “price tag” policy, whereby Palestinians and Palestinian property would be targeted in response to every move by the Israeli authorities to dismantle settler buildings.[39]

I do not know how extensive problems may be or if there are other problems in the article, but it does raise concerns that the first article and first passage I checked were that closely paraphrased. I did not find it by looking at the cited source, but by a google check. The fact that the source is cited suggests no intentional plagiarism, but if this is a pattern, then cleanup is likely to be necessary as this doesn't constitute writing from scratch. I have blanked this article, as I do not have time to evaluate it fully for additional concerns and can't just yank this section in case there are, and will list it at WP:CP. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A CCI has been opened (you can find it at the bottom of WP:CCI#Requests). So far, Night w's responses have been extremely positive, and xe has committed to helping fix the problem, as well as agreed to stay clear of potentially damaging edits on mainspace for the moment. I've offered to help monitor re-writes of the affected articles/sections. Since the problem is likely to not be ongoing, I think this thread can probably be closed by someone not involved. If for some reason the problem persists, we can always re-raise the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Indef blocked users and misuse of user talk page

Resolved

 – Passage voluntary removed.Tarc (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Mbz1 (talk · contribs)
• diff in question.

In the course of discussing the manner in which an indef blocked user seems to be trying to make a comeback, said blocked user has decided to user her talk page to launch a crude counterattack. As we all know, I am quite loosey-goosey with civility junk, but passages such as

• • "the thing is that every time I am lied about by tarc it feels like I touched something really dirty, and I have a strong urge to take a very long, hot shower. In a few last months that I spent on Wikipedia our water bills were really high :-),and now they are way down, which is good" are way above and beyond anything I would ever post to another editor, or tolerate seeing on any user's talk page.

I tried removing it myself, with all-too-expected results. There's a lot of backstory here to mbz's continuous nasty behavior that led to a voluntary-but-not-quite indef block, plus the numerous topic bans and blocks and such before that. If others here wish to make this about that, then by all means lets dive into it all now, though I will soon be off til morning. If not, then can we deal with the IMO straightforward abuse of talk page privs by a blocked user? Tarc (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see a personal attack in the diff presented above. Mbz1's accusation presented above is cited with a diff. Per WP:NPA#WHATIS #5, the accusation was cited, and can't really be classified as a personal attack. Your comment here, on the other hand, doesn't cite evidence... WP:BOOMERANG? Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, what bullshit. On this and related forums, mbz has had it out for Malik Shabazz, has made that quite plain. This is a user blocked for intemperate remarks and harassment, it is not out of bounds to consider them as the source of an anonymous vandal spree, we've seen disgruntled editor vendettas here a million times before. And if you really do not see an attack/insult in the "long hot shower" line there, then quite frankly you have no business weighing in on this or any other ANI filing. Tarc (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you reading the same diff I am? I don't want to get too involved in this, but that's a pretty damn clear attack if I ever saw one. I'm not sure it's her who engineered the raid (I doubt it, honestly, but it's impossible to prove), but I'm not sure how much clearer a personal attack could be. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The principle attack here came from Tarc. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ Tarc, According to the block log, it was a self requested block. Making an assumption that a vandalism spree was caused by this blocked user is neither civil, nor assuming good faith. Yes, the "hot shower" comment was unnecessary. Though it did provide an accurate metaphor (letting false comments just roll off one's back). The first part of her comment, about your attack on a blocked user, describing it as "dirty" (as defined by definition 4) is fairly accurate. The user is blocked. So making such a comment when you know they cannot argue against it, is fairly cheap. If you believe there is strong evidence between the vandals and Mbz1, then you can file an SPI. If you don't have strong evidence, then why make a potential attack against a blocked user? Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Battling with a user who has an indefinite block serves nothing. What is an administrator going to do, unblock them and re-block for the personal attack? — Moe ε 10:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Quadrant, you're chasing after a swiftly swimming red herring that has nothing to do with this discussion. Mbz's block was self-requested in exchange for having an entry in her block log rev-deleted, that is all.

Moe, did I ask for something silly like that? No. What I wanted last night was for the passage to be removed. It now has been, so we're done here. Thank you for the input. Tarc (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User:7arazred - disruptive editing

7arazred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user persists in adding GA and/or FA status to Revolution Software even though the article has failed twice at WP:GAN; Talk:Revolution Software/GA1, Talk:Revolution Software/GA2. Several edits by 193.111.221.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) follow the same pattern. diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4 Efforts have been made by several editors to communicate with User:7arazred on this and other issues as can be seen at Revision history of User talk:7arazred, The only response has been the user blanking their talk page and no change in behaviour. There appears to be a pattern of disruptive editing so I am bringing this here. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

User has also recently created Wikipedia:WikiProject Revolution Software and the corresponding Template:WikiProject Revolution Software without, as far as I can tell, having gone through WP:COUNCIL/P first. I suspect a conflict of interest. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am this User, and I want to tell You a few things - First of all, every time I renominated Revolution Software as GA, I always improve the Article, and fixed the problems that the reviewer stated. For example: The Reviever of the first GA nomination said that a few sources weren't reliable - I replaced it with reliable ones. He said that the source of the image has to be provided - I provided it. He said Sources used for citations are also present in the external links section which is not permitted - I fixed that too. He said that Wikipedia can't be used a source - I fixed too. I also presented the info more logically, which he said I needed to do. He said I should add sales figures, and I added many. I even added Average Review Scores. But, even if I improved the Article and the issues it had (almost all of the issues), they kept saying that nothing was fixed, which made me furious. I made WikiProject: Revolution Software so others could help me improve the Revolution Software-related Articles.--7arazred (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out on the second GAN, you made it look like the problems were all fixed, by evaluating it yourself. That seems like poor judgment at best, and down-right deceptive at worst. Relisting a second GAN only 10 days after the first failed is a bit fast. Second, a Wikiproject for a single company is very rarely necessary; in fact, I was just guessing and trying some of the biggest companies in the world, and I can't find any Wikiprojects for individual companies outside of WP:WikiProject Disney. Revolution Software has, what, less than 20 pages in total associated with it? I'm inclined to agree with Redrose64, and worry that there may be a conflict of interest here.

We may want to consider deletion of the second GAN page, given that from the beginning it wasn't a nomination so much as it was an attempt to declare by fiat that the article had met all of the previous concerns; then, if someone wants to renominate again, in maybe a month or two, and ideally a different editor, then a second GAN could be opened. Alternatively, if any regular GA reviewers think the article may be on the right track, we could just blank that page and move forward with an actual second GAN. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not just about the GA nomination. The problem is that you don't discuss your edits, make big changes, and simply blank your talk page after someone tries to communicate with you. You have not followed community guidelines, you ignored other editor messages, and afterwards repeated the same edits. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, :D ! --7arazred (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Dearchived. The user [40] just made Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti Justin Bieber and copy pasted and modified GA review from Talk:Revolution_Software/GA1 onto Relapse_(album)/GA1 and promoted it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have indeffed 7arazred, deleted the "anti" Project as BLP violating. I have not touched the false GA reviews. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also did the same with Talk:Relapse (album)/GA1. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

COI edit war over Alexander Misharin

There is a problem with User:Gritzko who is at edit war in the article Alexander Misharin despite instructions established by independent mediators (additionally, he is not civil). The instructions included admin involvement, so I am making this request. The matter of the case is described at Talk:Alexander_Misharin#Removal_of_the_.22Controversies.22_section_on_November.2C_1. --ssr (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a rather straight-forward and appropriate removal per WP:BLP concerns. We tend to avoid sections entitled "controversies" in BLPs, especially when it appears to be a simple laundry list of opposition remarks. Politicians from different parties/ideologies disagree, that is the natiure of politics. The thing's that one's opponents say in the course of political wrangling isn't very notable to a person's biography, esp with lines like "Local and regional opposition figures claim A.S.Misharin embezzles funds", sourced to innuendo and guilt-by-association to other people. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Sources are reliable (top business periodicals). You may argue about the tone. I may do my best to correct it. But those accusations are far beyond "remarks". They were made in a very straightforward way by several regional MPs, city MPs and a federal magazine (the Russian Reporter). Why do you think it is sourced to "innuendo"? No innuendos at all, the subject was accused of corruption in a very direct way. IMO, that is quite significant for the biography. Gritzko (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Accusations made by The Russian Reporter: После назначения нового губернатора деньги пошли через дружественную новой власти дорожную фирму. Теперь солидные контракты достаются ей. Но так как у «дружественной компании» нет ни достаточного опыта, ни нужного количества техники и специалистов, она тупо берет на субподряд нормальных дорожников, в том числе и фирму Степаныча. Правда, оставляя себе 20% от суммы контракта. Это обычный в России властный бизнес — создавать посредника-паразита под существующие ресурсы или финансовые потоки. Translation: After the appointment of a new governor the money went through the new government's-friendly company. Now, solid contracts go to it. But as the "friendly company" had not enough experience nor the required number of technicians and professionals, it subcontracted normal road maintenance companies, including the firm of Stepanich. Except, it left itself 20% of the contract amount. It is common in the government-related Russian business - to create a proxy parasite for the existing resources or financial flows. http://rusrep.ru/article/2011/05/17/maphia

Is it "a remark"? That is a very direct and detailed accusation. Later, the governor threatened to sue, but failed to do so. The proxy company had to leave the region because of the scandal. That was the story. Quite a serious one, in my opinion.

If you'd like to discuss other entries, I'm ready. Gritzko (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, political disagreement is routine, you can't make half of a person's biography into a laundry list of;

• train project may run over budget
• campaign to change/cancel some mayoral posts
• questionable Mercedes purchase
• edit-warring at the Russian Wiki
• another over-budgeted project
• Embezzlement claims by "local and regional opposition figures". (This is the most problematic one on the list).

"responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone" is strike one, two and three as far as I'm concerned. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, you might push it to another extreme. If some information is completely neutral that simply means it makes no difference. Let's find some middle path.

The subject is mostly notable because he is a governor. Otherwise, he was quite an obscure official. Thus, we should tell enough about his work as a governor, because his parents/school info fall into the "makes-no-difference" bin. But if I start writing about the Expocenter/Innoprom story, for example, it automatically becomes a criticism: it was built without proper planning, x2 over budget, not completed, and now it sinks (literally, into the swamp, 10cm a month). And the political part is that nobody knows whether it is/was of any real use. So, should I move it to the bio or to rework it at the "Criticisms" section?

Regarding the embezzlement part, I may agree it should be removed and maybe rewritten later, but the rest should be put back then. Gritzko (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Final comments regarding the Tooth Fairy Scandal.

Continued from discussion here

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.

No admin action requested or necessary. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

---

For a final solution to the problem of working with others, I will simply lower my expectations. Problem solved. Co-operation means different things to different people. Western unskilled workers commuting to work think they are co-operating to build a nation or something or other. Everyone arrives at a cube farm and is carefully partitioned in their office cubicle. So there is that valid point of view, where people are working for the same company and so are involved in a co-operative effort. Other cultures see specialization as an essential upgrade to this individualistic approach. It's a more complex form of co-operation where each person has specialist skills they bring to the project, like an Amish barn-raising, which many of you are probably familiar with, from the movie 'witness' with Harrison Ford. More enjoyable, and faster too, most westerners spend 30 years each to build a structure (as in mortgage for their house) while the amish do it in about 1 day times the number of people in the community, and each of those 'workdays' is a festival.

I recently realise my specialist tools which I use to predict and pinpoint readership reactions (and vandalism) to article text are actually perfectly useful to predict the reactions of other editors to my talkpage comments. I can extrapolate from previous comments their future reactions with varying degrees of success. I have had great success stabilising the ISS article from edit warring, so I know this works just fine.

I see the idea of mentioning my request for an interaction ban, especially with user:only is pointless and rhetorical.

To help educate those who need it, Penyulap is not a personal name, it's a common noun. Feed it into google translate and it will auto-detect the language and give you a rather crude translation. It can't handle the full tukang pesulap, but if you drop the prefix, (tukang sulap) it starts to get the idea. Just ask the indonesian embassy on wikipedia for assistance if you still don't get the point. Anyhow, my handle, which is a common noun would be a less outlandish explaination of my interest in the tooth fairy image with a magic staff and magical powers than any of these other outlandish ideas. (Further on this topic, I may improve and adopt the "wikipe-tan as a penyulap" image for my TP or for wider useage. Wikipe-tan may have narrowly missed out on being the worldwide face of wikipedia as a mascot, but rather than being with the losing team in an increasingly multicultural globalized community, I'll side with the inevitable winners.)

However the idea that I'll return to the project is in doubt, I'd say I'll probably make an edit to something here or there, maybe, but overall the tyranny of the masses is overwhelming, at least on english wikipedia. The way Off2riorob was cut down for voicing his opinion, plus, on a wider issue, the way Professional author Lee-brandon Kremer has been mistreated, the way the well known astrophotographer Ralf Vendeberg was deleted with no thought at all. I mean I can see that english wikipedia culture is not far removed from, say, new york culture, but english wikipedia culture and it's idea of co-operation IS far removed from a global worldwide ideas. I think that english wikipedia is as doomed to fail in the outside world as western culture is doomed to fail in it's ongoing interactions with the rest of the world. Maybe I should consider brushing up my mandarin and looking for a chinese project. Certainly would serve well on space-related topics. I will adjust the retirement templates on my tp's to something that reflects my updated thinking. Penyulap _talk 14:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but with all due respect I do not see an incident that requires the immediate action by administrators. I do see a WP:SOAPBOX, or perhaps a misguided screed based on 1 person's misunderstanding of process/discussion. If you can show me that there's an actual incident here, excellent...if not, I'll be removing it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bwilkins, the comment is a response to the very recently archived discussion linked at the top of the section. I have trouble to respond properly to the accusations made against me quickly. It helps if I take a short time to calm down first. The accusations made against me allow me to respond to those accusations. If you wish to delete my response to the accusations against me, I have no opinion on that. Penyulap _talk 15:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Kiefer.Wolfowitz continues to make allegations of slander

In the course of discussions around Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz, recently closed, it was noted that the userpage of User:Lihaas contains not only a userbox stating that he is a National Socialist but also contains a number of userboxen supporting various political views and individuals in politics [41]. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) repeatedly made allegations during the RfC/U that myself and another editor were slandering Lihaas by saying that it appeared from his userboxen that he might espouse some right wing views - to which he is entitled if that is the case, the discussion did not cover the merits of such views. Apparently, to Kiefer.Wolfowitz, it is absolutely beyond imagination that anyone should support a political position to the right of Nick Clegg, and to say so is the worst insult imaginable. I hoped this quasi-legal allegation would cease now the RfC is over, but he has started the whole thing up again [42]. KW is entitled to hold any opinion of me he wishes, but can someone please explain to him that it is not acceptable to continually repeat on wiki that I am guilty of slander (which would in any case be libel, as I wrote it down).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black... —Ruud 15:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, so where have I said that Kiefer.Wolfowitz has slandered anyone (or libelled them even). Renmember, I'm not complaining because he's being rude - I wouldn't even bother. It is the specific legal accusation that is objected to. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to the heated relationship between you and Kiefer if he would agree to refrain from charged words such as "slandering" when referring to you (or in general)?--v/r - TP 15:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with British libel law, and I do not use slander in a legal sense. I used "slander" in the sense of a "despicable smear", despite the patient and naive explanations of myself and Geometry guy. Most civilized politics takes place to the right of Savuka, and all takes place in opposition to National Socialism.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Further, if Elen must continue this, she should learn avoid the sarcasm/hyperbole that has disrupted WP business before. Alleging that somebody is a Nazi is so despicable that it deserves ostracism. I am sorry that I am the only one who has suggested that she have be removed immediately from ArbComm and being an administrator.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's see. User:Lihaas has a user box that says "This user is a National Socialist". With that link. Which goes to Nazism. Added by the user.[43] You know, in general, I'd agree that alleging that somebody is a Nazi would be pretty despicable and a smear. But in this case, I'd say Elen seems to have some fairly firm grounds. What am I missing? --GRuban (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree. One thing you and Elen may have missed is that the user has an awful lot of userboxes, with some apparent inconsistencies. While there is a clear pattern of userboxes supporting extreme rightwing ideology, there is also a small number of userboxes that are surprising in this context, such as one supporting non-violent anarchism and one supporting the very short-lived (essentially just April 1919) Bavarian Soviet Republic. Overall I am getting the impression of a Nazi with at least some Third Position affinities.

But in any case, if anything is so despicable that it deserves ostracism then it's definitely the posting of pro-Nazism userboxes on one's user page, not taking them seriously. Hans Adler 16:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I never said he was a Nazi. KW eventually modified his previous attacks to say - apparently without any irony at all - that I had accused Lihaas of being a National Socialist. I did say that some of his userboxen suggested his views could be similar to the BNP, but he put the boxes on his page. I didn't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a strong argument to be made that modern adherents of National Socialism aren't that bothered by inconsistency, and mostly just want to shock their parents. (Or onlookers, etc.) --GRuban (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• @TParis - I'm not sure that the language with which Kiefer.Wolfowitz responded you your suggestion is much better. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I think this is getting to the point that we may need to enact a 6 month interaction ban. I see from both sides an unwillingness to back away, backup, or simply turn the other cheek. No office to either of you, you know I've got nothing but respect for you both, but it's time to separate you. I think 6 months with no interaction, broadly construed to include discussions where the other is already involved even if the context of your discussion does not address the other, are in order.--v/r - TP 18:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

TomParis, I believe that's an outrageous suggestion. What have I done wrong here? I don't want to interact with KW - I have no reason to. We don't edit in the same places. All I want KW to do is stop saying what he said above, because there is no justification for it. As you can see from the rest of the conversation, other editors are also noting that Lihaas has a variety of right wing userboxen on his talkpage. I am sure that if we wait for a little, KW will come back and say exactly the same things about them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do explain how pointing out that someone has a userbox which says "This user is a National Socialist is a personal attack on that user.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You may not be a Christian, but I'd like to point to the Bible for some great words of wisdom here. Mathew 5:39 "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." It goes along the same lines of WP:DGAF, if you ignored him it would stop. Let Kiefer do his worst and show him it doesn't matter. It's like I say in WP:MYPRIDE, my pride will not be hurt by what is said about me. I know I mention the parts about reports, but just forget that. Kiefer is smart and he uses charged words that he knows will get to you. I'm not implying bad faith on his part, I am sure he considers what he is doing to be to the benefit of the encyclopedia. But I am saying that if you turn him the other cheek and let him know it doesn't phase you, he wouldn't have a pedastool to stand on. Should you have to ignore him? No, it's your choice and I'm only making a suggestion.--v/r - TP 19:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake. No I definitely am not a Christian, so let's put that one to bed now. Why should I have to put up with him endlessly wandering round the project accusing me of slander and demanding that I be removed from the project. For the record, here are some of the things I HAVE let go. All I want him to do is stop.

Here are a few of the things KW has said so far that I *have* turned the other cheek to. (edit summary) an ArbCom member who defends a sociopath's smearing a valuable editor as a Nazi, (edit summary) non-writers smear leading writers as national socialists, (edit summary) your WP:NPA violation of unsubstantiated allegations about politics, (edit summary) Calling L a national socialist was outrageous. A lack of indignation is a sign of a lack of knowledge or a character defect, (edit summary) the "editor" smeared a valuable WP writer as a national socialist, and earned his rebuke, on Lihaas's talkpage, (edit summary) the "barbaric pride of a Hunnish and Norwegian stateliness" of an ArbComm member abusing her power and disgracing her office, from SandyGeorgia's talkpage. All of those I ignored. I thought he would stop when the RfC finished. I am not the one who cannot let this drop. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't trying to appeal to a Christian who puts stock in the bible, I am just pointing to some wise words in a book. The fact is that the RFC/U didn't come to any actual tangible/actionable consensus to prevent Kiefer using charged words. I can't think of anywhere else for this to go besides Arbcom. I had intended to take my time closing the RFC to prevent this from going there by trying to find something firm we all could agree to and stick to but the RFC was degenerating into mudslinging and I didn't want it to spiral out of control. I don't think ANI can help you here other than an interaction ban. I can't imagine what else you expect to happen. If an RFC/U didn't result in a ban or block, what do you expect to get out of ANI. So unless you are intending to bring this to Arbcom, and I really hope for my sanity sake you don't, there isn't anything else to do but ignore each other. An interaction ban could, and I would intend it to, prevent Kiefer from slinging mud your way.--v/r - TP 19:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, exactly how many interaction bans does this guy need? One with Elen. One with Worm, apparently, that he's "long sought" - or so he says. One with me, since I'm apparently the "sociopath" mentioned above. One with Pedro? One with Peter Werner, judging by the RfC/U. One with any editor who admits to having been a member of certain fringe U.S. political groups in the 1970s. Also one with Hans Adler and with GRuban, since they've dared to question the Official View of what the userbox means. Isn't this getting a little silly now? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Why are we hashing out this little drama? Certainly if a user were to put up a box implicitly endorsing National Socialism, there would be nothing libelous about asserting they are a Nazi. So why are we here? Turn the other cheek. K-Wolf is free to associate with whomever he wants and if he feels a friend's honor has been sullied, he's free to commiserate with him. There's no need to start a new chapter in an episode that has already been mooted and decided at RFC. Move along, folks, nothing to see here. Carrite (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, Lihaas didn't put up a box implicitly endorsing National Socialism, he put up a box explicitly endorsing it. That being so, why do you feel that KW's behaviour during the RfC/U (for which he still hasn't apologised) was acceptable?

• Also, who suggested that KW is not free to associate with whomever he wants? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, Kiefer.Wolfowitz is clearly in the wrong here. It is not slander to say that someone who self-identifies as a National Socialist is a National Socialist. There is no justification for Kiefer.Wolfowitz's attacks. Period. Ellen does not need to be informed about Christian Forgiveness, the Eternal Calm of the Buddha, or the Stoic Ideal. That's pure distraction. Paul B (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And? What do you expect to happen at ANI that an RFC/U couldn't do? Please enlighten me since my words of advice are pure distraction. What have I missed? Personally, I see things as less stressful for Elen if she just ignore Kiefer.--v/r - TP 20:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I see things as less stressful for Elen if Kiefer would cease his baseless accusations. It does seem to say in WP:NPA that unfounded allegations are a form of personal attack, and I think it's fairly clear that Kiefer's commentary has well and truly crossed the NPA border. Are you suggesting that administrators are powerless to enforce this policy, and that the solution isn't for Kiefer to follow our policies, but rather for the recipient to effectively 'suck it up'? If true, that is very disheartening for the project. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ugh. Can we please get a grip and move on folks? The RfC/U was closed 3 days ago. It is over. What "started the whole thing up again" today was User:Lihaas catching up on messages and asking KW to explain what the matter was. KW replied to Lihaas with evident feelings about the RfC/U: the segment causing (most) offence here linked Lihaas to discussion about "a very selective discussion of a few of your user-boxes, which shamed the editors slandering you and shamed Wikipedia, in the judgment of honorable men". Opinionated, judgmental and grandiose, perhaps, but this was a reply to another user on KW's user talk page, and it names no names. Is such user chat worth reigniting this incident? Should the whole of Wikipedia be up in arms that KW called it "shamed"?

Well, no. Elen overreacted by posting this ANI notice, and now KW is overreacting in return. So, is it "here we go again", or shall we stop this now? Geometry guy 20:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Geometry guy, I did not raise this during the RfC, because I thought Kiefer would stop when the RfC is over. My concern now is that he is going to spend the next year repeating this allegation - he appears to be obsessed with it. If he agrees not to mention it again, that would be an end of it - he can think what he likes, I have no control over that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I get him to stop? Alas I have no mind control abilities :) and can only offer to reason with you both. However, one of the main points of my comment here was that KW was prompted to refer to the incident again by Lihaas. That doesn't (in itself) amount to the appearance of obsession. Lets see. Geometry guy 00:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

PS. In case anyone here has further general comments on the appropriateness or otherwise of discussing an editor's worldview, based on their userboxes, in a public forum such as article talk, ANI or an RfC/U of a different editor, I'd be happy to discuss the matter on my talk page.

Acknowledging the valuable contributions of both editors, I encourage both to voluntarily disengage, drop the subject, and move on to more pleasant and useful things. I also encourage their friends and associates here on Wikipedia to do nothing that might escalate the situation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. If no more is said, then no more needs to be said. Let us await the response of Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Before letting the issue lie, I must point out that whilst the participants of the RfC have suffered a long drawn out mess, the editors who are really suffering are the ones who have been endlessly canvassed over such issues, I've seen both fetchcomms and SandyGeorgia request that it be taken from their talk pages and the dross that has been found at the logic wikiproject is amazing. Why am I mentioning this? Because 10 minutes before KW requested EotR's neck, he posted a non neutral message to WikiProject Jewish history. I've not commented even once on the National Socialism issue so far - except to inform Lihaas that it was going on, but in my opinion it was simply KW making a stink over a side comment to deflect attention from a long post about... KW's canvassing. For the record, I do not believe that pointing out that someone who has a National Socialist userbox has said userbox is tantamount to calling said user a Nazi. I should also point out that not once have I seen Lihaas comment on his userboxen. I would personally like to see the whole issue dropped...Worm^TT · (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply by KW

As Geometry guy explained, I responded to Lihaas's question; in responding, I had forgotten that I had described the "national socialist" smear already on his talk page. Had I remembered, I should not have mentioned it explicitly again, to save myself some measure of renewed disgust.

Geometry guy and I explained that Lihaas has huge numbers of political user-boxes, whose contradictions strike me as Dada. I have explained to Elen that her assertion that Lihaas has a coherent political position, combining libertarianism, national socialism, and support of (conservative Catholic Supreme Court Justices) Scalia & Thomas was unwarranted. Nonetheless, Hans Adler wrote instead of reading and informed writing. Would that an Adlerian retraction, recognizing the importance of the ban on unfounded political charges in NPA, be forthcoming!

WTT/David again violates WP:AGF again by speculating about that I was manipulating the RfC by "making a stink" . Would that he correct his AGF/NPA violation about my editing of Penn Kemble, in which he accused me of removing content because of my personal political objections, an accusation made after I had restored the salvageable content!

Shame, shame, shame!

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Spland and the use of non-free files in userspace

Three times prior to today, I have removed non-free files from this user's userpage [44][45][46]. I warned him about this behavior on 31 August 2011 [47], and after he ignored the warning and added another 105 non-free images to his userpage [48] I gave him a final warning [49]. Today, he's returned from a two month absence in editing to add another non-free file (File:Network12.jpg) [50] to his userpage. I have removed it [51], and am seeking a block of this editor's editing privileges until such time as he agrees to stop adding non-free images to his userpage. Editor has been notified of this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Behavior is continuing. He's just added another eight non-free files to his userpage [52]. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• And still, despite being informed this report was asking for his indefinite block due to willful violation of WP:NFCC ([53]), he has continued the behavior [54]. Full protection of his userpage may be required to stop the behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I don't see how that user page complies with WP:UP - is it supposed to be a draft article or is it being used as a free webspace? – ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected until they start discussing this. Looks like they're saving copies of plot summaries from various articles, probably violates WP:UP, but if it's WP-related I wouldn't get too excited about that. They tried to use their talk page for this instead, then thought better of it. Let me know if they start using their talk page for this again, and I'll block the account do something else (I guess a block wouldn't solve that problem). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Blocking while revoking talk page access would solve the problem if it continues. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You told them not to put them on their userpage so they tried the talk page. Blocked for 24 hours. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Userpage is a copyvio - copies content from Wikipedia pages without attribution. I have deleted the page - can email it to him (minus the images) if he needs it for a school project, but he doesn't need it on his userpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

****ed up? No, fucked up!

• Speedfish (talk · contribs · block log)

So we have a kid who is passionate about Wikipedia and who tries to make useful edits. What he doesn't realise is that his browser has a "smart" parental filter that replaces profanities with asterisks, so sometimes he unknowingly "censores" articles he edits by e.g. turning "fuck" into "****". What is wikipedians' response to it? First, admin wannabees throw "not censored!!!11oneone" templates at him. Because he didn't censor anything himself, he didn't understand WTF was going on and was probably too confused to ask. Then, he gets blocked by admins who don't really care that he's not a simple vandal or puritan zealot. Then, other admins are too busy to actually look at his case so they decline his pleas to take a look at the situation. Remember that he's a noob and still did not understand then that the porblem was NOT in his wikification and categorisation! Can you look at situation for longer that five seconds before declining, pretty pleeease?

So the question is: who fucked up is this affair? I don't think that it was him. Can someone please advice this gentleman how to disable or work around his wordfilter and unblock him, after all? Oh yeah, and apologising would be great, too. 46.44.46.91 (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious sock, also, competence is required. Once he saw that his parental filter was messing up articles, he either should have asked his parents to disable the filter (or make Wikipedia an exception to the filter), edited on a different computer, or edited different articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe this is a sock. Speedfish has been editing since Feb 2010, and has been blocked before. This block was not just for the parental filter - there are warnings on his page about several competence issues. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? As far as I can see all the warnings are related to this issue. Some editors have used different warnings for it but having look at this users edits to the pages in question the only objectionable things I see is the censoring. Am I missing something? Dpmuk (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not seeing socking activity here, Ian; i think he's just trying to edit helpfully. Obviously, the filter is an issue, but maybe when the block is ended (and one month is too long at this point, IMHO) he'll show he can edit on the right computer. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 17:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is disruptive, even if it's just due to negligence even after being told that his edits are causing problems, whether it's his fault or in his control or not. Wait, how can it be "didn't know" after he's been told? So at best it's a wall of warnings and harshness falling onto a newbie who doesn't know how to react. I agree a month is a bit long. But if the result of his edits is a pattern of problems, and warnings don't lead to a change in behavior or at least an attempt on editor's part at dialog to figure out the mess, a block is pretty much inevitable. One can't just plow ahead when there's a problem, hoping it will go away and others will stop telling you about it when you keep doing it. DMacks (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

But the warnings aren't very informative as to what the problem is. Not a single one gives an actual edit where there's a problem - they just refer to the article. As a new editor they may not be fully aware of how to use diffs to find out what the problem was and so I expect they genuinely didn't know what the problem was. I happen to believe that it's a filter that's causing the problems as in every case it appears that wasn't the only edit to make and I can't believe someone that was manually censoring would censor "snatching" to "*****ing". Given these changes were in a wall of text I doubt the user noticed them when they made the edit. Maybe they should have asked a bit more about why they were getting warnings but given how new they were they may have just thought there was a glitch somewhere and they were a mistake. As the editor is now aware of what is going on I think they should be unblock as soon as they agree not to edit with the problem browser. Dpmuk (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a point of clarification - Speedfish is not a new editor, at least chronologically. Registered back in 2010. ~2000 edits as well. Syrthiss (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I suppose "new" was probably the wrong word. "Inexperienced" may have been a better description. From their user page and what they've edited (almost entirely article space) I think they're very much a content editor and they may not have had any need to use many wikipedia features, such as diffs. Dpmuk (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To me, it seems Speedfish was wrongly blocked. I f he knew about the filter, he probably would have disabled it. I see competence issues in whoever blocked him. Oviviously he is not doing it intentionally and tries to ake helpful edits. I don't see any sock activity here either. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 18:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

46.44.46.91 is Speedfish, that is where the socking comment stems from. If we could just get a simple "I will no longer use Safari to edit the Wikipedia" promise, I think that should suffice to unblock? Tarc (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say keep the block for socking, but shorten it to one week and get an agreement with the user not to use Safari to edit. That's all. HurricaneFan25 | talk 18:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think that 46.44.46.91 is Speedfish's sock? Their writing styles are completely different. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Since no one seems to have notified the blocking admin of this discussion, I have sent out a notification on their talk page. HurricaneFan25 | talk 18:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, HurricaneFan25. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This whole section is a brilliant example of why I usually stay away from administrators' noticeboards. Why on earth do people make such a big deal out of such a minor incident? There seems to have been an innocent mistake which led to an editor being blocked. Naturally, as soon as I knew about it I unblocked, and left a message which I hope will be helpful to the user. AS far as I can see, that should be all there is to it. But instead we get all that stuff above, admittedly a tiny fraction of the amount that I have seen in many other equally simple cases, but still excessive. We even get "I see competence issues in whoever blocked him". Why? The editor seemed to be editing disruptively, was warned, ignored the warnings, was briefly blocked, continued in the same way, again ignoring warnings, and was eventually blocked for longer. There was no reason that I can see to know that the problem was called by a filter (I didn't even know that there were filters that work like that). The editor did not say "What do you mean? I haven't been censoring anything", but just ignored at least nine messages on the subject. If there is some reason why I should have guessed what was going on then please tell me, but to me it seems that every effort had been made to communicate with the user. Also, why anyone thinks that opening a discussion here was a better idea than just telling me so I could unblock, I can't imagine. Its so simple: Innocent mistake made, now realised, unblock, smiles all round. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: Speedfish is posting on their talkpage that they are still blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Autoblock. I sorted it - he should be able to edit now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We'll see what his browser settings ****s up now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Help requested

Resolved

Hi some idiot (ME) attempted to move Military history of Canada during World War II to Military history of Canada during the Second World War but ended up with Military history of Canada during the Second World WarWorld War could some helpful Admin sort my mess out thanks. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved back to the starting point. I think that move should be discussed at WP:RM before it is moved again. The current form appears to be the one commonly used. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Dxdestroyer and Stargate Universe

Resolved

 – Dxdestroyer destroyed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Starting in March this year the user Dxdestroyer (talk · contribs) started inserting this edit into Stargate Universe. He failed to listen to what was told to him, which resulted in several blocks. Today he's back inserting the same phrase twice so far. This user has nothing productive to add here, can we just get an indef block please? Яehevkor ✉ 17:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If he had a source, it wouldn't be so bad, but his argument is that it's being removed because other editors don't like the show and he's a diehard fan....????? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible sock. Just protect the page and remove the edit. An indef may be needed. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 18:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think the user is a sock? N^oformation ^Talk 18:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Olaf thinks everybody is a sock. :) As for the account in question here, it's pretty obvious judging by his edit history that he's WP:NOTHERE. Indeffing accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks The Bushranger. I doubt sock also - they're just someone who doesn't get it. Яehevkor ✉ 23:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

CueCat article

I'm asking here because of a block and un-block that I've done on the most recent user that appears to be a sock. Before proceeding, I wanted to get additional input from other editors.

On the CueCat article, there has been some strange activity over the past week. I've never edited the article myself (that I can recall), but placed it on my watchlist due to some 3RR activity, which has since lead to some likely quacking sounds. Note: prior to this activity, the article hadn't received much editing in several months.

The first edits were by Ran kurosawa (talk · contribs), whose edits were reversed with the reason "revert extensive whitewash". They restored their edits[55] and made claims of working on a book and having several thousand pages of supporting documents they could provide to Wikipedia[56]. After restoring the content, they then stopped editing for a while.

Next, within two hours, Factiod (talk · contribs) began editing the article and edit-warred with multiple editors over the same material - eventually being blocked by me for 3RR violation. On their talk page, they claimed to be writing a book and having several thousand pages available to supply to Wikipedia[57].

Now, today, the new account Proofplus (talk · contribs) posted to the talk page with the same material. Initially I blocked this account as I thought it was block evasion then corrected to a sock-block ... however, as the accounts hadn't (as yet) been used in attempts to game the system nor used abusively, I've undone the block for now. (Note: The user is making unblock requests on their talk page ... perhaps the auto-block is still there? It didn't appear to be in place, but perhaps I missed it?)

I believe it highly likely that these three accounts are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but would appreciate having some additional reviews. To me, the quacking is so loud that I doubt an SPI would be accepted (behavioural evidence is pretty strong here, to me). But, I would like additional eyes to take a review. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: there had been an autoblock, now lifted by User:Steven Walling (thanks). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: The most recent editor is making a good-faith effort to discuss and not edit war over the content. While I still believe there is sock and/or meat-puppetry taking place, the most recent account is attempting to follow normal DR processes to gain consensus. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Proofplus has been posting to everyone's Talk page who's been involved in the brouhaha about the article and inviting them to respond to his comments. Despite his apparent efforts to be "good", I'm not convinced that his account isn't related to the others. He, like the others, calls himself a researcher. He also talks about IP sets and other issues related to patents. His English, like the others, is poor. Still, trying very hard to assume good faith, I have replied on the article's Talk page to his comments, as best as I could understand them.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, ProofPlus here, female first, grammer is not the topic. Next, I see a continual recurring theme, but I am not really sure about what you are talking about - "same group". But first, since I am from Israel, maybe you are detecting a diffence in language syntax. But, I can see your need to point out others flaws. My understanding is - notify everyone that comments are being made, share ones research and then ask for comments. Did I miss something? My message was vey clear. Posted facts. Gave links. Made suggestions for corrections to the record. I understand the submission issues and have followed them and submitted the links for review. So, maybe that you can understand? If you are having a hard time understanding and reading (I used to tell my Profs that too to bluff them) then I suggest you seek some help and maybe others here can understand my post. I will happily answer any questions, but won't egnage in the sexist stuff trying to say one is incompotent due to language barriers. Hope this is clearer for you now Barek - which is in fact a good Hebrew name!(64.134.28.233 (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Better for you to log into your account when posting. Thanks for the gender correction, but nothing I said was sexist, nor did I say you were incompetent. Also, you didn't really provide sources for your statements on the CueCat Talk page. In any event, what I did in response was I restated what I interpreted you to say so you would understand what I was responding to. It also permits you to correct my interpretation if you think I got it wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

maybe a clarification here. IS Meatpuppet some insult to me being a woman posting in what is so strongly a mans enviroment? Is this ok? Please stop, I find that term very offensive. I have checked my talk page and do not have multiple replies, but Barek states "everyone's talk page". I would asume then Barek is posting to and from multiple accounts? Is this possible? Please help me understand this when possible. Many thanks.(ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

As far as I know, the term meat puppet is not gender-based. See WP:MEAT.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please verify who signed the comment to which you are replying. It appears that the comment "everyone's talk page" was made by Bbb23, not by me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Barek, happy to know meat puppet was not an attack on me. I just provided the following information to Andythegrump and it may be relevant here. But, to confuse me with someone else is not okay and I am sure you can verify such through computers and connections. This may help explain the renewed interest in the cuecat device. Hope reposting it here is fine. (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

SNIP>>Here is my interest in Cue cat. RPX Corp is a public company. One of the old Paul Allen and groups guys collecting IP. They actually own the patents on the technology that was cuecat. Their stock is down 50%, but the cuecat stuff is their largest grouping. Microsoft, Google and others have licensed the former cuecat patents at $6.6 million each company and there seems to be 60 plus companies who have done the same. Supposedly these patents read heavily on G4 and other stuff and since I read the public filings I am very interested. The research I do is FINANCIAL in nature in Middle Eastern markets and seems this stock in RPX will take off and I want to know the facts. While investigating the facts of cuecat, I came across the wiki reference for cue cat and the record is just wrong and factually incorrect and I took it upon myself to add what I found out. Hope this helps. But there is big stuff in the financial markets going on relating to this OLD technology as you call it, but the patents are not old and are the next big thing. Comments? and you can find this is all public record, so I am not saying anything out of line or such. I own no stock in RPX corp, nor am I an investor, I am a researcher doing my required homework for getting to the heart of this technology (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 21:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talk • contribs)

Coconn04

Resolved

 – for now.

Well, I warned Coconn04 (talk · contribs) and he won't stop, so I'm invited him here. I'm not quite sure where to bring this up, but it seems like a good place to start. The editor is constantly adding lengthy quoted segments of various sources to Jack Cassidy and others associated with Cassidy. In addition to unencyclopedic-sounding copyright violations, it's also just way too much detail - like he's trying to turn the artice into a fanzine. But he won't talk about it. He gets warned, he waits, then starts up again. Any suggestions on what to do? Thank you, all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that he's been issued a 3-day block. He's been at this awhile, so I'm not optimistic. But maybe this will at least get his attention. Thank you, Timotheus Canens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Community Discussion of Topic Ban and Interaction Ban

A bit of background can be found here, amongst many other troublesome interactions between User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser found throughout ANI and Wikipedia.

In the link above, there was pretty consistent belief that both a topic ban and a interaction ban would be needed between these two editors. Both edit in highly provocative areas that are subject to closely border AE enforcement. Due to an WP:AN/3RR report, I have blocked both for a 2 week period (matching blocks).

At this point, I think it is important to formalize the rather informally-closed (it faded off the page) discussion of topic ban/interaction ban.

Proposal User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser are topic banned from all Israeli/Palestinian topics, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months. User:Chesdovi and User:Debresser are also indefinitely banned from interaction with each other on Wikipedia. Violations will be met with escalating blocks as per the blocking policy

Note: Both parties have been advised of this thread, and how to make their comments to this thread even though they are blocked (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont think this is related to "Israeli/Palestinian topics", at least what that phrase is commonly understood to mean. It is in motivation, at least I think so, but not in execution. Whether a 12th century rabbi in Safed should be called a "Palestinian" is not in the scope of the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict". nableezy - 18:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• My impression of the long running conflict between these two is that it is theological in nature within the realm of Judaism, and not directly related to the IP conflict. It may be best to have an interaction ban alone. Either can edit whatever they want, but neither should approach, follow, or engage the other. Any sort of provocation or gaming should be met with a block to enforce the prohibition that Wikipedia not be used as an ideological battlefield. Jehochman ^Talk 19:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree it's not IP related; I am concerned with just an interaction ban alone, as that gives first-mover advantage in areas they both already participate in. I don't know what the best solution is off the top of my head, though. I think that pausing the specific proposal while some thought goes into how to pose it in a most constructive and effective manner is a good idea, personally. This is not a rejection of the basis for the proposal (I support doing something at this time), just fine-tuning what we try to do... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm up for some fine-tuning. We have two weeks while they're both blocked :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• (Copying across from talk page) I think this block should be reconsidered, for the reason mention on my talkpage. As for a permanent solution, I don't know. The community has not been able to convince Chesdovi to stop his disruptive edits until he can show consensus. And I am getting blocked for trying to stop him. Makes me feel very appreciated by the community. Also in view of my other over 60,000 edits over a period of many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) copied by Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Debresser was advised more than once to leave Chesdovi alone, and an interaction ban should have been implemented the last time this was at ANI. Debresser knew he would be blocked if further conflict between the 2 of them occurred. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• There are 343 articles (not including talkpages, categories, etc) that both have edited - someone is clearly following someone - indeed, probably both are following each other, which they were both told to stop (hence the blocks) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • (Copying across from Debresser's talk page)Dwilkins, you have not addressed the concerns I mentioned on my talkpage. (in random order) 1. There was no WP:AE edit restriction involved. 2. A block is overkill and counterproductive. A topic ban, or even a mutual promise of a far more restricted nature would be enough here. 3. You do not distinguish between the aggressor and the defender. 4. Many editors have stated in a previous discussion that they would not like to see us blocked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) copied by Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Debresser, if you're trying to paint yourself as the "defender" in your point 3 above, contrary to even a cursory look at your edits and your interaction with other editors, good luck getting anyone to swallow it. pablo 15:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Cool though the intersect tool is, since both editors are active in the same area, assuming that "following" is going in is a slight leap. Moreover we know that historically (WP timeframe, not South Levant) category deletions were involved in this dispute, so we should not be surprised to see this overlap per se. Rich Farmbrough, 13:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC).
    
• I've been involved here before as well. Whilst both editors are productive and a block is unfortunate, we do need to sort the issue out. The problem is that you can't have an interaction ban without a topic ban, as mentioned above that would just give the first person to edit an IP (or any other) article the immediate advantage; also it's too messy and vague - what would be the delay between both editors editing an article that would be acceptable? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Can't this be resolved by them agreeing to refer disagreements to WikiProject Judaism? Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC).
  
• (copied from usertalk) I'd agree to an arrangement where both of us voluntarily abstain from making the problematic edits (adding nationality and locality to any of the Jewish sages and anything closely related to this according to either one of us), till such time as the issue is resolved on WP:CENTRAL or WP:JUDAISM (where we could participate, of course, perhaps with a limit of one post per day) (but Rfc's on article pages are not the venue to solve project wide issues). That would be something like a topic-ban until the issue is resolved. But this two-week block I find unjust, and I ask Bwilkins and other admins to reconsider in view of the compelling arguments above (which he yet has to reply to) (see at length my unblock request on my talkpage). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)
  • I think Debresser has made a very good suggestion here. As far as I can tell, the entire dispute stems from a single issue. Chesdovi's previous attempt to solve the problem was an RfC at Talk:Palestine, which I believe was undertaken in good faith. I agree with Debresser that this issue needs a centralized discussion. (I offer no opinion about lifting the block.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the entire dispute runs for months (if not years) ... a simple search above for Debresser or Chesdovi on either AN or ANI provides a wide range of issues, accusations, concerns, problems, poor interactions all brought forward by both sides. I'm not saying that any of the editors is worse or better than the other, it has to be resolved so that future BS does not occur. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

(Copied from user talk page) BWilkins, unbeknowst to yourself, I am currently topic banned from I/P for a year (on some spurious basis), and I have a self-imposed interaction ban with the "other" annoying, arrogant and despicable editor, as I indcated to you a while back. So your proposal in in fact truly ineffective. This will never be resolved until some willing Admin actually involves themsleves in the knitty-gritty issue at hand, instead of implementing useless blocks. I have tried everything possible, two RFCs, two DRNs, appeals at wikiprojects, etc. etc. So don't blame any of this on me. While consensus to keep Palestinain rabbis has been reached umpteen times, Debresser will not accept it. It is further just not possible to concrete that "consensus" while Debresser reverts each time! Debresser thinks he is right. I know I am right. Now you sort it out. Threatening us we blocks and sanctions will not get the project, or your reputation as an effective and fair Admin, anywhere. Chesdovi (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• For well over 24 hours nobody has looked into my unblock request. Where I think I make a strong case that my block is based upon a misunderstanding, unjust and overkill. I am quite unpleasantly surprised that nobody, including the blocking admin has yet replied to the arguments I mention> Just saying that the situation is problematic, is not a reason to block me. In reaction to Pablo: if you'd care to do some research, you'd find that I am indeed the defender. I have, with very rare exceptions done nothing but protect this project from the aggression of Chesdovi, who has been trying to push his opinion with hundreds of edits throughout all namespaces. Just check all those 349 pages that Bwilkins mentions, and see for yourself, who made the first edit on them. Debresser (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC) copied by Jab7842 (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Your unblock request was declined two days ago by a wholly uninvolved admin. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see that, in general, (ie not just in relation to Chesdovi), you probably do see yourself as defending articles. The problem is, that you appear to be displaying ownership of these articles. pablo 12:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think unblocks with broad six month AI topic bans along with an interaction ban for both of them would be the next step. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Interaction bans—by all means. But the problem isn't related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. It has to do with whether to refer to ancient and medieval rabbis as Palestinians. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't ancient rabbis just be Israelites? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they'd have haggled over this for so long if not for the IP/AI conflict. Only as an aside, Jewish and Palestinian folks lived side by side and mostly peacefully in Palestine for more than two thousand years. I understand why someone might want to call the rabbis Palestinians and I understand why someone might want to call them Israelites, let the sources have sway and if there are sources which say either or, let the editorial content echo that too, it's not hard. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with letting the sources have sway is that the word "Palestinian" changed meaning considerably in 1948. Before that time, it was frequently used to refer to Jews who lived in Palestine. Today the word is used almost exclusively to refer to Palestinian Arabs.

The only topic ban that would make a dent here would be one that prohibits either editor from adding or removing the words "Palestine"/"Palestinian" or "Land of Israel", pending a centralized discussion. I think that's the only thing, short of banning one editor or the other, that's going to put an end to this. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so let editorial content echo that too. A narrower ban on them making edits carrying any form of the words Palestinian or Israel, broadly construed, along with an indef interaction ban, may be enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• (copied from user's talk by User:Bwilkins) Malik is correct in saying that the meaning of "Palestinian" has changed to refer soley to non-Jews nowadays. But when discussing history, we use historic terms. The words Palestine still is used to refer to pre-1948 Israel. That will never change. It is therefore valid to term people from that period "Palestinian". The more I read on this subject, the more I see the term is used to refer to such people. The latest book I read was published in 1978 and was a collection of scientific discourses. It was editied by two leading Orthodox Jewish personalities, Aryeh Carmel and Cyril Domb, and ancient rabbis are called "Palestinian". Now Debresser may want to burn this book due to that offending word, but it is crystal clear that the term "Palestinian" is used by contemporary mainstream neutral Jewish RS, just as "Palestine" is used to describe the historic region. Who can claim to the contrary? Even the chief rabbi used to term to refer to Levi ibn Habib. But Debresser will just not accept these facts. As he so idiotically stated: To use such a word to describe a Jewish person is, wait for it: "anti-semitic". Can you now begin to understand his mindset? He said he would "fight will all his might" to stop the word being used. Is that normal expression for a wiki-editor or does it indicate a strong POV related to the I/P conflcit? For Debresser, this indeed is associated with the conflict, but for me, coming purley from a historical viewpont, this has little to do with it. Debresser's opposition to this is a clear case of politically inspired POV which has no place here and I find it very hard why other editors do not recognise this. Debresser can state as much, and as hard as he wants, that there was never a place called "Palestine", but any person with a grain of intellect will just smirk at such a stupid assumption. The Encylopedia Judaica calls Daniel ben Azariah "Palestinian", but God forbid for us to use it here. I find Debresser a disruptive, arrogant and foul-mouthed menace. He has lost any credibility in my mind. Wikipedia should not be pandering to the views of such people. Every fickle argument Debresser has forwarded on this subject, I have refuted. As far as I am concerned, the majority of the communtiy concede usage is valid, but Debresser continues to reject it and enforce his own opinion. There have been enough centralised discussions on the matter. The conclusion, believe it or not, is that "Palestinian" can indeed refer to people of historic Palestine, be they rabbis or christian monks. Any one who wants to help out here should try and convince Debresser of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesdovi (talk • contribs)

  Well, as far as I can see, within certain temporal boundaries, there may be synonyms (Palestine and Land of Israel, Palestinian and Israelite) which would be invalid outside those temporal boundaries. That doesn't mean that the choice of terms is arbitrary. If one term is clearer than the other then that should be used. If one term is more accurate than the other then that should be use. If those two edicts are in significant conflict then accuracy should be followed with appropriate explanatory text. We are not writing WP primarily for the historical scholars who will have their own sources, but for a far more general readership. This is not so hard to resolve, surely. Rich Farmbrough, 12:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC).
  

  Reading through Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_2#Category:16th-century_Palestinian_rabbis it appears that terms both more accurate and more clear exist. I also think that discussion will inform anyone trying to take a view on this situation, although of course it is only part of the wider context which is very TLDR. Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC).
  

• (Copied over from User talk:Debresser by User:Gwen Gale: Yes, adding the words "Palestine" and "Palestinian" or "Land of Israel" - in general not adding any ethnic or geographic description - to articles (main article namespace only, I mean) about Jewish sages - and more generally Jews - should do it. There simply is no reason for a broader ban, because Chesdovi is already topic banned under WP:ARBPIA, and I don't edit such articles, as my contributions show. The ban should last until centralized (really central, not like before) discussion has reached a consensus. I think that discussion should be opened by somebody other than us. Perhaps Malik Shabazz would agree to open it. In order to avoid that discussion turning into a debate between the two of us, I think we should be restricted to 1 edit a day in that discussion. In addition I'd ask for my (or our) block(s) to be lifted, because from that moment on the block(s) would be only punitive. (That is in addition to the arguments I have mentioned before. In all earnest, I would really like to know how editors like Bwilkins and Pablo think I should have acted to defend the project from Chesdovi's edits in a way that would not have lead to my being blocked here repeatedly. You are invited to write me on my talkpage about this.) into the discussion at WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well you might consider editing only subjects and articles in which you have less of an investment, and on which you able to work collegially with other editors, tather than feeling that you have to defend "your" articles quite so much. pablo 09:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • (copy/pasted from User talk:Debresser by User:Bwilkins Pablo, please be a little less hostile and accusing. The accusations of WP:OWN are strange in view of the fact that I hadn't edited almost any of those articles before Chesdovi came along and made his usual (read tendentious) edits on them. Did you do your homework? I recommended you to check all those articles and see who of the two of us made the first edit. Perhaps after that, you'll change your tune. Debresser (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Er...so, you're just admitting that you're following a user around, even though you have been told in the past to not do that? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(copied by User:Bwilkins) No, Bwilkins. I ran into his edits in various places. Some of them he posted triumphantly on WT:JUDAISM, until people told him in no fine language that they had enough of that. Other articles I had on my watchlist. His talkpage was (and is) on my watchlist as well, since I posted there a few times. Sometimes I would notice an edit in one article, and check his contributions to see whether he made any more such edits. But I would not regularly check his edits, no. I have a distinct feeling there is a lack of assuming good faith from a few editors here... And in view of your lack of good faith and the unjustified block (you have not replied to any of my arguments), let me add. When will you understand I was (and am) only trying to protect the status quo on this project from the onslaught of one disruptive editor who has made many attempts to push his tendentious edits, but never gained consensus for them? Have you checked that such is indeed the case? Please do. Never in all the discussions he started (and I won't even go into his behavior in those discussions) has he gained consensus for his point of view. Always a majority of editors have preferred other expressions. So why did WP:ANI admins allow him to go unpunished when I posted here all those times before now. So in a way you yourself (including a few of the other admins who have partaken in this thread) are responsible for this escalation. So please be so kind, and do not turn me into your scapegoat. I have posted a fair proposition above. Let's go with it, and move things from their present unfortunate state — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs)

If I was a prosecuting attorney, I'd blink and say "wow, you proved everyone's case better than I could have myself" :-) Thank you for proving the block was necessary, valid, and just. WP:NOTTHEM might just be a good thing for you to read while you're blocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• (Copied over from User talk:Debresser by User:JohnCD: Have you checked what I asked you to check, or haven't you? Instead of asserting you did the right thing blocking me, perhaps you start looking into what happened. You have never defended your decision to block me, although I have been implored you to look into the facts, point you to the relevant places. After all, admins are supposed to give account of their actions as well, when asked to do so. Other admins are likewise invited to see the facts for themselves. Also I find it less than helpful that you do not reply to my proposal about how to get out of this mess. That is what I would expect an impartial and wise admin to have foremost among his priorities, rather than gloating about his blocks. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• (Copied over from User talk:Chesdovi by User:JohnCD: Why can we just not rely on RS to use the word "Palestinian" to describe medieval rabbis? Claiming that the term is confusing holds no credibility in the face of widespread contemporary usage in mainstream RS. Further, 3RR reports on Israel ben Meir di Curiel. He is described at Palestinian rabbis, as "a rabbi who lived in the region known as Palestine", yet the region he lived in is removed by Debresser because it is "controversial". What is that supposed to mean? Why is it "controversial." Is adding "Israel" not "controversial?", besides from being a absolute untruth. The AFD and rejection of two "potential renames" supports the fact that using such a classification for such rabbis has been accepted. It is now up to the community to impress upon Debresser that any removal of the word "Palestine/Palestinian" from any "Jewish" pages will be dealt with accordingly. Chesdovi (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(de-archived (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

So, are we going to enact an interaction ban or a topic ban or are we going to pass the buck? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's fine-tune the topic ban:

• Both editors should be banned for six months from any naming issues concerning 'Palestine' or 'Palestinian' in both articles and talk pages
• In general, they can make no edits that assume any particular answer to the following question:

  What term should be used to designate the country of people who were from the region of what is today called "Israel and the Palestinian territories" from Antiquity, thru to the Middle Ages and up to 1948?

• These editors may add no categories to articles that assume that either 'Palestinian' or 'Israeli' is the correct answer. They are allowed to pose neutral questions to others as to the tagging of articles that *they create themselves*. Except for that, they must be silent on the subject.
• If this ban is adopted either by consensus here or by voluntary agreement, the blocks on these two editors might be lifted at that point. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This IP is up to no bloody good whatsoever

I don't have the competence to change its edits to Des Moines but they're vanadalistic, as will become obvious if you look at them. And they're still there a couple of days later - not to mention the crap I just removed from photophobia.

A MASSIVE BLOCK is suggested 86.176.78.175 (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just report them at WP:AIV if you think they need to be blocked; it's regular minor vandalism, and we get this a lot, so a "MASSIVE BLOCK" is not needed, IMO. HurricaneFan25 | talk 21:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, you're supposed to notify people when you post about them at AIV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"Salisbury STEAK House"? Cute. The IP must be hungry. In any case, HurricaneFan25 has fixed it, and the IP only made the 2 edits to the article, and 4 total in the last month, all of them vandalistic, but he's probably too sporadic (at present) to warrant a block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Ludwigs2 on Talk:Muhammad/images

A little background: Talk:Muhammad/images is a special talk page created to deal with the large number of editors who come to complain about showing depictions of Muhammad on the Muhammad article, due mostly to religious considerations. Consensus has been decided on multiple occasions that images of Muhammad are acceptable on the page, this has been truly exhaustively discussed in the past as you can tell by the large disclaimer on the top of the talk page, and by reading the archives. This does not mean that consensus cannot change, but it's unlikely and doesn't seem to be happening now.

Furthermore, WP:NOTCENSORED is unambiguous when it states "Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations."

User talk:Ludwigs2 has made it goal recently to strip the article of images of Muhammad on the basis that it offends Muslims. It is true that some sects of Islam consider it unethical to depict Muhammad as I'm sure most people here know.

It has been explained ad nauseum to Ludwig that policy does not allow us to consider religious beliefs when writing this encyclopedia and his response is that we should invoke WP:IAR. I explained to him that IAR still needs to be determined by a consensus and that he cannot unilaterally invoke it to force a POV into the article. His response was that other editors are abusing the rules by enforcing them and if we stop abusing the rules then he will stop IAR.

This conversation has been going back and forth with the same points being explained by several editors many times, and it has now crossed the WP:TE line - the entire page is one large WP:BATTLEGROUND at this point, with several WP:IDHT, WP:NPA and WP:AGF issues such as accusing all the other editors opposing removal (which as far as I can tell is all other editors, though there are editors who would like less images for various reasons) of WP:OWN and expressing disbelief that the people he's dealing with can think the way they do and still be normal adults.

I'm asking that an uninvolved admin assess the situation and determine if Lugwigs2 requires some kind of a warning or if I'm being overly dramatic, and I thank you in advance for reading the talk page thread because it is a bit long.

The relevant thread is here. I'm not posting diffs because the entire thread demonstrates the points I am attempting to illustrate, as it's not a single comment that is at issue here. There are other threads involved in this discussion, but this is the most recent and best highlights my complaint.

N^oformation ^Talk 01:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This was bound to hit the AN/I fan sooner or later, just one massive Facepalm. If I may offer a pre-rebuttal to what Ludwigs2 is like about to touch on here, neither I nor IMO anyone else asserts ownership of the Muhammad article. I have said "images will not be removed this article" as a simple acknowledgement of the slim-to-none chance that it would ever actually happen. It's like saying "Ron Paul will never be President" or "the Bills will never win the Super Bowl". One is not staking out an aggressive posture against either scenario taking place, but is rather acknowledging the likelihood of occurrence, or lack thereof. It has also been endlessly frustrating to deal with a user who demands existing policy be bent in an absolutely wrong direction to accommodate someone's religious beliefs. And not even a specific someone, all of this is in defense of nebulous "some people out there don't like this article" sensibilities. Tarc (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have said similar and have elaborated in the same way. The article can certainly change if a consensus to do so is formed, but it will not be done based on religious considerations and the chances of the article being depiction free are slim. This is not asserting ownership. N^oformation ^Talk 01:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe the term you're looking for is "Slim to none, and Slim left town". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A very very tiny portion of the diffs of behavior related to this can be found here[58] (this was for an AN/I or RfC/U I planned on filing but am still working on organizing and moving the diffs over from an offline copy). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just noting that I am aware of this thread, and to clarify some misperceptions in Nofo's presentation. beyond that I will allow administrtors to review the material before commenting further.

comments on Nofo's summary:

• I am not trying to "strip the article of images of Muhammad on the basis that it offends Muslims." As I have said repeatedly on the talk page, I want to undertake a frank evaluation of the value of these images to the article to see if keeping them is worth all the immense amounts of trouble that they cause. as Nofo noted, there is a special subpage (with 16 archives) all focused on these images; one would expect the images to be of vital importance to the page for all of that conflict, yet as far as I can tell they are at best decorative illustrations. That struck me as nonsensical - why cause this much trouble over eye-candy?
• Nofo and Tarc have (understandably) downplayed the extent of wp:page ownership. I have had at least four editors (including one admin) tell me bald-face that the images will not be removed under any circumstances, and that any discussion of the matter is unacceptable (two most reacent examples [59],[60], though there are dozens) I have consequently been forced to turn to wp:IAR simply to get any sort of discussion going.
  • The IAR justification, incidentally, is over the misuse of NOTCENSORED: the policy is being used to retain images that have no particular value to the article but are highly controversial - effectively offending a significant population of our readers and damaging the project's reputation without any overriding encyclopedic reason.

please review the talk page at your leisure; happy to answer any questions. Hopefully this can be resolved without further drama on the page. --Ludwigs2 01:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

P.s. this has been cast as being about me, but there are at least two other editors in the discussion making similar arguments to mine who have not been notified. I will leave notices in their talk (I don't want to involve them unless they choose to participate here). --Ludwigs2 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That is so very not true, and I can provide faaaar more diffs to prove it's not than the tiny handful in the link I posted above. Shall I? ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I very clearly said "without a consensus for your position, these images will not be removed" in that diff, I seriously doubt anyone will read that as ownership. N^oformation ^Talk 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors insist on calling the Bible stories fairy tales, without concern for offense to Jewish and Christian believers. What's so special about Muslims, that they should be catered to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fairy tales? In mainspace? Do we? --FormerIP (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Example? I rather think we tolerate highly biased articles making out that Jesus' existence is uncontested historical fact and stuff like that. Not that this supports Ludwigs2's case. --FormerIP (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Bugs: when it comes right down to it, I don't really care who gets offended, so long as the project has a valid, encyclopedic reason to do the offending. If we need controversial material, we use controversial material, but do we really want to be throwing controversial material in our readers' faces for no reason whatsoever? see the recent foundation resolution on controversial content. --Ludwigs2 02:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, at AN/I, you actually decided to make such a claim, even though diffs to prove your true motivations and feelings on this matter are right here for all to see? (to everyone else) This is why I think nothing short of a topic ban is going to stop the tendentiousness, disruptiveness and editing in bad faith (not to mention erroneous claims of being attacked while attacking others). In my opinion, that entire comment shows a bad faith response as can be noted from over a dozen diffs showing (in his own words) it is not his true motivations. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Considering that depictions of Muhammed are usually verboten, their mere presence is of major educational benefit here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous argument, Bugs. Here's a gratuitous and excessive counterexample of something that is offensive but we have no educational mission to include. The concept that we should include offensive material just because no one else will host it is jaw-droppingly silly. SDY (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And that's a ridiculously, jaw-droppingly silly, and thoroughly bogus comparison. Unless you're aware of some American law restricting depictions of Muhammed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you think we should include kiddie porn if the laws of Florida didn't say no? Maybe we should include the goatse.cx image for its "educational value"? Including gratuitous offensive images is tasteless and crude: if they have clear educational value that should be easy to defend. Including them for the sake of some twisted sense of entitlement about freedom from censorship is not writing an encyclopedia. SDY (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If there's an alternate universe where kiddie porn isn't universally condemned as wrong and depraved, and is instead accepted, and if there's a wikipedia in that universe, they'd probably have kiddie porn in their article. The comparison is way too weak because of all the fundamentally unique issues that apply to child pornography that don't apply to almost anything else. Interestingly, I don't particularily think that a category exists whose members are "child porn, goatse.cx and the religious prophet Muhammad". N^oformation ^Talk 03:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Images that might be taken as extremely offensive, perhaps? The complete cultural blindness of this site is shocking sometimes. We have very different ideas about encyclopedias. Regardless, this isn't the place for this conversation. SDY (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: "cultural blindess" - good thing too, if it weren't culturally blind, it would be a very shitty encyclopedia, especially with all the various interests that have tried subverting article after article. My time here at RC has proven that to me. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. There's no way I'm reading through all the material here, major case of tl;dr, but I would suggest to Ludwig that his reasoning is dubious when he argues that a possibly valid reason to remove images from said article is simply because they are causing more trouble than they are worth, when it is he who is causing most of the trouble. I agree with the original poster that an uninvolved admin might perhaps need to have a chat with Ludwig and possibly issue a warning. This discussion has truly been done to death at a variety of locations on wikipedia, and I really think it's time for Ludwig to let this issue go. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a read through of the entire section myself to get to grips with the situation. Wrt to the point raised re ownership, I didn't see any particular signs of it. I read the various "these pictures will never be removed" comments as "these pictures will never be removed based on the position you are taking". Frankly speaking, all I read was the same argument repeated over and over again until it was escalated into heel digging and declarations of applying IAR ad nauseam until the pictures were removed for the sake of the sensibilities of religious hysterics. --Blackmane (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe this was brought here. Ludwigs2 is not just repeating the same arguments over and over again. The most recent round of discussion was kicked off by the resolution recently passed by the WMF on controversial content. Raising the issue here on Wikipedia with what are very easily our most "controversial images" was fully acceptable. In response, Ludwigs has been met with abuse and vitriol. Ludwigs eventually decided to pursue an RfC (supported by myself, Anthonyhcole, and others); a number of regular editors (Tarc is the worst, but also Robertmfromli) have made strong attempts to stop the RfC. When a group of editors attempt to assert that their understanding of policy is so obviously correct and their opponents are so obviously wrong that we shouldn't even ask for the community's input, that is the very definition of ownership. Now, I will admit that Ludwigs2 is on the extreme end, and the chances of his preferred outcome (i.e., no pictorial images whatsoever) is essentially a no-go, but Anthonyhcole has done a very good job of pointing out that there is a middle ground here that needs to be considered (i.e., that by including so many images from a very narrow time period and fairly narrow interpretation of Islam we are in fact violating WP:UNDUE). WP:CENSORSHIP is fine, but it is being used as a bludgeon on that page, as if its very existence means that anyone who even considers removal of any images there is nothing other than a Sunni apologist. My opinion is, once we settle on a wording, we need to let the RfC run. If it turns out (as is likely) to support the extremist "all images are good position", then fine--of course, Ludwigs2 and any other editor must be free to pursue further dispute resolution. That has really been my position all along: that a group of editors are essentially trying to prevent dispute resolution due to their sense of their own unerring interpretation of policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Qwyrxian: Me? I tried stopping the RfC? Are you truly serious? I kindly ask you to review the page history. I was willing to give up[61][62] because of Ludwigs2's actions, but I *NEVER* tried stopping it. The exact opposite is true. *I* restarted it THREE times[63][64][65] and *I* made the only proposal that had any chance at getting any images removed (other than you tacking virtually the same proposal onto proposal #5). So, would you like to retract that claim that I tried stopping the RfC? And apologies for the bolded text, but your claim is so vastly different than what really happened. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Qwyrxian: Apologies for any tone you may read into that. That page is a massive mess, and I am sure you simply missed the things I pointed out above. I am upset about such a claim being made against me, but I know (from seeing you around for a long time) that it's nothing more than not having gotten a handle on that massive walls-o-text talk page. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This AN/I is about Ludwig's behavior, not the content discussion. There may be a middle ground and that's fine but in the meantime Ludwig has made personal attacks, assigned motives to other editors and yes, has repeated the same argument regarding offending Muslims over and over again to the point of WP:TE. He is yet to make a policy based argument against WP:NOTCENSORED, which specifically rules out using religious belief as a valid criteria of building the pedia. Instead he invokes IAR, which he would not need to do if policy was on his side. Yes there have been edits by editors who share my view on the images that made me cringe, I didn't find their behavior bad enough to take to AN/I, but if you do then by all means open up a case. However, in what you wrote above all you did was point to the behavior of others and not that of Ludwigs. Please see some of the diffs below. N^oformation ^Talk 04:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to this, I have absolutely no problem with an RFC nor do I oppose changes to the way images in the article are handled, and I don't think other editors do either. The problem people have is that we cannot make a case based on Ludwig's reasoning that it offends religious beliefs. Other arguments are fine. I brought this thread here so that an uninvolved admin can step in and calm the waters - not to stifle discussion or stop DR. N^oformation ^Talk 04:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I find Ludwigs2's arguments quite sensible, and am more inclined to the view that there are a number of editors opposing Ludwigs2 who are overinvolved on that page, and who are turning this into a battleground over principle. I am still trying to get up to speed with the subject matter, but as far as I can make out, pictorial representations of Muhammad have never been as common and widespread in Muslim traditions as pictorial representations of Christ in the Christian tradition, for example; so the basic situation is a completely different one. We should focus on the most common types of representation (calligraphy etc.), just as we focus on the most typical depictions of Jesus in his article. Even among such pictorial depictions of Muhammad as did exist, the majority showed him as a flame, or veiled; yet most of the pictures we feature are those of the rarer naturalistic type – so they are both unrepresentative and more likely to cause offence. If we keep in mind that we should balance educational value and potential offence, the only reasonable conclusion is that we have far too many naturalistic images of Muhammad in the article. Perhaps one veiled one, and one showing him as a flame, might be reasonable, because these are the common styles. It might also make sense to look at how other encyclopaedias are handling this; Britannica for example does not include any images of Muhammad at all, as far as I can see; neither in the Micropaedia and Macropaedia articles on Muhammad, nor in the Macropaedia article on Islamic art (which is mostly non-pictorial). We'll probably need an RfC on the content issue at some point, and that should be well-prepared, and underpinned by serious research. --JN466 05:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many arguments to be made on the article's talk page, but one of them is not that it's against Islamic tradition. And again, this is about Ludwig's behavior, not the content dispute. N^oformation ^Talk 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, as someone who has only happened on this page this past week, I see lots of "I didn't hear that" and aspersions from the other side as well, rather than an effort to seek compromise and consensus. I think everybody on that page needs a cooling-off period. (By the way, note WP:NAUSEUM.) And to address the point of tradition, I think we can agree that naturalistic depictions of Muhammad are rare, and nowhere near representative of how Muhammad is represented in Islamic tradition. --JN466 05:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A small portion of Ludwigs2 behavior and comments

• Engages community in attempt to remove images based on Foundation resolution[66]
• Very next post, claims (in edit summary) "the astonishment is general, not a function or religion"[67] yet the only known objection is religious beliefs.
• One justification repeatedly trumped out is "[...]and since none of the images of the prophet presented on the page are factual[...]"[68] (one of many diffs) - yet refuses to believe that such would apply to pictures of Euro-Jesus - while admitting it is because people aren't (religiously) offended by such.[69] thus indicating (again and again) the real issue is one of religious offense and not whether the images are "factual".
• Earlier admits his motivations are religious in nature[70] - continues to do so, such as[71]
• VERY early on, starts accusing those who he disagrees with of having a prejudicial tone[72] - they cite policy and it's uniform use, he calls their tone "prejudicial"
• He suggests an RfC[73], which gets given actual attention and yet two days later tries end runs around an RfC that obviously won't remove every image of Muhammad by attempting to remove one editor using WQA[74], and an attempted an end run at ArbCom hinting at our behavior (with diffs) while claiming that isn't part of it[75] (diff to final post on proposed ArbCom case so entire thread can be viewed). During this ArbCom end run attempt, he tries pointing out a "deep ideological divide in the community" by pointing out a Village Pump proposal that shows the exact opposite.[76]
• (Also) DURING the attempt to formulate an RfC to address such concerns, those with opposing viewpoints and vastly different understanding of policy than him are labeled (by him) as showing or having a bias, not AGF, incivility, anti-Muslim sentiments, personal attacks (against him), etc,[77][78][79]
• Advises he will continue[80] to bring up what amounts to policy changes in the wrong venue. Advised he should go to the right venue[81]. Obviously refuses by actions (see talk page) and again repeats (after being told by multiple editors that it's getting tendentious (and disruptive))[82][83][84]^{(and plenty more)} that he will continue to do so anyway, even after acknowledging the correct venue (and even responding with "tenacious" once in response to claims of his "tendentious"ness) [85][86]

Added by ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We need to limit this discussion to Ludwigs2's behavior. We *really* don't want to hash out the image controversy here as it's one that will never achieve consensus anyway. Rklawton (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It achieved consensus long ago (that a few images stay) and has had it ever since. What it will never achieve is universal agreement, but that's not the same thing. Johnbod (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I was just about to post the same thing. N^oformation ^Talk 02:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed as well, but in fairness to Ludwigs, we need to limit it to everyone's behaviour, even if I echo others in believing that he himself is responsible for nearly all of the conflict. Now, onto the point, I won't repeat everything RobertM has said, but I have a collection of links myself that echos those. The one I will leave is typical of his behaviour on that talk page: "...the extravagant effort I see dumped into defending these trivial images is only explainable by deep-seated anti-Islamic prejudice." This was from last weekend, but he has made several similar accusations of bigotry and racism, the most recent of which I saw was from yesterday. That is pretty much his MO. We need to remove images of "the prophet" because some Muslims are offended, and therefore anyone who does not support his goal of censoring the article must be a bigot. He has been tendentious in the extreme and routinely makes bad-faith arguments against his opponents. Resolute 03:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cannot but agree that Ludwigs has been speculating on the motives of editors at that page and he should stop. Ludwigs2 is by no means the only offender. I would very much appreciate it if all the editors on that page would apply WP:TALK. It is extremely tedious trying to engage in rational argument when every fifth paragraph seems to be about editor behaviour or speculations about motive, from every direction. It draws out the process and just makes people dig in their heels. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The whole recent discussion on that page seems to have degenerated into battleground mode. I would not want to lay the responsibility for that at any one individual editor's doorstep. --JN466 05:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe we are on our 5th attempt at an RfC (which ironically he proposed and tried to circumvent). I even proposed an RfC that actually had a chance of getting an image or three removed (the "all or none" ones we know wouldn't change anything, and Ludwigs' written or implied as "none or none" ones weren't going to happen). If that's not a compromise, I don't know what is. Worse yet, there isn't anything else that can be compromised on in that venue. The rest require policy changes or policy addendums - where, on well over a dozen occasions, Ludwigs2 was suggested to go. We can't change nor ignore WP:CENSOR. At least 4 times, a viable compromise in the form of an RfC that may have removed some images was proposed.

And finally, the rest of us don't really need to cool off. We just don't need tendentiousness and every RfC attempt turned into a circus of repeated IAR claims and repeated claims of (grossly paraphrased) "ooh, you attacked me again!" I disagree with various of your points, yet you and I are going back and forth in good faith with points and counter-points and listening to each other. Same with other editors.

Yes, it's been difficult for us to ignore Ludwigs2, and I think all of us have tried, and most of us have failed... but ignoring him doesn't work either. And I've got pages of history in the talk page archives - plus the current page - to prove that. Simply responding to each other (as you and I have been doing) results in walls of the "Policy Whack A Mole" game, accusations towards other editors, single purpose IAR rants, and so on. I'll gladly do no more than provide a link to the Village Pump each time from now on, so the rest of us can discuss... but, at this point, the number of accusations and attacks on editors from him has gotten ridiculous, as has the tendentiousness and disruptiveness. I personally think he's long overdue for a topic ban. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Rob, this is a complex issue. It will take time for calm rational discussion to arrive at an idea of the best way forward, if indeed anything needs to be done. There is no hurry. The only problem I see at that page is a tendency for many editors, of every persuasion, to allow themselves to be sidetracked into ad hominem. You can ignore ad hominem. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, you are correct. And my apologies, if my frustrations at others ever got misplaced and misdirected at you or anyone else. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Topic ban? Ludwigs2 seems to be behaving no differently on this article than he has on astrology, pregnancy and acupuncture. (On Men's rights, it seems that his presence provides a useful counterfoil to some of the newly arrived editor-activists.) Almost all his contributions to the discussion on the image subpage appear to be outside wikipedia policy; and he still has not succeeded in finding a way to engage with other users who do not share his opinions, without causing offense. In this case, he has been shifting between several different lines of argument in a way which makes it very hard to see whether he has any coherent objections beyond WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. My suggestion is that, since he seems intent on producing more heat than light and at the same time causing offense, his presence on that talk page is purely disruptive and not a net positive for the project. Perhaps the best way foward is for Ludwigs2 to be topic banned from all discussions of images on wikipedia for a preliminary period of six months. (On astrology, he was topic-banned for six months.) Mathsci (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sadly, Support I tried avoiding going to this forum for quite some time (hence I never even finished adding diffs to the report I started in my userspace), but I think we are at the point this is the only viable option. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ludwigs2 is needed to balance the POV of that article. It is striking how the illustrations of our article on Jesus are fully consistent with and celebratory of Christian tradition, while the illustrations in our article on Muhammad are not only inconsistent with Islamic tradition, but actually offensive to many muslim readers. That should anyone give just a moment's pause for thought about the neutrality that this project aspires to, and the extent to which we have achieved that lofty aim. --JN466 06:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

AN/I page fixed - please repost comments that were deleted

An editor accidentally doubled the size of AN/I by copy pasting the whole page into the edit box, so there have been two versions. I fixed it but some comments got deleted, please check the diffs and repost if your comment is gone. N^oformation ^Talk 02:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Crouch, Swale

This user is a massive sockpuppeteer and per the most recent actions, has no intent of quitting. Even impersonating banned user Scibaby. I therefore propose a full ban. Calabe1992 (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support for whatever good it will do. Rklawton (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support – He's banned in my book at least; I've already been reverting all his edits and deleting all his creations as of late, mainly because he knows he can. –MuZemike 02:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Doubt this will make much difference but they clearly deserved to be banned. Was involved in this at the beginning and then get distracted by writing a PhD thesis so hadn;t realised how bad this had got. Dpmuk (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support, his disruption is not limited to mainspace, for example this inane move request. Kid needs to find something better to do with his life. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. We really shouldn't need the formal ban process, but since it's a good way officially to say "Goodbye" to a troublemaker, it's better that we do it. We definitely need to say "Goodbye". Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP violations and incivility by user Xizer

Xizer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted to their old block laden past behaviour and is edit-warring at William_Adams_(judge) overturning consensus reached at WP:BLPN and engaging in gross personal attacks: diff1. I request a block of this user to prevent further disruption. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary "Haha. Do it, bitch." causes me an immediate high level of concern. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ks0stm. Please also look at the report below where Xizer alleges incivility on my part yet provides no examples. This is tendentious editing on top of gross incivility and violation of consensus arrived at WP:BLPN and edit-warring BLP violations as well. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Are Keizers (talk · contribs) and Xizer related? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked Xizer 48 hours for the flagrant incivility in this edit summary. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much Ks0stm. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violations and incivility by user Dr.K.

Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently edit-warring at William_Adams_(judge) overturning valuable, well-sourced contributions to this article that are not in any violation of Wikipedia policy. As this is now Dr.K.'s third revert of the article today, this user is now in violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule as the rule clearly states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.

No consensus on WP:BLPN has been reached as to whether or not this article should contain information pertaining to current events surrounding the controversial Internet video that has surfaced and has now been mentioned numerous times by credible news outlets such as CNN and NBC.

Go read the discussion of the article on WP:BLPN. It's literally just four dudes discussing whether or not the article should even exist, not what content should be included in said article. Xizer (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RRN is the best place to report edit warring. As far as the talk page is concerned, why not take it to AFD if people think it should be deleted? That would solve the problem for a while. N^oformation ^Talk 02:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This report (by Xizer (talk · contribs)) is based on a severe misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia (hint: this is an encyclopedia and not a place to shame people regardless of what vidoes may show), and a severe misunderstanding of WP:BLP. The most recent edit by Xizer at William Adams (judge) (diff) added an attack piece with edit summary "Haha. Do it, bitch." Dr.K. is urged to revert as many times as necessary to protect a BLP. If Xizer could indicate that they now understand proper procedures, no further action need be taken. If such edits are repeated, particularly without serious discussion, Xizer will need to be separated from the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I should also note that Xizer is actually misquoting the policy page. Nowhere at WP:3RR does it say the sentence he quotes above, nor is there any sentence or statement at WP:3RR which could be reasonably paraphrased or interpreted to mean what he says. No further statement on the substance of his complaint, but I am not made sympathetic to his argument when it contains such a deliberate and obvious mis-statement of policy. --Jayron32 03:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A classic WP:BOOMERANG. I agree completely with the block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That's quoted from Template:3RR. N^oformation ^Talk 03:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. So stricken. I should note that that particular wording should be changed, I'm not sure I like it much, but I will not discuss it here further, as this is not the venue. I'm headed to the template talk page to start a discussion... --Jayron32 03:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note: (See also the thread above) I have blocked Xizer 48 hours for the flagrant incivility in this edit summary. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the block, especially given his intention to continue to edit war. This is completely unacceptable here. –MuZemike 05:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

William Adams (judge)

I need some independent eyes on this article. There is an edit war brewing with some editors wanting to introduce news articles (many of which are copies of each other) to the WP article while the AfD is going on. IMO, there's too much naming and shaming going on, and I'd block the article completely, without those links, but I guess I'm not neutral enough (also, I watched the video and I'm kind of sick to my stomach). Some quick and decisive action would be appreciated--or, if not action, a note at the AfD itself. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, yeah, see also the section(s) above. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)